Truth Jihad Radio

My new, brief interview with Ofogh TV, Tehran

As war intensifies between Israeli regime and Palestinians, what is your general opinion about what is going on in Rafah?

Well, about one and a half million Palestinians are in Rafah. Many of them have been forced there by genocidal Israeli bombing of their homes and their life support systems. Now the Israeli regime's leaders are saying they are planning to invade Rafah, and the American administration is responding by telling them not to, or rather discouraging it.

However, the American administration is continuing to supply the bombs that the Zionist regime is dropping on innocent Palestinian civilians, and that it will use if it attacks Rafah and invades Rafah as it's threatening to. And rather than cutting off the supply of bombs — so far the Americans have supplied the Zionists with 20,000 bombs — the Zionists are now asking for thousands more.

And the Americans have agreed. The Biden administration is not even asking Congress, but going over the heads of Congress to supply the Zionists with thousands more bombs to drop on innocent Palestinians.

And the Biden administration has not threatened to cut off these bombs in the event of an all-out Zionist attack on Rafah. On the contrary, it has said that it will continue to supply the Zionists with these bombs no matter what. [And the US is now threatening to veto a UN ceasefire resolution.]

So it's unclear whether the American administration really has any interest in slowing, much less stopping the genocide in Gaza. It says it does. It says it wants a ceasefire. But the US administration has not backed up its words with actions.

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

Rafiq (Robert Sean Lewis) discusses his new novel Atan the Revolutionary, featuring a protagonist with an Inuit shaman spirit ally who helps him push back against the bankster-dominated Deep State. Atan the Revolutionary begins with grippingly convincing descriptions of an Inuit settlement in Northern Canada, then moves on to British Columbia, New York, Mexico, India, and Washington DC—a journey through spiritual and political landscapes shaped by the clash between indigenous wisdom and the evil of the world-devouring wetikos.

Atan the Revolutionary explores the hidden spiritual battles behind the daily headlines, showcasing the author’s preference for indigenous immanence over cosmopolitan transcendence.

Relevant quote:

“A pledge to defund the federal government?”“Yeah, defund the feds and you defund the military.”“It won’t work.”“Why not?”“Because people are cowards. They’re terrified of the IRS kicking in their door. Or the FBI. You haven’t seen what goes on now. They won’t do it.”“Then we have to make them fearless.” “How do you do that?”“You wake them up to spirit.”

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

Rafiq (Robert Sean Lewis) discusses his new novel Atan the Revolutionary, featuring a protagonist with an Inuit shaman spirit ally who helps him push back against the bankster-dominated Deep State. Atan the Revolutionary begins with grippingly convincing descriptions of an Inuit settlement in Northern Canada, then moves on to British Columbia, New York, Mexico, India, and Washington DC—a journey through spiritual and political landscapes shaped by the clash between indigenous wisdom and the evil of the world-devouring wetikos.

Atan the Revolutionary explores the hidden spiritual battles behind the daily headlines, showcasing the author’s preference for indigenous immanence over cosmopolitan transcendence.

Relevant quote:

“A pledge to defund the federal government?”“Yeah, defund the feds and you defund the military.”“It won’t work.”“Why not?”“Because people are cowards. They’re terrified of the IRS kicking in their door. Or the FBI. You haven’t seen what goes on now. They won’t do it.”“Then we have to make them fearless.” “How do you do that?”“You wake them up to spirit.”

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’s False Flag Weekly News begins with the Daily Wire article “Harvard Employee Harasses Jewish Student Suing School For Anti-Semitism - Asks To Debate 9/11 Conspiracies.” The implication is that it is “harassment” to ask someone to “debate 9/11 conspiracies.” Especially if that someone is Jewish. And even more especially if they are suing their school for alleged anti-Semitism.

The Daily Wire hit piece targets Gustavo Espada, the financial and systems coordinator for Harvard’s Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. According to the Wire, Espada “has been active in pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories for 18 years, according to a 2006 piece in The Lowell Sun which reported he spends 10 hours a week ‘handing out literature,’ Web logging and talking with people on the street about his views on 9/11.”

The thrust of the Wire hit piece is that Espada should be fired from his university job because he wants to debate 9/11. Reading the story brought back memories of a my own experience in 2006. While teaching subjects including Folklore, African Studies, and Islamic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I had begun doing 9/11 teach-ins on campus in 2004, and then gotten involved in the national and global 9/11 truth movements. In 2006 I became the focus of a concerted pushback campaign sparked by Lynn Cheney’s group ACTA and its acolytes in the Wisconsin Republican Party.

