Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link

False Flag Weekly News co-host Cat McGuire says the Antisemitism Awareness Act is a coup, while Kevin Barrett opines that it is an act of ritual degradation by Israeli-owned "American" legislators.

We also discuss the E. Michael Jones “Dangers of Beauty” conference taking place beside the Adriatic Sea in beautiful Croatia. The small, invitation-only conference summarizes the Western aesthetic tradition from a Catholic perspective. It’s an amazing tribute to Dr. Jones’ genius as an educator—and to his courageous and tenacious determination to speak truth to [[[power]]].

Extract:

Kevin Barrett:

So how do we connect (the conference on beauty) to the horrific ugliness of this genocide? This genocide is full of works of art, so-called. It's just sheer uglification, as these IDF soldiers are posting videos of themselves doing just horrific war crimes. And then doing things like taking these children's clothing out of the drawers of the houses that they've destroyed and the children have been murdered. Children are slowly dying beneath the rubble. The Israeli soldiers are laughing and pulling out the children's clothing and scattering it around, taking pictures of themselves, ransacking these houses and then pissing on things and defecating on things. Of course, some of them are actually showing themselves killing people. It's just so, so ugly. They're creating works of anti-art and uglification.

So what's the connection between the ideal of beauty that we're talking about in this conference and and this systematic uglification of burying 10,000s of people to die slowly beneath rubble and then bragging about it and then coming up with new cruelties, stupid cruelties, and posting them on social media? Are the Zionists are trying to excel in ugliness? What explains this?

Cat McGuire:

Well, I think part of it has to do with an occupation and a domination of a people, be it the Palestinian people in Israel or even we Americans here in the U.S. The US is occupied as Palestine is, only our occupation is more occluded. It isn't as direct. And so the way their occupation is playing itself out in its most extreme ugly form is a genocide. The way our occupation is playing itself out is in uglification: brutalist architecture, the green hair, and also in a form of censorship that shuts us out, that literally takes away our voice, our agency.

And the biggest thing that has happened to date with that is an occupation…As their occupation in Palestine has been a genocide because it's more physical, our occupation is more sort of intellectual, if not digital. And that's why we are facing what I would call a soft coup d'etat. That soft coup d'etat is the Antisemitism Awareness Act that has just recently passed through the House and is going to probably be rubber-stamped by the Senate and passed by Biden. This is a grave danger that people don't understand because it's occluded.

=

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Michael Lindsey among others has noted that non-traditionally-religious people have fewer children. Secular countries, by and large, have such low birthrates that if they don’t rise fairly soon, their people will basically go extinct. But Lindsey isn’t exactly thrilled by Malcolm Collins’ argument for a new, pro-natality designer religion. He correctly recognizes that religion isn’t just something a clever social reformer can invent. Paraphrasing Eliade: “‘This appearance of the sacred’ in the world is what unites a community around some axis of religious meaning…Religion is concerned with the given, with that which lies beyond us and beyond our control.”

So does that mean Michael will sign on with Alan Sabrosky and yours truly on a project to mass-convert the West to Islam? I doubt it. Tune in and see why.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Mayday! Mayday! US liberty is going down!

On Wednesday, May 1, 2024 the House of Representatives passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act.” The bill deems a long list of ideas about history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and current events (many of them at least roughly accurate and truthful) as illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By adopting the ludicrous International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism as the law of the land, the House effectively revoked the First Amendment.

If the Senate and Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden approve, it will be effectively illegal to notice that:

*The State of Israel is a racist endeavor. (Which is putting it mildly.)

*According to the Bible, Talmud, and Qur’an, Jews plotted to kill Jesus.

*Jews “control” i.e. exercise disproportionate power over the US media, financial sector, and government.

*Jews as a collective or tribe bear a degree of responsibility for actions of the self-proclaimed Jewish state of Israel, where all racially-defined Jews are presumptive citizens, regardless of where they were born or currently live.

*Many though not all Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own nations.

*The State of Israel, and to a degree the larger Jewish nation or tribe, has grossly exaggerated their own suffering, and minimized or denied the suffering of non-Jews (especially Germans) by way of their sacred Holocaust narrative, which they have inflicted on the Western world due to their disproportionate power. (They also minimize Persian suffering with their Purim story, and Egyptian suffering with their Passover story, but people are allowed to question those.)

The above propositions are inarguable. Nobody positing the contrary could possibly win a far debate against a competent opponent. And yet, under the Antisemitism Awareness Act, all such statements, no matter how obviously true they may be, will be illegal.

That the illegal statements are true, of course, is the whole point. Nobody would bother to ban ideas that can be cogently refuted. Banning the truth is the last refuge of a liar who has been exposed.

I Thought Jews Were Supposed to Be Good at PR

From a PR standpoint, the “Jewish Billionaires Ban the Truth Law” is not a smart move. Roughly 100 US college campuses, and more and more elsewhere, are being hammered with billionaire-donor-driven over-the-top repression of their peaceful anti-genocide demonstrations—a painful, bloody reminder of the reality of Jewish Power. All of those demonstrators, many of whom are Jewish, have already figured out that “the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” And one of the reasons young Jews are disproportionately participating in the anti-genocide demonstrations is that they agree that “Jews as a collective or tribe bear a degree of responsibility for actions of the self-proclaimed Jewish state of Israel.”

The students already know that they are being lied to, and that the truth has now been made illegal, regarding those two points. So what else, the students will wonder, might “they” be lying about?

Any students taking Religious Studies 101 classes will learn that the Bible, Talmud, and Qur’an all assert that Jews plotted to kill Jesus. Will all the Religious Studies textbooks be rewritten to blame Hamas?

This is not going to be an easy sell.

The students will probably figure out the ethnicity of the billionaires who sicced the trained-in-Israel attack-cops, and the JDL thugs, on their encampments. They won’t be able to avoid noticing who owns the politicians—and just bribed them to revoke the First Amendment. With rabid Zionist Jews like Mark Levin snarling “we own this country” (meaning the USA) and threatening to deport anyone who opposes them, the notion that elite Jews dominate the US media, financial sector, and government becomes less a trope than a truism.

As they start to get a sense of what they are up against, the more thoughtful students may start to wonder if the Holocaust is really the one and only thing the Constitution-shredding Jewish-Zionist billionaires are telling the truth about. Those who perform even a cursory preliminary investigation will discover that there appears to be a very good reason why debating this particular historical episode had to be made illegal.

Ironically, the Antisemitism Awareness Act may succeed in raising awareness about positions deemed “anti-Semitic”—awareness of the truth of those very propositions. Presumably that is not the kind of “awareness” that the Zionist billionaires behind the Act intended.

They Need a Better PR Strategy

The Jewish-Zionist billionaires’ strategy of focusing attention on the negative aspects of their culture in general, and their pet genocide project in particular, is self-defeating: “Israel is racist. Can’t say that! We rich Jews own America and can push Constitution-shredding laws through Congress. Can’t say that! We killed Jesus. Can’t say that!” That’s like if MacDonalds launched an ad campaign along the lines of: “Our hamburgers taste like s**t. Can’t say that! Our high-fructose soft drinks make you obese. Can’t say that! The cows and chickens you’re eating led horrifically miserable lives. Can’t say that ‘cause it’s illegal, you anti-MacDonaldsite!”

Instead of working overtime to highlight their own negatives, Jews would do better to highlight positives. If I were a Jewish billionaire, I would cut my losses and ram a Philosemitism Awareness Act through Congress. Instead of banning people from noticing negative aspects of Jewish political and tribal culture, it would reward noticing good things. IRS forms would be amended so you would be paid a $100 tax credit for each box you ticked affirming such statements as: “Most Jews are actually nice, normal people.” “Jewish culture puts a premium on education.” “Jews are high achievers in many fields, most of which are legal and some of which are even admirable.” Tax credits for philosemites would constitute a friendly “nudge” in the Cass Sunstein sense.

You might argue it’s unconstitutional to favor a particular religious or ethnic group on tax forms. But it’s no more unconstitutional than banning ideas that the same group dislikes.

Maybe I can talk Cass Sunstein into rounding up a group of Jewish billionaires and convincing them to cut their losses and pivot to Philosemitism Awareness instead of Antisemitism Awareness.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Regular “first Friday of the month” guest Dr. Alan Sabrosky, upon learning that Iraq just banned transgenderism, prostitution, and homosexuality, emailed me: “Maybe all whites should convert to Islam? Then we might well be protected from these (and other) predators. Christianity (with the partial exception of Russian/Eastern/Greek) Orthodox hasn’t done squat for Western Culture over the past century or so, at a minimum.”

Me: “Not a bad idea. Or they could try to help a Christianity-friendly school of Islam take power. Muslims are required to protect Christians and their churches and monasteries.Under Muslim rule, Christians might become Christian again.”

Does “Doc” Sabrosky, former Head of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, really think that white folks should consider mass-converting to Islam? Or was he just trolling me? Tune in and find out.

Excerpt:

I’m broadcasting from the rooftop studio here in beautiful Morocco, where I finally got my residency card this morning, and where I've been doing my broadcasts ever since July, and will continue to do so, inshallah. Today we have another great show lined up.

In the second hour, Michael Lindsey comes on for the first time. He’ll be talking about the need for pro-natality religion to save people in general and the people of the secular developed countries, including white people, in particular. However, he doesn't agree with the Malcolm Collins argument for a designer religion that would be designed to convince high IQ white people to breed like rabbits. Michael Lindsey thinks that's a pretty crazy idea, as do I.

In the first hour, we're going to talk about some related issues. If you're not in favor of a designer religion to get people breeding, how about an old-fashioned religion, some old-time religion…like how about Islam? Dr. Alan Sabrosky, the former head of strategic studies at the U.S. Army War College, has said some pretty provocative things, and the latest is one of the most provocative: He suggested that white people should all mass convert to Islam. This was in response to hearing that Iraq had banned homosexuality, transgenderism, and prostitution. Dr. Alan Sabrosky, are you serious or are you just trolling me?

I was a little bit serious and a little bit trolling. Actually, it was something that occurred to me as a result of a conversation with someone else a few days ago. I didn't publish anything on it, but probably after today, I won't be able to anyway. It was that organized Christian religion, with the partial exception of the Orthodox churches…whether it's evangelical Protestantism or (liberal) Protestant denominations or the Vatican, really haven't done much at all to protect Europeans and people of European heritage from the onslaught that they're facing from the left. They really haven't. I made a joking comment to someone that it was sort of interesting to look at Ireland, where neither the IRA nor the Irish Catholic Church has done much at all to protect the Irish from the great replacement and the woke world that's being thrust upon them by the left.

And I said, considering that, why not consider an alternative?

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Ryan Cristian will join my radio show next week. For links to many of the stories discussed in this interview see the latest False Flag Weekly News writeup. -KB

The Richie Allen Show

At UCLA in California overnight hundreds of protesters have now been arrested by LAPD officers. They broke down barricades to clear this protest this morning. Hundreds of people with tents had set up encampments at the university. Officers said “get out or you will be arrested.” They have carried out hundreds of arrests, tied people's hands behind their backs, put them on buses. Stun grenades were used apparently. On Tuesday, a counter pro-Israeli group assaulted a pro-Palestinian student camp before officers were called in. Similar protests are happening at campuses right across America.

Let's welcome back to the show two very good friends of ours. Kevin Barrett is a former academic. He's a broadcaster, author, and researcher. You'll find him at kevinbarrett.substack.com. And Ryan Cristian is the man behind the brilliant thelastamericanvagabond.com, an independent journalist and broadcaster. Gentlemen, welcome to the program. It's great to have you on. How are you doing?

Kevin Barrett: Hey, always good to be with you, Richie and Ryan. Ryan, I really love your work. I’ve got to get you on my radio show sometime.

Ryan Cristian: Absolutely. And thanks, Richie, for having us on and vice versa. Right back at you, Kevin. And I'm happy to do so.

Great stuff. Kevin, I'll start with Ryan today. Ryan, you're all over this. I know Kevin is. He's in Morocco. What are your thoughts? Listeners are asking me questions about these protests and how organic are they? How grassroots are they? Is there something else behind them? I mean, the glass is always half full for me. I look at them and I think, wonderful, they're standing up to their universities, they're saying “look folks don't do business with people who do business with Israel. Don't do business with the Israeli government. They're committing genocide in Gaza, it's terrible.” For me it all looks great. What do you think Ryan?

Ryan Cristian: Well I think it's an important place to start and I think that one thing we have to remember, that I'm sure anybody who's been doing this long enough can attest to, is that no matter what movement, what side, what religion, what race, what country we're talking about, there will be political entities, there will be corporations—there will be entities trying to influence the outcome. And this is always the case. That does not mean that the objective of some of the people there are is invalid. But I agree with you, I think what we're seeing is a very powerful moment of unity against empire, against power, against governments. And that terrifies the hell out of these people that we're talking about. That's not to say that there's not manipulators on the ground. We can provably show open statements on Twitter by accounts that are made to do this—that they're infiltrating Palestinian protests, faking things, yelling things to get them shut down.

Everyone has a different opinion on what they want to be called on the side fighting for stopping Palestinian genocide. But then I can promise you there's somebody out there that will yell a slur that they think is appropriate. But that does not mean they're all the same thing. And I think the reality here is that they're pushing back against the obvious oppression home and abroad, right?

The obvious shutdown of these protests coming from people who 30 seconds ago were screaming about how this is something that should never be challenged or, whether we're talking about any other amendment shall not be infringed, they're suddenly finding a reason to do so. And I think that's an important part of all this.

