All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 5, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
53:46
Alan Sabrosky on “Fallout of the Butler faux ‘assassination attempt'”
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And Kevin Barrett doing this show since 2006 in one form or another, and it's been video for the last, I don't know, a couple of years.
They've been broadcasting live video through Revolution Radio for quite some time, but their server is messed up right now, so we're pre-recording instead.
And this is indeed the first Friday of the month, which is the day that Dr. Alan Sebrosky comes on to talk about How can things get any crazier than they were last month?
And I'm afraid I can't imagine what it's gonna be like next month, because this last month was as nutty as it gets.
I don't know.
Where do we even start, Alan?
That's a really good question.
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they do.
Which is one of those intriguing things that makes Murphy's Law seem like one of the Eleventh Commandments, or something like this.
I guess there's a couple of things, just a couple of observations, and then I'd like to get into Candace Owens, because I reread the article on her, and I had an odd reaction on the second reading of it.
But the observations that this I guess there are two on last month.
One is the assassination, and I'm very much with Mike Walsh on this, just doesn't make any sense.
I mean, none of the official details make any sense.
It's almost like it was staged by a Grade B studio on a very tight budget.
With the Keystone cops in attendance, just happened to be live ammunition and some fatalities.
I really, it doesn't make any sense.
In some, in some very elementary ways, I mean, forget the idea that they saw this guy climbing up on a roof and they didn't do anything for a while on the rest of it.
The notion that someone's ear is nipped.
Now, That's the Hollywood technique.
That's 19th century Western audio.
It's not the high-velocity bullet, the .223 bullet.
You tap an ear with a .223 round, and it'll take most of the ear off.
There'll be blood spattered everywhere.
Facial and head wounds bleed copiously.
Ever cut yourself shaving?
I have.
You know what the effect of it is?
There's blood everywhere.
Fast.
All the way on the side of the head.
Down the shirt, on the collar, it'd be all over.
Not there, just not there.
Yeah, but he had some really nice.
Yeah, on this side of him, not on the side where the bullet hit, supposedly on the right here.
This guy supposedly got off eight shots.
Now, if the first one didn't do the job, why The other seven just sprayed around the crowd instead of continuing to shoot at a target, which by then was almost stationary, and the upper part of the chest and the head were fully exposed.
I mean, if I were up there, I certainly wasn't going to be negotiating my surrender.
That's not going to happen.
I mean, the thing that struck me immediately after that was that Sort of like Lee Harvey Oswald 2.0.
And it was really, really intriguing.
And maybe it's real.
I don't know.
But I can't imagine anyone on the Democrat side seriously wanting him dead.
They want him in jail.
They want him ruined.
They want him off the election trail.
Sure, there's that much.
But the one thing that could actually incite his base and send them back to their homes to get their AR-15s and shotguns over the mantelpiece and out of the closet would be to have their messiah, as it were, the secular messiah, Donald Trump, be shot and killed by a Democrat agent.
That's the one thing that would do it.
And they weren't going to do it.
They simply weren't going to do it.
And I can't think of anyone else who would.
The whole establishment might actually unite on what they don't, nobody really wants Trump dead and except for use, maybe some idiots, but the establishment insiders know that the Democrats don't want Trump dead because it would destabilize the country and they would be in Syria, you know, they would be hated.
They would be more than hated.
More than hate.
It would be removed.
Right.
And the Republican insiders, presumably, at least the Trump loyalists, most of them don't obviously don't want Trump dead either.
They, you know, they're at this point, they're just riding their horse and Trump is the horse.
So since both sides don't want Trump dead.
But to have him be very, very, very slightly injured and Give your puppy a fist on it and his anointment guaranteed.
Whoever would want that could do it.
Yeah.
One of the things is, you know, they let him climb on the roof to let him take his shots.
They killed him so he couldn't talk.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So if and I agree, I think that's the most likely explanation for these bizarre kinds of facts that don't really line up any other way.
Yeah, good.
I kept thinking about these things don't make any sense.
They simply don't make any sense.
When I've been through these a number of times before, and certainly I mean, I was 20.
I mean, I was 22 years old when JFK was assassinated.
And I remember all of the details that came up at that time and what we knew at that time and how people reacted to it.
