Podcast
Truth Jihad Radio
Hosted by Kevin Barrett · EN
61episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Israel’s Pyrrhic Victory in Kentucky
1w ago00:42:55Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkIsrael just prevailed in its scorched earth campaign against the USA in general, and the state of Kentucky in particular, by “primarying” Rep. Thomas Massie. Since they couldn’t Epstein him, the Kosher Nostra used AI to generate a suggestive clip of Massie having a “threesome” affair with Democrats Ilhan Omar and AOC. Welcome to the AI era! Who needs Epstein and his gaggle of teenage sex slave shiksas when you’ve got AI? From now on, Israel will just create fake videos of imaginary misbehavior on the part of anyone who doesn’t follow their orders.But how long will that strategy work? Fox News addicted boomers who can’t tell AI from reality, and who love the “Israel” they learned about from Leon Uris, are dying off. Younger Americans are increasingly disgusted by Zionist Jew lies, Zionist Jew depravity, and Zionist Jew genocide. Massie won more than 80% of the Gen Z (under 30) vote. He won the 26 to 35s 72%-16%. He won Gen X (ages 36-64) by a greater than 6% margin. Unfortunately for Massie and America, the MOFs (moronic old farts) turned out in great numbers, and two-thirds of their votes went to Massie’s Israel-owned opponent, Ed Gallrein. Or did they? The senior (Israeli) citizen voters were responsible for practically all of the mail-in ballots, and the vast majority went to Gallrein. In an interesting coincidence, Gallrein’s total mail-in haul of 10,854 votes perfectly covered his margin of victory of 10,283 votes. Were all ten thousand plus of those Zio-ballots actually filled out and mailed by old fogies who were compos mentis? The 2020 election, Trump’s supporters never tired of telling us, was stolen by Democrats who made sure that entire senior centers full of zombies voted unanimously for Biden. Trump himself calls mail-in ballots “election fraud” and “cheating” and has been trying to ban mail-in voting, but hasn’t succeeded so far since the Constitution deems that states run elections and the details are handled by local administration.But for some reason Trump hasn’t been protesting Gallrein’s victory and demanding a thorough inspection of all those mail-in ballots to see whether they were postmarked in Tel Aviv. That’s probably because Trump has never had a job in his life except money launderer and front man for the Kosher Nostra.Though Israel got away with primarying Massie, like it primaried Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman and a long list of people before that, it likely won a pyrrhic victory. By exposing Israel’s control of the US Congress in an unprecedented way, and outraging the majority of non-retirement-age people nationwide, the Zionists are wasting what’s left of their soft power—their appeal to hearts and minds.AIPAC’s Massie takedown happened in the wake of two of Israel’s worst-ever PR disasters: The New York Times’ exposure of Israel’s unbelievably disgusting torture of Palestinian prisoners, including training dogs to commit rape, was quickly followed by Ben Gvir sharing a video of himself joining Israeli guards in abusing the humanitarian activists who were attacked and kidnapped a thousand kilometers from Israeli shores and taken to Israel for brutalization.With all of this self-inflicted PR damage, Israel is sacrificing any potential it may have had for a long-term future in favor of minor, short-term gains. As it wins at the tactical level, by successfully kidnapping and abusing activists, kidnapping and dog-raping Palestinians, or getting honest politicians thrown out of the US Congress, it loses bigly strategically. That’s also true of the Israel-driven war on Iran. As neocon superstar Robert Kagan has been grumpily observing, the vicious attack on Iran February 28th basically forced the Iranians to permanently seize the Strait of Hormuz, thereby raising Iran’s status as a regional power by several notches. While the sneak attack succeeded tactically by mass-murdering Iranian leaders and schoolgirls alike, it will go down in history as one of the most colossal strategic failures ever recorded. (If Israel thought Iran pre-Hormuz was an existential threat, just wait till you see what’s coming.)Tactical success creating strategic failure seems an Israeli speciality. That’s basically the thesis of Ronan Bergman’s Rise and Kill First, which chronicles Israel’s grotesque history of political assassinations (while leaving out the biggest ones, including the Kennedys). Bergman notes that Israel has grown increasingly proficient at murdering its leading opponents, but that every time it murders a Resistance leader, new Resistance leaders arise in his place to present even greater threats. That is certainly what happened when the Zionists wiped out a major segment of Iran’s leadership February 28, uniting the country behind equally-capable leaders who are even more hardline than the martyred ones.Why do the Zionists keep shooting themselves in the foot by shooting people they would be well advised not to shoot? Why do they brag about dog rape and abuse of humanitarian activists, when strategically it would make more sense to respect basic decency and international law? Why do they make a pushy, obnoxious spectacle of themselves sacrificing Thomas Massie, whose influence could have been dealt with more subtly and effectively through low-key, rational politicking? And above all, why do they keep behaving in ways that increase the determination of their Middle Eastern neighbors, and an ever-greater segment of the world’s population, to be done with them, when they could easily accept the international consensus of Oslo, Camp David, and so on, and assure themselves of a decent future?E. Michael Jones, who is leading a conference I’m attending here in Croatia, says “the Jews are the enemies of Logos.” By Logos he means something like “the God-given rationality, order, and beauty infusing creation.” Dr. Jones argues that the Jews, in rejecting Jesus Christ, rejected Logos, and have been at war with it ever since. That is why they are infused with a spirit of hatred and ugliness and grotesquely aggressive behavior that turns out to be self-destructive.Dr. Jones makes a pretty good argument for that thesis. But Zionist Jews themselves, with their outrages against decency and morality and reason, are making an even better one. 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
Transcribe →
Syria Chemical Weapons False Flags Exposed
1w ago01:06:41Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute linkThe series of chemical weapons hoaxes—false flag incidents that helped NATO and Israel overthrow the Syrian government and install their current ISIS/Al-Qaeda puppets—are unraveling. Today Dr. Piers Robinson joins us to discuss this issue by way of his recent article “Dr. Brendan Whelan's ILOAT Win Reveals Clear Evidence of OPCW Corruption.”TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio-Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing this podcast since 2006. I try to bring on the most interesting writers and translate them into audiovisual. One of the best writers right now is Piers Robinson. He’s a fellow refugee from the controlled academy. We’re not so controlled now (that we’ve left). Piers has done great work on a number of issues. We recently did a podcast on his work on the 9/11 planes. And now we’re going to revisit another of these big deceptions and scandals: the Syria chemical weapons thing. It’s hard to say whether it even was a thing. So let’s find out. Hey, welcome, Piers Robinson. How are you?Piers Robinson: Good to see you, Kevin. I’m doing well, thanks.Kevin Barrett: Good to have you back. So these chemical weapons accusations