Thanks Ryan. Kevin, when I invited you on today, I think you said something along the lines of, “it'll be nice to come on and talk about some positive news from my country for a change.” So you're happy, like you're moved by this, I think?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it's one of the very few good things that's happened in the United States in quite some time. Since I moved to Morocco in July, I have been just seeing one thing after another that makes me really glad I'm out of there. Now, I almost wish I were back. I saw today the front page Guardian story on the American occupations and protests, of which there are now over 120. There was a picture of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They have an encampment on Bascom Hill. Now, that's right by where I used to do 9-11 truth teach-ins. I was out there a month's worth of days full of 9/11 truth teach-ins back in the day. And so I kind of flashed back to that when I saw this, and I saw how many people that were out there. And then they just had the cops coming in instantly and wading in and trying to shut it down quite brutally, throwing a professor on the ground. We've seen this several times now.

And so these young, idealistic, left-leaning college students are learning the truth of that saying attributed to Voltaire that “to know who rules you, just ask who you're not allowed to criticize.” The oppression that's come down on this is so amazing. There are protests all the time on campuses, but if you want to protest for Palestine, if you want to protest against Zionist genocide, get ready for the cops to come after you and for the JDL terrorist thugs to be allowed by the cops to come and attack you, which just happened at UCLA.

Kevin, before Ryan comes back in, I heard a Stanford professor, I think a Jewish gentleman, his name escapes me. But his clip is on, I think, Talk TV or Times Radio's Twitter. Kevin, he said, look, the thing that annoys me about these students, is most of them don't have a clue about the the history of the region. He says they know nothing about the conflict going back…When you ask them what does “river to the sea” mean, they can't tell you the river or the sea, he said. And he said they don't know that the Israeli government offered very generous two-state solution plans many times over the years. And these students, they know nothing about it, he said, Kevin.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I'm sure there probably are a few protesters who aren't very well versed in history and geography. But I think on the whole, he's got it exactly backwards. He's the one who is utterly and completely ignorant. Because you can't be more ignorant than thinking that you know a whole lot, but what you know is wrong. I think Mark Twain said something along those lines only a little bit more wittily than I just did.

That gentleman is one of the most ignorant people on earth. The notion that this genocidal Zionist entity that's been committing nonstop genocide not just since it was founded in the Palestinian Holocaust of 1948, but even for 50 years before that, they were planning it and systematically carrying out through systematic terrorism. They invented modern terrorism, as Thomas Suarez explains in his book, State of Terror.

So this gentleman that you are referring to has been reading the propaganda churned out by the Jewish-Zionist-owned media and publishing industry. And it's true that if you just randomly read whatever you find in the used bookstore on this region, what you're going to find is stuff that was published precisely because it's Zionist propaganda, because Zionist Jews own the media, own the publishing houses, and put out all kinds of utterly and completely ignorant garbage about this region in English.

And so the books published in English, practically 90-plus percent of them, are propaganda garbage. And so he thinks he knows something, but what he knows is completely wrong. I think he and all the rest of the Zionists should be sent to the Jewish autonomous oblast at the border of China, Mongolia, and Russia, which should be turned into a gigantic re-education camp.

I'm not going to get into a brawl with you today about who owns the media. We've done that before. We might do it again in the future. Ryan, come back in on that, if you want to, come in on any of those points too, but I'm interested in how it's been policed, Ryan, with the eyes of the world really on UCLA. I don't know if you caught any of my introduction to you guys. Sky News dropped everything this morning, overnight, and it's offering blanket coverage. The BBC has been going to it every five, ten minutes. And yet I read in the press that the policing has been very heavy handed. Not what I've seen, at least not what I've seen in the pictures. And I'm wondering, are the LAPD people on site there, are they aware that the world's media is watching them? And is that in any way influencing the way it's being policed? What do you think?

Ryan Cristian: Yeah, that's a great question. But first, I will go back to the point you were asking before, and I think it's really interesting. Kevin nailed it in regard to the fact that these people are pushing things openly that are some of the easiest historical things to (dis)prove. And I'm not talking about disputes over long-term history. I'm talking about like basic realities of occupation, basic realities of international law that are easy to prove about what's currently going on and what's been going on for 75 years. So it's so interesting to have him come out and say something like that about how “these people don't understand the history.” But also to Kevin's point, just because someone may not understand the nuances or even the entirety of history around a topic does not mean they can't recognize oppression or recognize genocide. And that's really what this has done.

Another point to that is that we're seeing this weird pushback from these extreme groups. I shouldn't even…removing the word extreme, right-leaning people that side with Israel for whatever reason that are suddenly in this uncomfortable position where you've got people supporting Israel comparing what's happening to January 6th. And you've got this weird dynamic where they're sort of confused by all this, but they seem to hate what's going on because look at there's a bunch of woke lefties with masks on, which I'll happily talk all day about how dumb that is and how they're wrong about those things. But what's crazy is, as Dan Cohen points out, Palestinians are predominantly conservative, and most of them were aggressively against the COVID injection. And so it's just weird political manipulation, as always, with the two-party illusion.

The Mark Twain quote is, and one of my favorites, “It's not what you know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” I love that quote.

To your question about the policing. I tend to disagree, and I think what we're seeing is a very obviously, whether it's because they believe they're on the right side or because they are very pro-Zionist or pro-Israel or whatever it is, a largely policed... The way that they're handling this is unconstitutional. It is, in my opinion, very heavy-handed. And we can see this. There's countless examples of this. And the point is that even just today, Vanessa Bealey was highlighting that one of these police members, when just standing there next to somebody, spit on one of the Palestinian flags. And it's also on video. You can't say that's every policeman—we don't broad stroke because we're not ridiculous—but we can see that there is some level of that. And the last point that I'll highlight is the reason this is being allowed and being driven and why some of these policemen believe that this is justified is because of this ridiculous—and this goes back to the point before about misunderstanding the history of what Zionism is, calling this all antisemitism.

I mean, for crying out loud, you’ve got people calling this “extreme Jew hatred” while at any moment in most of these places, half of these (pro-Palestine protestors) are Jewish with major Jewish organizations. And they just disregard them. I find it hard to believe they can disregard the many different Holocaust survivors that have stood there saying, “I proudly support what's happening here.” Or prominent Jewish writers who have gone out there and said, “there's nothing crazy I'm seeing.” It's just this horrifying misrepresentation. And that's what's putting both Jews and everybody else in danger.

They're the wrong Jews. That's the problem you see.

A question for you, Ryan, and then Kevin can answer the same question. Look, I've a Jewish friend. I really do. I don't have any black friends, so I'm not virtue signalling. I have a Jewish friend, though. And he's a good lad. He is kind of agnostic about the situation in the Middle East, as he's entitled to be. He's certainly no supporter of Israel at all. And he says to me about these protests that are growing and growing, and we're seeing them here in the UK too and in France. He says, “Richie, yeah, fair enough, it's terrible what's going on in Gaza. But are these young men and women not aware that their own government has maybe murdered maybe five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times as many people in the last 15 years? And not only that, but they’re party to genocides in Yemen. and elsewhere? Why are they so quick to condemn Israel and to occupy college buildings and whatnot, and seemingly so disinterested in crimes against humanity committed elsewhere? Now, that's a fair question, right?”

Ryan Cristian: I don't think so. I think that's a ridiculous sidestep. Whether he knows it or not, I think that's a very dishonest question, because what the hell does it matter about whether they recognize other genocides. Like you're supposed to be even handed with how you get outraged about genocide. That seems like a really crazy question to me. But here's the real point. It's that ultimately you could argue that maybe they didn't see those things. And that doesn't mean that they don't care about them. I think what we're watching right now—and this is why I also feel very impassioned, I feel very inspired by what we're seeing out here, whether or not I disagree with the different political sides that may be present—is that they are becoming awakened to something much bigger than just Israel and Gaza. They're recognizing that Zionism overlaps with our government and all sorts of things. There's Christian Biden, for crying out loud, as an open Christian Zionist.

I was recently just covering again the Rwanda genocide. I don't know if people understand how provably and on the record it is that Israel was involved before, during, and after the whole thing. That's written by Israeli media.

And so we have to realize that this is much bigger than one group. And they may be backwardly now realizing that. My point is you have places like Iraq and Syria and others that are illegally occupied, which then also gives those groups the right to legal armed resistance under the Fourthg Geneva Convention. But anytime they respond in any way, it's “terrorism.” People are starting to recognize this, including these people that may have been blind to it before on all sides of the two-party illusion.

Fair enough. Kevin, I'm going to slightly disagree with Ryan there. You and I have butted heads over this before.

I think Israel is held to a higher standard. I think Ryan has a good point when he says, look, maybe some of these young men and women are not aware of some of the things that have gone on in recent decades. That's fair enough. Ryan might be right there. I concede that. But Israel is held to a higher standard than other governments and other democracies. That's fair, isn't it, Kevin?

Kevin Barrett: No, it's completely, grotesquely wrong. It's quite the opposite, in fact. And this notion that the Zionists say, oh, if you criticize us, you must be an anti-Semite, because Hitler and Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan killed a lot more people than we're killing right now—it's a joke. If that's their argument, you know they're completely wrong.

But it actually goes way beyond that. Yes, it's true that the American government has killed huge numbers of people all over the world. Chomsky and Volchek estimated 60 million since World War II. And that was before the last decade and a half of war. So, yeah, the American government is horrible. However, in terms of what's going on in that particular region, it's all on Zionism. All of it. John F. Kennedy, like Dwight Eisenhower, but even more so, was leaning towards the Arab side and trying to shut down Dimona. He was very much a fan of the Algerian revolution. He was very much a fan of Abdel Nasser, of the liberation forces in the region.

And he was murdered by the Zionists, who took over American Middle East policy. And every death in these huge conflicts in the region since then is totally 100% on Zionism.

Israel did 9/11 to hijack the American military to go and destroy its enemies. That's what 9/11 was. And even if you don't know that or believe it, I can show you a quote by Philip Zelikow, the czar of the 9/11 cover-up commission. He admitted that what all of this is about, “it's not that Saddam Hussein or anybody like that could ever threaten the United States. I'll tell you what it's really about. It's about the threat to Israel. But that's the threat that dare not speak its name. And so we try to soft sell it.”

All those deaths are on Israel. The United States is not killing people in the Middle East. Israel is killing people in the Middle East by hijacking the American military to do it.

But Kevin and I have butted heads over the years about the Israeli involvement or otherwise in September the 11th. I still don't buy it. But anyway, and I'm not owned by Zionist Incorporated, just in case anyone wonders. We've had that argument. I'll stay with you for a second, Kevin. And then I can't wait to hear Ryan's take on this. Look, I'm happy to see the students put the universities in the spotlight and say to them, “listen, we're not happy. We're paying good money to be here. And we don't want you to be involved in what is patently a genocide in Gaza.” And it's a good thing. And I hope it picks up in the UK and I hope we see it in Ireland as well. I can't wait to get both of your thoughts on this. You first, Kevin. According to the US State Department, and well, it must be true if the US State Department says it, the Russians have extensively deployed chemical weapons in Ukraine. Do you agree? Do you believe that?

Kevin Barrett: We heard of something about that with Syria, and we now know that some of the biggest events, Douma, etc., were actually ginned up by the enemies of the Assad government in order to blame him for non-existent chemical attacks. And so when the Americans cry chemical weapons, we obviously should be very, very skeptical.

You're skeptical about it. But the Russians are…look, again, and I've had this argument with both of you. Why would the Russians be any better? Why would the Russian military be any better than the US military or the British military or the French in terms of adhering to accepted codes of conduct in war zones? That's what I wonder. I'm not sure it has happened. But I keep an open mind. Ryan, what do you reckon? Ryan, there's going to be a statement on this. Biden is expected to speak on the university situation at some stage today, but they're also going to do a big press conference on chemical weapons. What do you think, Ryan, when you hear this accusation?

Ryan Cristian: Well, there's a couple of important things. Obviously I'm with you on the fact, and you know this: I'm very pessimistic when it comes to any government. I'm very anarchist. My mind is very anarchistic when it comes to what I think the world should be like. And that doesn't mean chaos, a whole conversation to be had around anarchism. But I think what's important to think about is that any government is left with the kind of unchecked power that the U.S. and Israel and Zionism have had for a long enough time would end up in this position. That's my pessimism.

I think that Russia has been in a position so long seeing that it's advantageous for them to play the counterbalance to the U.S. empire. And it's very it works for them. Now, I could be wrong. Maybe they are the right guy, the good guy and the bad guy scenario. I don't think that.

But to the second point. I think it's obvious that, of course the Russian government could do something like this. I don't know anybody that would say that's not possible. But I don't think it makes sense. As Kevin's pointing out about Syria, there have been countless times that that they've been accused of that, and that we have proven they didn't. Going back to Carlo Del Ponte from the U.N. saying it was the Syrian rebels. We know this stuff. But the interesting part to me is where did the report come from? Who is citing this information? It's probably Ukrainian entities saying that happened. I doubt there's U.S. people that are right there watching. But even if they are, why would we trust U.S. government statements when they have a clear side in this? What I find most fascinating is that with that kind of uncertainty around it, why is it that they're immediately willing to go? “They did this and we know it and they should be charged for it.”

But over here, we've got endless video and documents and journalists and medics and people over here in Israel going, I can’t see it. Dr. Nick Maynard on the record with LBC said, I watched them assassinate doctors and bury them in the ground. Nothing. But here's U.S. government over here (in Ukraine) going, well, we have to wait and see. We have to ask Israel if we should check this. It shows you a very clear difference.

And that's the same point to Kevin, that there is a very clearly different way they deal with Israel. And I don't think even remotely that it's a higher standard.

