Post

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

Oct 17

🧵🧵The “Rothschild-funded Scofield Bible” myth falls apart with one fact (in addition to the fact that there is not one iota of actual historical evidence the Rothschilds helped write or print that Bible).

Jesuit Francisco Ribera wrote his futurist theory of a future Antichrist in 1590, over 150 years before the first Rothschild was born. C. I. Scofield revived Ribera’s idea in 1909.

It was not Zionists who changed prophecy. It was a Catholic Jesuit, and conspiracy fans are just repeating his 16th century defense of the papacy.

As always, I bring actual receipts below. And yes I know the paid propagandists will never engage in a debate on the facts because they are impossible to refute. They will just say I am paid by Israel. And I will laugh.

Francisco Ribera invented futurism in 1590

•Primary source: Francisco Ribera, In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij (1590).

This was his Latin commentary on Revelation. He proposed that:

•The Antichrist would be a single man who rules the world for 3½ literal years.

•The events of Revelation 4–22 were still future.

Secondary sources verifying this:

•Leroy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2 (1948), chapters on Jesuit Futurism.

•H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation (1887).

•Henry Grattan Guinness describes Ribera as “the founder of the futurist school which removed the papacy from prophecy.”

•Encyclopedia Britannica entry: “Futurism (Christian eschatology)” credits Ribera as the earliest major expositor.

Read 13 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Oct 15

🧵 USS Liberty

Feel free to fact check this. Never take my word on anything. I never take anyone’s word, I fact check everything. But since this seems to be the top talking point for the IDS infected patients, let’s actually examine it.

The basic facts of the USS Liberty tragedy are not in dispute and have been examined by every relevant body on both sides. On June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the U.S. Navy signals-intelligence ship USS Liberty in international waters, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171. Israel apologized and paid compensation. Multiple U.S. and Israeli reviews acknowledged severe failures but did not produce proof of a deliberate attack ordered with knowledge the ship was American.

What remains contested is INTENT. Below are the main claims about motive, followed by why each collapses on the evidence and on basic strategic logic. 👇

Claim 1: Israel attacked to stop U.S. intelligence collection that could expose Israeli operations

The theory. The Liberty was a SIGINT ship. Some argue Israel wanted to prevent U.S. intercepts about its battlefield plans, so it intentionally destroyed the ship and witnesses.

Why it fails.
First, there is no “smoking gun” order or verified intercept showing Israeli leaders knew they were striking a U.S. vessel. Declassified NSA and CIA records, along with the U.S. Navy’s inquiry, have never produced such proof. They document confusion, misidentification, communication failures, and grievous errors, not confirmed intent.

Second, the cost would have been catastrophic for Israel’s interests. Deliberately killing Americans would risk destroying the alliance with the United States, Israel’s most critical partner. The behavior after the incident, formal apologies, reparations, and acceptance of U.S. inquiries, is consistent with a tragic mistake, not a planned murder of an ally’s sailors.

Even if Israel had been trying to hide something, destroying a U.S. Navy ship full of American personnel would have been the least effective and most self-defeating way to do it. Killing thirty-four Americans would guarantee the very scrutiny, outrage, and international condemnation they would supposedly be trying to avoid. The idea collapses under its own logic: if the goal was secrecy, a public scandal was the worst possible outcome.

Israel’s subsequent behavior reinforces that point. It immediately admitted responsibility, issued formal apologies, cooperated with U.S. investigations, and paid compensation to the families of the dead and the U.S. government for the loss of the ship. Those are not the actions of a state that planned an intentional strike and then sought to bury it they are the actions of a government scrambling to repair an alliance after a catastrophic mistake.

Claim 2: Israel attacked to frame Egypt and drag the United States into the war

The theory. Israel supposedly planned a false flag that would be blamed on Egypt to trigger U.S. intervention.

Why it fails.

By June 8, Israel already held a decisive upper hand. In the first three days of the Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force had destroyed roughly 400 Arab aircraft, securing near-total air superiority. Ground forces had swept through the Sinai Peninsula, routed Egyptian divisions, and were advancing toward the Suez Canal. Jordan’s forces had been driven from East Jerusalem. Israel’s leadership was focused on consolidating its lightning victories, not dragging another superpower into the conflict.

U.S. archives and diplomatic cables from the Johnson administration show that Washington was extremely sensitive about escalation. The White House was desperate to prevent the war from widening, especially after the Soviet Union warned it might intervene if Israel pushed too far. For Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. ship at that moment would have been suicidal diplomacy, a direct provocation that could alienate the one nation capable of shielding it from Soviet or Arab backlash.

Strategically, the theory makes no sense. Israel didn’t need American intervention; it was already winning on every front. What it needed was to end the war quickly, maintain U.S. goodwill, and avoid an international backlash. A deliberate strike on an American vessel would have achieved the exact opposite triggering outrage in Congress, jeopardizing military aid, and casting Israel as reckless at the height of its success. That contradiction alone collapses the “false-flag” theory under the weight of its own logic.