Like Espada, I repeatedly challenged my detractors to meet me in a formal debate. In September 2006, while I was under fire from the State Legislature, the UW-Madison Debate Club sponsored what was supposed to be a debate on 9/11. They arranged for me and Jim Fetzer to argue against the 9/11 Commission’s official story, and told us that a history professor and a political science professor (Donald Downs, as I recall) had agreed to defend it. But at the last minute, the two pro-official-story professors backed out. So Jim Fetzer and I were left “debating” two empty chairs.

I reiterated my debate challenge. The university Provost, Patrick Farrell, told me that he would try to have the university set up some sort of formal panel discussion or debate after the media furor died down. Student newspapers at UW-Madison and UW-Oshkosh published op-eds plaintively begging for some knowledgable professor to debate and refute me. But nobody stepped forward to defend the 9/11 Commission.

Six months of media hoopla (July through December 2006) made me unemployable at the University of Wisconsin. I was denied a tenure-track Islam-Humanities job at U.W.-Whitewater purely due to my views of 9/11, according to whistleblowing then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross. And I was told by the late Professor Muhammad Umar Memon, then a member of the UW-Madison hiring committee for its Islam classes, that the committee was informed by the University administration that I must not be rehired for my Islam 101 teaching job for the same reason.

Rendered unemployable due to my views of 9/11, but with nobody willing to debate me and explain why my views were wrong (privately most of my colleagues I knew personally thought my views were likely right or at least plausible) I offered a $1000 honorarium to any University of Wisconsin instructor, whether professor or TA, who was willing to defend the 9/11 Commission in a formal debate. There were no takers. Years later, the offer was raised to $2000. Still no takers.

Similar debate challenges were issued at other universities. A 9/11 truth group at the University of Michigan sent letters to every professor in the Engineering department seeking someone to defend the FEMA and NIST positions on the destruction of the World Trade Center in a debate with me and Underwriters Labs whistleblower Kevin Ryan. Most didn’t respond. The few who did told the organizers, off the record, that Ryan and I were right.

Could a 9/11 Debate Have Prevented Genocide?

According to the tenets of liberal democracy, all important matters are supposed to be debated on the basis of logic and evidence, and the truth that emerges becomes the touchstone of public policy. Had a real debate on 9/11 ever transpired, the truth that would have emerged—9/11 was orchestrated not by al-Qaeda, but by the state of Israel and its American neoconservative allies—would have prevented the series of wars that has devastated the Middle East, including the ongoing Israeli genocide of Gaza.

People resist debate when they know that logic and facts are not on their side. When would-be debaters like Espada are smeared, and their livelihoods threatened, it’s obvious that those doing the smearing know that their victims are right.

Can We Debate the Ukraine War?

Another topic that’s off-limits to debate is the US war on Russia through Ukraine. As with 9/11, the neoconservative propaganda talking points—the enemy is pure evil, “they” attacked “us” for no reason, and so on—are inflated to the status of sacred public myths, and anyone who wants to debate them is a damnable heretic. Merely for exposing us to Putin’s point of view, Tucker Carlson has been attacked by the whole mainstream media. As with 9/11, the neocon Establishment’s refusal to debate on logic and evidence, and its preference for shrill vituperation and ad-hominem attacks, suggests that it knows it couldn’t win a real debate with the likes of Putin.

Cancelled Candidates

Elections are a form of public policy debate. When the side with power knows that it can’t win a fair debate—as with the Pakistani military’s stand-off with Imran Khan—it may try to cancel the candidacy…or the candidate. Khan, who was very nearly assassinated by the Pakistani establishment, currently languishes in prison despite his overwhelming popularity among the vast majority of his countrymen. The Pakistani junta’s attempt to rig last week’s elections failed, because it’s impossible to convincingly rig an election when your opponent has such high levels of support. So the man who is the people’s choice and the rightful Prime Minister, targeted by ludicrous legal assaults including an attack on the legitimacy of his marriage, remains in prison…for now.

Imran Khan’s plight, we might imagine, is typical of tinpot third world military dictatorships, but irrelevant to the affairs of advanced Western democracies. But in both the US and Germany, pro-immigration Establishments are working overtime to keep anti-immigration parties and personalities off the ballot. Like the Pakistani Establishment vis-a-vis Imran Khan, the US and German Establishments don’t want to have to debate anti-immigration populist movements. So the Democrats in the US, and the ruling elites in Germany, are using various underhanded means to try to keep Trump and the MAGA movement, and the anti-immigration party AFD, off the two nations’ respective ballots.

Donald Trump, like Imran Khan, might very well end up winning an election from a prison cell. Like Khan, Trump has been targeted by a lawfare campaign expressly designed to torpedo his political chances. And Trump’s party, like Khan’s, views itself as the victim of widespread election fraud, and those who try to raise and debate the issue are deplatformed. Though the two cases aren’t fully comparable—Khan is overwhelmingly popular while Trump is controversial, Khan’s complaints are fully justified while Trump’s are only partly so, and Khan is completely honest and ethical while Trump is not—there are enough similarities to raise questions about whether American “democracy” is any healthier than Pakistan’s.

