Dr. Kevin Barrett Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies

911 Truther Dr Kevin Barret Again Being Covertly Attacked by the 911 Zionist Deep State

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/21/robles/

KEVIN BARRET

http://truthjihadbook.blogspot.ru/

http://www.truthjihad.com

US Ukraine Coverage: An Orwellian Theater of Hate - Part One

14 March, 2014 18:00

Download audio file

The outright lies being printed and broadcast in the western press regarding the situation in Ukraine is just the next level from a war on truth begun with the events of 9-11. Since that time the US Government and its subservient media has been pounding the American people with extreme Orwellian propaganda, that pays no attention to the reality of anything, According to Professor Kevin Barret in an interview for the Voice of Russia. 

Dr. Barret says that now, for the first time in his lifetime, we are seeing that applied to a non-Muslim country. He calls the demonization of Muslims: Orwellian theater of hate style of propaganda which has now gone completely over-the-top, is hateful, is totally unconcerned with facts and has been turned against Russia.

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 co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 1 of a longer interview, you can find the rest of this interview on our website atvoiceofrussia.com

Robles: Hello Sir, how are you this evening? 

Barrett: Doing very well, thank you. 

Robles: It is a pleasure to be speaking with you again. I would like to get your opinion on what is going on in Ukraine. In particular this a scenario we've seen over and over and over and over again, except a little change here - this is not as in recent past history an Islamic or Muslim country. But can you tell us the similarities and the correlations you see between what is going on in Ukraine and what happened in Libya and Syria, and Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc? 

Barrett Well Sir, these regime change efforts, the destabilization campaigns that have been going on, all over the world really since World War II, the US has been running around the world with its CIA, overthrowing countries, intervening almost always, I can actually I think I could say pretty much always on the side of the worst forces in whichever country it is propping up goons, fascists, thugs, mass murderers. 

Chomsky and Vltchek in their latest book on western terrorism, and up about 55 million people murdered by these US CIA in military interventions around the world since World War II. So, that is an old story. Since 9/11 we've seen a real acceleration of attacks on mostly the Muslim world and we've seen also an acceleration of the propaganda war. 

Americans and westerners have been brutally propagandized since 9/11 in a truly Orwellian fashion that has no respect whatsoever for their intelligence. It is very shocking. Even, the US has never been all that sophisticated or even all that free in terms of its official discourse what you hear in the media, but it wasn't this bad before 9/11, but with 9/11 in comes Bush with his 'you are either with us or against us', and they just dumbed people down. Susan Sontag talked about the infentilation of the American people.

They hit us with this extreme Orwellian propaganda, that pays no attention to the reality of anything, and now for the first time in my lifetime, we are seeing that applied to a non-Muslim country. We have been demonizing Muslims with this Orwellian theatre of hate style of propaganda since 9/11, but now they are using this over-the-top, just totally mendacious and hateful and totally unconcerned with facts kind of propaganda, turning it against Russia.

And in a way that is scary, because none of the Muslim countries they've gone after have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, none of the Muslim countries they've gone after really can fight back. And Russia does have the means to defend itself. So, the whole situation is just completely disgusting, and I am really ashamed to be a citizen of the US right now.

Robles: I am sure there is many people who would not support what is going on if were allowed to know what is going on.

Barrett: No, they just support it anyway. This propaganda is so extreme, it is just not working. They couldn't get their war on Syria with their false flag gas attack last August, and they just couldn't mobilize people at all. They show horrible pictures and nobody really believes it anymore, and I think the same things happening with Ukraine.

I don't see any mobilization of American public opinion that wants war in Ukraine; that even wants to be involved in Ukraine. The American people thinks it's to stay home and mind our own business and rebuild our infrastructure and let the world take care of itself. And I don't see them succeeding in changing that. So, I think it is all a big sort of puppet theatre that's been put on by these lunatics. 

If you believe media, then you might think that Americans actually buy all this interventionism. But I don't think they do. They are going to have hard time keeping Rand Paul down in the next presidential elections, mainly because the people tend to agree with that sort of perceived non-interventionism of Ron and Rand Paul. So I don't really know if American people are eager for continued intervention in Ukraine. 

Robles: I see, I see. The way Obama gets up there it seems like everybody is behind him, although he gave a press-conference with the little Neo-Nazi guy, Yatsenyuk, and Obama looked really nervous. He looked like he was out of his element, a little bit. 

Barrett: Well things might be spinning a little bit out of their control in Ukraine right now. I just did a radio interview with a professor named Kevin McDonalds, who specializes in politically incorrect looks at ethnic conflicts, and he pointed out that we have a real strange marriage of convenience in Ukraine that was set up by this US-led destabilization of the Ukrainian government, they used Jewish Zionist billionaire oligarchs to finance mobs of Nazis. 

