21 March 2014, 15:25

Neocons hastened demise of US empire – Prof Kevin Barrett

Neocons hastened demise of US empire – Prof Kevin Barrett
Download audio file

As the US attempts to rule the world from Washington through the use of force and a policy of aggressive war the neocon architects have overlooked the fact that the military depends on the economy and the US economy is hallowed out and on the verge of collapse. Countries such as Russia and China with strong economies will rise while the US neocons who came into power in the 9-11 coup d'état have only hastened the demise of the very empire that they were intended to prop up. This was stated in an interview with Professor Kevin Barrett, who characterized Zbignew Brzezinski and the neocons as complete fanatical militarists zio-nazis that want to attack anybody and are even happy to attack Russia and threaten the world with WWIII.

Hello! This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. He is a Doctor and a Professor in Arabic and Islamic studies, and the cofounder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 2 of an interview in progress.



Barrett: The most likely prospect for the next big world power is China. So, there is some strategic encirclement of China. It seems that they are facing towards the Islamic world and they are facing towards Russia demonizing these other countries, even though the likely challenger is China. And you have to sort of wonder why that would be. I suppose, in a sense they are keeping in practice, you know, trying to keep their big military beefed-up. Always have an enemy, you know, convince the people that there is always a big threat and that way you can keep that huge imperial force out there.

But the irony of this is that the military depends on the economy. And actually, it also hurts the economy, to spend too much on the military. One of the reasons why China is rising so fast, is that China spends a much smaller amount of its GDP on its military than the US does.

One of the reasons the US is collapsing is that it is adapting its policy that is not geared towards real economic growth at home. It is letting its corporations exploit workers all over the world and flee. And so we've got crumbling factories here in the US. The real economy is hollowed out here. And in the long run the place with the real economy, which of course is China right now, is going to rise. And the US will not be able to support its gargantuan military forever as its economy crumbles.

So, there is a real irony here. I think that the neocons have brainwashed themselves by reading too many stories of glorious victories in WW II and so on. They are really so tied into this ideology of militarism and tribalism, and politics as a science of enmity, that they miss the way that real power is mainly about the economy and the technology that goes hand in hand with the economy.

So, I think it is ironic that the rise of the neocons in 9-11, which was a neocon coup d'état, has in a sense hastened the demise of the very empire that they were intended to prop up.

Robles: I think they also missed the chapter in the book on the WW II, that it was actually the Soviet Union that won the war on the Eastern Front.

Barrett: That's right! Yes, the myth of the WW II that we get here in the US is this black versus white, good versus evil myth. And for some reason the US and England are tied together, and the Jews, are tied together as the good guys. And the Nazis are the main bad guys. And somehow the Russian contribution doesn't get mentioned very much.

And it wasn't just a contribution, as you suggest. What was it? Three quarters plus of the German troops and military equipment was on the Eastern Front. It was really the Russians that defeated Hitler. And that was the war which really primarily was a war between Russia and Germany.

Robles: They say up to 40 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in WWII. So, it was the single biggest loss to any people in that war.

Barrett: Right! And all we hear about here really is the sacred story of the holocaust. I mean, the reason for the American dominant discourse that the WWII was good versus evil is because Hitler was the ultimate evil because he murdered 6 million Jews in the gas chambers. That's what we are told here. And it's become a kind of a sacred myth.

Personally, I think the historical facts are that indeed the Nazis bore the responsibility for a very large number of deaths in their work camps. Some of those work camps were horrific and people were worked to death. And then, they starved at the end of the war due to the economic collapse.

But the reality of these things, and the reality of allied war crimes as well, is that Germans intentionally firebombed populated German cities, or rather the British, had a policy of mass-murdering civilians with firebombs. They thought that that would somehow cause the German people to lose their morale.

The Americans joined in and then started firebombing Japanese cities, and then dropped two nuclear bombs as well. Eisenhower supposedly starved as many as a million or more German POWs after the war behind barbed wire with nothing to eat or drink. A million died. We can talk about mass murders in concentration camps. And then, another million or two plus Germans died in these so-called relocations after the war under allied occupation.