Undebatable COVID

The notion that the truth emerges through free and fair debate took a huge hit during COVID. We were told to “trust the science” and wear masks everywhere, even though the science suggests that there is no convincing evidence that masks significantly slow the spread of respiratory viruses. The debate about COVID origins was unceremoniously quashed, and people were deplatformed for even mentioning the issue. And arguments about whether highly experimental vaccines should be mass-tested on entire populations were likewise suppressed. Only one position—the Establishment’s—was allowed.

One More Question for Debate

So in light of all the signs that liberal democracy is dead and free and fair debate no longer effectively exists, I propose one last subject for debate: Should debate itself be legal? Or to rephrase that in debate-ese: “Resolved: Debate should be criminalized, and would-be debaters should be imprisoned or executed.”

Especially if they are “anti-Semitic.”

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’s False Flag Weekly News begins with the Daily Wire article “Harvard Employee Harasses Jewish Student Suing School For Anti-Semitism - Asks To Debate 9/11 Conspiracies.” The implication is that it is “harassment” to ask someone to “debate 9/11 conspiracies.” Especially if that someone is Jewish. And even more especially if they are suing their school for alleged anti-Semitism.

The Daily Wire hit piece targets Gustavo Espada, the financial and systems coordinator for Harvard’s Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. According to the Wire, Espada “has been active in pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories for 18 years, according to a 2006 piece in The Lowell Sun which reported he spends 10 hours a week ‘handing out literature,’ Web logging and talking with people on the street about his views on 9/11.”

The thrust of the Wire hit piece is that Espada should be fired from his university job because he wants to debate 9/11. Reading the story brought back memories of a my own experience in 2006. While teaching subjects including Folklore, African Studies, and Islamic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I had begun doing 9/11 teach-ins on campus in 2004, and then gotten involved in the national and global 9/11 truth movements. In 2006 I became the focus of a concerted pushback campaign sparked by Lynn Cheney’s group ACTA and its acolytes in the Wisconsin Republican Party.

Like Espada, I repeatedly challenged my detractors to meet me in a formal debate. In September 2006, while I was under fire from the State Legislature, the UW-Madison Debate Club sponsored what was supposed to be a debate on 9/11. They arranged for me and Jim Fetzer to argue against the 9/11 Commission’s official story, and told us that a history professor and a political science professor (Donald Downs, as I recall) had agreed to defend it. But at the last minute, the two pro-official-story professors backed out. So Jim Fetzer and I were left “debating” two empty chairs.

I reiterated my debate challenge. The university Provost, Patrick Farrell, told me that he would try to have the university set up some sort of formal panel discussion or debate after the media furor died down. Student newspapers at UW-Madison and UW-Oshkosh published op-eds plaintively begging for some knowledgable professor to debate and refute me. But nobody stepped forward to defend the 9/11 Commission.

Six months of media hoopla (July through December 2006) made me unemployable at the University of Wisconsin. I was denied a tenure-track Islam-Humanities job at U.W.-Whitewater purely due to my views of 9/11, according to whistleblowing then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross. And I was told by the late Professor Muhammad Umar Memon, then a member of the UW-Madison hiring committee for its Islam classes, that the committee was informed by the University administration that I must not be rehired for my Islam 101 teaching job for the same reason.

Rendered unemployable due to my views of 9/11, but with nobody willing to debate me and explain why my views were wrong (privately most of my colleagues I knew personally thought my views were likely right or at least plausible) I offered a $1000 honorarium to any University of Wisconsin instructor, whether professor or TA, who was willing to defend the 9/11 Commission in a formal debate. There were no takers. Years later, the offer was raised to $2000. Still no takers.

Similar debate challenges were issued at other universities. A 9/11 truth group at the University of Michigan sent letters to every professor in the Engineering department seeking someone to defend the FEMA and NIST positions on the destruction of the World Trade Center in a debate with me and Underwriters Labs whistleblower Kevin Ryan. Most didn’t respond. The few who did told the organizers, off the record, that Ryan and I were right.

Could a 9/11 Debate Have Prevented Genocide?

According to the tenets of liberal democracy, all important matters are supposed to be debated on the basis of logic and evidence, and the truth that emerges becomes the touchstone of public policy. Had a real debate on 9/11 ever transpired, the truth that would have emerged—9/11 was orchestrated not by al-Qaeda, but by the state of Israel and its American neoconservative allies—would have prevented the series of wars that has devastated the Middle East, including the ongoing Israeli genocide of Gaza.