And absolutely no one, and that's when black and white TV, and that color TVs were very, very rare, but black and white TV, none of them afterwards ever showed anyone pointing up at the book tower, at the book building.
None.
They're all pointing ahead to a grassy knoll.
And a lot of these people, they were combat veterans.
This was just after Korea and World War II.
There was combat vets under every bush, literally.
But they weren't looking up.
They were looking out.
That's where they heard the shots from.
And I immediately hit that and said, this doesn't make any sense at all.
I mean, now, if he looked like he was going to beat Hillary Clinton, and she was already anointed as the Democrat candidate, I could see Hillary Clinton with her past record figuring, well, who will miss another one, you know?
But other than that, it's not likely to have happened.
I mean, not as a plan, not as a hostile act from anyone outside of the Trump camp, seriously intending to kill him.
I can't believe that.
Yeah, I agree.
Now getting back to that alleged ear wound, which many of us suspect is kayfabe.
That is, it sure looks like Trump could have just gone.
Kayfabe is a professional wrestling term for a fake fight.
And in professional wrestling, if they need blood, they take a blood cap.
They just smear it on their ear or whatever.
There was something I saw not a month before about an assassination attempt.
And they said that there's something like that that actors also use for the same thing to give an attempt up.
They'll have I didn't know the name of it.
What was that again?
K-fabe.
And they would have it between their fingers or in the palm of their hand and whatever was supposed to be hit, you know, they would hit with it and give that type of reprieve.
There'd be a spattering of blood and nothing else.
Right, right.
But yeah, k-fabe is actually just the term for sort of, it's fake.
It's been staged.
It's like an unprofessional wrestler.
But in this case, so Trump, you know, hits the deck.
He comes up with that You know, the streaks of blood on the wrong side of his face, and we see a picture of blood on his ear, but we don't see really any wound on the ear, and then two weeks later, he finally takes off his bandage at his meeting with Netanyahu, and there's no visible damage to the ear.
So, to me, that makes it more likely that there was some kind of fake blood stunt than anything else.
Now, you said that if there was a wound, a real wound from that caliber bullet, that it would have been a lot worse, There's a big discussion about this on the internet.
Some people disagree.
A Secret Service ballistics expert was quoted by the Associated Press saying what you just said, which is that even a handgun bullet would probably risk a concussion coming that close.
Some handgun bullets, a .40 or .41 caliber, a very high velocity weapon, .357 Magnum or .44 Magnum, or in this case, So yeah, you said that it might even rip the year off.
And that's what the experts say.
At least part of the year.
Part of the year.
Depending on where it hit.
But yeah, these things are intended.
As soon as there's even a slight impact, they start tumbling.
And they tumble, they tear.
I mean, it's instantaneous.
Now, depending on how much damage is actually done, Depends on the precise point of impact.
You know, if it hit here, for example, inside the lobe of the ear or inside the lobe of the ear, there'd be more damage than if it just hit up on the side.
Hold on a second.
You don't have to give a live demonstration with live rounds here.
Sorry.
I'm just getting my earphones.
Okay.
Depending on where it hit, there would be a different degree of damage, of course, but you couldn't hit anywhere and not Cause substantial damage.
And why would Trump not show?
It's spattering of blood.
It's spattering of blood.
Right.
And so why would Trump not show off his wound if he's really been hit by a bullet in the ear?
And you know, that's a, that's like PR or gold.
He should have been flashing that wound everywhere.
It should have been on all the front pages.
It should have been all over the internet, but nothing.
He just covered it up with a bandage and then all the Republican stuff.
If he had been a little more ballsy, and less of a showman, he would have gone back home and had someone with a pistol, you know, shoot off that part of the ear.
Yeah, well apparently he didn't feel the need to do that, which tells you something about the degree of control of our media that goes on these days.
Yeah.
Yeah, crazy.
So that was interesting.
The other thing, Is that everyone is talking about Trump being a shoo-in, and I don't see that.
I find it very distressing that his vice presidential running mate, who, sad to say, was a Marine, found it obligatory to have one of his first public statements to mean how strongly he stood for Israel.
You know, which, which tells you, again, where the, where the dollars come from, or the shekels come from, or whatever you wish.
And I don't know if Kamala Harris will be the running mate after the Democrat convention or not.
Obama apparently doesn't like her, putting it mildly.
