In La Defaite de l’Occidante, Emmanuel Todd claims that the collapse of the American empire was caused by the evaporation of Protestantism, which he describes as its hidden grammar.

America is now facing defeat in the Ukraine because of the complete disappearance of the Christian foundation of its culture, “un phénomène historique crucial qui, justement, explique la pulvérisation des classes dirigeantes américaines.”[1] Protestantism, which “to a large extent, has been the economic strength of the West, is dead.”[2] Both the United States and England have been caught up in a “centripetal, narcissistic then nihilistic drift,” which has led both the present empire and its predecessor to something which Todd calls the “Zero State,” which he defines as a nation state which is “no longer structured by its original values,” which in this instance means that the Protestant work ethic and the feeling of responsibility which previously animated its population has evaporated.[3] Both Trump and Biden epitomize the apotheosis of the Zero State because Washington’s decisions under both administrations have ceased to be moral or rational.

The Zero State was preceded by the Zombie State, which retains the form but is emptied of its content. Todd sees Benjamin Franklin as a typical Zombie Protestant, who no longer practices his religion but retains its ethics, attached to the values of honesty, work, seriousness, and always aware that man only has a limited amount of time.[4] Zombie Protestant society emerged in Europe when Germany and Great Britain created a world:

in which religious practice withers but where the social values of religion persist, as well as the rites of passage prescribed by the various Churches. Neither baptism, nor marriage, nor burial are called into question. But, as a sign that the West no longer respects the biblical commandment to “grow and multiply,” –fertility is falling in the middle classes. Deprived of its supervision, the Protestant work ethic in Britain devolved into pure nationalism.[5] Literacy is a fundamental Protestant value because sola scriptura requires the masses to be literate in order to have access to the Scriptures, which makes every man his own priest, thus promoting democracy and egalitarianism.

Todd derives his understanding of Protestantism from Max Weber’s famous book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In his attempt to answer the question “Qu’est-ce quel’Occident?” Todd identifies himself specifically as a pupil of Weber. Todd is “en bon élève de Max Weber, qui plaça la religion de Luther et de Calvin à la source de ce qui apparaissait à son époque comme la supériorité de l’Occident.”[6]

The best exposition of the Weber thesis in the English-speaking world is R. H. Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Tawney writes: “Weber, in a celebrated essay, expounded the thesis that Calvinism in its English version was the parent of capitalism.” According to Weber, “religious radicalism . . . went hand in hand with an economic radicalism.”[7] One of the first critiques of Weber’s thesis, however, noticed the connection between the Puritans and the Jews. In his 1907 book Jews and Modern Capitalism, Werner Sombart points out that everything Weber said about Puritans was a fortiori true of Jews. If Sombart’s earlier book on capitalism caused Weber to write his articles on the Puritan spirit, those articles led Sombart to write his book on the Jews. “In fact,” Sombart writes, “Max Weber’s researches are responsible for this book. I have already mentioned that Max Weber’s study of the importance of Puritanism for the capitalistic system was the impetus that sent me to consider the importance of the Jew, especially as I felt that the dominating ideas of Puritanism which were so powerful in capitalism were more perfectly developed in Judaism and were also of a much earlier date.”[8] Having read Weber’s thesis, Sombart wonders:

whether all that Weber ascribes to Puritanism might not with equal justice be referred to Judaism, and probably in a greater degree; nay, it might well be suggested that that which is called Puritanism is really Judaism.[9]

According to Sombart, Puritanism is nothing more than an aberrant form of Judaism because both are based on:

the preponderance of religion interests, the idea of divine rewards and punishments, asceticism within the world, the close relationship between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the rationalization of life.[10]

Sombart was hardly the first one to notice the connection. He cites Heinrich Heine who asked: “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews, with their Biblical names, their Jerusalem, their pharisaical cant? And is not their religion a Judaism which allows you to eat pork?”[11] Or as one Calvinist put it: “If I am to say on my honour why I am become a Calvinist, I shall have to confess that the one and only reason which persuaded me was that among all the religions, I could find nothing which agreed so much with Judaism and its view of life and faith.”[12]

Writing 60 years before Sombart attempted to correct the Weber Thesis by claiming that Capitalism was Jewish, Karl Marx wrote in Zur Judenfrage that the worldly cult of the Jew was huckstering and his worldly god, money, and that the most Jewish country on the face of the earth was New England because of the Puritans who settled there:

the devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoon who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol, which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels, he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit.[13]

