Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

The series of chemical weapons hoaxes—false flag incidents that helped NATO and Israel overthrow the Syrian government and install their current ISIS/Al-Qaeda puppets—are unraveling. Today Dr. Piers Robinson joins us to discuss this issue by way of his recent article “Dr. Brendan Whelan's ILOAT Win Reveals Clear Evidence of OPCW Corruption.”

Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio-Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing this podcast since 2006. I try to bring on the most interesting writers and translate them into audiovisual. One of the best writers right now is Piers Robinson. He’s a fellow refugee from the controlled academy. We’re not so controlled now (that we’ve left).

Piers has done great work on a number of issues. We recently did a podcast on his work on the 9/11 planes. And now we’re going to revisit another of these big deceptions and scandals: the Syria chemical weapons thing. It’s hard to say whether it even was a thing. So let’s find out. Hey, welcome, Piers Robinson. How are you?

Piers Robinson: Good to see you, Kevin. I’m doing well, thanks.

Kevin Barrett: Good to have you back. So these chemical weapons accusations against Syria during the war that finally brought down the Syrian government a couple of years ago always had the stench of dubiousness about them, to say the least. But it was kind of hard to nail it down and prove exactly what was going on. It was complicated, right? Lots of alleged attacks going both ways.

Piers Robinson: You are correct. There was one in Homs in 2012 in December which was a staged event and they tried to spin it off as a sarin or a nerve agent attack. But very quickly the wheels came off that and I think even the US State Department backed away from the claims being made. But that was one of the very earliest incarnations of what I describe as essentially false flags, staged events.

Kevin Barrett: Bush had joked about Iraqi WMD and pretended to be looking for them under his desk. It turned out to be a complete hoax, and yet they rolled out the same thing for Syria. How do they get away with that?

Piers Robinson: Well, that’s the incredible thing about it. Syria was one of the 9/11 wars. It was planned (by the neocons): Wesley Clark famously blurted out about the seven countries in five years, and Syria was one of them. So it was always one of the countries which they were going to use the 9/11 false flag in order to get a war going. And of course with Syria it didn’t really get going until 2011 when you had various covert operations and also multiple external actors fueling dissent within the country and then really pretty much almost immediately triggering unrest.

Well, of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But in the UK you had Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s top biological weapons expert, who had a rather candid conversation with the BBC and said that the British government had sexed up the intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

At the same time, you had Ambassador Wilson in the US, who had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellowcake uranium claims, and he said pretty much the same thing. On both sides of the Atlantic you had very high, very significant officials basically saying that there was no WMD in Iraq because they were manipulating the intelligence.

A lot of people became aware of that in the fullness of time. Then came Syria. It’s quite remarkable that one of the decisions they made — and I suspect some of this was to do with Israeli involvement, but a lot of it was actually rooted in UK Foreign Office planning — was to build a narrative around demonizing the Syrian government and Assad using the same set of allegations, this idea that there are chemical and biological weapons.

Of course, in the case of Syria, the allegation was that Assad was using these weapons. In a way, it’s surprising that they embarked upon the same kind of deception again, but then perhaps not so surprising because it did work the first time.

Kevin Barrett: Right, but people woke up to it, supposedly.

Piers Robinson: People woke up to it, but they got the job done. But then that’s quite a long time to 2011. And I think you had the whole Arab Spring narrative building up around 2011. And I think it was easy for what was happening in Syria to get folded into that.

There was a build-up to this, because prior to this there was an interesting series of alleged chemical weapons attacks. It actually started in March 2013 when there was actually an attack on Syrian army soldiers using a nerve agent. And the Syrian government went straight to the United Nations and said, “We want an investigation. Some of our soldiers have been killed and we believe it’s a nerve agent.”

Almost as soon as the Syrian government had done that, you then had these counter accusations coming in from Britain, France, Qatar and the US alleging that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons.

You had the emergence of what I understand now as essentially staged events. This is where you started to have the involvement of, for example, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British military officer who’d set up a company called SecureBio. As we know now, he was part of an MI6 sample-gathering operation in 2013.

So you had this kind of interesting build-up to Ghouta 2013, all set around this invitation or request from the Syrian government: come in, send in the UN, send in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and get this investigated.

Then all of these other allegations suddenly started being thrown out by the Americans and the Brits and these kinds of events occurring in Syria.

When the joint OPCW-UN team arrived in Damascus in August 2013 to begin their investigations, at exactly that point there was a mass rocket-launch sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus in Ghouta.

So this is what we’re being asked to believe in terms of this narrative building: that the Syrian government legitimately requested the UN OPCW to come in, the inspectors get into the capital and then within a week or so you have this mass sarin rocket attack in Ghouta with a large casualty count.

The details of this are a little bit more complicated than that. I know some researchers argue that actually not that many people were killed by sarin and a lot of these people were probably massacred.

I think there are elements in the US who were part of this red-line creation. I think it was pushed by external actors in Israel as well. Obama famously backed away from it. He was given information from Clapper that this was not a slam dunk.

They backed away. Russia, of course, defused the situation by persuading Assad to hand over Syria’s strategic chemical weapons stocks, which Syria always had essentially as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear capability.

But Assad said, “Okay, we’ll go along with this. We will sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and we will dispose of all of our weapons.” These were all put onto Cape Ray, an American warship, and then destroyed.

That was the point at which the red line didn’t quite work for those wanting the full-scale intervention, but it did, I think from Israel’s point of view, get to this point of the disarmament of Assad.

Kevin Barrett: For sure.

Piers Robinson: I think with hindsight, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. And it was also clearly a mistake because this didn’t bring an end to it.

Within a year of Syria having acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and getting rid of its sarin stocks, you then had the sudden emergence of chlorine allegations.

Chlorine historically as a battlefield munition was used by the Germans in the First World War. You need huge quantities of the material. You’re talking with these alleged tactics of chlorine cylinders dropped, they burst and chlorine would pour out.

Kevin Barrett: Like somebody was getting in by the roof with a bottle of bleach from their laundry and kind of dropping the bleach bottle.

Piers Robinson: Yeah, but this worked and these alleged attacks started to occur. Then the allegations started to be delivered from the usual suspects: Assad has now started to use chlorine weapons against his own population.

The British government was very much involved in this. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were involved in the sense that they had the White Helmets set up, as some of your listeners are probably aware. They had various other outsourced operations in Syria.

The important point is around 2014 where the OPCW got drawn back into investigation of these attacks. What happened was that they set up an ad hoc body called the Fact Finding Mission, the FFM missions. These were there to deploy into the country.

They were told that they had clearance to go in, so they went into opposition-held territory. But just as they crossed the line outside Syrian government-controlled territory where they had been safe, their convoy was ambushed.

Two of the OPCW teams were held hostage for about 24 hours. They hit an IED. There’s a picture of their UN car severely damaged.

At that point — and you can probably start to guess what might have been the rationale for opposition groups attacking the OPCW convoy — the OPCW decided they couldn’t safely send teams into those territories.

So you had this setup where you had the OPCW with this ad hoc Fact Finding Mission set up to go into Syria, but then not being able to get in on the ground and relying upon information being supplied by groups aligned with belligerents in the country.

In the case of the White Helmets, these were groups aligned with opposition forces.

This went on for several years. I’ve gone through a lot of these. I’m working on a book on it at the moment. I’ve done a series for UK Column.

Some of these allegations were transparently false, and yet they got reported on by the OPCW Fact Finding Mission and ultimately started to build this alleged body of evidence: here we’ve got another investigation, another chemical attack, not confirmed, but reasonable grounds to suspect this is going on.

There was this period between 2014 and 2016 where what you had were essentially fairly crudely staged false flags or staged events.

Some of the claims being made are laughable. In one instance, one of the early instances where the Fact Finding Mission gathered evidence from information supplied to them, there was a crater on the ground surrounded by dead animals. This is where one chlorine cylinder was supposed to have impacted and created the huge crater.

Ninety metres away there was another yellow cylinder on a kitchen, which was claimed to have occurred at the same time.

It was reported at the time by the White Helmets and the usual suspects promoting it over social media.

So you had almost comical but ultimately effective operations because the OPCW Fact Finding Missions were very much, I would argue, co-opted by the intelligence services, certainly of Britain and other Western powers.

They were basically serving up what the US wanted, what the British government wanted, what the French wanted and what the Israelis wanted.

Even when you had these implausible scenarios being presented, more occurred throughout 2015 and 2016.

There was a bizarre idea that chlorine was being generated in tiny quantities through improvised devices.

As some people pointed out at the time, this was absurd. One person I know connected to the OPCW said, “Well, that will create enough chlorine to kill maybe a field mouse. Why not just drop a cylinder of chlorine?”

But it helped create this impression of dastardly weapons being created by the Syrian government. That ended up in an OPCW report.

Again, the same setup. By this point the White Helmets were very much in the driving seat of these chemical attacks. They turn up, they feed the information back, and they became key sources of information going back to the Fact Finding Missions.

This was facilitated by James Le Mesurier, the former British military guy who was having direct contact with the OPCW inspectors. So you can see the dangers of the corruption of the process there.

That rumbled on until 2017. In a way this helped maintain the backdrop narrative of the Syrian government systematically using chemical weapons.

But it wasn’t necessarily having the splash they wanted. So this is where they moved to: okay, we need to bring sarin back into play here, even though the Syrian government has given up its sarin stocks.

We were trying to hold this line that Assad was just using chlorine gas cylinders. Now that doesn’t really kill a large number of people. It’s not a particularly dangerous weapon to be using in that way.

So then you had the Khan Shaykhun sarin attack, which the Trump administration bombed Syria over a week later.

The White Helmets were heavily involved in that. Ted Postol, the American MIT ballistics and weapons expert, argued that this was a staged or false-flag event in order to try and get the Trump administration to carry out a bombing.

Khan Shaykhun killed a significant number of people. I think about 40 people were killed in this sarin attack.

I know people who’ve looked at it closely and said this is clearly a staged event. People are killed, but it’s a false-flag event which has occurred.

This was around the point where I started, as an academic, to look at this issue.

Then came Douma in 2018. About 43 civilians were killed. Again America, Britain and France bombed in retaliation, so it was very big news.

It was initially presented as a sarin attack. These people were filmed in an apartment block with foam in their mouth and so on. It was argued at least initially by the US that this was a nerve-agent attack.

The OPCW FFM team got into Syria. Just as the Douma alleged attack occurred, the area fell to Syrian and Russian forces. So for the first time the OPCW were actually able to get in on the ground and investigate themselves.

All of those previous alleged attacks had relied upon the White Helmets. Now suddenly, because the Syrian government had secured the area almost immediately after the alleged attack, the OPCW Fact Finding Team were able to get in on the ground.

America, Britain and France bombed anyway before they even got to work.

This is where the wheels came off the Fact Finding Missions and the investigation of these attacks.

The OPCW inspectors who were in charge of writing the original report ended up arranging to visit NATO weapons experts and chemical weapons experts, who gave unequivocal feedback that these people could not have been killed by chlorine.

There’s no sarin present, but the actual features you see on the civilians and the numbers don’t make sense if chlorine gas had been used. It would make sense if a nerve agent had been used, but not chlorine.

So immediately there was a problem.

At the point at which the interim report was supposed to be published, Brendan Whelan and the others produced a report saying, “Okay, we need to do more work, but we have toxicology findings that don’t support chlorine.”

They also raised concerns about the cylinders supposedly pouring chlorine down into the house and killing the 43 people in the building.

They set this out in a very objective interim report which essentially raised the possibility that this could well be a false flag.

That report was signed off by the Douma team. But at the point at which it went to publication, Brendan suddenly discovered that the report had been completely changed.

The report they’d written had been rewritten to basically imply that this was definitely a chlorine attack. “We’ve got a bit more research to do, but that’s pretty much what happened.”

That was the start of internal dissent within the OPCW, with Brendan Whelan challenging his superiors and saying, “What on earth is going on? Somebody has literally come in and rewritten our report.”

Everything from there, for about six, seven or eight months before the final report came out, involved internal battles going on within the OPCW.

Then when the final OPCW report came out in 2019 basically saying there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Syrian government carried out a chlorine attack, the whistleblowers realised they had witnessed a manipulated and corrupted investigation.

They tried to speak out internally.

Other things started to happen. I was part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and we were leaked an engineering study commissioned by Ian Henderson, one of the OPCW inspectors.

The engineering assessment basically said that these yellow cylinders were more likely to have been placed by hand. It’s very unlikely they fell from helicopters.

The cylinders didn’t punch holes in ceilings. These cylinders were placed there.

We published that document in the Working Group and then all hell broke loose within the OPCW.

We’ll talk about Brendan’s win at the International Labour Organization in a few minutes. But the issue remains unaddressed by the OPCW.

The OPCW have continually refused to even meet with the scientists who were blowing the whistle.

As I say, everyone has been to varying degrees smeared.

Now we are in this kind of holding pattern on the issue where obviously the Syrian government fell in 2024.

The OPCW has created a new special missions office to try and seal up the Syria file. We’re all waiting for them to pull out some evidence, haul in some people they’re going to accuse, and so on.

But we don’t know what their play is going to be. They obviously have a huge amount of their credibility invested in this.

That was a long introduction, but that kind of covers everything, I think.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it’s kind of a different approach to false flags than 9-11. 9-11 was one huge thing all happening on the same morning and hijacking headlines reverberating out from there.

Piers Robinson: As I said before, the basic setup with the OPCW Fact Finding Missions is they’re relying upon information supplied by the White Helmets.

Another thing which came out of the Douma scandal was that the Office of the Director General in the OPCW and the Chief of Cabinet — which is considered the key power position — had oversight.

You had a British career diplomat in charge during Douma, later replaced by a French career diplomat.

The political and bureaucratic office had oversight of the investigation, while the verification and scientific divisions of the OPCW were kept away.

So you actually had the political office taking control of the process.

We know at Douma that the 43 civilians who were found dead in the building were almost definitely killed somewhere else.

They were probably killed by Jaysh al-Islam, probably under the watch of British intelligence.

So you’ve got some pretty dirty dealings going on as part of this narrative building.

James Le Mesurier, as you probably know, fell to his death from his apartment building in Turkey two weeks after an OPCW official had given testimony at the Brussels panel.

There are a lot of question marks over how he came to fall off the roof of his building in the middle of the night.

But he was closely involved in this operation. We know that. We know he was this kind of channel between the White Helmets and the OPCW process.

Our involvement in this was pretty horrifying.

This is why when I was with a group of academics and we started looking at the Syria chemical weapons issue back in 2017 and early 2018 — this was before Douma — within weeks of setting up that Working Group we were on the front page of The Times of London being described as Assad apologists.

These were pretty unknown professors in Russell Group universities.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I remember that.

Piers Robinson: We realised, boy, we’re right over the target. They really, really wanted to shut us up.

Kevin Barrett: It didn’t take them long. With 9/11, the 9/11 Truth Movement had been building up slowly for several years before they finally pushed back in the summer of 2006.

That was also when a group of academics had gotten involved. Scholars for 9/11 Truth had suddenly gotten about 100 people on record, with the possibility of a lot more. That was when they pushed back.

Apparently you guys were doing a better job, or at least doing it quicker.

Piers Robinson: Tim’s still in position. I’ve worked hard to keep publishing in mainstream academic outlets and still managed to do that. I count that as a major victory given the amount of mud thrown at us.

But this is how the system works. You can shut people up by reputational attacks.

As I say, I’ve managed to get stuff published in the last few years.

We did this big report for Mick Wallace and Clare Daly when they were MEPs.

I’m writing a book and I had a meeting with a mainstream academic publisher and said, “This is the book I’m going to do on the whole Syria OPCW chemical weapons issue.”

There’s a chance I’ll get it out with a mainstream publisher.

But it’s difficult. As you know, there’s a lot of gatekeeping in academia.

But I’ve still managed to work with people in mainstream academia. I still publish and write and present and give talks.

It hasn’t been total exclusion. That was certainly my sense in 2019 and 2020. I thought, “Well, this is going to be the end of me having any involvement in mainstream academia.” But it hasn’t worked out that way.

Still, I’m a naive optimist about these things.

Kevin Barrett: Isn’t it bizarre how suddenly the fact that Syria is now controlled by ISIS and Al-Qaeda people — one would think it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think those people might actually have been committing atrocities. Yet the media, which demonizes radical Islam and built the whole War on Terror on demonizing Al-Qaeda, is totally happy with having the president of Syria being Al-Qaeda because he represents the West.

Piers Robinson: It is amazing. That whole narrative flip or inversion of what we see is extraordinary.

Of course, this is picked up on by Massie and other American politicians.

The whole Islamic fundamentalist narrative was constructed. Essentially it’s false. This is a product of the intelligence agencies of the West, with Israel absolutely at the center of it, spinning a massive deception on audiences in the West.

Do you think we’re at the point — as we were saying in our last talk with Iran — is this a point of failure in the West? I’m not quite sure where it’s all going at the moment.

Kevin Barrett: I’m still hoping my predictions from 20 years ago hold true. I’ve always thought that a combination of a really grave military defeat plus an economic implosion could lead to the kind of situation that got the Argentine generals thrown out after the Falklands.