against Syria during the war that finally brought down the Syrian government a couple of years ago always had the stench of dubiousness about them, to say the least. But it was kind of hard to nail it down and prove exactly what was going on. It was complicated, right? Lots of alleged attacks going both ways.Piers Robinson: You are correct. There was one in Homs in 2012 in December which was a staged event and they tried to spin it off as a sarin or a nerve agent attack. But very quickly the wheels came off that and I think even the US State Department backed away from the claims being made. But that was one of the very earliest incarnations of what I describe as essentially false flags, staged events.Kevin Barrett: Bush had joked about Iraqi WMD and pretended to be looking for them under his desk. It turned out to be a complete hoax, and yet they rolled out the same thing for Syria. How do they get away with that?Piers Robinson: Well, that’s the incredible thing about it. Syria was one of the 9/11 wars. It was planned (by the neocons): Wesley Clark famously blurted out about the seven countries in five years, and Syria was one of them. So it was always one of the countries which they were going to use the 9/11 false flag in order to get a war going. And of course with Syria it didn’t really get going until 2011 when you had various covert operations and also multiple external actors fueling dissent within the country and then really pretty much almost immediately triggering unrest.Well, of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But in the UK you had Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s top biological weapons expert, who had a rather candid conversation with the BBC and said that the British government had sexed up the intelligence on Iraqi WMD.At the same time, you had Ambassador Wilson in the US, who had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellowcake uranium claims, and he said pretty much the same thing. On both sides of the Atlantic you had very high, very significant officials basically saying that there was no WMD in Iraq because they were manipulating the intelligence.A lot of people became aware of that in the fullness of time. Then came Syria. It’s quite remarkable that one of the decisions they made — and I suspect some of this was to do with Israeli involvement, but a lot of it was actually rooted in UK Foreign Office planning — was to build a narrative around demonizing the Syrian government and Assad using the same set of allegations, this idea that there are chemical and biological weapons.Of course, in the case of Syria, the allegation was that Assad was using these weapons. In a way, it’s surprising that they embarked upon the same kind of deception again, but then perhaps not so surprising because it did work the first time.Kevin Barrett: Right, but people woke up to it, supposedly.Piers Robinson: People woke up to it, but they got the job done. But then that’s quite a long time to 2011. And I think you had the whole Arab Spring narrative building up around 2011. And I think it was easy for what was happening in Syria to get folded into that.There was a build-up to this, because prior to this there was an interesting series of alleged chemical weapons attacks. It actually started in March 2013 when there was actually an attack on Syrian army soldiers using a nerve agent. And the Syrian government went straight to the United Nations and said, “We want an investigation. Some of our soldiers have been killed and we believe it’s a nerve agent.”Almost as soon as the Syrian government had done that, you then had these counter accusations coming in from Britain, France, Qatar and the US alleging that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons.You had the emergence of what I understand now as essentially staged events. This is where you started to have the involvement of, for example, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British military officer who’d set up a company called SecureBio. As we know now, he was part of an MI6 sample-gathering operation in 2013.So you had this kind of interesting build-up to Ghouta 2013, all set around this invitation or request from the Syrian government: come in, send in the UN, send in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and get this investigated.Then all of these other allegations suddenly started being thrown out by the Americans and the Brits and these kinds of events occurring in Syria.When the joint OPCW-UN team arrived in Damascus in August 2013 to begin their investigations, at exactly that point there was a mass rocket-launch sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus in Ghouta.So this is what we’re being asked to believe in terms of this narrative building: that the Syrian government legitimately requested the UN OPCW to come in, the inspectors get into the capital and then within a week or so you have this mass sarin rocket attack in Ghouta with a large casualty count.The details of this are a little bit more complicated than that. I know some researchers argue that actually not that many people were killed by sarin and a lot of these people were probably massacred.I think there are elements in the US who were part of this red-line creation. I think it was pushed by external actors in Israel as well. Obama famously backed away from it. He was given information from Clapper that this was not a slam dunk.They backed away. Russia, of course, defused the situation by persuading Assad to hand over Syria’s strategic chemical weapons stocks, which Syria always had essentially as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear capability.But Assad said, “Okay, we’ll go along with this. We will sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and we will dispose of all of our weapons.” These were all put onto Cape Ray, an American warship, and then destroyed.That was the point at which the red line didn’t quite work for those wanting the full-scale intervention, but it did, I think from Israel’s point of view, get to this point of the disarmament of Assad.Kevin Barrett: For sure.Piers Robinson: I think with hindsight, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. And it was also clearly a mistake because this didn’t bring an end to it.Within a year of Syria having acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and getting rid of its sarin stocks, you then had the sudden emergence of chlorine allegations.Chlorine historically as a battlefield munition was used by the Germans in the First World War. You need huge quantities of the material. You’re talking with these alleged tactics of chlorine cylinders dropped, they burst and chlorine would pour out.Kevin Barrett: Like somebody was getting in by the roof with a bottle of bleach from their laundry and kind of dropping the bleach bottle.Piers Robinson: Yeah, but this worked and these alleged attacks started to occur. Then the allegations started to be delivered from the usual suspects: Assad has now started to use chlorine weapons against his own population.The British government was very much involved in this. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were involved in the sense that they had the White Helmets set up, as some of your listeners are probably aware. They had various other outsourced operations in Syria.The important point is around 2014 where the OPCW got drawn back into investigation of these attacks. What happened was that they set up an ad hoc body called the Fact Finding Mission, the FFM missions. These were there to deploy into the country.They were told that they had clearance to go in, so they went into opposition-held territory. But just as they crossed the line outside Syrian government-controlled territory where they had been safe, their convoy was ambushed.Two of the OPC...