Marx too emphasizes the practical sphere of life, specifically commerce, as the area in which Jewish values have most influenced their nominally Christian imitators and admirers, the Puritans. Money, not theology, is the true ecumenical lingua franca:

Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist. Money abases all the gods of mankind and changes them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-sufficient value of all things. It has, therefore, deprived the whole world, both the human world and nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man’s work and existence; this essence dominates him and he worships it. . . . The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.[14]

As Tawney showed malgré lui, there is no difference on the theoretical level between the Puritan Divine and the Catholic Schoolman when it comes to the relationship between morality and economics. On the practical level, however, the opposite was true. If we ask what the Jew and the Puritan have in common on the practical level, the answer is Capitalism, not theology.

When I saw the headline—Catholics Cannot be Anti-Semites—I immediately wrote to Bishop Barron and asked him to inform the ADL that E. Michael Jones cannot be an anti-Semite because he is a Catholic. I have been maintaining that position for years, and it was heartening to have a famous bishop take my side in this argument.

When I read his article, however, I found that his headline had an entirely different meaning. According to his excellency, “Christianity collapses in on itself without constant reference to its Jewish antecedents.” Were the people of the Old Testament Jews? The term arrives relatively late in Scripture, and when it appears in the Gospel of St. John, it is pejorative.

If we are talking about Hebrews, on the other hand, there is no continuity between the people who followed Moses out of Egypt and the Jews who are now engaged in genocide in Gaza. Jesus Christ made that clear when he told the Jews of his day that they were not the children of Moses because they refused to accept Him as their Messiah. He then went on to say that their father was Satan. Does this mean that Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite? Bishop Barron denounced anyone who used the term “Synagogue of Satan” as anti-Semitic, even though the term is taken from the Book of Revelations.

Instead of mentioning any of these relevant passages, Barron, citing St. Paul, tells us that Jesus Christ is: “the yes to all the promises made to Israel,” which is certainly true, but only if the Jews accept baptism, something Bishop Barron failed to bring up in his dialogue with Ben Shapiro. Barron then tells us that “Pope Pius XI declared, ‘We are all spiritually Semites,’ and then as if finishing his syllogism, Barron concludes, “Hence, if you don’t get the Jews, you won’t get Jesus. It’s as simple and important as that.”

Barron then brings up the red herring of Marcionism, “One of the very earliest doctrinal disputes within Christianity.” Marcion claimed that the god of the Old Testament is Satan. Marcionism has made a comeback lately, but generally it is not an issue unless you’re talking to Marek Glogoczowski or Adam Green.

In the speech to the disciples who did not recognize Jesus on the way to Emmaus, Barron tells us that Jesus: “presents himself as the fulfillment of salvation history, the culminating point of the story of the Jews, the full expression of Torah, temple, and prophecy. And it was in the course of that speech that the hearts of the disciples commenced to burn within them.”

And we agree with what his excellency said there, but then he has to impose his tendentious interpretation of his exercise in proof texting on the unsuspecting read by claiming “It was that deeply Jewish speech that led them to conversion.”[1]

What does Barron mean by “deeply Jewish”? Why is that speech “deeply Jewish”? Why is it any more or less Jewish than any other speech in Scripture? Has he read the Gospel of St. John, who uses the term Jew 71 times and in every instance but one as a pejorative term?

Barron muddies the water further by citing the eminent theologian William F. Buckley. Buckley was the commissar who policed the perimeter of the concentration camp known as “conservatism.”

“When William F. Buckley was endeavoring to launch his journal National Review in the 1950s, he was eager to recruit the best and brightest among the conservative thinkers in the Anglosphere. But he was scrupulous in eliminating from consideration any who exhibited anti-Semitic attitudes, for he knew that they would undermine his project, both morally and intellectually.”

Missing from Barron’s claim is the fact that the early Buckley brought up Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution with prominent Jews like David Suskind on Firing Line. By 1990, however, he had learned his lesson from Jewish “conservative” handlers like Norman Podhoretz and obligingly stabbed Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the back in a monumental piece of incoherent bombast entitled “In Search of Anti-Semitism.”