Read 6 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Oct 9

🧵THREAD: How $2.4 Billion in Dark Money, Foreign Training in Cuba, and NGO Fronts Are Fueling a Domestic Insurgency in America

Cuba trains. China props. Arabella funds. NGOs deploy.
America burns.
👇

AT THE TOP: Cuba’s Revolutionary Export Machine

• ICAP (Institute for Friendship with the Peoples)
• Venceremos Brigade
• May Day Brigade
• Cuba’s Communist Party (PCC)

These train foreign radicals under the guise of “solidarity.”
U.S. activists attend.
They’re trained in tactics, not tourism.

🔻 FOREIGN STRATEGY: China Funds the Trainers

China props up Cuba with aid, loans, and infrastructure deals especially since 2019.

Why?

Because destabilizing the U.S. from within via ideological warfare is part of China’s “Three Warfares” doctrine:
• Media
• Legal
• Psychological

This is proxy warfare.
Cuba is the ideological export hub. China is the financier.

Read 12 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Oct 7

Origins: Soviet Antisemitism Disguised as “Anti-Zionism”

The anti-Zionist propaganda campaign was a Cold War information operation engineered by the KGB and Soviet ideological departments beginning in the late 1940s, intensifying in the 1950s–1980s.

Key motives:

•Political: To undermine Western influence in the Middle East by painting Israel (a Western-aligned state) as a colonial, racist project.

•Ideological: To reframe antisemitism as a moral stance against “Zionism,” which they redefined as imperialism.

•Strategic: To win over Arab nationalist movements (especially Egypt, Syria, the PLO) and gain access to regional allies and resources.

After 1967’s Six-Day War, when Israel’s stunning victory embarrassed Moscow’s Arab clients, the KGB and Soviet bloc intelligence began a sustained campaign to delegitimize Israel on the global stage.

Construction: How the KGB Designed the Narrative

The KGB’s Department for Disinformation (Service A of the First Chief Directorate) crafted a narrative architecture that deliberately blurred Zionism, racism, and imperialism — making “Zionist” synonymous with “Western evil.”

Core propaganda lines they developed:

1.“Zionism = Racism” – culminating in UN Resolution 3379 (1975), which declared Zionism a form of racism. Soviet diplomats and intelligence officers lobbied heavily for this resolution through coordinated disinformation.

2.“Israel = Apartheid South Africa” – a linkage designed to turn the anti-colonial Third World against Israel.

3.“Jews control U.S. finance and foreign policy” – a revival of czarist antisemitic tropes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, repackaged in Marxist anti-capitalist language.

4.“The Holocaust was exaggerated to justify imperialism” – pushed through fringe Western leftist publications and the Arab press to delegitimize Jewish suffering.

This messaging was tailored differently depending on the target audience:

•In Arab states, it was religious and nationalist: portraying Israel as a Western Crusader state.

•In Western leftist movements, it was ideological: portraying Israel as a capitalist, colonial oppressor.

•In the Global South, it was moral: framing anti-Zionism as part of the broader anti-racist, anti-colonial struggle.

Dissemination: How the KGB Spread It Worldwide

a. Active Measures

The KGB called its covert influence operations aktivnye meropriyatiya (“active measures”) — meaning forgeries, planted news stories, front groups, and influence agents.

Examples:

•Planted stories in sympathetic Western newspapers through intermediaries in communist parties and “peace movements.”

•Forged documents alleging Israeli atrocities, published through “neutral” outlets.

•Funding front organizations like the “World Peace Council,” “International Organization of Journalists,” and “Christian Peace Conference,” all of which routinely condemned “Zionism” as imperialism.

•Support for the PLO and other groups via training, arms, and propaganda material. The KGB trained Yasser Arafat’s intelligence officers and helped build the PLO’s propaganda division.

b. Cultural and Academic Channels

•Soviet publishing houses (Progress Publishers, Novosti Press, etc.) churned out pamphlets titled “Zionism: Instrument of Imperialism” or “The Myth of the Chosen People.”

•Universities in the Eastern Bloc created “Zionology” departments to study “the political and ideological roots of Zionism” — pseudoscience used to justify state antisemitism.

•The KGB ran long-term Western infiltration programs through academic and student organizations (especially in Western Europe and the U.S.), seeding anti-Zionist rhetoric in leftist movements and media.

Read 7 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Oct 5

🧵🧵Debunking “Blackmail, Bribes, and Fear”: How Tucker Carlson and Jeffrey Sachs Repackage Old Soviet Propaganda for the Multipolar Age

The Setup: Manufactured Outrage and Selective Facts

In his episode “Blackmail, Bribes, and Fear: Netanyahu Claims He Controls Donald Trump and America,” Tucker Carlson presents an explosive thesis: that Israel, a “tiny” and “insignificant” country, controls U.S. politics through manipulation, humiliation, and bribes.