It seems like the global economy is heading for the cliff right now.

So it looks like that combination of a catastrophic military defeat followed by an economic implosion. Maybe when the pieces get swept up, that’s the time when the angry voices saying, “How did we get to this point?” start to be heard.

Piers Robinson: I probably feel the same as you. I’m hopeful and optimistic that there’s a context now where these things can properly unravel and there can be awareness, maybe even accountability.

But is there going to be another card played in terms of trying to distract populations? It’s difficult.

Clearly the international system is changing significantly. The distribution of power, whether economic, ideational or military, is clearly changing.

There’s clearly an awareness-raising going on in the US.

It’s realistic now to talk about whether it’s feasible for Israel to continue to exist in its current form given what has just happened.

That would have been unthinkable for polite liberals. People like me were considered jihadist crazies for saying things like that 20 years ago.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah.

Piers Robinson: But they’ve used up their support. Certainly globally it’s at rock bottom.

Even in the West, with what we see in Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk — that part of the American right clearly shifting away from this kind of blind support.

So something good might come out of that.

Kevin Barrett: Right, it’s kind of strange how they’re breaking out the UFO thing right now.

Piers Robinson: I think that’s just a sign of weakness. “Oh blimey, you can’t start any wars, you can only do false flags — what can we do now to distract the masses? Okay, we’ll have to go for the little green men.”

I don’t believe any of it. I think it’s PSYOP.

Kevin Barrett: I’m confused about what the reality is. But I agree with you about the propaganda value or propaganda purpose of what they’re doing right now.

We ended False Flag Weekly News this week with the flying saucer video landing on the White House lawn and burning into the lawn: “Release the Epstein files.”

I actually did dive into that topic because my PhD work was on Moroccan medieval Sufi saint legends, and those legends are built around miracle stories.

So that ties into my longstanding interest in questions of extraordinary phenomena.

It does seem that if the whole thing is a big propaganda operation built on nothing, they’ve put an awful lot of effort into it and gotten an awful lot of people involved in counterintuitive ways.

So I actually think there is something going on.

But whether we’re going to hear the truth from a government commission, especially Trump’s, I wouldn’t bet on that.

Piers Robinson: Yeah, they’re going to spin it.

I like to keep open-minded about all these things. There’s more things in heaven and earth and so on.

But for sure the stuff they’re pumping out is for the purpose of trying to distract from economic crisis.

Here in Europe there’s a lot of chatter about war with Russia.

Kevin Barrett: Right, and the elites are open about it. Maybe that’s the thing they’re going to do.

I don’t understand it. My whole life the assumption has been that Europeans are somewhat more rational than the crazy gung-ho Americans, much less the completely crazy gung-ho Israelis.

Piers Robinson: This is an unelected individual in charge of the European Union. This is what they say. It’s not what you hear on the street.

We’re in this kind of post-COVID era where there’s already widespread skepticism toward authorities.

But getting people ready to go to war really focuses the mind amongst the population.

I think there is this historical memory in Europe.

What German is going to want his son or daughter to go and die in trenches in Ukraine against Russia?

Even a lot of Ukrainians have been reluctant to go along with the press gangs grabbing them and throwing them into vans to take them off to the front-line trenches, almost like World War I except with drones.

Kevin Barrett: I don’t know what the attraction would be to that kind of war or to nuclear war, for that matter.

And I don’t understand the geostrategic purpose.

Honestly, with Europe, I had always thought it would be good if Europe had more power and maybe rearmed a little bit and was more independent and acted as a counterweight to the United States because I always thought the Europeans were more sensible.

But now I don’t know.

Piers Robinson: I think there might be some economic arguments in there in terms of remilitarization, like kickstarting the economy in a Keynesian kind of way.

But I suspect most of the rationale is probably elites keeping control of the population by constructing an external enemy.

There’s no strategic interest. Obviously it’s in Europe’s interest to have good relations with Russia. Russia is just over there with lots of cheap energy.

So I think there’s no core interest in going toward conflict with Russia.

This is elites. We have economic crisis. We have a financial system which is a house of cards. Everyone keeps asking when it’s going to collapse.

We have economies which clearly need to be recalibrated given the shifts in the distribution of power globally.

The world’s changing and I’m confident we will change because necessity forces change.

But as we go through that change you’ve got elites at the top who are trying to hold on to the existing order and their power.

This is one of the cards they’re playing: war against Russia.

There were big demonstrations in town. There were always local demos every week.

So there was pushback there. I think if we get pushed closer to war with Russia, you’ll see the same.

I remember that a year and a half ago Sahra Wagenknecht called a demo at Brandenburg Gate. Jeffrey Sachs was piped in by livestream. They pulled 50,000 people at a week’s notice over the Ukraine war.

Kevin Barrett: They arrest people for holding placards.

Piers Robinson: That was going down in Britain. All of that stuff is very much out of control.

But there’s a limit to what they can do with censorship as well.

They’re trying to control social media, but you can clamp down there and people will communicate in other ways.

I’ve always thought about internet-based communications and their desire to control discourse through technology.

Most people also go down the pub and talk to their friends. There is a social world outside the internet and governments can’t control that in the way they want to.

Kevin Barrett: This Iran war is the least popular war in US history right off the bat, and yet we’re not seeing huge crowds opposing it. We just see polls showing that nobody agrees with it.

Piers Robinson: That’s an interesting question. Support for European leaders is also rock bottom.

You have crazy leaders carrying out crazy policies which none of the people support.

Is this simply the death throes of the Western Empire? That’s always the backdrop I hope we’re seeing here — a painful process that big powerful blocs and empires go through as they accommodate to a new reality.

Kevin Barrett: It’s the emperor’s-clothes thing. But is Trump not already there? Half of his base now pretty much rejects the consensus.

Piers Robinson: That consensus group is fragmenting.

I’m guessing Charlie Kirk was killed for reasons that are not too difficult to fathom.

Kevin Barrett: The people who ran public opinion through the methods you’ve studied for so long are maybe having a harder time now and getting desperate as their empire crumbles. So let’s come back and talk about it as the crumbling continues.

Piers Robinson: Keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Keep up the great work.

Piers Robinson: Okay, Kevin. Good to talk.

Kevin Barrett: Take care.

Piers Robinson: Take care.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

Watch the first-ever False Flag Weekly News roundtable above, featuring several of our favorite FFWN fans…plus long-time cohost Cat McGuire and her sister Colleen. (Cat and Colleen open the show discussing Cat’s health condition that led to her stepping down as regular first-cohost-of-the-month.)

I have dreamed of finding myself in a strange country where I can’t communicate with anyone. Since I am a native speaker of English, that won’t happen in real life the way it happened to my Moroccan in-laws who visited Turkey and found their Moroccan Arabic, French, and bare smattering of English didn’t work.

But I am experiencing something along those lines here in Milan, Italy. I arrived from Barcelona Saturday and have been trying to speak Italian with people. But it keeps coming out as Spanish with an Italian accent. People chuckle and answer me in English.

I studied Italian informally for less than a year back in 1989, and have barely used it since. I can read Italian newspapers, thanks to the many cognates with French and Spanish, but have forgotten how to say hello and order coffee.

Since I moved to Morocco in 2023 I have been spending a lot of time and effort upgrading my Arabic. Besides the radically different “high” and “low” varieties of Arabic, Morocco also features plenty of French, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber). There are actually four to six types of low Arabic (darija) and three types of Amazigh. And high Arabic has two very different registers, Modern Standard Arabic and Classical. So you could say that there are thirteen native languages used in Morocco, a nation a little over half again as large as California.

I predicted to my students thirty years ago that communications barriers would fall within their lifetimes: English would become even more of a de facto global language, and translation technology would make most spoken and written information available to everybody. Fewer people would bother to learn foreign languages, because they wouldn’t have to. At some point they might not even have to learn English, since they could just speak into their phones and have it come out in whatever language they choose. Those in technical professions would find technical terminology available in their native languages thanks to machine translation. In short, it won’t be long before everybody can easily talk to everybody!

That AI-powered Tower of Babel is already half-built. If it ever reaches the heavens, humanity will seamlessly communicate as one. Then again, it might stall and fall, like the original Tower of Babel did. If that happens, it won’t be because humanity has been suddenly shattered into tribes with thousands of different languages, but because people aren’t satisfied with life as atomized individuals. They want families, neighborhoods, community.

The False Flag Weekly News Community

In 2014—a decade after jumping headlong into the 9/11 truth movement, and eight years after being defenestrated from academia—I created False Flag Weekly News along with Jim Fetzer and the late Allan Rees. Our idea was to critique the media by way of an hour-long weekly news roundup. We would try to cover the most significant stories of the week, debunking mainstream propaganda along the way.

I wanted the show to be snappy, fast-moving, heavy on terse but clever soundbites, with lots of back-and-forth repartee including occasional disagreements between hosts. Above all, I wanted to inject some humor. The horrible truths of history and current events are painfully indigestible without the spice of laughter.

We started out posting on several YouTube channels and growing a respectable audience, before shadowbanning and later deplatforming kicked in. After YouTube had banned all of the channels featuring the show, it moved to Rumble and Bitchute in 2021.

Along the way, FFWN has attracted an intellectually high-end audience, including some enthusiastic supporters who comment on the episodes and/or contribute to the Fundrazrs that keep the show going. (Preparing each week’s episode is labor-intensive, as the co-hosts who occasionally stand in for me can testify.)

Thinking “anyone who likes FFWN is probably a pretty cool person, I wouldn’t mind meeting some of them” I set up this week’s show as a roundtable discussion and emailed invitations. Watch the result and drop a comment letting me know what you think: Should I do this again?

Part of the fun was chatting with people before we started recording the show. If I do another episode like this, I’ll make sure to reserve a block of time before the actual show for informal discussion. I’ll also need to figure out how to moderate the discussion with greater dexterity, especially if the number of participants grows.

The highlight of the evening turned out to be Cat and Colleen McGuire’s surprise appearance. Cat McGuire, with often-unsung backing from her twin sister Colleen, has been an activism dynamo for at least a decade, and was the first FFWN co-host every month for years until brain cancer slowed her down last summer.

Virtual vs. Real Community

Cat McGuire is a real-life friend. I’ve visited her in New York, she has stayed in our guest room in Saidia, Morocco, and we’ve hung out in other places. She’s one of those people who, though neither family nor neighbor, I genuinely care about. I really miss connecting with her every month. I’m sad that she is so seriously ill, praying for her recovery, and appreciating the courage and wisdom she’s showing as she deals with her illness by taking her dedication to ihsaan (making things better) to the spiritual plane.

I doubt I’d feel that close to her if I only knew her through the internet. We humans are wired for hanging out with friends and family and neighbors in real life (or “meat space” as the autist cyberpunks used to call it). But the digitally-mediated world is giving us ever-less of that. Lonely people stare at their phones all day, addicted to reels and shorts and porn and social media outrage, manipulated by governments and corporations and their hired propagandists.

I’m one of the lucky ones who has escaped the worst digital traps and cesspools and instead met an unusually high-quality bunch of people thanks to the internet. I like all the people I’ve gotten to know through the False Flag Weekly News community, including those I’ve never met in real life. And being in Morocco, I’m lucky to be able to hop around Europe on $20 Ryan Air flights meeting some of them in person. (I once even randomly ran into a FFWN fan in Tamraght, Morocco, also about a twenty-buck flight from Oujda.)

My weird existence as a rootless red-pilled cosmopolitan (tendance sois-disant antisémite) with a virtual community spread across the world is probably not what human nature intends. Celia Farber, another real-life friend I met through Cat, tells me she craves settling down in a place she can call home, but isn’t quite sure where that would be. Since she has friends in Sweden, she’s thinking of heading there.

Assuming the jet fuel doesn’t run out, I expect to be back home in Saidia, Morocco by early June. I’m loosely affiliated with a soon-to-open café-bookstore there, Café Shakespeare, where people will be encouraged to hang out and have interesting conversations in real life. Maybe a False Flag Weekly News fan or two will eventually find their way to Saidia.

Meanwhile, the show must go on. Stay tuned to False Flag Weekly News, and feel free to drop by the next roundtable.

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

Monika Wiesak is the author of America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy . In it, she explains in detail why the loss of JKF mattered far more than not only the likes of Chomsky claim, but even more than most of Kennedy's admirers realize. She also dares to explore the possibility, following Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyenot, and Ron Unz, that Israel was the prime force behind the assassination. Check out her new Substack article on that increasingly hot topic…it’s very useful background information for those wondering why so many voices with huge audiences including Cenk Uyger and Tucker Carlson, Lawrence Wilkerson and Judge Napolitano, Wilkerson and Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, and most importantly former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who says that more than 10,000 JFK files have been illegally withheld because they reveal that Israel did it have been saying such things.

Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing the radio show for years and now some video too. I try to bring on important authors and writers to translate the written word into some spoken dialogue. We have a very important author today, Monika Weisak. She’s written some great books on a number of topics, probably none more important than America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. So…hello Monika, how are you?

Monika Wiesak:I’m good. Thank you very much for having me on today.

Kevin Barrett: It’s great to have you and meet you. I admire your work. Here is your book on JFK, America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I think it’s an important book because the only thing remotely close to it that I know of anyway is the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable, which is primarily about the assassination, but it touches on the reasons for the assassination, which were essentially that John F. Kennedy was standing up for the public interest against a long list of people who didn’t have the public interest in mind at all. But your book focuses on that and not so much on the assassination, and I think it’s a great contribution, so congratulations.

Monika Wiesak: Thank you.

Kevin Barrett: The last chapters on the assassination kind of hint—actually, you could go from that last chapter to the Douglass book, and it would be a pretty good segue, wouldn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, what I wanted to do is, I felt like nobody had really answered the question. The subtitle of the book is What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I felt like no book had really properly answered that question because the first question to ask about any massive historical assassination is what changed, or what did we lose, or why does it matter? And I felt like a lot of the books were focusing on the technicalities of the assassination or were theorizing about what might have happened.

Kevin Barrett: That’s a great point. And that’s actually something that doesn’t come out nearly as forcefully in the Douglass book. It’s kind of implicit, right?And it’s quite shocking, really, how radically different the world might have been had the Kennedy program succeeded. And how do we even start to think about something that massive?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. It’s sort of why I put it together, because it was so much more than I imagined. Before I studied his presidency, what I’d kind of heard rumblings of was, oh, maybe Vietnam or things of that nature, but it’s really the whole world. It’s Africa, it’s the Congo, it’s Latin America, it’s Indonesia, it’s Laos and Vietnam, it’s the Middle East, it’s Palestine. All of these policies changed drastically upon his assassination.

Kennedy was very much in support of Third World nationalism. He gave a lot of foreign aid to Africa, to Latin America. I think foreign aid to Africa increased something like fivefold. He did the Alliance for Progress for Latin America, which was to help those countries become independent and help make them not so reliant on just a primary export, but really to develop their own economies.

I think he just viewed the world as sort of... We were catering to the ultra-wealthy in the United States, as we do today, rather than the lives of your average American.

Kevin Barrett: Right. That quality of Kennedy’s, that he actually had compassion for ordinary people and wanted to set policies that served their interests, really shines through in your book. And that includes both Americans and people outside of the U.S. And I think a lot of people have missed much, if not all, of this. I know for many years I’d read people like Noam Chomsky, who is anti-Kennedy and basically tries to claim that anybody who cares about that assassination is completely misguided and Kennedy was ruthless.

So to what do you attribute that kind of second assassination of Kennedy that came from many different quarters, including from the left, from Chomsky? What was behind that?

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, it’s got to be because they don’t want people to care, right? If you want to cover up a coup d’état that occurred, one of the easiest ways to cover it up—there’s two ways to cover it up, right? One is to cover up the crime itself, which they did with the Warren Commission and whatnot. But they didn’t do a great job of it because it’s a difficult crime to physically cover up.

So the other way to cover it up is to make people not care. And in some ways that’s a more effective way.

Like Chomsky said, “Who cares who killed JFK? Who cares if it was a jealous husband?” Implying it doesn’t even matter if it was a conspiracy. It doesn’t even matter if it wasn’t Oswald because Kennedy meant nothing to this world.

Kevin Barrett: Was he alluding to Cord Meyer and Kennedy’s relationship?

Monika Wiesak: I don’t know what he was alluding to, but I think what he was alluding to was that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if Oswald did it or not because nothing changed when Kennedy died, I think is what Chomsky’s argument is. And you have to really question Chomsky because it’s very obvious that a massive amount did change. One just needs to look at the historical record to see that. So one has to wonder what Chomsky’s intentions were in downplaying it.

And I think his intentions were to make people not care. He said that bluntly: why should anyone care?

And so I think it’s because something like the assassination of a president is something that can really mobilize people. There are a lot of atrocities happening around the world, and it’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s difficult to get Americans to really understand those atrocities or really put in the effort to try to correct them because they don’t really grasp them. They’re so distant from Americans’ everyday lives.

But the murder of America’s president—people understand that. People grasp that. People are impacted by that. So that’s something that could actually mobilize the public.

Kevin Barrett: Chomsky also said at one point—and I think when people pressed him on JFK and made some of the points you just made—he switched tacks and said that it would be sort of fatal for the left, meaning his people, to try to take on the people who had the power to kill a president. They would be far too powerful to take on. It would be suicide to try to take them on. He actually said that, which struck me as bizarre.