With Buckley as his mentor, Bishop Barron now assumes the role of commissar for the Catholic Church, whose job is to expel “anti-Semites” from the Church “because they are, by definition, enemies of Christ.”

The phrase “enemies of Christ” brought another scriptural passage to mind, which Barron’s exercise in proof texting conveniently omitted. In I Thess 2, St. Paul refers to the Jews as “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 2: 14-16).

Is Bishop Barron saying that St. Paul is an enemy of Christ because he said that the Jews were “enemies of the whole human race”? Is he saying that St. John is an anti-Semite because in his Gospel Jesus tells the Jews “Your father is Satan”?

Why is Bishop Barron determined to ignore these passages? Why is he no longer in California? Why is he determined to curry favor with the people who killed Christ? There are generally two answers to this question: sex or money or both via blackmail. Which brings us to Bishop Barron’s “disturbing muscleman fetish.”[2]

One year ago, an article appeared on the Internet claiming that Bishop Barron was causing scandal because he is “always surrounded by one or more muscular, tattooed men…. everywhere he goes…. What’s more disturbing, he employs them, he pays them higher than high salaries, and it appears that one or more of them lives with him.”[3] One of those men is Joseph (Joey) Gloor, Barron’s “producer, travel companion, roommate and closest friend.” Gloor is a male model who posts half-naked pictures of himself which emphasize his muscles and tattoos in ways that homosexuals find attractive. In return for this dubious activity, Gloor receives a $135,000 salary from Barron, something the author finds “extremely troubling,” troubling enough to bring to the attention of Barron’s new ordinary in Minnesota.

Virtually all of the allegations in this article appeared in June of 2022 in the National Catholic Reporter.[4] But that article ignored the homosexual muscleman fetish angle of the article which appeared one year later. The NCR article focused exclusively on women who raised charges of sexual harassment against Gloor and Barron’s handling of the charges. It did not mention the homoerotic atmosphere at Word on Fire ministries or the other body builders in Barron’s employ.

Barron was incardinated in the archdiocese of Los Angeles when rumors of his muscleman fetish began circulating. Apparently, Archbishop Gomez, ordinary of the LA archdiocese, was not amused. One month after the NCR article appeared, Barron was transferred to Minnesota, where the climate is not conducive to half-naked photo shoots.

I remember riding through Tehran next to Kevin Barrett listening to him tell me the story of his conversion to Islam. This was probably in 2013 at the first of many conferences I would attend over the next ten years organized by the late Nader Talebzadeh, a man who brought east and west together in a way that has been sorely missed since his untimely demise. The bus was full of Iranians who were evidently listening to our conversation. I know this because when Kevin said that he had been raised as a Unitarian, I replied “All you did was add camels to your Unitarianism,” at which point the Iranians on the bus all burst out laughing.

I have nothing against camels, but as “America’s leading Catholic intellectual,” as Kevin put it, I have a congenital allergic reaction to Unitarianism and more importantly to the Puritanism which spawned the Unitarian reaction by promulgating the distorted notion of Original Sin that goes by the term innate or total depravity. Ever since Ralph Waldo Emerson gave his Harvard Divinity school address, American culture has been plagued by two equally false understandings of Original Sin. Kevin continues that great American tradition by perpetuating that misunderstanding in one of his recent articles.[1]

Kevin dives into the deep end of the theological pool by citing as his authority on matters Catholic a young man by the name of Paul Kingsnorth. Kingsnorth is an Englishman, who converted from England’s version of Greta Thunbergism to Eastern orthodoxy, without picking up a rudimentary understanding of Christian theology along the way. Kingsnorth’s conversion, however, did allow him to dress up England’s ancestral hatred of Catholicism in theological terminology, and that led him to excoriate the Catholic Church for consigning “countless Irish babies . . . to unmarked graves and presumptive hellfire or purgatory because they were unbaptized.” I’m not sure whether presumptive hellfire is hotter than normal hellfire, but the idea that the Catholic Church sends “countless Irish babies” to hell “or purgatory” is a preposterous claim unknown in Catholic theology. To begin with, only the baptized can go to purgatory, where their souls are purged of the effects of the sins they have committed in this life. The souls in purgatory are known as the church suffering because they have been saved and will eventually enter heaven.