I spend a lot of time writing monologues, criticising the BBC and lampooning BBC coverage of anything you can care to think of, geopolitics or otherwise. And yet the BBC has handed a cache of evidence about the shooting dead of those two lads back in November, Basil and Adam, who were playing football when they were shot dead by the IDF. Kevin, what's going on there? That's good old fashioned, brilliant investigative journalism by the BBC. They've pieced together exactly what happened to these two boys and they've handed it over to the UN. Am I missing something, Kevin? What's going on? Why is it doing good journalism?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it always is kind of a surprise when we see good stuff being published by the BBC or the New York Times or these other official outlets whose job, most of the time, is to propagandize for some pretty nefarious forces. But the thing is, I think that a lot of people who get red-pilled imagine that all of the establishment media is equally mendacious about everything all of the time. And that's just not true. Journalists are human beings, too. I went to journalism school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and worked at the student newspaper there. And a lot of people I dealt with ended up having careers in journalism. And they are human beings. And you kind of learn on which side your bread is buttered and how you need to spin things. And some people do better with that than others. But there are always people in journalism who respect good journalism, who want to do good journalism. Some of them end up working at BBC. Some of them will take on subjects that they aren't supposed to and they'll end up having terrible problems. Others will get away with doing things like the report that you cited and many other really good reports that have been done and are still being done by various news outlets.

You'll see the New York Times will put out an atrocious genocide propaganda series by an Israeli military propagandist about supposed rapes that committed by Hamas that never happened. And then they'll also do these investigations of things like the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. Now, indeed, that was a little late, but it was very well done. And they've done a number of those kinds of forensic investigations quite well.

So the mainstream media is a totally mixed bag. You have to read it critically. You can't just assume anything. You have to actually read and think.

Yes, like Ryan said, when LBC put Maynard on the air, I produced mainstream radio, local and national. My skill or my qualification, for want of a better way of putting it, is producing radio, booking guests, setting the agenda. Ryan, they knew that Nick Maynard was going to go on the air and say the Israelis are murdering and burying doctors, and they allowed it. And I'm always fascinated because I'm far more pessimistic than Kevin. I think the media is entirely captured, Ryan, But obviously not.

Ryan Cristian: Well, I actually I agree with you both. Let me explain why. I think what's interesting about this is I agree exactly with what Kevin said. It's never all or nothing. For example, I'm a big fan of Alison Morrow, who's somebody who broke away from corporate media and has been ringing that bell ever since, telling people “it's not what you think. There are things you're not allowed to say.” Stuff like that.

Those people exist. And it could be that there's a level of willful ignorance until that point… I think there's a moment where people that have some integrity can't do it any more. But I think it's also that we see this situation where right now for instance with Maynard or anybody else that you can see this willingness to start doing what they know people want, because this is a business let's not forget. Even though the things some people still pretend are conspiracy theory, that we have government influence on these platforms, that you've got all sorts of different shadowy things that go on behind the scenes that influence the outcome of what news is, the propaganda.

And right now they're in a very dangerous position. The way I've compared it on my show is: Think about what Joe Biden is going through. He's lost like 80% of his entire base because of what's going on with Israel, which is confusing for some people, unless you realize that there are people involved who don't realize they're wrong. And they all see the genocide. So Biden just kept going. I always ask why that is. I find that fascinating. He's still doing it now. But I think what we're seeing is the government's starting to go, “well, maybe kill less children,” but then Israel freaks out on them for for barely stepping on a line.

But I think the reason they did that is because they're going, “please see us as the moral thing we pretended to be.” And I think the media is doing the same thing. They're going, OK, let's give them this one. Let's break down this lie that we all know they already see and win some points with them, maybe even letting the Israeli lobbyists know they're going to do it.

But I know at the end of the day, it's about a “get one for them, one for you” kind of a game. And I think they've lost so much viewership because it's transparently dishonest that they're starting to give a little bit of truth. Now I know I'm a pessimist when it comes to these things, but I believe that's the reality. And as Kevin said, there are some people that are seeing that even within the media. They're just horrified by it and are probably going to leave.

You're listening to Ryan Cristian and Kevin Barrett. We've got about 90 seconds left, so 45 seconds each. We'll start with Kevin. There's a deal apparently on the table. Hamas negotiators have been meeting with Israelis in Egypt and there's a deal involving Palestinian prisoners being released from Israeli jails, many of whom have no business being in Israeli jails. A release of some hostages and maybe a 40-day ceasefire. Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, says, regardless, if we want to go into Rafah and clear out Rafah, we will do it. Kevin, 45 seconds. What do you see happening in the coming weeks? What's your guess? What's your forecast for what happens?

Kevin Barrett: I wish I were more optimistic about the next few weeks, but I don't think that Hamas can afford to go for anything other than a permanent ceasefire. If it's just 40 days, they give up their hostages and then after 40 days Netanyahu resumes the genocide. So it's either got to be permanent, or there's got to be some form of gentleman's agreement, not that any of these people are gentlemen, but some path to a permanent ceasefire or Hamas just won't do it. There's no reason for them to. Strategically, they're winning. I mean, every day, it's horrible suffering. Their people are suffering atrociously. But it's the evil Zionists who are doing it in plain sight and destroying all of their own credibility. So ultimately, I don't think that Netanyahu can afford it or wants it. I think Netanyahu will do whatever he can to sabotage any possibility of a deal, because if there is a deal, then he's at risk of leaving office and going to jail.

He's out of his job. Ryan?

Ryan Cristian: Yes, exactly what Kevin said, building on that. The point being that they (the Zionists) sabotaged this two-state solution, as we know from Oslo Accords or any other discussion, (inserting) poison pills, making sure they didn't accept the deal and blaming (the Palestinians). They're doing the same thing now that they always have. And I think the whole game has been that there was some back and forth at the beginning. We saw that little faux pause. All it did is end up right back where it was: starvation, murder. And so the point is, (the Palestinians) have said “we want full ceasefire, full exchange, and that's it.” Which, by the way, Israel would go right back on once they got what they wanted, like they always have anyway. The point is, as Kevin said, Netanyahu does not want that. And the real point to recognize is that an Israeli journalist, Mariana from 972 Magazine, I believe that's her name, is highlighting the fact that almost all of the people, the families of the hostages, are currently saying, “take whatever deal Hamas is offering if we get our families back.” You don't hear that in the United States. And the point is that it’s the government of Israel against everybody else maintaining this genocide for possibly just Netanyahu's interests.

Guys, great to have you both on the program. You will find Kevin Barrett, academic broadcaster, author at kevinbarrett.substack.com, truthjihad.com. And of course, Ryan is the man behind thelastamericanvagabond.com. Great resources, great journalists. Thanks to both of the guys for coming on today.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

“Lynn Margulis said about 9/11 the same sorts of things that you mentioned people like her were saying about AIDS, which is that, if this stands, it's the death of science. Reason and facts aren't going to matter anymore when something this obviously wrong is forced down everybody's throats.”

Ex-MSM journalist Celia Farber was friends with the late, great biologist Lynn Margulis, who memorably wrote: “The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations.” Margulis, a National Medal of Science winner, stated more than once on my radio show that due to the scientific community’s tacit acceptance of the ludicrous, physically-impossible official story of 9/11, “science is dead.”

So who killed science, and why? Lynn Margulis knew that 9/11 and its criminally fraudulent coverup was just an extreme example of the deep-seated corruption that has crept into the American scientific community. Another shocking example, well-known to Margulis and other scientific luminaries but largely ignored by the general public, is the long-running dispute around the causes and treatments for AIDS. Decades ago, mainstream journalist Celia Farber reported on the efforts of Lynn Margulis and so many other scientists to debunk what they saw as the scientifically-baseless insistence that “HIV causes AIDS.” Farber, and the scientists whose work she covered, were targeted by a vicious smear campaign not unlike those endured by 9/11 truth advocates.

After COVID became a sort of AIDS 2.0, Farber recognized that the problem was even bigger and uglier than she had realized. That stimulated her interest in red-pill perspectives in general, and ultimately led her to accept my request for an interview. Below is a transcript of our conversation. -KB

I’m on the web at kevinbarrett.substack.com. And I've had the great good fortune to talk to a lot of really wonderful, interesting people through the years—the free and independent thinkers who question dogmas about all sorts of events, 9-11 and COVID being two of the big ones. Now I'm talking with somebody who actually was around back in the days when you were allowed to question some of these things a little bit more than you are now, and even publish in the mainstream media about them.

My guest today is Celia Farber. She is well known as the journalist who broke one of the biggest stories of my lifetime, which is that the official version of the AIDS epidemic is very likely wrong, or even worse. This is something I've been hearing for decades. I followed it a little bit back at the time. And later I met Lynn Margulis, the great biologist, who filled me in a little bit more.

One of the cool things about doing what I do is that so many of the best people like you (Celia) have to end up on my show instead of being on 60 Minutes or something and having that huge mainstream audience that you really deserve based on the work that you've done. But I guess I can't complain. The mainstream’s loss is my gain.

So where do we start? You mentioned in our pre-broadcast conversation that the AIDS situation was really a kind of a prequel to the COVID pandemic. I was sort of marginally aware of your work back in in the 80s and 90s. I did live in San Francisco from 1981 through 1993. I knew people with AIDS and I followed the discussion in the mainstream and alternative media around it, and I'm sure I did see a fair bit of your work.

I got the gist of it back then. And then I reviewed it a little bit with Bobby Kennedy's book (The Real Anthony Fauci) and Ron Unz's arrticle which emphasized the AIDS aspect of Bobby Kennedy's book on COVID.

So that's my background on that issue. And I'm wondering, what led you down that path of turning into the one journalist who's willing to question AIDS? I don't think you were the only one, but you were probably the leading one. So how did that happen?

Yeah, it's full of, I guess I would say, what seems like fluke events. But I'll tell you how it began. So I did my first work on this in a rock magazine I would not have expected you to have been necessarily reading, Spin Magazine…

I have read it. And I've read Creem and Rolling Stone. I used to read rock magazines.

There you go, yeah. So Spin came out in 1985 as a contender to Rolling Stone. I guess I would say a kind of enfant terrible. It was supposed to be more edgy, more... certainly not punk, but more… willing to confront and tip sacred cows. That was part of Spin's original identity, which is why I called one day and said I'd like to come as an intern. This was as early as 1985. And one of the reasons I wanted to work there is I read their long articles, really impressive exposé pieces, by a man named Robert Keating, who later became my editor on sacred cow subjects such as Live Aid. He did a big expose of the dark secrets, the underbelly behind the PSYOP, behind Live Aid, and how it was not what it seemed, and didn't achieve what it claimed to achieve. And others similar exposés.

I was just back in the States. I was born in the United States, but my mother was Swedish and took us, me and my sister, to Sweden when I was 11. We were raised there, and I came back here when I was almost 19. I suppose I was around 20 when I started at Spin.

About a year later, I was in college and I was an intern at Spin and I was in training about how to do investigative journalism with Bob Keating and others at the magazine. And I had an obsession at the time, an obsessive interest in AIDS. And honestly, at that time, it was driven by my total belief in the whole thing. I believed in what was then called the tertiary model of transmission, which meant pretty much all of us were in the net. If you had ever been with somebody who “ticked any of the following boxes,” tertiary transmission meant three people out, you were going to be marked for death, and would probably turn up HIV positive and die.

People don't remember how intensely they originally sounded the HIV-AIDS death gong. They were completely fabricated models of both transmission and causation, all of it absolute fiction and fraud.

But at the time I was very scared. And I actually only had one HIV test ever in my life. I think that was in 1985. So the way I worked through that fear was to research, research, research. And here's where the perhaps fluke, perhaps not comes in. I saw an issue of the New York Native on a newsstand in New York City. The New York Native was a literary weekly gay periodical, which back in the days before AIDS had things like exchanges between Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. A really interesting newspaper. And the publisher, Charles Ortlieb, was really the one who deserves credit for kicking off this whole thing. Because he did a cover that was a split cover. And you had Robert Gallo on one side, and Peter Duesburg, his, what shall we say, nemesis, on the other side. And Gallo's quote was, “HIV kills like a truck.” He had some quote about Clark Kent, it would kill Clark Kent, something like that. That's how Gallo spoke. And then he had Duesburg on the other side saying, “HIV is harmless. I wouldn't mind being injected with it.”

And so I stopped in the street and I said, wow, now that's a story.

Yeah, that was back when experts were allowed to have different opinions on medical issues.

Well, to some extent. For a brief moment in a slightly avant-garde weekly gay periodical in New York.

Well, hey, if it's got Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams…

The Native was eventually bullied and drummed out of business by ACT UP, the pharmaceutical-promoting AIDS activist group that is deeply misunderstood by almost everybody.

A forerunner of Antifa, probably.

Yeah, there you go. So what I did was I placed a call to Peter Duesburg's lab at Berkeley. He was unbuttering his own bread or sawing off the glory branch he was sitting on. Because even before this, he scotched a potential Nobel Prize he would have shared with a cancer virologist named Peter Vogt if he had just gone along with “yes, we have found an oncogene, a cancer-causing gene.” But he said, “no, it's not a cause. We're not there.”

And so what I heard is that they didn't get the Nobel because Peter Volk himself disproved what they were going to get it for, and Peter Volk never spoke to him again. So you have this scientifically classically pure individual, Peter Duesburg, and then you have Robert Gallo, who is, in contrast to all of that, he's…I want to try to find the right words for Gallo. He's hard to describe, but I'll just say he was associated with, even then, a whole series of…it's like scientific used car salesmanship, trying to push, push, push so-called viruses—I have to say so-called viruses—that he said came out of his lab that he was trying to pin promiscuously on all kinds of illnesses and cancers and leukemias. None of it made any sense. And he was kind of known as like, oh, here comes Gallo again, trying to pin one of his viruses on some disease so he can get the glory.

So in a dramatic sense, in a kind of Shakespearean sense, these two are very, very opposite in character. They were friends, actually. They were contemporaries and colleagues. And Gallo at one point introduced Peter Duesburg saying, “the man you're about to hear from probably knows more about retroviruses than any man alive.”