Monika Wiesak:Yeah, that is bizarre, because if enough people speak about it, there’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t stop the truth if enough people speak on it. Chomsky had a pretty large following, so he absolutely could have mobilized people to try to do something about the Kennedy assassination if he wanted to.

Kevin Barrett:Or 9/11, for that matter.

Monika Wiesak:Yeah, or any major crime. I think he could have mobilized people, but he chose not to, and I think that makes his career look highly problematic.

Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I agree completely. So getting back to this situation that Kennedy faced, it was kind of an interesting historical moment, wasn’t it, with the Cold War taking on a whole new dimension as the USSR was just bringing online a really serious nuclear weapons force that could challenge the American force and actually would match and challenge it within a decade.

Kennedy takes over just in time to start overseeing that. And he is really pretty much the only U.S. president, one of very few global leaders in the West, that’s sympathetic to these movements that shook off European domination. Those two things by themselves already, even setting aside the economy and the economic issues and the civil rights issues and so on and so forth, this was really a world historical moment, wasn’t it?

Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. And I think there were two major things happening at that time.

One was there was a real risk of World War III. There were many in the U.S. military who were itching for war with the Soviets, who thought now is the time to get rid of the Soviets. We have to do it before 1963, before their weapons become too sophisticated. If we do it now, like you said, we might only lose 20 million. If we wait a few years...

And at the same time, all of these countries in Africa particularly, but all around the world, had just recently become independent. When Eisenhower was president, he had on average one African leader a year come to the White House. During Kennedy’s 36 months, he had on average one African leader or head of state a month come to the White House.

Kevin Barrett:I didn’t know that until I read your book. That’s fascinating.

Monika Wiesak:Yeah. So pretty much every month he’d have some head of state from Africa come to the United States to visit. It wasn’t just that he gave them a lot of aid, but he formed very friendly relations with them. He rolled out the red carpet for them.

When Algeria went independent, he had this huge event at the White House. It was just this spectacular event for them. And you can’t imagine that happening today in the U.S., all these countries being celebrated.

He pushed Portugal hard to try to give Angola independence during his presidency. And he was very supportive of these countries staying unaligned. Back then there was something called the Non-Aligned Movement. That was countries that didn’t want to align with the United States or with the Soviets, but just kind of wanted to be independent and make their own decisions. And Kennedy was very supportive of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was led by Sukarno, the president of Indonesia. They had a conference in Belgrade while he was president, and Kennedy was very supportive of that.

So he was not into America being the dominant power. He was into America having friendly relations with all these other independent nations, and he felt that was best for the stability of the world and that was best for Americans.

It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to be an imperial power. It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to get caught up in wars or to be dominated by a few oligarchs. It was best for the average American to live in a peaceful, cooperative world with other countries. That’s sort of how Kennedy viewed the world.

Kevin Barrett:Flynn and Hillary Leverett wrote Going to Tehran, arguing for a sort of JFK-style policy towards Iran. In other words, we don’t have to be totally hostile and constantly sponsor terrorism against them, trying to overthrow their government. We can disagree with them on certain things, but also have a productive relationship, trade with them. We’ll get more influence that way.

But those people never seem to win ever since Kennedy was killed. And you have to think there’s kind of a direct link there.

Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. Kennedy actually visited Iran in 1951. It wasn’t in my book, but he went in 1951. Then he went on these TV shows afterwards, and he wrote in his diary that the U.S. should work with Mossadegh, that the British were being really unfair, and that the British were exploiting the Iranian people, and that America needed to work with Mossadegh and with the people in Iran. So his view is very opposite to what happened later, which was the coup in 1953 that installed the Shah.

Even back then, as a young congressman—he wasn’t even senator yet—he was already going on TV and talking about the importance of supporting local populations and supporting their desires. He just viewed the world in a very different way, and I think he would be absolutely horrified at what’s happening in the Middle East today.

And he predicted it, right? Because if you look at his letters and his memos and his meetings, one quote he said in his meetings—which wasn’t in my book—is that he wanted the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or one of the most important reasons to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, was to stop countries like Israel and Egypt from getting nukes. And he’s like, if they get nukes, we’re going to be, quote unquote, “in a b***h of a scenario.”

So that’s where we are. That’s exactly where we are 60 years later. I think he would be horrified, but I don’t think he’d be surprised because he felt like this is where it would lead if something wasn’t done to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle, so to speak.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed, yeah. And I think he would probably be one of the few mainstream American politicians to very strongly condemn the genocide of Gaza as well. That’s something that you can’t imagine Kennedy presiding over: the United States supporting Israel flattening Gaza and killing tens of thousands of women and children that way.

Monika Wiesak: No, because when he was president, he supported Palestinian right of return. Now, he tried to do it in a very fair way in terms of it wasn’t just “everybody go back,” but everybody gets the choice to go back. So he supported the Joseph Johnson plan through the UN, where the idea was that every refugee would get the choice to go back, the choice to be compensated, or the choice to move to another nation.

And it was sort of in favor of compensation. Because it was sort of in favor of compensation, they estimated maybe 10% of refugees would choose to go back. But they felt that was a fair way where everyone would get a choice, where it wouldn’t flood Israel with refugees at the same time.

But obviously the Joseph Johnson plan ended up falling apart. Israel was very opposed to it. A lot of the Arab nations were opposed to it because they thought it was unfair.

Kevin Barrett: And there are many people today arguing that the driving force behind the assassination was probably Israel and its friends in the American establishment, especially the CIA and especially a certain James Jesus Angleton. That debate is still ongoing, but I think the people arguing that the Israeli factor was probably bigger than the Vietnam factor are picking up steam. And to the extent that that’s the case, that certainly would reinforce what you said: that the Middle East would be radically different today if he had lived.

Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. I think it’s by far the greatest long-term impact and the greatest short-term impact. And that’s kind of why I put out a Substack article a week or two ago to show the timeline of Kennedy’s policies toward Israel and a timeline of the assassination so people can see how closely those two timelines line up.

Kennedy had started some cursory inspections of Dimona in September 1962, but Israel concocted this elaborate ruse to fool inspectors. Kennedy then spoke with Golda Meir on December 27, 1962, and he said, “I want much more thorough and frequent access to Dimona.”

So really that whole spring into the summer, into June, Israel kept delaying JFK. They kept coming up with excuse after excuse as to why they couldn’t do inspections. Finally JFK got fed up in the middle of May. He even considered leaking Ben-Gurion’s refusal to the papers.

But then Ben-Gurion responded and said, “We can do inspections at the end of the year.” And Kennedy responded and said, “No, the end of the year is not acceptable. I want inspections this summer.” And the next day Ben-Gurion resigned.

So to me, it looks like Ben-Gurion’s plan was to stay and delay Kennedy to the end of the year. When Kennedy wasn’t going for that, he had no choice but to resign, as that was the only way left to delay Kennedy. And of course when he resigned, a new administration came into place and they immediately contacted the State Department. They were still writing letters to the U.S. saying, “Don’t worry, these French rumors are false. You’re going to get your inspections before the reactor goes critical.”

And of course Kennedy gets assassinated. The reactor goes critical in early January, and no inspections ever happen before it goes critical. There were some inspections Lyndon Johnson did after it went critical, but they’re not at all the inspections that Kennedy wanted.

And I think it’s a fair question to ask: because there were also memos speculating where are they getting their uranium from, because they were trying to figure out where they were getting their materials from. So there’s an argument to be made that if those inspections happened, maybe they would have figured out that the uranium came from NUMEC in Pennsylvania. And that could have potentially, at the very least for negligence if for nothing else, implicated Angleton.

So I think Angleton had a personal motive to make sure Kennedy doesn’t find out what’s going on at Dimona, where this uranium was coming from, because that has personal impact on him, forget the geopolitical impact. So I think in the immediate term they tremendously benefited from the assassination because whatever was going on there was never uncovered. And if Kennedy had determined that there was some illegal activity going on, he would have gone after that. There’s no doubt. And with Bobby Kennedy as attorney general, there could have been a lot of people in a lot of trouble potentially. But then also in the long term, because they still have the bomb today, and the reason that they’re able to do what they did in Gaza these last few years, I think a big part of the reason is because they have nukes. And when you have nukes, you can get away with a lot more than you would have been able to get away with if you didn’t have nukes.

So they’re still benefiting from that crime every single day of every year for the last 60-plus years. And they’ll still be benefiting from it probably 100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now. As long as they have nuclear weapons, they’ll be benefiting from the Kennedy assassination. Because I think there’s a good chance that JFK would have not just shut down their nuclear program in that moment, but if he had caught them funneling materials from the U.S. and whatnot, he might have permanently shut down their nuclear program and it was never getting off the ground again.

And so I think people really have to look at the long-term ramifications. Because when you look at something like Vietnam, yes, it was absolutely horrific. Yes, it would not have happened had Kennedy stayed president. But it’s not happening today. So that was more of a short-term benefit of the assassination.

And the other thing is, if you look at the timelines, that assassination planning seems to have activity going on that’s setting up the assassination starting in the spring of ‘63. Kennedy didn’t sign that NSAM to withdraw the first advisors until October ‘63, but the assassination planning is far along by then. So I don’t think signing that NSAM to withdraw the advisors had any impact on the assassination. Again, we’ve already had movements in like March and April that seems to be setting this assassination in motion. So to me, like I’m looking at what was happening in late 1962, early 1963 to set this thing in motion. And that’s sort of what I wanted to emphasize with my timeline is, at least for me, a lot of people view it as Kennedy was just too problematic of a president. You know, he—there’s—it’s just he was going to get assassinated because, to your point, Kevin, he was making too many power segments angry. And I think that’s why they were able to get away with it, whoever did it, because nobody cared for Kennedy. They were all like, “Thank God he’s gone,” I think was the general kind of sense.

Kevin Barrett: There was supposedly applause that broke out in the CIA station in South Korea when the news of his assassination broke, which is really kind of astounding and disgusting.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I think there were many, many power sectors that were relieved to see him gone. I don’t want to use the word simplistic, but it’s almost like when you mesh together a bunch of motives that you’re not really thinking about timelines and you’re not really thinking about when did this start, what could have triggered it. Whereas for me, timelines are really important, and I think it’s important to look at those policies that did change during that time period that were crucial in November 1963 that couldn’t wait till re-election because Kennedy was about to go into a re-election year.

I mentioned in my article that Goldwater was a bigger hawk on Vietnam than LBJ. So if I’m someone that wants the Vietnam War, why not just sabotage his reelection campaign? And I don’t know—again, I don’t know who was behind the assassination. I can’t say anything for certain, but I think people need to take into account: who wanted LBJ in power, who couldn’t wait until Goldwater, how do these timelines line up? And these are all really important questions.

And I think we need to get into those details rather than just saying everyone in power hated Kennedy, because then we’ll never get to the bottom of it. Because then it just stays as this vague thing, he killed by this vague entity, rather than, no, he was killed by people with names and faces. And I think we need to figure out who those names and faces were.

Kevin Barrett: Right. I recently learned that Edward J. Epstein had created a shadow 9/11 commission after 9/11 and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to join it. And that raised all kinds of alarm bells for me because way back in the day, when I started looking at this, back in the 1970s, when Edward J. Epstein was publishing JFK assassination stuff, including—what was that book of his on Oswald?

Monika Wiesak: Legend.

Kevin Barrett: It’s called Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in that book, apparently his main source was Angleton, who now everybody suspects is the CIA guy that the Israelis went through to kill Kennedy. Epstein was involved in the suspected Mossad assassination of George De Mohrenschildt to prevent him from testifying at the House Investigations Committee. So the fact that this very suspicious character who seems to be involved in covering up the JFK assassination for Angleton and the Israelis, namely Edward J. Epstein, was inviting Ghislaine Maxwell onto a shadow 9/11 commission, whatever that was—you know, it made me wonder whether there was like a shadow JFK commission too that Epstein had been on—namely people on the inside who are trying to prevent the truth from coming out. And that the same Epstein somehow wound up on the same thing for 9/11, which frankly I think was probably perpetrated by the same people who killed JFK. So that’s a lot of stuff to throw at you, but there it is.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, so I know Epstein wrote a book. I didn’t read his book, but it questioned the official narrative in terms of Oswald being the lone gunman. And I think it questioned the official narrative, so he was considered a skeptic or a Warren Commission critic. But then he used Angleton as his source for the article.

And so, you know—and then everybody—I don’t think there’s very much—there’s no doubt that Angleton controlled Oswald’s files. I think everyone’s in agreement in that. I think everyone who studies the assassination views Angleton as a suspicious character. I think he’s the one person that everyone agrees on. Whoever people think the prime culprit was, they all tend to agree that Angleton was central to this thing because he controlled Oswald’s files. He was sort of the architect of the Oswald legend or whatnot, or at least one of the architects.

So I think everyone suspects Angleton regardless of their view of the assassination. And the fact that then Epstein used Angleton as a source for his book does make you wonder: was this to drive skeptics in a certain direction? Was this to mislead skeptics and get them spending time on something they shouldn’t be spending time on or looking into things they shouldn’t be looking into rather than focusing on other things?

And I do think in a lot of ways not enough focus is given on Kennedy’s policies. And that’s another reason when I wrote America’s Last President and why I didn’t want to even touch on the assassination, because I feel like people feel they can solve the crime by studying Dealey Plaza, and it doesn’t work that way. You have to first really understand the intricacies of Kennedy’s policies and the timings of his policies and when everything was happening.

Because sort of what happened to me is that I had read Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. And the conclusions in the book made no sense to me at all because it was sort of like: “We want war, we want war, we kill this man, we control the autopsy. If we want, we can say there were multiple shooters—the easiest excuse in the world to say that the Cubans did it. But no, instead we push this lone nut theory. And we do it all because LBJ said so.”

So you’re going to kill one president and then just listen to the next who tells you he’s not going to give you what you want? It just made no sense to me—that conclusion of that book made no sense to me. And so I was like, I don’t know what happened, but I know this didn’t happen, like not the way—or at least this hypothesis can’t be correct.

I went to study Kennedy’s presidency, and then the other thing I realized right away was, well, wait a minute, this whole story or thesis that he changed is not accurate either. Because I can see here based in the 1940s, 1950s, he’s an anti-colonialist, he’s pro-peace. In his very first State of the Union, he’s talking about we should explore space with the Soviets. This wasn’t in 1963—he’s saying this in January 1961.

So I’m realizing, wait, that’s not right either. And so that’s what made me think this can only be solved if people really, really study his policies, really understand them, because his policies were incredibly consistent. He was always pro-peace. He was always anti-colonialism. He was never working for the oligarchs. He didn’t go through this massive transformation during his presidency.

I mean, obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis impacted him as a human being. How could it not? So I’m not trying to underscore the fact that he wasn’t emotionally impacted by that event, because I think he was. But his views didn’t change. It maybe reinforced the views he already had.

So I just feel like we really need to focus on Kennedy’s policies, on the timelines of those policies, and also what was immediately urgent, what was long-term urgent, and things like that, and not oversimplify it because I feel people oversimplify it too much as “Kennedy was a good guy, he was working for the people, so he got killed.” And while I agree that that’s true, it keeps you from really studying the assassination in any depth because you oversimplify it.

You oversimplify it when you say, “Oh, the military-industrial complex hated JFK.” But JFK increased military spending. So why is some war profiteer or military contractor going to kill someone who’s increasing their profits? As a percentage of GDP, military spending back then was much higher than it is today.

Kevin Barrett: Until Trump’s increase kicks in.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. Yes, I should say that. Yeah. But it stayed stable between JFK and LBJ. And the reason Kennedy was a big military spender is not because he wanted to go to war, but he wanted to diversify the defense establishment. So he was horrified—absolutely horrified—by the fact that his military were like, “Well, if we get into any little scuffle with the Soviets, just drop your nukes.” And that to him was absolutely horrifying. He’s like, “I don’t want my first response to a small scuffle to be to drop a nuke. So I want to build a really diversified military, you know, where I’ve got lots of options.” And at that time there was also a real risk of war with the Soviets. I mean, war was a very real possibility at that time. And that’s another reason he wanted a strong military: He felt that that would discourage the Soviets from being aggressive…so that the Soviets feel like, “You know what? It’s not worth being in this arms race with the US. We should just agree to some sort of disarmament, and that’s going to be best for both parties.” And that was Kennedy’s view.

And if you listen to his meetings or in phone calls, he says himself, “The only reason I was able to get a nuclear test ban ratified is because I had increased military spending, because the Senate would have never, ever ratified my treaty if I hadn’t increased military spending.”

And so people get so confused about JFK, and it’s easy to say, “Oh, he changed.” But he didn’t change. He always was a big military spender because he wanted to diversify the defense establishment, because he wanted to avoid war, and because he wanted to negotiate true multilateral nuclear disarmament. And he felt the only way to do that is to have a strong negotiating position.

And so I think there’s a lot of misunderstandings about what Kennedy’s goals were and what he was doing. But I didn’t see any change. That’s just from studying Kennedy’s presidency.

