Truth Jihad Radio

Oliver Boyd-Barrett is one of the few American academic experts courageous enough to challenge US and Zionist war propaganda. His article “Crocus Hall in Context: America is Behind This 100% (Ritter)” raises  good questions including: “Did Victoria Nuland have any role in the Crocus Hall acts of terrorism?” His latest article “The Morality and Hypocrisy of Proxy War in a Nuclear Age” opines:

In so many different ways, there is a danger of escalation of the conflict to nuclear status. John Mearsheimer, in interview yesterday with Napolitano, seems to think this is only a small risk. But because the danger of nuclear war may only be “small,” its consequences are unimaginably awful, and the “smallness” of risk (and of course there is plenty of scope for disagreement with Mearsheimer’s assessment) is hardly a good reason for engaging in behavior that breathes continuing life into that small risk.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett is an emeritus professor of Bowling Green State University, Ohio and of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (California). He continues to teach at the California State University, Camarillo and undertakes occasional lecturing for the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He co-edited  Russiagate Revisited: Aftermath of a Hoax and has authored or edited many other books.

Excerpt:

I really admire your substack. It's crisp, succinct, very detailed. You are keeping abreast of the best alternative media sources as well as the mainstream sources and coming to very sensible conclusions. I guess my first question is, why aren't there more people doing this? There are a lot of smart people in the academy in the West. And most of them are just going along with the outrageous lies and the completely insane and immoral as well as non-strategic foreign policy that the empire is pursuing. So why are you one of a minority?

Well, I think there are two or three different answers to that question, Kevin. First of all, as you can hear, I don't come originally from America. I was born in Ireland. I am an Irish citizen as well as a US citizen. Because of my Irish connections, I am steeped in the history of anti-imperial resistance, in this case the empire being the British Empire. And that's a very useful background for developing a critical consciousness about any form of imperialistic activity. So that's one part of it, at least so far as explaining my own dissidence is concerned.

We're probably cousins, Oliver, since my grandfather was an Irish Barrett.

Indeed, and thank you for mentioning that. Barrett is a very Irish surname and particularly I believe in County Cork where I still have some relatives.

We actually went to County Cork in search of lost relations. Didn't really find any, but maybe I'll go back.

They got out while they could before Ireland was taken over by the neoliberal cabal. But I think, going back to your first question, why is it that there is so little dissidence? I think two factors principally come to mind. First off is the absorption of our mainstream media within the power establishment. Mainstream media have nearly always been mere cogs in much larger corporate machines whose wealth puts them at the very heart of US capitalism. And they have very little interest in upsetting the apple cart against their own business interests in order to be able to stay in the business of running mainstream media enterprises today. You have to be at peace with political authority or you cannot survive. This is true of almost any country, by the way. You cannot survive as a mainstream medium today if you have set yourself in hostile relationship to those who have the hands on political and economic power. So that's always been true. I think it works in cycles. I think borrowing from the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, there are periods when there is so much rivalry, there is so much conflict within elites, that a certain space is opened out for critical thought and critical discourse. And there are periods when that space almost disappears and I think we are at such a moment now. And the reason why the space, the window, so to speak, for dissent in the mainstream media is now so narrow is because the Western world is so threatened. It is a long time since the collective West has felt so threatened—in this instance by the emergence of a multipolar world led first and foremost by China.

So I think the fact that the mainstream media are now so tight with the other centers of power in our society means that even intelligent people who have never been exposed to media studies or never thought very much about the quality of their information infrastructure, their media infrastructure, they're far, far too accepting of the narratives that are spun day by day by organs such as the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or the Times of London or the Guardian. That is truer now than ever before. They (big media) are arms of the state where matters of the existential survival of the collective West are concerned.

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

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

Excerpts:

I think there is a new wave of outraged skepticism building now (about MSM coverage of Occupied Palestine) very much like after 9-11 with the 9-11 Truth Movement. And at that time, it was driven by the—at that point—free, uncensored internet. You mentioned social media, but actually social media has made things worse. Prior to the rise of social media the way the internet worked was essentially people linked each other's websites and so it was all a matter of you know finding your way from link to link, website to website, and nobody was filtering it. And also people were emailing each other sources. Then the search engines came along. The search engines would just show you largely what was popular, so whatever people were looking at was what you would get on the search engines.

Once the truth movement really started rolling by maybe 2004 or 2005 and especially 2006, whatever you were Googling about 9-11, the first thing you were going to see was pro-9-11 truth material, because that's what people were interested in. And that worried the powers that be.

Cass Sunstein, who was essentially the Minister of Information for the Obama administration, wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review in I think 2008. It was published as a book in 2010 called Conspiracy Theories, Causes and Cures. And in that book, Obama's information czar said that conspiracy theories, starting with 9-11 conspiracy theories, are so dangerous that someday it might be necessary to make them illegal. But in the meantime, what the government needed to do to get a handle on them was to perform “cognitive infiltration.”

What that really meant, of course, was to infiltrate and to spread nonsense, spread crazy conspiracy theories, make sure that everybody interested in 9-11 truth sees lots of flat earth stuff on their feeds. And that wasn't very easy to do in 2008 or 2010. But as social media took over, and the powers that be got their hands on the levers of the social media feeds… The thing about social media is that on Facebook you're allowing the Zionist Mark Zuckerberg to determine what you see. On Twitter you're allowing Elon Musk to determine what you see. Maybe he has a slightly looser policy

And in all of these cases you're allowing to some extent the US government to determine what you see. We've seen the the tip of the iceberg with the twitter files and related material. So the rise of social media actually didn't help.

Now they make sure that you you'll never find the 9-11 material that used to be so easy to find. I used to be able to just find my own references, stuff I had done, on Google. Now finding myself on Google is very difficult, even though I've got one post with five million views, but I'm totally shadowbanned from Google and from essentially everyplace else. And so are a lot of other people with my kinds of views.

The point being that 9-11 truth spread because there was a free internet at that time. Today TikTok is the big driver of the truth about the genocide of Gaza, and that's why the majority of 18 to 24 year old Americans support the Palestinian resistance, which is a shocking amazing and wonderful statistic. And that's being driven primarily by TikTok which does not impose Zionist censorship and shadow banning and algorithm tweaking. All the American sites do. They can't keep a complete lid on truthful information about Gaza but they can spin the whole conversation in such a way that it covers up the the depth of (Zionist) depravity.