People resist debate when they know that logic and facts are not on their side. When would-be debaters like Espada are smeared, and their livelihoods threatened, it’s obvious that those doing the smearing know that their victims are right.

Can We Debate the Ukraine War?

Another topic that’s off-limits to debate is the US war on Russia through Ukraine. As with 9/11, the neoconservative propaganda talking points—the enemy is pure evil, “they” attacked “us” for no reason, and so on—are inflated to the status of sacred public myths, and anyone who wants to debate them is a damnable heretic. Merely for exposing us to Putin’s point of view, Tucker Carlson has been attacked by the whole mainstream media. As with 9/11, the neocon Establishment’s refusal to debate on logic and evidence, and its preference for shrill vituperation and ad-hominem attacks, suggests that it knows it couldn’t win a real debate with the likes of Putin.

Cancelled Candidates

Elections are a form of public policy debate. When the side with power knows that it can’t win a fair debate—as with the Pakistani military’s stand-off with Imran Khan—it may try to cancel the candidacy…or the candidate. Khan, who was very nearly assassinated by the Pakistani establishment, currently languishes in prison despite his overwhelming popularity among the vast majority of his countrymen. The Pakistani junta’s attempt to rig last week’s elections failed, because it’s impossible to convincingly rig an election when your opponent has such high levels of support. So the man who is the people’s choice and the rightful Prime Minister, targeted by ludicrous legal assaults including an attack on the legitimacy of his marriage, remains in prison…for now.

Imran Khan’s plight, we might imagine, is typical of tinpot third world military dictatorships, but irrelevant to the affairs of advanced Western democracies. But in both the US and Germany, pro-immigration Establishments are working overtime to keep anti-immigration parties and personalities off the ballot. Like the Pakistani Establishment vis-a-vis Imran Khan, the US and German Establishments don’t want to have to debate anti-immigration populist movements. So the Democrats in the US, and the ruling elites in Germany, are using various underhanded means to try to keep Trump and the MAGA movement, and the anti-immigration party AFD, off the two nations’ respective ballots.

Donald Trump, like Imran Khan, might very well end up winning an election from a prison cell. Like Khan, Trump has been targeted by a lawfare campaign expressly designed to torpedo his political chances. And Trump’s party, like Khan’s, views itself as the victim of widespread election fraud, and those who try to raise and debate the issue are deplatformed. Though the two cases aren’t fully comparable—Khan is overwhelmingly popular while Trump is controversial, Khan’s complaints are fully justified while Trump’s are only partly so, and Khan is completely honest and ethical while Trump is not—there are enough similarities to raise questions about whether American “democracy” is any healthier than Pakistan’s.

Undebatable COVID

The notion that the truth emerges through free and fair debate took a huge hit during COVID. We were told to “trust the science” and wear masks everywhere, even though the science suggests that there is no convincing evidence that masks significantly slow the spread of respiratory viruses. The debate about COVID origins was unceremoniously quashed, and people were deplatformed for even mentioning the issue. And arguments about whether highly experimental vaccines should be mass-tested on entire populations were likewise suppressed. Only one position—the Establishment’s—was allowed.

One More Question for Debate

So in light of all the signs that liberal democracy is dead and free and fair debate no longer effectively exists, I propose one last subject for debate: Should debate itself be legal? Or to rephrase that in debate-ese: “Resolved: Debate should be criminalized, and would-be debaters should be imprisoned or executed.”

Especially if they are “anti-Semitic.”

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

Before Bill Clinton’s presidency (1993-2000) came Reagan’s Central America wars and his game of nuclear chicken with the Soviets, followed by G.H.W. Bush’s brutal Gulf War I. After Clinton left office, Cheney and Bush Jr. presided over 9/11 and the wars it was designed to trigger.

So were the Clinton years a golden age of relative peace and prosperity? That’s how some remember them. But Richard Cook, author of Our Country Then and Now, takes a different view. In his new review of Jeremy Kuzmarov’s Warmonger, Cook endorses Kuzmarov’s thesis that Clinton was not just a crooked Deep State asset, but the central figure in the USA’s turn from its criminally unnecessary Cold War (1948-1989) to its current and even more criminal war for perpetual unipolar global domination.

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

Before Bill Clinton’s presidency (1993-2000) came Reagan’s Central America wars and his game of nuclear chicken with the Soviets, followed by G.H.W. Bush’s brutal Gulf War I. After Clinton left office, Cheney and Bush Jr. presided over 9/11 and the wars it was designed to trigger.

So were the Clinton years a golden age of relative peace and prosperity? That’s how some remember them. But Richard Cook, author of Our Country Then and Now, takes a different view. In his new review of Jeremy Kuzmarov’s Warmonger, Cook endorses Kuzmarov’s thesis that Clinton was not just a crooked Deep State asset, but the central figure in the USA’s turn from its criminally unnecessary Cold War (1948-1989) to its current and even more criminal war for perpetual unipolar global domination.