Kevin Barrett: I suspected that he may have changed in a certain way based on the Bay of Pigs experience when he first came into office and he was greeted with this disaster in the making when they lied to him and told him, “Oh, just send this handful of CIA-backed Cuban exiles into Cuba and the people will rise up and overthrow the government. Everybody will live happily ever after.” And that was a total lie. The CIA knew that this was just a trick to get it going so then they would send in the military.

I think that did maybe change him a bit in terms of waking him up to some of the realities of power, and how some of his naive assumptions that these people had good intentions back when he was a so-called 50s Cold Warrior were not true. So I think that was a change to some extent, wasn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, that’s an excellent point. When I say he didn’t change, I meant his ideals or his goals. But I think he absolutely became smarter. And so I think what you said is very crucial and very important and very accurate, is that he did learn from the Bay of Pigs. He learned not to trust his advisors. He learned how manipulative the national security state can be and how he was manipulated into this event.

And he blamed himself for it. He took responsibility. He didn’t blame anyone else for it. So he absolutely grew. He absolutely became smarter, became more savvy. So when I say he didn’t change, I don’t want to make it sound like he didn’t improve because he did grow and he did improve and he did become more savvy. It was more his ideals, his overall world vision, that didn’t change, if that makes sense.

Kevin Barrett: Exactly. He didn’t suddenly go from being a Cold Warrior to a hippie peacenik because he took LSD.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah.

Kevin Barrett: But yeah, so there’s an interesting possible parallel here between Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs and then Trump in this attack on Iran—although in a sense they’re total opposite characters—because in both cases the presidents were lied into a ridiculous doomed attack. Kennedy was told that the Cuban people would support these exiles, and Trump was told the Iranian people will just love it if we murder their leaders and blow up their schoolgirls.

So you think that that parallel—the scary thing about that parallel to me, Monika, is that the CIA, when they lied to Kennedy, what did they think would happen? Well, they were planning to invade and take over Cuba.

How about the Israelis? What did they really think would happen? Were they really stupid enough to believe that this so-called decapitation attack would somehow regime-change Iran into being pro-Israel and pro-America? Or another puppet government would somehow be acceptable to the Iranians? I can’t believe that they’re that stupid.

So I’m concerned that just as the CIA wanted the Bay of Pigs provocation to trigger a full-scale invasion, Israel knew the first phase would fail and wanted something much bigger that they hoped would follow.

Monika Wiesak: And they figured as soon as it failed, Kennedy being a new president would get scared of this big failure and would send in the military to fix it, right? That was their hope. Their hope was to con JFK into sending the military into Cuba.

And of course JFK didn’t fall for the—well, he fell for part of the con, although I guess in his defense, you know, this was all set up before his presidency and he didn’t know what to do with those exiles because those exiles had to leave. I think they were in Guatemala. You know, they couldn’t stay there. They would either have to come to the US and be angry and frustrated because they were already promised to return to the island. So he had to do something. Like doing nothing was not an option for Kennedy.

But nevertheless, I think he wouldn’t have done that if he knew that that’s how it was going to go. And so he did get conned, you know, JFK. And I think the other thing is all of his advisors were telling him to do it.

Kevin Barrett: With Trump, Hegseth was the only one who was really on board and the rest were all sort of, you know, “Well, that sounds a little dubious.” Or, you know, Vance supposedly was the only one who said it’s really not a good idea, but even he didn’t say it’s really not a good idea as he should have.

Yeah, so I think there’s definitely parallels, but there’s some differences between the two situations as well…how about Trump being an anti-JFK?

Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because JFK, like even though everyone told him to do it, he was like, “It’s my fault. It’s 100% my fault. Like, you know, I’m the president. I should have made a better decision. I should have analyzed this better. I should have pushed back against my advisors. It’s not the advisors’ job to govern this country. It’s my job. So hence, it’s my fault.”

You know, like he said, “Victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.” And he’s like, “Well, you know, I have to take full responsibility for this.”

I don’t think Trump would ever admit to any mistake in his life. You know what I mean? He’s always bragging about how great he is, how wonderful he is, how he’s the most amazing president and the most amazing leader.

Kevin Barrett: He knows more about anything than everybody.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I don’t think he’ll ever admit to a mistake. I don’t think he’ll ever admit that he was conned. I think he’s always going to try to make it sound rosy and as though everything is going according to how he planned. So they’re very, very different character-wise, JFK and Trump.

Kevin Barrett: And what does it say about the American people, that the American people actually appreciated Kennedy taking the blame for the Bay of Pigs and his poll ratings went up in the aftermath of that, which really pissed off people like Allen Dulles and the CIA guys, especially when Kennedy then fired them. So the American people were actually kind of appreciating Kennedy’s style at that time.

Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because we just had real leadership back then. We had someone who cared about people, who cared about doing a good job, who was very committed to his job, who was very hardworking, who had great character, and who was very honest. And the other thing that I sort of put a chapter in America’s Last President about it is when Kennedy was president, 80% of the public trusted the government. Today, about 20% of the public trust the government.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. Can you imagine it turning around? Is there any possibility that somebody with a kind of JFK approach would have any traction in today’s world?

Monika Wiesak: I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult. I think one of the reasons Kennedy was able to slip through is because he came from a very wealthy family. So he campaigned for years even before he officially announced he was running for president. He would fly every weekend with Ted Sorensen often to all these small towns across America for the couple years before he announced he was running for the presidency. He was unofficially campaigning for a long time in a very grassroots way. He had the money to do that. He had the money to travel, to visit people.

And I think because he was so wealthy, he was not as dependent on other donors. He didn’t feel as beholden to these big money donors as maybe other politicians feel beholden to them and dependent upon them. And he also had a lot of unique life experiences because he suffered a lot during his life. He had horrible back pain. He almost died multiple times in his life. He was very sickly at times in his life. You know, as I said, his life was saved by indigenous islanders.

So he had this very unique experience where he understood struggle and pain, but yet he came from this ultra-wealthy family. And so it was kind of like lightning in a bottle, so to speak. And I think sort of these things allowed him to kind of sneak through.

And television was just becoming a thing then. And he was, I think, very TV-savvy. And, you know, I think he gave a very good appearance. And so I think that helped him a lot with TV being a new medium at that time.

So I think today would be extremely difficult. It would have to be someone wealthy. I don’t think someone without a lot of wealth would stand a chance because it costs so much money to run. And so you need someone who’s financially independent enough to do it and who’s willing to put their money on the line, so to speak, and who’s willing to do it over the long term like Kennedy campaigned over years.

Because you’re not getting necessarily the media support, so you have to do it yourself, which with social media today, you know, it might be easier for someone to get out there and reach a large audience.

And so I think it’s possible, but unfortunately I think it would have to be someone very wealthy who kind of, for whatever reasons, disagreed with parts of the establishment and sort of, you know, get in there.

But then the problem becomes what’s going to prevent that person from being assassinated? You know, if it happened in 1963, what’s to say it can’t happen again? And I think that’s why it’s really important to have a truth and reconciliation about Kennedy, not only because America has to heal from what happened—and I don’t think America can heal until the truth about that assassination comes out.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. And if that does happen, and if the truth ever comes out, and it does turn out the way we suspect it might, which is with a major role for the state of Israel, political consequences of that would be pretty powerful, wouldn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, absolutely. I mean, I think like whatever the truth is, I know it’s not going to be pretty, but it has to come out. You can’t heal until you have the truth. You have to start with that regardless of how ugly it is.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. And I think maybe the truth could clear the space for the possibility of these kinds of public-spirited idealists getting back into politics and displacing the increasingly unfortunate cretins that we’ve had over most of my lifetime.

Well, thank you, Monika Wiesak Wazick. It’s been a good hour of conversation. I appreciate your great work. I look forward to talking with you again about a couple of your other books as well.

Monika Wiesak: Thank you.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, thank you. And where can people find your book?

Monika Wiesak: Oh, they can buy it on Amazon, ThriftBooks, Barnes & Noble. There’s also an audio version. I self-recorded the audio, so it’s not professional. But if you can handle my voice, you can check that out as well.

Kevin Barrett: Oh, cool.

Monika Wiesak: And yeah, so you can find it at all the major outlets.

Kevin Barrett: Okay. America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. Highly recommended. Thank you, Monika Wiesak. God bless.

Monika Wiesak: See you down the road, inshallah.

Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Bye.

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

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

Excerpt:

Press TV: It was the US that started this aggression on Iran. It was the US that then had to propose a ceasefire. It was also the US that then had to extend unilaterally the ceasefire. Then it was also the US that had to call off its so-called Project Freedom. And most recently it was US destroyers that had to flee as the Iranian army, as the Iranian navy targeted them when they were targeting Iranian tankers. Iran has said that another targeting of Iranian tankers and they would target American centers in the region and also American tankers.

So the U.S. did everything it could. We’re talking about decades of sanctions. We’re talking about all kinds of coup attempts, bloody coup attempts, especially more recently when more than 3,400 Iranians were murdered as a result of U.S.-Israeli agents on the ground hijacking peaceful protests, turning it into riots. And then, of course, we had war imposed on Iran.

So Iran has been the victor in this battle. Iran was the one who was able to push back the western enemy, the American enemy, and so there is no reason for Iran to make any concessions, especially because when Iran was bombed a second time, Iran was negotiating, was talking about making concessions on its nuclear program, not to an international body, not to the IAEA.

And Iran had of course warned the U.S. that another aggression on Iran and you will be faced with all kinds of response, from extreme retaliation, from a regional war to a new management office, which has shut out all American warships and Israeli warships as well.

This is what the U.S. brought upon itself. Now that they have exhausted all their cards, they have exhausted all their options, and now that their inflation jumped to 3.8 percent, which is the highest. And so it will act as such and it will demand basically what is the rights of the Iranian nation.

Kevin Barrett: Yes, this has been a really amazing period to be witnessing, especially from my perspective, because I got interested in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the revolution when I was young, but I didn’t become a specialist or expert in it. I started really paying attention about 15 years ago.

And I’ve really grown to appreciate the genius of Iran’s Islamic Republican leadership over the decades in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of this ongoing attempt to destroy it and to regime change Iran and to turn Iran back into a U.S.-Zionist client puppet state like it was under the Shah.

This war, I think, has permanently essentially decided the conflict in favor of Iran, because Trump did what Brzezinski warned against 15 years ago, which is he said “we the Americans should not follow Israel into a war on Iran like a stupid mule.”

Today Trump is stupider than a mule. This is completely backfiring against all American geostrategic interests. And it has essentially given Iran the chance to step up and flex its muscles and show that it actually has essentially permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz and the massive resources that flow through it, which is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon. People have always asked themselves why Iran does not want nuclear weapons. It has a religious prohibition. But it also doesn’t need one, because it has the equivalent.

If Trump wanted an off-ramp, he actually had one after the Pakistan negotiations. All he had to do was accept the ceasefire and make it a real ceasefire. Instead, he went and did this so-called blockade of the blockade, which is doubly stupid because the problem, from the American point of view, is the fact that products are blocked. And so he just made them even more blocked. And that was another colossal blunder, almost as big as his original colossal blunder of getting into this war in the first place.

And so now China has absolutely no reason to even try to force Iran to do what Trump tells them to do. Why would China do that? China is actually weathering this situation better than America and its allies. They have a strategic reserve. They have diversified their energy. They have a lot of coal. They have all sorts of diverse energy supply chains, so they don’t need to worry themselves the way that the Americans and all of their allies, including their supposed anti-China allies in the region like Japan, and they hope Taiwan, South Korea, and so on.

Press TV: The global energy crisis, Dr. Barrett, the IEA, the International Energy Agency, said it is the worst energy crisis ever, unprecedented in history and about to get worse. How does this equate, from your perspective, to leverage that the U.S. president has or lack of moving forward or actually pressed into coming up with a definitive solution to this conflict? Or does he not care, simply?

Kevin Barrett: And Russia, China, and Iran, America’s adversaries, are all coming out of this much, much stronger. Russia is selling its energy for a much higher price. The sanctions have had to be dropped…. China has a huge strategic reserve and a diversified energy supply. And then Iran, as we’ve seen, has now got effective de facto permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz, taking it to a whole new level in the geopolitical world.

So Trump has got himself in a terrible fix and he lost his last chance for a graceful exit after the Pakistan negotiations. And now I think he’s going to learn in China that he’s going to be headed for an ungraceful exit.

Press TV: Kevin, for years the Israelis, and you mentioned them, so I want to bring it up now, and the impact this has had on regional resistance. They’ve been assassinating Palestinian and Lebanese resistance leaders and figures and commanders that they think are obstacles to Israel’s agenda for the region. And now the U.S. has joined Israel’s endeavor. Obviously, you alluded to that.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think they made a huge miscalculation based on their arrogance. They imagine that if anybody threatened them the way that, let’s say, the resistance leaders are threatened, the way Iran’s leaders are threatened and so many have been assassinated, the way the Hezbollah leaders are threatened and assassinated, the way the Hamas leaders are threatened and assassinated, the Islamic Jihad leaders and so on, that they will have to capitulate because people like Trump and the people around him, the Western decision makers, are basically cowards.

But that’s not the way the resistance works. The resistance is made up of people who are spiritual, moral and have principles and are willing to risk and sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, including the liberation of their lands and the preservation of their dignity, their religion and their culture.

And this is something that’s incomprehensible apparently to a major segment of the Western leadership. They imagine that by wreaking havoc with terror attacks on resistance forces and leadership they can somehow terrorize the resistance into giving up.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

On October 26, 1972, Henry Kissinger momentously announced: “Peace is at hand.” According to Kissinger, North Vietnam and their Vietcong allies were about to see the light, lay down their weapons, and come to terms with the US and its South Vietnamese vassal.

Kissinger’s announcement made screaming front page headlines. It electrified the country, coming as it did seven years after US involvement in Vietnam had become a quagmire, and five years after American public opinion had turned decisively against the war. The American people were sick of the war, and Kissinger’s bombshell promised not just peace, but “peace with honor.”

Kissinger stunned the world with his peace announcement just twelve days before his boss, President Richard Nixon, sought re-election against antiwar challenger George McGovern. Though McGovern’s campaign had been hobbled not only by its own mistakes, but also by a long list of “dirty tricks” by pro-Nixon covert operations, Nixon’s campaign still faced the problem of the election potentially becoming a referendum on the war, which conceivably could allow McGovern to snatch victory from the jaws of looming defeat.

McGovern’s last-ditch hope was dashed by Kissinger’s “peace is at hand” bombshell. The media ate it up, and most Americans bought into Kissinger’s claim that the war was effectively over. Nixon won reelection in a landslide. Less than two months after Kissinger’s peace proclamation, the Nixon administration launched the Christmas carpet bombing of North Vietnam, dropping 20,000 tons of ordnance and killing thousands of civilians. Peace, least of all “with honor,” was apparently not quite at hand.

In January 1973, Kissinger referenced his “peace is at hand” remark of a few months earlier at a news conference, causing an eruption of cynical laughter among the assembled reporters. The real end of the war came more than two years later, on April 30, 1975, when Saigon finally fell. It was an abject US defeat, with no “honor” whatsoever. Indeed, the dishonor only mounted as Nixon, Kissinger, and their successors refused to pay Vietnam the promised war reparations, leading the Vietnamese to covertly hold on to about half of the US servicemen they had captured, virtually all of whom suffered and died in atrocious conditions as political and media elites averted their collective gaze.

Today, US president Donald Trump is waging an even more unpopular war, this time against Iran. Like Kissinger on the eve of the 1972 elections, Trump seeks political gain via bogus “peace is at hand” announcements. But Trump’s gains, unlike Nixon’s and Kissinger’s, may be (criminally) financial as well as political.

Last Wednesday, the Kobeissi Letter reported:

BREAKING: According to our analysis, ~$920 million worth of crude oil shorts were taken 70 minutes before an Axios report claimed the US and Iran were near a "14-point" deal to end the war.At 3:40 AM ET today, nearly 10,000 contracts worth of crude oil shorts were taken without any major news.This is equivalent to ~$920 million in notional value, an unusually large trade for 3:40 AM ET.At 4:50 AM ET, just 70 minutes later, Axios reported that the US is "close" to a "memorandum of understanding" to end the Iran War.By 7:00 AM ET, oil prices had fallen over -12% with these crude oil shorts gaining approximately +$125 million.Minutes later, Iran launched the "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" and oil prices surged +8%.What just happened?

Mainstream and quasi-alternative media, for once, picked up the story. Business Insider reported that “Online sleuths are raising more red flags around suspiciously timed Iran-war oil trades.” Common Dreams noted the “Epic Insider Trading.” The Daily Beast wryly noted that “Trump’s DOJ Is Investigating.” (Just like foxes are investigating alleged crimes at the henhouse.)

What galled many observers wasn’t just the brazen scope of the enormous insider bet that oil prices would briefly fall, but the maddening fact that this has been happening over and over again: Trump hysterically barks out bloodcurdling threats, oil prices rise, Trump says peace is at hand a few minutes or hours after insiders bet on falling prices, prices fall, insiders collect jackpot, Iran denies Trump’s BS claims, prices rise again, Trump utters new bloodcurdling threats, rinse-and-repeat.