So this is the early drama. So I place a call to Peter Duesburg's lab. And at this point, I think I'm working at Spin as a research assistant. And the publisher said “AIDS is the Vietnam of our generation and I'm going to commit to it, and I want to make a monthly column, and you, Celia, will bring in the material for the column. Bob Keating will be your editor, and the magazine is going to devote itself to this.” So the publisher, Bob Guccione Jr., and I were like-minded with our fascination with this Duesberg story.

The first thing that happened was that my immediate editor said, “no, we're not doing this. And let's not talk about it again. And next month, you're going to do dolphins and AIDS.” This is what I remember (was happening) at the time. It's all like PSYOPs coming up, Haitians and AIDS, toilet seats and salad, all the ways you could catch AIDS.

But I had already placed the call to Peter Duesburg, and long story short, he called me back early one morning. I jumped out of bed, turned on the tape recorder, interviewed him, transcribed it right away, and put it under the publisher's door. The editor-in-chief called me and said, “this is the most important interview I'll ever publish.” He was over the moon about it, how important, how exciting, how this is the kind of journalism he wanted to do.

And so it ran, to the great consternation of pretty much the whole rest of the staff, which began many years of very traumatic trouble for me, both at that magazine and everywhere else. But we had this football, we weren't going to drop it. And, and so after that one, another journalist did a second column. The column became named “Words from the Front.” And the second column was Gallo just ranting and cursing a blue streak against Peter Duesburg. He also called me at the magazine and scolded me in very paternal tones: “What do you think you're doing? Do you think you're going to get a journalistic career out of this? Do you want to be like Barbara Walters? How do you think you're going to get to be like Barbara Walters? Do you think it's by doing things like this?”

Career advice from Gallo.

Career advice from Gallo. And the darkly comical thing is he was absolutely correct, that it was (career) death.

He “just cared about your well-being.”

So off we went. We had set sail and then I was—you said “you probably weren't the only one” and indeed I wasn't, but Spin magazine has to be classified as a mainstream periodical ultimately. It was mainstream, but it was rock and roll. It was not as mainstream as Rolling Stone, but still mainstream.

Rolling Stone was famous for publishing Hunter Thompson. I remember discovering that when I was in high school and being very impressed. Rock magazines in those days were actually…there were interesting people writing for them occasionally.

Right, exactly. And...there were other people. So in the UK, there was, I'll just name a few names. Jad Adams wrote The HIV Myth as early as maybe 1987. Joan Shenton of Meditel in London did excellent TV documentaries. So there were very few of us in the beginning and we were all mainstream.

And then the hammer came down. There were many different hammers that came down. The Spin column lasted actually 10 years before major, major debilitating harassment kicked in in the form of harassing phony lawsuits. I've been through an awful lot with this thing and it took me a long time, I guess, to recognize that what I was doing was really very dangerous…and very impossible. But for many years, I just believed as soon as people see this set of facts and that set of facts…you probably know that hallucination, right? That you think you're so close to breaking through and this is all going to become clear and everyone's going to understand.

So the work that I did was to interview the scientists who were in opposition to Gallo's theory. For them, it would be a stain on their scientific reputation and honor to not protest this thing. Like our mutual friend, Lynn Margulis. Carrie Mullis, who invented the PCR test. Walter Gilbert, Nobel Laureate. There were several in the original signatories. There were many lists, protest lists, letters to scientific journals, conferences.

This is like a lost war that people don't realize that it wasn't just a media war. It was very much a scientific war, a battle that took place at the highest levels of science. And the battle was lost by the so-called HIV dissidents. That is no surprise. But it was a battle. And I chronicled that very unpopular, very stigmatized battle, which I found fascinating. And I couldn't get enough of finding these scientists and hearing them speak into my tape recorder about what they saw. It was like a lamentation of the death of American science in real time. And they were saying, if this flies, this Gallo BS, then we're done. There are no scientific standards. There's no nothing.

So essentially I chronicled a doomed scientific war, not just in the United States, but internationally. What I didn't know I was chronicling was…it's like we had the tail of the beast. We didn't know it was a beast. It wasn't actually until 2020 that the full beast became clear to any of us, those of us who were still alive. “Oh, that's what it was leading to.” And that's why they hated us so ferociously, attacked us with such elaborate multimillion dollar programs to wipe us all out. And it was an elaborate…I guess I would use the word, like if we could use a word like McCarthyism maybe, about a nationwide comprehensive, not just stigmatizing, but total professional exile system against anybody who touched this, whether you're a scientist or a journalist.

If you're a scientist, you're going to get defunded. And if you're high profile enough, like Duesburg, you're going to become a René Girard straight-up scapegoat. And your name is going to be trashed and trashed and trashed for having questions about this.

So they very successfully conflated questions about Gallo's baseless HIV theory with being a horrible, terrible person who wants to kill gays and kill Africans. The stigma was very primitive and crude, but it worked. And any editor who took it on learned very quickly, you'll lose everything. Drop the story.

So I was fortunate or unfortunate, sometimes I'm not sure which it was, to have a publisher and an editor who owned his own press. And so freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. And he said, I'm not dropping the story.

So that's how it all began. That's what the first 10 years were like in Spin.

That's a really a fascinating episode. It raises questions at least for me. I have firm views about a number of topics that I've investigated to the point that I can kind of get a handle on what I think is going on. And with this one I’m really only halfway there. Because the relationship between the AIDS deception—and by that deception, as I understand it more or less the way Duesburg did, that the evidence that this virus has one-to-one causality with creating this thing called AIDS doesn't really withstand scrutiny—but Gallo and many, many others had a big personal or financial investment of some kind in pushing the hoax. And they made a lot of money off it. It helped their careers and so on. That I understand.

And then also the fact that there's a sort of a virus mafia out there. As you said, Gallo wanted to pin everything on this or that virus. So with COVID, OK, there's certainly a virus mafia involved that's doing gain of function, i.e. biowarfare research. Tony Fauci, who was involved in both cases, became a go-to biowarfare guy when Nixon signed the convention, and they had to shut down all of the official military biowar programs, and they went over to a disguised, supposedly civilian covert biowar program.

So there's that biological warfare element, and then this focus on viruses with COVID. My reading of it is that the most likely explanation for where COVID came from is that elements in the American deep state launched a biological attack on China designed to slow China's economy over the long term. That's the biggest geostrategic challenge that the US faces: the economic-driven rise of China.

And how that would relate to the AIDS situation isn't 100% clear to me. The propaganda techniques of both crises certainly are identical, right? “You're all going to die! Let's whip everybody up into hysteria. Nobody's allowed to ask questions.”

That's a total parallel. But is there a military biowar component to the AIDS situation? Or am I maybe misreading the COVID situation? What is the connection between the two?

I don't think you're misreading. I do think your knowledge of geopolitical dynamics is way beyond mine. So I can't really say anything very intelligible about that model, what you just said about China. It sounds entirely... What I can say, to back up what you're saying, is the HIV model, even though we mistook it for a baseless, wrong, absurd scientific model, was a geopolitical military...post-colonial, a model of something that can achieve so many things at once. It was the gift that kept on giving. It achieved geopolitical goals. Let me start with an example, Africa. I crossed Africa for a month in the early 90s with Joan Shenton, who I mentioned, and a scientist named Harvey Bialy. And it took a long time to understand that the agenda in Africa, and this is really only part of it, is to have a model for overtaking the top corrupt government of African countries, and essentially blackmailing them to terrorize their own populations that they are a hotbed of HIV-AIDS.

What gets achieved here is depopulation, which is, as we know, a big geopolitical part of all the different agendas. What also gets achieved is that we're in those countries and we can essentially take their resources. We control their elections, their politicians. We control their activism. Suddenly it all becomes implanted, synthetic, you know: AIDS activism, “give us drugs!”

And so you have Africans who don't have clean food or water, basic life conditions met, seeming to be clamoring for more drugs from the West. I'm just beginning with some broad brushstrokes. This thing could do so many things. COVID… yeah, it's all connected to the Pentagon, the war machine. HIV is the first war machine-like theory in biology, where it's one cause, it's one target, it's one enemy, and anybody who stands in the way of that…it's a war metaphor for the human body. Which isn't at all how the human body works or how nature works. There's rarely if ever a single virus or organism that causes anything. But they they made it identical to the war mentality. And this really starts with also Richard Nixon and the money he put toward the so-called war on cancer.

I don't think I really answered your question, because I don't know the answer to your question, but I can say, yes, these faux synthetic psyop illnesses, weaponized so-called illnesses—they're not illnesses, they're projections of illness that serve geopolitical purposes.

That's a fascinating notion. Are you familiar with Edward Haslam's book, Dr. Mary's Monkey? (Linking the JFK assassination to research on cancer viruses, including those inadvertently spread by 1950s polio vaccines.)

Yeah so I'll say I am familiar with it and again that's kind of the outer border of what my area of expertise was. It was going around inside the camps of American high-level science and scientists and documenting what their objections to Gallo's theory was and why. And Africa experts.

And so I documented the opposition more, way more than I sought to document what really happened—the crime scene, if you will. So I didn't really get into either biowarfare or, for example, the theory about the hepatitis B vaccine, which I now think I should have paid more attention to. I was fully busy all those years just chronicling the dissent and the war.

And then they kind of put an end to our whole...Our war with them, I would say, ended in 2008 for various reasons I won't get into. And then there was just a silence really until COVID in 2020.

It ended in 2008. It ended with the death of the highest-profile civilian HIV dissident. Her name was Christine Maggiore. And she was out there as a very dynamic—she was formerly from a corporate background. She tested HIV positive many, many years before she figured out that there's another side to this.

She didn't go on the drugs. She started campaigning for “read, study, get the other side of the story. You don't have to go on the drugs. You can still get pregnant, have children, breastfeed.”

So she was was a strong campaigner for all of that. Again, like all of us having no idea about the darkness of what we were actually up against.

She had two children. She had a son who was at the time, I wanna say, around eight years old, and her daughter three years old. Suddenly she fell ill with what seemed to be an ear infection. And Christine, feeling very vulnerable to accusations that she's an AIDS denier and she didn't test her kids and put them on AIDS drugs and so on and so on, went to three different pediatricians. And she just felt that her child was—something was really wrong.

And one of the pediatricians prescribed an antibiotic called amoxicillin. And whether that was the cause or not, I don't know, but the little girl vomited copiously and shortly thereafter died. Just horrible, just so devastating. This caused the very corrupt LA coroner…It took them several months to do it. Initially, the autopsy said that “we see no cause of death. We have no idea what the child died of.” But they kicked it upstairs to a notoriously corrupt corner. I'm not going to name him right now.

This person was known for putting especially black and Hispanic parents in prison for life over yet another politicized weaponized, a concocted syndrome known as shaken baby syndrome. A lot of innocent parents have gone to prison. Likely their children had an inflammatory response in the brain from a vaccine, and they went to prison for allegedly having shaken the baby to death in a rage.

And this is a whole other industrial complex. There's actually an excellent documentary about it. Anyway, Christine's beloved little girl died, and then it took a few months before this corrupt coroner ginned up an autopsy where he found one protein somewhere in the child. The child had an intact immune system by all accounts, nothing resembling AIDS in her cellular system, white cell counts intact. Everything was intact. And he ginned up that she had died of AIDS based on finding one protein that is associated with HIV, a collection of proteins on the test. One of them is called P 24. He says they found a P-24.

They then sent the new revised, “the girl died of AIDS” autopsy to the LA Times, two Pulitzer Prize winners, who did a complete hit job on Christine on the cover. And the cover story read, “A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death.” And it absolutely lynched Christine as having allowed her daughter to die of AIDS because of her HIV denial.

That's the sort of thing that some of the COVID journalistic machine was doing too. I think AIDS is maybe even, if you can imagine it, kind of darker even than COVID. The dirty tricks were even dirtier.

So Christine fought and fought them and tried to get the correct autopsy reports and prove her innocence. And she was unable to adopt a child because they would Google and they would get that atrocious article. She confronted the journalists themselves. They even did a law and order episode about her that was written by intelligence agents. The CDC has intelligence agents and they write scripts for television in Hollywood, including Law and Order, that push propaganda about all these things.

So they wrote an episode about an HIV denying mother. Her daughter dies and she's on the witness stand for murder. And she drops dead from AIDS right there in the courtroom. And I begged Christine not to watch it. Because I began to understand about the black magic and voodoo that they're so skilled at. She said, “I have to watch it. I have to know, I have to fight this. I have to know.”

She died three and a half weeks later. She had double bronchitis. She took a nap and she just didn't wake up. She was just absolutely exhausted.

So that of course became “number one AIDS denier dies of AIDS.”

And there was no possibility after that. The propaganda was so overwhelming that…yeah, it was just over.

That's too bad. Because that story, for anybody with eyes open, would just reveal the complete moral bankruptcy and likely intellectual bankruptcy of the whole establishment AIDS mafia.

An incredible mafia. What is the coroner doing messengering that report to the LA Times before the family has any idea? So Christine and her husband, they get a phone call from the LA Times. “What do you have to say about the new autopsy report?” What new autopsy report? “Oh, the one that says your daughter died of AIDS.” And they had no idea this had taken place.

So it's so dirty. It's so unimaginably rigged. And all of us who went through this, I have to say, we encountered a beast so dark…it took so many years to finally accept what all of you, and I'm speaking now to all of us who fought this…we were well-intentioned, but unbelievably naive.

Yeah, I can relate some of that to what I experienced with the 9/11 truth movement. Like you in the early days (of AIDS) I was shocked, around the end of 2003, to discover how obvious it was that critics of the 9 11 official story were correct, and that we had had controlled demolitions in New York, and that something happening at the Pentagon very different from what we were told, and that the real perpetrators were obviously very different, kind of the opposite party, from the one that was being blamed.

And that this was actually so obvious that it should be really easy to convince people. Smart people–you should be able to convince them almost instantly. And everybody else, it shouldn't take that long either. So you think, wow, this is fantastic. We can change the world with this. And then you realize you're up against a very big and powerful machine that's got more resources and more people willing to do completely unethical things to support it than you could ever have imagined.

