Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

I did Press TV rolling coverage interviews last (Friday) night and again this (Saturday) morning. The topic, naturally, was the “Hormuzian confusion” generated by Trump’s out-of-control mouth. The above video begins with a brief Press-TV-chosen highlight reel from the Friday interview, followed by a complete archive of my portion of the interviews. Below is the complete transcript. -KB

Friday, April 17 interview:

I think this is a historic change. We’ve seen what really amounts to Iran testing its nuclear option by showing its power over the traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore its power over the entire world economy, including especially the US vassal states in the region. And Iran has successfully demonstrated that power. And that has apparently forced the Americans to push the Israelis back from doing what they wanted to do, which was to continue their genocide in Lebanon. And so that problem isn’t yet solved, but at least there is a slowdown in this aggression coming from the Israelis in Lebanon. And that was completely done by the leverage of Iran. And so I think this is a very positive development.

And I wouldn’t put too much faith in what Trump says at any given time, because for one thing, he doesn’t appear to be fully in control of his mouth. Sometimes he deliberately lies, and sometimes it seems to be almost an unconscious process. So I wouldn’t consider Trump the best source on any of this. He’s going to be trying to lie his way out of the problem he got himself into by allowing Netanyahu to convince him to attack Iran. So I would listen to the Iranian leadership, and I would also listen to other third parties, including the Chinese and perhaps the Europeans, perhaps to a certain extent the Pakistanis. The upshot is that Iran has emerged from this brutal series of acts of aggression, this series of war crimes committed against it, actually much stronger than it was before. And the downside is that this is not going to play well with the genocidal maniacs in Tel Aviv. So there’s going to be a continued impetus for conflict coming from those quarters. But the good news is that, for now at least, it looks like the Americans might actually be reacting with at least a slight sliver of rationality, which essentially means admitting that Iran has them checkmated, and that’s going to change the region and the world forever.

The blowback from this is obviously immense. And this may go down in American history as the worst decision made by an American leader and the stupidest war ever launched by an American leader. And that would be saying something. Had Trump and his people not decided to go along with the suggestion, or rather the order perhaps, of Netanyahu, and launch this bloody war by assassinating the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and massacring those schoolgirls, the Iran side would never have done this. It would never have exercised this nuclear option of openly taking control of the Strait of Hormuz. That was always a defensive parameter. It was a defensive option that Iran would be able to use if it were attacked, if it ever suffered aggression at a certain level. And everybody knew this. It’s very strange why the American leadership didn’t get the message. The top military and intelligence leadership understood it, but apparently nobody around Trump was willing to stand up to him. Apparently he’s got a narcissism issue and he doesn’t like to be contradicted. And apparently he’s got a certain amount of influence over him coming from Netanyahu. So the Americans ended up making this very, very bad decision.

Before this, they could convince their Gulf allies, or should we say the vassal states, that they could effectively protect them. And then they could steal protection money from those Gulf states. And that era now is over. This unilateral American control of the Gulf and of its energy resources and therefore of the backing of the petrodollar is now over. Iran has shown that it’s the ultimate power over the transit of energy and other materials through the Strait of Hormuz, and if necessary, the Red Sea as well. And that completely changes the geopolitical landscape, and not in a way that’s favorable to the United States. So the Americans will try to find a way out of this to minimize the damage and minimize the embarrassment. But ultimately this is a huge takedown for the American empire, and that means it’s also a very, very bad sign for the genocidal Zionist entity, which had really better deeply reflect on the course that it’s been taking, because it won’t be around in just a few years if it continues on the path that it’s on. It has always depended on the protection of the Americans, and American power is ebbing very rapidly.

Well, you’re right, the European vassal states usually do anything that the United States orders them to do, no matter how stupid. But this was an exception because it was so stupid that it rose above the level of garden-variety American stupidity to a whole new level of utter and complete idiocy. Like that retired French general said, Trump was the captain of the Titanic selling discount tickets after the ship had already struck the iceberg. That is, they could see that this was not going to be successful by any possible definition. They knew, like everybody else knew, that Iran would likely close the Strait of Hormuz and exercise this nuclear option that would essentially force the other side to back down. And I think they also had maybe better intelligence. Well, certainly they had better intelligence than Trump. Trump’s intelligence was coming from Netanyahu. And what Netanyahu really believes, I have no idea. But in any event, the Europeans, like all the professionals in the field, knew very well that there was no way that murdering some people in a dastardly sneak attack on Iran was somehow going to magically transform Iran into a pliant, obedient Western vassal state that would acquiesce in the genocide of Palestine and in the theft of its materials and economy and resources. No way. It just wasn’t going to happen. And the Europeans knew that, and everybody else knew that.

And apparently the reason that Netanyahu would have been willing to risk this kind of suicidal war from the Western American perspective is that he was gambling on some kind of huge regional war that would allow the Israelis to pursue their plans for greater Israel by massacring and expelling the remaining Palestinian population and completing their genocide, invading more territory from their neighbors and emerging from the smoking ruins of the entire region as supposedly the strongest power. I think that was Netanyahu’s dream, but that was never realistic. And the realistic people in all the other camps, including the Europeans, could see that this was a counterproductive effort from the American and Western perspectives. And also, of course, the Europeans found it absurd that Trump was asking them to send their navies to open the strait, when the American navy, which is more powerful than all of the European navies put together, was afraid to come anywhere near the strait. It was almost humorous in its ridiculous quality. And then Trump’s petulant crying and whining about how the Europeans wouldn’t help him open the strait just added to the irony, or really the dark humor, of the whole thing. So it was no mystery why the Europeans turned him down.

The real mystery is why he thought that they would, and why anybody would ever imagine that they would. And in fact it’s also a mystery why the Europeans have gone as far as they have in listening to the Americans. In this one case they didn’t, but so often they do to their detriment. Why haven’t the Europeans taken Flint and Hillary Leverett’s advice and gone to Tehran a long time ago? They could have opened up productive trade relations. They could have undermined this whole American-Israeli war, and we would never have had this crisis, and they would have made a lot of money, and they would have actually beaten the Americans in this kind of competition for working with Iran’s vast, untapped economic potential. But Europeans may be stupid, they may be vassals of the Americans, but they weren’t stupid enough to buy those tickets on the Titanic after it had already hit the iceberg.

Saturday, April 18 interview:

Well, this isn’t surprising, because Trump is now becoming notorious for saying whatever comes into his head and then contradicting himself the next minute or even the next second. And so it’s really to be expected that the messaging coming out of the top of the American command chain is not going to be consistent and is not going to bear much scrutiny, certainly is not going to reflect reality. So I think we have to basically assume that the Americans are, as the Russians said a long time ago, non-agreement capable. That is, they’re incapable of clearly formulating an agreement and then signing it and sticking by it. They have a history of killing negotiators in the midst of the most promising moments in negotiations. And they have a history of going back on their word. Famously, of course, they promised never to move NATO one inch eastward after the end of the Cold War, and then they just kept on marching eastward, almost up to the gates of Moscow. And so I think they’re just as non-agreement capable with regard to this war on Iran as they were with regard to the post-Cold War war on Russia. And so just as the Russians learned they had to essentially use force and build up the military power and not rely on the word of these American leaders, Iran is learning that as well.

Yes. Clearly this is going to put equal pressure on the American side. The American side seems to think that it can just randomly apply these kinds of bullying sanctions and bullying approaches to Iran in hopes of trying to restore some kind of sense of dominance, because essentially they are what we call in American idiomatic English sore losers. That is, they’ve lost and they are unable to gracefully admit defeat. Indeed, they’re unable even to gracefully admit it or to gracefully lie about it and try to claim some sort of victory, which is what a better leader might do. But instead they are lashing out with these kinds of self-destructive maneuvers that create chaos in the attempt to come to some kind of settlement.

Obviously, Iran is going to continue to monitor and restrict shipping through the Strait of Hormuz for as long as the Americans keep their blockade in place. Obviously, the Americans should have known this, and perhaps they did, but if they did, then what were they thinking? I guess the American approach now has evolved from this Cold War period of trying to impose some kind of order on the world to the post-Cold War period of increasingly seeking to control the world by imposing chaos, that is by attacking other countries and creating conditions that are not conducive to peace and prosperity. And maybe the Americans hope that that will prevent the rest of the world from developing economically and technologically and catching up and overtaking them. But in this case it’s not going to work, because this level of chaos and destruction and this level of damage to the world economy, which is self-inflicted damage by the American side, is not going to be tolerated by the world. And the world is going to be pressuring the United States to try to behave more sensibly and rationally and predictably and settle this thing to get the goods flowing again.

Well, yes, I think that since the Americans are non-agreement capable, and not only that but they have the Israelis sabotaging any efforts that they might make to get any kind of agreement, essentially Iran is going to have to, number one, simply match the American actions with its own actions. That is, if the Americans continue this blockade, obviously Iran is going to continue restricting the flow through the strait. And then secondly, I think that since the Americans have this monster, this monkey on their back, that is Netanyahu and the Israelis trying to stir up an ever bigger war, I think that Iran needs to get guarantees that aren’t restricted to just the word of the Americans, which isn’t reliable. Instead, I think Iran needs to find some kind of formula to have an internationally guaranteed kind of agreement, that is to get other parties involved in guaranteeing it with a higher, ironclad commitment that if this is broken, then the other parties are going to take specified actions against the party that breaks the deal. And I don’t know whether Russia or China would be available for that or whichever countries were involved. But I think that there has to be some balance here, because the Americans are unreliable. And again, they have this so-called partner of theirs, really this parasite that has eaten their brain and has taken them over, that is the Zionist entity, and that the Zionists want ever-increasing war. So the United States needs to find a way to balance that, or rather Iran needs to find a way to balance that by bringing in outside parties that can push as hard for keeping to an agreement as the Israelis are pushing toward always breaking agreements.

Interviewer: All right, and let me ask you another question, since we’re out of the conversation. So we’re looking at the fact that we still don’t have an established date for negotiations to take place. Many are saying, don’t be fooled, that this is another way, especially when you have the Russian Security Council having issued a statement just a few days back, that this is just all a cover by the Israeli regime and the U.S. now because they want to really launch a ground operation. What do you think? Do you think that this is what’s unfolding right now?

It wouldn’t surprise me if the American leadership is crazy enough to be thinking along those lines and to imagine that a ground operation, a land war in Asia, as the famous saying goes in the United States, never get involved in a land war in Asia. But the Trump regime is so unstable and so heavily influenced by Netanyahu and his minions that you can’t put anything past them. And not only that, but they can make money through this roller coaster ride of ups and downs in the stock market and the commodities markets and the futures markets, because their people, the insiders, know when Trump is going to say something that calms the market and makes everybody think that peace is coming, and then when he’s going to do something crazy that threatens the world’s economic future and causes the price of oil to go through the roof and the futures markets to shoot up and all that.

So it’s entirely possible that the American leadership is so unstable and so influenced by the crazies in Tel Aviv that it actually is planning some kind of ground operation, perhaps another attempt to snatch Iran’s uranium and steal it, or perhaps something else, perhaps something symbolic, attacking the islands. But it’s hard to imagine that the United States could possibly be serious about really accomplishing anything with a ground operation against Iran. Because even though the United States spends 100 times as much as Iran in terms of military spending and should have that much more strength, as we’ve seen, Iran punches way above its weight and is more than a match for the American aggressor. Now, the Americans would have to muster as many as a million men to have any hope of trying to do a ground invasion, and that is politically impossible. So whatever Trump is planning along those lines would just essentially be making his defeat even worse and creating an even bigger crisis for the American empire. But that doesn’t mean they won’t do it.

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

Makia Freeman, author and editor of The Freedom Articles, just published The Cult of the Chosen Ones. Below is a rough transcript of our conversation.

Transcript:

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. I’m Kevin Barrett. I’ve been doing radio for almost 20 years, and audiovisual for a little less than that. I try to bring on people who’ve done interesting writing, translating good writing into audiovisual. And we have a brand new book to discuss today on a topic that I’m interested in: I’ve got Makia Freeman here to talk about The Cult of the Chosen Ones. And guess what cult that would be? I can imagine. So, hey, Makia, how are you?

Makia Freeman: Good. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks for having me on.

Kevin Barrett: Okay. So, yeah, Cult of the Chosen Ones. It sounds like a science fiction novel. Who is it? The comedian Dave—what’s his name—(Chappelle) who talks about the space Jews, right? The cult of the chosen ones from outer space. You could do it science fiction, but it’s almost that crazy even just here on Earth. So why don’t you introduce yourself and then tell us how you came to write this book.

Makia Freeman: Sure. So I’ve been studying the global conspiracy full time since 2007. I’ve written five books, and this is my fifth one. And it’s very comprehensively researched. It has 900 footnotes and 700 pages. And what I wanted to do with this book is tell the story of and connect the dots of how this cult that hides behind Judaism, how it actually arose and what happened, how it kind of gained strength throughout the ages. It came down from BC times through the Middle Ages and then up into Europe. And then it started really accelerating with these two fake Jewish messiahs, and then how the second one of them linked up with the Rothschild family. And then it started getting into all sorts of organizations and agencies and governments and creating things, and it took over the world. And so we’re seeing the effects now in our age.

Whenever we see these big events like political assassinations or false flag operations, it’s this cult that’s behind it. Also, just if you look at the history of the 20th century and all these major events like these revolutions and things like that, you can find the hand of this cult behind it. So I wanted to connect all those dots and then bring it right up to the current times with the genocide in Gaza, the Iran war, and just show that it’s pushing forward towards its crazed agenda. And we still have time to stop it, but the amount of control it exerts over the world is really tremendous, unfortunately.

Kevin Barrett: Right. Well, let’s talk about what precisely is this cult, right? Cult of the Chosen Ones. Your title makes it sound like that could be Judaism, which notoriously, of course, does have this notion of being God’s chosen people built right into it. But then we’ve also got Sabbatean Frankism, this kind of satanic messianic millenarian heresy that blew up starting several centuries ago and may be behind the Rothschilds. And then, of course, we have Zionism, this modern political movement influenced by both of those other two. So we have Judaism, we have satanic messianic millenarian madness of the Sabbatean Frankist variety, and then we have Zionism. So your cult of the chosen ones—which is it, or what is it?

Makia Freeman: Well, ultimately, I believe if you really dig down deep into it, it’s a satanic cult. And it manifests itself through—definitely Sabbatean Frankism is a big part of how it’s played out in the world. But ultimately, I would say it’s even beyond that, because these are the people that we have all these references to Baal and Moloch and worshipping strange gods and child sacrifice and all of this from ancient times. And so it goes back even further than I traced in this book, thousands of years BC, and who knows when this whole thing started.

But I pick up how it started to manifest itself within Judaism. Now, some people would argue that it actually created Judaism. Other people would say, well, no, it was more like a sect within Judaism that felt like they were the chosen ones. And this sect basically took over Judaism or it basically carried it forward. It depends really which source you listen to.

Basically, this idea of the chosen ones is a very insidious idea, because if you think that you’re chosen, there’s supremacy baked into that idea. It’s hard to believe that you’re chosen and yet still believe that all humans are equal and afford people the respect and the rights if they’re outside of your little clique or group. It’s interesting when people that are non-Jewish interview Jews these days and they say, you know, tell me about this idea of the chosen ones, and I see a lot of backpedaling by Jewish rabbis and other Jewish scholars or experts. And they try to say, well, you know, it doesn’t mean that we’re better. It just means that we’re chosen for a particular mission. And everyone’s chosen for a mission. Everyone’s called to do something. And they try to kind of play it off like it’s no big deal.

But ultimately, I don’t really see how you can believe that and then still treat everyone equally. I think it’s a real problem, this idea in the first place. And some people say, well, isn’t that just part of some Jewish books? We’ve got the Talmud and the Torah and the Kabbalah. No, it’s actually baked into all three of those Jewish holy books. Whichever one you follow, there’s always this idea of Jewish supremacy. And then when I see it play out, when I actually see some people talk about it, some Jews, it’s basically the basis for their worldview and how they conduct themselves in the world. They have their whole world split up into Jew and Goy, and they’ve got completely different systems of morality and respect for whatever class you’re in.

And then I see other people that are called Jewish, that they’re so-called Jews, but they reject this chosen people ideology. A couple of examples would be Gideon Levy, who’s a great journalist who writes for Haaretz. I’ve seen his work and I’ve seen him speak, and he’s like, you know, this is one of our major stumbling points as Jews. We have to give up this stupid idea and just throw it away. And then other Jews such as Professor Shlomo Sand, who’s written a couple of really incredible books such as The Invention of the Jewish People, he also disavows this idea.

So I want to be just clear that I don’t lump all Jews into this. Maybe there are some Jews that feel like they can still believe in this and at the same time treat everyone equally. But there are definitely some Jews who are like, this idea is kind of poisonous completely. And I think it’s an impediment to being a good person.

Kevin Barrett: Well, theoretically, it would be possible to believe that your group had been chosen by God for service, to serve humanity and be even more humble than everybody else and work harder for the common good than anybody else. That actually would be a great idea. I would love that kind of group. But I think, unfortunately, it seems that mainstream Judaism has taken the opposite approach. And it believes that actually the Goyim cattle were created to serve the master race Jews. And so, yeah, it’s definitely not—the way it manifests in reality most of the time is not so good.

And I think one of the most interesting and insidious aspects of it is the way that this community, which believes itself chosen, then has this really seething hatred of outsiders. It’s a really strong in-group/out-group. And of course all groups have some of that, right? We Green Bay Packers football fans hate the Chicago Bears, right? That doesn’t mean we’re going to necessarily mistreat people from Chicago, but this in-group/out-group kind of dynamic is common.

However, it seems to have gotten kind of exaggerated with this particular group, and they’ve been very successful at infiltrating different societies and then seizing hold of really nice, lucrative economic or socioeconomic niches. And long-distance trade is really a good one for them, because if you’re infiltrating several different societies around the world, then you have a huge advantage in engineering long-distance trade with your co-ethnics and engaging in ethnic nepotism.

So we have this group that hates outsiders, engages in massive ethnic nepotism to seize control of the most lucrative and most advantageous kinds of socioeconomic niches. And so that situation, of course, the outsiders, if they understand this, they’re going to push back. And so that’s not good. That’s not good for the Jews, right? Is it good for the Jews is the first question that Uncle Chaimie asks when he opens the Sunday New York Times and looks at the stories.

So therefore they have to come up with storytelling and narratives to distract us and to essentially obfuscate what they’re really doing. And I think the biggest problem here is that for millennia they’ve been working on this talent for spinning these deceptive narratives to camouflage what they’re really doing—in other words, lying. They’ve become really, really good at lyin’ for Zion, lying for the tribal benefit. And then when they take over the media, as they have in the West, and impose their lies on the whole society, take over the money-printing system, that’s, I think, a big part of the problems that we’re facing today.

But the lying and the storytelling, the talent for spinning things for tribal self-interest in order to protect their ethnic nepotism racket, seems to me to be kind of the core of the problem. What do you think?

Makia Freeman: Yeah, I mean, they lie as easily as they breathe, unfortunately. So it’s a big problem.

I would say if we look at what the definition of a cult is, part of the characteristics of a cult are that they get people away from whatever family or community they were once in and they get them into this new ideology or group. And then they start saying there’s normally an ideology and a charismatic leader or leadership. Then there are techniques and features like you bring the initiates into the cult, you indoctrinate them, you get them dependent on the cult, and you get them loyal to the cult. And you cut off their normal branches with friends or family or other people so that everything—they live and breathe the cult, and they don’t really have any of the frame of reference outside of it.

And ultimately, where you can really control people is you get to the point where they’re willing to die or kill for the cult. And that’s what I really notice about this. When you look at the people that work for these pro-Israel-first positions where they only care about Israel and they don’t seem to care about anything else—and these aren’t people that just live in Israel. There’s a lot of these people in America, these rich Jewish billionaires that are funding both sides of the political spectrum, that are working in Hollywood or they’re working in the media. They’re in very high positions of power, and they’re like, all I care about is Israel.

That becomes super dangerous then because they’re willing to kill or die for something which is a very questionable cause in the first place. And it’s very different to any other country. I mean, I heard Thomas Massie talking about this. He’s like, you know, when you look at dual citizens, say from Germany or Australia—I’m Australian originally, I’ve lived in America for a while—I like Australia, I have a fondness for it, it’s my home, but I can’t imagine ever wanting to kill or die for Australia in the way that these Israelis do. Some of them are so obsessed with Israel, Israel first. And I’ve never met anyone from Germany or from France or from a lot of other countries that has that kind of obsession. So it’s just a very interesting question as well to analyze. How did they get to this point? What are they brainwashing their kids to say or do? How do they get all these Jews to become so obsessed that they will kill or die for Israel?

And then, of course, they’ve got the classic technique in addition to the lying that you’re talking about, just projection—psychological projection. Every time some of these guys open their mouth, like Netanyahu, and they accuse Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever it is, the enemy of the day, they accuse them of something, it’s always actually a confession in disguise. Because what they’re doing is projecting whatever aspect of their society or themselves that they don’t like. They then put onto their so-called enemy and direct the attention onto the enemy and away from themselves.

A classic example is how they’re always calling Iran the biggest state sponsor of terror, when actually Israel is the biggest state sponsor of terror, or maybe something like Saudi Arabia, which behind the scenes works closely with Israel, on the surface pretends to be opposed or neutral, but behind the scenes they’re whipping up Takfiri Salafi jihadists to go and invade their neighbors, including attack Iran.

So there’s the lying, there’s the psychological projection, there’s this cult-like behavior of killing and dying. They say their enemies would be really dangerous if they got a nuclear weapon. What country is one country that shouldn’t have nuclear weapons and has tons of them? A country of like a million people that has 400 nuclear weapons? Well, it’s all about Iran. Oh my God, Iran might get nukes.

We’ve had several Israeli historians like Martin van Creveld basically say if Israel ever got pushed into a corner, they would use their nukes. We’ve had people like Jonathan Pollard talking about what happened in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, describing how an Israeli jet came out onto the tarmac with nuclear weapons under its wings as a message to the Americans. Then the next day Henry Kissinger gave Israel the aid it needed.

So we’ve had overt suggestions or even statements that Israel would use its nukes if necessary, while at the same time claiming Iran shouldn’t get nuclear weapons. And recently Trump has gone absolutely crazy with all of his bombastic threats and tweets. And yet the US has the second most nukes in the world as well. So how can these people possibly say with any kind of objectivity that nukes only belong in the hands of sane and rational and stable people when they act the way that they do?

Another thing is the constant way that Netanyahu and Israel are always saying, well, these Arabs, these Muslims, they just teach all their kids to hate Jews right from when they’re born and they just want to kill us all. And yet if you look at some clips that surface on the internet, you can see what happens in these Israeli classrooms where they’re teaching kids, okay, Arabs are bad, what do you want to do when you grow up? Oh, I want to get a gun and kill all Arabs. Okay, good, we’ve done our job.

Kevin Barrett: A Jewish friend of mine in the United States had a brother who immigrated to Israel specifically to “kill Arabs.”

Makia Freeman: So I see the influence of this cult-like behavior on certain segments of Israeli society. Also, when people go to Israel from the West and interview people on the street, it’s not just the leadership. There’s a large segment of Israeli society that has been so brainwashed that they’re like, yeah, we support that. We should use nukes, we should start a war, we should genocide Palestine. I think the amount of open love of and display of hatred is really disturbing.

Kevin Barrett: They made a national hero of the guy who is raping a prisoner to death with a stick. Huge demonstrations broke out and forced his release from prison. And it looks like all those people are going to get off scot-free because the dominant strain of thought in Israel thinks that they’re national heroes for sodomizing people to death with sticks. I mean, what a strange country.