We have the Zionist Jews and the Nazis kind of working together to overthrow a constitutionally elected government and it seems that the people trying to do this, at least the Europeans are hoping that Ukraine will become a European style multi-ethnic society that will just integrate into Europe. But doing that by having the Nazis and the Zionist extremist oligarchs working together to overthrow democratic constitutional government seems perverse and it seems that these fascist Nazi style elements in western Ukraine maybe getting out of control, and Obama and his people maybe starting to get nervous about that. 

Robles: Well they are. They had their little triumvirate, except that one of them was one of these Nazi leaders, Klitschko, who I would say is a nothing, and then they had Yatsenyuk, who the Nazis and in their internal propaganda, they say he will never be president because he's a … they use a derogatory word for Jews in their internal Udar party propaganda. 

So, sure, Nuland didn't want Klitschko at the top. That was revealed in that telephone conversation when they were deciding on the makeup of the future Ukrainian government. But they wanted Yatsenyuk, but the people of Ukraine don't want the Right Sector, literally neo-Nazi extremists, the people don't want Yatsenyuk, they don't want Klitschko, and they don't want Tyahnybok, he is a Nazi too. These people would never win in any kind of election. 

Like you said, they support the worst forces, and who else is going to overthrow their governments militarily, usually? Who is going to go to war with their own civilian population, but probably the worst elements in any society? So, I would say out of control is probably a very good description. 

Barrett: I see so many echoes of these same methods in these earlier coups, here in the US people on the left are aware of overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, the overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973, and there have been a whole lot of other similar coups all over the world. And the playbook they use is pretty much the same each time. 

I went back to that 1953 coup which was sort of a historic turning point in a lot of ways, I just was reading this great new book called "Coup" by Ervand Abrahamian, that really gets I think a much more accurate set of facts out about that 1953 coup, and what we see is exactly what they did in Ukraine, they work with the scum of the earth. They find fascists, venal types who are willing to take bribes in the military, and then they paid "rent-a-mobs" to create the illusion of popular support for the coup in the streets. 

And in 1953 in Iran it was hilarious, the way they did this, their rent-a-mob was a bunch of gangsters. The two leading gangsters in, I think it was part of South Teheran, were named "Icy Ramadan"and "Brainless Shaban". Icy and Brainless, and these were the two guys that the CIA paid off to round up a whole bunch of mobsters and goons and thugs and march on Mosaddegh to show that the people of Iran hated Mosaddegh. 

And even the western media correspondents who were … the western media was lying about this, in the same way they are lying today maybe, yeah almost as egregiously, but even the western correspondents there were almost rolling in the aisles laughing at the grotesque procession of this supposed popular support for overthrowing Mosaddegh. 

And we see something like that in all these places. Some places they manage to create a more convincing illusion of popular support these days, because of the way they get their rent-a-mobs now is they're not all paid off, they manage to propagandize some folks who should know better, like in Cairo when they overthrew Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in the history of Egypt and put in this horrible thug Al-Sisi in his place, they did manage to scare up a fair percentage of the sort of anti-Islamist population of the wealthier parts of Cairo to be their rent-a-mob. 

So, they have sophisticated propaganda techniques today that allow them to create a slightly more realistic illusion of popular support for these coups that they stir up. 

Robles: I would argue with you about the word "sophisticated", I mean because if someone like me can figure them out, I don't think they are that sophisticated. I don't consider myself to be extremely overly sophisticated but it is so obvious. 

If you looked at the crowds in Kiev, young men about maybe 20-25, maybe Aryan nation would be the best way to describe them, and they were like the skinhead training brigade or something, I don't know. They showed some protests in Crimea and women were coming out, the veterans were coming out, old people, children, families, some Muslim-looking people, and all kinds of people were coming out, right. As far as the rent-a-mob goes, it was completely just one face in Kiev. 

Barrett: Yes, it was interesting that they were leaning so heavily on the skinhead element to create their illusion of popular support. I guess that would be the Ukrainian version of a Brainless Shaban and Icy Ramadan, the local thug element. 

Robles: Well they've been training for about 10 years. This guy Yarosh, he was fighting with Chechen terrorists, and he actually called for terrorist attacks in Ukraine. Have you heard about that? 

Barrett: No. 

Robles: Now he doesn't seem to know that Dokka Umarov was, as they say here, liquidated. He published a plea for Dokka Umarov to launch terrorist attacks in Ukraine against Russia. He was saying it was a good time to attack. 

Barrett: Now this was all kind of puzzling to me because I don't really see the strategic necessity from this US empire point of view. 