It’s like when you see programs about a woman who's been subject to a stalker or something, and she says none of you understand, it’s like he's gonna…he's already eight steps ahead. He knows everything about me. He's going to get me this way. It's deeply criminal and deeply hidden. So I imagine what you encountered was exactly what we encountered, namely our pristine, unassailable, truthful facts did not matter.

Lynn Margulis said about 9/11 the same sorts of things that you mentioned people like her were saying about AIDS, which is that, if this stands, it's the death of science. Reason and facts aren't going to matter anymore when something this obviously wrong is forced down everybody's throats.

That's right. It set the ship adrift into the terrain which we're now definitely in, which is post-reality.

And then, of course, they blame us, the questioners of mainstream narratives, for living in a post-reality world, because they imagine that reality is the same thing as the mainstream mythology. And now that that's under question from all kinds of perspectives, some more defensible than others, nobody can not be aware that there is all this questioning of so many fundamental assumptions. And I think the mainstream people are freaking out about that,, and then trying to frantically put together mainstream reality again by silencing everybody who's questioning anything, whether they're asking good questions or bad questions, and whether they're doing it rationally or irrationally. They just want to silence everybody that is raising those questions.

What you went through as early as the 80s and 90s was really ahead of its time. My take at that time was that a lot of very heretical perspectives could still be tossed around. Like in the academy, my colleagues in universities mostly understood that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat and that the Warren Report and all that propaganda was corrupt nonsense. Everybody got that. Nobody was really afraid to say it, although most people weren't courageous enough to make it what they did in life. But you could talk about it in the university. You could you tell your students “of course I don't believe the Warren Report.” Everybody would do that.

But then post-9/11, not so much. I ended up getting kind of lynched out of the University of Wisconsin just for being a teacher there who had questioned 9/11. And that shocked me. You could question JFK before. Why can't you question 9/11 now?

Yeah, I think this is a very interesting subject. The different fields of trying to break down…Let's see, what shall we call them? What would you call 9-11, JFK? It's like these enormous capstone trauma-inducing events... Mega coups. Which when we counter them become... Like the different levels of pariah status assigned to the different subjects. So you're saying JFK was not pariahed in the academy...

Right.

Academically, you could question JFK, but when you question 9/11, that was a pariah child.

Right. To some extent, with JFK, it was enough of a can of worms that, like I said, most people wouldn't make that the focus of what they did. And you had to be moderately brave to be known as somebody who was interested in that topic and doing research on it. But it wasn't that taboo.

Basically, the majority of my academic colleagues in those days were all aware that it was likely a coup d'etat. And that wasn't a problem. It was moderately tabooed. But with 9/11, they launched that witch hunt, with me as the first target, in 2006. And they really did try to terrorize people away from even bringing it up or being interested in it. They put a huge scarlet letter on it. And they really did succeed to some extent in scaring away most of the academics. Post-2006, only really the brave professors would share with their students the fact that the official story of 9/11 is preposterous.

Yeah, that's right. I actually have a memory of being in Lynn Margulis's car with her in Amherst. This would have been maybe 2009. And I asked her, do you really think 9/11 is crackable, breakdownable? And she said, not in America, but in Europe, yes.

Unfortunately, Europe these days seems to be even more occupied both militarily and psychologically than it was then. The U.S. managed to overthrow Chirac, who was apparently a closet 9/11 truther and publicly opposed to the attack on Iraq. And they replaced him with these puppets that have been in charge of France ever since. They've gotten control of the European leaders in various ways. So unfortunately, I think Lynn was right back then that there was maybe a possibility. But since then, like you saw with COVID, Europe was not marching to a different drum. They were just saluting the dominant American-based approach to COVID.

Yeah, I think all of these psychological operations turn up in all of these different countries with a slight twist that's unique to the country. But it's as though what everybody knows, in the choreography, is that if you want to have a life at all, you go with the official narrative. And if you want to have a lot of problems, you start asking questions. It's not exactly the same as people saying “I believe the truth of the official narrative.” It's just the way to live a life without your life being a nightmare.

Yeah, although I have to admit that despite the various problems that have ensued from my getting involved with 9/11, my life overall has really not been a nightmare at all. The nightmarish aspects have been more than balanced by the very rewarding aspects of getting to meet people like you. I mean, Celia, I think if I were still teaching medieval Sufi studies at the University of Wisconsin or something like that, which is probably what would have happened if I didn't get involved in this, I probably never would have met you or Lynn Margulis for that matter. I got to meet this great biologist…

I have to be careful using words like very traumatic. It's so interesting and full of so many blessings.

I agree with you. I think what I struggle to kind of confront or decide how or whether to articulate is how dark and traumatic and terrorizing and terrifying it all was for so many years and how many people died strangely, all the things that happened. And then also ask the question, does it matter? Do you need to go back there? Is it worth remembering that, thinking about it, or can you actually metamorphose out of that?

I don't want to remember it, but I sort of feel like, do I need to let people know the real underbelly or not? So you can't answer that for me, but I feel like…Now what's amazing about this era, meeting you and the conversation we're having, is now we all speak the same language. So I know you guys are right. You know we're right. I know what they did to you. You know what they did to us. It's the same language.

Yeah, that's right. I think the COVID freedom movement has opened up a lot of people's eyes to these other issues as well.

But with absolutely huge, huge rise in…. there wasn't such a thing before. It was always, “what do you mean? Everybody involved is lying? You think every media outlet is lying?” We were all so naive. And so now at least several of the masks have fallen and several were really… I have to take a step back and say to myself, stop saying you lost the war, because there have been immense breakthroughs. The beast still has its boot on us, right? But we can all talk to each other now.

And I think the trajectory of this war around AIDS and COVID has changed in a favorable way for our side in that, as you say, after the AIDS battle was somewhat lost, in terms of just AIDS itself….But then with COVID, it does seem to me that this fervent belief in the vaccines and in all of the restrictions on what people have to say and the whole kind of lemming-like behavior that so many people were inculcated with during COVID has waned quite a bit. And those of us who were skeptical about those vaccines and other countermeasures early on, I think look better now than we did then. In other words, I think the trajectory is actually towards the pendulum swinging towards the COVID skeptics. If we’re not exactly winning, but still, nobody wants to get more boosters, right? There's a reason for that.

Yeah. I like to think so. And that's what I observed too. But where there's this dead elephant in the room that nobody knows how to confront, like the latest horror stats coming out of Japan, out of Greece, people dying at such a rate that even the top government officials are kind of throwing up their hands. Like, “this is dead people. I can't hide this. What do I say? What do I do?” It's coming out, but there's no framework to, there's no language for it. You know what I mean? It's so strange.

From kind of the scientific data-driven approach to it, it still seems that the question of how much of a mortality rise has there been and to what extent is it linked to COVID and/ or the vaccines, all of that, it seems, still hasn't really been well resolved, in part because the authorities don't seem to want it to be well resolved. Because, as I understand it, after talking to various experts, people like Meryl Nass, for example, and many others, it does seem that there is data that could answer these questions pretty quickly. But that data is proprietary and closely held by insurance companies and the governments behind them. They don't seem to really want to make public the vaxxed-versus-unvaxed studies, just like with other vaccine issues as well. None of the establishment people ever wanted to do really good, big, large-scale vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed studies to definitively answer questions about vaccine harms. And just as in all these earlier cases of other vaccines with this COVID vaccine, it does look very suspicious that—rather than definitively answering those questions about how much of this alarming rise in mortality in various parts of the world might be related to the vaccines—it seems that they don't want to answer that question. And that is disturbing. But as far as what the details are, to what level mortality really has risen due to COVID and or the vaccines, I'm still confused, open-minded, and basically agnostic, listening to the arguments and unable to draw conclusions. How about you? Are you like my many friends who are convinced that there's a clear rise in mortality and the vaccines are obviously behind it, or not?

Yes, I am convinced. But here's the mystery, which I will concede to people who say, I don't see it: A lot of people did just fine. People either did fine and didn't notice it or had a catastrophic (problem). I'm subscribed on different social media to threads that document it, like the “died suddenly” type of thread. I'm in chat groups and text groups (in which) I'm inundated with the dead who were injected. And I've reported and written on it. Mark Crispin Miller has a whole Died Suddenly Substack. So, yeah, I subscribe to that. It’s overwhelmingly clear to me.

Let me put it this way. I see statistics all the time. The other day I saw a statistic—because this is like the age of the statisticians, right? And they're always producing new statistical analyses. And I don't really think that's how you understand a story. I'm not really a statistics person. But it was something like a 15,000% increase in certain kinds of cancers. I want to try to find something on my phone that I want to read to you. And I mean, this is a whole can of worms. I think maybe the reason you're, let me just guess, the reason you're not sure, is because you also see a landscape in which a lot of people are vaccinated and boosted and they have no ill effects. Is that basically it?

Well, yeah. I have a lot of friends and people I know personally, both who did get vaxxed and who didn't get vaxxed. And from that experience, one unvaxxed guy (John Shuck) died of COVID, another (Robert David Steele) probably died of COVID, although they may have messed with him in the hospital. Anyway, based on my own personal experience, I've seen people harmed by COVID. I had a pretty nasty case of COVID myself, actually twice, really nasty once. I didn't get vaxxed, of course. And I've seen the experience of vaxxed people ranging from those who had no ill effects at all to some who did and were hospitalized for COVID-like symptoms.

So anyway, just based on my experience of the people I actually know, as well as looking at the statistical sources, it's left me somewhat baffled. And I would conclude that there seems to have been a major downturn in public health that's continuing now after the end of the so-called pandemic. What exactly is responsible for it? I'm not 100% sure. And like I said, from the statistical perspective, what you would want would be to just look at the records that are already there and compare the vaxxed people and their outcomes to the unvaxxed people and their outcomes. But that's what the medical industrial complex will never ever do for any vaccine. And it's probably because they know they're not going to like what they find if they do it. They probably have done it privately and they know that if they do it publicly, it's bad news for vaccines.

I'm going to read you something that just came in in one of the chat groups that I'm in. I think this was somehow read in the European Parliament and/or it's a scientific paper. It says unexplained sudden deaths among children and adolescents in Greece. The reason I'm reading this is this is one example where you can see the clear truth of a very bad thing that is happening that is undeniably from the vaccine. And then we could go elsewhere in the landscape and see something else. But I'll just read this.

“Greece has recently been shaken by a flood of daily reports of an unprecedented series of sudden deaths among healthy children and adolescents. Furthermore, forensic experts are unable to provide any clear explanation for this. At the same time, the data from the Greek Statistical Service bear overwhelming evidence to what is happening, giving rise to serious alarm. The unexplained deaths of 33 children between five and nine years of age and 37 between the ages of 10 and 14 (a total of 70) were recorded in 2020, the figures for 2021 being 37 and 43 respectively (a total of 80). In the first half of 2022 alone, the number of children and adolescents aged up to 19 who have died in this way already totals 138.”

Everything is confusing in this whole thing. Because my understanding is healthy children didn't get COVID. It all comes down to what's the baseline. And so because there was no such thing as what is a healthy person, for example, in the United States, because they've been poisoning everybody with food for so many decades, so many people are just totally inflamed and obese. And so they parlayed that into “everybody is going to die of COVID” instead of a conversation of “what does it mean to be healthy.”

So my understanding was always, what we essentially call healthy children didn't get affected by COVID at all. So if all these children have dropped dead in Greece and in other countries, it's like Houston, we have a problem.

I think it's crystal clear the vaccine is deadly in those who are…I don't know if it's Russian roulette. I don't know if it's hot lot batches. I don't know. Absolutely, the vaccines are devastating for some people, for some of all age groups.

But what's mystifying is what happened initially in 2020. Definitely it was an op. Definitely they were telling people there was this frightful pandemic upon us, which influenced how and why people believed they were sick. But I also see that it's true that people got sick in a way that was new, that wasn't a flu, that was very terrifying and very bizarre. And I can't personally say I know what caused that.

I have friends in different camps. Some people say 5G. Some people say bioweapons. Some people say “I believe in the conventional COVID model of disease causation.”

All I know is, I know who's messing with our heads and sending out these propaganda storms. And they're never going to tell us, and we're probably never going to get to the bottom of it, because that's also in the design.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. And another sort of obvious lesson from COVID…what I said earlier about it being based on a US bio-attack on China and Iran, by the way, it's not an obvious takeaway. You actually have to do a little bit of research to come to that conclusion. But what's pretty much obvious from the get-go is that everybody's takeaway from COVID really should be that we need to shut down the bioweapons labs and put some teeth in the Bioweapons Convention. Because one way or another, these people do not have our best interests at heart. Having this group of people who we now know beyond any doubt, everybody mainstream or non-mainstream knows and admits now, that some of the people involved in this field of manufacturing COVID or being involved in the closest thing out there to manufacturing COVID, whether or not you believe it was manufactured, those people did conspire to push a totally unsubstantiated story that it jumped to humans from animals. They lied, they conspired, they put that out at a time when, based on their private emails, we know that they thought it quite likely was from a lab. So when you have the very top of your biowar establishment just lying cheating and stealing like that and getting caught, and then you look at the possibilities of what could go wrong with bioweapons research, it is a no-brainer that takeaway number one from from this is shut down these labs. And these labs are not just making diseases, they're also making the hopeful antidotes, right? If you do a bioweapon, you want to have something that you could jab your population or your leaders or whatever with so that only the enemy or whoever the targeted population is suffers from it. The same people would have built the virus as would have built the vaccine. And again, they don't have our best interest at heart.

Everything is hand in glove, chicken and egg. It's these sequences that go together. As you say, they build the synthetic so-called virus or bioweapon already having patented the so-called vaccine, it all rolls together the same way 9/11 rolls together with all the wars. Was it seven nations that we were going to have to (take out in five years), the Patriot Act…They do the thing that they need to do to create the thing that they're going to do to roll out everything. We see the same pattern again and again and again.