The BBC was already onto it two weeks ago, a week before the latest billion-dollar bet:

According to the Daily Beast:

At least four traders made a combined $2.6 billion in the oil market by wagering that oil prices would drop shortly before Trump made major moves, according to trade data from the London Stock Exchange Group shared with ABC News.

The suspected insider trades happened on March 23, April 7, April 16, April 21, and again last Wednesday, May 6. All came on the eve of highly dubious “peace” announcements.

The SEC is supposed to be investigating these and other examples of apparent insider trading, a crime that can bring up to 20 years in federal prison. But according to Senator Elizabeth Warren of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: “The SEC’s job is to make sure our markets are fair and honest. But nearly a year into running the agency, Chair (Paul) Atkins is unleashing a Golden Age of Fraud…the Trump SEC has gutted oversight and enforcement tools, even proposing to dismantle the database that helps the SEC catch insider trading, market manipulation, and other corporate crime.” Atkins, a Trump crime family crony, apparently sees his job as running interference for the Trumps’ accumulation of double-digit billions in personal enrichment via various criminal schemes.

Trump, who was supposedly elected to “drain the swamp,” has turned out to be the swampiest president in all of history. And though I’m not surprised—back in 2015 I was calling out Trump as a Kosher Nostra frontman initiated into organized crime (and depraved sexual practices involving political blackmail) by his mentor Roy Cohn from 1973 through 1986—it seems that a fair number of MAGA true believers are only now beginning to wake up and notice what kind of monster they voted for.

Shameless Chutzpah

What Trump learned from Roy Cohn can be summed up in two words: shameless chutzpah. While some may call that a pleonastic pleonasm (i.e. a repetitious redundancy), since chutzpah is by definition shameless, we Arabic speakers know that seemingly unnecessary repetition can be used for emphasis and intensification. Trump’s chutzpah takes shamelessness to the next level.

Chutzpah is a quintessentially Jewish thing. It’s a Yiddish word describing an attitude that is not only common in Jewish culture, but seen as more of a good thing than a bad thing. The self-made orphan with the gall to throw himself on the mercy of the court is not merely a target of ridicule; he is also admirable, especially if he somehow gets away with it. Jews teach their children about the positive side of chutzpah:

Roy Cohn, a mob lawyer and mob lieutenant (maybe even a colonel or general) perfectly embodied chutzpah. He rarely bothered to prepare for his court cases, because he always won them when his opponents learned that they were up against the mob and dropped out.

Trump was Cohn’s goy boy toy. It’s actually surprising that Cohn, who died of AIDS (which may actually be undiagnosed syphilis more often than not) never gave Trump the pox. Or did he? In this week’s False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) Dr. E. Michael Jones opines that Trump is indeed suffering the the symptoms of advancing syphilis, which can cause mood swings, memory loss, impaired judgment, confusion, delusions, mania, delirium, and sudden outbreaks of socially-inappropriate anger, hostility, and aggression. Take Trump’s Easter Sunday tweet:

Following that notorious tweet, Pope Leo uttered a saccharine pro-peace bromide or two, which triggered Trump, who once again lost all self-control and began tweeting out politically ill-advised attacks on the Pontiff, compounding the damage by posting a picture of himself as “Dr. Jesus” a week after Easter.

In Jewish culture, and among boldly amoral people in general, chutzpah is only good when you can get away with it. The self-made orphan who somehow convinces the naive goy judge to release him—perhaps by insisting that he is not just an orphan but a Holocaust survivor to boot, and that holding him responsible for his crime would be antisemitic—is exemplary; whereas a less talented or less lucky parricide, whose excuse is rejected and who is sentenced to hang for murdering his parents, becomes a cautionary tale and a figure of fun.

Trump’s increasing recklessness, whether caused by syphilis, advancing age, or too many diet cokes, is causing him to run the risk of getting caught. Did he really think he could get away with his lame attempt to regime-change Iran? Does he imagine his insanely erratic tweets will somehow strengthen his bargaining position and burnish his reputation? Does Don Jr. or Jared or whoever is making the insider bets really think they’ll escape scot-free in perpetuity?

The Trump regime’s out-of-control chutzpah, like that of the parricide orphan pleading with the judge for mercy, is begging for comeuppance. And Iran seems poised to deal it out with a vengeance.

Video link

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

The September 11 2001 attack on the US set off a series of wars that killed millions of people. 9/11 led directly to the ongoing genocides of Gaza and South Lebanon and the disastrous Israeli-US attack on Iran. Since an ever-growing segment of the population realizes that the Western media and political elites are lying outrageously about these events, it may be time to revisit the “the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations” (as National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis called 9/11).

According to the 9/11 Commission, radical Muslim hijackers successfully commandeered four aircraft on September 11, 2001 and flew three of them into buildings, two of which miraculously imploded in apparent controlled demolitions officially blamed on plane crashes and fires. Among the many problems with that story: The flight paths of the three planes, reconstructed from FAA radar data and videos, is radically inconsistent with what human hijackers would and could have done. Instead, it overwhelmingly suggests that the planes were under automated control.

Those conclusions, apparent in broad outline to researchers 20 years ago, have been strongly reinforced by the new study “Flight simulator study points to automated control of 9/11 flights” just released by the International Center for 9/11 Justice. In this episode of the Truth Jihad podcast we discuss the study with its author, Dr. Piers Robinson. Dr. Robinson is “a political scientist and currently a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, co-editor of Propaganda in Focus, and is Research Director and board member of the International Center for 9/11 Justice as well as co-editor of its flagship Journal of 9/11 Studies. He is also a member of Berlin Group21 and PANDA, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global ‘War on Terror’. He has served on the boards of several academic journals.”\

—

Excerpt:

Kevin Barrett: …And of course, this is an interesting and somewhat controversial topic because it’s not absolutely clear how the perpetrators managed to create the illusion of hijackers seizing control of planes and crashing them into buildings.

Piers Robinson: Well, as you set out in your introduction, I work for International Center for 9/11 Justice now. I joined them two or three years back as part of my work on propaganda and deception. I think you’re familiar with my work on Syria and the OPCW. And when I joined the organization, we were very interested in trying to advance our understanding of the 9/11 events and build upon, as you pointed out, the very solid basis of evidence we have regarding the controlled demolition of the buildings in New York. And to try to expand our understanding into different aspects of this operation, the aviation side of things, for example. And so really that’s where the initial idea came from. We thought that there’s a lot of debate out there. We were initially working with some commercial pilots and we were trying to work through and obtain access to a simulator in order to insert them into this simulator and get them to carry out some of the maneuvers which we saw on 9/11.

And we made sure that we had a spread of pilots. Initially we had high-experienced pilots involved, three commercial pilots, two of whom were former military pilots, basically military fast-jet pilots. And then we had a group of lower-experienced pilots, private pilot license, who were closer to the kind of experience levels of the alleged hijackers on 9/11. So we had a good spread of expertise and we ran through the study in two stages.

Let’s just run through what we got the pilots to do. First of all, we were very interested in what was reported to be UA175, the aircraft which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Now this is derived from NTSB radar data tracks as well as visual analysis of the flight route. What happens with the plane which hit the South Tower is that the plane comes in and it’s offset from the South Tower. You see this white line here going over City Hall. The plane at this point was heading towards City Hall and then (banked sharply towards the WTC). So we asked the pilots to try to replicate this maneuver.

We also looked at the Pentagon route, and this is from the NTSB report on the aircraft which purportedly flew into the Pentagon. At this point here, the plane is actually heading directly towards the Pentagon, and then it starts to turn off to the right, and then it enters this 330-degree descending turn to line up with the Pentagon.

And we also did this for the South Tower route. We placed them here over the starting point, probably about three minutes out from the South Tower, and we just said fly as you would in order to try to hit the South Tower….

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.

According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”…Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed...

Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:

The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.

If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”

The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”

The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?

Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.

CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.

Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.

Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.

Rumble link

The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.

Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.

Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?

Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.

Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”

Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?

Kaur tell us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:

Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)

And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.

Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.

Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:

The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.

Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…

Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.

Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:

Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”

What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.

Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies…and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.

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

Video link

We interrupt this satire with a promo for my new book Bad Birder’s Birding Report: Nonsense Ornithology from Bad to Verse. Normally it’s twenty bucks plus shipping for a hard copy or five bucks for a Kindle ebook, but from now through midnight Pacific time tomorrow, Friday, May 1, you can download the Kindle version free...then leave a review before the Zionists get there!

Why would you want to do that? Humor isn’t just a weapon, as the satire below exemplifies. It’s also healing. Studies show that laughter releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and improves cardiovascular function.

Slashing satirical humor can be a weapon against tyranny. Gotta love those Iranians who laugh off Trump’s deranged threats, like Mohammed Marandi and the Iranian diplomatic team laughing off threats to their lives from the CIA-linked Washington Post (“hey Mohammed, I could strangle you now and collect the bounty”).

But silly, lighthearted nonsense humor, like most of the poems in Bad Birder’s Birding Report, also has benefits. It unleashes the inner child, keeping the mind flexible and the heart human. Reading nonsense poetry to children—or to cats, as in the above video—is a great way to take a break from the ongoing insanity of media-distorted “reality.”

And if you’re seeking Serious Literary Value, Claude Levi-Strauss would tell you that the poem “Catbird” (see video above; text here) begins with the binary opposition cat/bird built into the name of a certain meowing feathered species, and resolves it into Lewis Carroll’s famous “grin without a cat” (in this case a grin without a bird, either) thereby questioning the premises of mainstream ornithology and warming the hearts of conspiracy theorists and other epistemological ne’er-do-wells. If it leaves the reader as a smile without an ego, if only for a split second, you can always sue me in small claims court.

We now resume our regular satirical programming…

Trump to Declare Victory, Hope Iranians Die Laughing

Dissociated Press

“A whole civilization will die laughing tonight!” Donald Trump’s chilling social media threat to declare victory over Iran, causing Iranians to collapse in helpless hilarity and laugh themselves to death, has been condemned as a war crime by the Pope, the U.N. Secretary General, the Office of Comedic Safeguards and Verification (OCSV) and other eminent individuals, institutions, and agencies.

OCSV Deputy Director Evelyn Smirkov explained that calling such a calamitously misbegotten war a “victory” would exceed generally accepted hilarity guidelines by at least 100 megatons and thereby constitute a gross violation of international law, common decency, and generally accepted comedic practice. Smirkov added that Trump’s declaring victory over Iran would indiscriminately target civilians as well as military forces, causing Iranians from all walks of life, including women and children, to fall to the floor pounding their fists in helpless spasms of glee screaming “no! no! Stop, Trump! Please stop! We can’t take it any more! You’re killing us!” before expiring.

Trump’s threat to wipe out Iran with a humor bomb reportedly emerged from a CIA study of potential Iranian responses to Trump’s declaring victory and fleeing with his proverbial tail between his legs. The study found that any victory declaration by Trump would initially elicit stunned disbelief, followed by howls of derision, and finally spasms of uncontrollable laughter that would cause its victims to dissolve into helpless blobs of jelly. By weaponizing the victory declaration and making it even more obscenely arrogant and ridiculous than everything else Trump says, the CIA discovered, Trump’s bombastically preposterous claim that he had triumphed over Iran could be made far more lethal than all the remaining stand-off bombs in America’s arsenal put together.

The CIA study envisaged sending US special forces to Isfahan to attempt another raid on Iran’s enriched uranium while Iranian forces are disabled by laughter convulsions following Trump’s victory declaration. Unfortunately, the study’s authors concluded, the problem of “friendly funny fire”—that is, US troops finding Trump’s announcement just as hilarious as the Iranians do—makes that plan unlikely to work.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is reportedly planning to declare himself Messiah and cause all the goyim to die laughing, could not be reached for comment.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

Donald Trump just keeps on getting shot at. Fortunately for him, if not for the rest of us, the people shooting at him are stunningly incompetent. For some reason, competent shooters always shoot at people causing problems for Israel, like the Kennedys and Charlie Kirk, while the doofuses shooting at Trump couldn’t hit the broad side of an ear. And if by some fluke they do hit the broad side of Trump’s ear with an AR-15 bullet, the bullet itself turns out to be incompetent. Actually, an AR-15 bullet that hits a human ear without leaving any visible sign of damage is worse than incompetent. As Trump would undoubtedly say to such a bullet, had he hired it during his days at The Apprentice: “You’re fired!”

And speaking of bullets getting fired…Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”

Social media reacted with a rapid-fire full-automatic volley of rotten fruit. The consensus: “This didn’t age well.”

Leavitt wasn’t the only one betraying insider awareness that the “shooting” wasn’t on the up-and-up. Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed.

Naturally, each time yet another blatantly fake “Trump assassination attempt” is unveiled in real time before our eyes, complete with chutzpah-drenched “revelation of the method,” mainstream media goes into overdrive covering up all the obvious tells and pretending to take the ludicrous official narrative at face value. No wonder Gen-Z never even bothers to check what’s on MSM, instead going straight to the ribald chorus of sarcastic derision erupting on social media.

Oddly, the latest fake Trump shooting happened just days after mainstream media suddenly felt compelled to take note of the fact that hardly anybody, even in Trump’s MAGA base, still believes that Trump’s ear was struck by an AR-15 bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. Last week Wired magazine informed us that “MAGA Is Increasingly Convinced the Trump Assassination Attempt Was Staged” and The New Republic echoed “MAGA Increasingly Believes Trump Assassination Attempt Was Fake,” while CNN offered a mind-bogglingly lame debunking: “How would an assassination attempt be ‘staged’?” and MS NOW ‘splained away “Why MAGA has developed conspiracy theories about the assassination attempt on Trump.”

Author’s aside: I was all over the Butler fake Trump shooting long before it became fashionable.

A paranoid conspiracy theorist who imagined that conspirators cover up their unraveling conspiracies by staging even more preposterous, instantly-unraveling conspiracies might be forgiven for wondering whether the latest blatantly-fake “Trump shooting” was staged to distract us from the unraveling of the earlier, equally-blatantly-fake “Trump shooting.” The coverup team, our conspiracy theorist suspects, must be cackling gleefully: “Bwa-ha-ha! They’ve all completely forgotten about Trump’s perfectly intact ear, and how those Secret Service guys let him stand right up and do that fist-shaking photo op in front of the flag, exposing himself to more potential shots, had anyone been actually shooting at him…Now all they’re talking about is Leavitt’s prediction and Fox News cutting off Aminah Hasine and how fake and gay THIS ‘Trump shooting’ is!”

Another shocking fact about the latest “Trump shooting”: The alleged wannabe assassin was NOT, repeat NOT, an Iranian android made of LEGO. (They’re apparently saving that for the next “Trump shooting.”) This time, the patsy, Cole Tomas Allen, a computer science graduate and game developer, was recently named “teacher of the month in Los Angeles County.” According to Trump, the suspect “charged towards the hotel’s metal detectors in possession of ‘multiple guns’” but only managed to fire a couple of shots and lightly injure a Secret Service agent before being taken into custody.

The “somewhat random shooting in loose proximity to Trump, one or more feds injured” schtick echoed last Thanksgiving’s false flag shooting two blocks from the White House, where long-term CIA asset Rahmanullah Lakanwal set himself up for a lifetime pension in witness protection by shooting or pretending to shoot two National Guard members. (Or perhaps he was mind-controlled and actually shot people and will in fact spend the rest of his life in prison.) The Thanksgiving false flag’s motive was all-too-obvious: Demonize immigrants so Trump could unleash the full force of his immigration crackdown. That shooting’s PR impact was sufficient to reverse the wave of court decisions hamstringing Trump’s war on immigrants. In its aftermath, Trump halted all asylum claims, pledged to "end all federal benefits and subsidies to non-citizens" and to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover." (Here is a typical outside-the-US discussion of the Thanksgiving false flag; if you don’t understand Moroccan Arabic, just use YouTube’s handy auto-translate feature.)

The Thanksgiving false flag’s purpose was obvious (anti-immigration). The Butler ear-nick’s was even more obvious (anoint and elect Trump to obey Israel’s orders to attack Iran). But last night’s shooting at the Washington Hilton, unlike its earlier analogues, did not wear its purpose on its sleeve. Was it meant to demonize award-winning teachers or computer scientists or game developers? Probably not. Was it intended to demonstrate the need for a secure White House ballroom? That is one theory making the rounds on social media, propelled by Trump’s statement that the Hilton was

“…not a particularly secure building…I didn’t want to have to say this, but this is why we’re going to have to have all the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure. It’s drone-proof. It’s got bullet-proof glass. We need the ballroom! That’s why the Secret Service and the military are demanding it. They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today is a little bit different. Because today we need levels of security that nobody has ever seen before.”

The theory that Trump’s people would use a false flag to get a ballroom built sounds farfetched. But as Wikipedia tells us, “The project's above-ground construction has faced legal challenges, with construction as of April 18 being allowed to continue until June 2026.” Opponents of the project have called it sickeningly tacky, ostentatious, typically-Trumpian tasteless fiasco that defecates all over the historical integrity of the White House. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project, while “the Trump administration replied that the ballroom construction must continue for classified reasons of national security that may be shared with the judge but not with the plaintiffs.”