Technically, she has support from delegates.
Hillary Clinton wants a rematch with Trump, although this time she'll do it a la 2020 and not a la 2016.
And that's the important part.
The Democrats now control more cities than they did in 2020.
They control more larger majorities in those cities than they did in 2020.
They control the voting process and the ballot counting process in those states and cities.
And the run up to it, the idea that there are now polls showing that salad mouth Kamala Harris, you know, gets higher ratings on polls than Donald Trump.
In key states, despite the fact that her rallies are virtually deserted, as Biden's were virtually deserted in 2020, while Trump packs in people into his rallies, is simply laying the groundwork for the second steal of an election in 2024.
So I wouldn't count the Democrats out at all.
I have absolutely no doubt they'll do that if it's necessary.
I would be astonished if they were honest and they'll Stop clocks are right twice a day, so possibly the Democrat clock will stop on the right time this time, but I doubt it.
If they want to do the changes to the Supreme Court and to the migrants' ability to vote and get rapid, fast track to citizenship, They're going to need to have both houses of the Congress, as well as the presidency, and that's going to require a little more work than they did in 2020.
Because they'll have to take back the House, as well as increase the number of seats in the Senate, so they can't be stopped by a few outliers who may not quite go along with them.
But that's a technical matter.
I mean, who, after all, will investigate them?
Their own Justice Department?
Spare me.
It's not going to happen.
So they've got a very good shot at it, and they know it.
And the idea, all Trump's surviving that quote-unquote assassination attempt does, and other than guaranteeing his election, is ensures that his base, that was that plan B in that last article I wrote, that his base is going to stay at home,
And sit on their hands, and no matter what happens in the 2024 election, they won't do anything.
Wait a minute.
Why would Trump, surviving the assassination attempt, make his base a state home and sit on their hands?
I would think it would fire them up.
No, no.
I mean, they'll vote.
But if, when, after that, the Democrats steal it, you know, Kevin, you know my position on this for years has been, That because of the realities that we're dealing with in this country, and you're smart, you got from Morocco, I've been trying to hire a swimming camel to get across through the Straits, and I can't quite get one to make it yet.
Well, if you show up on the camel and you wash up on the beach at Seydia, I'll invite you over for a good couscous.
I'll take it up.
I was going to say, I'm going to go down to a bar for a glass of wine, but I guess that might be a little bit tough to find here.
I'm not going to say anything about whether there's anybody in Saidiya that's actually violating the Sharia on these matters.
Okay, we won't say that, right?
That would be an unfortunate comment.
But I just don't believe there's any way to vote or legislate or adjudicate a way out of the shitshow that the Democrats and the left generally here have brought us into.
That means the woke world is going to go ahead, DEI is going to go ahead, the mass of migrants coming in are going ahead.
This is going to happen.
There is no alternative to armed revolution, much as I hate it, much as I hate the thought of it.
And the only group that could do it Hasn't done it for the years that it had the opportunity and the necessity.
So that's it.
And that's where the Trump shooting couldn't have been a real assassination attempt by Trump's enemies, because if you shoot at the king, you can't miss.
And they would have known that, and they wouldn't obviously have used some patsy, or it wouldn't have played out in the way that it did.
Right.
Obviously, you know, if you, if you kill him, you might actually get that armed revolution.
You're certainly going to have.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And that's, and that's why I think if the Democrats, I mean, remember Pennsylvania is a blue state.
You know, if the Democrats had had even the hint that there was a serious attempt by anyone out there, whether the name shooter or someone else, To actually, to actually go after Trump, they would pull out all of the stops, including canceling the rally if they had to, you know, to get Trump out of the gun sight.
There's absolutely no question about that.
They would have been his biggest defenders because they know that they would have been the biggest target if the attempt had actually succeeded.
Yeah, it would have destabilized the country.
Oh, no kidding.
Okay.
It would terminate a lot of Democrat hopes.
I mean, they would literally would in a way that nothing else could.
Nothing else could.
So anyway.
I have some thoughts on Candace, but let's talk about Candace.
You know, I just had a great conversation with Ron who.
He's going with the official story of the alleged Trump shooting somehow.
I was unable to convince him to change his mind on that.
He also differs with you on Candace Owens.