And then they project that and imagine that it’s the Arabs and the Muslims who are so full of hate. But I’ve honestly been hanging out with Muslims and Arabs for quite some time, and I’ve never met any who would ever say anything like, oh, I want to go somewhere and kill Jews. I’ve never heard anything like that. But it’s somehow normal that my Jewish friend’s brother would move to Israel to kill Arabs. There’s kind of a disconnect. And as you say, they’re totally projecting it, and then they’re broadcasting their projections into the media so all the consumers believe it.

Makia Freeman: Yeah, it’s a big problem. But it’s interesting, because what I tried to do in my book is find Jewish sources. I tried to find Jews within Israel and those outside who could see this problem more objectively, who’d woken up from the brainwashing, or it never worked on them. And there are a number of Jews who don’t buy into this at all, whether it’s Norman Finkelstein or Gilad Atzmon. They’re openly critical. And it’s good to use sources like that, because then you can’t be accused of being anti-Semitic.

Kevin Barrett: Well, you can be accused. Just wait and see.

But when you’ve got Jewish people themselves talking about their inside view of the situation, it carries a lot of weight.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. Some of the best critics of Jewish tribal ideology are Jews themselves or people who grew up as Jews. Some call themselves ex-Jews, like Henry Herskovitz of Ann Arbor, Michigan. And so there are a long list of people like that.

And I guess I’m sort of like that with regard to my American upbringing. I grew up with a certain ideology in America and quickly discovered there were some serious problems with it—Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination, and ultimately 9/11. I’ve become a harsh critic of my American tribe. And there are Jews like that too. But the Jewish tribe is a lot more cult-like, more intense, more hating of outsiders than most other tribes, including Americans.

Getting back to that cult status, what are some of the techniques that they use? Because you mentioned that cults take people and cut them off from their families and their normal culture. But with Jews, they grow up in a Jewish milieu. So how do you get the cult dynamic going without separating them from their earlier culture?

I always thought that circumcision played a big role in this because there’s a school of psychology that John Bowlby founded called attachment theory. Bowlby and many other researchers discovered that the human personality is powerfully affected by its early relationship with caregivers, especially bonding with the mother. Disrupted attachment is correlated with serious life problems.

So anything early in life that causes insecure attachment is likely to have a major impact. When you do circumcision at one week, which is extremely painful, and the mother allows the child to be taken away and mutilated, the baby will have a deep unconscious memory of this trauma. Then throughout life they’re enculturated with the idea of an evil outsider who wants to harm them. That image can connect psychologically to the trauma, creating projection onto outsiders.

So it’s a form of trauma-based mind control, in my opinion. And I think banning circumcision in early life would fundamentally change things.

I think there’s a lot to that, especially when you consider the invasive and disturbing nature of the ritual. So that could be a big part of the dynamics that allow for indoctrination.

What are some other things?

Makia Freeman: Well, not just within Judaism, but generally, manipulators always say get them as young as possible. Present a worldview early, often with elements of fear. For adults, people who feel unworthy or disconnected are more susceptible. Cult leaders identify emotional vulnerabilities and exploit them.

It’s interesting to look at cases like James Jesus Angleton. Somehow he became deeply aligned with Israeli interests. He developed close ties, visited Israel frequently, even met Ben-Gurion privately. He was involved in major intelligence operations and cover-ups.

Kevin Barrett: So how did they get him to that point? I think there are multiple factors, including Cold War anti-communism. He saw Israel as a bulwark against communism, and that ideological framing likely played a role.

Makia Freeman: Yeah, you’re right. I think that does explain it. Let me say a couple of things in response. The first is that I actually found evidence—there’s a letter from one of the leading Rothschilds to Marx. I believe it’s either a letter or a receipt where he’s paying him some amount of money to help start writing a manifesto. So I think it depends how you look at history. You can see it as a natural flow of conditions where societies adopt ideas that become movements and evolve, or you can look at the role of manipulation.

As a conspiracy researcher, I’ve seen a lot of evidence of how social engineers at the top manipulate the masses. So I have a bias toward the conspiratorial view. There may have been a natural movement—like the desire for wealth equality—but elites are very good at steering those impulses.

They might see a movement forming and then say, “We need our agents to steer this. We need to shape the ideology so we can control it.”

The whole issue with communism or socialism is that it sets groups against each other—the poor versus the middle class or factory owners—while ignoring the bankers and administrators who end up in control.

In the end, whether it’s capitalism or communism, you still get a small group at the top running things. That’s the real pattern.

Kevin Barrett: Right. I think those are somewhat separate issues. That kind of manipulation does exist. But there’s also the fact that human societies tend to be hierarchical.

In smaller, tribal societies, hierarchies are more fluid and there’s more support for weaker members. But in large, complex societies, you always end up with structured hierarchies—leaders, bureaucracies, chains of command. That happens regardless of ideology—capitalist, socialist, or otherwise—and regardless of whether Jews are involved or not.

As for Jews influencing socialism or communism, I think what may have happened is that they saw movements for economic justice and used them to weaken traditional social structures of non-Jewish societies. One way to do that is by attacking religion, which is central to social cohesion. The French sociologist Emmanuel Todd has written about this. I highly recommend reading him.

There’s also the attack on family values and sexual morality, which weakens societies. You can see this in declining birth rates, though that’s a broader phenomenon.

So yes, manipulation exists, but I don’t see it as a single, all-encompassing conspiracy controlling everything.

Makia Freeman: Okay, yeah, I see that. One interesting thing is that when Jacob Frank came through Poland into Germany and Frankfurt, he made an alliance with the Rothschilds. There was also Adam Weishaupt, who started the Illuminati in Bavaria in 1776.

I’ve seen evidence of Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s will, where he supposedly outlined goals like intermarriage within the family and targeting religion, monarchy, and political systems to achieve world domination.

So I can see how a long-term plan like that could be carried out over generations.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think there’s some truth to that. The Sabbatean-Frankists may have more influence than people realize, possibly even in the creation of Israel. Their inversion of morality could explain what some see as extreme or excessive behavior. Ron Unz has talked about what he calls the “cartoonish evil” of Israel.

There was also a recent case of an Israeli woman who came forward about ritual abuse involving high-level figures, and then died under suspicious circumstances. So maybe that gives insight into the type of networks involved.

Makia Freeman: Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. I wrote a book in 2023 called The International Satanic Network Exposed. I wasn’t focused specifically on Jews, but on a broader global network. There are victims from many countries—Australia, the U.S., and others—who describe similar patterns: abduction, rituals, abuse, involvement of powerful individuals. Some accounts describe these rituals taking place in churches or political buildings, involving elites. Victims say they were raised within these systems and later escaped.

So I think Sabbatean Frankism may be part of it, but not all of it. There are people from different backgrounds involved. Ultimately, I think it’s a satanic network. Participants believe they gain power through rituals, possibly involving possession or interaction with some kind of entity. They believe they receive power or energy, and that this influence then shapes policies and decisions at high levels.

Kevin Barrett: Interesting. So if Earth is influenced by these kinds of networks, what about the extraterrestrial angle? The former Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer suggested that there may be a benevolent galactic federation, while Earth is controlled by corrupt human elites, possibly working with negative entities. Others argue the opposite—that extraterrestrial or interdimensional beings are harmful or deceptive, more like traditional demons. And then there’s the possibility that it’s all some kind of psychological or technological operation. So what do you think?

Makia Freeman: I’ve studied it for a long time. I don’t think it’s just a psyop. There are too many witnesses—both from alleged ritual abuse networks and from UFO or abduction experiences. Some cases may involve secret military technology, but that doesn’t explain everything. There are documents and claims about government programs dealing with extraterrestrial phenomena—like committees formed after Roswell, MJ-12, and so on. There’s also the idea that control over this information was shifted from government to private contractors, limiting even presidential access.

As for whether extraterrestrials are benevolent or not, the reports vary widely. Some describe neutral or ambiguous interactions, others negative ones. The most commonly reported beings are the greys and reptilians. Greys are often described as small, emotionless, possibly involved in hybridization programs. There are also claims—some even mentioned by public figures—that a human-alien hybrid program may be ongoing. Reptilian claims have been popularized by researchers like David Icke and others, with some witnesses claiming direct encounters. So I think it’s a real phenomenon, but complex, with multiple factors involved.

Kevin Barrett: Right. I interviewed David Jacobs years ago. He concluded, based on extensive research, that something real was happening, including possible infiltration. But I remain agnostic. Hypnotic regression isn’t always reliable, and hard physical evidence is limited. As technology improves, we still don’t get clearer proof, which raises questions. So something may be happening, but it’s not fully understood.

Makia Freeman: Yeah, that’s fair. Maybe when something undeniable happens, we’ll have more clarity.

Kevin Barrett: Well, that’s probably a good place to leave it. If they land on the White House lawn, we’ll revisit it.

Makia Freeman: Yeah, sounds good. Thanks for having me on.

Kevin Barrett:Thanks for coming back. Where can people find your work?

Makia Freeman: My website is thefreedomarticles.com. I’m also on Rumble, BitChute, Odyssey, Substack, Brighteon, and YouTube. I’ve written five books—my latest is The Cult of the Chosen Ones, available in print, ebook, and audiobook.

Kevin Barrett: Great, I’ll include link. Thanks again.

Makia Freeman: Appreciate it.

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

“Top Israeli leaders rape their own daughters with snakes to bring on their messiah.” -Shoshana Strook, abuse survivor (d. March 15, age 38)

“You were using biological metaphors! Biological metaphors!! To describe an entire group of human beings! That is sick! Disgusting! Uncalled for!” -Webster Tarpley, screaming at Greg Felton, author of The Host and the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America

I well remember how, in June 2012, at the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings, Webster Tarpley unloaded on Greg Felton. We were having dinner after the conference’s final session, and Tarpley had not enjoyed the conference. He didn’t approve of topics like “no planes hit the Towers” and “9/11 may have involved extraterrestrials.” On those two issues, I saw Tarpley’s point. But what Tarpley hated most about that conference—which was organized by my friend Jim Fetzer, who enjoyed defying George W. Bush by more-than-tolerating “outrageous conspiracy theories”—was Greg Felton’s use of the host-and-parasite metaphor to describe the US-Israel relationship.

Webster Tarpley is a smart guy who wrote a good book about 9/11. It’s subtitle tells us 9/11 was “Made in USA.” As he screamed at Felton, Tarpley insisted that the 9/11 truth movement had lost its way by increasingly blaming Israel. 9/11 was an inside job, Tarpley insisted. Hadn’t we spent many years copyrighting that phrase? Blaming Israel made it sound like an outside job! We were ruining our image, making ourselves look like a bunch of Nazis!

I said: “Wait a minute, Webster. Your book explains how the 9/11 conspirators came in three flavors: moles, technicians, and patsies. The patsies, of course, were Muslims. But wouldn’t you agree that the moles were pro-Israel people infiltrating the US government? And wouldn’t you agree that the technicians who blew up the World Trade Center and remote-hijacked the planes were likely Israelis as well?”

Webster sputtered a non-substantive answer. I pressed him: “The term ‘mole’ normally refers to an asset of one nation’s intelligence agencies who worms his way into a high position in another nation’s government. If the ‘moles’ you say did 9/11 weren’t working for Israel, which nation were they working for?” Webster’s answer: It was a “rogue network” or “invisible government” made up primarily of Americans, loyal only to their own rogue network, not to any government or nation.

I cited Alan Sabrosky, the half-Jewish former Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, who made headlines by coming on my radio show on March 20, 2010 saying that it was “100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.” Sabrosky said 9/11 was such a big, complex operation that it had to have been run by one of the world’s very small number of intelligence agencies with the resources to pull such a thing off. And there were only two candidates: the CIA and Mossad. The CIA, Sabrosky said, obviously wouldn’t do such a thing as an agency. But Mossad, using its extensive network of American moles in all relevant agencies, would. Indeed, Israel benefitted massively from 9/11. No other nation did. And Israel sympathizers run the media, which was instrumental in the coverup. Figuring out who must have been behind 9/11 was not rocket science.

Tarpley responded that such talk was antisemitic. He said many CIA and military insiders hate Israel and falsely blame it for all sorts of things. He said the real villains were the Nazis and the WASPS, who created secret societies and rogue networks based on white supremacist and British supremacist ideologies. In other words, according to Tarpley, it was the enemies of the Jews who carried out the gargantuan 9/11 covert operation whose only geostrategic beneficiary was Israel. The Bush family, Tarpley said, was Nazi to the core. He had written about it. Blame Bush and his family for 9/11! And Cheney was even more central!

I agreed that Cheney was more central than Bush, but disagreed about the rest. What’s more, I told Tarpley, I thought Greg Felton’s “host and parasite” metaphor described the US-Israel relationship accurately.

Tarpley left dinner that night disgusted with me, and with the whole conference. He appeared less frequently on my podcast after that. In 2011-2012 Tarpley was a staple on the Alex Jones show. (Alex Jones loves conspiracy theorists who blame everybody but Israel.)

In 2015 Tarpley waxed rabidly anti-Trump—a position that seems reasonable in retrospect, especially given Trump’s repeated attacks on Iran. In August 2016, Tarpley was sued for $150 million by Melania Trump, who took issue with his allegations that she had worked as a “high end escort” in the 1990s. Tarpley lost the first round, then settled in February 2017, paying an “undisclosed sum of money” and making a full retraction and apology. Now that Melania’s activities working for Jeffrey Epstein are on the brink of exposure, it looks like Melania may have to repay Tarpley that “undisclosed sum.”

Back in 2015, Tarpley’s rabid distaste for Trump, who he saw as a prospective American Hitler, seemed exaggerated. Today, not so much. (The comparison may in fact be unfair to Hitler.)

But I still think Felton is right, and Tarpley wrong, about Israel being like a parasite sucking the vital juices out of its American host. What’s more, I just published an American Free Press article upping the ante by positing Israel as a brain-hijacking parasite. Read it below, and if it offends you, be sure to let me know in the comments. -KB

Israel Hijacks America’s Brain

By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press

The bad news: 50% of the world’s human population hosts a brain-hijacking parasite. The good news: Toxoplasma gondii, an eukaryotic protozoa, primarily hijacks the brains of mice, not people. A mouse infected by T. gondi becomes passionately fond of cats. By rewiring the mouse’s brain, T. gondi facilitates its move from its host during one stage of its life cycle—mice—to the host of the next stage: cats.

T. gondi isn’t the only brain-hijacking parasite. There is also the Costa Rican mind control wasp. Its larvae hijack spiders’ brains and make the spiders spin special webs for the wasp. The larvae then kill the spider and suck its juices dry from the inside before emerging into the web-house the spider built for them.

If Israel is like T. gondi, then the USA is the mouse and Iran is the cat. But most people who compare Israel to brain-hijacking parasites, as more and more Americans do, see it as a mind-control wasp. Partisans of Israel devour America from within, hijacking its brain and forcing it to behave self-destructively on behalf of Zionism.

Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that 9/11, an Israeli false flag, was designed to “take out seven countries in five years.” All seven of those countries posed problems for Israel, not the United States. By terrorizing Americans on 9/11, Israel hijacked our brains and forced us into a series of self-destructive wars in the Middle East.

Today, Israel seems to have hijacked Donald Trump’s brain and frog-marched him, and behind him the rest of the country, into a disastrous war on Iran. According to polls, half of the American people believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Since Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli agent tasked with collecting blackmail material on powerful Americans, and since FBI documents tending to confirm allegations that Trump raped young girls provided by Epstein were released just a few days after the attack on Iran, and were quickly forgotten due to the war, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump’s brain has been hijacked by Israeli blackmailers.

But Trump isn’t the only brain-hijacked American. His self-styled “Secretary of War,” Pete Hegseth, is an Israel-firster. So are other advisors including Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, Mike Huckabee, Elise Stefanik, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, John Ratcliffe, Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka, David Friedman, and Adam Boehler. About half of those people are Jews, whose brains have presumably been hijacked by tribal fanaticism since birth. But the other half are non-Jewish Americans who are acting self-destructively on behalf of a parasitical, genocidal foreign entity—an entity that despises them. How were their brains hijacked?

A few Americans have been “turned” into Israeli spies. The most notorious is Jonathan Pollard, who badly damaged America by passing secrets to Israel, spent thirty years in prison, then was released by Obama to be feted as a national hero in Israel—including by America’s brain-hijacked ambassador, Mike Huckabee.

But Israel also hijacks America, and gains access to its secrets, in subtler ways. Tucker Carlson recently reported that “Israeli officers have infested the Pentagon, roaming freely through the building, barging into offices and accessing classified material.” They are being given access to our secrets not by spies, but by people whose brains are so hijacked they don’t even know they’re spies.

In an interview on “The Young Turks” on March 27, Trump’s former top terrorism advisor Joe Kent said: “I think most people who are kind of doing the bidding of Israel consistently, they probably don’t even view it that they’re doing what Jonathan Pollard did or they’re spying on our country…Because if you grow up deeply steeped in the culture that we’re in, especially working a lot in the Middle East and in the war on terror, you think, hey, the Israelis are our friends. And the Israelis take advantage of this. They really do. I’m sure they have more Jonathan Pollards. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. But I think the people that are actually more effective than the Pollards…in terms of just their ability to influence because of the access that we’ve given them.”

In other words, Israel has eaten America’s brain. We have been brainwashed not just by the 9/11 false flag publicity stunt, but by countless Hollywood movies and TV productions and novels and textbooks and news reports and even defaced, distorted versions of the Bible, all produced by people whose primary loyalty is not to the United States of America.

So when Donald Trump dodges a child-rape scandal by attacking Iran, and half the population knows he is a blackmailed traitor doing the bidding of a foreign regime and destroying America and the world, our brains are so hijacked that hardly anyone even blinks.

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 TruthJihad link

Transcript:

Richie Allen:Yeah, I mentioned my guest today is a friend of the programme. He’s a terrific broadcaster and writer. You’ll find his work at kevinbarrett.substack.com. He wrote a very, very well written piece on his Substack today (“Did Trump Just Make Iran Great Again?”) which he shared with me kindly before the programme, his take on what’s gone on. Let’s welcome him back. Kevin, it’s lovely to have you back on.

Good news, I think. I think you are happy. At least I think that there’s not satisfaction, but there’s relief that we didn’t see an escalation in the bombardment of Tehran and other Iranian cities last night. Is that fair to say?

Kevin Barrett:Yes, Richie. Hey, it’s good to be with you. And it’s good to have some relatively good news to share for a change. So yeah, I think it’s good news.

Richie Allen:You see this—and I understand why you see it as you do, and I’m going to let you explain it. I’m going to get out of your way. You see this as a complete humiliation for the American government, for the U.S. administration, and something that has empowered Iran and Iran’s allies in the region. Explain why you think so.

Kevin Barrett:Well, it appears that what happened was that Netanyahu visited Trump in early to mid-February and convinced him to do this, claiming that the Israelis had it all covered, that if the United States bombed Iran, assassinated some of their top people, that they could get regime change. They could get rid of the nuclear program. They could eliminate the threat of Iran’s missile program and their drone program. And they could take down all of Iran’s allies in the region, starting with Hezbollah and including the Houthis or the Ansarullah movement in Yemen, and of course, the resistance forces in Palestine, as well as much of the military in Iraq, which is part of the so-called militias that defeated Al-Qaeda and ISIS, even as the U.S. has turned out to be supporting those terrorist groups.

So anyway, that was the plan. It was supposed to totally solve Israel’s problem by getting rid of the source of what it sees as the opposition to the greater Israel project, the expansionism and genocide. And Trump swallowed it. His advisors mostly didn’t. Apparently, Hegseth was the only one who really bought it. And the rest of them sort of threw up their hands and said, well, we’re not sure this is going to work—or actually, no, this isn’t going to work.

But Trump, once he gets an idea in his head, apparently it’s hard to get it out. So they went for it. And the goals that were openly stated were, of course, maximalist and unrealistic. Here’s what they said they were trying to achieve by attacking Iran: First, a regime change that has put the Shah Jr. in power, get rid of the Islamic Republic. And the second goal was to eliminate the nuclear program completely. The third goal was to eliminate Iran’s missiles and drones. And the fourth goal was to eliminate Iran’s relationship with everybody in the region. Of course, finally, they were going to destroy Iran’s navy, which means the U.S. totally controls the waters around Iran.

Every one of those goals blatantly failed. The only regime change was now we’ve got a different Khamenei who’s much more of a hardliner than his father was. Plus, he’s annoyed that they murdered his family. Iran still has a nuclear program, and it’s not going to give up enrichment. So Trump’s not getting a better deal there than he would have otherwise. Iran’s missiles and drones now are much more formidable than they were before the war, because they’ve been tested and they’ve been shown to be effective and there’s no way to stop them and take them out. Iran’s allies in the region are now stronger than ever, with Hezbollah bogging down the Israelis at the border of Lebanon.

And then finally, most importantly, Iran runs the Strait of Hormuz. This is an epic geopolitical shift, and it wouldn’t have happened without the war.

So this war was a complete disaster for the Americans and their Israeli sponsors. The pro-Israel lobby is going ballistic about the ceasefire because they can see that it’s an admission of defeat. They would have preferred to see things continue to escalate until the whole region was destroyed. They imagine that the Messiah will come back and save them and put them in charge of the region and the world if that happens. But that’s also pretty unrealistic.

So as it turns out, Iran has just raised its status and power several notches and made sure that the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic that it founded will continue. It’s got more legitimacy now than ever, not just with the Iranian people, but with the whole international community that can contrast the sane, reasonable, and effective leadership in Iran with these lunatics in Washington and Tel Aviv. Overall, it’s a rare case where the good guys seem to have won at least this round.

Richie Allen:Kevin, two questions on that. What is known? I mean, I could check the BBC and CNN, but I wouldn’t believe it for obvious reasons. What is known about the health of Khamenei Jr.? Because we were told earlier this week, again by the mainstream media, that he might be unconscious in a hospital. And then I heard from an Arabic source that he wasn’t, that he was well. What’s the best information we have about his well-being now?

Kevin Barrett:You know, I haven’t seen any really hard evidence around that question, but he’s been putting out statements. I thought I recalled some video statements as well as written ones. And so I don’t see any reason to be particularly concerned. But again, it doesn’t even really matter that much because Iran’s leadership, especially its clerical leadership, welcomes martyrdom. And, you know, somebody else will step up if you get killed. It just makes everybody else fight that much harder.

So the idea that you can somehow stop Iran by assassinating people like this is really a huge misconception and a mistake. It’s crazy that the Israelis think they can achieve anything by doing this stuff.

Richie Allen:Yeah, it’s for the birds. Something that moved me—and I’m a fairly hard, I wouldn’t call myself a hack, but I’ve been doing what I do for a very long time and I have a bit of a hard heart. I think I’ve been desensitised to a lot of things, which isn’t a good thing really. But I have to say I did wipe a tear or two away yesterday when I saw thousands of Iranian people coming out to ring fence the facilities, the power stations and that.

What an amazing thing that was. And this was while they probably genuinely thought there was a good chance that, you know, U.S. and Israeli jets might blow them to pieces. It was an amazing thing, that, wasn’t it?

Kevin Barrett:It sure was. And it really did demonstrate that the Western media propaganda claiming that the Iranian people don’t support their government and are oppressed and are just waiting for the chance to rise up and get rid of the Islamic Republic is a bunch of nonsense. And it always has been.

The Iranian government probably has a lot more support than any Western government and has had that consistently since 1979. And now we can see it. We can see that the lies coming from people like Trump and Netanyahu claiming that, oh, if we just bomb Iran, then they’re going to welcome it, they’re going to cheer it, they want us to nuke them, they want us to come liberate their women—is nonsense.