The Catholic Church affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation, but it also affirms that those who through no fault of their own could not know of Christ or his gospel or the requirement of baptism will be saved by how they follow the moral law which has been engraved on their conscience. The doctrine is known as invincible ignorance, and, unfortunately, it does not apply to people like Kingsnorth, who is presumably a member in good standing of the Orthodox church even though he does not understand its theology, which is identical to Catholic theology on baptism and Original Sin.

In a recent interview with Ben Shapiro, Bishop Robert Barron misused the idea invincible ignorance by applying it to Jews alive today. After Shapiro asked him “Am I going to hell?” Bishop Barron hemmed and then he hawed and then he invoked a misunderstanding of documents of Vatican II, when he should have asked simply, “Ben, are you baptized?” Shapiro presumably would have said “no,” and at that point Bishop Barron should have said, “Ben, if you refuse to be baptized, you cannot be saved.” In doing that Bishop Barron would have established at least one Catholic principle—the necessity of baptism for salvation—in a clear cut case, namely, the fact that the Jewish refusal to accept baptism denies them salvation.

The case of unbaptized infants is different even though the same principle applies. Kingsnorth then brings up limbo, another theological concept which he does not understand. Limbo is a theologoumenon, which is to say, a category of the mind which has been deduced according to human reason from theological principles which are certain, like “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Limbo occupies a middle space between the theological certainty that Baptism is necessary for salvation and the moral certainty that God does not punish the innocent for sins that they did not commit. Original sin is not the same as actual sin. Original sin is a “wound,” the key concept that separates the Catholic understanding from the Calvinist belief in total depravity and the Unitarian Emersonian overly optimistic American version which Kevin seems to have inherited when he claims that nature and man are “perfect.” How anyone can watch the behavior of the unbaptized Israelis and their genocidal attack on innocent women and children in Palestine without feeling the need to appeal to a metaphysical understanding of evil is beyond me, probably because I’m a Catholic who follows the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, as expounded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from the connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul.” Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission sin even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.[2]

So, to answer the question posed by Kevin’s Muslim wife, who wondered “How could anyone possibly believe that innocent babies who haven’t done anything wrong are sinful?” the Catholic Church responds:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted. It is wounded in the natural powers proper to it: subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[3]

Kingsnorth to his credit brings up the concept of sin embodied in the Greek term “hamartia,” which he does not name, but which does derive from archery. Virtuous behavior is like the arrow which hits the target. Sin is the arrow which misses the target by going to one side—in this instance the Calvinist exaggeration—or the other—in this instance the Emersonian minimalization of Original Sin which still plagues the mind of Unitarianism insofar as it still has a mind left to plague. The Catholic understanding of Original Sin is related to the Catholic understanding of penance, or the effort required to remove the effect of sin even after the sin has been confessed. According to St. John Chrysostom, sin is like an arrow. Even after the arrow has been removed, the wound remains requiring healing. The same thing is true of Original Sin, which is the “wound” which Adam’s sin bequeathed to the entire human race. No one enters heaven until that wound has been healed by the grace of baptism.

Notes

[1] Kevin Barrett, Zionism is Antichrist, December 3, 2023. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGwHxsbrjdzWcfWjLxdxrvKCpsx

[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church , para 403.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 404.

On Monday, October 30, CNN and Fox ran reports of grieving family members from Lewiston, Maine, who had lost relatives in “the most lethal act of firearms violence in the state’s history.”[1] Three days earlier, the perpetrator had been found dead inside a cargo trailer parked on the lot of a recycling plant where he once worked. Every death diminishes me, as John Donne once said, but no matter how much we mourn for the dead, we need to put a stop to the pernicious undercurrent beneath the mourning which claims that the people who died in Lewiston, Maine were somehow innocent victims. No one on either Fox or CNN was willing to state the obvious. These people deserved to die. Let me list three reasons why.

First of all, every single victim was white. As Noel Ignatiev, the late Harvard professor once put it, decent people need to unite to “Abolish the white race – by any means necessary.”[2] Robert R. Card, the lone deranged gunman in this case, was only carrying what Ignatiev advocated to its logical conclusion, a conclusion shared by virtually every proponent of Critical Race Theory in the United States.

The second reason all of these people deserved to die is that all of the so-called victims were engaged in bowling when they were killed. Bowling, those of us who are old enough to remember its halcyon days know, was an exclusively white activity in a country which still had laws upholding segregation in many southern states at the time.