The rhetoric is cinematic, filled with insinuations of betrayal and blackmail, but when examined against verifiable data, it collapses under the weight of exaggeration, omission, and emotional engineering.

Carlson’s framing is simple: Israel is not an ally but a master, and America is its puppet. It is the perfect formula for populist resentment, mixing partial truths with loaded emotion, but the structure of the narrative follows a far older and more cynical tradition.

Step 1: Framing and Emotional Manipulation

From the outset, Carlson uses loaded adjectives such as “tiny,” “insignificant,” and “humiliating” to create an emotional distance between Americans and Israel. This is not analysis. It is psychological priming. It suggests that the very idea of supporting Israel is irrational because it violates a basic sense of national pride.

This is the first rule of propaganda: reframe alliances as servitude. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union perfected this tactic, painting Eastern European allies as “prostitutes of Washington” and “puppets of Zionist imperialism.” Tucker’s episode mirrors that approach, only inverted. Now the U.S. is cast as Israel’s colony.

By calling the relationship “humiliating,” the episode invites an instinctive reaction: shame. But shame is not proof, and emotional resonance is not evidence.

Step 2: The Numbers Game

Carlson claims the U.S. has spent “at minimum $30 billion defending Israel since October 7, 2023.”

This is false.

The actual figure is derived from a 2024 Congressional emergency bill totaling $26.38 billion, which includes not just Israeli defense funding but U.S. military operations, missile replenishment, and humanitarian aid for Gaza.

On top of that, there is the existing $3.8 billion annual MOU (2016–2028) that every administration since Obama’s has honored.

Adding these together and labeling it “money defending Israel” distorts context. It is like counting U.S. hurricane relief as a Florida handout.

Carlson’s secondary claim, that “a quarter of the world’s THAAD missile batteries are in Israel, manned by U.S. troops,” is equally misleading. The U.S. operates rotational deployments of these systems worldwide.

The presence of a single temporary THAAD unit in Israel does not mean 25 percent of America’s stockpile lives there permanently.

The “quarter of all THAADs” statistic is pure fabrication, designed to create a sense of disproportionate sacrifice.

Propaganda thrives on mathematical theater. It uses numbers that sound precise but are not.

Read 11 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Oct 5

🧵🧵The Propaganda Century: How the Woke Left and Woke Right Recycled a 1920s Invention

In the 1920s, propaganda became an industry. In the 2020s, it became everyone’s side hustle.

I. The Birth of the Manipulated Mind

Propaganda did not start with Hitler or Stalin. It started with advertising executives in Manhattan boardrooms.

After World War I, Western governments discovered that mass persuasion could move entire populations. Posters, slogans, and patriotic newsreels had convinced millions to fight, ration, and sacrifice. When peace returned, those same tools migrated into civilian life.

The man who codified it was Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the father of modern public relations. His central idea was breathtakingly cynical: democracy could survive only if an “invisible government of men” managed the masses. Voters were too emotional to be trusted with reality, he said; they had to be guided through symbols, stories, and desire.

Bernays built an empire on that principle. He sold soap by organizing child-friendly sculpture contests. He made women smoking in public a feminist milestone. He even persuaded Americans that breakfast should include bacon and eggs by getting doctors to sign a pre-written “study.”
He did not just sell products; he sold the illusion of choice.

By the end of the 1920s, the formula was clear: repetition plus emotion plus moral simplicity equals mass obedience. The century of persuasion had begun.

II. The 1920s Playbook

Propaganda of that era operated through a set of recognizable levers:

1.Repetition and saturation – Say it often enough and it becomes true.

2.Simplification and scapegoating – Reduce complexity to “us vs. them.”

3.Emotional contagion – Anger, pride, and shame override logic.

4.Authority laundering – Wrap the message in expert validation.

5.Spectacle and symbolism – Make politics feel like belonging.

6.Manufactured events – Create “news” instead of reporting it.

Fascists and communists adopted these methods. So did advertisers and democracies. The propaganda of the 1920s did not just shape regimes; it created the psychological infrastructure for consumer capitalism and modern media alike.

III. The Digital Resurrection

A century later, we have resurrected the same machinery with stronger engines.

Our smartphones are the new printing press, radio, and rally hall in one. The algorithm, optimized for attention, is the perfect propagandist. It rewards emotion, punishes nuance, and learns exactly which outrage keeps you scrolling.
Where Goebbels needed censors, Silicon Valley only needs engagement metrics.

Propaganda is no longer a state monopoly; it is a participatory sport. Every influencer, think tank, and micro-celebrity can manufacture reality from their bedroom studio. The audience, addicted to moral certainty, supplies the free labor: likes, reposts, and uncritical loyalty.

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Insurrection Barbie

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!