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

Philosophy professor emeritus James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. He is well-known for rejecting orthodoxy on a wide range of historical and political issues. He recently interviewed me for his Revolution Radio show. Below is a partial rough transcript.

Jim Fetzer: I'm delighted to be joined for the second hour by my dear friend and colleague Kevin Barrett residing in Morocco. Kevin, among the developments we've been addressing during the first hour was Colonel McGregor's observation that the U.S. has no foreign policy, that in the Middle East we’re simply instruments or pawns or tools of Israel and that you can best understand what's going on there by assuming that Benjamin Netanyahu is the equivalent of a commander-in-chief of the American military. Your thoughts?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think it's that's pretty much the case, although it's it's not clear whether Netanyahu is 100% in control. Maybe 65%, I would say.

There are reports that immediately after the successful Palestinian raid on Israel, the breakout from their concentration camp on October 7th, that the Israelis were about to go all out against Hezbollah. And according to reports, the Biden administration or whoever's in charge in the U.S. gave them a very firm no.

But there haven't been very many firm no's given to Netanyahu and his crazy extremist co-ministers. So yeah they (the Zionists) are largely in charge.

I recently published an article entitled “Flashpoints for War” looking over possible places where the next world war could start. One of them was Florida, where I said: Imagine it’s October 2024. Trump's ahead in the polls 55 to 45 percent and leading in the swing states. Suddenly a drone swoops down on Mar-a-Lago, smashes through a plate glass window, and stings Trump with its explosive charge. But fortunately, even before what's left of Trump is declared dead, the media tells us that an Iranian Palestinian terrorist named Lee Harvey Atta did it. He's arrested on the seventh floor of the Palm Beach School Book Depository, but is accidentally defenestrated before he can be questioned. Fortunately on the floor of the Book Depository the authorities find an Iranian-made Manlicher-Carcano drone control rig, complete with instructions in Farsi, signed by the Supreme Leader of Iran.

And so that then would indeed cause Biden to fly Bibi Netanyahu straight into the White House Situation Room where he will take full control of U.S. policy.

Anyway, hopefully there won't be one of these crazy false flag type events that would put Netanyahu in total charge like happened on 9/11. But you never know, do you?

Well, your satirical gifts have not failed you, Kevin. I've always admired your stylistic manner of lampooning events in a way that gets right to the heart of the matter. You mentioned Florida's one location for World War breaking out. What were the other four?

Well, the others were more obvious ones. Though I guess killing Trump and blaming Iran is pretty obvious, too. But the other ones included the Red Sea, where instead of a Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident, which we've all been waiting for for 20 years now, we could get a Red Sea Gulf of Tonkin incident: An American ship could go down and it could be blamed on the Houthis, whether or not they actually did it, and of course it would be blamed on Iran as well.

Another possibility of course would be another attack from militias in Iraq or Syria. Any that did a whole lot of damage, killed a lot of Americans, might work.

Within (Occupied) Palestine itself there's always the possibility of some kind of big event happening. Right now, so much of the world is so angry at the Zionist genocide that it wouldn't surprise me if actual no-return address WMD suddenly went off inside of Israel. That very likely wouldn't have to be a false flag, it could be true.

Other flashpoints include Ukraine and Taiwan. In Ukraine, Zelensky's faction, the fanatics, don't want to give up. So the only way they even have a chance is to drag NATO into it, and that would take a big false flag, like maybe a nuke blamed on Russia.

And then over in Taiwan, the final flashpoint that I listed, clearly that's the big kahuna that would pit the number one power, the US versus the rising number two power, China. The Americans have been provoking the Chinese and poking the dragon for years. And if they poke hard enough, the dragon might bite back and we'd be off to the races.

I so admire the Houthis and stand with them, and yet they're having to suffer ongoing bombardment by the U.S. and the U.K., which is taking place in violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, the laws of war and all the rest. It is shameful.

Well, I think the Houthis have a pretty good argument that they are enforcing the World Court's judgment that has ordered the Israeli government to stop any acts of genocide that appear to be going on there. And that order is being flouted by the Israeli leadership, which has continued to massacre the 100 to 200-plus people per day, most of them innocent civilians, the majority women and children, while Israeli leaders continue to make genocidal statements…

I gotta say, Kevin, for the poorest nation in Africa, that the Houthis are setting a hell of a moral example. I mean, they are exemplary. I applaud them. They are heroic.