Finally—and here I come to the main reason why all of these people deserved to die—Lewiston voted for Donald Trump Unmentioned in any of the reporting on the Lewiston Bowling alley shooting was the fact that Donald Trump carried Maine’s second congressional district, which encompasses Lewiston and virtually the entire geographical area of the state of Maine in 2016 and 2020. Maine’s second congressional district is, as you probably suspected, 90.9 percent white.[3]

I know that this conclusion will shock many people, but I am not alone in holding these views, nor should these views be considered hate speech. If they were they would have been banned from You Tube, but even though Alain Soral faces jail time for calling a journalist a “fat lesbian,” Ben Shapiro can advocate Palestinian genocide in Gaza with impunity on You Tube. YouTube also regularly features Jews angered over the current war in Gaza calling for the extermination of Palestinians with impunity. So, it can’t be hate speech, at least as You Tube defines the term.

More importantly, however, I base my claim that there were no innocent victims in the Lewiston bowling alley shootings on the writings of that distinguished moral theologian, Rabbi Dov Fischer, who opined in an article entitled “What Israel Needs to do Now” in the American Spectator that all of the residents of Dresden including all non-combatants, refugees, women and children deserved to die because “the German citizens of Dresden freely voted to make Hitler their democratically elected leader.”[4] If that is the case, then the bowlers in Lewiston deserved to die for voting for Donald Trump. Given Rabbi Fischer’s premises, no other conclusion is possible.

According to Rabbi Fischer’s Talmudic moral theology, that means that “it is imperative” to “exterminate Hamas” even if this means killing innocent civilians, i.e. babies, in Gaza” because “Hamas controls Gaza” in 2023 every bit as much as the Nazis controlled Dresden in 1945. If everyone in Gaza, including women and children, deserves to die “because the population of Gaza have voted for them [Hamas] repeatedly,” as Rabbi Fischer puts it, then I see no reason why the citizens of Lewiston shouldn’t be gunned down for voting for Donald Trump. As Rabbi Fischer would put it, the white people who were gunned down while bowling in Lewiston “are no more innocent than German voters in Dresden who elected Hitler”[5] or the Palestinian babies who are dying under the rubble created by Israeli bombing runs in Gaza.

I know many of my readers may find this conclusion unpalatable and morally repugnant, but it flows logically from the Talmudic thinking that determines our current foreign policy. More importantly it comes from distinguished Jewish rabbis, who can say with Secretary of State Blinken that they have relatives who died in the Holocaust. As I have pointed out in my recent book The Holocaust Narrative, the Holocaust has been used to justify crimes against humanity ever since the founding of the state of Israel. So, it must be true in some sense that that the goyische kop may not understand but should follow, nonetheless.

Notes

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-army-reservist-suspected-lewiston-maine-shootings-found-dead-likely-suicide-2023-10-28/

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine%27s_2nd_congressional_district

[4] https://spectator.org/what-israel-needs-to-do-now/

[5] https://spectator.org/what-israel-needs-to-do-now/

Video Link

Video link Watch on Bitchute

The good news is that World War III has been postponed due to events beyond the Zionists’ control. The bad news is that they’re still trying to figure out how to blow up Al-Aqsa and build a gay disco called The Pink Heifer.

That, anyway, seems to be the considered opinion of this week’s False Flag Weekly News commentator, Dr. E. Michael Jones. Below are excerpts from our conversation.

Kevin Barrett: So here’s our big story. And no, I’m not going to play that song again. Send us money and we won’t play that song again.

Here’s the aircraft carrier. Two of them actually, the Ford and the Eisenhower. Each one has 5,000 sailors on board. Today a few cheap anti-ship missiles probably within reach not only of mid-level powers, not only the serious regional powers like Iran, for example, but even maybe an individual, a wealthy Gulf individual, could probably take out one of these things with 5,000 people on board. There go 10,000 dead Americans into Davy Jones’ locker. Is sending these aircraft carriers right off the coast of Gaza and telling them to say “quack quack” as stupid as I think it is?

E. Michael Jones: It’s the principle of showing the flag. That’s always the principle. If the Greeks don’t pay their debt, the British Navy shows up and bombards Athens, and then they pay their debt. That’s the way it works. The trouble is that the game has shifted to the point that missiles now have made the aircraft carrier obsolete. Now, I don’t think that Hamas has a missile that can sink an aircraft carrier…

Kevin Barrett: But “Hamas” in quotation marks, spoken with a thick Hebrew accent, probably does.