Robles: If I could. What I see there about a strategic necessity, it is NATO. Now I don't know if it is NATO controlling the US anymore, or the US controlling NATO, of course it has always been the US controlling NATO and the Pentagon controlling NATO, but NATO wants a base in Crimea. They want to get rid of Russian influence in Crimea. They have continued even since the end of the Soviet Union to fight this great secret war, which is not so secret, against the Soviet Union. They haven't stopped. 

Barrett: Right. Yes, I guess that must be it. And they are probably sort of trying to give Putin some payback for his very successful diplomatic maneuvers in Syria, and one way that would be to try to go after the fleet that can support the Syrian government. Still it is a very dangerous and I think short-sighted game to play. 

I think the neo-cons could be playing an outsized role in this, and part of what drives the neo-cons is I think a love of mischief, for the sake of mischief, and also they love creating enemies and their philosophy is that politics is based on enmity. So, if you don't have good enough enemy, you'd better create one. And maybe they decided that the Muslim world isn't a big enough enemy right now, so they need to have Russia as an enemy du jour as well. 

And they thrive on this, and of course they get money for it, it is a business for so many people. Victoria Nuland and these people are drawing nice salaries, and living in posh parts of DC, and hobnobbing with the elite, and jet setting around, and trying to create these new puppet governments, and things like that. I guess that is just what they do. They don't want to get a real job. 

Robles: You know about Nuland, right? I mean her husband is a Bilderberg. 

Barrett: Her husband is that arch neo-con. What's her husband's name? 

Robles: Robert Kagan. 

Barrett: That is right. Yes. PNACer. 

Robles: So, to the neo-conservatives, and we have to bring up I think, since you brought up that word in this group of people, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Wolfowitz told Wesley Clark that they were in the business of destroying nations. Do you remember that? 

Barrett: Yes, that was a post 9/11. They, apparently, immediately after 9/11 Wesley Clark was told that they were going to get ready for Iraq, and then a little later he was told 'Oh it's even worse that', they are going to overthrow 7 countries in 5 years. 

Robles: In 5 years, right. They said that before the next world power rises up to challenge us. 

Barrett: Right, and it's interesting that the most likely prospect for the next big world power is China, and though 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. 

You were listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett. That was part 1 of a longer interview. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Part Two: Neocons Hastened Demise of US Empire

21 March, 15:25  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.

PART 1 

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. 

Part Three: US Wars Continuation of Indian Genocide

21 March, 2014 21:16

US wars continuation of Indian genocide – Prof Kevin Barrett

Download audio file

The differences between Christianity, Islam and Judaism are things few talk about or understand but ones which Professor Kevin Barrett was kind enough to partially explain in part 3 of an interview with the Voice of Russia. Dr. Barrett also said that neocon Zionists and the likes of Zbignew Brzezinski do not represent the American people. Dr. Barrett says the US is overthrowing democracies all over the world including in Egypt, Thailand, Venezuela and now in Ukraine. All of these places have/had constitutional democratically elected governments and fairer elections than the US with its programmed Diebold voting machines.

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 3 of a longer interview, you can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

PART 1PART 2

Barrett: And the whole media marching in lock-step with this anti Russia talk. It is really pathetic that the US is allowing these people with these kind of ethnic grudges, you know these Zionists, and Brzezinski, this Polish Catholic who hates Russia, to run their foreign policy. These people don't represent America, neocon-Zionists represent Israel and Brzezinski is an angry exile from Polish nobility. What does this have to do with American interests?

Robles: If you could explain what is the difference between a Zionist and the normal Jewish person?

Barrett: Judaism is first and foremost a religion, in a lot of ways it is like any other religion and in the West religions have been losing some of their hold on the minds, especially of the elites, since the Enlightenment and since then Judaism has made a transition from religion to ethnicity for a lot of people.

Probably about half Jewish population today is not very religious but they still feel Jewish and they feel very strongly attached to their ethnic group and that’s fine. My friend Dr. Alan Sabrosky says that he relates to his Jewish ethnicity through cuisine and not foreign policy.

Unfortunately though there are Zionists who relate to their ethnicity through a fanatical love of this genocidal settler colony over in occupied Palestine. It doesn't mean that they are all bad people, they've been brain washed like everybody else only more so, but Zionism is this project of invading, occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestine. It is an act ofaggression.

Zionism is a form of aggression which Nuremberg said was the supreme war crime so I'm forthrightly anti Zionists but certainly not anti-Jewish, I have all sorts of Jewish friends, radio guests who present different perspectives ranging from Rabbi (Yisroel Dovid) Weiss of Neturei Karta the who is a very conservative Orthodox Jew and an anti Zionist, that is on one side to all sorts of liberal and left and critical minded intellectual people of Jewish ethnicity who are a very important part of the whole intellectual ferment in the world.