Transcribe →
Checkmate: Iran Wins! (FFWN roundtable featuring Cat & Colleen McGuire)
2w ago01:14:20Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkWatch the first-ever False Flag Weekly News roundtable above, featuring several of our favorite FFWN fans…plus long-time cohost Cat McGuire and her sister Colleen. (Cat and Colleen open the show discussing Cat’s health condition that led to her stepping down as regular first-cohost-of-the-month.)I have dreamed of finding myself in a strange country where I can’t communicate with anyone. Since I am a native speaker of English, that won’t happen in real life the way it happened to my Moroccan in-laws who visited Turkey and found their Moroccan Arabic, French, and bare smattering of English didn’t work.But I am experiencing something along those lines here in Milan, Italy. I arrived from Barcelona Saturday and have been trying to speak Italian with people. But it keeps coming out as Spanish with an Italian accent. People chuckle and answer me in English.I studied Italian informally for less than a year back in 1989, and have barely used it since. I can read Italian newspapers, thanks to the many cognates with French and Spanish, but have forgotten how to say hello and order coffee.Since I moved to Morocco in 2023 I have been spending a lot of time and effort upgrading my Arabic. Besides the radically different “high” and “low” varieties of Arabic, Morocco also features plenty of French, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber). There are actually four to six types of low Arabic (darija) and three types of Amazigh. And high Arabic has two very different registers, Modern Standard Arabic and Classical. So you could say that there are thirteen native languages used in Morocco, a nation a little over half again as large as California.I predicted to my students thirty years ago that communications barriers would fall within their lifetimes: English would become even more of a de facto global language, and translation technology would make most spoken and written information available to everybody. Fewer people would bother to learn foreign languages, because they wouldn’t have to. At some point they might not even have to learn English, since they could just speak into their phones and have it come out in whatever language they choose. Those in technical professions would find technical terminology available in their native languages thanks to machine translation. In short, it won’t be long before everybody can easily talk to everybody!That AI-powered Tower of Babel is already half-built. If it ever reaches the heavens, humanity will seamlessly communicate as one. Then again, it might stall and fall, like the original Tower of Babel did. If that happens, it won’t be because humanity has been suddenly shattered into tribes with thousands of different languages, but because people aren’t satisfied with life as atomized individuals. They want families, neighborhoods, community.The False Flag Weekly News CommunityIn 2014—a decade after jumping headlong into the 9/11 truth movement, and eight years after being defenestrated from academia—I created False Flag Weekly News along with Jim Fetzer and the late Allan Rees. Our idea was to critique the media by way of an hour-long weekly news roundup. We would try to cover the most significant stories of the week, debunking mainstream propaganda along the way. I wanted the show to be snappy, fast-moving, heavy on terse but clever soundbites, with lots of back-and-forth repartee including occasional disagreements between hosts. Above all, I wanted to inject some humor. The horrible truths of history and current events are painfully indigestible without the spice of laughter.We started out posting on several YouTube channels and growing a respectable audience, before shadowbanning and later deplatforming kicked in. After YouTube had banned all of the channels featuring the show, it moved to Rumble and Bitchute in 2021. Along the way, FFWN has attracted an intellectually high-end audience, including some enthusiastic supporters who comment on the episodes and/or contribute to the Fundrazrs that keep the show going. (Preparing each week’s episode is labor-intensive, as the co-hosts who occasionally stand in for me can testify.)Thinking “anyone who likes FFWN is probably a pretty cool person, I wouldn’t mind meeting some of them” I set up this week’s show as a roundtable discussion and emailed invitations. Watch the result and drop a comment letting me know what you think: Should I do this again? Part of the fun was chatting with people before we started recording the show. If I do another episode like this, I’ll make sure to reserve a block of time before the actual show for informal discussion. I’ll also need to figure out how to moderate the discussion with greater dexterity, especially if the number of participants grows.The highlight of the evening turned out to be Cat and Colleen McGuire’s surprise appearance. Cat McGuire, with often-unsung backing from her twin sister Colleen, has been an activism dynamo for at least a decade, and was the first FFWN co-host every month for years until brain cancer slowed her down last summer. Virtual vs. Real CommunityCat McGuire is a real-life friend. I’ve visited her in New York, she has stayed in our guest room in Saidia, Morocco, and we’ve hung out in other places. She’s one of those people who, though neither family nor neighbor, I genuinely care about. I really miss connecting with her every month. I’m sad that she is so seriously ill, praying for her recovery, and appreciating the courage and wisdom she’s showing as she deals with her illness by taking her dedication to ihsaan (making things better) to the spiritual plane.I doubt I’d feel that close to her if I only knew her through the internet. We humans are wired for hanging out with friends and family and neighbors in real life (or “meat space” as the autist cyberpunks used to call it). But the digitally-mediated world is giving us ever-less of that. Lonely people stare at their phones all day, addicted to reels and shorts and porn and social media outrage, manipulated by governments and corporations and their hired propagandists.I’m one of the lucky ones who has escaped the worst digital traps and cesspools and instead met an unusually high-quality bunch of people thanks to the internet. I like all the people I’ve gotten to know through the False Flag Weekly News community, including those I’ve never met in real life. And being in Morocco, I’m lucky to be able to hop around Europe on $20 Ryan Air flights meeting some of them in person. (I once even randomly ran into a FFWN fan in Tamraght, Morocco, also about a twenty-buck flight from Oujda.)My weird existence as a rootless red-pilled cosmopolitan (tendance sois-disant antisémite) with a virtual community spread across the world is probably not what human nature intends. Celia Farber, another real-life friend I met through Cat, tells me she craves settling down in a place she can call home, but isn’t quite sure where that would be. Since she has friends in Sweden, she’s thinking of heading there.Assuming the jet fuel doesn’t run out, I expect to be back home in Saidia, Morocco by early June. I’m loosely affiliated with a soon-to-open café-bookstore there, Café Shakespeare, where people will be encouraged to hang out and have interesting conversations in real life. Maybe a False Flag Weekly News fan or two will eventually find their way to Saidia.Meanwhile, the show must go on. Stay tuned to False Flag Weekly News, and feel free to drop by the next roundtable. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com
Transcribe →
Did JFK's Killers Ruin the World?