The hasbara trolls don't rule TikTok and the reason for that is that they're only so prominent on these other platforms because the owners of the platforms make sure that they are. If you have a platform that doesn't give the hasbara trolls special privileges, then they shrink down to the actual percentage of real human beings that support that line, which is very, very small.

(When a psychopath goes to court) the non-psychopath that they're up against stays within a reasonable distance of the truth when they testify. So the judge tends to split the difference. The judge doesn't realize that what we have here is a total psychopathic pathological liar versus a (more or less) truth teller, so the judge splits the difference and says: well the psychopath says it says it's 10 billion dollars and the truth teller says it's a hundred dollars, so the reality must be like five billion dollars, so i'm gonna give the psychopath five billion dollars. That's kind of how it works with the Zionists. They have managed to they lie so outrageously that a lot of average Americans hear the Palestinian case which is basically truthful, and they hear the Zionist case, which is an outrageous fantasy of lies, and they think, well the truth must be sort of in between. They must have a lot of right on both sides.

They're artists in deflection as well they'll admit nothing they will deny everything and they will deflect constantly like if you have a certain valid criticism valid criticism that can be valid for every single political entity on earth for every politician every prime minister every country all of a sudden when it comes to Israel it's anti-semitic why is it anti-semitic hold on a second if I criticize Saudi Arabia am I criticizing Islam? If I'm criticizing Turkey, am I criticizing Islam? If I criticize any Western Christian country, am I criticizing Christianity, or am I criticizing a political entity? And do I not have the right to express myself? And why is it the case with Israel that I can't express myself? Otherwise I would be deemed as an anti-Semite.

Yeah, it's completely mind boggling how that situation developed. To very briefly sketch how we arrived at this crazy place, I think that in the United States there's a struggle for power between ethnic groups. And the United States was founded by and dominated by white anglo-saxon Protestants roughly until world war II, or a little bit thereafter. Then subsequent to World War II there was essentially a takeover by Jewish Americans.

How did that takeover happen, in your opinion?

I think it was largely enabled by the war propaganda of World War Two. President Roosevelt wanted to get the United States into World War Two, for his own self-aggrandizement so he could remain president for a long time, and then lead the world's most powerful country. He saw that the US could emerge from the war as basically ruling the world.

The pro-war faction had to drag the American people into World War II kicking and screaming, because prior to the Pearl Harbor in December 1941, about 80% of the American people were against entering the war. So the shock effect of Pearl Harbor, which was actually engineered by Roosevelt's administration and the British, shocked the American people into supporting entry into World War II. That war was the biggest, bloodiest war ever. And it left tremendous scars. The allies, including the United States, committed unimaginable atrocitiesL firebombing cities and burning a hundred thousand plus people to death, nuclear bombs, and so on

And then after the war the mistreatment of Germans was just unbelievable. Eisenhower penned up a million German POWs in barbed wire cages and let them die of exposure and starvation, murdered a million German prisoners of war, and millions of other Germans were murdered in the ethnic cleansing of Germans from lands that would be taken away from Germany post-World War II. So there really was a holocaust in World War II and it was a holocaust of the Germans.

And of all the war criminals in World War Two—and Hitler, of course, was one of them—probably the Allies and the Japanese were the biggest war criminals, not the Germans. But the war propaganda that was generated during World War II became the victor's history. It was enshrined in Nuremberg trials.

And then it was widely assumed by well-informed people, at least in the United States, that the story of a six million Jews dying, millions of then in gas chambers, and so on was just typical war propaganda, like the Germans bayonetting Belgian babies in World War I. And so there was very little consciousness of any Holocaust throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s. The Jewish ethnic lobby had been the only place that really paid any attention to this war propaganda about a gas chamber Holocaust in World War II. And that lobby then became so powerful after the 1967 war that the Holocaust was turned into the West's de facto state religion. The way you know what the official religion of a place is is what's sacred, and what you will be sanctioned, brutally sanctioned in some cases, for saying. That’s heresy.

Here in Morocco, of course, Islam is the religion. So whatever is blasphemous is basically what Islam considers blasphemous.

(In the West) this state religion (Holocaustianity) is enforced with blasphemy laws, and you can be imprisoned for for doubting the official dogma.

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

Excerpts:

I think there is a new wave of outraged skepticism building now (about MSM coverage of Occupied Palestine) very much like after 9-11 with the 9-11 Truth Movement. And at that time, it was driven by the—at that point—free, uncensored internet. You mentioned social media, but actually social media has made things worse. Prior to the rise of social media the way the internet worked was essentially people linked each other's websites and so it was all a matter of you know finding your way from link to link, website to website, and nobody was filtering it. And also people were emailing each other sources. Then the search engines came along. The search engines would just show you largely what was popular, so whatever people were looking at was what you would get on the search engines.

Once the truth movement really started rolling by maybe 2004 or 2005 and especially 2006, whatever you were Googling about 9-11, the first thing you were going to see was pro-9-11 truth material, because that's what people were interested in. And that worried the powers that be.

Cass Sunstein, who was essentially the Minister of Information for the Obama administration, wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review in I think 2008. It was published as a book in 2010 called Conspiracy Theories, Causes and Cures. And in that book, Obama's information czar said that conspiracy theories, starting with 9-11 conspiracy theories, are so dangerous that someday it might be necessary to make them illegal. But in the meantime, what the government needed to do to get a handle on them was to perform “cognitive infiltration.”

What that really meant, of course, was to infiltrate and to spread nonsense, spread crazy conspiracy theories, make sure that everybody interested in 9-11 truth sees lots of flat earth stuff on their feeds. And that wasn't very easy to do in 2008 or 2010. But as social media took over, and the powers that be got their hands on the levers of the social media feeds… The thing about social media is that on Facebook you're allowing the Zionist Mark Zuckerberg to determine what you see. On Twitter you're allowing Elon Musk to determine what you see. Maybe he has a slightly looser policy

And in all of these cases you're allowing to some extent the US government to determine what you see. We've seen the the tip of the iceberg with the twitter files and related material. So the rise of social media actually didn't help.