Overall I respect Jewish ethnicity quite a lot and I think they've had great accomplishments and some incredible sense of humor, my favorite aspect of Jewish ethnicity here in the US. And I'm willing to be friends even with Jewish people who are very boneheadedly supportive of the genocide in Palestine. Everybody is wrong about something. So they are wrong about that and it doesn’t mean they are evil but I keep telling them truth about that and I hope that a few of them wake up to it.

Robles: What is the difference in your opinion, the core key differences between the Islamic faith, the Christian faith and Judaism?

Barrett: Interesting question. Well, I guess my perspective is formed by me being a Muslim and the reason I became a Muslim is that I agreed with that perspective, it made sense to me, so that said: to me Judaism seems to have been warped by a sort of struggle against God. You see that with the persecution of Job, you see it with Jacob becoming Israel when he wrestles with God, or with God's angel but maybe he was actually wrestling with God in the original story.

The Tora is great literature, to me it doesn’t make sense as scripture. Too much in the Tora that just… if you really believe this is God's word and the God that it is describing is the supreme one and only Creator of the Universe you are going to have to engage in some very wild and crazy leaps of faith to say the least.

With Christianity there it makes a lot more sense to me as scripture. There is this emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, love, identification with the victim Jesus, the guy that they crucified and scapegoated, and turns out to be God or divinely endowed with these beautiful teachings – turn the other cheek.

So I like the basic essence of Christianity but the Trinity doesn't make any sense, three guys in one doesn’t make any sense to me, and also it seems to me that Christianity was infected by hatred of the female principal and hatred of the body. Ord the early Christian castrated himself for that reason and people like Alan Dundes have suggested that the trinity in Christianity the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost or Spirit – 'spirit' being a word for semen is basically a fantasy of all male reproduction that gets rid of the woman. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and where is the woman? Mother Virgin Mary comes back as this image of the divine feminine and we have people like Dan Brown and others discovering that.

But in Islam, which is the faith that I have embraced, solves these problems or it rather corrects these misunderstandings. There is only one, God is oneness, absolute oneness, it is all mystics, whether there monotheists or not, Buddhists, American Indians all say that the most profound experience, faith based experience you have is one of absolute oneness.

So God is one, God is absolute oneness, not three. And the first two descriptions of God that we have are the merciful, the compassionate (Mono-Rahim?) which comes from the word for womb, it’s like mother love, the first characteristic of God is mother love, a kind of love mother has for her children. That just corrects misunderstandings very quickly. I could go on and on about how I see Islam and getting monotheism right but I'm sure you have other fish to fry.

Robles: As far as I know everything comes from the same book or the same basic teachings but Muslims don't believe that God could kill his son and the Jews think that the Jesus figure was just an average Jewish man.

Barrett: Muslims think that Jesus was an inspired prophet of God like Moses and Mohamed and all these other prophets. And that indeed God didn't kill his son – one of the big corrections that the Koran makes – it basically says that they thought they were crucifying Jesus but they were crucifying an illusion and we don't know what that means. But what it definitely does mean is that we shouldn't idolize the crucifixion we shouldn't be running around putting all of our energy in this horrible torture death and claiming that God tortured his son to death. That doesn't make any sense.

Robles: I don't guess the Nazis have a religious angle to them, do they? In Ukraine..

Barrett: They are sort of pagans/anti-religious. They are post Nietzsche. The modern West has been breaking free of Christianity so these are some sort of almost Satanic, or at least Faustian breakings free from Christianity and rediscovering this kind of pagan glory and dominance and mastery and hitler showed us that that leads to some bad stuff.

Robles: They are talking about destroying Orthodox Churches and hanging Jews and hanging Russians and hanging black people. It was really strange to watch how uncomfortable Obama was sitting next to this little nazi when they were speaking.

Barrett: We live in strange times.

Robles: Obama didn't even look at him. Obama I'm sure with all his CIA intelligence he knows exactly who was sitting next to him. What else can we say about Ukraine? Your opinion on where that is going if we could..

Barrett: I don't know exactly where it is going but it seems to me that I don't see how the West is going to keep this thing, destabilized. I don't see how they are going to chase Russia out of Crimea, Ukraine in general. They just don't have the power to do that. So it looks like the West is digging its own grave through these kind of extremist provocations that were not very well though out.

Robles: Imagine this happening in the US. Let's pick, I don’t know, Toronto, Canada or Ontario or something and lots of Americans there, maybe busloads have been killed, nazis start up, they say they are going to kill all Americans like they are doing in Crimea. Can you imagine the US not doing anything about it?

Barrett: Well, right, it shows this extreme double standard hypocrisy. There are two sets of rules: one for the rest of the world and one for us. That's been the attitude for a long time. The Zionists are like that, maybe even more so.