I believe the Russians were not exactly kind and gentle with Germany after the war either. But here in the West we get this propaganda line of good versus evil, which seems to be designed to obfuscate a lot of the allied war crimes of that war, which was an evil, ugly war in which everyone suffered. And we have this phony, sanitized version of it, which is used to motivate continued aggression.

And today they are casting Putin as a new Hitler, which is a joke, you know. But that's just the vocabulary that they use here to try to mobilize the public opinion. Fortunately, it is not working very well. I don't see anybody who is the least bit excited about trying to go to war in Ukraine.

People, I think are reading what they see in the media, reading the papers and watching TV and seeing this stuff, and maybe not actively disputing as much as we would wish, but I don't think they are being energized by that. I really don't think the American people are buying into this neocon propaganda myth that: "we must go and stand up for the Ukrainian people against the evil monster Russian Hitler" and that kind of nonsense.

Robles: 400,000 Nazis found refuge in the US after WW II. They started all the MK-Ultra programs and all that stuff. That's one thing I'd like you to comment on. It shows the hypocrisy.

Another thing, you may not have heard and I would like to get this out there as much as possible, one of the first things, other than banning the Russian language in Ukraine, that these Nazis did, they went to the UN. Their so-called UN Ambassador, which was somebody they picked from the mob on Maidan Square when they chose their government. They go in there and he says – the Nuremberg trials were illegitimate. Basically, this amounts to Holocaust denial, which I thought would have resonated in the US with all the stories of the Holocaust. Have you heard about that at all?

Barrett: They really haven't been reporting that here. It is just like in Syria. They don't report that we are supporting not just al-Qaeda, but we are supporting this group ISIL, that is even too radical for al-Qaeda, it is too extreme. They got kicked out of al-Qaeda for being too extreme.

Robles: These were the guys who executed 12 Al-Qaeda guys for being too soft two or three days ago, right?

Barrett: That's right! And that's our side in Syria. And the media doesn't really talk about that very much. And likewise, they don't talk very much about these upsurges of these Nazis in Ukraine. And it is weird, because here in America, if you question 9-11, they'll immediately start slandering you as a Holocaust denier.

It happened to me. I couldn't get this thing off my Wikipeadia page. Some guy, a blogger just made up this story that I supported three Holocaust deniers – David Irving and two other people. And I never even heard of the other two people, they were just totally made up. And yet I couldn't get it off the Wikipeadia page. And this is when I became well-known as a 9-11 activist.

So, they are using this Holocaust denial thing to try to police the thoughts of anybody who is at all dangerous to the power structure, but when it comes to actual Nazis and real Holocaust deniers in Ukraine, who are on the side of the US destabilization effort, apparently that is not a problem and we don't even need to notice it.

If somebody who disputes Nuremberg… I mean there are ways to dispute Nuremberg that I wouldn't have a problem with. Obviously, Nuremberg was victors justice, let's be honest about that. But, at the same time, it did set some good precedents, such as aggression being the supreme war crime. And it kept the peace reasonably well, prevented the world from being blown up right up through 9-11. And then the 9-11 changed the game, at least here in the US.

No longer were we going to respect the Nuremberg tribunal, ruling that aggression was the supreme war crime, and from now on we were going to feel free to engage in the so-called preemptive wars and wars of regime change. So, I guess when some Nazi is railing against Nuremberg…

Robles: I'd like to get you to say this. I mean, you said wars of regime change, humanitarian interventions, preemptive wars – these are all just acts of aggressive war, aren't they?

Barrett: Yes, they are not even pretending to be defensive anymore. That's what I'm saying. Now, when you say preemptive, it doesn't mean that there is any actual threat now, you are just preempting some imaginary future threat.

Robles: Yes, sure! Like I say – you might pick a gun up and you might get on an airplane, come over to Moscow and kill me, so I'm going to drone you.

Barret: Right! Exactly! And these neocons have said that this is what the empire has to do. You know, the empire has to make sure that no challenger could ever possibly arise and threaten US power. And so, 50 years before somebody is going to arise, you are going to shoot them. It is really an argument for killing babies, because they might grow up to be adults who would resist you. Which is what the Israelis do. But it seems like it's become the US foreign policy on a large scale.