Now they make sure that you you'll never find the 9-11 material that used to be so easy to find. I used to be able to just find my own references, stuff I had done, on Google. Now finding myself on Google is very difficult, even though I've got one post with five million views, but I'm totally shadowbanned from Google and from essentially everyplace else. And so are a lot of other people with my kinds of views.

The point being that 9-11 truth spread because there was a free internet at that time. Today TikTok is the big driver of the truth about the genocide of Gaza, and that's why the majority of 18 to 24 year old Americans support the Palestinian resistance, which is a shocking amazing and wonderful statistic. And that's being driven primarily by TikTok which does not impose Zionist censorship and shadow banning and algorithm tweaking. All the American sites do. They can't keep a complete lid on truthful information about Gaza but they can spin the whole conversation in such a way that it covers up the the depth of (Zionist) depravity.

The hasbara trolls don't rule TikTok and the reason for that is that they're only so prominent on these other platforms because the owners of the platforms make sure that they are. If you have a platform that doesn't give the hasbara trolls special privileges, then they shrink down to the actual percentage of real human beings that support that line, which is very, very small.

(When a psychopath goes to court) the non-psychopath that they're up against stays within a reasonable distance of the truth when they testify. So the judge tends to split the difference. The judge doesn't realize that what we have here is a total psychopathic pathological liar versus a (more or less) truth teller, so the judge splits the difference and says: well the psychopath says it says it's 10 billion dollars and the truth teller says it's a hundred dollars, so the reality must be like five billion dollars, so i'm gonna give the psychopath five billion dollars. That's kind of how it works with the Zionists. They have managed to they lie so outrageously that a lot of average Americans hear the Palestinian case which is basically truthful, and they hear the Zionist case, which is an outrageous fantasy of lies, and they think, well the truth must be sort of in between. They must have a lot of right on both sides.

They're artists in deflection as well they'll admit nothing they will deny everything and they will deflect constantly like if you have a certain valid criticism valid criticism that can be valid for every single political entity on earth for every politician every prime minister every country all of a sudden when it comes to Israel it's anti-semitic why is it anti-semitic hold on a second if I criticize Saudi Arabia am I criticizing Islam? If I'm criticizing Turkey, am I criticizing Islam? If I criticize any Western Christian country, am I criticizing Christianity, or am I criticizing a political entity? And do I not have the right to express myself? And why is it the case with Israel that I can't express myself? Otherwise I would be deemed as an anti-Semite.

Yeah, it's completely mind boggling how that situation developed. To very briefly sketch how we arrived at this crazy place, I think that in the United States there's a struggle for power between ethnic groups. And the United States was founded by and dominated by white anglo-saxon Protestants roughly until world war II, or a little bit thereafter. Then subsequent to World War II there was essentially a takeover by Jewish Americans.

How did that takeover happen, in your opinion?

I think it was largely enabled by the war propaganda of World War Two. President Roosevelt wanted to get the United States into World War Two, for his own self-aggrandizement so he could remain president for a long time, and then lead the world's most powerful country. He saw that the US could emerge from the war as basically ruling the world.

The pro-war faction had to drag the American people into World War II kicking and screaming, because prior to the Pearl Harbor in December 1941, about 80% of the American people were against entering the war. So the shock effect of Pearl Harbor, which was actually engineered by Roosevelt's administration and the British, shocked the American people into supporting entry into World War II. That war was the biggest, bloodiest war ever. And it left tremendous scars. The allies, including the United States, committed unimaginable atrocitiesL firebombing cities and burning a hundred thousand plus people to death, nuclear bombs, and so on

And then after the war the mistreatment of Germans was just unbelievable. Eisenhower penned up a million German POWs in barbed wire cages and let them die of exposure and starvation, murdered a million German prisoners of war, and millions of other Germans were murdered in the ethnic cleansing of Germans from lands that would be taken away from Germany post-World War II. So there really was a holocaust in World War II and it was a holocaust of the Germans.

And of all the war criminals in World War Two—and Hitler, of course, was one of them—probably the Allies and the Japanese were the biggest war criminals, not the Germans. But the war propaganda that was generated during World War II became the victor's history. It was enshrined in Nuremberg trials.

And then it was widely assumed by well-informed people, at least in the United States, that the story of a six million Jews dying, millions of then in gas chambers, and so on was just typical war propaganda, like the Germans bayonetting Belgian babies in World War I. And so there was very little consciousness of any Holocaust throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s. The Jewish ethnic lobby had been the only place that really paid any attention to this war propaganda about a gas chamber Holocaust in World War II. And that lobby then became so powerful after the 1967 war that the Holocaust was turned into the West's de facto state religion. The way you know what the official religion of a place is is what's sacred, and what you will be sanctioned, brutally sanctioned in some cases, for saying. That’s heresy.

Here in Morocco, of course, Islam is the religion. So whatever is blasphemous is basically what Islam considers blasphemous.

(In the West) this state religion (Holocaustianity) is enforced with blasphemy laws, and you can be imprisoned for for doubting the official dogma.

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

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

This week, instead of the regular weekly news roundup, False Flag Weekly News presents a special edition on “The Zio-American Empire vs. China” featuring Cat McGuire questioning bullish-on-China Jeff Brown. Sample:

Cat McGuire: We know that the mainstream media gives us completely propagandized versions of everything, but I think that's on steroids with China…I have come to the conclusion that the ultimate clash is going to be with Zog, the Zionist occupied countries, going up against China. What do you think about all of these wars that seem to have so much elite Jewish cabal influence behind them and China being stepped up as probably the next world's (#1) power?

Jeff Brown: Thank you. It's a great question. And I don't know if I'm up to the task, but I'll do the best that I can. China, of course, is not Manichean. They do not think in terms of us versus them. They're very holistic. They're very Taoist and Confucius and Buddhist. And they are multipolar, and they're very circular, they're very elliptical in the way that they work with people.

So as far as Zionism and Jews, I don't think that even registers with the Chinese. But Western imperialism, global capitalism, is definitely in the minds of the Chinese, and they identify the world's problems through the lens of Western imperialism and global capitalism. Now, how much Western imperialism and global capitalism is affected by ZOG, as you say? I had not heard that before, so thank you for teaching me that. I always say the Anglo-Zionist empire. But how much that group of people is affecting Western policy…

I will say that the Chinese are absolutely revolted, I mean absolutely disgusted with what's going on in Palestine and they've tried so hard to do what they can in the UN and going to the Middle East and meeting people and trying to get it to stop.