It seems there is a kind of a pathological inability for Americans. Even average Americans have shared this failing, to see the other person's point of view. It is really hard to sit down with Americans and say: “Look, this is how it looks from say Pakistan where American drones are blowing up wedding parties. Can you really imagine how you would feel if you go to a wedding and suddenly your kids and your friends get blown up by some foreign country that just sent this bomb to come and blow you up.” Like you would go bananas, right? But people don’t think that way.

And at the top leadership level it is even worse. There is some weird naïve quality to Americans that the world ends at America's shores, since we are an isolated continent and the strange inability to see things from the other point of view and we are seeing that all over the world today.

Robles: I speak a lot with native Americans and they say all of you are delusional, because you are never taught the real history of the country. Everybody who is calling themselves Americans now, they’reliving on stolen lands, everybody is denying the greatest genocide in the history of mankind which was the genocide of the American Indians. Do you think that plays into American psychology?

Barrett: Yeah, sure. My friend Tony Hall who is a Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge talks about this all the time – how there is a kind of a continuum between the genocide against native Americans who were cast within even the Declaration of Independence, which is a magnificent document in some ways, as the merciless Indian savages.

They charged King George with coddling the merciless Indian savages who we wanted to chase off their land and exterminate, that is why we fought the American Revolution. That is one of the reasons.

So Tony Hall sees a continuum between that and the wars that have followed as taking our full Manifest Destiny from sea to shining sea and we’ve declared the Monroe Doctrine and we've got the Western Hemisphere to ourselves and then we start going in and grabbing colonies, stealing Spain's colonies in Spanish American War and on and on and on.

These wars that have been fought since WWII were really American colonial imperial wars which Tony Hall says are kind of continuations of the genocide against the native Americans. Which is why we have Black Hawk helicopters, Black Hawk and his people including most of the women and children were just shot down like animals, pretty close to where I live.

They are doing the same thing to people around the world and especially the Islamic world right now that they were done to a Black Hawk and so many other native Americans. It has to do with that strange psychology that we talked about.

Robles: You see the resources, you wipe out the people. That is what's been going on for 300 years now. I just see a continuation of it myself.

The right to self determination. It is a right in the UN Charter, I think it is 2.7, I don't remember the exact number. The people of Palestine have that right, the Jewish people have that right, why don't the Russian people in Crimea or Ukrainians in general have that right?

Barrett: Yeah, it is just amazing that the American power structure is making it sound like a referendum in Crimea is somehow some nazi style act of military aggression. This is mind boggling given that the US and its friends have gone around breaking up other countries, smashed Sudan into two pieces and that was a transparently phony and manipulated creation of ethnic hatreds that were used to break that country up intentionally.

And here we have people wanting a peaceful referendum after an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government and somehow this is an active evil and aggression. It is such a joke, it is just that level of lies in high places is never… You can just never believe that it has gotten this extreme.

I don't think that the Americans care about democracy anymore we’re overthrowing democracy in Egypt, overthrowing democracy in Thailand, overthrowing democracy in Venezuela and now in Ukraine. All of these places have constitutional democratically elected governments. The have fairer elections than the US has.

US elections are determined by programmed Diebold voting machine. These countries have better elections that the US does. Now we have this simultaneous attempt to overthrow all of these constitutional democratically elected governments all over the world. It is very strange, we are now dedicated to making the world unsafe for democracy.

Robles: What else is going on?

Barrett: In Thailand the US tried to overthrow that democratically elected government, although it may not be the world's best government but none of these governments are. The US government is neither. But still the pretext of supporting democracy has really worn thin.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. This was part 3 of a longer interview. Thank you very much for istening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Part Four: Malaysian MH370 may have been remotely hijacked

Malaysian MH370 may have been remotely hijacked – Prof Kevin Barrett

22 March, 2014 22:20

Download audio file

The mystery continues into the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. Could it be that the crew and everyone on board were incapacitated by hypoxia and the aircraft flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel or, according to Professor Kevin Barrett, the plane could have been remotely hijacked using something called the Flight Termination System developed by a company run by Dov Zakheim. Dr. Barrett believes that the same group that was involved in 9-11 and used this system may also be behind the flight's disappearance. 

Whether an assassination, an airborne kidnapping for interrogation or perhaps the fact that the spare parts of a 777 aircraft are apparently worth over $100 million, the mystery will not be solved until the plane is located, the search continues.

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 co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 4 of a longer interview, you can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Robles: You deal with theories sometimes, I do. This Malaysian aircraft that went down, I think it was 289 Chinese citizens on board, and the CIA came out with one...they said it was 'possibly a terrorist attack'. Is that somehow as an expansion of the war on terror into the Asia-Pacific region?