You go talk to even, you know, the westernized women who don’t want to wear hijab, and you can watch lots and lots of person-on-the-street interviews with those people confirming what I learned during my eight or nine visits there from 2012 to 2019, and then once again in like 2022 or something. People there are basically patriotic, and it’s only a tiny fringe that has any interest in trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

And so now we’ve seen that in the strongest possible way—millions of Iranians in the streets supporting their government, supporting their armed forces, and even coming out and ringing these facilities that Trump was threatening to nuke. I mean, that shows a lot of courage and a lot of devotion. And I don’t think that the West, or rather, the media, is going to be able to fool Western people any longer into believing that Iranians are oppressed and they don’t like their government.

Richie Allen:Are you confident that the ceasefire will hold, that the negotiations will be conducted in good faith and that a solid agreement will come out of it? Or are you like me, and you worry about a false flag—some big event may be staged by the Israelis, may be staged by the Americans that could derail it—and we might see the bombing of Iran again and the Iranians closing down the Strait again, and the Iranians firing on U.S. facilities in the region?

How confident are you about these talks which are going to, I believe, Kevin, begin in Islamabad on Friday?

Kevin Barrett:Well, I think that we have more reason to be optimistic than we did in the past after earlier rounds of this war on Iran, because now the Iranians have demonstrated what they can do. And what they can do is stay even with the U.S. on the escalation ladder, and perhaps even stay ahead of the U.S. and win that war of escalation—that anything the U.S. can do, the Iranians can do something at the same scale.

And so this idea that they think the Americans are going to gain something by pretending to want a ceasefire and to want to end the war, get a deal, open up the Strait of Hormuz, and then somehow launch yet another sneak attack that’s somehow going to gain something—I’m not sure how that would work, because Iran clearly controls the Strait of Hormuz. The facts on the ground—or in this case, the facts in the sea—are obvious now.

That is, it’s just a piece of cake for Iran to decide who gets to come through the Strait of Hormuz and who doesn’t. And given that, it doesn’t seem that the Americans—in particular the Trump administration—have much incentive to escalate. Trump has to worry about the coming elections. If the Republicans take a bad enough defeat and Trump is reviled enough, he could easily end up getting impeached, possibly convicted and spending the rest of his life in prison, or maybe even worse.

So there’s not a lot of motivation really for anybody on the American side to try to use this pause to deceive the Iranians and once again launch some kind of sneak attack. What good would that do? The Strait would close again. The Iranians have shown they didn’t even have to use all of their capabilities. They didn’t have to close the Red Sea, which their Houthi allies can do anytime they want. And they certainly didn’t have to utterly destroy the life support infrastructure of the Gulf countries that are occupied by the U.S., which they showed they can do because their rockets can outlast and penetrate air defenses.

So there’s nothing in it here for the Americans. There’s really nothing in it for rational Israelis either. But there might be a few Israelis who still have this notion that if we create a big enough war, preferably World War III, that somehow Israel, with its Messiah in charge, will crawl out from the radioactive rubble, blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque, rebuild a blood-sacrifice temple, and rule the world, and every Jew will have 2,800 non-Jewish slaves. So there is that messianic, millenarian extremist ideology out of Israel that Netanyahu sort of plays games with. He plays footsie with those people.

And so those people, yeah, you never know what they might do. But I think that the chances that they’re going to blow this up and get the war going towards escalation again are lower than the chances were after the past rounds.

Richie Allen:You’re listening to Kevin Barrett. Here’s my take—well, I won’t give it to you. I’ll give you the Cliff version of it. I laid it out earlier in the programme. I’ve learned that two, sometimes three things can be true simultaneously.

So I absolutely believe you’re right when you talk about these lunatic Zionists and their Greater Israel Project. For me to deny that would be foolish and I’d lose any respect that I might have with my listeners. It’s absolutely bang on the money. There’s no doubt about that, that this is real. It’s an agenda that’s been there forever—well, through the 18th, 19th, 20th centuries, maybe going back further than that.

But I also laid out a little bit of a theory earlier on, and that is that sometimes it helps to look at the effect rather than the rhetoric. So we know the rhetoric because you laid it out brilliantly earlier on. They said they wanted to destroy the nuclear program, whether weapons or domestic energy. They wanted to destroy the ballistic missiles and all of this stuff. That was the rhetoric.

But if we look at the effect of it, the effect has been a massive global economic shock. And I make the argument quite often on this programme that this kind of disruption, these kind of crises, are not incidental—that one of the payoffs of these huge events is consolidation of power.

Governments gain—somehow they gain the rights to or the justification for bringing in emergency measures. Central banks tighten control over spending, what can be spent and who gets the money. We know the huge corporations do okay, but the small competitors, the high street stores, disappear completely. There is an inflation shock that screws with everybody’s savings. Food prices go up, transport goes up.

And I believe that there is a definitive and fairly visible agenda for a new way of living for humanity where we live in a kind of technocratic world where pretty much everything we do is controlled and monitored. And I see what’s happened in the last few years with the COVID thing and now the genocide in Gaza and now this terrible terrorism against Iran. And I just think—because I don’t believe Trump is making any decisions of his own volition, I think he’s a puppet—I see that what you’re saying is true. I can’t argue with it. But I also see this other thing happening, which is the impoverishment of people all over the world. And I wanted to ask your thoughts on that.

Kevin Barrett:Yeah, that’s a good point, Richie. I think there’s some truth in what you’re saying about these crises being used by various forces to consolidate their power. And historically, I think we can see that with the way that booms and busts in capitalism—which are natural because bubbles blow up and then they pop—that’s just the natural ebb and flow of the psychology behind money in a capitalist society.

And so that’s always been around. And then certain forces have figured out how to ride those waves and make money on them. And there’s all sorts of evidence that certain big financial powers either knew that the Great Depression was coming or even made it happen or at least made it worse and bet on it and made money on it. A little bit in the same way that somebody knew 9/11 was happening and bought put options on American and United Airlines and Morgan Stanley and these companies that were guaranteed to crash due to 9/11.

So yeah, people make money and consolidate power on crises. They know that there will be crises coming, and then they sometimes manufacture their own crises or intensify other, natural crises. Naomi Klein wrote about this in The Shock Doctrine. And it was funny that she didn’t talk about 9/11, which is kind of the ultimate manufactured crisis designed to bring in dystopia.

So yeah, I think there’s a fair bit of truth to what you’re saying. But I also think that in this particular case, what’s going on is not so much that there’s one group that’s trying to tighten the screws on all of humanity, although that’s possible. But what meets the eye more is that we’re going through a transition geopolitically, which is typical of periods when rising powers eclipse falling powers and reshuffle the power structure to decide who’s going to be top dog and rearrange the pecking order.

There’s often some kind of a war and a crisis. We’ve seen this in the past when the U.S. eclipsed the British Empire with World War II. The British were being challenged by both Germany and Russia, but then the U.S. came out ahead after World War II and emerged with all the power and most of the gold and so on, and set up the United Nations and other institutions to operate in the American imperial interest.

And that worked for a while when the U.S. still had half of the world’s GDP and owned all of the world’s gold. That changed, and now the U.S. manufactures a small fraction of what China manufactures. The global south is rising, and the U.S.-occupied Western empire is falling, and yet we still have these outmoded institutions like the Security Council at the UN and these other institutions that the U.S. created that don’t reflect the global power reality that is emerging.

And so in that situation, with that mismatch between the institutional power and the real power, a huge reshuffling has to happen. And that will bring crises and economic shocks and wars. And somebody’s going to bet on those. Somebody’s going to make money on those. But I think the underlying historical process is more one of a geopolitical shuffle than sort of one particular conspiratorial force being in charge of all of the shocks and consolidating absolute power from them.

Richie Allen:It’s a great answer. And there’s no winning or losing this. I don’t deal in winning or losing anyway when it comes to debates. You put that very well.

I suppose for me, I just look back to, particularly from 2020 onwards, Kevin, and like you and I would have rubbed shoulders over the years with great people like Jim Mars, for example, and David Icke in particular and others, who were talking about centralized control of large swathes of the planet, of civilization, and that this was a plan going way back in time through secret societies, the Club of Rome, the round table groups, all this sort of stuff.

And I used to listen to this stuff with interest and also with scepticism—it’s healthy to be sceptical and you’re absolutely right as an academic to be sceptical. But I think that when these people were telling me years ago, look, a time will come when it will become very difficult for people to own their own property, and this will be a global thing. It won’t just be a Western thing.

The day will come when the technology will exist to roll out mass surveillance and control. You know, that people will be coerced and encouraged into taking medication that they don’t want all over the world, and that there might be punitive measures introduced if they don’t go along with it.

I look at it and I see whatever happens—whether it’s the mass murder of Palestinians, the slaughter of people in the Middle East—that it serves these agendas as much as it does anything else. I don’t deny for a minute the reality of Iranians, people who want to live in an Islamic Republic because this is what they believe and this is what they like. I don’t deny the reality of the lunatic Zionist mentality that wants to own the entire region and to do the things you described earlier on. These are realities that people are living.

But at the same time, I can see all over the world authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere, where people are being arrested for things they say, where people are being punished for thought crimes, not for actual crimes, where they’re bringing in digital currencies and telling me that I can’t go to Kevin and Rabia’s house and give you a couple of books for that old sofa that you don’t use anymore.

All of this stuff, Kevin—it was creeping, now it’s stampeding. And these horrible things, these mass genocide events that we’re talking about, they accelerate these things. And that’s why I’m not stubborn in my beliefs or my worldview. I see this accelerationism towards this dystopian technocracy, and I see everything that happens feeding into it.

I won’t press this point. You have the final word on that, and then I want to ask you about something else.

Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I think there’s a lot of truth to that again, Richie, absolutely. I’m very frustrated by it, because I’m old school and I really hate all of this dystopian surveillance and control technology. I didn’t even have a cell phone. I had no portable phone until I moved to Morocco in the summer of 2023. And now with two-factor authentication, I have no choice. I can’t get into my websites, I can’t get into my bank accounts without having a phone.

And what is a phone? It’s a tracking device that also makes phone calls. So it’s horrible. And yeah, it might as well be exactly the way you describe it, frankly.

I mean, what the underlying reality is, I’m not sure. Jim Marrs thought that there were extraterrestrial gold miners who came to Earth and bred the human race and are controlling us secretly or something. And yeah, maybe that’s not impossible. And David Icke has these really interesting ideas as well, and he’s been right about various things. His book on 9/11 is quite good. So, who knows?

But you could also explain this as simply a function of technology evolving, and then the way that people in power choose to use the technology—or are forced to use it to stay in power. Whoever doesn’t use it loses power. Any government that doesn’t seize the technology that’s available to mobilize its population to produce, loses. If a corporation doesn’t use the technology that’s available to mobilize its workers to produce, then those institutions—governments and corporations—lose in the Darwinian competition with other governments and corporations.

People like me—if I don’t use my phone, I lose in my competition with other people who want to have bank accounts and websites. Ultimately, as the technology “advances,” whether that’s really an advance is another question, you could argue that there’s going to be a natural tendency among the so-called self-appointed Platonic guardians of each society to recognize that in a world where possibly every individual who’s clever and has access to stuff that’s pretty easily available might be able to make something really dangerous.

With AI now, maybe it’s going to be a lot easier to make nukes or who knows what else. There are all sorts of rumors about what happens to people who invent “free energy” devices. Who knows if that’s true, but certainly one can see why a rational planner in power might think that we need a dystopian technology total surveillance grid, because we need to know if there’s anybody who might be sneaking into their basement building something that could melt down the entire galaxy or whatever.

So you could see it as an evil plan to impose technocratic control—perhaps some extraterrestrial group or some elite human group is running it, maybe. But you could also explain it as a natural outgrowth of the technology going the way it’s going. And I don’t think it should be going that way. I think we should all say no to it. I think we need to be able to say no to new technologies the way I tried to say no to cell phones, but I’m not having any luck.

Richie Allen:Civil disobedience. Final question for you today, and it’s only because it’s come up on the programme this evening. I’ve been asked by listeners about prepping, and I just tell the truth—I haven’t done any prepping. Is it something you and Rabia, looking at how dystopian things are unfolding, have you ever given any consideration to prepping?

Kevin Barrett:Well, Richie, it’s funny you say that because after 9/11, we bought a lot of storable food, and enough other things that we would have had food and water and such, the basics that you would need if there were some kind of civilizational collapse.

And that was when we were living in the countryside outside of Madison, Wisconsin, from 2003 through when we moved to Morocco in 2023. So we spent 20 years and were kind of moderate preppers through all those years.

And when we moved to Morocco, we had all of this old food that we had to get rid of. Some of it was good enough for the food banks, and some of it just basically had to be tossed. And here in Morocco, we’re really not prepping. Been there, done that. We’re praying. We’re praying for a better future.

And frankly, if things get bad enough, I think it’s going to be bad all around. So now I guess you could just say we’re praying rather than prepping.

Richie Allen:Thanks for coming on today. I share your happiness—or I’d say optimism—that we didn’t see further carnage in Iran last night. I appreciate it. Kevin’s article on this is well worth a read. By the way, go to kevinbarrett.substack.com, subscribe to him there. Always interesting, great take on today’s events, or events overnight and events in the main.

Best to Rabia, Kevin, and thanks again for today. We’ll speak again soon.

Kevin Barrett:Hey, thanks Richie. Keep up the great work. I love your show.

Richie Allen:Thank you very much, Kevin. You’re very welcome.

Kevin Barrett live on The Richie Allen: Show for Wednesday.

You’re not going to believe what’s happened to me in the studio. I’ve been holding my microphone during the conversation with Kevin. I don’t know if you know anything about studios, but the microphone I use sits in a shock mount, like a cradle, and it’s collapsed now. Luckily enough, I always have a spare, but I’m going to have to take a tune—and a particularly long tune, funnily enough—while I try and sort it out.

It’s hilarious, actually. Just as I was speaking with Kevin, the microphone completely collapsed. Luckily enough, my fader was down. It was in the down position. And so I’ve been holding it. You can hear me holding it—it’s very noisy. Jesus.

I’m not going to tell you—it’s a Neumann U87, by the way. Of course, only the best for the BBG. Music from Bob Dylan while I try to make running repairs. If only there was a webcam. Yes, if there was a webcam, you’d be able to see the state of me right now. This really looks like amateur radio, this.

13 and a half past six. Music from Bob Dylan on The Richie Allen: Show.

The time is coming up for 18 minutes past six. Thanks again to Kevin Barrett and to Neutral365.com. I’ve had a bit of malfunction here in studio and I can’t fix it easily, so I’m just going to have to call it a day, really. Sorry about that. It’s going to take me about 15, 20 minutes to sort it out, so there’s not much point to me coming back.

I think we’ve had the news roundup and we had a good chat with Kevin. I think that’s going to have to be it for today. Sorry about that. The programme will be back tomorrow at five o’clock UK time for Thursday’s edition of The Richie Allen: Show.

And it’s never happened to me before, this. It’s hilarious—just a big collapse of a shock mount. It’s just broken in pieces. The microphone is all over the place. I’m holding on to it. It’s going to take a bit of time to fix. Nothing I can do about it.

So look, thanks for listening today. Sorry for the early bath. Sincere apologies. We will do it again tomorrow, as I said, at five. Thanks again to Kevin Barrett. It’s truthjihad.com—that’s his website—and kevinbarrett.substack.com.

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 TruthJihad link

Jim Hogue’s radio program, “House at Pooh Corner”, where he interviewed Daniel Ellsberg and many other whistle-blowers, lasted for 29 years on WGDR-FM (91.1) in Plainfield, Vermont…until Hogue criticized Israel for genocide and got canceled. He now has a television program by the same name with ORCA Media in Montpelier, VT, for which he just interviewed me. Watch the interview above, or scroll down for the transcript.

And speaking of people being forced out of American institutions for speaking truth to power: A lawyer looking into 9/11-related academic freedom cases emailed me with Grok’s version of my 2006 academic freedom fight at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The original Grok account was inadequate, as I explained:

That account is incomplete and selective. It seems designed to downplay the fact that I was informally banned from the American academy due to pressure from politicians (and behind them, the ADL and ACTA).

In fact, I did apply for many academic positions, including at least two at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, after my semester of teaching under fire ended in December 2006, and was always turned down. Prior to the scandal, I had basically never been turned down for any academic position for which I had applied at UW-Madison between 1995 and 2006.

I was directly told by Professor Muhammad Memon, and later also by his secretary who was present in department meetings, that the Asian Studies Department, which had hired me to teach Introduction to Islam in 2006, had been ordered by the university administration not to hire me for Fall 2007 (and presumably thereafter).

The Grok account deceptively focuses on the fact that I did not apply for the Intro to Islam position for Spring 2007 (I had already lined up a teaching position at Madison College that semester) while ignoring that I did indeed apply for that same UW-Madison Islam position for Fall 2007. As I recall, I submitted that application in the winter of 2007, when the Asian Department met and ultimately chose to hire a less-qualified instructor because, as Professor Memon told me, it was ordered by the administration not to hire me.

Additionally, in spring 2006 I was turned down for a tenure-track Islam and Humanities job at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater “illegally and purely due to my political views—you were discriminated against” as then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross told me. Dr. Ross said the hiring committee judged me the best of the three finalists, and was in the final stages of hiring me when a higher-up (I think it was the university president or provost) ordered them not to hire me due to my “screwy views about 9/11.” According to Dr. Ross, the University was forced to return a half-million dollar grant to the federal government and close the position and claim there was no qualified applicant.

The same thing happened when I applied to a similar federally-funded Islam and Humanities position at the University of Illinois in 2007. Despite being eminently qualified, with an Islamic Studies related Ph.D. and professional experience teaching Humanities, I was again turned down, and the university closed the position, claimed there were no qualified applicants, and returned the money to the feds.

Between 2007 and 2010 I applied for numerous academic jobs in the US for which I was highly qualified and was always turned down, except once when I was hired at the somewhat dubious Kaplan University in Milwaukee by an African guy who didn’t understand the nuances of politically-based informal bannings-from-academia. When he left that job and an American replaced him, the replacement googled me, panicked, and let me know I shouldn’t apply for the following year.

So the narrative that “the University of Wisconsin respected my academic freedom by allowing me to finish teaching the fall 2006 semester” is a half truth at best, since it ignores the fact that I was subsequently informally blacklisted from the American academy, as any honest academician familiar with the case will admit.

Kevin

After feeding in corrections, the next Grok version was better:

From Grok:

Publicly available information on Kevin Barrett largely aligns with the key elements of the account you described, while also showing the university’s public rationale for its decisions.

badgerherald.com

Barrett, who holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from UW-Madison, taught the one-semester course “Islam: Religion and Culture” (Introduction to Islam) in Fall 2006 as a part-time lecturer in the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia (then Asian Studies). His public 9/11 views (that the attacks were an “inside job”) triggered intense external pressure: more than 60 Wisconsin state legislators signed petitions/letters demanding his firing, Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) was especially vocal, and groups including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized the university. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) also weighed in on the broader debate. UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell reviewed Barrett’s syllabus, past evaluations, and assurances that he would separate personal views from classroom instruction, ultimately allowing him to complete the semester on academic-freedom grounds. The university repeatedly framed this as respecting academic freedom while emphasizing that Barrett’s contract was for one semester only.

news.wisc.edu

Contemporary news coverage and Barrett’s own public statements (including a 2008 discrimination complaint and later writings) confirm he applied for additional UW-Madison positions after December 2006 but was turned down:

* He did not apply for the Spring 2007 Intro to Islam slot (the course was not offered then, and he had lined up a position at Madison College).

* He did apply for the same Intro to Islam position for Fall 2007. The department hired another candidate (Akile Zorlu-Durukan). Acting chair Uli Schamiloglu stated publicly that the five-member committee chose the strongest applicant based on qualifications and teaching style; Barrett’s political views were not a factor. Barrett has publicly stated that the late Prof. Muhammad Umar Memon (the regular instructor who was on sabbatical in 2006 and served on the hiring committee) and Memon’s secretary told him the administration had ordered the department not to rehire him.

* He was also denied a 300-level English course (Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales) in the UW-Madison English department in 2007; the university cited stronger candidates.

In January 2008, Barrett filed a discrimination complaint with the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission against both UW-Madison and UW-Whitewater, alleging he had been blacklisted due to his political/9/11 views. He explicitly named then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross at UW-Whitewater as a witness. According to Barrett’s public accounts (including interviews and his Substack), Ross told him he had been the top finalist for a federally funded tenure-track “Islam and Humanities” position in spring 2006; the hiring committee was overruled by higher administration because of his “screwy views about 9/11,” the university returned a half-million-dollar federal grant, and the position was closed with the claim that no qualified applicant existed. Ross later appeared on Barrett’s radio show as a whistleblower. The complaint also referenced the UW-Madison Islam position denial. The Equal Opportunities Commission noted it lacked jurisdiction over UW System hiring.

Barrett has similarly described being turned down for a comparable federally funded Islam/Humanities position at the University of Illinois in 2007 (position closed, grant returned). Between 2007 and 2010 he applied for numerous academic posts for which he considered himself highly qualified and was almost always rejected—except for a temporary lecturer role at Kaplan University in Milwaukee (roughly 2008–2009), where he says the initial African administrator was unaware of the controversy; after that person left and an American took over, he was told not to reapply once his background was Googled. His CV (public on Academia.edu) reflects limited post-2006 academic teaching.

ma.linkedin.com

In short, the public record shows the UW system respected academic freedom enough to let Barrett finish the Fall 2006 semester amid heavy political pressure (including from politicians and groups such as the ADL), but it does not contradict his claim that subsequent applications were unsuccessful. University spokespeople consistently attributed the denials to other candidates being better qualified; Barrett and named insiders (Memon, Ross) have publicly maintained the decisions were driven by political blacklisting. No independent investigation or court ruling appears to have resolved the competing accounts, and the Equal Opportunities Commission complaint did not proceed on jurisdictional grounds. This context is documented in contemporaneous reporting (Badger Herald, 2007–2008), UW-Madison archives, and Barrett’s own public statements.

The lawyer showed that result and asked “Do you think I can claim that actions against you influenced other professors to not engage in 911 research and opinion?: I responded:

This Grok result is much better, indeed surprisingly good. My only quibble is that I doubt very much that university spokespeople ever claimed that I was turned down at UW-Whitewater or UW-Madison for Islam positions because other applicants were more qualfied. That would be a blatant falsehood, and I doubt they would lie that baldly. At UW-Whitewater, as documented by then-Dean Howard Ross, I was not only unanimously chosen as the best of the three finalists, but that after that choice had been made, the committee learned that the other two applicants had accepted positions eleswhere. So there was no “better qualified applicant” available, and the position was closed and the federal funds returned to Washington because I was deemed politically unacceptable.

Likewise, at UW-Madison, the person hired to teach Introduction to Islam in fall 2007 was a graduate student with little or no prior teaching experience, whereas I was a Ph.D. holder with extensive teaching experience and very high ratings, including for that very class. Muhammad Memon specifically said that I was clearly far more qualified than any other applicants, but that the university administration insisted that I could not be hired due to the national controversy over my 9/11 views.

And regarding the University of Illinois Islam and Humanities position, there was clearly no “better qualified applicant” because that position, like the similar position at UW-Whitewater, was closed and the money returned to Washington, with the excuse that there were “no qualified applicants.”

Please ask Grok to try to find any documentation that any of the three university administrations ever falsely claimed that there were more qualified applicants for any of those three Islamic Studies positions! I doubt very much it will find any. It may find that kind of statement regarding some other position, such as an English Department job I applied for at UW-Madison at some point, but that is irrelevant.