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

This week, instead of the regular weekly news roundup, False Flag Weekly News presents a special edition on “The Zio-American Empire vs. China” featuring Cat McGuire questioning bullish-on-China Jeff Brown. Sample:

Cat McGuire: We know that the mainstream media gives us completely propagandized versions of everything, but I think that's on steroids with China…I have come to the conclusion that the ultimate clash is going to be with Zog, the Zionist occupied countries, going up against China. What do you think about all of these wars that seem to have so much elite Jewish cabal influence behind them and China being stepped up as probably the next world's (#1) power?

Jeff Brown: Thank you. It's a great question. And I don't know if I'm up to the task, but I'll do the best that I can. China, of course, is not Manichean. They do not think in terms of us versus them. They're very holistic. They're very Taoist and Confucius and Buddhist. And they are multipolar, and they're very circular, they're very elliptical in the way that they work with people.

So as far as Zionism and Jews, I don't think that even registers with the Chinese. But Western imperialism, global capitalism, is definitely in the minds of the Chinese, and they identify the world's problems through the lens of Western imperialism and global capitalism. Now, how much Western imperialism and global capitalism is affected by ZOG, as you say? I had not heard that before, so thank you for teaching me that. I always say the Anglo-Zionist empire. But how much that group of people is affecting Western policy…

I will say that the Chinese are absolutely revolted, I mean absolutely disgusted with what's going on in Palestine and they've tried so hard to do what they can in the UN and going to the Middle East and meeting people and trying to get it to stop.

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

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

Rick Sterling discusses his new article “Olympic Doping Case, Global Politics and the Sacrificing of Kamila Valieva: Here is how the West robbed and abused the best figure skater in the world, Kamila Valieva, while provoking the war in Ukraine.” His conclusion: “it is likely that US secret services intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and ‘unbalance’ the adversary.” We’ll also discuss his previous article “From Dallas to Gaza: How JFK’s Assassination Was Good for Zionist Israel.“

Excerpt from the end of the interview:

Of all the people who are masters of really grotesquely mendacious propaganda, the Zionists probably win the prize. And so let's talk about your other article, “From Dallas to Gaza, How JFK's Assassination Was Good for Zionist Israel.”

You're not the only person who's been saying things like this. Ray McGovern, for example, just recently in an interview with Judge Napolitano, made a kind of similar, much shorter remark that suggested that he was aware of the case that was first developed by Michael Collins Piper that Israel played the lead role in the Kennedy assassinations.

Your article doesn't really get into the pinning of the responsibility of the assassinations. It simply points out who benefits, and that most people—like I was a Kennedy assassination buff from the mid 1970s through the early 1990s, I don't remember anybody noticing that Israel had benefited so greatly from the assassination.

Right. It's been extremely well hidden. And I was very surprised myself to discover all these things. And I did it because I helped to organize an event in November of last year which was the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

So in the course of, and I've written previous articles about JFK and foreign policy. There's the book, JFK and the Unspeakable, which is very good and which has a lot of information about JFK's moves toward peace and negotiation and compromise with the Soviet Union. He really had a very different notion of foreign policy. The Vietnam War would very likely not have happened if he had continued as president. The assassination or the coup in Indonesia in 1965 would not have happened. In fact, he had accepted an invitation from Sukarno to visit Indonesia. So he was friendly to President Sukarno of Indonesia, who was a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement.

So he had a completely different foreign policy, and I was very much aware of that. But as I started looking into it—and I've always been interested and concerned with the situation in Palestine and Israel—I started looking, seeing things that were really interesting, and specific cases (including) the literature that's come out in the last few years about Dimona, the nuclear facility in Israel, and the development of the nuclear bomb at Dimona and the war of words through secret letters between the Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and Kennedy.

Some of this documentation has only been released in recent years. And when I looked at the actual letters, it was astounding because in diplomatic language, JFK was laying down the law. He was giving the ultimatum to Ben Gurion that the U.S. needed to inspect this nuclear facility that was under construction at the time.

And then I started looking into other elements and I discovered, to my surprise, at that time in 1963, the U.S. was not giving any military aid to Israel. All it gave was food and humanitarian supplies. And the U.S. was supporting the Palestinian right of return, U.N. Resolution 194.

And of course, I knew from the past that Kennedy had been very friendly with Gamal Abdel Nasser, the nationalist president of Egypt, and that Kennedy had supported Algerian independence against France.

So it became clear that Kennedy really was on a different wavelength and was conducting a very different policy than than not only is it happening now, but happened immediately after his death.

Another interesting element is that the parent organization that gave birth to AIPAC was the Zionists of America and the Kennedy administration was adamant that they needed to register under the FARA Act as foreign agents. You can imagine how big a change that would be if AIPAC was not allowed to do all the sorts of things that they're able to do, and be recognized as agents of a foreign country and required to fulfill all the obligations that organizations so designated have to comply with.

So I identified the four different areas where Kennedy's policy was really different and how the evolution of Israel could have been really different than it has been. LBJ was completely subservient to Israel and dependent on Israel. Kennedy's death and LBJ's assumption of the presidency really cemented hardcore Zionism and prevented the possibility of a peaceful resolution whereby the Jewish people in Israel and the Palestinian people could find some kind of a workable compromise.

And that's what JFK was working towards and that's what ended.

It was also news to me and very interesting that there was a lot of opposition to Zionism, and to a militant supremacist state of Israel, both within Israel and within the American Jewish community. In fact, my article was just recently reprinted by the American Council for Judaism, which at the time in the 1940s and 50s and even into the 60s was a very prominent Jewish organization. It was anti-Zionist.

And so a lot of bad things happened with the JFK assassination.

That's putting it mildly. You quote JFK as telling the Zionists, quote, “I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate.” Well, that could have been said last week, right?

This new Nakba might be even worse than the first one. And the first one has earned them the absolute enmity of a billion people in their region. And this one—you know, it's going to be off the charts. Do they really think that this is a good way to get on in that region and in the world?

Yeah, I think that's a great quote from JFK. It’s from a speech he was campaigning to be president in 1960. He was speaking before the Zionists of America. And he said various complimentary things about Israel, but Kennedy was clear. He spoke clearly. He spoke without subterfuge. It wasn't just a PR exercise or a campaign promotion.