Yeah, I agree. Now, they're not in Africa. They're across the Red Sea from Africa. But yeah, they're very poor. They're probably the poorest nation in the region, especially after the suffering that they've had to undergo since this crazy US supported and instigated—well maybe not instigated, since there's dispute about what the then Obama administration's viewpoint was about the launching the war on Yemen from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates—but the Yemeni people have really suffered horribly. they've been undergoing the kind of suffering that now we're seeing in Palestine. I think that's one reason that they are working to support the Palestinian genocide victims right now, because they understand that kind of suffering and so they want to stop it.

Yes, I have no end of praise for the Houthis. And here you have the Israelis practicing genocide on the Palestinians by means of starvation with the siege they imposed after 7 October. No food, no water, no fuel, for the most part no communication. I gather a lot of Palestinians are on the verge of starvation. And of course I mentioned the rule of three, that a human being can go three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food. Well, it's now been a hell of a long time. What do we have, 120 days of this siege, Kevin? It is outrageous. It is monstrous. And I can't understand how any decent human being could possibly support it and not be vehemently opposed to Israel.

I agree, Jim. And I'm going to say something maybe a little controversial now. It just occurred to me that people say that the state of Israel was supposedly basically legitimized and became a state because of the Holocaust, right? Everybody around the world made a huge exception for the Jews, because nowhere else would you ever allow a group of settler colonialists to travel thousands of miles across the seas and basically displace, murder, and expel the indigenous people and call themselves a country and claim that they have the right to do that…

The slogan “never again” slogan emerged from the Holocaust. Jews all over the world have always said, “never again, never again, never again.” And liberal Jews like Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein's wife, have made a whole career of saying that we need these humanitarian interventions.

And in fact, when I look at Israeli behavior, it occurs to me to question whether the Jewish people in Israel actually believe that there really was a Holocaust. Because if they did, if they really believed in the historical reality of that kind of suffering that Jews underwent—and regardless of what we think about might have happened there, obviously there was a tremendous amount of suffering. But if it was really as off-the-charts as the standard Holocaust narrative tells us, with six million dead, most of them killed in gas chambers, as part of a formal total extermination plan, that would have been so horrible that you would think Israeli Jews would be very aware of the horror of genocide.

But I have to wonder, Jim, whether those Israeli Jews really believe the Holocaust narrative. Because as you and I have both looked books by Holocaust revisionists and books that attempt to refute the Holocaust revisionists. And obviously the Holocaust revisionists have a pretty good case that the whole “six million dead mostly in gas chambers as part of a deliberate extermination plan”—the Holy Trinity of the Orthodox Holocaust narrative—is just not true, and that the reality was a lot less than that, and we got that exaggerated version due to wartime propaganda that somehow survived the war.

I think smart Jewish people know this. Take Philip Zelikow, for example, who talks about “public myths.” I think he knows that the Holocaust was very likely not nearly what the official myth tells us it was. He knows it’s a public myth, which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

And I wonder if it isn’t just the intellectuals like Zelikow (who don’t really believe the public myth) but it also filters down to the Israeli people. Maybe they realize this based on the kinds of nonsense that they’ve been fed, as illustrated by the film Defamation depicting Israeli children being indoctrinated with insane Holocaust propaganda. I recently learned via a Ron Unz article that in the 1960s and 70s there was a huge wave of Holocaust pornography in Israel. Israelis were getting off on watching Nazis rape and torture Jews, and Jews raping and killing Nazis in revenge. That was what got them excited sexually. There's something weird about this. I think that at some level the Jewish Israelis actually know that they're liars, that they founded Israel on a whole series of lies, including the maximal story of the Holocaust, and that's why they're perfectly happy to do another genocide, because they know that the supposed genocide that was done to them didn't happen, or at least it didn't happen to the extent that their extreme myth of the Holocaust tells us it did.

So, I mean, am I crazy to think this? Could it be that (their genocidal psychosis is caused) not so much by an extreme belief in the Holocaust, but it's that actually at some level they know that they're completely full of s**t?

Kevin, you're spot on. I wrote the introduction to Nicholas Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell, which may be the most important book on the Holocaust, confirming the results of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was keeping meticulous records on the age, the sex, the ethnicity, the religion and the cause of death of all the inmates. In 1993 they recalibrated the total as 296,081 deaths from all causes, none of whom were put to death in gas chambers using Zyklon B, which was in fact being used to kill body lice spreading typhus and dysentery in the camps. In other words, to preserve the health of the inmates, for the obvious reason that you can't get work out of a corpse.

We'll be right back with my special guest Kevin Barrett right after this break.

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

Philosophy professor emeritus James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. He is well-known for rejecting orthodoxy on a wide range of historical and political issues. He recently interviewed me for his Revolution Radio show. Below is a partial rough transcript.