Well, if he believes the official line then he should not criticize Candace Owens on Macron's wife.
Well, yeah, see, I guess Ron points out that Candace Owens has been doing some, you know, some valuable stuff on 9-11, on Jewish power, etc.
And, of course, on Gaza.
But he thinks that having her throw in stuff about Macron's wife, and above all, Satanism, and Satanism and Nassau, and then especially Flat Earth.
That those things discredit her and discredit the good work she's doing.
What's your take on that?
There's something to that.
Let me deal with what you said and then I'll add my own commentary on it.
Each of us has a mix of good information and Incorrect information and beliefs and hobby horses.
All of us.
I'm not religious, and I would say that every believer of any religion in the history of the world has things that they take on faith, for which there is absolutely no physical evidence.
That's the difference between a religion.
That's what makes a religion, that there's something there that one believes.
Some are more so than others, but we'll pass on that for the moment.
I, in the past four years, have met a number of people, including sometimes like this, you know, when I say meet, it doesn't necessarily mean in person, it can be electronically on the internet.
A number of people, intelligent, articulate, variety of disciplines, who have made the same comment that she made about Macron, that made similar comments about Big Mike, otherwise known as Michelle Obama, and their children, who still think that John Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy
We're a happily married couple, faithful to each other, which really should surprise a lot of the interns in Kennedy's office and a lot of the Marines around the presidential yacht with Jackie Kennedy.
And interestingly enough, a number of people who adhere absolutely to a flat earth theory, which I, you know, to me, just by the way, wait a minute.
Have you actually really met a smart, critical thinker who believes in the Flat Earth Theory?
A lifetime accountant and an economist with a PhD from an Ivory University.
Really?
Yeah.
Listen, there were, for many, many centuries, Well, actually, let me step back a second to ask you a question, because I really don't know the answer to this.
When was astronomy developed and known to the Western world?
I'm not talking about the Mayans, but when was it in the West, in the Western world, roughly?
Well, I believe there's been a gradual uh accumulation of knowledge of astronomy but which aspect are you talking about just astronomy the idea that the heavens are up there and that that there's things up there that are not earth that you can use the stars to for navigation i don't know whatever it is but astronomy is a discipline any aspect of it
yeah well i know in in uh medieval times and you know even getting into the beginning of the renaissance that there was a very different view of the heavens and the heavenly spheres and all of that uh so that it was a combination of what we think of as empirical astronomy today uh with a kind of a neoplatonic worldview of uh spheres of creation and so on and
You know, these are some extremely intelligent, learned people for their day.
Who still somehow believed that the universe revolved around the Earth.
That the solar system revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was center of everything.
Because theologically, that's what they had to believe.
In Christianity.
And from a purely relativistic standpoint, that's obviously, if you choose the viewpoint of someone on Earth, And then you look out from there, it does appear that, you know, because the place that we're looking at is always the center.
So, I mean, there are a number of issues and each of us has them.
Sometimes they're conscious, sometimes they're unconscious.
But the 1st time I actually ran into a flat earth, or I was sound sort of like, excuse me.
Why don't we find the edge somewhere?
I got into this discussion.
I know a guy, he's a retired engineer who used to run the water and power systems for Morocco's 15th or 16th largest city.
Who was a flat earther.
I'm not sure if he's still, I think now he's kind of backed off a little bit.
He's retired, he's getting on in age and stuff.
And he's more, you know, he's an engineer, a smart guy, but not really a critical thinker in other respects.
But yeah, I sat around and watched these videos with him and debated them and stuff.
And the video, the flat earth videos that flooded the internet starting around 2010-ish, We're very well produced, very slick, high production value.
Somebody put a lot of money into these things.
And so, you know, from a kind of rhetorical standpoint, they were quite good.
But if you actually analyze their arguments, and then how do they respond to sort of the obvious, you know, falsification of the model that they're putting out there, you know, like with, you know, they say that Surrounding the earth is a gray area, the flat earth, there's this ice wall.
And that's Antarctica.
So everywhere you go, you're eventually going to run into Antarctica, which is the ice wall that surrounds flat earth.
And then they have ways of dealing with, you know, plane routes.
You know, they say, why aren't there any planes flying from Australia straight to, you know, to South America?
You know, these kinds of things.