And as you say, that sentence could have been delivered last week. And it's definitely the case that they have followed the path of—Kennedy said he hoped they wouldn't be, or he couldn't imagine that they would want to be, a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate, but that's obviously what—

It was a failure of imagination.

I guess it's what they wanted in a way, but they claim they want security. The Zionists always claim they want security and that's why they “have to eliminate Hamas.” Well, they're doing it by killing tens of thousands of people. They're just engendering more hate.

It just seems kind of preposterous that they really think that implanting the settler colony in this part of the world and making the whole region just absolutely loathe them is somehow going to work out well for them. It's just mind boggling. There are various analyses of where that mentality comes from. I know you mentioned that you've read Lauren Guyenot's book, JFK 9-11. Laurent Guyenot also wrote From Yahweh to Zion, which I translated and published. It’s an analysis of Jewish identity politics and the influence of Jewish religion on it over the centuries. And he speculates that there is actually a religious factor involved. He thinks that the Torah or Old Testament is kind of at the heart of it.

But we are seeing now a kind of a rethinking by a lot of people looking at the genocide of Gaza and the way it's being misreported in the media, and noticing that there's something very, very wrong here. Do you have any thoughts about what's led to this Zionist mentality that's so obviously genocidal and also self-destructive?

Yes. I think the Kennedy assassination was pivotal because before his assassination, there were strong voices (including) prominent Jewish voices in America, including Albert Einstein, who were vehemently against (hardline Zionism). They were calling the super Zionists terrorists and fascists. And there was the philosopher Martin Buber. There were a lot of prominent voices both within Israel and within the U.S. who wanted to find some kind of accommodation.

And it's interesting about JFK. He went there in 1939 and he spent some time in Israel. And then he wrote a very lengthy letter to his father about his observations. And one of his observations is still true today. He said it's very much divided between a hardcore fundamentalist community that is unwilling to make any compromise and a more liberal community that's really at odds with the hardcore religious fanatics.

But is that still true, Rick? Because the polls today show that from 2008 on, Operation Cast Lead and each of these mowings of the lawn in Gaza are supported by a near-unanimous chunk of Jewish-Israeli public opinion. Not the Arab-Israeli public opinion, of course. Arabs are 20% of the population of Israel. But among the Jews of Israel, 90% plus support these massacres and genocides.

So what's changed?

I spent the summer of 2007 living with a Palestinian family in Palestine, but traveling around Palestine and Israel. And I remember going to a rally in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. And it was really heartening to see thousands of young Israeli families marching against the occupation, saying that you can't be democratic and Jewish at the same time. That was a contradiction of terms to say you're a democracy, but have preferential treatment for one ethnic group.

That was very heartening. It was a minority then. And I think you're exactly right that it's an even smaller minority now. The lock-hold of Zionist ideology, of ethnic supremacy, has really gained ground.

But the pivotal point about the JFK, what happened after his death was that the Zionists of America and AIPAC were not required to register as agents of a foreign government. The U.S. reneged on UN Resolution 194 respecting rights for Palestinian refugees and looked the other way as Israel proceeded to develop the nuclear bomb.

And then in 1967, of course, you had the Six Day War, which was pivotal, both within Israel and within the American Jewish community, because everybody loves a winner, and here they were winning in six days, and everything seemed to be rosy. That was a huge turning point. And even at that point you could tell the sense of impunity was pretty astounding. It was because LBJ was in office that the Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty off the coast of Egypt during the Six-Day War, killed 34 US sailors, injured another 194, and tried to sink the ship with the intention of blaming it on Egypt and then consolidating the support of the US with Israel against Egypt and the Soviet Union.

That's what I think it was the objective. But in any case, that happened, and LBJ looked the other way. He said, “I can't allow our ally to be embarrassed” when a US ship has been directly attacked. But since then, it's gone on, up to the current time.

I think October 7 is reversing what happened in June 1967. The prison break that Hamas and other militant groups waged on October 7, successfully attacking military checkpoints and showing the weakness of the Israeli military, and then the subsequent inability of the Israeli military to crush Hamas, and the ongoing genocide, have reversed it.

The whole world is reacting with horror. And I think the false image of a supremacist and unbeatable Israel has been effectively ended.

Yeah, I agree. So where will it go? The U.S. empire seems to be losing in Ukraine and will very likely lose to China, which is still growing a lot faster than the U.S. and the West are, and then with this situation in Gaza where the whole global south, especially the nearly two billion strong Muslim world and certainly this region, is turning strongly against the U.S. and ready for a post-American empire world.

So at some point, will Israel either have to change or go down due to the U.S. empire no longer being able to prop it up?

Well, that's the $64,000 question. What will they do in failure, whether it's Israel or it's the United States? In some ways, they're kind of joined at the hip, unfortunately. It speaks very poorly of American democracy that you can have 75% of the U.S. population wanting a ceasefire in Gaza and yet the U.S. administration has consistently denied that. They vetoed it in the U.N.

And what's happened in the last 24 hours at the U.N. was kind of a smokescreen, it was a pretend ceasefire resolution from the U.S. which was vetoed by China and Russia because they didn't want to go along with a smokescreen pretend-ceasefire resolution that wasn't anything of the sort.

So it's bad for the U.S., it's bad for Israel. And how to find a way out of it? How to find a way out of the U.S. spending a trillion dollars a year on the empire as our own infrastructure falls apart, as society breaks up in Israel through all of its contradictions.

I guess the danger is that some crazies will get power and that that Israel will use a nuclear weapon, which they have, or the U.S. and their puppets in West Europe will keep provoking the situation there instead of realizing that it's not that bad if Ukraine is neutral. What's so bad about that? And if the people in the eastern Ukraine want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine, that should be their right.

The people in Crimea—and I've been to Crimea twice, and it's it's not close. 90% of the population wants to be part of Russia.

What's so bad about Ukraine being neutral? And what's so bad about ending apartheid in Israel and having one person one vote? The Jewish people in Israel will do fine. They've got the education and all the advantages that they've had. What's wrong with having an equal state and ending apartheid and ending the occupation? It costs them a tremendous amount financially to maintain the apartheid state, to maintain the occupation. All of that could be done away with and they would have vastly more security if they didn't have their foot on the neck of the Palestinian population, which is about the same size as the Jewish population.