Jim Fetzer: I'm delighted to be joined for the second hour by my dear friend and colleague Kevin Barrett residing in Morocco. Kevin, among the developments we've been addressing during the first hour was Colonel McGregor's observation that the U.S. has no foreign policy, that in the Middle East we’re simply instruments or pawns or tools of Israel and that you can best understand what's going on there by assuming that Benjamin Netanyahu is the equivalent of a commander-in-chief of the American military. Your thoughts?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think it's that's pretty much the case, although it's it's not clear whether Netanyahu is 100% in control. Maybe 65%, I would say.

There are reports that immediately after the successful Palestinian raid on Israel, the breakout from their concentration camp on October 7th, that the Israelis were about to go all out against Hezbollah. And according to reports, the Biden administration or whoever's in charge in the U.S. gave them a very firm no.

But there haven't been very many firm no's given to Netanyahu and his crazy extremist co-ministers. So yeah they (the Zionists) are largely in charge.

I recently published an article entitled “Flashpoints for War” looking over possible places where the next world war could start. One of them was Florida, where I said: Imagine it’s October 2024. Trump's ahead in the polls 55 to 45 percent and leading in the swing states. Suddenly a drone swoops down on Mar-a-Lago, smashes through a plate glass window, and stings Trump with its explosive charge. But fortunately, even before what's left of Trump is declared dead, the media tells us that an Iranian Palestinian terrorist named Lee Harvey Atta did it. He's arrested on the seventh floor of the Palm Beach School Book Depository, but is accidentally defenestrated before he can be questioned. Fortunately on the floor of the Book Depository the authorities find an Iranian-made Manlicher-Carcano drone control rig, complete with instructions in Farsi, signed by the Supreme Leader of Iran.

And so that then would indeed cause Biden to fly Bibi Netanyahu straight into the White House Situation Room where he will take full control of U.S. policy.

Anyway, hopefully there won't be one of these crazy false flag type events that would put Netanyahu in total charge like happened on 9/11. But you never know, do you?

Well, your satirical gifts have not failed you, Kevin. I've always admired your stylistic manner of lampooning events in a way that gets right to the heart of the matter. You mentioned Florida's one location for World War breaking out. What were the other four?

Well, the others were more obvious ones. Though I guess killing Trump and blaming Iran is pretty obvious, too. But the other ones included the Red Sea, where instead of a Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident, which we've all been waiting for for 20 years now, we could get a Red Sea Gulf of Tonkin incident: An American ship could go down and it could be blamed on the Houthis, whether or not they actually did it, and of course it would be blamed on Iran as well.

Another possibility of course would be another attack from militias in Iraq or Syria. Any that did a whole lot of damage, killed a lot of Americans, might work.

Within (Occupied) Palestine itself there's always the possibility of some kind of big event happening. Right now, so much of the world is so angry at the Zionist genocide that it wouldn't surprise me if actual no-return address WMD suddenly went off inside of Israel. That very likely wouldn't have to be a false flag, it could be true.

Other flashpoints include Ukraine and Taiwan. In Ukraine, Zelensky's faction, the fanatics, don't want to give up. So the only way they even have a chance is to drag NATO into it, and that would take a big false flag, like maybe a nuke blamed on Russia.

And then over in Taiwan, the final flashpoint that I listed, clearly that's the big kahuna that would pit the number one power, the US versus the rising number two power, China. The Americans have been provoking the Chinese and poking the dragon for years. And if they poke hard enough, the dragon might bite back and we'd be off to the races.

I so admire the Houthis and stand with them, and yet they're having to suffer ongoing bombardment by the U.S. and the U.K., which is taking place in violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, the laws of war and all the rest. It is shameful.

Well, I think the Houthis have a pretty good argument that they are enforcing the World Court's judgment that has ordered the Israeli government to stop any acts of genocide that appear to be going on there. And that order is being flouted by the Israeli leadership, which has continued to massacre the 100 to 200-plus people per day, most of them innocent civilians, the majority women and children, while Israeli leaders continue to make genocidal statements…

I gotta say, Kevin, for the poorest nation in Africa, that the Houthis are setting a hell of a moral example. I mean, they are exemplary. I applaud them. They are heroic.

Yeah, I agree. Now, they're not in Africa. They're across the Red Sea from Africa. But yeah, they're very poor. They're probably the poorest nation in the region, especially after the suffering that they've had to undergo since this crazy US supported and instigated—well maybe not instigated, since there's dispute about what the then Obama administration's viewpoint was about the launching the war on Yemen from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates—but the Yemeni people have really suffered horribly. they've been undergoing the kind of suffering that now we're seeing in Palestine. I think that's one reason that they are working to support the Palestinian genocide victims right now, because they understand that kind of suffering and so they want to stop it.