One more thing: Of course actions against me driven by ACTA, the ADL, Fox News, and the Wisconsin Republican Party discouraged other professors from engaging in 9/11 research and activism!!! That was the whole reason they manufactured the scandal in the first place.

Best

Kevin

—-

Jim Hogue interviews Kevin Barrett

Interviewer:Hello, everybody. Here we are again at the house at Pooh Corner with Dr. Kevin Barrett, whom I have known for about 35 years, I would say, on and off since 9/11 happened. We were in the forefront of 9/11 truth, and in a manner of speaking, still are, I guess.

So he’s living in Morocco now and has a wonderful website and a Substack or podcast—do you call it? I can’t remember which is which.

Barrett:Yeah, Substack.

Interviewer:Okay. Do you want to tell people what it is now and then we’ll remind them and hopefully get it up on the screen later?

Barrett:Yeah, sure. It’s kevinbarrett.substack.com. But you can find your way there easily by going to truthjihad.com. And that’s all run together, too—the word “truth” and the word “jihad,” right? So truthjihad.com, and you can find your way to the Substack there.

Interviewer:All right. And, well, let’s just start out with asking Dr. Barrett to tell us how he ended up in Morocco and a little bit about his activism, which has been in the forefront of activism from all my heroes. So go for it, Kevin. Tell us a little about yourself here.

Barrett:Well, thanks, Jim. Yeah, I don’t really think of myself that much as an activist these days. I’m more of an engagé writer. That’s what the French used to call politically impassioned writers, often critics of aspects of their governments and stuff.

I kind of knew I was a writer since high school. I’ve enjoyed humor and satire, as well as other kinds of writing. I ended up studying literature, which is where almost all the good writing is. I collected four advanced degrees in literature—in French, English, African and North African studies, Arabic, and Islamic studies.

So I was an academic. I was thinking that most of my work would be on North African studies and on medieval Moroccan Sufism and things like that. And so there I was at the turn of the millennium at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where I finished my Ph.D. in 2004.

So I was teaching there, and of course right at the beginning—actually end of 2003—I heard David Ray Griffin was writing a book that would be coming out several months later called The New Pearl Harbor. David Ray Griffin was one of my heroes before that. He was one of the smartest people in religious studies.

What he was doing was not even really religious studies in a normal sense. He was the best guy you could go to to be the arbiter of empirical disputes, often scientific ones. He was a brilliant man. He gained a reputation for being able to host a conference on a very difficult scientific subject—let’s say the Big Bang theory. Is the Big Bang theory correct or not? One group of scientists says yes, one says no.

So David Ray Griffin would put together a seminar at Claremont College of California, and people would come and argue this. He would be able to digest the pertinent arguments on both sides in like six months of intense reading and host the conference and be totally knowledgeable. A really smart guy.

So I knew about him already. And when I heard that he was going to argue that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it wasn’t a hijacked plane, and that the buildings in New York had been blown up with explosives, I said, wow. I mean, I knew 9/11 was kind of fishy, but I didn’t know it was—if David Ray Griffin is saying this, I’d better look into it.

So I looked into it, and sure enough, yeah, it was obvious. I was just shocked—not so much that insiders would do this, but that they would do it so badly and make it so obvious, and then the media would totally cover it up. That was shocking.

I already knew about the JFK assassination problem since high school, so I wasn’t naïve or anything, but still this was pretty shocking. So at that point I started doing info-activism at the University of Wisconsin—teach-ins and things like that—while teaching classes.

I stayed there probably a year or two longer than I normally would have to do that. I just kept teaching religious studies, Intro to Islam, and I think a folklore class, things like that.

So then in 2006 things really were picking up. We’d had some success in the 9/11 Truth movement. I had put together what was at that time the best event for 9/11, which was David Ray Griffin’s talk at the University of Wisconsin in April 2005, which was broadcast on C-SPAN and provided the first big national coverage for 9/11 truth, and very sympathetic coverage.

So I kind of got roped into being one of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement that was notable. And so then in 2006 the pushback happened. They needed to try to demonize the scholars for 9/11 truth, which at that point had rounded up more than 100 professors who were all saying basically what David was saying about 9/11.

So they had to attack somebody, and they picked me. That was probably because I’m Muslim—I converted to Islam in 1994—so that made it easier to demonize me to the Fox News audience. And I didn’t have tenure and I didn’t have any financial security, so I was an easy guy to pick on, they thought.

So they invited me—well, first they got me onto a big mainstream radio show in Wisconsin and kind of ambushed me about what I was going to be teaching in my class that fall. I mentioned that it’s an Intro to Islam class, 16 weeks, only one week is going to be about the War on Terror, and a little bit of that is going to be about 9/11. I’m going to present all the perspectives—the mainstream perspective, the neocon perspective, and the Muslim majority perspective.

And the majority of the world’s Muslims and the majority of Muslims in the United States at that time believed that 9/11 was a false flag, so I was going to include that as one of the perspectives. But when I teach those kinds of things, I wouldn’t be putting my own opinion out there—I’d just be showing what different groups say.

So anyway, I said that on the radio show and they spun that as, “Oh, he’s going to be teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories.” And the next thing you know, the Republicans were calling for me to be fired from my job at the university.

So this scandal broke out in early July 2006, and I was quickly invited onto Fox News to argue with Sean Hannity. And I did, and that went viral. Everybody loved it—truthers, non-truthers, or just bystanders who’d never heard there was even a controversy.

So that made me really toxic. The media descended on the university. My Intro to Islam class that fall, which should have had maybe 20 or 30 students, went up to almost 200. I had to cap it because of the controversy.

CNN and other media outlets spent that whole semester hanging out in my classroom, sometimes filming. And the controversy just kept popping up. I actually milked some of that—I deliberately cited controversies week by week sometimes because I thought the more publicity the issue got, the better.

So I did that for six months, and the university couldn’t fire me because they did a big investigation and found I wasn’t really doing anything wrong. But the Republicans kept pushing, and the controversy lasted six months.

When it was over, I had this internet paper trail, and I was basically unemployable. The day I went on Fox News, the engineering school at the University of Wisconsin–Madison lost more than half a million dollars in canceled contributions. Donors were pulling funding and pressuring the university.

So basically since then I’ve been writing, broadcasting, and becoming an independent critical intellectual—which is what I always thought you were supposed to do in universities, but apparently it doesn’t really work that way.

Interviewer:Well, I was thinking of the different bases that we had both touched along our paths. I had worked a little bit with Dr. Griffin, and he told me that he had written 23 books on religion by the time 9/11 hit. Then he started writing several books about 9/11. He wrote one on Christianity and 9/11—you’ve probably read all of them.

Barrett:Yeah, I own that book. It’s a great book.

Interviewer:Yeah, I have it. And he said that even though it was essentially a religious text on what Christians ought to be doing, his publisher of 23 books refused to publish it. That actually shocked him.

So we’ve been touching base with these entities that have gotten their knickers in a twist because of those of us who have been advocating 9/11 truth. At a certain point along the way, I realized that the final sticking point—and the reason why they always sent a hatchet man in—was because there was a connection with Mossad.

That hit me later, because I didn’t realize that until the dancing Israelis were caught in New Jersey and thrown in jail, and Chertoff got them out and sent them back to Israel. I thought, what other connections could there be?

As I learned more, I realized that if you took too many steps toward the truth of 9/11, you would run into Mossad. Once I realized that, I talked about it with Richard Gage and others. They were hesitant to go near that, but I did get Gage to acknowledge certain details that I had seen.

Now that we have the current level of antagonism, and you’re allowed to talk about some things more openly, I’ve had my own experiences. I got kicked off the air some years ago for criticizing Israel.

That’s part of my experience of running into hostility—nothing like what you went through at the university, but it’s certainly out there. And Stephen Jones—the one who did the thermite work—he got run out of the university as well.

Barrett:Yeah, Steven Jones.

Interviewer:So wherever we got anywhere with it, there were always gatekeepers in the way. And as I said, I finally figured out that you didn’t have to go too far with 9/11 truth to run into that particular issue.

Barrett:Yeah, yeah, I agree. And actually, in September 2001 when it happened, the first thought I had—and this was very common among people in Middle Eastern studies and Arabic—was that Israel would be a major beneficiary.

We all kind of thought that, but we also knew you weren’t really allowed to talk about it in public because of political pressures. So when I looked into it more deeply later, I saw that there was clearly a large-scale domestic cover-up in the United States involving elements of the military, intelligence community, and government.

So it went beyond any one country. But it was also obvious that certain geopolitical outcomes benefited particular actors.

And I think the problem is that people often know things but feel they can’t say them. That leads to self-censorship. When that goes on long enough, it affects how people think.

As Voltaire said, people who believe absurdities commit atrocities.

And we’ve seen a series of wars and destructive policies follow from that. It raises questions about how major geopolitical decisions are made and who benefits from them.

And what’s striking is how a large and powerful country can end up making decisions that seem self-destructive. That’s something people struggle to understand.

And it leads to questions like: how can the world’s most powerful country be influenced in ways that lead it into these kinds of actions—by a much smaller country, a population of what, nine million people, six and a half million Jews?

What’s with that? How can the world’s most powerful country be hijacked by this small, last little settler colonial entity on Earth?

Interviewer:I mean, how did that happen? It’s just very strange. Well, I have a feeling that you have the answer. But before we get to that, I wanted to mention that I’m glad you gave me your perspective from the point of view of those people who were aware of the geopolitics in that region.

Because when I first saw Leslie Clark talk about those seven countries, my conclusion had nothing to do with Israel in my naivete, but I wasn’t totally naive because they all had something else in common, which was they weren’t connected to central banks. They weren’t connected to the Western banking debt money system. In fact, it was considered a sin, right? In the Muslim world, it was considered usury.

Barrett:Yeah, I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I would have to look more closely at the details of every one of those seven countries.

Interviewer:Oh, yeah. Okay. I’m just confessing that that’s where my mind went, was that it had to do with the banking system, because if you look at the, you know, the French got all wigged out about it, the British certainly, the City of London, and they seem to be all on board with these seven countries.

And I couldn’t think of why other than they had given the bird to that central banking system. And so I’m glad that you have said that there was at least a geopolitical coterie of people who realized right from the get-go that it was Israel who was benefiting, and now I can make certain connections.

Having heard what you just said, now I can make certain connections, and relating that to the banking world as well.

So can we leap to, maybe our listeners will either forgive us or enjoy what we think is happening right now, and why that is an example, a carry-through, if you will, of the 9-11 attacks?

So many things have happened since 9-11 that point to someone like Netanyahu and his gang behind them that for years, again, we’re not allowed to mention that. And if I mentioned it on the radio, I would get calls, well, why would you say that? They aren’t killing that many people in Gaza. It’s not a genocide. They’re not killing enough people. I got all this crap from people who just wouldn’t admit what was happening.

But now I’m happy to say it’s out, you know, if Tucker Carlson making a big deal of it and being attacked viciously, supposedly you wrote the article, you just wrote a piece about it about him being attacked by the FBI for supporting America.

It’s out, and you’re allowed to talk about it. And so where do you think we’re gonna go, given that it’s out, especially now that Israel doesn’t have any water as of last night?

Barrett:Well, I haven’t looked into the details of the desalination plants that are being hit by Iranian rocket fire, so I’m not up on that.

But in terms of where we are, in terms of this 9/11 war on the countries that are a problem for Israel, well, yeah, they’re finally going after country number seven on the list, which is Iran. Iran was always number seven, the last and most important. And that’s what General Clark heard, that Iran was the last on the list.

And they originally intended it to be seven countries in five years. That’s what they told Clark. And clearly they’re way behind schedule in terms of Iran anyway.

So why is that? And I think the answer is, of course, partly that the people of Iraq bravely fought back. And all the people of Afghanistan put up a good fight. So there’s been resistance to this project.

But I think that the single biggest reason that it took them 25 years instead of five years to get around to trying to destroy Iran is that what happened was that the neocons, who are 100% Israel firsters, were perfectly happy to destroy the United States. They could care less about it. They hate the United States, actually.

Netanyahu hates the United States. He was recorded at Fink’s bar in Jerusalem saying something like, oh, we hate America, and we’re going to just squeeze it dry and then throw it away, and so on and so forth. Well, that quote is actually authentic. If you Google it on the Internet, they’ll tell you that it’s not a real quote or a documented quote. But I actually talked to the guy who recorded it, Colonel Jim Henke, who was a U.S. military attaché in Israel at the time, and he recorded Netanyahu saying that. And he confirmed to me, I spoke to him on Skype, he confirmed to me that it was authentic.

So anyway, yeah, the extreme neocons, the Netanyahu wing, those people hate the United States.

So what happened after 9-11 was that you had those people who were the really hardcore messianic millenarian nut job Israel firsters. And then you had the realists within the American foreign policy establishment who didn’t really get the memo that these crazy genocidal Israeli maniacs run everything now, right?

So those people, the realists, they said, yeah, they looked into it and they said, wait a minute, I mean, we just ran this huge war games exercise Millennium Challenge in like 2002 or whatever, and it showed that Iran wins. We can’t, the U.S. cannot wage war against Iran, we’ll lose.

They’ve got all these ways that they could defend themselves. You know, it’s a natural fortress. They’ve got that control, you know, they’ve got a great spot overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, and they can use all kinds of unconventional techniques to pin us down and basically thwart anything that we do.

So that was the result of the Millennium Challenge exercise. General Van Riper, maybe he was a colonel, whatever he was, Van Riper ran the Iranian side and he won.

And so in the wake of that and other similar analyses, the realists in the American foreign policy establishment determined that an American war on Iran would be suicide for the United States. And even if they liked Israel, some of those people actually were pro-Israel, very strongly pro-Israel people, but they recognized that destroying the United States, having Iran defeat the United States, would not be good for Israel either. It wouldn’t be good for anybody.

So they pushed back. And so the crazies kept trying to get America to run. And then the not quite so crazies kept pushing back against it.

And this came to a head in 2007, when the crazies had a toehold in Dick Cheney’s office, and they were plotting a false flag. They were going to sink an American ship in the Persian Gulf off Bahrain, and they were going to blame the Iranians and their proxies in the region. And that was going to launch a big U.S. attack on Iran.

Gwyneth Todd, who is the top advisor to the admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, heard about this and was horrified. And so she leaked it to the Security Council. She’d been on the National Security Council before that. She leaked it to some National Security Council people.

They, of course, were, like her, horrified. And so they pulled the plug on those people who were going to do that. But Gwyneth Todd then ended up with, you know, she had to flee for her life. And she was married to an Australian military officer, and she had to basically disappear to the Australian outback in the protection of her military officer husband.

And as last I heard, she’s still been living out there, and, you know, she’s gotten some death threats. She had a rattlesnake in her mailbox once.

Anyway, but she actually stopped what would have been a war in Iran in 2007. And if you Google around, you’ll find some interesting stuff, Washington Post article about this and stuff. It doesn’t quite give you the straight story that I just gave you.

But anyway, so they’ve been pushing for this war in Iran forever. And again, the crazies want to do it because they’re crazy, and then the knowledgeable people say, no, this is suicidal, we can’t do that.

And I’d like to remind people—

Interviewer:Trump was groomed to be crazy.

Barrett:Yeah.

Interviewer:Oh, yeah.

Barrett:Well, he’s a diehard, supposedly he’s a diehard Zionist because he’s admitted it. I mean, he has said it. And he’s been around people who are Israel firsters. So we know that.

Interviewer:I wanted to say the word “crazies.” This is not a word that Dr. Barrett has invented. This is a word that the CIA used to refer to the hardcore neocons, right?

Barrett:Well, I thought it was actually G. H.W. Bush who talked about the neocons being the crazies in the basement, right?

Interviewer:Yes, yes. But I meant everybody used that term. I’m not saying—it’s not a conspiracy theorist term. It’s a term that everybody in Washington used to refer to people like, you know, the gang, Wolfowitz and…

And Ray McGovern always referred to them—I met Ray shortly after 9-11—and he referred to them as the crazies.

So that is who was more influential than many over the years, and they’re still—they won. I mean, they won.

Barrett:Yeah, and it’s funny. They couldn’t do it during Trump’s first term. They tried. They were hoping that killing Soleimani would start a war with Iran, and only great Iranian restraint prevented that.

And then when they got Trump back into office in 2024, I think they managed to surround him with even goofier people than they had in his first term.

And so, you know, Trump’s got like Pete Hegseth, an alcoholic, former Fox News host covered with tattoos. And just listen to that guy. I mean, I’m surprised he was smart enough to even be on Fox, which, you know, isn’t saying that much.

And then Witkoff and Kushner. I mean, those two, you know, those are like, you know, just, you know, New York Jewish slumlords.

A couple of New York Jewish slumlords who belong to Chabad Lubavitch, which is a psychotic end of the world Jewish extremist cult that wants to basically blow everything up so that the Messiah will come and conquer the world for the Jews.

This is a bizarre cult, messianic cult, Chabad Lubavitch. And both Kushner and Witkoff have no credentials whatsoever to be even negotiating on behalf of the local dog pound.

They’re just slumlords. They’re a couple of mafiosi Jewish slumlords. The only reason they have money is because they’re willing to do scummy things, and then they have this ethnic network of criminals to help support them.

So that’s why these sub-two-digit IQ people are able to make a lot of money, people like Kushner and Witkoff.

And so Trump, who’s himself not the brightest bulb in the pack, to say the least, appoints those two guys and guys like Hegseth. They’ve got like a quorum of these morons, just total morons, and Trump being one himself.

And so that’s how they got the quorum here to go ahead and commit national suicide by attacking Iran.

And so here we are, and this is probably gonna end the U.S. empire and create untold economic havoc ultimately in the United States as well as elsewhere.

And when the smoke clears, that’s all she wrote for the U.S. petrodollar.

And so I think people might want to be putting some of their savings into gold, silver, and possibly Chinese currency at this point.

Interviewer:I remember I wrote to you not long ago as though I were Trump. And I said, well, give me a break. My whole life, all my friends have been villains and thieves. And at my time of life, I should start turning over new leaves, which is a line from Oliver.

So that those people who think that Trump appeared out of nowhere—well, if you read Whitney Webb’s books, he was surrounded by Cohn. What was Cohn’s first name? Roy Cohn.

Barrett:Yeah.

Interviewer:Roy Cohn and that gang of thieves that kept him afloat.

Barrett:Yeah, and the rest of the real estate mob and the professional wrestling mob. That was Trump’s gang. Epstein, of course, was one of them.

Interviewer:And so why would you expect a lot more? I expected a lot more from Trump, I admit, because the mainstream went after him. That’s enough reason for me.

And the Democrats told all these lies about him—Russia, Russia, Russia. They threw the kitchen sink at him to get you to believe whatever they wanted you to believe about him.

And they tried to throw him in jail. They tried to take all his money. And I said, well, the guy must be okay if the mainstream is doing that to him.

Barrett:Yeah, there were moments when I thought along those lines too. But I think in retrospect, it’s pretty clear that a lot of the bad publicity that Trump was getting was actually, you know, so bad it’s good.

And it was designed to be so bad it’s good. That is, the way they went after him, I think, to some extent, some of it was calibrated in such a way as to help him rather than hurt him.

If they want to hurt you, they can. There are ways that… well, for instance…

Just one really obvious thing is that when Trump ran in 2016, the story of his rape of 13-year-old Katie was totally out there. She did her deposition, I think, in 2015. I think it was even before Trump was elected, as I recall.

She filed the lawsuit against Trump. She was an Epstein sex slave and Trump just brutally raped her. And that story is 100% credible.

Now the Epstein files have basically confirmed it. There’s a lot more information now that’s come out, that there were corroboratory witnesses, that the FBI took it very seriously and so on.

So that was all there back in 2015, and for some reason that never got any play in the mainstream media.

So rather, you know, the mainstream media did, you know, said, oh, he said something about grab them by their whatever, their private parts, do this.

You know, the mainstream media went after Trump in these areas where it actually wasn’t going to kill him with the people who were going to vote for him.

Had they gone full bore after Katie’s story, two things would happen. One, she and all of the witnesses and the FBI people would all end up dead. That’s possible.

But more likely, I think Trump’s whole campaign would have been taken down.

But the people who run and own the mainstream media in the United States are Jewish Zionist billionaires. And they’re acting in a coordinated fashion to a certain extent. And they do exert a certain amount of control about what the people employed in their organizations are allowed to go after.

And so they can say, no, no, Katie, forget Katie, this other stuff. OK.

And so even the most ferocious anti-Trump person working for, say, The New York Times has to keep that in mind and like, OK, well, I’ll just yell and scream at Trump about these other things, about this, that, and the other. But I guess I can’t do this Katie thing. Management is saying don’t go there for whatever reason, and I’ll be fired or worse.

And so, you know, I think the media is not genuinely as anti-Trump as it appears to be.

Interviewer:OK, well, I’m glad you mentioned that, because I always said that the Democrats have a lot on Trump if they want to use it. And they didn’t.

And I’m thinking, OK, you’ve got Russiagate, you’ve got these fake lawsuits, you’ve got everything. So why don’t they actually do something that could hurt him?

And you have just explained why that is and how it worked.

And I did understand how The New York Times is—I wrote a piece about that for Three Sages, I don’t know if you’ve heard of them.

Barrett:Yeah, yeah, sure.

Interviewer:And I explained what happens when The New York Times says something and to whom are they speaking, to whom is The New York Times speaking when it writes something.

And I explained Congress, influencers around the country, and why everybody says exactly the same thing, you know, all the talking heads where they say exactly the same thing. They get their permission from The New York Times.

And what you said about the initial lies about 9/11, they were so obvious to me that anybody with half a brain at least could see that.

Like the passport that fell on the ground—stuff like that. I finally figured out that it was to inform Congress and everybody on their important influencer list that yes, 9/11 was a false flag, but don’t mention it.

If they’re pushing the passport thing and a few of the other lies that were so obvious, it’s to inform people what they are supposed to be thinking and what they are supposed to be saying and what they are supposed to be doing, because they were such obvious lies.

Barrett:Yeah, yeah. I got the sense that, for instance, Senator Barbara Boxer, who was one of the senior senators in the United States after 9/11, actually totally knew the score.

I got her to say something outrageous on Wisconsin Public Radio in, I think it was 2005. That was when Anthony Schaeffer was studying the Able Danger scandal, which was that military intelligence had identified these guys that were later blamed as supposed 9/11 hijackers.

They identified them long before 9/11.

Interviewer:Yes.

Barrett:Including Muhammad Atta. And so Colonel Anthony Schaeffer, who was going to go after those guys, was then told not to. He said, put a yellow sticky over his face on your chart, on your wall, and forget that you ever heard of Muhammad Atta. He was told that ahead of 9/11. So this scandal was breaking. Anyway, I called up Wisconsin Public Radio when Barbara Boxer was being interviewed, and I said, “Senator Boxer, you may have heard of this Abel Danger scandal involving the alleged 9/11 hijackers who had access to secure US military facilities in Florida and other states, who were regular guests at the Officers Club—I forget which military base—who were given access to large amounts of cash and cocaine by parties unknown, partied on Jack Abramoff’s casino boats, and so on. And so, given what we know about these hijackers, do you support Congressman Weldon’s push for a new investigation of Able Danger?”

Interviewer: And then Barbara Boxer said?

Dr. Barrett: She said, “Well, what you just said, it’s not what the 9/11 Commission said, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”

Interviewer: You mean, you mean, well, you said Weldon?