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

Rick Sterling discusses his new article “Olympic Doping Case, Global Politics and the Sacrificing of Kamila Valieva: Here is how the West robbed and abused the best figure skater in the world, Kamila Valieva, while provoking the war in Ukraine.” His conclusion: “it is likely that US secret services intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and ‘unbalance’ the adversary.” We’ll also discuss his previous article “From Dallas to Gaza: How JFK’s Assassination Was Good for Zionist Israel.“

Excerpt from the end of the interview:

Of all the people who are masters of really grotesquely mendacious propaganda, the Zionists probably win the prize. And so let's talk about your other article, “From Dallas to Gaza, How JFK's Assassination Was Good for Zionist Israel.”

You're not the only person who's been saying things like this. Ray McGovern, for example, just recently in an interview with Judge Napolitano, made a kind of similar, much shorter remark that suggested that he was aware of the case that was first developed by Michael Collins Piper that Israel played the lead role in the Kennedy assassinations.

Your article doesn't really get into the pinning of the responsibility of the assassinations. It simply points out who benefits, and that most people—like I was a Kennedy assassination buff from the mid 1970s through the early 1990s, I don't remember anybody noticing that Israel had benefited so greatly from the assassination.

Right. It's been extremely well hidden. And I was very surprised myself to discover all these things. And I did it because I helped to organize an event in November of last year which was the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

So in the course of, and I've written previous articles about JFK and foreign policy. There's the book, JFK and the Unspeakable, which is very good and which has a lot of information about JFK's moves toward peace and negotiation and compromise with the Soviet Union. He really had a very different notion of foreign policy. The Vietnam War would very likely not have happened if he had continued as president. The assassination or the coup in Indonesia in 1965 would not have happened. In fact, he had accepted an invitation from Sukarno to visit Indonesia. So he was friendly to President Sukarno of Indonesia, who was a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement.

So he had a completely different foreign policy, and I was very much aware of that. But as I started looking into it—and I've always been interested and concerned with the situation in Palestine and Israel—I started looking, seeing things that were really interesting, and specific cases (including) the literature that's come out in the last few years about Dimona, the nuclear facility in Israel, and the development of the nuclear bomb at Dimona and the war of words through secret letters between the Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and Kennedy.

Some of this documentation has only been released in recent years. And when I looked at the actual letters, it was astounding because in diplomatic language, JFK was laying down the law. He was giving the ultimatum to Ben Gurion that the U.S. needed to inspect this nuclear facility that was under construction at the time.

And then I started looking into other elements and I discovered, to my surprise, at that time in 1963, the U.S. was not giving any military aid to Israel. All it gave was food and humanitarian supplies. And the U.S. was supporting the Palestinian right of return, U.N. Resolution 194.

And of course, I knew from the past that Kennedy had been very friendly with Gamal Abdel Nasser, the nationalist president of Egypt, and that Kennedy had supported Algerian independence against France.

So it became clear that Kennedy really was on a different wavelength and was conducting a very different policy than than not only is it happening now, but happened immediately after his death.

Another interesting element is that the parent organization that gave birth to AIPAC was the Zionists of America and the Kennedy administration was adamant that they needed to register under the FARA Act as foreign agents. You can imagine how big a change that would be if AIPAC was not allowed to do all the sorts of things that they're able to do, and be recognized as agents of a foreign country and required to fulfill all the obligations that organizations so designated have to comply with.

So I identified the four different areas where Kennedy's policy was really different and how the evolution of Israel could have been really different than it has been. LBJ was completely subservient to Israel and dependent on Israel. Kennedy's death and LBJ's assumption of the presidency really cemented hardcore Zionism and prevented the possibility of a peaceful resolution whereby the Jewish people in Israel and the Palestinian people could find some kind of a workable compromise.

And that's what JFK was working towards and that's what ended.

It was also news to me and very interesting that there was a lot of opposition to Zionism, and to a militant supremacist state of Israel, both within Israel and within the American Jewish community. In fact, my article was just recently reprinted by the American Council for Judaism, which at the time in the 1940s and 50s and even into the 60s was a very prominent Jewish organization. It was anti-Zionist.

And so a lot of bad things happened with the JFK assassination.

That's putting it mildly. You quote JFK as telling the Zionists, quote, “I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate.” Well, that could have been said last week, right?

This new Nakba might be even worse than the first one. And the first one has earned them the absolute enmity of a billion people in their region. And this one—you know, it's going to be off the charts. Do they really think that this is a good way to get on in that region and in the world?

Yeah, I think that's a great quote from JFK. It’s from a speech he was campaigning to be president in 1960. He was speaking before the Zionists of America. And he said various complimentary things about Israel, but Kennedy was clear. He spoke clearly. He spoke without subterfuge. It wasn't just a PR exercise or a campaign promotion.

And as you say, that sentence could have been delivered last week. And it's definitely the case that they have followed the path of—Kennedy said he hoped they wouldn't be, or he couldn't imagine that they would want to be, a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate, but that's obviously what—

It was a failure of imagination.

I guess it's what they wanted in a way, but they claim they want security. The Zionists always claim they want security and that's why they “have to eliminate Hamas.” Well, they're doing it by killing tens of thousands of people. They're just engendering more hate.

It just seems kind of preposterous that they really think that implanting the settler colony in this part of the world and making the whole region just absolutely loathe them is somehow going to work out well for them. It's just mind boggling. There are various analyses of where that mentality comes from. I know you mentioned that you've read Lauren Guyenot's book, JFK 9-11. Laurent Guyenot also wrote From Yahweh to Zion, which I translated and published. It’s an analysis of Jewish identity politics and the influence of Jewish religion on it over the centuries. And he speculates that there is actually a religious factor involved. He thinks that the Torah or Old Testament is kind of at the heart of it.

But we are seeing now a kind of a rethinking by a lot of people looking at the genocide of Gaza and the way it's being misreported in the media, and noticing that there's something very, very wrong here. Do you have any thoughts about what's led to this Zionist mentality that's so obviously genocidal and also self-destructive?