Just as Trump’s anti-immigration agenda had faced legal as well as political challenges that miraculously evaporated in the wake of the Thanksgiving shooting, so too his ballroom project has probably gone from “possibly obstructed” to “a done deal” thanks to last night’s false flag. So maybe those crazy conspiracy theorists aren’t so crazy. “There’s no way they staged this s**t just so he can justify building a ballroom LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO.” (1.5 million views.)

Then again, all that ballroom-building blather could be a smokescreen for a deeper and more nefarious plan: Intimidate Trump into escalating the war on Iran. That would explain three strange, Israel-linked aspects of the shooting: the patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel Less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret. Taken together, those three odd Israeli connections to the event could easily be read as a message: “We know your Epstein secrets, we are the magicians creating these and other tricks, and we can get to you any time we like…so follow orders or else.”

Trump is reportedly reluctant to escalate against Iran due to the devastating political fallout. His numbers are in free-fall, his MAGA base is cratering, and if the Democrats sweep both houses of Congress, impeachment, perhaps conviction, or even prison could be on Trump’s horizon. The war, and the economic damage it’s causing, is the problem. Finding an off-ramp before the damage becomes epic and irreversible is Trump’s overriding political imperative.

But the only off-ramp is to hand Iran its victory laurels. And while Trump might be perfectly happy to lie and claim victory as he hands Iran the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, and a nuclear deal that amounts to a lipsticked JCPOA, the Israelis see that outcome as an existential threat. For Netanyahu and his cronies, the war must go on until Iran and the whole region and the global economy are all flattened.

So Israel has every reason to try to force Trump to accept the disastrous political price he is paying for this misbegotten war, by threatening him with even worse consequences if he seeks an off-ramp. Those “even worse consequences” could involve the prospects of either assassination or the exposure of catastrophically damaging material from the Epstein files or their analogues. The shooting last night, occurring at the exact instant the Israeli magician threatened the Trumps with exposure of their secrets, could be read as a double-edged threat referencing both of those “even worse consequences.”

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

Who should be anointed Supreme Leader of the United States of America? Donald Trump fancies himself a shoo-in. Like the 1960s Beatles, he thinks he’s more popular than Jesus. He wants a lifetime appointment, daydreaming: “If we happen to be in a war with somebody…no more elections.”

I agree with Trump that America could use a Supreme Leader: someone who’s appointed for life and exercises guardianship over the state, like the Supreme Leader in Iran, or the Pope in the Vatican. But the last man on Earth worthy of such a position is Donald J. Trump. Instead, I’m voting for the guy Trump picked a fight with this week: Pope Leo.

Trump’s spat with the Pope, like a pro wrestling match, pits a decent protagonist against a “cartoonishly evil” villain. On one side, a thoughtful, reasonable, peace-loving guy in a Pope’s hat; on the other, a deranged Epstein-class-blackmailed narcissistic megalomaniac who might as well be sprouting Baal horns. (Wait a minute…he actually is sprouting Baal horns!) Only the dumbest pro wrestling crowd on Earth, which would be saying something, would have trouble figuring out who to cheer for.

Most Americans are cheering for the Pope to kick Trump’s lard-padded rear end all the way down to the seventh circle of hell. Figuratively speaking, I mean: They love Leo and are increasingly ready to vote in a Democratic Congress that will impeach and convict Trump in preparation for a court sending him to spend the rest of his life sharing a cell with Netanyahu or some woman who looks a little bit like Ghislaine Maxwell or that Israeli national hero who rapes people to death with sticks.

Me, I’ll vote for a Democrat when hell freezes over. Anyone who thinks we can solve America’s problems by voting for the right major party, or the left one, obviously hasn’t been paying attention.

The former United States of America has been devoured by systemic rot. All that’s left is the putrescent corpse of the country that existed before Israel and its Epstein Class murdered John F. Kennedy and set the stage for the Kosher Nostra’s total takeover of almost everything that matters.

But the problem isn’t just the Epstein class. It’s the system that opened the door to them: a fake democracy run by an actual oligarchy.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend it that way. They created a democratic republic, with the republican elements holding democracy in check by way of an “aristocracy of virtue.” They believed that if some people have vastly more power than others, well, that may not be democratic, but it’s okay because the powerful people are a self-selecting virtuous elite. People with plenty of money, which buys power, are presumably more virtuous than wastrels and beggars: to gain that money, or not lose it, they must have been diligent, capable, reasonably honest, prudent, responsible, and so on. Such people, in theory, would run the country, advised by the hoi polloi by way of elections.

The American Republic has fallen because its oligarchy has steadily grown less virtuous and more vicious. Why? The most obvious answer: “Blame the Jews.” Since Jews took over from Protestants as America’s dominant ethic group after World War II, the typically Protestant virtues of diligence, probity, sexual restraint, frugality, universalist fair-mindedness, and a certain asceticism, have given way to the typically Jewish vices of greed, dishonesty, tribal nepotism, sexual profligacy and deviance, and so on.

But were the WASPs really all that virtuous? Perhaps not, though at least the vicious ones had the decency to be genteel hypocrites, following La Rochefoucauld’s dictum that “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” In any case, the USA was a completely different place back when gambling was illegal (now Adelson uses gambling proceeds to buy Presidents for Israel) and sex outside of marriage could land you in jail (now thinking there’s something wrong with it can practically land you in psychiatric observation) and liquor could not be bought on Sundays or after hours (today, only Muslims can even begin to envision booze restrictions) and obscenity, blasphemy, and pornography, not to mention blackmailing presidents by pimping children to them, were self-evidently crimes.

Back when vice was illegal, Jews specialized in selling it. Usury, prostitution and human trafficking, abortion, liquor and drugs, gambling…such activities were taboo for Christians, but perfectly kosher for Jews to sell to outsiders. Now vice, and Jews, have come out of the closet and taken over. Everything is permitted, except criticizing the vicelords and their all-powerful oligarchy…because that would be antisemitic.

But the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Jews, but in ourselves. We’ve opened the door to vice, and the Jews who peddle it, by relinquishing religion.

The one modern secular intellectual who gets this right is Emmanuel Todd, whose The Defeat of the West explains how ever-increasing secularization eventually lead to nihilism. Gemini summarizes:

* Stages of Secularization: Todd outlines a shift from “active” religion to a “zombie” phase (where religious habits persist without belief), ultimately arriving at a “zero” stage.

* The Rise of Nihilism: He argues that when the religious framework that once provided social cohesion (such as the work ethic and discipline of Protestantism) disappears, societies are left with an “emptiness”.

* Deification of Emptiness: This state of “irreligion” does not simply result in neutrality; according to Todd, it produces a “deification of emptiness” or nihilism, which he characterizes as a drive to negate reality and destroy things and people.

* Geopolitical Impact: Todd connects this nihilism to a “cult of war” and suggests it is a primary driver of the instability currently facing Western nations, particularly the United States.

Protestants and post-Protestants tend to see religion as an individual thing. They think it’s about belief. But sociologists know how peculiar and unfounded that view is. Religion, ever and always, is about groups, not individuals. And it’s mainly about rituals and other actions, not beliefs. Religion is the glue that holds a community together. It promotes practices that offer a taste of the other world, in service to mapping out an orientation and a meaning to human existence, stuck as it is between this world and the next. To the extent that beliefs matter, they provide a metaphysical basis for privileging virtue over vice. But they do this mainly by infusing rituals and actions and shared systems of meaning, not by inculcating belief or arguing theology.

Any society without religion inevitably rots into nihilism and dries up and blows away. That’s what’s happening to the West even as we speak.

Trump, an openly vicious loudmouthed braggart forced into war for Israel by Epstein-class blackmailers, epitomizes the nihilism that infuses the West. The leadership in Islamic Iran, by contrast, is conspicuously virtuous, reflecting a society that is still held together by the glue of religion, as all viable societies are.

So to fix the USA, it won’t be enough to just vote out the Epstein oligarchy. We need a return to religion.

I propose that the Constitution be amended to include the post of Supreme Religious Leader, who will exercise guardianship over the American government and political system in roughly the same way Ayatollah Khamenei does in Iran. Our Supreme Religious Leader, like Iran’s, will be appointed by a Council of Experts elected by the people. The Council will consist of qualified religious scholars whose morals and ethics are beyond reproach, and whose reputation for spirituality is well-founded. (The Council itself will of course have to determine who meets those criteria and is eligible to be a candidate, whether for the Council itself, or for political office in Congress or the presidency.)

The American Council of Experts will of course be more diverse than Iran’s, which consists entirely of Shia clerics. (Admittedly, Iran’s actually boasts a fair degree of religious diversity, since Iranian clerics hold extremely diverse views, though nothing remotely like what the US Council of Experts will feature.)

The American Council of Experts will have to consist of people who respect other faiths and know something about them. Since our decadent society sends many of its brightest sons to seek plunder in Wall Street gambling houses or corrupt DC law firms, not to Religious Studies programs, we may initially face a shortage of qualified experts. In fact, the initial Council may be unable to muster more than two experts, E. Michael Jones and yours truly. After we are done appointing Pope Leo as America’s first Supreme Religious Leader, we will start taking applications from religiously-grounded intellectuals who would like to join us on the Council.

False Flag Weekly News Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to False Flag Weekly News, the weekly news show that almost manages to keep up with the insanity that’s afflicting your world. I’m Kevin Barrett with Dr. E. Michael Jones. Hey, Mike, how’s it going?

E. Michael Jones: Good, Kevin. Good to be here.

Kevin Barrett: It is. Yeah, we’re here. The world hasn’t ended yet. The Strait of Hormuz might sort of kind of be open or maybe not. We’ll get into that. We’ll also get into the big slugfest between the crazy president and the much saner pope. But first, let’s do our usual PSAs, public service announcements. We stand with Iran, and you can help False Flag Weekly News continue by going to truthjihad.com, finding your way to False Flag Weekly News, going to link number one, and that’s the fundraiser. Don’t let them cancel us. These guys have, but these guys haven’t. So you can PayPal or Zelle to TruthJihad(at)gmail(dot)com. You can freeze the frame and use the Mark of the Beast there, or better yet, here at SP Donate. And here we are. This is the—what is this? This is the PSA for “assassinate assassins.” So we’re told that the government has plans to kill all enemies, which would probably include us. So we better get them before they get us. So I actually called for the assassination of any political leader who even contemplates assassination. Good thing I’m not a political leader or I would have to assassinate myself. You can read the comment that was taken down from Yahoo by hitting pause. Yeah, so there she is. She’s been taken out of the lineup at MSNBC, Fox or wherever she was, not in a bad way. And Putin is still walking with us.

Okay, breaking news. So, Mike, I’m sure you saw the breaking news today. Is it that the Strait of Hormuz is open or...? No, it’s closed. No, it’s open. No, it’s closed. What do you make of this?

E. Michael Jones: Well, first of all, it’s an admission that they can’t go back to the status quo ante, which was that it was open to traffic and no tolls were being charged. So they can’t do that. So they have to do something else. So don’t just stand there and do something. So first they attack infrastructure. They’re threatening to attack infrastructure or attack civilians because they took out all the military targets they can take out. And now they’ve decided to blockade the blockade. Where does this end?

So this means, I think, that they will attack Chinese ships so that the Iranians will let the Chinese ships through. But then the Americans will attack them and try to blockade them six weeks before they are going to have trade negotiations with China.

It’s what you’re saying is you’re just flailing around. I think the operative instructions there are: don’t just stand there, do something, even though it doesn’t change anything. Do something.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, flailing around is right. Some people always thought the United States was too big to flail, but that’s apparently not the case under Trump anyway.

So, yeah, this is getting crazier by the day. I’ve been on Press TV a couple of times talking about this. And, of course, it’s back to the usual Strait of Hormuz routine, apparently, where Iran has its toll booth and it doesn’t allow enemies through. So we’ll see how that develops. So this was the video of the traffic, and it seems like some of the traffic’s been turning around and going back. A lot of it’s turning around and going back. So, yeah, I guess so much. Here’s Trump trying to open the Straits. (Charlie Chaplin trying to open door.)

Well, he hasn’t gotten it open yet. So I was on Press TV earlier today and also last night on the rolling coverage talking about this. And it’s Hormuzian confusion. That almost rhymes, but not quite. And, well, again, it’s really anybody’s guess what Trump is going to say next. Over in Iran, they’re supporting their government. These rallies are considerably larger than those small squares that they could fill with a few dozen people who hate the regime. So I guess Iran’s pretty united behind their war effort. This is Isfahan. And then Kushner and Witkoff, I guess, are praying for peace. (Image of them banging their beanie-topped heads against the Kvetching Wall.) Why did Trump send those guys to negotiate with Iran, Mike?

E. Michael Jones: That’s a good question. I thought there was a change that the Iranians had said that they were willing to talk to Vance, J.D. Vance, because he wasn’t a Jewish real estate dealer. But then it turns out that that’s not right either because Kushner and Witkoff went to Islamabad along with Vance. And to top it all off, Vance took a call from Netanyahu while he was in the middle of negotiation.

Well, the point here is that we talked about the Pope and Donald Trump. J.D. Vance is right in the middle. He’s a Catholic who was in the administration. So how do you react that way? The sensible thing to do would be to try and distance yourself from the Trump administration, to try and maneuver into a position where you have some type of independence. But he can’t do that. He wasn’t able to do that. He kind of stepped onto the stage and flubbed his lines, as many people do in history. It’s kind of like a repeat of Mike Pence, who was also a vice president. Couldn’t understand the dynamics of the situation. Couldn’t understand the way the Catholic vote was flowing out of MAGA, out of the MAGA coalition. Couldn’t do anything to address that. And so he took a kind of stance where he tried to lecture the Pope about not talking about theology. Be careful when you talk about theology.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we’re going to get to that one. Yeah, he definitely put his foot in it there. Also, he should be taking phone calls not from Bibi Netanyahu, but maybe from the Pope. I think he would solve this thing a lot faster if he did that. Let’s get into the Trump versus Pope story. That’s our headline story this week. So Trump is attacking the Pope, which doesn’t seem like a good political strategy, six months out of the midterms. And especially because Trump sounds so unhinged. The Pope is weak on crime. Okay. And not only that, the Pope is weak on war, which is the real issue here, apparently. And then the Pentagon threatened the Pope. Did they? Did Hegseth get drunk and ask how many divisions the Pope has? What’s this about, Mike?

E. Michael Jones: Well, they’re trying to—they don’t understand diplomacy. I think that’s the fundamental problem here. You don’t come on with a strong position that alienates the people that you have to keep on board. Just from a simple political point of view, one of the guys who understood this was Bill Clinton, who did a speech shortly after the whole Pope-Trump thing blew up. And he talked about swing states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Catholics are always the swing vote in these states, and it’s not a big percentage point. So if you alienate a relatively small number of Catholics, you lose the election. That’s what they didn’t do.

Kevin Barrett: They alienated a huge number of Catholics.

E. Michael Jones: Right, I know. So a completely unprecedented, full-blown attack on the religious leader of the largest group of Christians in the world and the largest group of Christians in the United States of America, with no sense that there might be political fallout from this. So it’s hard to understand anything other than Trump’s ego or his dementia being behind this.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I thought Trump was a canny politician, an idiot savant who had a talent for politics. But it seems like the savant part is wearing off. And so, yeah, weeks away from developing nuclear communion wafers. Watch out for that.

E. Michael Jones: He was—the MAGA coalition was America First. That was it. A bunch of people came behind. That was an idea whose time had come. When he got into office, it became Israel First. And then what it degenerated into was religious war between the Jews, like Mark Levine, and the crypto-Jews, like the Christian Zionists, against the Catholics. I predicted this would happen because the kind of moderate Protestants that are symbolized by Tucker Carlson—his background is an Episcopalian drawing on what his father lived in, as Episcopalians in the CIA, that type of thing—that world has disappeared. And so it’s going to be a fundamental clash between Catholics and Jews. That’s what it came down to. And Trump, instead of evading or softening the blow, exacerbated the whole thing and created a huge conflict for Catholics in the government, especially Catholics in the military.

Kevin Barrett: Well, the problem is you guys don’t hate Muslims enough. They (Catholics) don’t hate Muslims enough.

E. Michael Jones: Well, that’s the problem there. So you have the Pope, which is what you need if you’re going to have a universal church. You have to have someone outside of the political process who then can address the political process from that point of outside and say, these are the criteria you have to meet, the criteria for the just war theory. If you don’t meet them, it’s an immoral war and we can’t support it. It immediately puts the Catholics in the government in a bind. What do I do now? It’s approaching an even greater crisis because they’re going to apparently initiate a draft in December. That was the end of the war in Vietnam. They had to get rid of the draft because it alienated an entire generation. Now it’s going to be even worse. This is the ADL saying this: the most anti-Semitic generation in the history of the United States is now the 20- and 30-year-olds who are completely tuned into the Jewish question, unlike the baby boomers, unlike our generation, who are still watching Fox News. And they are now going to be put in a position where basically, are you willing to die for Israel in what the Pope and the military vicariate archbishop has said is an immoral war? That’s not going to work. That is not going to work.