2w ago00:59:03Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute linkMonika Wiesak is the author of America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy . In it, she explains in detail why the loss of JKF mattered far more than not only the likes of Chomsky claim, but even more than most of Kennedy's admirers realize. She also dares to explore the possibility, following Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyenot, and Ron Unz, that Israel was the prime force behind the assassination. Check out her new Substack article on that increasingly hot topic…it’s very useful background information for those wondering why so many voices with huge audiences including Cenk Uyger and Tucker Carlson, Lawrence Wilkerson and Judge Napolitano, Wilkerson and Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, and most importantly former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who says that more than 10,000 JFK files have been illegally withheld because they reveal that Israel did it have been saying such things.TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing the radio show for years and now some video too. I try to bring on important authors and writers to translate the written word into some spoken dialogue. We have a very important author today, Monika Weisak. She’s written some great books on a number of topics, probably none more important than America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. So…hello Monika, how are you?Monika Wiesak:I’m good. Thank you very much for having me on today. Kevin Barrett: It’s great to have you and meet you. I admire your work. Here is your book on JFK, America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I think it’s an important book because the only thing remotely close to it that I know of anyway is the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable, which is primarily about the assassination, but it touches on the reasons for the assassination, which were essentially that John F. Kennedy was standing up for the public interest against a long list of people who didn’t have the public interest in mind at all. But your book focuses on that and not so much on the assassination, and I think it’s a great contribution, so congratulations.Monika Wiesak: Thank you.Kevin Barrett: The last chapters on the assassination kind of hint—actually, you could go from that last chapter to the Douglass book, and it would be a pretty good segue, wouldn’t it?Monika Wiesak: Yeah, what I wanted to do is, I felt like nobody had really answered the question. The subtitle of the book is What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I felt like no book had really properly answered that question because the first question to ask about any massive historical assassination is what changed, or what did we lose, or why does it matter? And I felt like a lot of the books were focusing on the technicalities of the assassination or were theorizing about what might have happened.Kevin Barrett: That’s a great point. And that’s actually something that doesn’t come out nearly as forcefully in the Douglass book. It’s kind of implicit, right?And it’s quite shocking, really, how radically different the world might have been had the Kennedy program succeeded. And how do we even start to think about something that massive?Monika Wiesak: Yes. It’s sort of why I put it together, because it was so much more than I imagined. Before I studied his presidency, what I’d kind of heard rumblings of was, oh, maybe Vietnam or things of that nature, but it’s really the whole world. It’s Africa, it’s the Congo, it’s Latin America, it’s Indonesia, it’s Laos and Vietnam, it’s the Middle East, it’s Palestine. All of these policies changed drastically upon his assassination.Kennedy was very much in support of Third World nationalism. He gave a lot of foreign aid to Africa, to Latin America. I think foreign aid to Africa increased something like fivefold. He did the Alliance for Progress for Latin America, which was to help those countries become independent and help make them not so reliant on just a primary export, but really to develop their own economies.I think he just viewed the world as sort of... We were catering to the ultra-wealthy in the United States, as we do today, rather than the lives of your average American.Kevin Barrett: Right. That quality of Kennedy’s, that he actually had compassion for ordinary people and wanted to set policies that served their interests, really shines through in your book. And that includes both Americans and people outside of the U.S. And I think a lot of people have missed much, if not all, of this. I know for many years I’d read people like Noam Chomsky, who is anti-Kennedy and basically tries to claim that anybody who cares about that assassination is completely misguided and Kennedy was ruthless.So to what do you attribute that kind of second assassination of Kennedy that came from many different quarters, including from the left, from Chomsky? What was behind that?Monika Wiesak: Yeah, it’s got to be because they don’t want people to care, right? If you want to cover up a coup d’état that occurred, one of the easiest ways to cover it up—there’s two ways to cover it up, right? One is to cover up the crime itself, which they did with the Warren Commission and whatnot. But they didn’t do a great job of it because it’s a difficult crime to physically cover up.So the other way to cover it up is to make people not care. And in some ways that’s a more effective way.Like Chomsky said, “Who cares who killed JFK? Who cares if it was a jealous husband?” Implying it doesn’t even matter if it was a conspiracy. It doesn’t even matter if it wasn’t Oswald because Kennedy meant nothing to this world.Kevin Barrett: Was he alluding to Cord Meyer and Kennedy’s relationship?Monika Wiesak: I don’t know what he was alluding to, but I think what he was alluding to was that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if Oswald did it or not because nothing changed when Kennedy died, I think is what Chomsky’s argument is. And you have to really question Chomsky because it’s very obvious that a massive amount did change. One just needs to look at the historical record to see that. So one has to wonder what Chomsky’s intentions were in downplaying it.And I think his intentions were to make people not care. He said that bluntly: why should anyone care?And so I think it’s because something like the assassination of a president is something that can really mobilize people. There are a lot of atrocities happening around the world, and it’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s difficult to get Americans to really understand those atrocities or really put in the effort to try to correct them because they don’t really grasp them. They’re so distant from Americans’ everyday lives.But the murder of America’s president—people understand that. People grasp that. People are impacted by that. So that’s something that could actually mobilize the public.Kevin Barrett: Chomsky also said at one point—and I think when people pressed him on JFK and made some of the points you just made—he switched tacks and said that it would be sort of fatal for the left, meaning his people, to try to take on the people who had the power to kill a president. They would be far too powerful to take on. It would be suicide to try to take them on. He actually said that, which struck me as bizarre.Monika Wiesak:Yeah, that is bizarre, because if enough people speak about it, there’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t stop the truth if enough people speak on it. Chomsky had a pretty large following, so he absolutely could have mobilized people to try to do something about the Kennedy assassination if he wanted to.Kevin Barrett:Or 9/11, for that matter.Monika Wiesak:Yeah, or any major crime. I think he could have mobilized people, but he chose not to, and I think that makes his career look highly problematic.Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I agree completely. So getti...
Transcribe →
Trump to China. Checkmate!