Dr. Barrett: Weldon—Kurt Weldon was the congressman who was threatening to investigate Able Danger and then was later railroaded out of Congress for it. So she said, “Yeah, that’s not what the 9/11 Commission said, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. My first priority is to end the war in Iraq, and then we need a real investigation of 9/11.” So that floored me. I wrote that up and stuff. So yeah, I think she obviously knew.

Later, this was confirmed by Four Arrows, a.k.a. Don Jacobs, who was a professor in Arizona who, like me, sort of ended up run out of the country because he was telling the truth about 9/11 or seeking the truth. He had a friend who was a senior advisor to Senator Boxer, and he also wrote a book along with Jim Fetzer on the assassination of Paul Wellstone. Barbara Boxer at one point told this guy, a friend of Four Arrows who was her advisor, she turned to her advisor and said, “You know, you tell your friend that he doesn’t know how right he is about Wellstone. They killed Wellstone, and that was a message to us all. Please don’t quote me, because if I’m quoted, I will have to deny this.”

The last line in one of the chapters I wrote in the book I’m writing now, my sequel to RAC, was: note to self: avoid trips in small planes. Right, because there are a lot of them. Well, Wellstone—that was really very nasty, right? Wellstone was pushing, you know, he was a 9/11 skeptic, and he was right out front about trying to block the Iraq war. And they murdered him. They took his plane down and killed him, his wife, his daughter, and his entire campaign staff.

They went after Cynthia McKinney, but they didn’t kill her because they didn’t have to. Sometimes they just get you thrown out of Congress. Maybe that’s because they were plotting to kill her and something went wrong, and they didn’t get the shot at her. So plan B went into effect. I think, like with Kennedy—you know, I don’t know if you probably read the wonderful book by James Douglas, The Assassination. I interviewed him. He points out that they were going to shoot at Kennedy in Miami. They had a plan to kill him in Miami, and then that got called off because they didn’t have all their pieces in place. Then they had Dallas next, and then Chicago. If he survived Dallas, or if they had to hold the plug on the Dallas shoot, then they were going to get him in Chicago. That’s how they do these things—they have all of these contingency plans.

So the fact that Cynthia McKinney happens to be alive and Paul Wellstone happens to be dead is partly because Wellstone was a bigger threat. But it could also be that they just got lucky with Wellstone. Everything fell into place, and they were able to do it. Maybe they were planning to try to get Cynthia at some point, but they never got their pieces in place. The cost-benefit ratio never rose to the level they wanted. The press did its job, so they didn’t have to kill her. The press made her look stupid. It was easier for them to bribe some Capitol security guard to start a fight with her. They made her look like a crazy person from their point of view, so they didn’t have to kill her. What they did was bribe some security guard at the Capitol to attack her physically. If she fought back, then they put out the story that she had supposedly attacked the security guard.

I met her here; I interviewed Cynthia McKinney a couple of times. I didn’t interview Paul Wellstone, but his son is—what’s the matter with me? The senator from Texas, Ron Paul. I interviewed Ron Paul a couple of times. He balked, of course, at 9/11 Truth, but he congratulated us, those of us working on it. I thought that was a nice touch. A lot of these people know that 9/11 Truth is the third rail. So either they don’t talk about it, or if they do, they’re pretty vague and back up a little bit. They try to avoid saying anything too hardcore.

The big people who say the really hardcore things—I’ve noticed the most illustrious scientist who has really questioned the official story of 9/11 is Lynn Margulis. She was the National Medal of Science winner, the single biggest force in revising Darwinian evolutionary theory. In the past 20–30 years, there’s been a big revision, and she was the spearhead who actually won this scientific fight. She’s huge, one of the most important scientists of the modern era. She looked into 9/11 and figured it out very quickly. She was a smart cookie. She put out statements saying things like, “This was the most successful and most perverse public relations stunt in all of history. If this stands, science is dead. If people believe this story of how these buildings fell down, science is dead.” Those are basically quotes from her. Then she died suddenly. I’m a little suspicious, but who knows.

The more important people like Wellstone, maybe Lynn Margulis, I think are in more physical danger. Jimmy Walter, a multimillionaire who spent millions on 9/11 Truth publicity, had his residence vandalized and was threatened, so he fled the country. He’s been living in Vienna ever since. He was a serious target because he had money and was spending it on 9/11 Truth. That made him more of a threat than someone like me with no money. Wellstone was more of a threat than McKinney.

I went to one of his conferences in New York City and asked some attorneys about how the court system had been rigged against getting near 9/11 Truth. He explained the system by which attorneys on both sides had to agree that the 9/11 attacks caused Building 7 to collapse. It was because of debris from the Twin Towers that hit Building 7 and also damaged the church next to it. So the lie—the legal fiction—starts the lawsuit. You begin with a legal fiction and carry on from there. They couldn’t allow the lawsuit to even start if it involved the truth of how Building 7 collapsed because it would go where they didn’t want it to go.

Interviewer: Now I had another question for you about Alexander Dugin. We’ve got eight minutes left, and I know you’ve been reading him recently. What do you think of his explanation about why we are basically in World War III? He says the attack on Iran is creating World War III, the difference between the unipolar world and the multipolar world, why the U.S. is now—everyone thought Trump was a multipolar guy because he said he was, then he became a unipolar guy—and whether he was led by Israel or worked it out with Israel, now he’s unipolar. That means the U.S. gets to do whatever it wants, and international law is gone. Dugin talks about all that. Can you comment?

Dr. Barrett: I met Alexander Dugin at a conference in Tehran maybe seven or eight years ago. I talked to him after the panel discussion. We had a long conversation about how we both had been influenced by René Guénon, the founder of traditionalism. So we had a lot in common philosophically. I think, like a lot of people, he took too rosy a view of Trump for quite some time, thinking Trump was a multipolar guy. I don’t think Trump ever was. He just said he was. Even so, I think Trump is kind of an idiot who’s basically an idiot savant—he has political instincts far better than his intellect. But his policies, the so-called America First policies, are really neoconservative.

The neocons are Machiavellian, Hobbesian realists, not exactly realists in the sense of Mearsheimer. These people are students of evil, which is how Leo Strauss, the founder of neoconservatism, described himself. He said he was a teacher of evil. He deliberately corrupted his students to take the side of evil. They believe that the strong rules, there’s no such thing as goodness, all forms of morality are just fictions for the stupid rubes. And we—the superior people, in some cases the Jews—are the people who understand that most evil wins. Netanyahu recently said Genghis Khan has it over Jesus. Genghis Khan wins; Jesus loses. That’s their philosophy. They believe in evil and want to be the most evil guy on the block and take over everything, get as much power as they can. They want to take over the world.

These neocons have always known, as they say, that the best thing for Israel is for the United States to be totally taken over by the partisans of Israel and then for the U.S. to be the strongest country on the block. That way they take over the world. Their plan is not for a multipolar UN entity to rule the world for the Rothschilds. No, their plan is for the strongest guy to militarily conquer the world. The strongest guy for them has been the U.S. They own the U.S. The Jewish billionaire Zionist cartel dominates the U.S. more than any other country. They want to use U.S. military power to crush resistance. Some see their project as an American empire-run world; some as a Jewish empire-run world; some as an Israeli empire-run world. But it’s the same thing. Trump has always been a tool of those people. They brag about getting us to do their dirty work. We’re the goyim cattle, the subhumans. They think we’re stupid because we believe in morality, goodness, justice.

I used to berate my audience because they didn’t realize how evil these people were. They thought they were making mistakes. I’ve said this a million times: The Vietnam War was not a mistake for these people. COVID, all these awful things—they’re not mistakes. This is how they control, survive, win. That’s part of their plan. I wouldn’t say all of it, though. We shouldn’t overestimate their intelligence or omnipotence. A lot of them are pretty stupid. Netanyahu isn’t particularly intelligent. Jeffrey Epstein may have been intelligent in an IQ sense but had failures of perception. The people he worked with weren’t super brilliant. It’s sort of an accident of history that these people have been as successful as they’ve been. They can be beaten. Hamas just beat Israel with almost nothing. Hezbollah is beating Israel again. Iran, with a military budget one one-hundredth of the U.S., is beating the U.S. This war is really stupid from their perspective.

We shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that everything is part of their diabolical plot. They screw up a lot. But they can be beaten. We need to recognize that they’re not just evil—they’re also pretty stupid, especially the ones around Trump. Let’s go ahead and beat them. We can.

My point isn’t that they always won. My point is that behind them is an evil motive. Vietnam, which I lived through, was not a mistake for them. It was a mistake only in that they didn’t achieve everything they wanted. But the fact that it went on a long time and killed a lot of people was not a mistake. Vietnam was partly a distraction from the 1967 Israeli war of expansion. That’s one reason the Israelis killed the Kennedys and put Johnson in power—to prepare for their war of expansion, first to get nukes because Kennedy was stopping them, second to have the U.S. on board for the 1967 war of expansion. To distract from that, they whipped up all this hysteria around Vietnam. That’s why they pushed us into Vietnam. Johnson didn’t really want Vietnam but protected Israel from the USS Liberty attack.

Steve Green was a friend of mine. He wrote the book on it, Taking Sides. That’s called Chapter First, the whole thing.

Interviewer: We only have about 30 seconds left. This wonderful information comes from Dr. Kevin Barrett, now happily living in Morocco. He’s a scholar, a philosopher. We didn’t get into all the other cool stuff about your bird book.

Dr. Barrett: Yeah, it’s April Fool’s Day. I just published a humorous book of bird nonsense poetry. You can find it via truthjihad.com. Go to my Substack.

Interviewer: Okay, and hopefully we’ll have that on. Thank you again for listening. Today was a straight hour, which is rare. We’ll be up again in two weeks, and you’ll see it on BitChute and wherever Dr. Barrett wants to put it.

Dr. Barrett: Okay, bye-bye.

Interviewer: Thank you.

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

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

E. Michael Jones discusses his new article “Lust Darkens the Mind”, and breaks down the week’s news, in the above-linked episode of False Flag Weekly News. -KB

More and more Americans are asking: What, exactly, are we doing in Iran? Apologists for the war say: “We need to open the Strait of Hormuz! It’s a critical geostrategic choke point! The dastardly Iranians have closed it!”

But before the US and Israel launched a cowardly sneak attack that murdered more than 150 schoolgirls, an 86-year-old Supreme Leader with terminal cancer, his daughter, son-in-law, little grandaughter, and many other innocent people, the Strait of Hormuz was wide open, and nobody was planning to close it. So if “opening the Strait” is the goal, the warmongers are trying to solve a problem that they themselves needlessly created.

The war apologists then shift gears: “We need to protect the Gulf states and our military bases. The Iranians are pounding them!” But once again, that’s circular logic. Had the US not attacked Iran, US military bases occupying America’s Persian Gulf colonies would not be under attack. Nor would there be any imminent threat to the infrastructure, including the crucial energy infrastructure, of those colonies.

“But if we stop escalating and retreat, Iran will emerge as a regional hegemon!” Again, that never would have happened if you had not attacked them in the first place.

The apologists retreat to the fallback argument: “Iran was threatening to develop nuclear weapons!” But that is not true. Once again, by attacking Iran, the US and Israel created the problem they claim they’re trying to solve.

Iran’s late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, had issued a fatwa forbidding all forms of WMD including nuclear weapons. But that fatwa was only valid during his lifetime. By killing him, the US and Israel removed the most serious obstacle to any prospective Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The warmongers claim that by enriching uranium to 60%, far above what is necessary for nuclear energy or medicine, Iran showed it was pursuing nuclear weapons. They forget that the only reason Iran was doing that was because Trump had needlessly and stupidly shredded the JCPOA nuclear agreement. Under that agreement, Iran was strictly limited to enriching to no more than 3.67%, and the most intrusive inspections regime in history ensured full compliance.

But if it wasn’t interested in nukes, why would Iran react to Trump’s betrayal of the JCPOA agreement by enriching to 60%? First, Iran wanted leverage to get sanctions relief. Neither Obama not Trump had honored the JCPOA’s provisions obliging the US to drop its economic sanctions. Iran felt the need to convey a clear message to the Americans: “We gave up something up by restricting our nuclear program, but you have to honor your promise to give something up too, by ending sanctions.”

Secondly, Iran’s nuclear program presents a vague but meaningful deterrent to any prospective Israeli nuclear attack on Iran or its allies. With its robust nuclear program featuring plenty of know-how and equipment, Iran has put Israel in a position where it knows that if it uses nuclear weapons against Iran, Iran might rescind its WMD prohibition, engage in a crash program to quickly develop nukes, and retaliate. Thanks to Trump’s shredding the JCPOA, Iran now has plenty of 60%-enriched-uranium and could produce a dozen nuclear bombs fairly quickly in order to retaliate if it were itself attacked with nuclear weapons. (For details, listen to nuclear weapons expert Ted Postol.)

So the nuclear issue, too, represents a case of US aggression creating the problem it pretends to be trying to solve. The self-proclaimed “very stable genius” Trump has taken a few minor non-problems and turned them into the mother of all quagmires.

“We’ve taken away their incentive not to have a nuclear weapon. So we will start to worry as each week goes by, not because we have great intel, not because we’re human. It’s because of the opposite. We don’t have the exquisite intelligence we had with the Obama deal to know we had frozen the program. Now that we have Swiss cheese at best, And what we will see in the holes of the Swiss cheese are indications of nuclear development.” -Robert Pape

Since all of the above-listed rationales for war on Iran are absurdly circular and transparently preposterous, it seems unlikely that any serious people in the American National Security State believe them. They must know that Trump’s war on Iran is inflicting catastrophic damage on US interests. And though they are not allowed to say it out loud unless they resign, as Joe Kent did, they undoubtedly know that the real Commander-in-Chief of this war is Benjamin Netanyahu, who is rolling the dice in what amounts to a long-shot gamble aimed at paving the way to a Biblically-inspired Greater Israel aspiring to regional if not global hegemony while expanding to occupy all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. In other words, this is a war for a global Pax Judaica, which would replace the Pax Americana that has prevailed since World War II, and in unilateral form since the collapse of the USSR in 1989.

So the fact that this war is completely self-destructive from any conceivable US standpoint is a feature, not a bug. Operation Epstein Fury is really an Israeli war on the United States of America. Israel wants to destroy the Middle East and force the US out, so it can dominate the ruins. Ending US occupation of its Persian Gulf colonies will completely free Israel’s hand, which in the past has been at least mildly restrained from committing extreme actions, like the genocidal slaughter and expulsion of millions of Palestinians and the destruction of the al-Aqsa mosque, by US “alliances” with the Gulf satrapies.

Presumably Israeli leaders think that since their ethnic-supremacist brethren dominate the Western banking system, they’ll be able to rebuild a power base that will be strong enough to expand their borders, dominate the region, and ultimately make Occupied Jerusalem the de facto capital of a Jewish-banker-controlled world. That would pave the way for the coming of an ethnosupremacist Jewish Messiah, who, according to Jewish eschatology, will exterminate most non-Jews, enslave the rest, and create an earthly paradise for Jews, each of whom will own 2800 goyim slaves.

But as Alexander Dugin among others has pointed out, the Jewish messianic-millenarian vision that produced this war (and Israel itself, truth be told) makes no sense without the coming of the Jewish Messiah, a.k.a. the Antichrist. If the Messiah/Antichrist doesn’t show up, the whole plan falls apart. So the petty gangster Netanyahu, and his messianic-millenarian power base, are essentially gambling on the prospect of an Antichrist Messiah appearing and miraculously saving their genocidal kosher rear ends. And if past experience is anything to go by, that prospect seems unlikely. On many dozens if not hundreds of previous occasions, messianic-millenarian movements have gambled everything on the prospect of an imminent coming of their Messiah. And in every single case, they have lost. The last plausible candidate for Messiah-hood was Jesus, the antithesis of Jewish supremacist psychopathy, and even he hasn’t returned nearly as quickly as his followers expected.

If the Antichrist doesn’t show up with miraculous superpowers, Israel too will find itself facing a quagmire. And that quagmire will get worse, not better, as the US inevitably retreats from West Asia. Without the protection of the kosher-nostra-occupied USA, a genuine geopolitical superpower, Israel will quickly collapse—unless of course a deus-ex-machina Antichrist Messiah arrives in the nick of time to save it. Apparently Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and Chabad Lubovitch think that if they murder enough children and sodomize enough people to death with sticks and slaughter a magical pink heifer, their devilish Messiah, gorged on the blood of innocents, will show up to save them.

How Geopolitical Quagmires Work

I hate to say I told you so, but I have seen this quagmire coming for more than two decades. Iran has always been the last and most important country on the list of “seven countries in five years” targeted for destruction by the real perpetrators of 9/11. And it was clear to me, and to the serious decision-makers in Washington, that by attacking Iran, the US would lose far more than it could ever hope to gain. Only the insertion of the non-serious Israeli-owned president Trump, flanked by “experts” like Chabad real estate sharks Kushner and Witkoff, made this doomed war possible.

One of the shrewdest and most insightful American strategic analysts, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, likewise saw the Iran quagmire coming for more than two decades. Pape was one of the voices of relative sanity in the often-phantasmagoric discussions of “terrorism” that raged after 9/11. (Unfortunately he was never sane enough, or courageous enough, to publicly question the official story of 9/11.)

As I wrote in my 2009 book Questioning the War on Terror:

Are anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists who happen to be Muslim more likely to commit suicide terrorism than non-Muslims of the same political orientation? According to the best research the answer is no.Robert Pape is a University of Chicago professor who wrote Dying to Win:The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Pape’s exhaustive study of every suicide attack between 1980 and 2003 concludes: “The data show that thereis little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any one of the world’s religions.” Instead people of any or no religion use suicide terrorism as a weapon of last resort when their lands are invaded and occupied…It is a way for occupied peoples to increase the cost of occupation to the point that the occupier finally gives up and goes home. Pape points out that “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Pape’s book suggests that if war is the terrorism of the strong, terrorism is the warfare of the weak.

Pape’s otherwise-solid analysis uses an incorrect definition of terrorism. Following Zionist-owned imperial propaganda media, he considered terrorists to be people attacking imperial or colonial occupiers. But the actual definition of terrorism is “attacking civilians for political reasons.” And 99% of terrorism is committed by governments, mainly imperial and/or colonial ones. So the real terrorists are the occupiers. The heroes who stand up to them are resistance fighters—some of whom may attack civilians, in which case they, like their enemies, would be availing themselves of the military tactic known as terrorism.

If Pape got terrorism mostly right, he has proved even more prescient in his analysis of the Iran quagmire. Pape has been simulating the likely progression and outcome of a US war on Iran for more than 20 years. Unlike Cassandra, the famous prophetess of doom, Pape did find some people to listen to him—namely the realist wing of the US strategic establishment. But Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff, egged on by Netanyahu, apparently weren’t listening when Pape explained why Iran would enjoy escalation dominance, ensuring an unhappy outcome for the US.

Pape explains how quagmires happen: The aggressor, in this case the US, engages in wishful thinking by overestimating the chances of a limited military strike bringing about a desired political outcome. When, in January 2020, Trump and Netanyahu lured Iran’s greatest military figure and future president, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, to Baghdad under the false pretext of peace negotiations, then murdered him, they apparently imagined that such a dastardly crime would somehow produce a more pliable Iran. That, of course, didn’t happen. Then on June 13 2025, Israel launched a massive attack, murdering more than 20 senior Iranian leaders, leading to a 12-day war that the US joined at the end as a pretext to end the hostilities. The Israelis and Americans bombed Iranian nuclear sites, and Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely obliterated.” But once again, the aggression backfired: Iran curtailed IAEA inspections, its 60% enriched uranium disappeared from Western radar, and the population rallied behind its government.

On February 28, 2026, Trump, once again egged on by Netanyahu, apparently imagined that by murdering the Supreme Leader of Iran he could somehow magically bring about “regime change”—the fall of the Islamic Republic and its replacement by Baby Shah Pavlavi or the MEK terror cult. Predictably, the Iranian population rallied around their government, and the sacred memory of their martyred Supreme Leader and his family members, and wholeheartedly supported a war that will not end until Iran drives the US and its Israeli occupier out of the region.

Pape wasn’t surprised that Iran has rallied behind the Islamic Republic rather than overthrowing it. Having studied every historical instance of attempts to coerce populations through strategic bombing, and to enforce regime change through air power alone, Pape observes that it has never, ever worked, and presumably never will.

The failure of strategic bombing, Pape writes, sets the stage for the next phase of the quagmire or “escalation trap”: expanded bombing to include both military and economic targets. And when Iran shows it can match each such attack with proportional retaliation, the US will be tempted to move to an even more dangerous phase, by sending in ground troops.

But to have a chance of militarily imposing its will on Iran, the US would have to send something on the order of a million ground troops—a political impossibility absent a colossal false flag orders of magnitude bigger than 9/11. And if Trump chooses to send a few thousand troops to Kharg Island, or on a treasure hunt for enriched uranium in the Zagros Mountains near Isfahan, such a fools’ errand is likely to end in disaster.

If Trump, or more likely his master Netanyahu, were somehow able to overcome the rational elements of their security establishments and use nuclear weapons against Iran, both the US empire and Israel would be committing suicide by permanently imploding their global legitimacy. What’s more, Iran would not only mount a crushing response, ending Mideast oil production, rendering America’s Gulf colonies uninhabitable, and raining down fire and fury on Israeli nuclear sites, it would also probably embark on a crash program to develop nuclear weapons and use them to finish off the Zionist entity.

Pape’s analysis shows that what he calls the “escalation trap” is based on two fallacies. The first and most obvious is the well-known sunk cost fallacy, the tendency to irrationally throw good money after bad. After all, if we’ve expended tremendous effort and expense to solve the Iran problem and everything we’ve done has only made it worse, why not keep doubling down?

The other relevant fallacy is the belief that military power in general, and air power in particular, can magically solve political problems. Despite abundant historical evidence to the contrary, a certain wing of the strategic establishment has never stopped hoping that ever-improving bombing yields and accuracies would eventually amount to a magic wand that decision-makers could wave at political problems to make them go away. That hope, Pape explains, has always been chimerical, never more so than when applied to the current Zio-American war on Iran.

Robert Pape is not the only American strategic thinker who understands these things. Presumably JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, and plenty of others who’ve haunted National Security Council meetings grasp the gist of them.

But getting Trump, a pathological narcissist and megalomaniac, to understand them, when such an understanding would amount to admitting defeat (and perhaps inviting Netanyahu to make good on “golden pager” blackmail threats) is probably just as impossible as regime-changing Iran. That’s why the reality-based, non-messianic-millenarian wing of the American deep state needs to embrace the slogan “regime change begins at home”…and act on it with ruthless alacrity.

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

Dear Trump, you senile old pedophile, what in Epstein’s name were you thinking when you gave the order to attack Iran? Or more pertinently, since you’re incapable of anything remotely resembling thinking, who in Epstein’s name were you listening to, and why were you listening to them?

Last week you blurted out that Jared, Steve, Pete, and Marco assured you it would be a cakewalk. But your military and intelligence chiefs advised against it. So who are you gonna believe, a pair of Jewish real estate shysters, an alcoholic former Fox News host, and an oily Israeli-owned gusano political operative—or your military and intelligence chiefs?

You have a problem, Mr. Senile Pedophile President. Several, actually. First, you’re a complete moron. Second, being a moron, you have no choice but to rely on others’ ideas, since you have none of your own. And third, you are a pathological narcissist, so you only listen to people who flatter your vanity. And since you’re a moron with nothing whatsoever worth being vain about, your flatterers lie outrageously. That’s why you’re surrounded by the most pathetic gaggle of lying ass-kissers ever to cluster like flies around a piece of human s**t.