You look at these details, and it quickly becomes obvious that this model is ludicrous, and that many of these arguments are ludicrous.
But the way they're framed in the slick videos is very persuasive, you know, to people who set aside their critical thinking skills.
In any case, yeah, so, but did Candace Owen endorse the Flat Earth Theory, or did she just sort of entertain and look into it like I did?
That's the question.
I think it was more the latter part, right?
I think she gets asked a lot of interesting questions and.
Sometimes it's flippant from in.
I have never met her personally.
I've seen a lot of videos of her doing, you know, campus college campus talks, and she's fairly flippant in a lot of her responses to the students, which I think for the students, they like it.
You know, it keeps enthusiasm up and laughter and sense of humor and things like this to get their attention.
And it's probably in the context of that.
I would guess that on it.
But I think the more serious part of it, and I rarely disagree with Ron, because generally he and I are on the same side.
You and I are on the same side, probably at the margins.
We're all going to differ a little bit.
I mean, I've never seen anyone that I'll agree with 100%, maybe.
I don't think so.
Maybe my cat.
I agree with my cat a hundred percent.
She says meow, I go meow, and that's the end of it.
But I think the whole Candace Owens case and both her removal, whether she resigned beforehand or was told to get off of that fundraiser or the one with Ben Shapiro beforehand, They both they both highlight the same point.
And it's 1 that I have personal experience with not in her situation, but I ran into exactly the same wall in the late 70s and early 80s when scope was a lot less because there was no Internet.
A lot less you were talking, you know, printed material and personal talks.
And you just didn't have an Internet.
You didn't even have a dial-up modem.
It wasn't out there.
You couldn't get to it.
And I got blackballed by APEC.
This was a year before the Reagan administration came into office.
And I got blackballed because I talked about something utterly ridiculous, and my conservative colleagues Uh, three different universities, one I was teaching at and two others in the consortium in Washington, D.C., told me how, asked me how I could be such a fool.
I called on Israel for attacking the USS Liberty.
Right.
In terms of historical fact, that shouldn't be that controversial.
Uh, but it was in terms of the public record.
Now, the only reason I knew anything more about it,
is because in 1975, a friend of mine, now dead, who, and therefore I think beyond their reach, and unless they've got more, maybe they've got more reach than I have, but a friend of mine on the Navy staff was in the process of cleaning up some records, and this is when Kissinger
Was dual habit as both special assistant for national security affairs and secretary of state.
It was a brief period of time in the, in the Ford administration when he had both roles.
And they were cleaning up because he put cleaning up the papers, we're getting rid of the evidence.
And he showed, he said, something you might be interested in seeing, and you could then, this is pre 9-11.
It was very easy to walk into and out of the Pentagon.
If you had an ID card from a war college, and I wasn't at the war college at the time, or from the Pentagon.
And if not, some of the Pentagon pass came up and invited you through, just waved you through, and they waved you through.
There was none of the, you know, double check for IDs and the rest of this bit.
And so, My friend waved me up.
He was a naval officer and had his briefcase with him and said, let's go and have lunch and talk.
And he said something you might want to be interested in reading.
He showed me the original message traffic from the USS Liberty after the attack.
This is in 1975.
And it was on the burn list and was to be removed.
And it included It included some material from the two carriers.
I think they were the America and the Independence.
Yeah, I think those are the carriers.
And their connections, I don't remember which came first.
One of them launched planes to come to the Liberty's assistance and was called back personally by Defense Secretary McNamara.
And the second one, When it was told that the first to call back, the Admiral said not only no, but hell no, launched.
And Johnson, President Johnson, then both literally and figuratively in bed with the Assad agent, the one to whom he gave the Medal of Freedom.
She must have been really good.
I think Bush would have met her at some point.
Right.
She launched the second plane, but Johnson called it back.
So the Defense Secretary and the President of the United States called back the planes that would have been come to the Liberty's assistance.
And this is before most of the casualties were taken.
So most of the casualties were in the hands of our Secretary of Defense and our President.
Never wanted to talk about that subject.
No kidding.
No kidding.
And so I read that and put it down.
And I never quoted it, never quoted that.
And I certainly never, never mentioned my friend.
But, you know, when I would talk to a conservative audience after that, I mentioned that this was a pretty clear to me based on information I had seen that the attack on the USS Liberty had been made by the Israelis.