3w ago00:16:50Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute linkExcerpt:Press TV: It was the US that started this aggression on Iran. It was the US that then had to propose a ceasefire. It was also the US that then had to extend unilaterally the ceasefire. Then it was also the US that had to call off its so-called Project Freedom. And most recently it was US destroyers that had to flee as the Iranian army, as the Iranian navy targeted them when they were targeting Iranian tankers. Iran has said that another targeting of Iranian tankers and they would target American centers in the region and also American tankers.So the U.S. did everything it could. We’re talking about decades of sanctions. We’re talking about all kinds of coup attempts, bloody coup attempts, especially more recently when more than 3,400 Iranians were murdered as a result of U.S.-Israeli agents on the ground hijacking peaceful protests, turning it into riots. And then, of course, we had war imposed on Iran.So Iran has been the victor in this battle. Iran was the one who was able to push back the western enemy, the American enemy, and so there is no reason for Iran to make any concessions, especially because when Iran was bombed a second time, Iran was negotiating, was talking about making concessions on its nuclear program, not to an international body, not to the IAEA.And Iran had of course warned the U.S. that another aggression on Iran and you will be faced with all kinds of response, from extreme retaliation, from a regional war to a new management office, which has shut out all American warships and Israeli warships as well.This is what the U.S. brought upon itself. Now that they have exhausted all their cards, they have exhausted all their options, and now that their inflation jumped to 3.8 percent, which is the highest. And so it will act as such and it will demand basically what is the rights of the Iranian nation.Kevin Barrett: Yes, this has been a really amazing period to be witnessing, especially from my perspective, because I got interested in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the revolution when I was young, but I didn’t become a specialist or expert in it. I started really paying attention about 15 years ago.And I’ve really grown to appreciate the genius of Iran’s Islamic Republican leadership over the decades in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of this ongoing attempt to destroy it and to regime change Iran and to turn Iran back into a U.S.-Zionist client puppet state like it was under the Shah.This war, I think, has permanently essentially decided the conflict in favor of Iran, because Trump did what Brzezinski warned against 15 years ago, which is he said “we the Americans should not follow Israel into a war on Iran like a stupid mule.”Today Trump is stupider than a mule. This is completely backfiring against all American geostrategic interests. And it has essentially given Iran the chance to step up and flex its muscles and show that it actually has essentially permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz and the massive resources that flow through it, which is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon. People have always asked themselves why Iran does not want nuclear weapons. It has a religious prohibition. But it also doesn’t need one, because it has the equivalent.If Trump wanted an off-ramp, he actually had one after the Pakistan negotiations. All he had to do was accept the ceasefire and make it a real ceasefire. Instead, he went and did this so-called blockade of the blockade, which is doubly stupid because the problem, from the American point of view, is the fact that products are blocked. And so he just made them even more blocked. And that was another colossal blunder, almost as big as his original colossal blunder of getting into this war in the first place.And so now China has absolutely no reason to even try to force Iran to do what Trump tells them to do. Why would China do that? China is actually weathering this situation better than America and its allies. They have a strategic reserve. They have diversified their energy. They have a lot of coal. They have all sorts of diverse energy supply chains, so they don’t need to worry themselves the way that the Americans and all of their allies, including their supposed anti-China allies in the region like Japan, and they hope Taiwan, South Korea, and so on.Press TV: The global energy crisis, Dr. Barrett, the IEA, the International Energy Agency, said it is the worst energy crisis ever, unprecedented in history and about to get worse. How does this equate, from your perspective, to leverage that the U.S. president has or lack of moving forward or actually pressed into coming up with a definitive solution to this conflict? Or does he not care, simply?Kevin Barrett: And Russia, China, and Iran, America’s adversaries, are all coming out of this much, much stronger. Russia is selling its energy for a much higher price. The sanctions have had to be dropped…. China has a huge strategic reserve and a diversified energy supply. And then Iran, as we’ve seen, has now got effective de facto permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz, taking it to a whole new level in the geopolitical world.So Trump has got himself in a terrible fix and he lost his last chance for a graceful exit after the Pakistan negotiations. And now I think he’s going to learn in China that he’s going to be headed for an ungraceful exit.Press TV: Kevin, for years the Israelis, and you mentioned them, so I want to bring it up now, and the impact this has had on regional resistance. They’ve been assassinating Palestinian and Lebanese resistance leaders and figures and commanders that they think are obstacles to Israel’s agenda for the region. And now the U.S. has joined Israel’s endeavor. Obviously, you alluded to that.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think they made a huge miscalculation based on their arrogance. They imagine that if anybody threatened them the way that, let’s say, the resistance leaders are threatened, the way Iran’s leaders are threatened and so many have been assassinated, the way the Hezbollah leaders are threatened and assassinated, the way the Hamas leaders are threatened and assassinated, the Islamic Jihad leaders and so on, that they will have to capitulate because people like Trump and the people around him, the Western decision makers, are basically cowards.But that’s not the way the resistance works. The resistance is made up of people who are spiritual, moral and have principles and are willing to risk and sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, including the liberation of their lands and the preservation of their dignity, their religion and their culture.And this is something that’s incomprehensible apparently to a major segment of the Western leadership. They imagine that by wreaking havoc with terror attacks on resistance forces and leadership they can somehow terrorize the resistance into giving up. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com
Transcribe →
Another Oil Market Peace Scam?