I repeat: Everyone around you is lying to you. It isn’t just your fellow imbeciles like Kushner, Witkoff, Hegseth and Rubio passing on made-in-Israel whoppers about how easy it would be to conquer Iran. Even your military and intelligence chiefs lied by understating how bad an idea attacking Iran really was. They knew you liked the idea, that Jared and Bibi were egging you on, and that if they told you the honest-to-God truth you would flip out and maybe even fire them. So they sugar-coated it. They said “well, it’s a lot harder than it looks, and there’s a big potential downside, but if Jared and Bibi are right and the Iranian people really do thank you for killing their Supreme Leader, and they replace him with somebody who loves America and Israel, that would be great! Let’s hope and pray we don’t need a plan B, because there really isn’t much of one. But hey, we’re the greatest military in the world, and you’re the greatest Commander-in-Chief, so we’ll do our best.” If they even brought up the Strait of Hormuz, they probably said something like: “Well, I guess we can cross that Strait when we come to it.”

And the problem is actually even worse than that. It isn’t just that everybody’s lying to you. It’s that you’re lying to yourself. You’ve been lying to yourself so long it’s become second nature. As a pathological narcissist, you have a built-in filter that adjusts every word and image and emotion that passes through your consciousness in such a way as to crank out maximum self-aggrandizement. For you, anything you’re involved in, anything you can take credit for, is the biggest, most beautiful thing that anybody’s ever seen. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it! You fancy yourself “a very stable genius” with a “very, very large brain,” meaning you’re too damn dumb to know how stupid you are. Everybody who doesn’t flatter and obey you is “vicious,” “horrible,” “the absolute worst,” or, as you recently termed Iranians, “deranged scumbags” with inferior DNA.

So with your particular brand of psychopathology, Mr. Senile Old Pedophile-in-Chief, how are you going to admit defeat? Being congenitally incapable of admitting you were wrong, that you made a mistake, that you ever did anything less than brilliant, or even that you lost an election—you obviously will always claim that any election you lost was stolen from you, whether or not it actually was—how are you going to face up to the reality that Iran has well and truly kicked your sorry old senile pedophile ass? Especially when your advisors are afraid to tell you anything remotely close to the truth? The answer, of course, is: you won’t. You will keep throwing good money after bad, keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole that Jared and Steve and Bibi convinced you to begin excavating, until you have destroyed yourself and your country, and possibly the world as well.

Since I hate to end on such a gloomy note, let me offer you a way out: Declare victory and leave. Call a press conference and announce that you’ve made the biggest, most beautiful peace deal ever, bigger and more beautiful than anybody has ever seen: You’ve convinced those poor Iranian, Chinese, and Russian schmucks to assume the burden of providing security for the Middle East in general and the Strait of Hormuz in particular. From now on, American taxpayers won’t have to foot the bill! Beginning tomorrow, all US military personnel and as much equipment as we can pack up and carry will be leaving the region posthaste. Those Iranian, Chinese, and Russian suckers, maybe with some help from some other losers like the Turks and Iraqis and Gulf Arabs and whoever else wants to pitch in, will be stuck with the tab. Good riddance! And by the way, we’re also going to force the Chinese to provide security for Taiwan, and the Russians for Ukraine. This will save us trillions! Now we can get back to the business of making America, not the Middle East, great again. It’s an Epst…I mean, an epic, victory!

Thank you for your attention to this matter, you disgusting senile old pedophile.

Sincerely

Dr. Kevin Barrett

PS I understand you have instructed your dwindling army of MAGAmorons to defend you against accusations of pedophilia by claiming that there is no evidence that you ever raped anybody under 13, and that since the global age of puberty onset for girls is considered to be between the ages of 8 and 13, your victims were not pre-pubescent, which means you are not a pedophile, just a rapist of very young girls. That issue came up during the latest episode of False Flag Weekly News, which I am sure you will enjoy watching.

(01:11:05) Kevin Barrett: So here’s the key details of the 13 year old Trump accuser’s accounts, which are now verified during the fog of war—right after the war starts. And now they found those. “We accidentally incorrectly coded the documents as duplicative, so that’s why we withheld them illegally. So now you can see them while the war is distracting everybody.” And so this is about that 13-year-old that got apparently repeatedly interviewed. And basically the South Carolina newspaper went out and tracked down the details of this woman and what she said and who her family was and their record and their history and all that, and everything added up. So it’s interesting that the mainstream news about how these documents were being illegally withheld come out three days before Trump starts this war. And now the actual papers, the files, come out like a week after the war starts.

Wyatt Peterson: Yeah. Is this about Katie Johnson? Is that who?

I think so.

I wrote an article in 2019 titled “Doorway to the Cesspit” because I contended that all the information being released about Epstein is just a doorway, and if the further people pursue that, it’s going to lead them into areas of unimaginable horrors. And that seems to be where it’s gone in that time. Now, I put in that article a couple sentences about Katie Johnson and her accusations against Trump, alleging that she was raped by Trump and Epstein, and I allowed a friend of mine to convince me to take it out. He said there was no basis for it, Trump couldn’t possibly be a pedophile, and it was kind of at the time it was a little, you know, a little—it wasn’t as solid as it is now. So I took it out, but you know to my own detriment, because it’s clear I believe it’s probably true. I think this was probably not a one-off situation either.

And no, he ran that whole thing, Miss Teen America. He’s Epstein’s best friend. He’s a total sleazebag. He’s got this long list of rape allegations and all kinds of mistreating women allegations.

And so he runs this teen beauty pageant. I mean, come on. I mean, pedophile, maybe no. I mean, maybe he didn’t go after prepubescents. But a 13-year-old is barely post-pubescent. So, whatever. The word pedophile technically might not cover that. But the way it’s used as a pejorative is basically to describe a sleazebag who is, in a predatory way, preying on underage people sexually. And Trump absolutely is. Of course he is. Come on, guys.

Yeah. Yeah, no question.

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

Original YouTube link Rumble link Bitchute link

Foad of FoadDebate writes: In my latest conversation with Dr. Kevin Barrett, we unpacked the hidden dimensions and far-reaching implications of Iran's new leadership selection, a development that has not only shaken domestic dynamics but has also sent shockwaves through the calculations of global powers. With his characteristic sharp insight, Barrett describes Western media attempts to delegitimize this choice as textbook war propaganda, completely at odds with the realities on the ground and the public embrace of Iran's revolutionary path. Dismissing Trump's interventionist rhetoric about the new leader being "unacceptable," he frames such statements as a theatrical display of a declining U.S. hegemony. Barrett emphasizes that the selection of Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, given the impeccable ethical track record and integrity of his family, is not only a strategic necessity amid the current full-scale war but also a powerful promise to continue the steadfast revolutionary line that has stood firm against Western overreach.

Structured Summary of the Interview

Introduction and Topic: Leadership Transition in Iran (00:00:00–00:00:33)

The interview opens with the host welcoming viewers and introducing the topic: the selection of Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The host asks Dr. Kevin Barrett to comment on criticisms from opponents of the Islamic Republic who argue that Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment lacks legitimacy, particularly because he is the son of the previous leader.

Barrett thanks the host and frames the discussion within the broader geopolitical context of the ongoing war involving Iran and its adversaries.

Western Criticism and Allegations of Propaganda (00:00:33–00:03:02)

Barrett argues that criticism of Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership in Western media is part of a broader propaganda campaign connected to the war. According to him, Western governments and media outlets are attempting to portray events in a way that makes the United States and Israel appear successful while simultaneously undermining Iran’s leadership.

He claims these narratives are intended to weaken Iran politically by questioning the legitimacy of its political system. Barrett argues that such efforts are unlikely to succeed because most Americans know little about Iran and therefore are not deeply influenced by these narratives.

He also argues that within Iran, wartime conditions tend to increase unity around the national leadership rather than weaken it.

Regime Change Narratives and Alternative Leadership (00:03:02–00:04:30)

Barrett discusses what he sees as unrealistic Western attempts to promote regime change in Iran. He claims that the main alternatives often proposed by Western policymakers—the return of the Pahlavi monarchy or the leadership of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK)—lack credibility and popularity within Iran.

According to Barrett, these groups are widely disliked by Iranians, making them ineffective as potential replacements for the Islamic Republic. He therefore interprets regime-change rhetoric as largely symbolic rather than a serious strategy.

He argues that the real goal of the war has been to damage Iran strategically rather than to genuinely replace its government.

Domestic Legitimacy and Reputation of the Khamenei Family (00:04:30–00:05:03)

Barrett emphasizes that the Khamenei family has a reputation in Iran for personal integrity. He states that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was widely known for avoiding corruption and encouraging members of his family to maintain similar standards.

Because corruption is a common issue in many countries, Barrett argues that the perception of honesty within the Khamenei family has helped maintain their credibility. He also notes that Mojtaba Khamenei is reportedly respected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which plays a crucial role in defending Iran during wartime.

For these reasons, Barrett believes the new leader is likely to have strong domestic legitimacy.

Donald Trump’s Statements and U.S. Pressure (00:04:33–00:08:39)

The host asks Barrett about statements by Donald Trump, who reportedly declared that Mojtaba Khamenei would be unacceptable as Iran’s next leader and suggested using a “Venezuela model” to change Iran’s leadership.

Barrett strongly criticizes Trump and characterizes his remarks as attempts to intimidate foreign governments. He argues that powerful states sometimes try to pressure other countries into accepting leaders favorable to their interests.

However, Barrett claims such tactics will not work with Iran because the country is politically and militarily resilient. He also argues that global respect for American leadership has declined and that Trump’s rhetoric illustrates that decline.

Barrett further claims that the United States is losing influence in the region, citing difficulties maintaining control over strategic areas such as the Persian Gulf and protecting military installations.

Impact of the New Leader on the War (00:08:41–00:10:27)

The discussion then turns to whether Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership will change the course of the war. Barrett explains that the new leader is believed to be aligned with Iran’s “principlist” political faction, which favors strong resistance to Western pressure.

He contrasts this group with the reformist or pragmatic faction that previously hoped to improve relations with the United States and integrate Iran more closely into the global economy.

Barrett argues that recent events have strengthened the principlists’ position because attempts at diplomacy with the United States have repeatedly failed.

Distrust of the United States and Strategic Realignment (00:09:10–00:10:27)

Barrett cites the collapse of the JCPOA nuclear agreement as evidence that Iran cannot rely on agreements with Washington. He argues that the United States negotiated the deal but later withdrew from it, which he believes damaged trust.

He also claims that Iranian leaders have been targeted in attacks connected to diplomatic interactions, reinforcing the belief among many Iranian officials that negotiations with the United States are unreliable.

As a result, Barrett believes Iran will increasingly align with countries in the Global South, particularly China, rather than seeking rapprochement with Western powers.

Personal Stakes and Military Deterrence (00:10:27–00:11:01)

Barrett suggests that Mojtaba Khamenei has a personal motivation to pursue a strong defense policy because members of his family were reportedly killed during attacks connected to the conflict.

According to Barrett, this experience may reinforce the new leader’s commitment to strengthening Iran’s military capabilities so that similar attacks cannot occur again.

He predicts that Iran will continue expanding its deterrent forces and military infrastructure.

Historical Comparisons and Leadership Style (00:11:01–00:13:34)

Barrett compares Iran’s current situation to two earlier periods in the country’s history.

First, he references the era of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when Iran faced the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s. At that time, Iran was fighting for survival, and leadership required firmness and resilience.

Second, he discusses the period under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, when there was still hope that diplomatic engagement with the West might improve relations. Reformists believed that normalization with Western powers might eventually be possible.

Barrett argues that the present conflict has ended those expectations. In his view, Iran has returned to a situation similar to the 1980s, facing what its leaders consider an existential threat.

He believes Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership will reflect this more confrontational geopolitical environment.

Symbolism, Legitimacy, and “Barakah” (00:13:34–00:14:26)

Barrett suggests that Mojtaba Khamenei’s rise to leadership during a time of crisis may strengthen his legitimacy among supporters.

He refers to the Islamic concept of barakah, meaning divine blessing or spiritual authority. In some cultures, including Morocco, leaders who emerge during difficult times are sometimes believed to possess a special form of guidance or protection.

According to Barrett, this perception may give Mojtaba Khamenei a powerful symbolic role as the son of a leader who died during a national crisis.

Closing Remarks: Moral Framing of the Conflict (00:14:26–00:17:19)

In his concluding remarks, Barrett frames the conflict in moral terms, describing it as a struggle between good and evil in world politics.

He criticizes the actions of the United States and Israel and argues that their policies demonstrate extreme aggression and dishonesty. By contrast, he portrays Iran’s leadership as fundamentally sincere and morally motivated, even though it is not perfect.

Barrett also describes Iran’s defense strategy as a “mosaic defense,” meaning a decentralized system in which many independent actors contribute to the country’s protection. He suggests that people around the world who oppose Western policies should consider themselves part of this broader resistance.

The interview concludes with the host thanking Barrett for his analysis and insights.

BREAKING: New Supreme Leader’s First Message

The first message of the Iranian Leader was issued some minutes ago:

In the Name of God

At the beginning of my remarks, I must offer my condolences to our Master, may God hasten his reappearance, on the heartbreaking martyrdom of the great and eminent leader of the Revolution, the wise and beloved Khamenei. I also ask that His Eminence pray for each and every member of the great Iranian nation, indeed for all Muslims of the world, for all those who serve Islam and the Revolution, for the self-sacrificing ones, and for the families of the martyrs of the Islamic movement—especially those of the recent war—and also for this humble servant.

The second part of my words is addressed to the great nation of Iran. First, I must briefly explain my own position regarding the vote of the esteemed Assembly of Experts. This servant of yours, Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, learned of the result of the vote of the esteemed Assembly of Experts at the same time as you did, through the broadcasting of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For me, to sit in the place that was once occupied by two great leaders—Imam Khomeini the Great and the martyred Khamenei—is an extremely difficult matter. This seat carries the legacy of one who, after more than sixty years of striving in the path of God and renouncing all kinds of pleasures and comforts, became a shining jewel and an exceptional figure not only in the present era but throughout the history of the rulers of this country. Both his life and the manner of his death were intertwined with a grandeur and dignity born from reliance upon the Truth.

I had the opportunity to visit his body after his martyrdom. What I saw was a mountain of firmness, and I was told that the fist of his healthy hand had been clenched. Those who are knowledgeable about the many aspects of his personality must speak at length about him. In this brief moment I suffice with this summary and leave the details for more appropriate occasions. This is the reason why sitting in the seat of leadership after such a person is difficult; bridging this gap will only be possible through seeking assistance from God Almighty and through the support of you, the people.

It is necessary to emphasize another point which is directly related to the essence of my words. Among the great qualities of the martyred leader and his great predecessor was bringing the people into all arenas, continuously enlightening them with insight and awareness, and in practice relying upon their power. In this way they actualized the true meaning of the public and republican character of the system, and they sincerely believed in it. The clear effect of this was seen in the past few days when the country was without a leader and without a Commander-in-Chief. The insight and intelligence of the great Iranian nation in the recent events, together with its perseverance, courage, and presence, caused friends to admire and enemies to be astonished. It was you, the people, who led the country and guaranteed its authority. The verse that I cited at the beginning of this text means that no sign of God ever disappears or is forgotten without God replacing it with something similar or even better.

The reason for citing this noble verse is not that this humble servant should be considered comparable to the martyred leader, let alone superior to him. Rather, the purpose of mentioning this verse is to draw attention to the proper and prominent role of you, the beloved nation. If that supreme blessing was taken from us, in its place once again the Ammar-like presence of the Iranian people was granted to this system. Know that if your power does not manifest itself in the arena, neither leadership nor any of the various institutions—whose true function is service to the people—will possess the necessary effectiveness.

For this meaning to be realized more fully, first of all remembrance of God Almighty, reliance upon Him, and seeking intercession from the pure lights of the Infallibles (peace be upon them all) must be regarded like the supreme elixir and the rare philosopher’s stone that guarantees various openings and a definite victory over the enemy. This is a great advantage that you possess and your enemies do not.

Second, unity among all individuals and groups of the nation—unity that usually manifests itself especially in times of hardship—must not be damaged. This can be achieved by overlooking points of disagreement.

Third, effective presence in the arena must be maintained—whether in the form that you displayed during these days and nights of war, or through various effective roles in social, political, educational, cultural, and even security spheres. What matters is that the correct role be properly understood and implemented as much as possible without harming social unity. One of the duties of leadership and certain officials is to remind different segments of society of these roles. For this reason, I emphasize the importance of participation in the upcoming Quds Day ceremony of 1447, in which the element of confronting the enemy must be taken seriously by everyone.

Fourth, do not neglect helping one another. Thanks be to God, this has always been a characteristic of most Iranians, and it is expected that in these special days—when naturally the situation may be harder for some members of the nation than others—this spirit will manifest itself even more strongly. I also call upon the service institutions to provide every possible assistance to those members of the nation and to the grassroots relief structures.

If these matters are observed, the path toward days of greatness and glory for you, the beloved nation, will be paved. The nearest example of this, God willing, could be victory over the enemy in the present war.

The third part of my remarks is to express my sincere gratitude to our brave fighters who, at a time when our people and beloved homeland have been unjustly attacked by the leaders of the front of global arrogance, have blocked the enemy’s path with their powerful strikes and have removed from them the illusion of being able to dominate or possibly divide our dear homeland.

Dear fighting brothers, the demand of the masses of the people is the continuation of effective and regret-inducing defense. Likewise, the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must certainly continue to be used. Studies have also been conducted regarding the opening of other fronts in which the enemy has little experience and where it will be highly vulnerable; their activation will take place, if the war situation continues and according to considerations of expediency.

I also extend my sincere thanks to the fighters of the Resistance Front. We consider the countries of the Resistance Front to be our best friends, and the cause of resistance and the Resistance Front is an inseparable part of the values of the Islamic Revolution. Without doubt, the cooperation of the members of this front shortens the path to overcoming the Zionist sedition; as we have seen, courageous and faithful Yemen has not abandoned the defense of the oppressed people of Gaza, and the self-sacrificing Hezbollah, despite many obstacles, has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, while the resistance of Iraq has bravely followed the same path.

The fourth part of my words is addressed to those who have suffered some form of harm in these past few days—whether those who have experienced the martyrdom of loved ones, those who have been injured, or those whose homes or businesses have been damaged. First, I express my deep sympathy to the families of the noble martyrs. This comes from a shared experience I have with them. Besides my father, whose loss has become a public grief, I have also entrusted to the caravan of martyrs my beloved and loyal wife in whom I had great hopes, my devoted sister who had dedicated herself to serving her parents and finally received her reward, her young child, and the husband of another sister who was a learned and noble man. What makes patience in the face of such tragedies possible—and even easier—is attention to the certain and definitive divine promise of a great reward for the patient. Therefore one must be patient and maintain hope and trust in the grace and assistance of God Almighty.

Second, I assure everyone that we will not abandon the revenge for the blood of your martyrs. The revenge we have in mind does not concern only the martyrdom of the great leader of the Revolution; rather, every member of the nation who is martyred by the enemy constitutes a separate case in the file of revenge. A limited portion of this revenge has already taken tangible form, but until it is fully achieved this case will remain open above the others—especially with regard to the blood of our children.

Third, the wounded of these attacks must certainly receive appropriate medical treatment free of charge and benefit from certain other advantages.

Fourth, as much as the current conditions allow, sufficient measures must be defined and implemented to compensate for financial damages to property and personal belongings. These last two matters constitute binding duties for the responsible officials, who must implement them and report the results to me.

Another point that must be emphasized is that we will in any case demand compensation from the enemy; if they refuse, we will take from their assets as much as we deem appropriate, and if that too is not possible we will destroy an equivalent amount of their assets.

The fifth part of my remarks is addressed to the leaders and influential figures of some countries in the region. We share land or maritime borders with fifteen neighboring countries and have always desired warm and constructive relations with all of them. However, the enemy has gradually established various military and financial bases in some of these countries in order to secure its dominance over the region. In the recent aggression some of these military bases were used; therefore, as we had clearly warned beforehand, and without targeting those countries themselves, we attacked only those bases. From now on we will inevitably continue to do so, although we still believe in the necessity of friendly relations with our neighbors. These countries must determine their position regarding the aggressors against our homeland and the killers of our people. I recommend that they close those bases as soon as possible, because by now they must have understood that America’s claim of establishing peace and security has been nothing but a lie.

This will enable them to strengthen their bond with their own peoples, who are generally dissatisfied with cooperation with the front of disbelief and with its humiliating behavior, and thus increase their wealth and power. I repeat that the Islamic Republic system—without seeking domination or colonialism in the region—remains fully ready for warm and sincere relations with all its neighbors.

In the sixth part of my remarks, I address our martyred leader. O Leader! By your departure you have placed a heavy sorrow upon all hearts. You had always longed for such an end, and finally God granted it to you while you were reciting the Holy Qur’an on the morning of the tenth day of the blessed month of Ramadan. You endured many injustices with authority and patience without showing the slightest displeasure. Many did not recognize your true worth, and perhaps much time must pass before the veils and obstacles are removed and some aspects of it become clear.

We hope that from the elevated station you have attained among the pure lights, the truthful ones, the martyrs, and the saints, you will continue to care about the progress of this nation and all the nations of the Resistance Front and intercede for them, just as you did in your worldly life. We pledge to you that we will strive with all our strength to elevate this banner—the principal banner of the front of truth—and to achieve your sacred objectives.

In the seventh part I thank all the distinguished figures who have supported me, including the Grand Marjaʿs of emulation, various cultural, political, and social personalities, and the people who have participated in great gatherings to renew their allegiance to the system. I also thank the officials of the three branches of government and the temporary Leadership Council for their good management and actions.

I hope that God’s special blessings in these blessed hours and days will encompass the entire nation of Iran, indeed all Muslims and the oppressed people of the world.

Finally, I ask our Master—may God hasten his noble reappearance—during the remaining nights and days of Qadr and the blessed month of Ramadan, to request from God Almighty decisive victory for our nation over the enemy, as well as dignity, prosperity, and well-being for the people, and elevated stations and eternal peace for those who have passed away.

Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.

Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei21 Esfand 1404 (March 2026)

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

In this week’s False Flag Weekly News, Helen Buyniski and I discussed Helen’s new article Grand Theft Reality. We also discussed Trump’s moronic war on Iran, which is rapidly turning into the mother of all fiascos for the US and its Israeli master.

Since we began the show discussing how AI slop is devouring the world, I decided to send out two items, a satire and a summary, one written by a human, namely me, and the other by an AI. Can you tell which is which?

-KB

Trump Wants Epstein to Pick Iran’s New Supreme Leader

Dissociated Press

In a White House press conference this morning, US President Donald Trump demanded that Iran allow Jeffrey Epstein to select its new Supreme Leader.

“If Iran picks a leader who has never raped 13-year-olds in front of Mossad spy cameras, Bibi will force the US back into war in a few years,” Trump explained.

Asked how Epstein could participate in the selection process given that he supposedly hanged himself, Trump chortled. “Jeffrey is alive and well, I can assure you. He’s living in a specially-outfitted Iranian-missile-proof child-rape-bunker in Tel Aviv. He can fly to Tehran at a moment’s notice with underage sex slaves and cameras, lighting equipment, viagra, and other essentials for filming Iranian leaders raping children, just like he filmed me.”

Trump ordered Iran not to appoint the late Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has been profiled by US and Israeli intelligence as someone who would never rape children in front of Mossad spy cameras.

Trump said the US and its Israeli masters have long been grooming candidates for leadership positions in Iran, adding: “But most of them are dead. The Iranians keep executing them when they get caught raping children. Can you imagine! The Iranians are crazy. What a bunch of losers. They’re a vicious group of terrible people. The Middle East and the world won’t be safe until Iran has leaders who rape children for Israel like ours do.”