Yes, I have no end of praise for the Houthis. And here you have the Israelis practicing genocide on the Palestinians by means of starvation with the siege they imposed after 7 October. No food, no water, no fuel, for the most part no communication. I gather a lot of Palestinians are on the verge of starvation. And of course I mentioned the rule of three, that a human being can go three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food. Well, it's now been a hell of a long time. What do we have, 120 days of this siege, Kevin? It is outrageous. It is monstrous. And I can't understand how any decent human being could possibly support it and not be vehemently opposed to Israel.

I agree, Jim. And I'm going to say something maybe a little controversial now. It just occurred to me that people say that the state of Israel was supposedly basically legitimized and became a state because of the Holocaust, right? Everybody around the world made a huge exception for the Jews, because nowhere else would you ever allow a group of settler colonialists to travel thousands of miles across the seas and basically displace, murder, and expel the indigenous people and call themselves a country and claim that they have the right to do that…

The slogan “never again” slogan emerged from the Holocaust. Jews all over the world have always said, “never again, never again, never again.” And liberal Jews like Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein's wife, have made a whole career of saying that we need these humanitarian interventions.

And in fact, when I look at Israeli behavior, it occurs to me to question whether the Jewish people in Israel actually believe that there really was a Holocaust. Because if they did, if they really believed in the historical reality of that kind of suffering that Jews underwent—and regardless of what we think about might have happened there, obviously there was a tremendous amount of suffering. But if it was really as off-the-charts as the standard Holocaust narrative tells us, with six million dead, most of them killed in gas chambers, as part of a formal total extermination plan, that would have been so horrible that you would think Israeli Jews would be very aware of the horror of genocide.

But I have to wonder, Jim, whether those Israeli Jews really believe the Holocaust narrative. Because as you and I have both looked books by Holocaust revisionists and books that attempt to refute the Holocaust revisionists. And obviously the Holocaust revisionists have a pretty good case that the whole “six million dead mostly in gas chambers as part of a deliberate extermination plan”—the Holy Trinity of the Orthodox Holocaust narrative—is just not true, and that the reality was a lot less than that, and we got that exaggerated version due to wartime propaganda that somehow survived the war.

I think smart Jewish people know this. Take Philip Zelikow, for example, who talks about “public myths.” I think he knows that the Holocaust was very likely not nearly what the official myth tells us it was. He knows it’s a public myth, which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

And I wonder if it isn’t just the intellectuals like Zelikow (who don’t really believe the public myth) but it also filters down to the Israeli people. Maybe they realize this based on the kinds of nonsense that they’ve been fed, as illustrated by the film Defamation depicting Israeli children being indoctrinated with insane Holocaust propaganda. I recently learned via a Ron Unz article that in the 1960s and 70s there was a huge wave of Holocaust pornography in Israel. Israelis were getting off on watching Nazis rape and torture Jews, and Jews raping and killing Nazis in revenge. That was what got them excited sexually. There's something weird about this. I think that at some level the Jewish Israelis actually know that they're liars, that they founded Israel on a whole series of lies, including the maximal story of the Holocaust, and that's why they're perfectly happy to do another genocide, because they know that the supposed genocide that was done to them didn't happen, or at least it didn't happen to the extent that their extreme myth of the Holocaust tells us it did.

So, I mean, am I crazy to think this? Could it be that (their genocidal psychosis is caused) not so much by an extreme belief in the Holocaust, but it's that actually at some level they know that they're completely full of s**t?

Kevin, you're spot on. I wrote the introduction to Nicholas Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell, which may be the most important book on the Holocaust, confirming the results of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was keeping meticulous records on the age, the sex, the ethnicity, the religion and the cause of death of all the inmates. In 1993 they recalibrated the total as 296,081 deaths from all causes, none of whom were put to death in gas chambers using Zyklon B, which was in fact being used to kill body lice spreading typhus and dysentery in the camps. In other words, to preserve the health of the inmates, for the obvious reason that you can't get work out of a corpse.

We'll be right back with my special guest Kevin Barrett right after this break.

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

Anthony Hall, Professor Emeritus of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, discusses his new article “Thousands of Israeli Jews Responded to the ICJ Ruling on Israeli Genocide By Dancing and Chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’.” Hall notes that just days after the ICJ ordered Israel to stop committing genocide, and to prevent and punish incitements to genocide, what amounted to a “Genocide Incitement Conference” was held last Sunday at the Jerusalem International Convention Center featuring 11 government ministers and 15 coalition lawmakers. Participants called for starving the Gazans (“don’t give them food…they will have to leave…”) and demanded the death penalty for “terrorists” (Gazans who remain in Gaza).

How will the ICJ respond? Will anyone, outside the Axis of Resistance, enforce its anti-genocide order?

Update: Prof. Hall just published a new article developing his criticism of the ICJ ruling. Compare it to the counter-arguments of Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray.

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