3w ago01:16:34Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkOn October 26, 1972, Henry Kissinger momentously announced: “Peace is at hand.” According to Kissinger, North Vietnam and their Vietcong allies were about to see the light, lay down their weapons, and come to terms with the US and its South Vietnamese vassal.Kissinger’s announcement made screaming front page headlines. It electrified the country, coming as it did seven years after US involvement in Vietnam had become a quagmire, and five years after American public opinion had turned decisively against the war. The American people were sick of the war, and Kissinger’s bombshell promised not just peace, but “peace with honor.”Kissinger stunned the world with his peace announcement just twelve days before his boss, President Richard Nixon, sought re-election against antiwar challenger George McGovern. Though McGovern’s campaign had been hobbled not only by its own mistakes, but also by a long list of “dirty tricks” by pro-Nixon covert operations, Nixon’s campaign still faced the problem of the election potentially becoming a referendum on the war, which conceivably could allow McGovern to snatch victory from the jaws of looming defeat.McGovern’s last-ditch hope was dashed by Kissinger’s “peace is at hand” bombshell. The media ate it up, and most Americans bought into Kissinger’s claim that the war was effectively over. Nixon won reelection in a landslide. Less than two months after Kissinger’s peace proclamation, the Nixon administration launched the Christmas carpet bombing of North Vietnam, dropping 20,000 tons of ordnance and killing thousands of civilians. Peace, least of all “with honor,” was apparently not quite at hand. In January 1973, Kissinger referenced his “peace is at hand” remark of a few months earlier at a news conference, causing an eruption of cynical laughter among the assembled reporters. The real end of the war came more than two years later, on April 30, 1975, when Saigon finally fell. It was an abject US defeat, with no “honor” whatsoever. Indeed, the dishonor only mounted as Nixon, Kissinger, and their successors refused to pay Vietnam the promised war reparations, leading the Vietnamese to covertly hold on to about half of the US servicemen they had captured, virtually all of whom suffered and died in atrocious conditions as political and media elites averted their collective gaze.Today, US president Donald Trump is waging an even more unpopular war, this time against Iran. Like Kissinger on the eve of the 1972 elections, Trump seeks political gain via bogus “peace is at hand” announcements. But Trump’s gains, unlike Nixon’s and Kissinger’s, may be (criminally) financial as well as political.Last Wednesday, the Kobeissi Letter reported:BREAKING: According to our analysis, ~$920 million worth of crude oil shorts were taken 70 minutes before an Axios report claimed the US and Iran were near a "14-point" deal to end the war.At 3:40 AM ET today, nearly 10,000 contracts worth of crude oil shorts were taken without any major news.This is equivalent to ~$920 million in notional value, an unusually large trade for 3:40 AM ET.At 4:50 AM ET, just 70 minutes later, Axios reported that the US is "close" to a "memorandum of understanding" to end the Iran War.By 7:00 AM ET, oil prices had fallen over -12% with these crude oil shorts gaining approximately +$125 million.Minutes later, Iran launched the "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" and oil prices surged +8%.What just happened?Mainstream and quasi-alternative media, for once, picked up the story. Business Insider reported that “Online sleuths are raising more red flags around suspiciously timed Iran-war oil trades.” Common Dreams noted the “Epic Insider Trading.” The Daily Beast wryly noted that “Trump’s DOJ Is Investigating.” (Just like foxes are investigating alleged crimes at the henhouse.)What galled many observers wasn’t just the brazen scope of the enormous insider bet that oil prices would briefly fall, but the maddening fact that this has been happening over and over again: Trump hysterically barks out bloodcurdling threats, oil prices rise, Trump says peace is at hand a few minutes or hours after insiders bet on falling prices, prices fall, insiders collect jackpot, Iran denies Trump’s BS claims, prices rise again, Trump utters new bloodcurdling threats, rinse-and-repeat.The BBC was already onto it two weeks ago, a week before the latest billion-dollar bet:According to the Daily Beast:At least four traders made a combined $2.6 billion in the oil market by wagering that oil prices would drop shortly before Trump made major moves, according to trade data from the London Stock Exchange Group shared with ABC News.The suspected insider trades happened on March 23, April 7, April 16, April 21, and again last Wednesday, May 6. All came on the eve of highly dubious “peace” announcements. The SEC is supposed to be investigating these and other examples of apparent insider trading, a crime that can bring up to 20 years in federal prison. But according to Senator Elizabeth Warren of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: “The SEC’s job is to make sure our markets are fair and honest. But nearly a year into running the agency, Chair (Paul) Atkins is unleashing a Golden Age of Fraud…the Trump SEC has gutted oversight and enforcement tools, even proposing to dismantle the database that helps the SEC catch insider trading, market manipulation, and other corporate crime.” Atkins, a Trump crime family crony, apparently sees his job as running interference for the Trumps’ accumulation of double-digit billions in personal enrichment via various criminal schemes.Trump, who was supposedly elected to “drain the swamp,” has turned out to be the swampiest president in all of history. And though I’m not surprised—back in 2015 I was calling out Trump as a Kosher Nostra frontman initiated into organized crime (and depraved sexual practices involving political blackmail) by his mentor Roy Cohn from 1973 through 1986—it seems that a fair number of MAGA true believers are only now beginning to wake up and notice what kind of monster they voted for. Shameless ChutzpahWhat Trump learned from Roy Cohn can be summed up in two words: shameless chutzpah. While some may call that a pleonastic pleonasm (i.e. a repetitious redundancy), since chutzpah is by definition shameless, we Arabic speakers know that seemingly unnecessary repetition can be used for emphasis and intensification. Trump’s chutzpah takes shamelessness to the next level.Chutzpah is a quintessentially Jewish thing. It’s a Yiddish word describing an attitude that is not only common in Jewish culture, but seen as more of a good thing than a bad thing. The self-made orphan with the gall to throw himself on the mercy of the court is not merely a target of ridicule; he is also admirable, especially if he somehow gets away with it. Jews teach their children about the positive side of chutzpah:Roy Cohn, a mob lawyer and mob lieutenant (maybe even a colonel or general) perfectly embodied chutzpah. He rarely bothered to prepare for his court cases, because he always won them when his opponents learned that they were up against the mob and dropped out. Trump was Cohn’s goy boy toy. It’s actually surprising that Cohn, who died of AIDS (which may actually be undiagnosed syphilis more often than not) never gave Trump the pox. Or did he? In this week’s False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) Dr. E. Michael Jones opines that Trump is indeed suffering the the symptoms of advancing syphilis, which can cause mood swings, memory loss, impaired judgment, confusion, delusions, mania, delirium, and sudden outbreaks of socially-inappropriate anger, hostility, and aggression. Take Trump’s Easter Sunday tweet:Following that notorious tweet, Pope Leo uttered a saccharine pro-peace bromide or two, which triggered Trump, who once again lost all self-control and began tweeting out politically ill-advised attacks on the Pontiff, compounding the damage by posting a picture of himself as “Dr. Jesus” a week after Easter.In Jewish culture, and among boldly amoral people in general, chutzpah is only good when you can get away with it. T...