In Tehran, a spokesman for the Council of Experts responded by texting a photo to the White House. The photo is currently being studied by the intelligence community in hopes that it will yield clues about whether the Iranians might be open to Trump’s Epstein overtures.

False Flag Weekly News – Summary

Opening and AI Discussion (≈00:00–05:00)

The episode begins with host Kevin Barrett welcoming journalist Helen Buyniski back to False Flag Weekly News. They briefly promote the show and invite viewers to support it financially before turning to the main discussion: artificial intelligence and its growing influence.

Buyniski has written a new article titled Grand Theft Reality, which critiques the rapid expansion of AI-generated media. She argues that the scale of content production made possible by AI systems allows organizations to flood social media with competing narratives and alternate “realities.” In the time it takes a human to perform a simple task, AI systems can generate massive amounts of persuasive content.

The two compare this phenomenon to science-fiction imagery from writers like H. P. Lovecraft. They argue that AI creates an illusion of intelligence because it excels at language manipulation, but does not actually understand meaning. According to Buyniski, language models merely reproduce patterns in text rather than comprehending the concepts behind them.

Barrett notes that AI can be useful for certain purposes—such as language learning, translation, or studying linguistic patterns. Buyniski agrees, but warns that such capabilities also create the illusion of consciousness. When AI systems are tested in simulated scenarios, she claims, they may make extreme decisions because they do not understand moral context.

AI Economics, Surveillance, and Privacy (≈05:00–11:00)

The conversation shifts toward the economics and infrastructure behind AI technology. Barrett and Buyniski discuss the enormous valuations of technology companies involved in AI development, suggesting that the sector may represent a speculative bubble. They mention companies producing specialized computer chips required to train and run AI models and claim these resources are being priced in ways that limit independent experimentation.

Buyniski argues that AI technology has created a new kind of data-harvesting economy in which companies encourage people to feed personal information into automated systems. Many enthusiasts, she says, openly share sensitive details with AI tools in exchange for convenience.

She criticizes the idea—often promoted in the tech industry—that privacy is obsolete. Instead, she views this trend as part of a broader normalization of surveillance.

Another issue discussed is “model collapse.” The hosts explain that AI systems learn from existing text on the internet. As more AI-generated content fills the internet, future AI systems increasingly train on material produced by other AI systems rather than original human writing. According to their interpretation, this process could degrade quality over time, producing more repetitive or less meaningful output.

They also claim that large data sources like Wikipedia have begun selling data to AI companies, potentially complicating the distinction between human-generated and AI-generated information.

The segment concludes with discussion of WorldCoin, a biometric cryptocurrency project associated with Sam Altman. The system involves scanning a person’s iris to verify that they are human. Buyniski criticizes the concept as an intrusive attempt to create a global digital identity system, possibly tied to future universal basic income programs.

Transition to Geopolitics and War Coverage (≈11:00–14:00)

The discussion transitions to global politics. Barrett introduces what he describes as the show’s central theme: a developing war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

The hosts show a satirical AI-generated video contrasting Iranian confidence about resisting invasion with a caricature of American Gen-Z soldiers being drafted. They argue that the video demonstrates one positive use of AI: satire.

This leads into commentary about the cultural attitudes surrounding war in different societies.

Reports of Military Escalation (≈14:00–18:00)

Barrett references several analysts and writers who claim that casualty numbers in the conflict may be higher than officially reported. He cites commentary suggesting that attacks on U.S. facilities in the Middle East have caused greater damage than acknowledged publicly.

They also discuss claims that political leaders are escalating the conflict without proper constitutional procedures. According to Barrett, Congress voted against reclaiming its authority to formally declare war, which he criticizes as an abdication of responsibility.

At the same time, the hosts note shifts in American political rhetoric. They point out that some politicians have begun criticizing Israel more openly than in the past, reflecting changing public opinion. Polling data showing growing sympathy among Americans for Palestinians is mentioned as evidence of this shift.

Economic and Strategic Implications (≈18:00–23:00)

The conversation turns to economic consequences of the conflict. One major issue discussed is the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for global oil supplies. If the strait were effectively blocked, oil prices could surge dramatically, potentially disrupting the global economy.

Barrett and Buyniski argue that the war could strain American military resources. They discuss the heavy use of missile defense systems such as Patriot and THAAD interceptors and speculate that stockpiles might be depleted quickly in a sustained conflict.

They also debate political leadership and decision-making. Buyniski suggests that leaders surrounded by loyal advisers may develop unrealistic beliefs about their own power or military capabilities.

Broader Geopolitical Effects (≈23:00–27:00)

The hosts expand their analysis to the broader geopolitical environment. They suggest that other global powers—particularly Russia and China—may benefit strategically from a prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

Higher oil prices could strengthen Russia’s economic position, while American military resources might be diverted away from other theaters such as Ukraine.

They also discuss reports that Iran has targeted regional radar systems and military infrastructure, which could degrade U.S. and allied defensive capabilities.

The hosts argue that Iran’s decentralized military command structure may make it difficult to defeat quickly. Rather than collapsing if leadership is attacked, they claim the system allows different units to continue operating independently.

Damage, Propaganda, and Economic Strain (≈27:00–29:00)

The conversation ends with discussion of damage inside Israel and the economic impact of the war. Barrett claims the Israeli economy is suffering significant weekly losses and that media censorship prevents the full extent of destruction from being widely seen.

They reference an article suggesting that the war could become a historical turning point comparable to the 1956 Suez Crisis, which signaled the decline of British and French imperial power.

In that crisis, economic pressure from the United States forced Britain and France to abandon their military intervention in Egypt. Barrett argues that the current conflict might reveal similar limits to American power, particularly if economic strain grows severe.

Concluding Perspective

The hosts conclude by suggesting that economic factors—rather than purely military ones—may ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. They speculate that global financial pressures, shifting alliances, and rising energy prices could reshape the geopolitical landscape.

In their view, the combination of technological disruption from AI and geopolitical instability from military escalation illustrates a broader period of global transition.

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

Red Pill Diaries Youtube link Rumble link Bitchute link

Last night’s interview with Rasheed Muhammad of The Red Pill Diaries covered the background, current status, and likely future of #OperationEpsteinFury. Audio and video above, transcript below. -KB

We are now live, and I want to thank each and every one of you for joining me on another edition of the Red Pill Diaries. I’m your host, your brother and your friend, Rasheed. And without any further ado, I’d like to bring in a person that I personally think knows a lot about the situation with Iran because he’s done a lot of guest appearances on Press TV, and he’s done a lot of writings and everything. I gotta bring in Professor Kevin Barrett, and I’d like to say to you all, Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.

As-salamu alaykum, Rashid. How are you doing?

I’m doing pretty good. Yes, sir. And shukran for joining me today on the platform. I know there’s a lot going on, but I know that you can probably make a little heads or tails of what’s going on. Could you please give us your perspective on what is taking place in West Asia right now?

Well, this looks like it could be the big one. That is, the war that brings down not just the U.S. empire, but 500 years of European world hegemony. I wrote an article to that effect a few days ago. I think that the Zionist crazies have bit off more than they can chew this time. And basically what we have is Operation Epstein Fury with blackmailed child rapist Trump being pushed into a politically disastrous war that’s also going to be militarily and economically disastrous.

It comes at a moment that the United States empire is facing a crisis. It’s been eclipsed by China in terms of manufacturing, economy, technology. And its vassal states in Europe have been killed off by the stupid American war on Russia through Ukraine. And there’s a huge economic bubble that’s about to pop. This AI bubble is looking extremely fragile. And you put all this together and then you have this war that they can’t win because Iran can shut down the Gulf and keep the oil from flowing, drive the oil prices higher, higher and higher, and keep pounding American bases. The Americans are going to run out of ammunition in a couple of weeks. And at that point, Iranians can just finish off all those bases. And so it’s a completely bizarre situation. It’s a head scratcher as to how the strategic geniuses have managed to march Western civilization over the cliff. But there you have it.

And, you know, I remember when we’ve talked several times and we’ve had multiple conversations together. And I remember one time on the first show that we did, first or second show, you were telling me just how filthy Trump is and how in bed he is with all of these, quote unquote, people from the swamp. Why do you think that nobody tried to pay heed to you when you were telling the people how Trump made his money? How did he rub elbows with all of these other people? Because you said this on my show. You were telling people about Hillary Clinton. You were telling them about Joe Biden, and you really told them about Trump. Why didn’t they take heed? Why did they believe in the no more wars, no more eternal wars, and that I’m going to make America great again? And when you answer that, I’m going to get off the screen for a minute. I hear my car alarm going off, and I want to shut it off while you’re talking.

Okay, great, I’ll do a monologue for you then, and you can get that alarm taken care of.

Yeah, so why won’t the Trump fanboys wake up and figure this out? Well, a lot of them are. More and more of them are. But I’ve been screaming from the rooftops about 9/11 since the end of 2003, about Epstein since 2008. Catching on to things a little bit before most people do is, I guess, part of the job description. So, but yeah, with Trump, it was pretty obvious that there was a huge swamp issue around him from early on.

And I have to credit my colleague, Gordon Duff at Veterans Today, for this. Gordon is kind of all over the map on a lot of things. And I don’t agree with him about certain things. And he’s got a bit of PTSD from a very crazy career in the Marine Corps and the CIA Black Ops Division. And he’s for real. I’ve seen his Rolodex. I’ve seen him pull up these high-ranking people for me to talk to on Skype and stuff. So he’s not like some crazy guy pretending he’s a CIA vet. He’s a real CIA vet.

And anyway, back in 2015, when Trump started running for office, Gordon just pulled up all this stuff. And then Katie, the 13-year-old that Trump so brutally raped, sued him. And that court case was there in like 2016, 2015, or 16. And the story of Roy Cohn and how he created Donald Trump as a made man in the kosher Nostra Jewish Mafia was being splashed all over the pages of Veterans Today back then. So I’ve got to credit Gordon for pointing me in the right direction there. But it’s really all out there. That information is not a secret.

It’s just that when you find mainstream sources about Trump being formed by Roy Cohn, a precursor to Epstein, about Trump going to parties with Roy Cohn when Trump was in his 20s, and Cohn was in his 50s or 60s or something. And at those parties, Cohn was systematically raping children. J. Edgar Hoover and his boyfriend, Clyde Tolson, were at some of those parties, and they would be raping little boys. And Trump was at these same parties. And I don’t know which sex he was raping or what precisely he was doing. I don’t think I really want to know. But the fact is that the mainstream sources will tell you that Roy Cohn was Donald Trump’s mentor. He taught Trump everything Trump knows about both how to operate as a money launderer for the kosher Nostra, which has been Trump’s job description forever, and also about how to never back down, but just attack, attack, attack, and then make sure that you win the game by stabbing your opponents in the back through nefarious means, like using the mafia to kill them, threaten them, et cetera, et cetera.

That’s how Trump, or rather how Cohn, operated. He was a lawyer, but he won his law cases not in the courtroom, but by seeing to it that people were murdered and threatened. And J. Edgar Hoover actually would get orders from Meyer Lansky that he would then relay to Roy Cohn. And Roy Cohn would order the takedown or sometimes the killing of high-ranking American politicians. So that was who Cohn is, and he’s Trump’s mentor. So Trump is as dirty as they come. And, you know, Trump’s beauty pageant, Miss Teen America beauty pageant, was obviously an Epstein-type thing. The mainstream exposed that Trump would walk into the dressing room to see the 15-year-old girls nude. But what the mainstream wasn’t telling you was that he was inviting them along with Jeffrey Epstein to Mar-a-Lago. I would be very surprised if Katie is the only 13-year-old that Trump brutally raped. I would be very surprised if there weren’t many dozens of them. And they’ve been terrorized and silenced and killed off and things like that. But yeah, Trump is filthy. And he always has been.

And he talked a good line. But he talked a good line because he was, as the FBI file says that was released just recently in the Epstein article, “Jared Kushner is the brains behind Trump’s presidency.” Not just Kushner himself. Kushner is part of the Jewish organized crime syndicate that dominates America. His father went to federal prison. These people are gangsters. And Kushner works with these people, Chabad Lubovich, Jewish fanatical Zionist extremist gangsters. Those people created Donald Trump. They gave him his lines, scripted the lines for him. And he’s politically talented, so he winged it a lot and did pretty well with saying the things that would make him look like a populist. So he’s always been just a phony, a fake populist created by the same Jewish organized crime syndicate that did 9/11 and that’s running the U.S. empire into the ground.

I was watching a video where his funders, Madeline, I think, um, um, I can’t forget her husband. I can’t remember her husband’s name, but he was a billionaire and she’s a billionaire.

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson.

And he was saying how many times that they would visit the White House. And then she said that he was the first Jewish president and that he puts Israel first. And I mean, it seems like with this right in your face, it seems like his base should have had a lot of blowback against him.

Yeah, well, his base is waking up. Parts of it are waking up. There are more and more people who used to be in the general Trump world camp who have turned against him. I think Tucker Carlson was MAGA-congruent there for a while, and now he’s telling the truth. And same with Candace Owens. Even some folks at Infowars are starting to scratch their heads and wonder about this. I know some Infowars people have been putting out some good stuff. I don’t know if Alex Jones is ever going to break out of his trance and break his Zionist control. But anyway, the base is waking up, though there’s a certain element of the base that has fallen for Trump’s cult of personality. It’s just like with Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Napoleon and these leaders that cast a sort of a spell. And Trump casts a pretty stupid spell. And you have to be pretty stupid, really, to totally fall for it. But, you know, people do.

I have a few friends who have. I don’t know if my good friend Rolf is going to be like the last Trump fanboy standing, I think, among my circle of acquaintances. Maybe he’s already—maybe this war is waking him up, too. But yeah, I think this is going to be disastrous for Trump politically because he’s going to lose a big chunk of his base. And then the Democrats are going to have a giant club to beat him with when the economy blows up.

So speaking of that stuff, let’s transition into what is going on, the attack on Persia, the attack on Iran. Why did they leave the supreme leader undefended to be taken out?

Well, it wasn’t that they left him undefended. It was that the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, said they said, we want to keep you safe and evacuate you and take you to a safe place. And he said, no, you can’t do that. I’ll do that when you figure out a way to evacuate all of the 30 million people here. And so he didn’t want to be safe. He just wanted to live his life. And they killed him in his house where he always is, where everybody knows he is. He has a house and he has an office. And the office is kind of connected to the house. And he never left there. He never went to any basements. He didn’t go scurrying down in the basements like these cowardly cockroaches do, like Netanyahu does, like Trump certainly would if and when he comes under threat. May God bring that threat to him as soon as possible. But no, the Supreme Leader of Iran is a deeply spiritual man who wasn’t afraid of death. And so he just kept living his life. And he actually hoped to be martyred. He even said not long before that that, “my body is falling apart.” I think he had cancer even. “I’ve been praying that I would die a martyr’s death in Islam.” As you know, if you die a martyr, you’re destined for the highest station of paradise. And so he was a sincere believer and is now in the highest station of paradise.

People told me that right after the martyrdom of the Ayatollah, Trump went through Italy to try to do a backdoor deal for a ceasefire. And this is a regular out of the U.S. playbook. They will murder top officials and then they’ll seek a de-escalation or whatever, just like they did with Soleimani and everybody else. But Iran told them, no, there will be no ceasefire. I think that would be politically unacceptable if they were to agree to a cessation because of the level of arrogance of the United States, Israel, and the UK when they not only murdered the supreme leader of Iran, but they did it during Ramadan. What do you have to say about that?

Yeah, well, being murdered during Ramadan, that’s the best time to be martyred from the perspective of the Supreme Leader. Yeah, we might be having an internet issue here, so I apologize for that. But yeah, Ramadan, that’s the time that Imam Hussein was martyred, and it’s the best time to be martyred. And that’s the time that it’s going to make the biggest splash.

And so the whole Shia world and all of us Sunni people who are paying attention and understand what’s really going on in the world are blown away by this heroic martyrdom. And we’ll spend the rest of our lives avenging it or just following in the heroic footsteps of this great man. And so they made a terrible mistake by doing this. And there’s no way that Iran is going to back down now. And there’s no way that any real Muslim is going to back down now. I mean, this is it. We’re locked. We’re loaded. We’re going in, and we’re not going to ever stop.

Yeah, we are having a little technical difficulty, everybody. It’s not us. It’s not us on this end. So I just want everybody to know that. But again, is Iran just beginning to ramp up retaliatory strikes, or are they playing for the long run to hit hard and to hit consistently and to do as much damage as they can to bring Israel and the United States to their knees?

Yeah, I think Iran is going to just keep going because they can gradually wear down the American and Israeli defenses. And soon, whether in a week, two weeks, three weeks, those stocks of anti-missile systems are going to be exhausted, and Iran will be able to pummel American assets in the region at will and utterly annihilate them, and also pummel Israel at will. And at that point, the Israelis and Americans are going to have to beg for mercy. They may try to escalate, but then they’ll lose even worse. So yeah, I think Iran has a very strong hand to play here.

And of course, Trump could try to get drawn into another forever war and try to send in ground troops. And how that would go, I don’t know. But I think the odds are that any way you slice it, this is going to end up with the U.S. retreating from the region. And very likely the dollar will collapse and we’ll be in a new world where China is the world’s most powerful nation and the U.S. is just another second-ranked superpower.

I was reading last night that France, Britain, and Germany are talking about lending aid to the United States to help defend Israel. If this were to happen, do you think that Russia would then be forced and China would be forced to intervene a little more openly because the interests there are so profound, especially for China in its building road and Russia in its north-south corridor?

Yeah, Russia and China both have strong motivations to make sure that Iran doesn’t lose, and indeed to let the Americans get drawn in to this quagmire and exhaust themselves and implode their empire. And so I think the Russians and the Chinese didn’t really need to prevent this. I think they were operating according to the famous dictum, “never interrupt your enemy when he’s in the middle of making a fatal mistake.” And so now they can, however deniably, help Iran and create other problems for the U.S.

Ron Unz made a really interesting suggestion recently that this would be a good time for China to blockade Taiwan, not to invade or attack Taiwan militarily, just to blockade it the same way Trump is blockading Cuba and Venezuela, which are, of course, precedents. China has a much better international legal case for blockading Taiwan than the U.S. has for blockading Cuba or Venezuela. And if China were to blockade Taiwan, with all the U.S. naval assets in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. would be in no position to fight. And Taiwan would basically go down in a couple of weeks under a blockade.

So essentially what would happen is that the power on Taiwan would shift from this crazy secessionist party that’s in political power to the military in Taiwan, which is under the control of people who are much friendlier to mainland China. And so we would get a peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan. And the fact that the U.S. couldn’t stop that would essentially be the game changer. That would be the end of the U.S. as the planetary hegemon.

A lot of people don’t see this, but you mentioned something that I’ve been talking about for the longest time, that when they attack Persia or Iran, that Iran will give them hell in West Asia, and this will be the linchpin for the collapse of American and British power in West Asia, or what they term as the Middle East. Are you in agreement with me that this will be the thing that completely pushes America and Britain out and change the geopolitical dynamics of West Asia if the war intensifies and continues?

I think that’s very likely because, as I said, I think Iran can continue to keep the Gulf closed and can continue to pound all U.S. assets, including its U.S. vassal states, the Gulf states, because they’re going to run out of this extremely expensive ammunition, the anti-missile systems and their air defense systems that are currently unable to stop all the missiles. They stop a certain percentage of the Iranian attacks. The Iranians are starting their attacks with the older stuff, with the less effective stuff and including lots of decoys. And then they force the Americans and Israelis to use up their air defense systems, their Iron Dome-type anti-missile missiles and things like that, shooting at these decoys and shooting at the old stuff. And so the Americans and Israelis are going to run out of those munitions long before Iran runs out of its missiles.

And in this case, actually, I think the Gulf states and the U.S. military bases in the region are worse defended than Israel is. I mean, Israel is going to get really pounded. But the number of long-range missiles the Iranians have is just in the relatively low thousands. And the number of shorter-range missiles that they have is in the hundreds of thousands. And so those longer-range missiles are necessary for hitting Israel. And since they just have thousands of those, they’re not in that situation where they have infinite firepower to use against Israel, although they have an awful lot. They have enough to really be the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent. They could utterly obliterate Dimona and spread nuclear radiation all over Israel, and that’d be the end of Israel. So Israel probably is well advised not to try to escalate to the nuclear level, or that’s what’s going to happen to them.

But the American assets, these American military bases around the Gulf, are going to be totally undefended. And Iran’s going to have hundreds of thousands of missiles to hit them with. So that and the ships of the Gulf, of course, which are also soft targets. So essentially, Iran can remove the American military presence from the region. And yeah, that’ll be a game changer. And I think politically in the U.S. it’s going to be a real shock, and it could be the end of the Trump regime. And how that all shakes out in terms of what happens to the American empire, I don’t know. But all of the indicators are that the empire is heading down one way or another, at one rate of speed or another.

You know, there were shootdowns of F-15s, and one of America’s allies, I forget which one of the fiefdoms or sheikhdoms or whatever, said that they mistakenly shot down the F-15s. Well, Iran lodged a complaint, a diplomatic complaint, saying that because Iran said that they shot them down, and they said, well, they want that country to explain that if they made a mistake and shot those planes down, what were the planes doing operating over their airspace? Because if they are the ones that shot it down, then Iran has the legitimate right to pound the government. So Iran is waiting for the response from that government that said that they shot the U.S. planes down.

Yeah, this thing is going regional, and it’s going regional fast. How much longer do you think that the United States can deploy assets to protect Israel? Because it seems more that they want to protect Israel more than they want to protect their own troops and these other bases.

Well, that’s right. And the Gulf governments are already complaining loudly about this. They’re saying that the Americans are using all their assets to defend Israel, and they’re not defending us. They’re saying, we thought we were under an American security umbrella. And it turns out that there’s no umbrella, or if there is, it’s tattered. It’s got a lot of holes in it. The Americans are working their hardest to try to put the real umbrella up over Israel. And so the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Emiratis, the Omanis, the Qataris, these people are very unhappy right now for good reason. They’re seeing their ill-gotten gains going down the toilet because, you know, they threw their chips in with the Americans. And that was the wrong move morally and geostrategically in the long term.

They allowed the American empire, which has been increasingly run since World War II by crazed Zionist Jews, to break up the region into these small units and then control those smaller broken-up units. For example, there’s no country called Kuwait. Kuwait is just hardly anything. There’s no such thing as Kuwait really. It’s just one region of the Iraq province of the Ottoman Empire, which was part of the Ottoman Caliphate. And the legitimate government of that, the Islamic government, was the legitimate government, and the caliph was its legitimate head.

And likewise, Bahrain and perhaps Qatar are part of the Persian Empire, they’re part of Iran. They don’t exist as countries. What they are is that the British and Americans just broke them off and found some corrupt little gangsters to prop up as their supposed potentates, their emirs and their sultans, and made them their puppets. And so these are puppet states for this evil empire. And those states are going to have to decide whether they’re ready to move on to the next stage and not be puppets. And that’s going to be the end of some of these states, in my opinion.

Saudi Arabia—maybe Saudi Arabia will be around in another 10 or 20 years. It’s big enough and wealthy enough that that’s possible. But these other ones, I don’t think so. Maybe Saudi Arabia actually will absorb the Emirates. Currently, the United Arab Emirates is basically just a cat’s paw for the Zionist crazies. The Emirates is just totally run by Israel. That’s all it is. It’s a branch of Israel. Saudi Arabia, not so much, but they’re still heavily indebted to the American empire. They’re implicated in this American empire. And so they’re vulnerable now.