Barrett: I don't really know what is behind this tragedy, with this Malaysian airline flight. We did just publish an article on this that went viral, and in my article I pointed out similarities between some of the very strange aspects of this incident and that of 9-11. Yeah, on 9-11 and with this Malaysian flight we had planes suddenly lose their transponders, there was no emergency squawk from the cockpit and that only takes about a second or two.

So there is no way that a hijacker can get into a cabin and they are not going to squawk the emergency hijack code. And there is no way that something catastrophic is going to happen and they are not going to squawk that emergency beacon. So something completely inexplicable happened there. These planes on 9-11 and this plane in Malaysia veered wildly off course, transponders went off and then basically just disappeared off the face of the Earth as far as we know.

And then there were cell phone anomalies in both cases. In the case of the Malaysian plane we had lots of family members of the passengers as well as the company people calling the crew who reported that the cell phones were ringing, well a couple of days I believe after the plane disappeared, which means that the cell phones must have been switched on and they must have been near a cell phone tower, that means that this plane cannot have gone down in the water. Now in 9-11 we had famous cell phone anomalies, there were 15 reported cell phone calls from passengers from hijacked planes, then in 2006 the FBI admitted that at least 13 of these alleged cell phone calls never happened.

Robles: It wasn't possible, I'm sorry, at that time in history it wasn't technically possible to make cell phone calls from aircraft, right?

Barrett: Well, that's right. Yes. The original story was there were 15 cell phone calls, most of them from altitudes of 30,000 feet or so, which was technically completely preposterous. So that is why in 2006 the FBI changed the story.

And in the biggest cell phone anomaly is the alleged call from Solicitor General Ted Olson to his wife Barbara Olson, who is a famous TV commentator, both of them were Bush regime members. Ted Olson was in fact the guy who argued Bush into power in 2000 before the Supreme Court.

Ted Olson on 9-11 said that his wife called him from hijacked Flight 77. He told several different stories about it, some days he said it was a cell phone, some days he said it was a seat-back phone. He said he talked to her twice, once for several minutes. It turns out that that was lie, the FBI in 2006 confirmed that there was no conversation. The FBI said there were two attempts to call Olson's phone and that both of them lasted for zero seconds. So the FBI confirmed that Ted Olsen lied when he claimed that his wife called him from aboard a hijacked plane.

And there are many other cell phone anomalies as well, but these are just of a surface level one. So we have these really interesting parallels between the two events. And ultimately I think the most likely hypothesis for what happened on 9-11 may also apply to this Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 which is that in both cases we are probably dealing with remote hijackings. It seems that on 9-11 the commercial airliners were remotely hijacked.

Robles: For listeners can you tell us exactly what you mean by 'remote hijacking'?

Barrett: Yeah, there is a system for taking over a plane from a location that is not on the plane. You can either do it from the ground or you can do it from another aircraft. And there was a system developed called The Flight Termination System developed by a company run by Dov Zakheim. Dov Zakheim is a radical Zionist who was head of the, he was the controller of the Pentagon, in charge of the Pentagon budget up through 9-11. And he managed to lose $2.3 trillion of the Pentagon's money during that period.

Zakheim's company created The Flight Termination System, which allows you to take over planes from either the ground or from another plane. So for various reasons researchers looking into 9-11 think that the most likely hypothesis about what happened that day was that commercial airliners were remotely hijacked by people using Dov Zakheim's Flight Termination System, or something like it. They were probably landed at military bases, and drones were then used to attack the targets. So the planes that we saw flying into the World Trade Center were almost certainly remote-controlled drones.

This Malaysian 370 plane also appears to have been remotely hijacked because all of the systems stopped working, the pilots were unable to squawk an emergency request for help, and as I said that only takes one second. So if anything happens a pilot always squawks that, and there is even a code for hijacking which takes a couple of seconds to squawk.

There was no squawking any code, there was the transponders just “boom” went off, and then the plane turned and flew off and disappeared, just like on 9-11. So I think the most likely hypothesis would be that Malaysian Flight 370 was remotely hijacked by a person or persons unknown, and the group that we know is in control of this technology and using if for nefarious purposes is the group that used it on 9-11.

Robles: What would be the purpose then here?

Barrett: Well the spare parts of a 777 aircraft are apparently worth over $100 million so that might provide some motivation, and there may have been people on that plane who somebody wanted to interrogate or get rid of. It is hard to say. I don't really know what the motive would be at this point but we know that quite often intelligence agencies cause plane crashes in order to kill targeted individuals who are on the plane.

Robles: Sure, and it could be one person, right?

Barrett: Yeah, they'll take down a whole plane for one person. I've interviewed Saint John Hunt whose father Howard Hunt was a high level CIA agent, and his mom Dorothy Hunt was killed in a staged plane crash by CIA people. Likewise I've John Perkins on my radio show, the Economic Hit Man, who's talked about how his colleagues killed many heads of state in sporadic [6: 59] plane crashes.