And, oh, you would have thought I defecated on the Holy Grail.
Well, but wait a minute.
The official story is that it was done by the Israelis, but they said it was, oh, it was a mistake.
We thought it was Egyptian.
No, deliberately done by the Israelis.
Deliberately done by the Israelis.
And they changed their story twice, by the way.
First, they said it was an Egyptian horse transport.
Yeah.
And then that wasn't going too far.
Then they said, because it had radio antenna and mass.
So then they said it was a British destroyer, a tribal class destroyer, World War Two class destroyer that they had sold to Egypt.
One of those two things.
And it wasn't until February of 2018 that an Israeli newspaper published the communications Between the lead Israeli fighter and their base at Ashdod, in which the base at Ashdod orders them to attack the Liberty, the lead Israeli fighter pilot says, sir, it's an American ship, and the controller at Ashdod says, never mind, hit it anyway.
This was in Haharetz.
But I didn't have access to that in the time, but I mean, conservatives just reacted very badly to it.
And I got hit with the same type of, well, first I had a veto, and I got essentially the same sort of a black ball that Candace Owens got after that.
And she got hit worse by it.
You know, when they talk about anti-Semitism, they being
Israel supporters, Trump and his supporters, and establishment Republicans, all of them, the Democrats and the Democrat establishment, all of them, what they mean is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, which is essentially a refusal to support Israel in anything and everything it does.
Or any criticism directed at Israel or its supporters.
It gets a blank check.
And if you don't give it that blank check, you are anti-Semitic.
So, if she's anti-Semitic, I've been anti-Semitic for longer.
Holocaust denier?
Boy, I'm on the train, too.
Or, I'm not on the train, because it didn't exist.
There's no physical evidence for it.
There's not a scrap of physical evidence for it.
There's an interesting test of mathematics.
When the story was concocted sometime during the 1960s, they got six million by putting four million into Auschwitz.
That was the original plaque on there.
Four million people here died.
Well, later they realized that that couldn't stand, so they cut it back to one and a half million.
And other camps got kept back.
Dachau went from, I guess, 240,000 to about 22,000.
Still adds up to 6 million.
I guess that's the new math.
So it still goes up to 6 million, but you've got to accept the 6 million.
And without evidence, you still have to accept that it happened.
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, in their book, try arguing against Holocaust denial.
claimed that, in fact, when the revisions of the number of deaths at Auschwitz, etc., were made, simultaneously it was discovered that millions more had been shot to death on the Eastern Front, and so that it still ended up at six million. simultaneously it was discovered that millions more had been shot On the Eastern Front, and so that it still ended up at six million.
And that was their refutation of Holocaust deniers.
And reading these kinds of people, people like them and Deborah Lipstadt, actually, that's what convinced me that Holocaust revisionism had a very, very strong case.
Because if this is the first level refutation, if you look for who's refuting the Holocaust deniers, It's Debra Lipstadt, it's Sherman and Grobman, and you read that stuff.
It's pathetic.
I know.
That's the best thing.
Just as a practical matter.
And there was an SS General, a fellow who was named Otto Rimmer.
R-E-M-M-E-R.
An SS Major General or whatever.
I can't I don't remember the SS ranks.
He was was interviewed by a German magazine somewhere in the 1960s.
He'd been a very young man in World War II.
A lot of the SS were.
And he said, you know, he said, if Hitler had wanted us to kill the Jews, it would have been done in one year.
That's it.
There's no question about it.
Less than a year.
It would have been done.
We wouldn't have wasted money on those silly striped uniforms, or tattoos, or camps.
It just kills them.
He said, then we take out all the material that went into these camps, all the people who were used as guards, everything else, for years, we could have had other uses for it in the war.
We wouldn't bother with it.
He said, we never got the order to do it.
We didn't do it.
It's just that simple.
I mean, not that it would have been morally wrong.
They weren't worried about that.
They just didn't do it.
I posted a couple of videos about Dachau on my BitChute channel.
It's Alan Ned Sobroski.
One is the liberation of Dachau on April 27th, 1945 by U.S.
troops.
And it's armor and infantry going into the village, into the Dachau.
And there's no fighting.
There's no resistance.
German resistance has collapsed.
There are townspeople there.