Kevin Barrett: Well, maybe those 20-somethings need to get drafted to be sent to Israel to liberate Palestine. That’s a war that some people would say might actually be a just war. But here, let’s check out our— we have a long list of these Trump versus Pope slides this week. People, of course, had fun with this. But this obviously is retouched. But the guy really did look sort of like Epstein in the original. And above Trump’s head, we see that bald figure with the horns and these sort of demonic wings or something. And what’s that about? Because that actually wasn’t in the image that existed before Trump tweeted this. So the very first time that anybody saw this image with that demon above Trump’s head was in Trump’s tweet of the image. Somebody retouched it, probably not Trump himself. And so here’s Trump trying to explain what happened.

Donald Trump: Well, it wasn’t depicted. It was me. I did trust it. And I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross as a Red Cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So I just heard about it, and I said, how do they come up with that? It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better, and I do make people better. I make people a lot better.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, so Trump is a doctor, and so this is an image of Trump as a doctor. And then here he is tweeting against the Pope. He’s weak on crime, terrible for foreign policy, on and on and on. Yeah, like you said, this just seems politically totally self-destructive and crazy. I mean, he’s losing his marbles, if he ever had any in the first place.

E. Michael Jones: But on the other hand, what he’s doing is introducing a religious dimension to politics, which is an interesting gambit to take because then it brings back what exactly is this country’s relationship to religion? That’s a complicated question because we have never had an established religion, although we do have an established religion de facto. It’s kind of proof you can’t get along without an established religion. So instead of saying up front that it’s this or that or the other thing, we have the Congress now celebrating a Holocaust memorial.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, we’re back after some technical difficulties here at False Flag Weekly News, doing the Trump versus the Pope section with Dr. E. Michael Jones. So, Mike, you were just talking about the poor political judgment shown by the White House.

E. Michael Jones: Right. By introducing these specifically religious themes, you’re undermining the fundamental operating system of the American Republic, the de facto, which is basically that the Enlightenment is above all religions. That’s the premise. You have it in plays like Nathan the Wise, a classic play by Lessing about the discussion between Saladin, King Richard the Lionhearted, and a Jew. And the Jew is Lessing, and he’s the de facto smart guy in the room. But basically the whole point of this is that religion is compared to a ring. The true religion is a ring that God has given, but he gave many rings. Nobody knows whether it’s the true ring anymore, so we all have to pretend that we’ve all got the true ring. But what you’re doing is elevating the Enlightenment above that type of discussion that rational people—it’s like the Masonic lodge. We understand all the hoi polloi believe in God, but we have a superior understanding. That’s the de facto hidden grammar. And so therefore we will go along that line. He broke that mold by identifying himself with Jesus Christ. By doing that, you are doing exactly what that Jew David Gelernter did, the Yale professor who wrote a book called America: The World’s Fourth Great Religion. So you are making it into an idol that is going to alienate people who take Christianity seriously or any religion seriously. And there’s going to be a pushback. And then you’re going to look into what’s the real story here, and that’s going to lead back to Baal.

The Ayatollah Khomeini was right when he said America was the great Satan. The real hidden grammar, that’s that figure in the middle there. I don’t know who put it in, but it’s like this demonic figure that now has people talking about this. He started a discussion that he really did not want to start. You don’t want to start this discussion. But being impulsive the way he is, he got himself involved in something that is going to lead where he doesn’t want it to go.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. He’s giving ammunition to the Iranians who are saying that the Americans are on the side of Baal. And we’ll talk about that in a second. But let’s see, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. There’s so much to talk about with this Pope versus Trump stuff. So you were suggesting in your tweet that it looks like Trump is suffering from tertiary syphilis or whatever other kind of dementia seems like as good a guess as any.

E. Michael Jones: Yes. So I said this. There’s a book out there called Pox by a lady named Deborah Hayden. I reviewed it when it came out years ago. And it’s an interesting book because it talks about a lot of figures. The common denominator is they all had syphilis. Now, most of the time, this is obviously before penicillin, but it had a huge effect. And so what they began to realize was that tertiary syphilis, which is the stage after, like 20 years after you’re infected, shortly after you’re infected it seems that the disease goes dormant. But what it does is those spirochetes will move up, and they can take control of your brain. And that occurs about 20 years later. So this is theoretically possible. We know that Bill Gates contracted a venereal disease from the Epstein episode. We know that Donald Trump wasn’t a model of chastity. I don’t know. It’s always difficult diagnosing syphilis because it always masquerades as something else.

Kevin Barrett: You’re not a doctor, but at least you know you’re not a doctor, unlike Trump.

E. Michael Jones: Now wait a minute. I am a doctor. I have a PhD in America. I’m that kind of doctor too. And that makes me an expert on African AIDS because that was a complete fiction. So I gave that talk in Africa. So the question is, the reason I mention this is because after studying it for so long, they came up with actual symptoms. And one of them is delusions of grandeur. Grandiosity is one of them. It’s called pressure of speech, another symptom, which is basically you constantly talking, but the normal filters that you have are completely missing. And so you say things that are completely inappropriate, like open the f*****g straits on Easter Sunday. Happy Easter and open the f*****g strait. This is not appropriate speech in any way, shape, or form. It is certainly not appropriate speech for the president of the United States. And so what happens is he’s bringing about a discussion of this. It’s completely antithetical to his own self-interest and beyond his control. That’s what I think is happening. It lends credence to people like Emmanuel Todd, the French philosopher who was talking about the decline of the American empire because of the evaporation of Protestantism.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I agree. I think he’s the best French intellectual out there these days. So here’s Carrie Prigine-Mahler tweeting that Iran defends Catholics more than U.S. politicians do, pointing out that Pazeshkian is standing up for the Pope against Trump. So we can see who’s on the side of God, who’s on the side of Baal here. And you’re pointing out in this tweet, of course, that it’s a big problem for Vance, the Catholic who’s supposed to be Trump’s heir apparent.

E. Michael Jones: Right. By the way, just to get back to Carrie, there were two archbishops on that religious freedom panel, and they both threw her under the bus. Barron did it first. She was hoping for support, and Barron threw her under the bus. But the one woman on the committee was a Muslim who came to her defense. So again, we’re seeing tectonic plates shifting.

Kevin Barrett: Absolutely. Your call for a Muslim-Christian alliance is definitely timely. So this isn’t the first time Trump’s been inappropriately tweeting about the Popes and religious figures and offending Christians. He actually claimed that he should have been given the job of Pope at one point and tweeted this picture. You can’t make this stuff up. And here we get to the Baal part of it. So somehow that image above Trump in the version that he tweeted is this Baal figure, which is— I was looking at a movie or something. But the question is, who put it there? Because this picture of Trump healing the sick existed before Trump tweeted it, but it didn’t have Baal in it. And so the version that Trump tweeted does have Baal in it. Is Trump putting Baal into his tweets for some reason just to make us think he’s even crazier and more demonic than we thought he was? And he says he’s a doctor, but nobody believes that.

So it’s very, very strange. Here’s one version of it that each of those figures matches up with somebody in Trump’s life, more or less, whether it’s Soros, Jeffrey Epstein, Mark Levin, Ivanka, Laura Loomer, Randy Fine. And this is likely to get Trump chased from the White House. Normally, I think Jesus, peace upon him, only used physical violence against Jewish bankers, but he might make an exception with Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene says this is the Antichrist spirit, and that ties in with that Baal. Now, who would put Baal in this picture and have Trump tweet it? It’s hard to figure out.

So Mike, what do you make of this Baal imagery?

E. Michael Jones: Well, there’s a connection that he certainly would not want to make. But what happened after Roe v. Wade got overturned? Four hundred Jewish organizations came out and said that abortion was a fundamental Jewish value. What was Moloch or Baal? That was child sacrifice. What did the Jews do? Their feet were still wet from walking across the Red Sea when Moses delivered them from the Egyptian captivity. They immediately started worshiping Baal or Moloch. So this is the story that’s coming out. It seems to be a coherent story, but the only mystery here is who’s connecting these dots. Which goes back to that figure there. Who put that figure in there? Did AI put that figure in there? Was that intentional? Did Trump put it there deliberately? We don’t know. We just have to meditate. But there is a coherence to this story that I think is coming out. And it’s the opposite of the story that Trump would intend for his own political purposes.

Kevin Barrett: Well, that’s for sure. First he picks a fight with the Pope right after using foul language on Easter, and then he puts Baal into his tweet right when the Iranians are out there burning effigies of Baal and saying they’re at war with the Epstein class, which worships Baal. So he’s playing right into this narrative against him. And social media is full of these takeoffs on great religious art, imagining that he’s Jesus or the Pope or whoever he thinks he is this week. And again, he says he’s a doctor. He says he heals people. So nobody’s believing that. And finally, Ken O’Keefe here is pointing out that the Epstein class behind Trump, these are the people who hate Mother Mary and hate Jesus.

And this spat has gone on all week. It didn’t stop. Trump went off on the Pope, went off on him again. The Pope responded very temperately and cogently. And then Trump just went off on him again, more than once. I can’t even count how many anti-Pope statements Trump made this week. So it seems like the Antichrist spirit is manifesting itself in the White House.

And I wrote a piece about this. Anyway, it’s back and forth. And I don’t think Trump’s going to call in a military action against the Vatican. That would be going too far.

E. Michael Jones: I think that’s going too far, but this is an attempt. So what about the Antichrist? It has a tradition in Scripture. The Book of Revelation was written during the time of Nero, the emperor of Rome, who was persecuting Christians. So what you see here is that the Antichrist is a type. There will be an Antichrist, an actual figure that comes at the end. But I don’t think it’s Trump because he’s not deceiving anyone. And the Antichrist will—Revelation says even the elect will be deceived. He’ll be such a plausible figure. Trump is not plausible, but he is acting according to a scenario that repeats itself throughout history. Nero, he was an Antichrist. He persecuted the church. The same thing was true of Julian the Apostate, another Roman emperor who also persecuted the church. It was Persia that stopped Julian the Apostate. And I see it as the same role that Iran is playing right now. We are incapable of breaking the rod of tyranny. We, the American people, are incapable of doing it. We have a political process that has installed these people. And when God allows the people, warns them through the prophets and they kill the prophets and ignore everything they said, he eventually says, I’m taking it out of your hands now. You will be punished from the outside. He sends Nebuchadnezzar and that drags them into the Babylonian captivity.

This is something similar to what happened to Julian the Apostate. He was going to work with the Jews to bring about his Middle East foreign policy, which is basically I’m going to conquer Persia. And he attacks Persia. The attempt to rebuild the temple, which is always an Antichrist project, failed. And he went ahead and attacked Persia anyway. And Shapur II destroyed his army in a kind of miraculous way. And so Trump—here we go again. Julian the Apostate is retreating back through the desert to Rome. A figure comes out of a sandstorm with a lance and stabs him. And the last words that Julian says is, Thou hast triumphed, O pale Galilean, and he dies. So we see all these uncanny replications of current situations.

Kevin Barrett: I can’t imagine Trump saying anything as coherent as “Thou hast triumphed, O pale Galilean,” but other than that it’s a pretty close parallel.

E. Michael Jones: Well, he’s still in that delusional phase. And I’m sure if you talk to Julian the Apostate before the guy with the lance showed up, he would have been talking pretty much the way Donald Trump is talking now. He probably had generals who were telling him, look, we can’t invade Persia. They’re these big mountains. It’s not going to work. And he just ignored them in that kind of manic phase where the delusion just before the bubble pops. And then suddenly the whole thing disappears.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that’s a plausible analysis. So they did figure out who supposedly first sent Trump this picture, but that hasn’t answered the question about who put Baal in it. So the guy who did it was some crazy Trump supporter from Florida who’s given him money before and gotten him in trouble before. And so here’s the Baal part of the picture that somehow got inserted using Photoshop or what have you. And again, it’s a kind of a mystery how it got there. In any case, Trump’s tertiary syphilis or delusions of grandeur, narcissism, whatever it is, it’s obviously getting worse by the week, if not by the day.

Kevin Barrett:And he’s lashing out at everybody, not just at Jesus, not dressing up as Jesus and lashing out at the Pope, but he’s also going off on Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson, calling them sleazebags, saying they have low IQs. I’m pretty sure all of those people have considerably higher IQs than Trump does.

And then Marjorie Taylor Greene is talking about how Trump all but gave her son a death threat, saying it would be her fault if somebody killed her son because of her not being a Trump loyalist. So he’s really out of control. But his people around him are stepping in it too.

Vance and Hegseth this week—this is what you mentioned earlier, Mike. Vance told the Pope he had to be very, very careful in getting involved in matters of theology, which is definitely one of the more bizarre statements from a Catholic vice president, wouldn’t you say?

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, he was badly advised here. He was badly advised. He should have tried to educate the people and say, well, you know, we need some type of moral input to foreign policy because you’re trying to achieve the good through action, which is the purpose of practical reason. If you completely absent yourself from moral theology, you’re going to have an incoherent and irrational foreign policy, which is precisely what we have now. So he could have said that, but he just did not rise to the occasion.

Kevin Barrett: Right. Well, he’s in a tough position. Trying to defend Trump at this point is really kind of a fool’s errand, I think. Here was your tweet about this. So yeah, you pointed out that Vance flubbed his lines because he didn’t understand the dramatic changes that are taking place as we transition to the Fourth Republic. You would think if anybody in this administration had a clue about that, it would be Vance. But for whatever reason, he seems almost as clueless as the rest of them.

You can’t underestimate the—what should I say—the coup, the great achievement of the CIA during the initial period after World War II, when they were just getting started, like ’53, the attack on Mossadegh. They created the anti-communist crusade, and the Catholics were all on board. They got the Catholics on board. It was a guy like C.D. Vance, who was working for both the CIA and Time-Life, great in creating these propaganda campaigns. In 1953, the same year that the coup in Iran took place, he said that the CIA had lost its greatest salesman because Stalin had died.

Now you got the allegiance of all of these Catholics behind the government, the United States government, at the very time that the government was actually attacking them through the destruction of Catholic neighborhoods. It was an orchestrated government campaign that I documented in my book, Slaughter of Cities, Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.

Now Trump is doing the exact opposite. You can’t afford to alienate a big group of people like this, and that’s precisely what he did. And Vance isn’t helping him. Now Hegseth is taking it even a step further.

Kevin Barrett: Again, these are all weird sorts of almost blasphemies, right? Trump dressing up as Jesus really is a blasphemy, and using foul language on Easter is blasphemous. Then Vance telling the Pope that he should stay out of matters of theology is kind of borderline blasphemous. It’s certainly offensive at least. But then here’s Hegseth reading this fake Bible verse from Pulp Fiction during a sermon at the Pentagon. The context here is that this fake Bible verse is spoken by Samuel L. Jackson’s character. He’s a hitman, and he’s about to brutally murder some kid and blow his brains out all over the screen. Disgusting, horrific scene. And Hegseth is preaching a sermon and uses that line from Pulp Fiction. I mean, this is like the Baal on the picture of Trump cosplaying as Jesus. These people seem like they can’t stop blaspheming.

E. Michael Jones: Well, this is a sect that is based on a radical distortion of the Bible. We’re talking about the Schofield Notes to the Bible, which got published by Oxford University Press, gave it a lot of prestige that it didn’t deserve because the Untermeyer family had those connections. Then that became the basis of Christian Zionism. But the problem is, they’re so overt in promoting this, you get pushback from the Catholics. “Wait a minute, that’s not my religion.” Suddenly you’re exacerbating the Protestant-Catholic split, for example, at the very time you should be smoothing it over and trying to provide a united front against the common enemy, which is supposed to be Iran. It’s completely counterproductive. You don’t want to introduce religious division at a time of war.

If you go back and look at the term Judeo-Christian, it basically came into being during World War II because they wanted some type of united front against the Nazis. The Jews were being persecuted, the Holocaust narrative—blah blah blah—but that’s when that term was created. It was part of the propaganda campaign to unite the American people against a foreign enemy. But they’re doing the exact opposite now. They are creating religious division by this religious overreach that antagonizes people like the Catholics, who say, “Wait, that’s not my religion.” Then the Pope jumps in and backs up that claim, and suddenly you’ve got an impasse. You’ve destroyed the unity of the United States. We can’t project power. You’ve broken apart the MAGA coalition by highlighting the very religious differences that you would want to obscure or put in the background to have a successful political coalition. So it’s completely tone deaf. But maybe that’s God’s plan. Let’s allow these people enough rope to hang themselves, and they will bring about the exact opposite of what they intend, but what God intends.

Maybe that’s what God intends. I did a piece where I said we know that God wants peace—I wrote this article, it’s in Culture Wars—we know that God wants peace, but does God want a ceasefire? Maybe God wants a permanent peace that will entail the removal of this cancerous regime in the Middle East. Maybe that’s the only possible solution that will bring about peace. We have to keep this in mind when we’re looking at the global picture.

Kevin Barrett: Well, to the extent it’s a religious war, all of these things are making the Iranian narrative sound much more plausible. They say they’re fighting against Baal. They say they’re fighting against the Epstein class, which worships Baal and whose headquarters of their global crime ring is occupied Palestine. That’s looking all too plausible. All of this blasphemy—whether it’s Trump pretending to be Jesus and then lying, or Hegseth uttering fake Bible verses from a horrific scene in a horrific movie—it’s making the American political class look like they’re run by Baal, run by the Antichrist.