Iran can not only target their oil infrastructure and make them go broke very quickly because they won’t be able to sell any of their oil, but also, if necessary, Iran can destroy their desalinization plants, just like it can destroy Israel’s big desalinization plant. And if they do that, those countries are toast. They’ll become uninhabitable desert. And so they’re totally vulnerable. They’re not being protected by the American empire. And so a new order, a new security arrangement is going to have to come out of this. And it’s going to be a post-American empire arrangement. It’s going to be a post-Zionism arrangement.

And I think going back to Arabia, I don’t think the House of Saud could withstand that because, remember, financially, they have fornicated with the great w***e America, and their bank accounts or the recycled money has to go through New York. So if the empire falls, a lot of the money and assets that they’re holding in the United States goes along with it if they don’t unload it.

And I recall the Holy Quran giving a warning to the mother city. And we know what the mother city is. We know it’s the holy city of Mecca to get its act right. With these corrupt sheikhs and the House of Saud, maybe Arabia will stand, but not Saudi Arabia, because that is just a name, a family name that was imposed upon the Arabian Peninsula. As I tell people, there was never a book called Lawrence of Saudi Arabia. There was a book of Lawrence of Arabia, and the corrupt House of Saud stamped their name on it after they made a deal with the British, the French, and the U.S. or whatever.

So I think all of these fake leaderships are going to start crumbling and falling under the weight of corruption, under the weight of war, under the weight especially, you know, how America works when she’s in trouble. To deflect her trouble, she will then dime out everybody that helped her and all of the backdoor deals. And maybe this will cause other people to come to the streets to demand the fall of these leaders. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Yeah, I think that’s a good forecast. You know, I recently finished rereading Abdul Rahman Munif’s first volume in his Cities of Salt trilogy. And Abdul Rahman Munif was, I think, a Lebanese-Saudi dual citizen who lived in so-called Saudi Arabia, which, as you said, is really just Arabia.

And it was actually a mid-level British bureaucrat who came up with the name of Saudi Arabia. The British handed it to the Ibn Saud family.

And so anyway, this novel by Abdul Rahman Munif, actually the Cities of Salt trilogy, describes—it’s a historical novel about the moment when the Americans first came to the Arabian Peninsula. And the arrival of the Americans there was just a curse. And it’s quite a wonderful book.

Reading it, you realize that the characters who saw the true nature of this curse that the Americans had brought were right. And Miteb al-Hathal, the mythical leader of the resistance, the guy who turns his back on the Americans and on the Emir and just disappears into the desert and becomes a myth of resistance—he was right. And by the end, everybody at some level realizes that they, the anti-American revolutionaries, were right. The people who said, “don’t let the Americans in here. They are evil. They are the Great Satan” (as the Iranian supreme leaders have correctly termed them). Those people were right all along.

At some point, the people of Arabia are going to recognize this. They’re going to recognize that the great resistance fighter character in the Abdurrahman Munif book, Miteb al-Hathal, was right and that the other characters who kind of went along to get along and accepted the corrupt leadership of these moronic emirs and sultans, the House of Saud, and it was totally controlled by the Americans—those people made a mistake. And that ultimately the great revolt against the Americans and their puppet leadership, which comes at the end of the first volume of this Abdel Rahman Munif trilogy novel, it’s quite a beautiful description of this popular uprising against the Americans and against the Ibn Sauds.

Unfortunately, of course, it doesn’t succeed in the long term. It succeeds in winning them a few concessions in terms of the American oil company’s ability to mistreat its Arab workers. But they should have just kicked the Americans out and gotten rid of their corrupt leadership.

It’s sort of just like, we look back and say the Native Americans should have just butchered the Europeans, right? They could have kept that continent if they’d known how to just not let those Europeans get settled. Let the camel’s nose into the tent and you’re in trouble, right?

And so…but maybe it’s not too late. The people of Arabia can push the camel’s nose back out of the tent.

Yeah, I believe that this was unexpected. I believe the United States, because they’re so desperate—see, let me go back for a second and let me explain this just a tad bit for people. Because a lot of people say, well, Trump is not making any sense and his policies are irrational. And I continue to tell people that when you are desperate, irrational thinking is rational to the desperate mind.

And so when we look at the American empire, she’s being overtaken by China economically. And China has become a near-peer power, if not surpassing the United States in most things that she dominated in. We see a resurgence in Russia. We see a rising Iran. We see a rising and liberated Africa. As Sergei Lavrov said, Africa in the coming years will be the center of the world because it has the largest population on the planet. And most people don’t know that that surpasses India and surpasses China. China is invested heavily in education there and infrastructure and schools there.

We see even with Nigeria one of the fastest-growing populations and fastest-growing economies in the world. Then we see the United States having trouble in Latin America and the Caribbean.

I think that desperation, because the empire understands that the time is not on its side. And when you are realizing that, oh my God, I don’t have the rent. Let me go out and try to get the rent. And when you can’t do that—

Do you believe that that is a part of the miscalculation on the American government in the past? And we’re living in a time unlike any other time where we’re watching the collapse of one world and the merging in of another world.

Yeah, I agree. The crazy policies that we’re witnessing are the result of desperation. That’s one of the ways that I and many other people strongly suspected that 9/11 was done by the Israelis in 2001, because at that time they were desperate. The United States wasn’t. Nobody in charge of the United States empire would blow up the Twin Towers and attack the Pentagon in 2001. It would make no sense for the U.S. empire to do that, drag itself into counterproductive wars in the Middle East. It made perfect sense for the Israelis to do it, though, because they were desperate.

And so when you’re desperate, you do crazy things. And the Israelis are in a crazy situation. They’re driven by messianic millennialist maniacs who were trying to bring on their Messiah to conquer the Goyim and create a world where every Jew has 2,800 Goyim slaves and the Jews completely rule, having exterminated and enslaved all of the non-Jews. So there are people—that’s the driving force of the state of Israel, is people with that ideology. And then you’ve got the more pragmatic Israeli leaders who have to deal with that. And then they have to deal with the fact that this genocide of occupied Palestine is totally unacceptable to the entire region and indeed to most of the world.

So they’re caught between this proverbial rock and the hard place of their own extremists, who are really the heart and soul of their project, and the region that’s never going to accept this, right? Indeed, why should the world’s 2 billion Muslims and, what, 3 billion Christians accept that their holy lands should be genocided by fanatical people who absolutely hate the prophets, who hate Jesus, who hate Muhammad? Why are we going to let those people take over our holy land, the holy land of 5 billion people, right? How many Jews are there on earth? Fifteen million, maybe. And of those, how many even care about Israel? Maybe half that at most. So you’ve got fewer than 10 million of these Zionist Jews who think that they’re going to genocide the holy land that’s holy to 5 billion people. Do the math, right? Ten million versus 5 billion. It’s not a very workable or viable project.

So Israel was desperate in 2001. They were in a desperate demographic situation, a strategic situation, and so they were in a position to have to do something crazy—blow up the Trade Center, attack the Pentagon, blame it on their Muslim enemies, and hijack the American military into this all-out war against the region, and specifically against Israel’s enemies, and specifically against those seven countries in five years that General Clark told us that 9/11 was designed to take out.

And so, yeah, desperate people do desperate, crazy things. And the American empire now is every bit as desperate as the Israelis were in 2001. The American empire, as you said, is facing a China whose real economy is far greater than the American real economy, whose technological capacity and productivity has eclipsed the U.S., and that all of this is rapidly being reflected in relative military power.

So the U.S. suddenly is waking up and recognizing that over the past two decades it’s completely lost its hegemonic position without firing a shot. Well, actually it has fired some shots. It fired the COVID shot across China’s bow in 2020. I’m in full agreement with Ron Unz’s interpretation that COVID resulted from a U.S. biological attack against China and Iran. And, of course, that was covert biological warfare. They didn’t come right out and admit what they were doing. And it blew back on them. It didn’t work out very well in terms of stopping China’s rise. It may have slowed China’s growth a bit, but not enough to make a difference. So that was a crazy thing to do—unleashing an anti-human being virus, a biological weapon like that, that kills 0.5% or whatever, a small, very small percentage of people who it afflicts, but that’s enough to totally cause states of emergency to be imposed, right? It was designed for that.

So these crazy American empire people do crazy things. And the Trump regime has even crazier people, I think, than the Democrats, who were pretty crazy themselves, right? The Ukraine war against Russia was a crazy thing to do. The 2014 Maidan coup and pushing a war on Russia through Ukraine—that was crazy. That was risking nuclear World War III against the world’s leading nuclear power. But I think Trump’s attack on China with COVID was even crazier. And Trump’s attacks on Iran leading up to this current all-out war, Operation Epstein Fury—that’s the craziest yet.

Well, from your sources, what is it looking like in Iran right now, in that region right now? Because all we hear is the Western news press talking about how Iran is being battered and being destroyed while Israel is silencing media as much as they can to keep people from realizing that Iran is striking and striking hard.

Yeah, the Western media doesn’t want its domestic audience to understand what’s really going on. They want to create the impression that, oh, it’s all going okay. And they want to stop people from turning against this war. And why does the media operate that way? Well, all media to some extent is going to line up behind their country when it’s at war. But also the American media are massively dominated by Jewish Zionist owners. The billionaire Epstein class that rules the West has bought up almost all of the Western media. And this billionaire Epstein class is basically like Jeffrey Epstein himself. These are rich Jews who care about what’s good for the Jews and what’s good for Israel. That’s their number one thing.

And so the Western media is even more extreme in its counterfactual propaganda regarding these wars for Israel. And so, yeah, the Western media right now is pumping out all kinds of nonsense, as they always have against Iran. I would say the Western media’s lies about Iran are bigger than their lies about any other country. They’ve really deliberately gotten Iran wrong in an extreme way, a way that’s shocking even to people like me who are used to the propaganda.

And their description of the war, trying to make it sound like Iran’s getting pounded—well, yeah, Iran is getting badly bombed, and that’s not going to have any effect at all. It’s not just the fact that Iranian Shia Muslims embrace martyrdom. And the more of them you martyr, the harder they’re going to fight, as we saw during the imposed war in the 1980s with Iraq. But this is actually true of all human beings. It was discovered during World War II that if you bomb populations, it doesn’t turn them against the war. It doesn’t turn them against their own governments. It reinforces their strong allegiance to their own governments and their dedication to their country’s war effort.

This is what happened when Hitler sent his buzz bomb rockets against the British during World War II. It rallied the British people against Germany. And it’s what happened when the British and the Americans genocidally butchered Germans with these carpet bombings, air bombings, when they burned hundreds of thousands of people to death in Dresden and other German cities. Even these incredible, just utterly genocidal bombings did not turn the Germans against their own government. On the contrary, they reinforced the Germans’ will to fight to the very bitter end, which they did. Both the Germans and the British had their wills to fight intensified by these brutal bombing campaigns. And of course, the British-American campaign against Germany was vastly more brutal than Hitler’s bombing campaign against Britain.

So it’s been well known among military historians and military analysts that bombing actually just makes populations back their government even more. And so when the Western media tells us, “oh, Iran is getting pummeled,” that’s not going to produce any hope that that’s going to lead to the Iranian people changing their minds and not backing their government’s war effort. Instead, what that’s about, really, it’s a lie. The basic picture that they’re drawing of the war, where they exaggerate the losses in Iran and try to ignore the losses among their own side, and especially in Israel, that’s for domestic consumption. That’s propaganda designed to try to prevent support for this war from completely collapsing.

Because the support for this war—I don’t know if you’re aware of this, Rashid—this is the most unpopular war in the get-go of any war in human history that I am aware of. The polls showed only 27% approval of this war on its first day. This has never happened before. There’s always a rally-around-the-flag effect that produces virtual universal acclaim for a war when it first starts. As we saw with 9/11 and so on, everybody wants to go off and have a war, and they rally behind the president.

It’s well known that if the polls show that 99% of the people support your war on the first day, that’s good. That’s what you want. If only 95% support it on the first day, that’s a bad sign. That means it could slip. And if only 90% support it on the first day, you’re in big trouble. Well, here, 26% support it on the first day. This is crazy. This is, again, the most unpopular war that’s ever been started in all of human history.

Operation Epstein Fury will go down, I think, in history as the biggest public relations disaster from the get-go of any war ever.

And Trump said that he didn’t care what the American people had to say about the war. He’s going to fight it. I was reading that yesterday in one of the articles in RT, and they were quoting him about the polls and what the people think about the war, and they said he didn’t care.

He just doesn’t want those Epstein files to get released, all those pages detailing the witness interviews around his brutal rape of 13-year-old Katie. We know the Justice Department is illegally withholding those papers. That news hit the mainstream like three days before this war started. So Trump doesn’t care what people think because he knows that if he doesn’t do what Netanyahu orders him to do, it’s going to be even worse.

Well, do you have any information on Netanyahu? Because Iran bombed the prime minister’s residence, and we haven’t heard anything from Netanyahu since Iran bombed the prime minister’s residence.

Yeah, who knows? There are rumors that he was hiding in Germany, which would be pretty ironic, and other rumors he’s flown abroad, and there are various locations that have been proposed. But yeah, I don’t believe he’s been heard from. And Iran is claiming that they may have killed him, and if so, I guess sending that guy to hell is something to celebrate. At the same time, though, that dictum, never interrupt your enemy when he’s in the middle of making a fatal mistake, would suggest that Netanyahu is running Zionism into the ground. Netanyahu will go down in history as having killed off the possibility of there being a long-term viable state of Israel.

And so once he’s gone, if more rational leadership emerges, that actually makes the situation for all of those of us who are fighting to put an end to the Zionist entity perhaps a bit more difficult.

Hmm. Iran has suffered major assassinations, multiple assassinations on Syrian territory of high-ranked officials and diplomats or whatever. Has it ever come to their mind, and maybe they should say, okay, let’s sue for peace for a minute and send Jared Kushner and Witkoff over into Iraq and let’s negotiate—and I’m not advocating this, everybody in CIA, the Secret Service, I’m not advocating this—but I’m saying, and as soon as they get there, they do to them what America did to Soleimani.

Yeah, well, the trouble is, Rashid, trading Witkoff and Kushner for people like Soleimani is not a good trade from the Iranian standpoint. That is, Witkoff and Kushner, they’re just mediocre minds. They’re real estate mafia. They’re quote-unquote “Jewish real estate guys”—no, they’re mafia. But they’re not smart. A lot of mafia gangsters get to a higher station in life than they should based on their intelligence because they’re risk-takers and they intimidate people and they’re plugged into these networks that use illicit violence. And Kushner and Witkoff are like that. I mean, they’re just idiots. They’re nobodies. It’s a complete insult, a slap in the face to any country when Trump, who himself, of course, is just another two-bit low-IQ gangster, when they send somebody like Witkoff or Kushner to negotiate. It’s an insult.

So if you’re Iranian, do you really want to bother killing Witkoff and Kushner? I guess it would be a symbolic statement. But they’re worthless. They’re cockroaches. Yeah, okay, it’s like you step on the cockroaches, but what do you gain? I mean, two less cockroaches, but there’s a lot of them where they came from.

The Israelis, whatever else you want to say about them, they do have this idea that if you kill these really great people, that maybe you can stop the movements behind these great people. And they’ve had a mixed record with that, though. If you read Ronan Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First, which is a history of Israel and its assassination programs, which are vast—Israel assassinates orders of magnitude more people than any other country and probably a lot more people than all other countries combined. They just love to assassinate people. That’s the Israeli thing. And they imagined throughout history that they could just take out the leaders that were against them and that would solve their problems. And as Ronan Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First explains, it didn’t solve their problems at all. Every time they killed some leader, an even more powerful leader would rise up to take his place and create even bigger problems for Israel.

When Israel did actually succeed in finally neutering the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the secular opposition to Israel, guess what? This Hamas group that they had actually sort of helped encourage at the beginning, the religious opposition to Israel, suddenly took off and became an even bigger threat to Israel than the PLO had ever been. And the larger religious opposition to Zionism has become a bigger threat than the PLO.

And so when they martyr these people and create martyrs who are going to be remembered for centuries or even millennia, and that those people who remember those martyrs for centuries or millennia are going to be dedicated to scrubbing the Zionist cancer off the face of the earth, they’re not gaining anything. They’re losing.

And so from the Iranian perspective, again, when your enemy just keeps making all these mistakes—and they’re also evil mistakes, they’re operating in a way that’s both stupid and evil—you don’t want to mirror that. You want to act as intelligently and as justly as possible. And Iran really tries to do that. They try to pursue justice in their policies…with, I think, a lot more success than any other current government.

Are we living in the collapse and the fall of America and the Western world?

Yeah, absolutely. It’s like if you were living in Rome in the late sixth century, or the Western Roman Empire anyway, you’d be living through a certain kind of civilizational collapse. And certainly that’s exactly what we’re living through now in the West. Though I guess I shouldn’t say we. I’m not in the West anymore. I’m in Morocco. Morocco is on a rise. Africa is on the rise, as you said. And Morocco is the gateway to Africa. And Morocco really has a great future.

Now, I’m not in agreement with the policies of the current government regarding this war for Palestine. The Moroccan government is trying to sort of have it both ways. They want to play Mr. Nice Guy and say, “oh, we can be the mediators. And so we’re going to have good relations with the Israelis and good relations with Palestinians. Hamas, they’re a little too radical for us. We’re going to try to be these nice moderators so we can get along with the West.” That’s b******t. It’s embarrassing. I probably shouldn’t rant too much about the evil, the odious, disgusting, embarrassing evil of the current Moroccan government’s embrace of the Zionists, because I don’t want them to revoke my residency permit and send me back to the belly of the beast where you are.

But despite this, the Moroccan government is actually competent in presiding over a country that’s improving in so many ways and setting itself up to be the gateway to Africa, which, as you say, is going to be a big part of the human future. The big growth area of the world is going to be Africa, largely funded by China with Chinese infrastructure help.

And so, yeah, I left the sixth-century Rome. I left the imploding United States and the West partly because I tried for 20 years to try to wake them up, and I thought maybe the truth about 9/11 would be a big enough slap in the face to wake them up. And at this point, I think they’re heading for big trouble. It could be anywhere from really big trouble, where civil war kind of stuff, a real societal collapse, or it could be less than that. It could be just a big collapse in living standards and then the kind of political infrastructure that’ll have to be used to try to keep a lid on the popular unrest when you get a collapse of living standards. Either way, big trouble is coming to the United States. And then the West is about to become a memory in terms of its 500 years of global hegemony. That period is about to close.

I’m not a professor, so I’m going to ask you because maybe common sense is not so common today. And I often ask people that come on to this show this. I hear the talk of multiple poles of power and America will be one of the three or four major poles of power in this new dynamic, this new paradigm globally. And my question to you is this: if we were to use history as a base or guideline and to use mathematics as a base and a guideline, how can America maintain and be one of those poles of power when she has no manufacturing, when she has alienated everybody, when she has made war on everybody, when she’s the largest debtor nation in the history of the world? When all of those things come back and she’s so divided culturally, racially, economically at home as well as abroad, how is that a recipe for her to maintain her glory, global standing? It doesn’t make sense to me. Common sense tells me she will fall and she will fall hard and that she cannot, in her fall, maintain her position as a great global power.

You’re absolutely right. And the way this is going to play out is that the petrodollar, which is what allows the U.S. to print toilet paper money and exchange it for real goods and services, is going to be gone. And so suddenly the U.S. dollar is going to lose maybe a third of its purchasing power. So imagine what happens if everything that you buy—your food, your rent, your housing, your car—everything suddenly costs one third more. You’re going to have a big budget adjustment to make.

And so the U.S. is going to face this situation. And it’s going to be forced to recognize that its military can no longer buy it this largesse, this petrodollar largesse, robbing the world by printing toilet paper money, by pointing a military gun at everybody’s head. Suddenly you’ve lost the war. You can’t point your gun at people’s heads anymore. That racket is done. So what’s going to happen?

Well, I think politically the U.S. is going to have to obviously fold up its military tent. Right now, the United States spends more money on its military than the next 10 countries combined, and that’s going to have to collapse. The U.S. is going to have to start spending more roughly about the same amount per capita on its military as Canada and New Zealand and the European countries and other countries do, which means that the U.S. military budget is going to have to be maybe one quarter what it is now.

And so what that’ll do is that’ll cushion things a little bit because that huge pile of money that’s being wasted on the military right now will suddenly be real goods and services that go into people’s pocketbooks and their real living standards. And so that’ll cushion the blow a little bit. But what’s going to happen is when the U.S. loses its ability to force the world to accept its toilet paper greenback, at that point a hard choice is going to have to be made between completely impoverishing the population and then facing riots, or folding up the military tent and bringing the troops home. And that’s what they’re going to have to do.

Last question of the day for my friend Kevin. Do you think that they will push the world to World War III to try to prevent anybody from ascending past the American empire because in their minds they think that, hey, I would rather rule over a trash heap than to allow anyone to rule in paradise?

Yeah, right. That does sound like that Satan’s quote, right? “Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven,” from the famous John Milton poem. And yeah, we probably have some Satanists in power, and who knows how crazy they are. But I think it’s more of a game of chicken. I think that the people in power, the Epstein class and people anywhere near it, they live very cushy material lives. They’re pampered. They’re living better lives materially than the emperors and the kings did in past ages. And I don’t think they want to risk that with a nuclear war, especially since Russia’s got these radioactive tidal wave torpedoes that could totally put an end to the eastern and western seaboards of the U.S., that could completely drown the British Isles, et cetera, et cetera.

I don’t think they really want to risk that. Well, they may want to risk it. They just don’t want it to happen. So they’re playing chicken. And these games of chicken where two guys drive at each other at high speed and the guy who swerves loses, is a chicken—well, that’s a dangerous game because it might or might not work out the way you want it to. And so, yeah, they’re doing that, but they’re still losing. This war on Russia through Ukraine—they’re basically admitting that they’ve lost, that Russia is going to end up with the Donbass region and more, and with a perfectly strong economy, and that we’re going to end up with a rump Ukraine and a much weakened Europe. They’ve admitted that, they’ve faced that.

So whether they would take it all the way to World War III…there definitely are some people crazy enough to, but there are also people maybe pretending to be crazy enough to, like the Zionists saying “we have the Samson option. We’ll blow up every capital with nuclear weapon if we ever see we’re going down.” Yeah, right, you will. Because you know that if you did that, you and all your people would be hunted down and you would all die slowly and painfully. You probably, when push comes to shove, are going to have a good life going into exile in London, in Paris, in Venice, in Buenos Aires, in New York, and so on. You’re going to be living better than 99% of the population wherever you go. And you know what? I think you’re going to do that rather than guarantee that you’re going to be hunted down and killed like dogs. So you’re not going to do your Samson option. And that’s a bluff. They’re pretending to be that crazy. Sure, they’re pretty crazy. Doing 9/11 was pretty crazy. But I think there are limits to any of these people’s craziness because, again, they have good, cushy material lives that they want to protect.

So ultimately they’re just going to lose the war. They’re going to go down. And if World War III happens in such a big way that it massively destroys civilization, that will be the result of a miscalculation. If that’s any consolation….I’m not sure it is.

Thank you, my friend Kevin. I really appreciate you coming on the platform to do the program. I’m going to put your information in the description shortly. Do you have anything to say to them, any of your websites and everything that you could tell them about?

Yeah, my two main websites are truthjihad.com, which is all one word, truthjihad.com, and then kevinbarrett.substack.com.

Thank you so much. And I’ll send you the video in a few minutes, Kevin.

Okay. Well, thank you, Rasheed. Appreciate it. God bless.

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