Robles: This is the Asteroids, or who is this?

Barrett: Yeah, he calls them the Asteroids. Or they call themselves the Asteroids.

Robles: You are only the second person I've talked to who knows anything about the Asteroids.

Barrett: Really? More people should read John Perkins' book then.

Robles: You said a $100 million for the spare parts of a 777?

Barrett: Well I'm getting that from Mike Rivero, so I don't know.

Robles: That is very interesting. Maybe you can give us your opinion? You've heard of Philip Marshall, right?

Barrett: Yeah, sure. I've worked with Wayne Madsen on that.

Robles: Oh, you worked with Wayne Manson on that. I talked to Wayne and he was telling me he was investigating the death of Mr. Marshall and the fact that he was working on a book regarding the Boneyard. As soon as you mentioned spare parts that Boneyard came to mind. Do you know anything about that?

Barrett: All I know is what I heard from Wayne about this. But yeah, Wayne Manson believes that Philip Marshall, who was an old CIA drug pilot who flew Barry Seal, the most notorious drug smuggler in history all over the place back in the day, and who then wrote a 9-11 truth book and ended up dying with his two children, and the cops ruled it murder-suicide, quite implausibly according to Wayne Madsen who flew out there and investigated. Well Wayne says that his best guess as to why they killed Philip Marshall and his kids - well they didn't mean to kill his kids – they just, when the hit men showed up the kids were there so they had to kill the kids too and make it a murder/suicide.

Robles: Yeah, we talked about this. Wayne said that the wife was … she was out of town, she wasn't supposed to have been and the kids were accidently there, along with the dog.

Barrett: Yeah just how kind and gentle these people are, but anyway, Wayne thinks that they killed Philip Marshall because Philip Marshall had been poking around the Boneyard which is a big old aircraft graveyard with high security down in New Mexico...

Robles: Arizona it is.

Barrett: Arizona, yeah. And that there may be 9-11 planes still there or other clues to what happened on 9-11.

Robles: The planes has always been a point of contention for me, two of them – their registration numbers I believe are still active today.

Barrett: They were deactivated years later after 9-11.

Robles: Oh, they are deactivated now. Two of them are still spotted occasionally, right?

Barrett: My colleague Jim Fetzer is really big on this and he says I think there were two that were still flying around for several years, but I think they did get deactivated in... Ok, here it is – 28th of September, 2005 the tale numbers that were Flights 93 and 175 were deregistered on 28th of September, 2005.

Robles: Ok, that is the two we are talking about, that was the Pentagon and the one that went down and in that, supposedly in that field in Pennsylvania, right?

Barrett: No. It was actually the South Tower Plane and the Pennsylvania plane.

Robles: Oh, it was the South Tower Plane and the Pennsylvania plane, wow. Ok, interesting. Here is what I know, this is off the record here. Just wanted to run this by you about 9-11. From what I've gathered, and this is my own thinking here, that maybe some of the people that were involved in it, in the planning and planting the explosives and the teams that were sent to rig the buildings to collapse, they may have been on that plane that was supposedly went down in Pennsylvania. I don't know if you know about the reports in Cleveland, Ohio, but that plane had landed and there was a television crew, an ABC-news crew, and they said that the plane was taxied to a NASA hanger and there was 184 people on board or something, they were evacuated, they were never seen again. My thinking was, that was like the support staff, they were taken over there and killed on that plane. But do you know anything about that?

Barrett: Yeah. I think the short answer to what happened to the passengers is that the complicit ones were handed their check and their new identity in their witness protection program and the non complicit ones were killed. And yes, this hundred and eighty plus people off loaded at Cleveland – that could have pretty much represented all of the alleged passengers, or all of the passengers.

There may have been a way that they were able to get all the passengers from these four flights onto one flight, possibly because some of the passengers were complicit, and a number of the people that developed The Flight Termination System for Dov Zakheim's company were apparently on these flights, and there were number of other suspicious people as well. Yeah, it seems quite possible that they could have killed a lot of the people who were involved in the technical end of things that way, or they could have ordered them into particular places in the doomed buildings and had them locked up somewhere in the doomed buildings and then the buildings blow up.

Robles: My thinking is that anyone that was involved was killed, everybody. We haven't seen a big leak or a revelation or anyone come forward.

Barrett: Yeah, well. I don't know if they would have to kill exactly everybody but I think they have quite sophisticated techniques for profiling people and figuring out who's trustworthy and who isn't. I'm sure they would err on the side of caution probably, but I think that is actually something that people aren't aware of, but they should be aware of, is the way profiling is done.