Robles: Wait a minute! You said this is what the Israelis do?

Barrett: In the sense that the Israelis are notorious for killing Palestinian children. Chris Hedges wrote the article Gaza Diary observing Israeli soldiers luring Palestinian children into the range of their guns with insults so they could shoot them for sport. And around the same time the British Medical Journal documented more than 600 such killings. And more recently, we've seen these IDF T-shirts saying "One shot, two kills", showing the belly of a pregnant Palestinian woman.

Robles: Oh my god!

Barrett: And apparently they are very popular in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), and other T-shirts with targets on Palestinian children. And there is a whole sort of weird ideology of going after the children. And there are quotes from Israeli leaders who've said that the children are going to grow up to be fighting against us, so they are the enemy too. And of course they are facing a demographic threat that ties in with that.

Robles: The eugenics failed, so they go after the children before they can grow up.

Barrett: Yes. And that is in a way kind of a model for this notion of preempting any potential challenger. It is like you can't allow countries or civilizations to grow up because some day they might become more powerful than you and it is really a prescription for a brutally aggressive policy.

And I think that the mistake that it makes, I mean, it is obviously morally wrong, but even strategically, it is going to provoke opposition and ultimately lead to its own demise.

The Israelis and Zionists have thrives on provoking opposition, and then casting themselves as the good guys against that opposition. But there is a limit to how far you can push that.

Right now the US and the Zionists are not very popular around the world and there is a lot of resistance, both below the surface and rising up above the surface. So, I don't think they are going to be able to keep this level of aggression going for all that long.

Robles: Now, a couple of things. A few minutes ago you've mentioned the rising power, that the threat to the US is China. What about Russia? You don't count on that? Russia is leading the world right now economically. It is forming alliances – the BRICS countries, the Eurasian Union which is coming up, more European-Russian integration.

Barrett: Brzezinski's strategic doctrine at least is to try to prevent the rise of any kind of united front in the Eurasian heartland. He recognizes that his project is trying to rule the world from a base in North America. And the problem with that is that the grand chessboard of the world has as a center of the chessboard the heart of Eurasia. And that is kind of in there between Russia, China and the Islamic world and India.

And so, that's where the majority of the world's people and resources, and wealth are. The English used this as their rule-the-world-technique as well. Divide and conquer the continental powers and this gives you the opportunity to divide and conquer the Eurasian heartland powers.

So, the rise of China as a very-very powerful single nation state that is going to have GNP way beyond the US GNP pretty soon and a much greater population and so on, that is one thing. But I think that the coalition of these Eurasian entities is also what threatens this project of trying to rule the world from North America or from Britain another island. They want to divide and conquer basically.

Robles: Brzezinski's plan for Russia was 68 autonomous regions.

Barrett: Something like that, yes. He is a fanatic about smashing up every country into little pieces and especially Russia that seems to be his biggest target.

Robles: Do you know that the entire upper echelon of the US foreign policy establishment, including Obama's advisors, they are all Brzezinski acolytes.

Barrett: Yes, I think Brzezinski is kind of the dean of the "realists' school" an heir to Kissinger, in a lot of ways. And in some respects Brzezinski and his people have split from the neocons. But the neocon element is much more Zionist and I think kind of more ideologically fanatical, whereas Brzezinski is basically sort of a pragmatic realist everywhere, except for when it comes to Russia, which he hates.

So, they've actually been disagreeing about Middle East policy and especially Iran. The neocons wanted to smash every Muslim country, destroy all the enemies of Israel and, ultimately, Iran is the biggest target. Whereas Brzezinski says in his book the Grand Chessboard that the single biggest US strategic imperative is to be friends with Iran. So, there's been a conflict around that.

But now it seems that the neocons and Brzezinski are on the same side, because the neocons are just complete fanatical militarists zio-nazis, they want to attack anybody. So, they are happy to attack Russia. And Brzezinski hates Russia because of his background, as you suggested. So, now we have Brzezinski teaming up with the neocons.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. That was part 2 of a longer interview.

    and share via