Yes. I think the Kennedy assassination was pivotal because before his assassination, there were strong voices (including) prominent Jewish voices in America, including Albert Einstein, who were vehemently against (hardline Zionism). They were calling the super Zionists terrorists and fascists. And there was the philosopher Martin Buber. There were a lot of prominent voices both within Israel and within the U.S. who wanted to find some kind of accommodation.

And it's interesting about JFK. He went there in 1939 and he spent some time in Israel. And then he wrote a very lengthy letter to his father about his observations. And one of his observations is still true today. He said it's very much divided between a hardcore fundamentalist community that is unwilling to make any compromise and a more liberal community that's really at odds with the hardcore religious fanatics.

But is that still true, Rick? Because the polls today show that from 2008 on, Operation Cast Lead and each of these mowings of the lawn in Gaza are supported by a near-unanimous chunk of Jewish-Israeli public opinion. Not the Arab-Israeli public opinion, of course. Arabs are 20% of the population of Israel. But among the Jews of Israel, 90% plus support these massacres and genocides.

So what's changed?

I spent the summer of 2007 living with a Palestinian family in Palestine, but traveling around Palestine and Israel. And I remember going to a rally in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. And it was really heartening to see thousands of young Israeli families marching against the occupation, saying that you can't be democratic and Jewish at the same time. That was a contradiction of terms to say you're a democracy, but have preferential treatment for one ethnic group.

That was very heartening. It was a minority then. And I think you're exactly right that it's an even smaller minority now. The lock-hold of Zionist ideology, of ethnic supremacy, has really gained ground.

But the pivotal point about the JFK, what happened after his death was that the Zionists of America and AIPAC were not required to register as agents of a foreign government. The U.S. reneged on UN Resolution 194 respecting rights for Palestinian refugees and looked the other way as Israel proceeded to develop the nuclear bomb.

And then in 1967, of course, you had the Six Day War, which was pivotal, both within Israel and within the American Jewish community, because everybody loves a winner, and here they were winning in six days, and everything seemed to be rosy. That was a huge turning point. And even at that point you could tell the sense of impunity was pretty astounding. It was because LBJ was in office that the Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty off the coast of Egypt during the Six-Day War, killed 34 US sailors, injured another 194, and tried to sink the ship with the intention of blaming it on Egypt and then consolidating the support of the US with Israel against Egypt and the Soviet Union.

That's what I think it was the objective. But in any case, that happened, and LBJ looked the other way. He said, “I can't allow our ally to be embarrassed” when a US ship has been directly attacked. But since then, it's gone on, up to the current time.

I think October 7 is reversing what happened in June 1967. The prison break that Hamas and other militant groups waged on October 7, successfully attacking military checkpoints and showing the weakness of the Israeli military, and then the subsequent inability of the Israeli military to crush Hamas, and the ongoing genocide, have reversed it.

The whole world is reacting with horror. And I think the false image of a supremacist and unbeatable Israel has been effectively ended.

Yeah, I agree. So where will it go? The U.S. empire seems to be losing in Ukraine and will very likely lose to China, which is still growing a lot faster than the U.S. and the West are, and then with this situation in Gaza where the whole global south, especially the nearly two billion strong Muslim world and certainly this region, is turning strongly against the U.S. and ready for a post-American empire world.

So at some point, will Israel either have to change or go down due to the U.S. empire no longer being able to prop it up?

Well, that's the $64,000 question. What will they do in failure, whether it's Israel or it's the United States? In some ways, they're kind of joined at the hip, unfortunately. It speaks very poorly of American democracy that you can have 75% of the U.S. population wanting a ceasefire in Gaza and yet the U.S. administration has consistently denied that. They vetoed it in the U.N.

And what's happened in the last 24 hours at the U.N. was kind of a smokescreen, it was a pretend ceasefire resolution from the U.S. which was vetoed by China and Russia because they didn't want to go along with a smokescreen pretend-ceasefire resolution that wasn't anything of the sort.

So it's bad for the U.S., it's bad for Israel. And how to find a way out of it? How to find a way out of the U.S. spending a trillion dollars a year on the empire as our own infrastructure falls apart, as society breaks up in Israel through all of its contradictions.

I guess the danger is that some crazies will get power and that that Israel will use a nuclear weapon, which they have, or the U.S. and their puppets in West Europe will keep provoking the situation there instead of realizing that it's not that bad if Ukraine is neutral. What's so bad about that? And if the people in the eastern Ukraine want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine, that should be their right.

The people in Crimea—and I've been to Crimea twice, and it's it's not close. 90% of the population wants to be part of Russia.

What's so bad about Ukraine being neutral? And what's so bad about ending apartheid in Israel and having one person one vote? The Jewish people in Israel will do fine. They've got the education and all the advantages that they've had. What's wrong with having an equal state and ending apartheid and ending the occupation? It costs them a tremendous amount financially to maintain the apartheid state, to maintain the occupation. All of that could be done away with and they would have vastly more security if they didn't have their foot on the neck of the Palestinian population, which is about the same size as the Jewish population.

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

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

Retired commercial airline pilot Glen Stanish reflects on the history of the 9/11 truth movement. Was a consensus ever reached about how the illusion of hijacked-then-crashed planes was manufactured? Were the crashed planes ever identified based on their dozens of virtually-indestructible parts with serial numbers and replacement date codes? If not, why not? Whatever happened to Glen’s friend Christopher Bollyn, author of Solving 9/11, which implicates Israel as the author of 9/11? Could the Gaza genocide have been avoided if the truth about Israel’s responsibility for 9/11 had been successfully forced into the mainstream?

Glen Stanish is the author of Uncle Sam’s Christian Patriots.

Excerpt from the interview:

How did you get interested in 9/11? And how did you wake up to the fact that the official story was a bunch of nonsense?

Well, back in 2001 I had been subscribing to American Free Press. A few years before that I was flying for TWA and an old TWA captain introduced me to the Spotlight. Anyway, it eventually reemerged as American Free Press. I liked quite a few of their contributors, but especially Christopher Boleyn. I really liked his articles and thought that he was bold and courageous and truthful. I just liked his writing style.

But anyway, shortly after the (9/11) event, when some articles first started coming out about alternative theories, I thought, “man, I think you guys are going a little bit too far this time,” and I thought “I'm going to look for whatever other evidence that would maybe disprove some of the theories.

And the more I looked, the more I thought, man, oh man, you know, I can't believe it.