E. Michael Jones: What we do know is that Putin just made a comment. He said “we have a Kinzhal missile” that can sink an aircraft carrier. It’s not a threat, just a statement of fact.

(The Americans) want to intimidate Hamas into giving up. But the problem is that the Israeli air force has already done what the American aircraft carrier can do— they’ve already bombed Gaza. So the Americans could fly in and bomb the rubble again if they wanted to. But the main issue now is whether there’s going to be a ground invasion. And at this point the United States has announced that they have 2 000 troops ready to…enter the tunnels. As I’ve said before, I don’t think the Israelis are willing to enter the tunnels that Hamas has dug. I’m saying this based on what happened in 2006 when it was Hezbollah in the tunnels in Lebanon. Hezbollah had anti-tank missiles that stopped the Merkava tanks, and the Israelis would not go into the tunnels. So I don’t think anything’s changed here. The aircraft carrier is, in this respect, irrelevant. They can only do what has already been done, and that doesn’t need to be done at this point.

Kevin Barrett: Well, if they send Americans into the tunnels to die for the Zionists, I for one am going to be even more annoyed than I already am. But some folks like Bernard over at Moon of Alabama say this aircraft carrier here couldn’t possibly be for use against Hamas (but is instead intended to escalate the war on Syria.)

E. Michael Jones: I don’t think so. I think that the whole point of Biden’s visit was to be the good cop in the good cop bad cop scenario. And I think this is why the Israelis attacked the hospital, in order to narrow his ability to maneuver diplomatically.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, let’s move on to the Gaza Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion story…It was just so insane. It’s shocking to me that people were buying the Zionist version of it.

What actually happened apparently was that a huge Israeli airburst bomb went off above the hospital. And in front of the hospital there were hundreds of Palestinian refugees that Israel had chased out of their homes. And they were sheltering there, thinking it was safe. So Israel just did an airburst right above them and killed hundreds of people who were not even protected by the building. And this confused some people because the hospital itself didn’t get flattened. But it was actually the people outside the hospital that got killed, for the most part.

The mainstream media has been split on this. A lot of them are parroting this ridiculous Zionist cover story that they recorded Hamas saying it was actually Islamic Jihad that did it. But it turns out that’s a complete joke. The recording is blatantly inauthentic. It’s almost like a parody. So even the mainstream is starting to question this, as Caitlin Johnson pointed out. And the pushback is getting pretty extreme.

So, Mike, let’s talk a little bit about the hospital bombing. Why did the Zionists repeatedly tell us they were going to bomb this hospital, send a bunch of non-warheaded rockets to “knock on the door” to show that they were going to bomb it, then did bomb it with an airburst, killing hundreds of people who were sheltering outside? And then they admitted it and bragged about it on Twitter, and then deleted the tweet, then made up a completely transparent bogus cover story, and somehow forced Joe Biden and about half of the mainstream media to parrot this transparently ludicrous cover story?

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, that’s what’s called having your cake and eating it too: They got the effect of it (and the blame-the-Resistance propaganda narrative.) When they realized that it’s caused huge amounts of international protest, they denied that it happened and cooked up this story of a Hamas rocket that sort of went off track. And Biden buys into it. So the question is, did it limit his ability (to broker a deal)? Because he clearly came with the idea that he was going to be the broker.

That was the whole point of the first (post-October 7 US diplomatic visit) when Blinken showed up and said “I come not only as United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.” Well, you just lost all your credibility.

Kevin Barrett: And then he starts rambling about the Holocaust, as he always does.

E. Michael Jones: Everywhere he goes, every time he gives a speech, he immediately says, “I have relatives who died in the Holocaust.” It’s wearing a little thin now. But I think he lost. They had to reestablish that notion that the United States is a kind of broker between two sides. And I think that’s why Netanyahu wanted to attack the hospital to force him over toward the Israeli side.

But it looks as if they did the same thing (attempt to broker a deal) anyway. So today the story is that Biden is going to give a speech: The trucks are lined up, the humanitarian aid is going to go in because Biden brokered a deal. So it’s like two steps forward, one step back, as far as I can tell.