E. Michael Jones: This was kind of the genius of Ayatollah Khomeini, who called America the Great Satan and introduced that type of religious discourse into the political world at a time when the United States was basically a technocratic operation: we have superior knowledge, superior weaponry, superior this, blah blah blah, and religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. That was the genius, and now all of these people are reinforcing the idea that Khomeini launched in 1979. It’s uncanny.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think you’re ahead of the curve in your discussions of this topic, the reason that America has a satanic streak. So here’s the scene from Pulp Fiction that Hegseth borrowed his supposed Bible line from. There’s Samuel L. Jackson about to shoot somebody point blank in the head, and Tarantino shows that in all of its bloody glory. That’s where he got the speech—Samuel L. Jackson’s speech right before he shoots this kid in the head. This Hegseth with his bizarre tattoos and stuff—he’s definitely from Baal.

Well, here’s our music video of the week in honor of Pete Hegseth...

What shall we do what the drunken HegsethShall we do what the drunken HegsethShall we do what the drunken HegsethEarly in the morning

He was drinking on the Fox set before the showtime.He was drinking on the Fox set before the showtime.Early in the morning.

Married at the strip club in his uniform.Married at the strip club in his uniform.Married at the strip club in his uniform, early in the morning..”

Okay, that’s our tribute to Pete Hegseth.

And finally, the question arises: is Trump crazy, or is he just the Antichrist? You once said, Mike, he’s not very plausible, so he probably isn’t the Antichrist—probably just channeling the Antichrist. The New York Times is thinking he’s crazy. A lot of people have been asking these questions, going back to Bandy Lee publishing the book about him right as he entered his first term almost 10 years ago. But now we’re hearing it among all kinds of people, including his own advisors, allies, retired generals, diplomats, foreign officials—they say, yeah, he’s crazy. They’re not saying tertiary syphilis, but maybe they should be.

Kevin Barrett: Here’s my post suggesting he’s channeling the spirit of Antichrist, as is Hegseth, and even Vance when Vance is telling the Pope to keep his nose out of theology. It seems to me that the spirit of Antichrist may be something other than the supposed actual character, the Antichrist, who’s supposed to show up as one single individual, whether it’s Dajjal.

E. Michael Jones: Right. It’s always going to be the emperor who succumbs to his own delusions of grandeur. There’s always an element of insanity to that that doesn’t necessarily have to be physical dementia. It can be simply the result of consistently irrational behavior. Rational behavior is moral behavior. Morality is practical reason. If you live a life that is constantly divorced from reason, you could call it insanity. Why wouldn’t that be the same thing?

So Aquinas says, for example, that lust darkens the mind. That’s a good way of dealing with this. Obviously, he’s not a model of chastity. If you dedicate your life to lust, eventually the light of reason will go out. When the light of reason goes out, it sounds like insanity. Or when ambition, pride—when you finally lose control of that battle and act according to that vice—you become irrational. That means a kind of insanity. There’s a natural progression that doesn’t have to have a physical cause. It can follow from simply absenting yourself from living a life according to morality and practical reason.

Kevin Barrett: Absolutely. And if there’s any organic physical element, it could be syphilis—or too much Diet Coke. He supposedly drinks 15 or 20 Diet Cokes a day. I’m surprised he’s still alive.

Even Tucker Carlson is noticing the Antichrist spirit associated with Trump—the leader who exalts himself above all deities and mocks faith. A dark time for Washington. Iran is pushing back. The House missed ending the war by one vote. At this stage, having it that close is pretty interesting. The blockade was getting worse. It doesn’t look like that’s been solved.

Pakistan is siding with Iran. So the Americans have a supposed client state that seems more sympathetic to Iran than Washington. How the next round of negotiations will go—we’ll have to report back. It seems Ali Khamenei will go down in history as a bit of a chess master, as well as a grandfatherly religious leader, because it looks like the Iranians have got Trump checkmated, which is one reason he’s lashing out irrationally.

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, I agree. He painted himself into a corner. This was unnecessary. He could have had what he wants now if he had let the JCPOA stand. He brought about his own demise and the demise of the empire under the delusion that he’s saving it.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, the law of unintended consequences is coming back to bite him. The Iranians downed another expensive piece of military equipment this week—a spy drone. I’ve seen these in the Aerospace Museum in Tehran. They’ve got rockets, launchers, and American drones they’ve shot down or hijacked.

Trump is not doing well on social media. The Atlantic says he’s no longer a “Chad.” He’s losing the trolling contest to Iran, which is making short videos. The Iranian embassies are trolling him heavily. Iran is winning the social media war.

E. Michael Jones: The Iranians always loved making movies. They’ve had that tradition. Now they’re just upping their game with short videos geared to short attention spans.

Kevin Barrett: The allies of the United States are off the bus. Spain is the furthest off—refusing U.S. use of territory, shutting down connections with Israel, opening an embassy in Tehran. NATO is dissolving. Italy is stepping back. Australia had to make peace to get oil and gas. Trump is lashing out at allies.

E. Michael Jones: Where does it end? He’s going to be completely alone.

Kevin Barrett: Trump can always threaten Greenland or Tasmania.

The war on Russia isn’t going well either. Europeans are escalating recklessly with drones. Russia is warning that strikes could trigger NATO’s mutual defense clause. But NATO will likely fall apart before that.

E. Michael Jones: Germany is the anomaly—internalizing commands of its oppressors, continuing a war not in its interest, damaging its own industry. Eventually they’ll have to leave NATO and make peace with Russia…

Kevin Barrett: Let’s talk about the Internet fringe material this week...This was the big New Yorker article, how the Internet fringe infiltrated Republican politics.

And by Internet fringe, they basically mean people like us who have noticed that the Zionists are occupying not only Palestine, but also the United States of America. So all these young people are waking up to this.

And so here’s the New Yorker sending a photographer to take these old-fashioned black and white pictures to try to make these young people who notice what’s going on in the world look weird and old-fashioned. And there’s the scary, scary picture of Nick Fuentes. A little double exposure there to make it exciting.

“On his popular streaming show, Fuentes opines about the virtues of Adolf Hitler and the nuisance of women and minorities.”

Right, right.

E. Michael Jones: Look, I think Israel just listed the top 10 anti-Semites in the world.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we’re going to get to that.

E. Michael Jones: I know. I just want to complain about that.

But what we’re talking about here is a controlled opposition of people that exaggerate or are not predictable and so on and so forth. And then they’re trying to establish, put this label on what is a growing movement of unhappiness with Jewish control of our culture.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, they’re trying to make it look weird and sinister. But the cool thing about this article is that it makes it clear that the majority of the young conservatives are hip to this. Like, I think they quoted something like three quarters or two thirds or whatever of the Republican Senate staffers now believe that Israel killed JFK and did 9-11.

Well, they did.

And so, wow, that means that we’re, I think we’re succeeding in our mission. You know, there were times in this truth jihad I’ve been doing since 9-11 that I got a little discouraged and wondered what the long-term historical record would show about this. But it does seem that the younger people are waking up, and surprisingly to me anyway.

E. Michael Jones: Is that, by the way, is that Dinesh D’Souza?

Kevin Barrett: Oh, this?

E. Michael Jones: Yeah.

Kevin Barrett: I don’t know. I don’t know Dinesh D’Souza that well. It looks sort of like him.

E. Michael Jones: Fishback.

Kevin Barrett: Oh, yeah, Fishback. He’s the guy who’s running for governor in Florida.

E. Michael Jones: So a perfectly natural reaction to Jewish over-control in a place like Florida, where the governor goes to Tel Aviv to sign a hate speech bill that’s going to punish Floridians, and then they try to portray this guy as some type of...Demagogue or lunatic? No, this is a perfectly natural reaction.

They’re desperate because the New Yorker has what? Lost its ability to control the mind of the intelligentsia? They’re part of that whole obsolete categorization story that is now trying, flailing desperately to regain relevance when they cannot. There’s only one relevant topic now, which is Jewish control of our culture. That is the only political issue right now, and try to disguise that, try to demonize the people who are smart enough to wake up to it. It’s not going to work. Not going to work.

Kevin Barrett: Absolutely not. And this attempt to make these people look weird and scary, you know, that this black and white thing looks almost like it’s taken from the original George Romero zombie movie, The Night of the Living Dead. But they still came through with a certain... glamour might not be the word, but these kids, to me, they don’t look so bad. But they really worked in the New Yorker to get creepy black and white photos of them to make you scared of them.

And of course, the Epstein thing is central to this, right? I mean, everybody knows Epstein was an Israeli agent collecting blackmail material on powerful Americans, probably including Trump, which is probably why we’re at war with Iran.

And so the news this week on that front was that Pam Bondi tried to weasel out of her—what was it? She was summoned to testify in front of Congress. And by resigning or being fired or whatever she was, she supposedly weaseled out of it. Or so she says, so the Justice Department says, but apparently Congress doesn’t agree. So we’ll see how that plays out.

And so that’s the Epstein news this week.

Okay, Anti-Semitism Watch, our favorite part of the show. This was the top 10 anti-Semitic influencers in the world, according to this Israeli group, the Diaspora Affairs Ministry. They’re terrified of rising global anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and false claims about Jews and Israel. And I guess Dan Bilzerian got number one. He’s another quote unquote anti-Semite who’s running for Congress in Florida on a take back America from the Jewish Zionists who own it currently.

So here’s the top 10 anti-Semites. And like I said, Mike, we used to get attacked by the ADL on a regular basis, and you probably have more recently than I have. But I’m feeling left out.

E. Michael Jones: I am fairly left out there. So I’m just going to tell you the pushback I got response to this. And they’re saying that if someone wrote to me and said, look, if they put your name up there, someone’s going to Google your name and they’re going to find out that you wrote books and they may buy the book. And if you buy the book, they will be convinced that you’re not what they said you were. So they’re not going to put my name up. That’s what they said.

I think it’s true. I think it’s absolutely true.

Now, I don’t want to denigrate any of these people. I mean, God bless them for taking a stand for whatever. But if you have Mr. X podcaster, who is basically, that’s all he is, well, okay, put his name up. You’re not going to find anything. There’s not like some type of secret cache of information that will change your mind. It’s all pretty much what you see is what you get here.

And that’s why I think people like this, I don’t want to, again, I don’t want to denigrate any of these people, but that’s why they’re being promoted. This is a kind of controlled opposition. They also are, in some sense, unpredictable. And so you never know exactly what they’re going to be saying and so on and so forth. And so I think that’s the common denominator here.

The real strategy that’s been articulated was Ginsburg’s book, Fatal Embrace. The first stage and the most effective stage is called dynamic silence, where you don’t even exist anymore, according to these people. That’s the most powerful form of censorship. And this plays into that by the people who are left out.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think you’re onto something there. One of the commenters at the Unz Review said something like, well, maybe the reason that they’re not putting Kevin Barrett and E. Michael Jones and Ron Unz, especially, on this list is because anybody who actually reads those guys will learn something. And plus, they can win the intellectual debate. And some of these other people, well, maybe they can, but they’re not as likely to change people’s minds.

Well, this was another anti-Semitism watch story this week. The Espresso, which is the most popular coffee—no, the most popular magazine in Italy—published this cover of that Zionist settler harassing the Palestinian woman with abuse as the headline. And just by publishing that, they got into big trouble. The usual suspects, the Israelis and their friends, accused the Espresso magazine of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism for publishing that picture.

Leading to this tweet, imagine being so ugly that your own genocidal government condemns the publication of your photograph as a hate crime. That’s not nice, but it’s true.

E. Michael Jones: So now it’s anti-Semitic to take a picture of a Jew or of an Israeli?

Kevin Barrett: And, you know, it was certainly anti-Semitic to reveal the guy, the Israeli prison guard who raped the guy to death with a broomstick and turned into a national hero in Israel. You know, talking about him is anti-Semitic too.

So yeah, this guy became sort of the poster child for Zionism for this week. A Syrian girl was noticing him, as were others. And Kim.com has a fair number of followers on X, and he’s not that enthused with these attractive Jews of the Holy Land either.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu says that Europe is getting morally weak, so he used Holocaust Remembrance Day as the day to try to whip Europe back into line. Do you think he’ll succeed in the long term with this?

E. Michael Jones: No, no. The Holocaust is a trope of the Third Republic, and it’s going to disappear. They overplayed their hand. It’s over. It’s not working anymore.

Kevin Barrett: Spain and Italy are totally out of control, and the rest of Europe is on the way. Here in Spain, they are even burning effigies of Netanyahu. And of course, if you burn an effigy of a war criminal like Netanyahu, that would mean that you must be anti-Semitic. They blew it up, even. That’s even better than burning it.

E. Michael Jones: So eventually, yeah, we’ll have to ask the ultimate question: is God an anti-Semite? That’s a theological question. And I guess J.D. Vance would say that it’s theological. The Pope should definitely not get into it.

Kevin Barrett: So how about the Roald Dahl anti-Semitism scandal this week? The New York Times covered this new Broadway play that’s apparently a huge hit that’s basically designed to demonize Roald Dahl, the great children’s author behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and other classics.

So this John Lithgow, the actor who plays Roald Dahl, he says he loves the role because it’s so monstrous. He wants to be a monstrous anti-Semite like Roald Dahl.

But Mike, if you actually look at what did Roald Dahl say to get labeled as such a horrible, monstrous anti-Semite, it’s very, very tame and reasonable and errs on the side of being too philo-Semitic, in my humble opinion.

So the fact that they’re crucifying this guy long after his death is really…it’s revealing of the way that they must be just totally panicking about the fact that the world is finally onto them.

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, and why Roald Dahl? I mean, he was not a model of children’s literature as far as I’m concerned. He was a very subversive guy, a very unattractive guy, a kind of nasty guy that came out in his fiction, which is the type of thing that the New York Times used to promote to basically remove the innocence of children, or attack the innocence of children, or subvert that whole idea of children’s literature.

Kevin Barrett: Interesting. Could be. But now it turns out that they’re going to claim he’s nasty in a whole different way. That used to be a good way of being nasty, to subvert the innocence of children. But now we’re going to say that he was an anti-Semite.

And the interesting thing about this whole story was that they had to write stuff into the play that was not actually part of his biography to make it look like his career is being threatened. Because back when he was saying that the Israeli genocide of Lebanon in—what was it, 1981, 1983—the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when they just slaughtered like 30,000 Lebanese civilians, and he spoke out against that, and apparently at that time that didn’t get him canceled. You could still say things like that.

And he said some things about, you know, this group of people has gone from being the persecuted people to the persecutors in record time. That’s anti-Semitic? Give me a break.

E. Michael Jones: It reminds me of Donald Trump. What exactly is the point of attacking Roald Dahl at this point? Have you run out of other targets?Why are you attacking this man?

Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, I’ll tell you, Mike. I actually have an answer. I think it’s because, as you see from this play, in the play they had to invent stuff that didn’t really happen in real life involving him being in danger of being canceled by the literary establishment. Back then, before the Jews had completely taken over, he could say stuff like that and not be canceled. But now you breathe a single word that they don’t like, and you’re toast. And so they put that in there, and now they’re trying to put that message out that if you say a single word that we don’t like, you’re toast.

E. Michael Jones: Yep.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, well, Orban, who, by the way, was put into power by Netanyahu strategists, is out. That’s the good news, I guess, that one Zionist, namely Orban, who’s out, even though he had some positive aspects to his way of ruling Hungary, as well as negative ones, but he lost. Peter Magyar decisively beat him this week.

And here’s the bad news. The future Hungarian PM is at least as equally Zionist-owned and operated. So one Zionist out, another Zionist—what’s it? Out with the old Zionists, meet the new Zionists.

It’s like American politics. We go from left wing Jews to right wing Jews or, in this instance, from right wing Jews to left wing Jews.

E. Michael Jones: So he’s a supporter of the European Union, which has held up 20 billion euros in aid. And he will free that up by introducing the homosexual agenda to Hungary. So, you know, back and forth, back and forth.

Kevin Barrett: Right. One Jewish Zionist party versus the other Jewish Zionist party. And some people are blaming Vance for this because everything Vance does turns to whatever. He leads Iran negotiations, the talks collapse. He visits the Pope, the Pope dies. He flies to Hungary to Papa Orban, Orban loses in a landslide. He’s on a streak. Okay. Go, Vance.

And finally, our last story of the week, will Trump actually try to have a cage fight or a, what do they call it, a UFC fight with the Pope? He’s building a UFC arena right at the front door of the White House. I mean, talk about vulgarity. I mean, this guy makes Jay Gatsby look like a very refined and cultured individual. What’s with this, Mike?

E. Michael Jones: I think there are very few apertures that allow you to enter Trump’s mind. And one of them is real estate and the other is wrestling. I think that’s the two. That’s it. So that’s the way he views the world, and so we naturally would build this arena there.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I don’t think there’s going to be a UFC fight between Trump and the Pope anytime soon. But you can’t put anything past Trump. So there you go. Anyway, whatever Trump does next week, we probably will have to go ahead and report it here on False Flag Weekly News.

All right. Well, thank you, Dr. E. Michael Jones. Always great touching base. Keep up the fantastic work. People are going to be increasingly admitting that you’ve been ahead of your time for a long time.

E. Michael Jones: Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Good to talk to you.

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