Transcribe →
Piers Robinson: Flight Simulator Study Points to Automated Control of 9/11 Flights
3w ago00:55:25Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute linkThe September 11 2001 attack on the US set off a series of wars that killed millions of people. 9/11 led directly to the ongoing genocides of Gaza and South Lebanon and the disastrous Israeli-US attack on Iran. Since an ever-growing segment of the population realizes that the Western media and political elites are lying outrageously about these events, it may be time to revisit the “the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations” (as National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis called 9/11).According to the 9/11 Commission, radical Muslim hijackers successfully commandeered four aircraft on September 11, 2001 and flew three of them into buildings, two of which miraculously imploded in apparent controlled demolitions officially blamed on plane crashes and fires. Among the many problems with that story: The flight paths of the three planes, reconstructed from FAA radar data and videos, is radically inconsistent with what human hijackers would and could have done. Instead, it overwhelmingly suggests that the planes were under automated control.Those conclusions, apparent in broad outline to researchers 20 years ago, have been strongly reinforced by the new study “Flight simulator study points to automated control of 9/11 flights” just released by the International Center for 9/11 Justice. In this episode of the Truth Jihad podcast we discuss the study with its author, Dr. Piers Robinson. Dr. Robinson is “a political scientist and currently a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, co-editor of Propaganda in Focus, and is Research Director and board member of the International Center for 9/11 Justice as well as co-editor of its flagship Journal of 9/11 Studies. He is also a member of Berlin Group21 and PANDA, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global ‘War on Terror’. He has served on the boards of several academic journals.”\—Excerpt:Kevin Barrett: …And of course, this is an interesting and somewhat controversial topic because it’s not absolutely clear how the perpetrators managed to create the illusion of hijackers seizing control of planes and crashing them into buildings. Piers Robinson: Well, as you set out in your introduction, I work for International Center for 9/11 Justice now. I joined them two or three years back as part of my work on propaganda and deception. I think you’re familiar with my work on Syria and the OPCW. And when I joined the organization, we were very interested in trying to advance our understanding of the 9/11 events and build upon, as you pointed out, the very solid basis of evidence we have regarding the controlled demolition of the buildings in New York. And to try to expand our understanding into different aspects of this operation, the aviation side of things, for example. And so really that’s where the initial idea came from. We thought that there’s a lot of debate out there. We were initially working with some commercial pilots and we were trying to work through and obtain access to a simulator in order to insert them into this simulator and get them to carry out some of the maneuvers which we saw on 9/11.And we made sure that we had a spread of pilots. Initially we had high-experienced pilots involved, three commercial pilots, two of whom were former military pilots, basically military fast-jet pilots. And then we had a group of lower-experienced pilots, private pilot license, who were closer to the kind of experience levels of the alleged hijackers on 9/11. So we had a good spread of expertise and we ran through the study in two stages.Let’s just run through what we got the pilots to do. First of all, we were very interested in what was reported to be UA175, the aircraft which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Now this is derived from NTSB radar data tracks as well as visual analysis of the flight route. What happens with the plane which hit the South Tower is that the plane comes in and it’s offset from the South Tower. You see this white line here going over City Hall. The plane at this point was heading towards City Hall and then (banked sharply towards the WTC). So we asked the pilots to try to replicate this maneuver.We also looked at the Pentagon route, and this is from the NTSB report on the aircraft which purportedly flew into the Pentagon. At this point here, the plane is actually heading directly towards the Pentagon, and then it starts to turn off to the right, and then it enters this 330-degree descending turn to line up with the Pentagon.And we also did this for the South Tower route. We placed them here over the starting point, probably about three minutes out from the South Tower, and we just said fly as you would in order to try to hit the South Tower….Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com
Transcribe →
“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
4w ago00:57:06Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkOn April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton. According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”…Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed...Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.” The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors? Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.Rumble linkThe US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear. Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in...
Transcribe →
Trump to Declare Victory, Hope Iranians Die Laughing
Apr 3000:00:26Tap to summarizeVideo linkWe interrupt this satire with a promo for my new book Bad Birder’s Birding Report: Nonsense Ornithology from Bad to Verse. Normally it’s twenty bucks plus shipping for a hard copy or five bucks for a Kindle ebook, but from now through midnight Pacific time tomorrow, Friday, May 1, you can download the Kindle version free...then leave a review before the Zionists get there!Why would you want to do that? Humor isn’t just a weapon, as the satire below exemplifies. It’s also healing. Studies show that laughter releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and improves cardiovascular function.Slashing satirical humor can be a weapon against tyranny. Gotta love those Iranians who laugh off Trump’s deranged threats, like Mohammed Marandi and the Iranian diplomatic team laughing off threats to their lives from the CIA-linked Washington Post (“hey Mohammed, I could strangle you now and collect the bounty”).But silly, lighthearted nonsense humor, like most of the poems in Bad Birder’s Birding Report, also has benefits. It unleashes the inner child, keeping the mind flexible and the heart human. Reading nonsense poetry to children—or to cats, as in the above video—is a great way to take a break from the ongoing insanity of media-distorted “reality.”And if you’re seeking Serious Literary Value, Claude Levi-Strauss would tell you that the poem “Catbird” (see video above; text here) begins with the binary opposition cat/bird built into the name of a certain meowing feathered species, and resolves it into Lewis Carroll’s famous “grin without a cat” (in this case a grin without a bird, either) thereby questioning the premises of mainstream ornithology and warming the hearts of conspiracy theorists and other epistemological ne’er-do-wells. If it leaves the reader as a smile without an ego, if only for a split second, you can always sue me in small claims court.We now resume our regular satirical programming…Trump to Declare Victory, Hope Iranians Die LaughingDissociated Press“A whole civilization will die laughing tonight!” Donald Trump’s chilling social media threat to declare victory over Iran, causing Iranians to collapse in helpless hilarity and laugh themselves to death, has been condemned as a war crime by the Pope, the U.N. Secretary General, the Office of Comedic Safeguards and Verification (OCSV) and other eminent individuals, institutions, and agencies.OCSV Deputy Director Evelyn Smirkov explained that calling such a calamitously misbegotten war a “victory” would exceed generally accepted hilarity guidelines by at least 100 megatons and thereby constitute a gross violation of international law, common decency, and generally accepted comedic practice. Smirkov added that Trump’s declaring victory over Iran would indiscriminately target civilians as well as military forces, causing Iranians from all walks of life, including women and children, to fall to the floor pounding their fists in helpless spasms of glee screaming “no! no! Stop, Trump! Please stop! We can’t take it any more! You’re killing us!” before expiring.Trump’s threat to wipe out Iran with a humor bomb reportedly emerged from a CIA study of potential Iranian responses to Trump’s declaring victory and fleeing with his proverbial tail between his legs. The study found that any victory declaration by Trump would initially elicit stunned disbelief, followed by howls of derision, and finally spasms of uncontrollable laughter that would cause its victims to dissolve into helpless blobs of jelly. By weaponizing the victory declaration and making it even more obscenely arrogant and ridiculous than everything else Trump says, the CIA discovered, Trump’s bombastically preposterous claim that he had triumphed over Iran could be made far more lethal than all the remaining stand-off bombs in America’s arsenal put together.The CIA study envisaged sending US special forces to Isfahan to attempt another raid on Iran’s enriched uranium while Iranian forces are disabled by laughter convulsions following Trump’s victory declaration. Unfortunately, the study’s authors concluded, the problem of “friendly funny fire”—that is, US troops finding Trump’s announcement just as hilarious as the Iranians do—makes that plan unlikely to work.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is reportedly planning to declare himself Messiah and cause all the goyim to die laughing, could not be reached for comment. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com
Transcribe →
Another "Trump Shooting" False Flag?