Sometimes I wonder what was their payout for the JFK assassination? I know there were many, but that was probably the first one where Americans could not imagine why would they possibly be doing this. In the later ops with AIDS, with COVID, and with 9/11, certainly, we can see how the war machine really functions. And it isn't a mystery, it's just so shocking we can't accept it, right?

With JFK, have you looked at James Douglas's book (JFK and the Unspeakable) or Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment? Because those two reveal that JFK really did go up against the war machine.

Absolutely.

Both the American and the Israeli war machines. And so in those two war machines, probably some hardliners in both saw great benefits in changing who was president. So I don't think that's a very hard one to figure out if you research it.

Why do you think they did it the way they did it? Not to turn this into a JFK discussion, but just to ask you. Do you see the hallmarks of sacrifice culture? The way they do everything is designed for maximum trauma, degradation. I see ritualistic sacrifice in a lot of it, where a lot of people just see greed, money, the war machine. But I see something occult in it all, even to the point that it seems that they almost deliberately do it right out in the open.

One of these ex-black operator type guys was on my radio show, Chip Tatum. He's been on Ole Dammegard’s show several times. Anyway, he's the first person that I heard this from, that the groups behind these things believe that if they give you advance warning and they do it in public so that you really should know and then you let them get away with it, then the bad karma is on you, not on them. It's some kind of ritual occult belief.

Yes, I know. I used to know the name for that. I can't think of it right now. And I like Ole Dammegard a lot. And I feel like once we can really crack that code, the extra-dimensional, unfathomable element to why they do all these things… Sometimes I'm not even sure I want to know. But I believe that is where everything becomes clear in that dimension of whatever occult religion these people adhere to that motivates them. That's the unfathomable. And most of us spend an awful lot of time trying to put it together according to models that are way too rational.

Yeah, I'm impressed at your grasp of that aspect of things. That is that all of this rational analysis of geopolitics and statistics doesn't get to the heart of it. I understand you're interested in Rene Girard and his work on sacrifice and scapegoating.

Yes. I'm a novice, but I am fascinated by him. I listen to interviews about him as often as I can. But again I’m a novice.

When I was studying literature, he was one of the people you read. And I thought, wow, this guy's a lot more interesting than all these boring deconstructionist nihilists. So I've been following him for a while.

What would you say was the first thing when you sort of cottoned on to him? What was that was like, the aha moment that you could apply to everything you've experienced yourself?

I actually first heard about him before 9/11. At that time his work was appealing because it actually seemed to explain something about both literature and real life. It's an anthropological theory and it's also a literary theory. One of the ways he discovered it was that a lot of what's considered great literature actually has this scapegoating-sacrifice paradigm in the background.

And so that was that was great because a lot of deconstruction and other postmodern approaches at the time were very dry, nihilistic, cast doubt on whether there is any such thing as real life or literature for that matter. So here’s this guy who wasn't afraid to toss out a big idea with spiritual and religious significance. He and Bakhtin were probably the two important influences I discovered through literary-critical studies.

(Girard’s) take on (sacrifice) is more anthropological than spiritual in that he doesn't really have a metaphysical perspective. I don't think he ever talks about actual evil forces that are profiting from these sacrifices. It's really just the people being brought together by blaming and scapegoating and murdering somebody, and that brings their tribe together—that's how human tribes work. And then that whole process has been messed up by, in his view, the sacrifice of Jesus.

However, I think if you plug Girard into something that Gordon Duff once told me—Gordon Duff being this ex-CIA guy that I worked with at Veterans Today, people who got angry at the neocons after 9/11, among other things, and he's been playing mind games ever since, basically in the service of truth and justice for the most part.

Anyway, Gordon has claimed to have had MJ-12 clearance at a certain time in the CIA. So he got to see the memos about ETs and UFOs and aliens and stuff like that. And he claims that one of the memos he saw detailed the existence of an extradimensional entity which feeds on human suffering and interfaces with selected humans through satanic ritual and such to create the very human suffering that it feeds on. And according to the CIA memo that Gordon says he read, this was then explained as, “oh, don't worry. It's all just part of the great cosmic ecosystem. Earth is being visited by many dozens if not hundreds of extraterrestrial and extradimensional species, many of which are unpredictable and piratical and so on. But don't worry about it. It's not a big deal.” Gordon's response was, “what do you mean it's not a big deal?”

How absolutely fascinating what you just said. I just feel like from head to toe, that has got to be true. That's got to be what's happening. There's no other explanation I can think of for everything I've experienced since I began, since I embarked on all of this. Because all through the years of the HIV-AIDS work, what I really felt was, I'm fighting something inhuman here. And it's so absolutely rigid since it's not human. I cannot appeal to this thing. When you traumatize a grieving mother who just lost her child, and you blame her and you take a rigged autopsy and on and on and on. The cruelty of what I saw, especially against women and mothers…they were really cruel and vicious and sociopathic. But beyond that, it wasn't just mean people, if you will, or ambitious people or greedy people. I always felt like the whole thing…at the innermost core of it was something inhuman. And I could never...And yet all of us were dealing with it in this kind of rational humanistic enlightenment so-called Western values way that didn't apply at all. And it wasn't human.

And of course, when you talk about things like this, you're pushed into the margins of Western culture. Because the official religion of dogmatic secular materialist humanist progressivism does not allow for the notion of evil spirits. But here in the Islamic world, it is taken for granted that the jinn, these beings of (metaphorical) fire, exist. They're some form of extradimensional… maybe there are extraterrestrial “humans” too. All of that is part of the belief system here. In fact, if I were to deny the existence of the jinn I would be considered theologically incorrect. I would be a bit of a Muslim heretic. So that's another of the many interesting ways that the belief system among Muslims is more comfortable to me than the dominant one in the West.

In Islam we believe that there are good jinn and bad jinn. But you don't want to mess with them because if you do, the bad ones are likely to come around trying to take advantage of you. According to the view of how magic works in Islamic culture and maybe some other parts of the esoteric world as well, it's considered that magicians have ways of making deals with these entities. And quite often they do involve bad stuff and even human sacrifice, right? It's in the folkloric tradition of Morocco, West Africa, and probably other places as well. There are stories of human sacrifice for which then the jinn or whatever entity then give them some reward, such as telling them where there will be a buried treasure. And then there's the dark shamanism in Latin America which was studied by Neil Whitehead. He was a colleague of mine at University of Wisconsin, and he studied dark shamanism, which involves a lot of really nasty behavior by certain shamans in Central and South America. And he ended up dying an early death, presumably related to his area of interest.

So anyway, I think all this stuff is absolutely real. And those of you who are secular materialists are going to throw rotten fruit at me. It's okay. Go ahead and throw it.

I'm really glad we're talking about this, and totally fascinated by everything you're saying. I know for a fact that one never gets there with the rational secular approach to all of this. For example, the HIV dissent critique, what was its (the scam’s) motivation? Greed. And I always felt like “I don't think these people are primarily after the money. It doesn't feel like it's about money. What could it possibly be?” And then people say control.

But the extradimensional factor is a really queasy, creepy kind of destruction for the sake of destruction in perpetuity. It's like revolutionary destructiveness for the sake of it. It's like a train track that you just can't get on if you're, I guess I would say, a normal person. And I always wanted to know, who are you people? I always wanted to sit with one of them and have them just please tell me what goes on in your head, in your heart? Because they seemed like backward people. Like they thought and spoke and reasoned backward. And I have to say, if we stay more or less in the, like before the extra dimensional realm, if we just stay here on earth, their language and what unifies them and how they communicate with each other and how they do a lot of their inversion work is the phenomenon we call woke.

Doesn't woke remind you of those the AIDS activists who were screaming, give us drugs, give us drugs?

Oh, my goodness. Absolutely. And all those years before it was called woke, there was vaguely something people referred to as political correctness. There's a quote, and I was really happy that he put the quote in full in Bobby Kennedy's book The Real Anthony Fauci…it was his deciding to do that book that kind of crystallized in my mind who and where do I think Fauci's dark power came from. I just posed the question to myself, and then I realized, ah yes he brings woke into the palace, right? First it was NIAID, NIH, NCI, all parts of the American military public health octopus. And if you picture it, imagine it like a potion, like smoke coming out of a little secret vial that he uncorks. What is the magic potion? Well, it's that when... A scientist speaks as a scientist. We gave this person this substance and they died. We tested this substance. This happened, X happened. In other words, the conventional world as we thought we knew it.

What Fauci's woke does when it applies to all this stuff is it renders everything something else. So, for example, when scientists were trying to say, maybe as early as the late 70s, definitely early 80s, gay men who were getting sick from what they then were calling gay cancer. Let's look what they all did. Did they all ingest poppers? Were they all drug addicts? Were they all bathhouse extremists? What were they all doing that maybe didn't work biologically?

So Fauci's Woke comes in and says: There's no such thing as a lifestyle disease. We are all equally subject to this. And Gallo was on board with the woke-speak as applied to AIDS too. So you get all these campaigns: “We all have AIDS.” So it became this part of the religion of AIDS, this crazy obsession to say, you can't say anything about who's getting it or why. We have to pretend we're all equally affected and vulnerable to it and we could all get it, because we had to remove the so-called judgment, which also meant removing the cause and the cure and the everything. So now you're just nowhere. You're just lost. And that was considered being a good person. Just total fog.

I think René Girard's work does help explain how this bizarre situation developed. He theorizes that post-Christianity, cultures have more and more identified with scapegoats and marginalized and persecuted figures. But they don't always do it very intelligently. They can go wrong. And they can be manipulated in who they imagine is marginalized and persecuted. This infatuation for marginalized persecuted people, which became a certain strand of the postmodern movement 30 or 40 years ago—Foucault, of course, was notably lionized for that—they seemed to basically see people with unusual sexual habits, people who used to be called sexual deviants—but you certainly would never want to say that now—are this persecuted category, so they become sacred. There's a religious hysteria that develops around following rules about how you think about and talk about such people. We see that with the AIDS situation, and we see that with woke today, with gender bending and sex surgery for for minors and all that sort of thing.

Yeah, exactly. Sacred. That's a that's a really good word to describe the incredible status of these so-called persecuted (categories). So they're said to be persecuted. But in the Fauci woke, just to stick to that for a moment, with the newly constructed universe, they become worshipped. They become saints. They're kind of sacred scapegoat figures. It's so bizarre. And also what we see, what he's so interesting about is how a scapegoat is sacrificed, and then after the sacrifice is revered and worshipped. And you actually see that in JFK, right? We know that the same people who arranged for his sacrifice are the same people who, I guess I would say, permitted (his posthumous deification). Though there should be tremendous admiration for JFK. I don't know if you've seen this film, Four Died Trying.

You know, I haven't seen that yet. I really should because I know those stories, of course.

Yeah, Libby Hendress and John Kirby. It's really excellent. So all four of those, JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, are in fact very, shall we say…very admired. They are not officially pariahed, and yet they were sacrificed. And we all know this, right? Isn't this Rene Girard that I'm talking about here? It's like the double effect. It's sort of like they kill them and then they say, “here, now we've killed them, now you can worship them.”

Right. We name avenues after Martin Luther King Jr. and put up busts of JFK everywhere, and then allow a big Hollywood film about Malcolm X to become very popular and even convince a fair number of young people to convert to Islam. All of that they can live with, even though they had to kill those guys. But we're not really supposed to pay attention to the part of the program of those guys that got them killed, right? We're supposed to sort of gloss that over.

Absolutely. Never talk about specifics in any of this. It's... It's... We make ourselves crazy trying to understand them or think like them. So what can we do in the midst of all this? I'm sure you ask yourself every day also. Did they design all this? It certainly feels that way to me. I guess I'm going to say there's no solving the Rubik's cube. There's no setting things right. There's no getting to the bottom of things. But what we can see is patterns. What we call psyops, for example. We make ourselves crazy trying to understand them or think like them.

You know what I sometimes look at what we call psyops—for example, the 9/11 hijackers, where they're very sloppy with their psyops. They're very sloppy in the beginning. But in the beginning, we're all so traumatized that it makes sense, right? Because they've studied our brains so much through MKUltra and everything, so they know. And I believed 9/11, like most people. It’s just incredible. But I guess that's what happened. I can't believe that I believed it, but I did. You know, for a few years. I often say like if you want to see a PSYOP, give it 20 years and then watch how the back end of it just falls off and you can see the whole thing.

So what do I mean by that? With 9/11 the PSYOP…And now I'm speaking as somebody who's down here on the base level, not where you are, where you've studied it so much, just basic people trying to understand 9/11. The back end of the PSYOP with 9/11 falls off because they always told us that these Islamic extremists hated us for our freedoms and wanted to destroy us because we represent freedom and they can't stand it because they can't have that so they have to destroy us. So excuse me, but what happened? So did they pulled off 9/11 and not hate us for our freedoms anymore? Or it's all over because they got Osama bin Laden? It's just so sloppy. It doesn't add up at all.

The whole they-hate-our-freedoms thing was so absurd from the get-go.

Just like “if you love somebody, you will wear a condom every time,” you know, that was the style. It doesn't add up at all. Like with AIDS, the base of the theory was—“theory” is giving it way too much credit, so I'll say the word too many times. The base of the PSYOP was: Every sexual encounter between any two people, and please know that heterosexuals are no different, they can get it. It's everybody's disease, et cetera, et cetera. Any broken condom. And you don't know who you're sleeping with. OK, anyone can get it. And then once you get it, like Russian roulette, you turn up HIV positive and then you die. And it changed from like one year, two years, five years, 10 years. It stretched all the way to 30 years.