But anyway, one article in particular that Chris Bollyn wrote about was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how the mayor and all these witnesses who were there immediately within 15 feet of the smoking crater said that they never found any evidence of a Boeing 757. So I started thinking about how part of our training, as new hires and as recurrent training, there's a course called Crew Resource Management. And it's a study of airline accidents and incidents. And, you know, you always look at the well-documented scenes, and you also look at cockpit voice recordings and air traffic control recordings and flight data recordings and the scenes of the accidents. And I thought, “how can there not be any wreckage?” There are indestructible engine cores and landing gear and tail sections and normally a debris field, even during high speed, high descent rate contacts with terrain.

So anyway, I thought I'd give American Free Press a call. I think I spoke with Chris Petherick and he put me in touch with Chris Bollyn and we got to talking about these things and that's what started me on looking into it and definitely suspecting that something else was going on.

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

Retired commercial airline pilot Glen Stanish reflects on the history of the 9/11 truth movement. Was a consensus ever reached about how the illusion of hijacked-then-crashed planes was manufactured? Were the crashed planes ever identified based on their dozens of virtually-indestructible parts with serial numbers and replacement date codes? If not, why not? Whatever happened to Glen’s friend Christopher Bollyn, author of Solving 9/11, which implicates Israel as the author of 9/11? Could the Gaza genocide have been avoided if the truth about Israel’s responsibility for 9/11 had been successfully forced into the mainstream?

Glen Stanish is the author of Uncle Sam’s Christian Patriots.

Excerpt from the interview:

How did you get interested in 9/11? And how did you wake up to the fact that the official story was a bunch of nonsense?

Well, back in 2001 I had been subscribing to American Free Press. A few years before that I was flying for TWA and an old TWA captain introduced me to the Spotlight. Anyway, it eventually reemerged as American Free Press. I liked quite a few of their contributors, but especially Christopher Boleyn. I really liked his articles and thought that he was bold and courageous and truthful. I just liked his writing style.

But anyway, shortly after the (9/11) event, when some articles first started coming out about alternative theories, I thought, “man, I think you guys are going a little bit too far this time,” and I thought “I'm going to look for whatever other evidence that would maybe disprove some of the theories.

And the more I looked, the more I thought, man, oh man, you know, I can't believe it.

But anyway, one article in particular that Chris Bollyn wrote about was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how the mayor and all these witnesses who were there immediately within 15 feet of the smoking crater said that they never found any evidence of a Boeing 757. So I started thinking about how part of our training, as new hires and as recurrent training, there's a course called Crew Resource Management. And it's a study of airline accidents and incidents. And, you know, you always look at the well-documented scenes, and you also look at cockpit voice recordings and air traffic control recordings and flight data recordings and the scenes of the accidents. And I thought, “how can there not be any wreckage?” There are indestructible engine cores and landing gear and tail sections and normally a debris field, even during high speed, high descent rate contacts with terrain.

So anyway, I thought I'd give American Free Press a call. I think I spoke with Chris Petherick and he put me in touch with Chris Bollyn and we got to talking about these things and that's what started me on looking into it and definitely suspecting that something else was going on.

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

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

Now that the Evil Empire is about to ban TikTok—or force its sale to Zionists—I guess I should try to post some videos there as an act of solidarity.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to post a video on Tik-Tok, it was quickly taken down by censors. That puzzled me, until I heard Glen Greenwald explain why TikTok also censors his attempts to criticize the American Empire. Greenwald says TikTok outsources censorship to the same CIA (Mossad) cabal that silences and shadowbans us on US-Zionist social media. Why? Because Tik-Tok needs access to the lucrative US market. So the current “ban-TikTok” frenzy is probably a shakedown attempt to gain even more censorship power. Maybe they need it to deal with the surge of pro-Palestine content.

So...What can I post on TikTok that won’t get banned? Maybe a cat video?

Before I give up and start making cat videos full-time, I think I’ll try resistance-through-hyperconformity and indulge in some brutal self-censorship. Just as an author of a subversive book might publish an empty book cover to avoid offending the censors—just the front cover and back covers without any content—I decided to publish “The Beginning and the End of This Week’s False Flag Weekly News” for the benefit of TikTok and YouTube.

That way people who don’t want to know what’s happening in the world can watch the silly beginning and the silly ending, without actually having to encounter any dangerous perspectives on the week’s 30 biggest news stories. And hopefully the censors will appreciate the fact that I’ve deliberately disemboweled my own broadcast in a pathetically obsequious attempt to appease them. (Good thing they’re too dumb to understand irony.)

Meanwhile, if you want to watch the full, uncensored False Flag Weekly News, last week’s is here, and next week’s is shaping up like this:

FFWN Special! Cat McGuire Asks Jeff Brown about “Zio-American Empire vs. China”

Watch Saturday after 1 pm Eastern HERE

This week, instead of the regular weekly news roundup, False Flag Weekly News presents a special edition on “The Zio-American Empire vs. China” featuring China skeptic Cat McGuire questioning bullish-on-China Jeff Brown. I’ve already posted Cat’s questions for Jeff.

And finally, don’t miss today’s live radio show:

Listen live Fridays noon to 2pm Eastern on Revolution.Radio later archived at KevinBarrett.Substack.com

First hour: Retired Air Force officer and commercial airline pilot Glen Stanish reflects on the history of the 9/11 truth movement. Was a consensus ever reached about how the illusion of hijacked-then-crashed planes was manufactured? Were the crashed planes ever identified based on their dozens of virtually-indestructible parts with serial numbers and replacement date codes? If not, why not? Whatever happened to Glen’s friend Christopher Bollyn, author of Solving 9/11, which implicates Israel as the author of 9/11? Could the Gaza genocide have been avoided if the truth about Israel’s responsibility for 9/11 had been successfully forced into the mainstream?

Second hour: Journalist Rick Sterling discusses his new article “Olympic Doping Case, Global Politics and the Sacrificing of Kamila Valieva: Here is how the West robbed and abused the best figure skater in the world, Kamila Valieva, while provoking the war in Ukraine.” His conclusion: “it is likely that US secret services intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and ‘unbalance’ the adversary.” We’ll also discuss his previous article “From Dallas to Gaza: How JFK’s Assassination Was Good for Zionist Israel.“

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