Apr 2601:09:23Tap to summarizeRumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link Donald Trump just keeps on getting shot at. Fortunately for him, if not for the rest of us, the people shooting at him are stunningly incompetent. For some reason, competent shooters always shoot at people causing problems for Israel, like the Kennedys and Charlie Kirk, while the doofuses shooting at Trump couldn’t hit the broad side of an ear. And if by some fluke they do hit the broad side of Trump’s ear with an AR-15 bullet, the bullet itself turns out to be incompetent. Actually, an AR-15 bullet that hits a human ear without leaving any visible sign of damage is worse than incompetent. As Trump would undoubtedly say to such a bullet, had he hired it during his days at The Apprentice: “You’re fired!”And speaking of bullets getting fired…Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”Social media reacted with a rapid-fire full-automatic volley of rotten fruit. The consensus: “This didn’t age well.”Leavitt wasn’t the only one betraying insider awareness that the “shooting” wasn’t on the up-and-up. Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed.Naturally, each time yet another blatantly fake “Trump assassination attempt” is unveiled in real time before our eyes, complete with chutzpah-drenched “revelation of the method,” mainstream media goes into overdrive covering up all the obvious tells and pretending to take the ludicrous official narrative at face value. No wonder Gen-Z never even bothers to check what’s on MSM, instead going straight to the ribald chorus of sarcastic derision erupting on social media.Oddly, the latest fake Trump shooting happened just days after mainstream media suddenly felt compelled to take note of the fact that hardly anybody, even in Trump’s MAGA base, still believes that Trump’s ear was struck by an AR-15 bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. Last week Wired magazine informed us that “MAGA Is Increasingly Convinced the Trump Assassination Attempt Was Staged” and The New Republic echoed “MAGA Increasingly Believes Trump Assassination Attempt Was Fake,” while CNN offered a mind-bogglingly lame debunking: “How would an assassination attempt be ‘staged’?” and MS NOW ‘splained away “Why MAGA has developed conspiracy theories about the assassination attempt on Trump.”Author’s aside: I was all over the Butler fake Trump shooting long before it became fashionable.A paranoid conspiracy theorist who imagined that conspirators cover up their unraveling conspiracies by staging even more preposterous, instantly-unraveling conspiracies might be forgiven for wondering whether the latest blatantly-fake “Trump shooting” was staged to distract us from the unraveling of the earlier, equally-blatantly-fake “Trump shooting.” The coverup team, our conspiracy theorist suspects, must be cackling gleefully: “Bwa-ha-ha! They’ve all completely forgotten about Trump’s perfectly intact ear, and how those Secret Service guys let him stand right up and do that fist-shaking photo op in front of the flag, exposing himself to more potential shots, had anyone been actually shooting at him…Now all they’re talking about is Leavitt’s prediction and Fox News cutting off Aminah Hasine and how fake and gay THIS ‘Trump shooting’ is!”Another shocking fact about the latest “Trump shooting”: The alleged wannabe assassin was NOT, repeat NOT, an Iranian android made of LEGO. (They’re apparently saving that for the next “Trump shooting.”) This time, the patsy, Cole Tomas Allen, a computer science graduate and game developer, was recently named “teacher of the month in Los Angeles County.” According to Trump, the suspect “charged towards the hotel’s metal detectors in possession of ‘multiple guns’” but only managed to fire a couple of shots and lightly injure a Secret Service agent before being taken into custody.The “somewhat random shooting in loose proximity to Trump, one or more feds injured” schtick echoed last Thanksgiving’s false flag shooting two blocks from the White House, where long-term CIA asset Rahmanullah Lakanwal set himself up for a lifetime pension in witness protection by shooting or pretending to shoot two National Guard members. (Or perhaps he was mind-controlled and actually shot people and will in fact spend the rest of his life in prison.) The Thanksgiving false flag’s motive was all-too-obvious: Demonize immigrants so Trump could unleash the full force of his immigration crackdown. That shooting’s PR impact was sufficient to reverse the wave of court decisions hamstringing Trump’s war on immigrants. In its aftermath, Trump halted all asylum claims, pledged to "end all federal benefits and subsidies to non-citizens" and to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover." (Here is a typical outside-the-US discussion of the Thanksgiving false flag; if you don’t understand Moroccan Arabic, just use YouTube’s handy auto-translate feature.)The Thanksgiving false flag’s purpose was obvious (anti-immigration). The Butler ear-nick’s was even more obvious (anoint and elect Trump to obey Israel’s orders to attack Iran). But last night’s shooting at the Washington Hilton, unlike its earlier analogues, did not wear its purpose on its sleeve. Was it meant to demonize award-winning teachers or computer scientists or game developers? Probably not. Was it intended to demonstrate the need for a secure White House ballroom? That is one theory making the rounds on social media, propelled by Trump’s statement that the Hilton was “…not a particularly secure building…I didn’t want to have to say this, but this is why we’re going to have to have all the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure. It’s drone-proof. It’s got bullet-proof glass. We need the ballroom! That’s why the Secret Service and the military are demanding it. They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today is a little bit different. Because today we need levels of security that nobody has ever seen before.”The theory that Trump’s people would use a false flag to get a ballroom built sounds farfetched. But as Wikipedia tells us, “The project's above-ground construction has faced legal challenges, with construction as of April 18 being allowed to continue until June 2026.” Opponents of the project have called it sickeningly tacky, ostentatious, typically-Trumpian tasteless fiasco that defecates all over the historical integrity of the White House. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project, while “the Trump administration replied that the ballroom construction must continue for classified reasons of national security that may be shared with the judge but not with the plaintiffs.”Just as Trump’s anti-immigration agenda had faced legal as well as political challenges th...
Transcribe →