One of them cuts through a line of American soldiers with a shopping basket.
And then they go down to the camp and the people are coming out.
They're dressed in civilian clothes, you know, just like this.
They don't look particularly starved at all.
They've been working in the camp, and they were very happy to see the Americans were slapping them on the back and getting some extra new food for them, but had to have been better food than they were getting in the camp because no one had much to eat by that time in the war.
But no fighting, no striped clothes, none of that.
And then two days later, on April 29th, There is the second liberation of Dachau.
This is the Hollywood production with live ammunition.
Here's troops fighting their way into Dachau.
Here you have flatbeds with skeletons in these striped costumes.
Somehow they got behind a German machine gun.
It shows a machine gun firing and it's a German MG 42.
Which is sort of a little unusual.
I don't think American troops use German weapons, and I'm not sure why they would have had a camera manual to German troops just to take a picture of it, but I'm not going to say they're doing it.
But here's where you have the horror show.
What happened in the second liberation of Dachau was they cleaned up the witnesses.
About 600 German camp guards, secretaries, We're killed by whoever was masquerading as American troops, or perhaps they were American troops.
I don't know.
Plus about 120 badly wounded German soldiers in the hospital.
We've been too badly wounded to move to kill them too.
That was the 2nd liberation of Dachau.
And I would bet that happened at other camps too.
Well, you know, if you send me a link to your video about this, I can put that up at the show right up, which people can find by going to TruthJihad.com.
Click on the radio show link.
I will do that.
Yeah, it's to say it's a bit shoot.
It's Alan Nedsobrowski, and there are two of them there with the others, but I'll send them to you on email a minute after we finish talking.
Sounds good.
Okay.
Well, we have, you know, maybe five or ten minutes left.
How about the current direction in the Middle East, where the Israelis have assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, their negotiating partner, ostensibly, and they've assassinated Tab Hezbollah.
Currently Israel is overrun with demonstrations for the right to rape.
Well, I think that depends.
Can you believe that?
Yeah, because if the victim is a non-Jew, it's not rape.
That's under Jewish law.
And don't we have the right to have a Jewish state?
So where is this all going?
Are they going to get their big war in West Asia?
And is it going to go well for them?
I suspect it might not.
Well, I think that depends.
I think that depends on which puppet comes into office in the November elections.
Thank you.
Well, you don't think it's going to blow up before that?
Because Iran is definitely going to hit Israel with something bigger than the last time they did this.
Right?
Right.
I understand that.
I understand that.
I think they would prefer to wait until their chosen public, let's put it like that, until their chosen puppet or whichever puppet shows up in the in the Oval Office.
Um, I can't imagine.
Well, if anything, if anything would drive Netanyahu.
To to drink and distraction more than his normal state of mind, which probably be enough to drive anything to or at least anyone else to drink a distraction.
It's the idea of expecting Kamala Harris to make any kind of a rational decision on American troops in any way.
Um.
Depending on the Iranian response, the Israelis could easily nuke them.
Right.
And if they did, what would be the results for the state of the region and the world?
Well, we won't do anything.
The Russians can't do anything.
They're enmeshed in the Ukraine, sort of like the classic Tarababy scenario.
They've hit that damn thing.
They can't, they can't get rid of it.
China's got its hands full with Taiwan and the West Pacific.
It's not going to do anything.
If they did, if they used one or two of their smaller nukes, you know, not, not the sort of thing that they blanket the country, but one or two of their smaller nukes, I could see them doing that.
And wouldn't you think, though, that the hit that they would take to their legitimacy in the long term might not be worth the short-term military gain?
I think to the people in the region and to many people outside of it, given what they've done in Gaza, they have no legitimacy.
Right.
So there's nothing left to lose.
And then there's also the fact... Basically.
And I wonder, actually, if that was That was factored into their decision to do Gaza the way they've done it.
So, yeah, I kind of agree.
I think they're lashing out in desperation, knowing that their days are numbered.
But do you think that militarily?
I mean, the analysis I've seen is that the so-called axis of resistance, and primarily that would be with Hezbollah, Uh, and Iran, but then there is also a little bit elsewhere, including in Iraq, that they, they do.
I don't, I wouldn't say they have escalation dominance.
It appears the Israelis may still have escalation dominance, but they very likely have the ability to, uh, inflict massive damage on Israel.