Let's give them that. Leave that aside. Very stretchy, very stretchy, infinitely stretchy, and they can always stretch it to accommodate whatever part of the backside of it just fell off.

But flash forward now. Gosh, between 1984 and today, I don't know exactly how many years, but many, many, let's see, about 40, right? Why didn't Bill Clinton get AIDS? Why didn't Jeffrey Epstein get AIDS? Why didn't Mick Jagger get AIDS? Why didn't Iggy Pop get it?

Iggy Pop's still in pretty good shape.

Iggy Pop once told me that back in the 90s they wanted him to do a condom commercial for AIDS and he wouldn't do it. “Oh no, I'm not going to do the commercial.” But what I'm trying to say is where is the heterosexual AIDS pandemic that was waiting and gonna happen. If you were a good person you believed in it. Nobody talks about it anymore.

It's even more politically incorrect now to talk about the sociological factors involved in this. All of us who lived in San Francisco from 1980 through 1993—we all knew that a lot of these gay guys were insanely promiscuous. And you had statistics backing that up: hundreds of sexual partners per year, if not over a thousand in many cases and so on. And whereas the females, the lesbians, had sex something like three times a year on the average. Huge, huge difference between male homosexual behavior and female homosexual behavior. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that men and women, for the most part, normally are heterosexual. And that the male predilection for testosterone-driven promiscuity gets tempered by the female predisposition for more intimacy and personality and things like that.

Now we're not allowed to acknowledge that men and women are different, even though common sense and science have long since proven it. And that seems to be part of the same kind of mass-hysteria-driven operation, this war on traditional genders and ultimately on reproduction. Normal human society is all based on reproductive families and extended families, which are tribes, which are the basic building blocks of societies. And that kind of normal reproductive-based human society seems like it's under attack by somebody who really hates it.

I think the AIDS operation was not just a prequel to COVID, but maybe more menacingly a prequel to the Transgender Inc. movement. And there's a lot in that development that I think none of us can wrap our heads around yet. But all of these agendas are connected. And you know them by their…like when things just make no sense, and you're not allowed to say that. For example what you said was absolutely true about male gay promiscuity. But I was really flogged and trained and beaten: “You can't say promiscuity.” What am I allowed to say? And I was mostly immune to these criticisms. But in addition to not being allowed to say that gay men were promiscuous, you had to celebrate the fact that they themselves were flaunting and brandishing their promiscuity as the dominant part of the culture, like the sexual story of America. So they were allowed to kind of bask in that identity, with gay pride and everything, but you weren't allowed to say, okay, so you have a lot more sex than heterosexual people do who are just having jobs and coming home. So maybe we're not identical in terms of an epidemiological group. So you're also not allowed to say that. It's like the woke quadruple gotcha trap.

I think people are really vulnerable to these things because so much of normal social interaction involves having to soft pedal certain things to certain people in our lives in order to get along with them. So we have these built-in propensities to find ways of not saying what we really think, not just blurting out the full stark truth. And boy, that's been weaponized. And they've built technologies to grab that tendency in our brains and just really run with it. And so we're not allowed to think all of these thoughts that would threaten the powers that be. It's maddening.

It's abusive. It's very abusive. I think the way to get ahead of it all, or to get on the right side of it, is to declare it fascinating instead of traumatizing. It's both.

One of the hard parts of quashing conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theories are so interesting, and kind of even entertaining, that people are just so interested in them. And so many of them actually turn out to be true. It's really hard for those people who are trying to keep all this stuff under wraps.

Yeah, that's why I feel psyops fall apart. Very few people believe the official theory of JFK's assassination. They can't cultivate every psyop garden forever. They have to let them go over time. So probably the best chance of getting to the bottom of any of them is waiting until they're 50 years out.

And the best chance of mitigating their impact is to jump on it 10 seconds after it happens and just blast out your skepticism as hard as you can. But then know that you may not actually get to the truth for 50 years, if ever. I ended up stuck in this because they just keep doing this stuff. In 2015, when they did Charlie Hebdo and the follow-ups, at that point, I'd learned my lesson that you want to react quickly. With 9/11, I didn't even really pick up on it very much for a couple of years. But with Charlie Hebdo, in six weeks, I had a book out about it.

Really?

Yeah.

I'm not familiar with that one, but I'm guessing it was another pack of lies.

Somewhere between the whole thing being totally basically staged or choreographed, or at the very least, some Western intelligence services had their hooks in the guys who shot the cartoonists and made or let it happen, some combination thereof. That's the short version of it.

Oh, boy.

Well, you know, Celia, we've been on for (going on) two hours. That's longer than I usually do shows. But in your case, I'm very happy to extend the show. And there's probably still some things that we could get to. We haven't really gotten too deeply into the spiritual dimension of this. What's the alternative to the technocratic evil that we're talking about? Is there a positive spiritual alternative? I would like to think so.

My spiritual answer is to begin to extricate myself from looking outward at the crimes and sins of others and look at myself instead. Not to the exclusion of looking at that, but as a way of coming to peace and being like Christians say you want to be: a blessing and not a curse. You want to be a blessing. You want to be a blessing to the world, to the people around you. I feel personally that I've been too overtaken by this war, these different wars. And I want a real human life as a human being. And I want to…in some ways I want to surrender. I don't exactly mean admit defeat…but I mean, yeah, admit defeat that I'm never going to crack all this. None of us are. I think it's really great that we've done all this work, but now I want to do the inner work.

A few weeks ago I attended a Russian Orthodox church here in New York. And then I was away for a couple of weeks, so I couldn't go back. I can't wait to go back. And they gave me some short books. And in one of them it talks about—and I've heard this from Catholics, I was an unsuccessful late-in-life Catholic—about the importance of repentance and confession. But when I read it in these Russian Orthodox textbooks, I felt that was explained to me in a way that I really resonate with.

And in some way, I think it can be part of just a trauma response to constantly be trying to deal with these gargantuan black mountains of lies. And it can really change you in such a way that you're no longer the person that you want to be. And you look around and you've maybe spread trauma to your family or friends, poverty, all the things that sort of come with the terrain. And I'm trying to stop myself in time. I'm not repenting for the work that I did. But…well, we all have repentance going on whether we call it that or not. That to me is a lot harder than the work that I've done so far. And that's the mountain I want to confront now.

Yeah, I can totally relate to that. When you're doing this kind of work, the anxiety and trauma inevitably comes with it. And you're an agent of spreading negative feelings to people. And it can mess with your personal life and make you question, is it even worth trying to tell the truth about all this stuff? They used to call David Ray Griffin the bearer of of bad tidings, the opposite of the evangelist bringing good news. Those of us telling the truth about these things are bringing bad news, but ultimately, I like to think that it's for the greater good.

Well, that, that was very, very beautifully put.

I wish you the best and blessings in your next stage of this, and I think Orthodoxy sounds very rich. Have you read Tikhon’s Everyday Saints?

I have not. I'll take note of that.

It's a very readable book about the life of Orthodox monks in Russia. Tikhon has been called Putin's spiritual advisor, among other things. And I hope he is. Because it would be good if a world leader at that level had somebody like Tikhon advising him.

I do think this in closing: Many, many people in our landscape of, let's just say, truth seekers and truth warriors, may be conflicted for very valid reasons about for example, Christianity, whether they were raised Catholic and traumatized and so on and so forth. I will say that I feel there's no question that our opposition in all of this is, I'm not going to say atheist secular, but at war with…I'll just say at war with God and the natural world. And so in that sense, I actually feel like, it has been said and I'll repeat it: This is a spiritual battle. This is spiritual warfare that we're conditioned to see as earthly warfare. As a Christian, I see the satanic in it all. And that word bothers a lot of rational people, but that's what I see. And so when I counter it, when I'm good, it means that I'm just bringing more prayer into my life again to make myself more of a vessel of peace and harmony.

Amen, sister. I love it. That's a beautiful note to end on. We never even got to talk about your work with OJ Simpson, but we'll save that. Just let it be known that you've done some of the most important writing on that topic as well. And he just happened to pass away a few days ago. I noticed that and I wondered if I should talk about him on the show. Then I thought, yeah, probably not. Your other stuff is more important.

Well, let's use it as like a bridge to a possibility of having another conversation.

There you go. We’ve got to talk about OJ some other day. Okay, well, thank you, Celia Farber. It's been wonderful. I really admire your courage and tenacity in this work. Your Substack is celiafarber.substack.com. Highly recommended. If I haven't officially recommended you at Substack, I will certainly do so.

Oh, Kevin, it's been such a delight to speak to you.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

We're joined by Editor of Veterans Today, Kevin Barrett, who's joining us from Saidia. Mr. Barrett, welcome to the program.

Chants of free Palestine can be heard across the globe once again. But the significance and what's unprecedented this time around is the demonstrations that are taking place across U.S. universities. This is of course something unprecedented regarding Palestinian support inside America. Talk to us about that, about these global demonstrations, how Israel has been cornered and now it's the most isolated it's ever been. And of course about the police clampdown on campuses which is being seen as a attack on freedom of expression in America.

Yeah, it's interesting how this particular issue brings such quick and massive police repression. If you speak out for Palestine in the United States, the authorities are likely to come down on you, attack you, repress you, and jail you much more quickly than if you were protesting about just about any other issue. And examples of this include the protests in the United States that began at Columbia University, and have been quite ruthlessly repressed, with a large number of students actually expelled from the university for protesting.

That's...maybe not entirely unprecedented. But American universities throughout my lifetime have been full of protests. And I can't recall anyone ever being expelled for protesting. And these are generally peaceful protesters too. At Ohio State University, the police arrived just an hour or two after a demonstration started, and they started arresting people almost instantly.

And likewise, I think it was in Chicago, at Northwestern where something similar occurred. They changed the school rules to make tents illegal so they could quickly try to stop the pro-Palestine tent city on campus.

Hundreds, if not well over a thousand by now, of American students have been arrested in these protests, which are continuing to spread like proverbial wildfire. And likewise, it seems that in France, they’ve been unable to stop them (from growing). When the first Sciences Po protest a couple of days ago was massively repressed in the typical style of Macron—though fortunately I don't think they were shooting out people's eyes with rubber bullets like he did to the Yellow Vests—that protest restarted, just today, and it's twice as big as it was a couple of days ago.

So the genocide perpetrators and their enablers in the West are now facing a serious problem, because the younger generation of students across the world, including in the Western world and even in the United States, the belly of the beast, is increasingly aware about this issue. And all of their sympathies are already tending towards the Palestinians. And the more they learn about this genocide, the stronger their sympathies for the Palestinians will be. So the Zionist propaganda machine has run into a really serious roadblock.

And these rallies on U.S. campuses gained more steam to protest the recent congressional approval of more military aid for the Israeli regime. About that aid package, billions of taxpayer dollars will continue to go to Israel to continue its genocide. What was your reaction to the approval of the military aid?

Well, it's, of course, disgusting. It's disappointing that the Republicans caved. Their new speaker Mike Johnson changed his position and caved on the Ukraine issue. But the continued all-out support from both major parties for this genocide in Gaza is just incredibly disgusting and embarrassing. It really makes me embarrassed to be an American, to have a government that is so unanimously pro-genocide, that is paying for this genocide, enabling it, as it has been for more than half a century. But now that this genocide has switched into high gear and is being televised 24-7-365, everybody can see it on social media. Nobody can deny it anymore.

That may have changed some views among younger people on college campuses and also among the general public. According to the polls, we now have in the U.S. about equal numbers of sympathizers with Palestine and with Israel. Whereas in the past, the Israeli propaganda machine had won a huge majority to its side. But that's eroded. Among the younger people, there's a very, very strong majority now favoring Palestine, indeed supporting the Palestinian resistance. And this terrifies the Zionists.

So the people are coming around, especially the younger people. But the United States government is still owned by Zionist billionaires who also own the media. So there's going to have to be a big change before U.S. government policy significantly changes.

Let's go over what the students are actually calling for. They want universities to divest finances from manufacturers that sell weapons to Israel. They want Washington to end its military and financial support for Israel. Those demands, as we mentioned earlier, have been met with violent crackdowns by U.S. police. Now, what's interesting is that these protesters have been called everything from anti-Semites to terrorists. Again, more double standards when it comes to criticizing Israel.

That's right. Words like anti-Semite and terrorist are just smear terms that they use to try to discredit people who are criticizing this genocide. And particularly the anti-Semite label is quite laughable for so many reasons. One of them is that actually among these students, especially in the Ivy League, where this started at Columbia University and elsewhere, there is a massive disproportion of Jewish students represented there. And among the Palestine protesters, a significant number of them are from this Jewish contingent.

The American media is largely owned by either right wing or neoliberal Jewish Zionist billionaires. And much of the media, especially the top people in the media, are of that persuasion. But at these Ivy League schools, it's not Jews versus Arabs or Jews versus people of color, as the media, especially right-wing media in the U.S., are trying to portray it. A significant fraction of the pro-Palestine contingent is actually people from Jewish backgrounds who are horrified at what's being done in their name.

They grew up being terrorized by this paranoid Jewish culture that will never forget World War II and gas chambers and all of that. And then they learned something about what's really going on in the world and noticed there is a Jewish state in occupied Palestine that's committing the world's most televised and most fully documented genocide in all of human history.

And so we do have young Jewish Americans on both sides of this. But probably, I would guess in the Ivy League, a lot more of them are on the pro-Palestine side than on the pro-Netanyahu side.

But the media is still owned by Zionist propagandists, and so they use these smear terms like terrorist, which apparently means anybody who doesn't like genocide, and anti-Semite, which again is the same thing: Anybody who doesn't like genocide must be an anti-Semite.

But these terms have been worn out so badly that they're really not frightening people any more. And they certainly aren't frightening the students who are flocking to these protests in greater and greater numbers. If this continues to spread, it could create a situation that embarrasses the genocide perpetrators so much that they might actually have to dial back their mass murder campaign.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Ron Unz discusses his new articles “Israeli Assassinations and Public Scrutiny” and “After Four Years and Thirty Million Deaths.” The former reflects on the hidden history of Israel’s outrageously bad behavior, some of which is now becoming better known in the wake of the accelerated genocide of Gaza, while the latter summarizes and updates Ron’s work on COVID, including his groundbreaking articles arguing that the pandemic emerged from a US bio-attack on China and Iran.

Extract from the interview:

The best way to think about it is there are really three reasonable hypotheses. The covid virus could be a natural virus. It could be a Chinese virus. Or it could be an American virus. And the problem is the entire debate, virtually 99% of the debate in the media, even more than that, has been between options one and two, a natural virus or a Chinese virus that came from the Wuhan lab. And therefore, in a sense, both of the competing camps have sometimes been talking past each other.

Most of the individuals, most of the groups that advocate a natural virus, focus on the fact that there's very little evidence of any lab leak in the Wuhan lab. There's really quite a lot of evidence that the virus did not come from the Wuhan lab. And so they say that proves the virus must be a natural virus.

On the other hand, the advocates of the Wuhan lab leak theory focus almost entirely on the very strong evidence that the virus was bioengineered, that it was produced in a laboratory somewhere. And by default, they assume it must have been the Wuhan lab. While on the other hand, they seem to focus very little on any evidence that the virus came from the lab.

The single best eyewitness we have from the Wuhan lab, Danielle Anderson, an experienced virologist who was working at the lab at that point in time, says there's absolutely no evidence, no hints from the people she was working with, that any sort of lab leak had occurred, or any indications that they were working on that type of virus.

So there really isn't any evidence for a lab leak while there's overwhelming evidence that the virus was bioengineered. And that by a vector sum, I think, leads one to the third option, which is that the virus was the result of an American bio-warfare attack against China and Iran.

There's a lot of other evidence besides. For example, the fact that the two earliest outbreaks in the world, the two epicenters, were China and Iran, the two countries that America was most hostile towards. The fact that in the Crimson Contagion exercise, America's chief biowarfare advocate, Robert Kadlec, spent eight months in a major federal-state training exercise on how to prepare America. for the appearance of a COVID-like virus in China if it spread to the United States. And that exercise was concluded just a couple of months before the virus suddenly appeared in Wuhan.

Or for example, the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency produced a secret report in November 2019 saying that there was a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before there was any outbreak in the city of Wuhan.

So, with all that evidence, none of it is basically known by most of the individuals who debate the COVID origins hypothesis on either side of the scale. And so if those facts simply became more widely known, (the case for) the virus having been produced in an American laboratory and then used in a biowarfare attack against China would simply be overwhelming.

So my piece was really a long piece, but it was almost entirely recapitulation. of the arguments I've been making over four years.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Al-Alam Arabic News Channel: A new cold war is looming. The global arms war has reached its highest levels in history. Military expenditures have reached $2 trillion $443 billion in the year 2023 across the five continents including the Middle East. These are record numbers. The Stockholm International Institute for Peace Research has revealed that the global military burden increased to 2.3% last year, with the rate of military spending as a percentage of government spending rising to 6.9%, and global military spending per capita reaching $309.

Washington has allocated more than one-third of the total global military expenditure for itself, around $916 billion—the highest expenditure in the world. China ranks a distant second with about $300 billion, surpassing Russia and India, while Saudi Arabia ranked first regionally and fifth globally with $76 billion, ahead of the Israeli entity.

The reports attributed this increase to the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the brutal aggression on Gaza that led to a hike in Israel's military expenditures, as well as rising geopolitical tensions in Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East.

Experts see the increase in the military expenditure as a reaction to the ongoing deterioration of global security. They warn of the danger of entering a spiral of action and reaction in light of an increasingly fragile global geopolitical and security system. Will these governments be drawn into unintended conflicts as a result of this arms sale?

That was our report. And we are going to the questions right now.

The report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute offered some figures for 2023. The USA, for example, spent $916 billion in military spending. China, $296 billion. Russia, $109 billion. India, $83.6 billion. Saudi Arabia, $75.8 billion. The Israeli entity ranked 15th with military expenditures exceeding 27 billion dollars—a 24% increase compared to 2022 due to the brutal aggression on Gaza. Iran ranked 33rd, according to Stockholm Institute, with an expenditure of only $10 billion.

We will discuss this subject with Professor Kevin Barrett. Good evening and welcome to our program. According to this report, there are two main factors in the increasing in the military budgets for those countries: The war in Ukraine and the brutal aggression on Gaza. What's the common point and the role of the United States in this phenomenon?

Both the war on Russia through Ukraine and the genocidal war against Gaza and Palestine are supported by the United States empire in general, and the neoconservatives in particular. They are extremist warmongers who are dedicated to keeping the United States empire in a position of unilateral hegemony. But that is impossible because of changes in the global economy and the spread of technology.

So we have a collapsing empire, the Zionist American empire, waging a preemptive global war to preserve its dominance. And that's the link between Ukraine and occupied Palestine, and also the increasing tensions in the South China Sea.

Professor, the United States has 40% of global military expenditures. Do you think this expenditure is necessary for the national security of America? How can we justify this expenditure by the United States of America?

The enormous military expenditure by the United States is largely a kind of subsidy to a corrupt military industrial complex, specifically the shareholders and executives of the corrupt corporations, and the bribed and profiteering generals and military people who are all making money from this.

The United States is not able to buy a mean, lean military force. On the contrary, its military is grossly inflated in its budgets and grossly deflated in its capabilities. That's why Russia is defeating the United States in Ukraine, and that's why the Palestinian resistance and indeed the regional resistance is defeating the United States in West Asia.

Again, the United States empire is decadent and collapsing. And its weakness is visible in this hemorrhaging of its financial power to prop up corrupt corporations and bureaucracies—while with a fraction of the US military budget, Iran is able to create a deterrent through its ballistic missile program that can checkmate the Americans in the region, as Scott Ritter recently wrote.

President Biden is hoping to win re-election and to continue to expand arms expenditures and supplying the Israeli entity. Do you think the American people will agree for that policy in the future?

The American people are beginning to rebel against their enslavement and occupation by the Zionist entity. We're seeing a huge anti-Zionist, anti-war movement on college campuses. Columbia University in New York City is now occupied by its students,and similar protests are happening elsewhere. The American people are turning against the Zionist genocide of Gaza. And the polls show that as time goes on, Americans are waking up to the reality of the fact that the Zionist entity is inherently genocidal and that the United States shouldn't be supporting it. The problem is that the United States is dominated by the power of Zionist billionaires, who own most of its media and dominate its financial sector. And therefore, the United States, like Palestine, needs an intifada or even a resistance movement to throw off Zionist occupation. I hope these protests on college campuses will turn into that kind of resistance movement.

There's no money to feed the poor, but they've always got money for wars. They just rammed $95 billion through the House to be given to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. I don't know what China is doing to attack the United States. This is in the imagination of some people that they are doing something, but okay. So that's one theater. Another theater is against Palestine. And another one is Russia. If we go back to the figures we talked about, the Israeli entity ranked 15th, but Iran ranked 33rd. What does that mean? Is Israel living off the wars and tension in the region and the world?

The Zionist entity only exists due to the massive support it receives from the West, and especially the United States, which has turned it into a kind of a garrison state. And it's a securitized state. It's a police state. It's got checkpoints everywhere. It's an apartheid state. And it's hyper-militarized, never more so than since October 7.

This is a tiny little country, 15 million population. surrounded by countries that have never really accepted its existence as a genocidal entity that has the right to exterminate and expel the people of Palestine. It's an artificial construct. It's a neo-crusader state.

And Iran is the biggest, most important country in the region that has said no to this genocide and that has a government that is in line with the views of the vast majority of the people of the region that the Zionist entity needs to dissolve and become Palestine again. And of course, that is intolerable to the genocidal Zionist leaders who have been essentially trying to drag the United States into a war on Iran for almost 20 years now. And they haven't succeeded for many reasons, chiefly that Iran has done such a good job of building its defenses on a very, very modest budget.

Professor, regarding the Cold War between China and the United States and NATO, do you think this new Cold War is an excuse for the United States to increase its expenditures in order to stand against China?

Yes, the military-industrial complex of the United States makes vast fortunes on international tensions. So there's always a group of lobbyists who are very well paid, who are working to try to increase the revenues of companies like General Dynamics, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, and all of these other weapons manufacturers. And they were a major factor in the coup d'etat that overthrew, or rather murdered, President Kennedy in 1963. They have been a major factor in other kinds of less bloody coups since then. And they're still a force to be reckoned with, as is the Zionist lobby in the United States.

So these corrupt lobbies are primarily responsible for this hyper-aggressive American foreign policy that is not even serving U.S. imperial interests. That is, the United States empire is likely to collapse quicker and much more violently than it would need to if it pursued a wiser policy, putting diplomacy ahead of rabid military adventures. But the people that profit from instability in the military industrial complex, and the rabid brainwashed Zionists who are just fanatical millenarian messianic extremists—those are the people who are responsible for this completely senseless and destructive and indeed self-destructive foreign policy.

Those reports indicate that expectations for global military expenditures in the next decade are over 10 trillion dollars. To what extent is this figure horrible? And will these arms be kept in storage, or will they be used in upcoming wars in the future?

The truly horrible thing about this global arms race that's being driven by the United States is not only that so many people are unnecessarily murdered and so many resources wasted, but that it makes it impossible for the leading nations of the world to cooperate in solving critical problems that the whole world is facing. There are, of course, environmental problems. And there are also problems in limiting certain kinds of technologies.

So-called artificial intelligence obviously needs to be curtailed, and it needs to be addressed by all the nations working together. Biological weaponry needs to be curtailed. And that requires fixing the biological warfare treaty and making it enforceable. COVID-19 was the product of an American bioweapons lab, and it was most likely a deliberate American attack on China and Iran. In a world in which the leading nation is pursuing such policies and wasting vast amounts of money, forcing the whole world into a desperate struggle to protect itself from this crazed declining hegemon, how is the world going to address the environmental issues, the threats posed by runaway artificial intelligence, the threats of biological warfare, and so many similar threats?

All of these issues require international cooperation.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Ahnaf Ibn Qais discusses today’s article “The End of ‘Israel’ & The Death of Zionism: Why Time has run out for the Neo-Crusader European Settler Colony in West Asia.” Excerpt from the article:

Contrary to ‘Israeli’ Hasbara, the Zionists are not a people who ‘made the desert bloom’ courtesy of their own autarkic, innovative nature. Instead, the vast majority of ‘Israeli’ economic activity is heavily subsidized by their American poodles:

US subsidies for the ‘Israelis,’ when inflation is factored in, amount to some 300 billion USD or so, spanning 1946-2022. This averages to around ~4 billion USD per annum, which for a 600 billion USD economy is a significant amount in its budget sheet.

‘Israeli’ society thus runs like a Neo-Crusader military garrison with the organs of a state apparatus. The American poodles fork over substantial funds to subsidize healthcare, services, munitions, etc., while the Apartheid regime spends on the military:

This has meant an extraordinarily fragile & plump system that no longer can fight a peer-to-peer conflict, opting instead for heavy-handed military policing operations against a primarily defenceless civilian population residing in Gazah & the West Bank.

Excerpt from the interview:

Ahnaf Ibn Qais: A case can be made that we're now getting to the point where all the signs of collapse are basically in front of us. And we simply have to take the extra step and simply acknowledge that, OK, this is precisely what it is we're seeing. Right. And there is no ironclad rule which says that, OK, a country X or country Y has to exist forever. Right. There's no such rule for that, especially for like a stolen land such as Palestine, which the Israelis have occupied for so long. With regard to what those signs are, I think I outlined them, but basically there's five.

And Ilan Pape, the historian—once upon a time he called himself an Israeli, but now he's too ashamed to do so because of all the crimes and genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place. But it was his idea that actually we're seeing these five things play out right now. And the first one really is the fact that even prior to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which the Palestinian Joint Operations Room conducted, Israeli society was teetering، because the ultra right wing fascists in government, Ben Gavir and his cronies, were running around like mobbing people, engaging in pogroms and all the other stuff, right? And so they were already diplomatically isolated, right?

In addition to that, the resistance axes in the region, the Islamic resistance axes and their Christian allies, were already fighting back tooth and nail and making significant headway. And this is before October 7th, right? So when they did the Huara pogrom on February, they met with a lot of resistance even back then. And they expected a full-scale massacre, a one-sided massacre, but they were super surprised when the savages and the brown and black untermenschen fought back, right?

So that was quite surprising for them. They got a bloody nose from that. And, you know, post-October 7th, you've seen global solidarity for the Palestinian cause flower. You've seen really a situation where…I think George Galloway said it best. He said that once upon a time, if I look for the pro-Palestinian crowd in London, I could probably snugly fit them in Wembley Stadium. But now there's like millions and millions of decent, fair-minded people of faith, no faith, Jew, non-Jew, Muslim, non-Muslim, who have taken the view that, this illegal entity can no longer stand. And so we have to be for Team Palestine because being on Team Palestine is being on Team Humanity, right? That's the second reason.

The third reason is of course the economic implosion of the Israeli economy, which we're seeing live before our eyes. In the last quarter of 2023 they lost 20 percent of their GDP, so that's like well over 100 billion dollars evaporating.

The fourth reason is the so-called most moral army in the world being unable to beat barefooted resistance fighters wearing khakis and adidas flip-flops and tracksuits.

And the last reason, which some people actually don't think about, is that Jewish populations all across the world, whether it's in the States or Europe or elsewhere, actually don't like Israel anymore because they are conducting a genocide and ethnic cleansing in their name.

And most Jewish people are decent and fair minded and they want no part in this drivel. So that, in a nutshell, is why I personally see the doom coming for this vile settler colony.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com