And they have the ability to inflict a lot of damage, but in that, in that type in that region, as in North Africa, You know where you are air power and missiles are what matters.
I mean, the numbers of people in armies, the numbers of people you have on the ground really don't matter.
It's the air forces that do and missiles and missiles these days.
And there's there really isn't there really isn't any military in the region.
They can qualitatively take on the Israeli and beat it, particularly with their 800-pound gorilla in their background, which is us.
I mean, if they were losing, we'd get into it.
If they took substantial losses, we'd attack whoever inflicted those losses on them.
But can Russia and China allow, let's say, in the scenario you're talking about, if Well, actually, we're going to see a big attack on Israel in the near future, presumably from Iran and Lebanon.
And so then your guess is that Israel might respond to that with nuclear weapons, in which case there would be another further massive barrage against Israel, and where it would go from there I'm not sure.
But if Israel is threatening to utterly destroy Iran, I don't see how Russia and China could possibly allow that.
I would think it would be very easy to put an end to Israel.
Russia could wipe Israel off the face of the earth with a tiny fraction of its power.
So I would think that that would be a factor.
But what you're describing makes it sound like, from the U.S.
imperial and Zionist perspective, Uh, they might think that they could get away with, you know, totally destroying their enemies in West Asia without Russia and China doing anything about it.
I don't think that's the case, but you know, one of, one of the, one of the big questions, let me take this out of the current context with Iran, just for a moment.
One of the big questions, uh, during the cold war and a cause of great concern.
And apprehension to most of the NATO countries in Western Europe.
Was.
With the United States.
Risk a nuclear exchange.
With the Soviet Union, if the Soviet Union invaded them.
Okay, and the only and the idea, you know, like, would Washington be willing to risk.
Washington and D.C.
and New York and other cities in an exchange with the Soviets, merely to protect Bonn and Paris and London.
It was a very serious concern.
I mean, I was over there a number of times talking to people in many of the European countries, large and small, and there was a lot of concern about it.
And the American response Was essentially that the American troops that were based in Germany were positioned not where in an optimal position for defense, but where the Soviets could not possibly invade without running into them.
And killing some of them.
Yeah, it was a tripwire.
And they were a tripwire.
They were basically hostage.
They were hostages.
No one ever said that publicly, but in point of fact, they were hostages to guarantee an American response.
There is no equivalent to the Russians or the Chinese in Iran.
There is no Russian division in Iran.
There is no Chinese warships based in Iran.
There is nothing to guarantee the hostage for their country's response.
Right, so Iran will have to do it itself, although I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and China and maybe even Pakistan have provided Iran with far more weapons than meet the eye.
That's that's possible.
Certainly, that's certainly the case in Pakistan.
Yeah, Putin did allude to that recently, saying he was going to respond to US moves by arming American adversaries with long-distance weapons.
All right, well, I think we hit the end of the hour on our first Friday of the month special.
Thank you, Dr. Alan Sebrosky.
You're looking good, by the way.
Do you have eye surgery and come out of it with flying colors?
Nope, no eye surgery.
The estimate is that I'll be blind somewhere in six to ten months at the outside.
I have talked yesterday afternoon to some people up in Butler, Pennsylvania.
They're going to be, they don't call it a blind clinic, by the way, they call it low vision clinic, which is just in order to make people feel better.
And they're going to be setting up appointments next week.
So when I go up to Pennsylvania at the end of September, I'll start talking with these people about the transition from sight to no sight.
And we'll see what's going to happen.
I'm going to continue doing as much as I can.
I'll certainly do audio podcasts as much as I can.
I won't be able to write.
Possibly I can use a word-to-text program that gets a couple of editors to work on it.
But I've got a few more months, so I'll use those few more months as best I can.
OK.
Well, we will be praying for a miraculous outcome to turn that around.
In any case, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and if you need to move towards more podcasts rather than writing, you know where to go, because I love hearing what you have to say.
It's always interesting and right on the money.
Well, thank you, Alan Sebroski.
Keep up the great work, God bless, and talk to you next month, inshallah.
Thank you, Kevin.
All the best.
And I'll send those links to those videos to you in just a couple of minutes.
Okay, sounds good.
You take care.
▲
Export Selection