I'm reading about this 1953 Iran coup and one of the reasons it was successful is that they went to great lengths to profile all of the key people and know what makes them tick; that way they find out who can be corrupted and so on, and who can't be. And likewise, with 9-11, I think the reason that the NSA started turning its equipment on the American people in spring of 2001 was to get information that profiled people and make sure that nobody with any power was going to stand up against this coming coup d'état.

And when it comes to the actual people that pull off these things, I'm sure they are very carefully profiled. John Perkins says that the reason they picked him to be an economic hit man was that they caught sight of him when he lied to protect a friend, but he had done something illegal - not a huge crime. But Perkins very glibly and successfully lied to protect his friend and somehow that was noticed and so they ran him through a bunch of personality tests and hired him to be an economic hit man.

I think he believed, and I would believe to, that if somebody who had done a competent job of killing someone might very well become an Asteroid, and the military also is always looking for people like with language skills, they'll send you to their Monterey Language School and if your test is like 140 or 150 plus IQ psychopath then they will probably see you as material for being one of these special forces killers. And then I've heard that the banksters with their piles of the money who can pay a lot more than the military…

Robles: Mine was 182 and I know 5 languages, they never took me.

Barrett: Oh yeah, I know several languages too, But they don't need very much to know I'm a trouble maker.

Robles: But I'm a terrible liar. I can't lie, I can't even lie to complete strangers, they know right away when I'm lying.

Robles: So like you are no good for the empire at all, you are totally useless for them. I kind of have the same problem. I can't even fudge enough to keep my wife happy.

Robles: Yeah, me neither. Oh my god. Ok, I've got a very good finish here.

Barrett: So we are both stupid and incorruptible.

Robles: OK. All right , take care. Thanks a lot.

Barrett: Thank you, bye.

Robles: Bye-bye.

You were listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett. That was part 4 of a longer interview, you can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Operation Northwoods Techniques Used on 9-11: US Fakes Terrorist Attacks to Create War

Part One

Download audio file  17 December 2013, 11:05

Many of the leaders in the United States are beginning to realize that the policy of destroying countries in the Middle East for Israel is not really in the US’ best interests. Geopolitically the US would be better off dealing more diplomatically with Russia but they continue to attempt to surround Russia with nuclear weapons and try to achieve a first strike capacity while risking World War III. Doctor Kevin Barret, one of the first people to suffer at the hands of the US military industrial complex after speaking about and questioning 9-11, spoke to the Voice of Russia about all of these issues and more and places the blame for 9-11 on the neo-conservative Projest for the New American Century (PNAC) and Zionists who have infiltrated western security and intelligence services.

Hello this is John Robles, I am speaking with Dr. Kevin Barret, he is a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the owner and manager of TruthJihad.com and a member of Scientific Professionals Investigating 9-11. This is Part 1 of a longer interview.

Robles: Do you know Len Bracken? He wrote the book "The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror". His conclusion was that it was a Saudi-Israeli-US joint operation, so ...

Barret: Yes, I would agree with that.

Robles: It looks like it was a US, maybe planned, and ...

Barret: Well I would credit the Zionists with a little more of it. I think that people who are kind of committed to Zionism have wormed their way into influential positions in all of these western intelligence agencies and apparatuses. I would imagine that people like Bernard Lewis who was the Dean of British Orientalism and the chief formulator of western Middle East policy.

As far as the responsibility for 9-11; I think it is pretty clear that it was in a sense a sort of US-Israeli-Saudi operation, and personally I would credit the Israelis and their helpers around the world with the prime impetus here.

People like Bernard Lewis, who is an ardent Zionist and is the Dean of Western Oriental Studies, as well as an advisor to the British and US governments on Middle East policy, would seem to me to be a prime suspect.

I think that the concept of 9-11 was probably worked out many decades in advance by people like Lewis whose doctoral dissertation was on the Ismaili Assassins, which was a radical sect that destabilized the Islamic world and allowed the Crusaders to succeed in moving into it during the Middle Ages.

Robles: Can I interrupt you for a second, regarding the roots going way back, do you think this goes back to Operation Northwoods?

Barret: Yes, I think Northwoods style techniques were employed in 9/11. Northwoods was a plan to set off all kinds of bombs in American cities, and sink American ships and blame all these deaths on Castro and launch a war against Cuba, and that follows with the kind of time honored path of these false flags war-trigger operations, which in one sense or another have launched every major US war since the Mexican war. And it is not just the US that does it, other countries have done it as well, going all the way back to Nero, burning Rome and blaming the Christians.

But as far as the more specifics of 9-11, which was a very, very large event that totally changed history, changed the form of government in the US, changed the direction of future foreign policy, I think that that was a product of neo-conservative thought, and two key figures should be the Bernard Lewis side which is the Orientalist who argued that radical destabilizing Muslim groups, like al-Qaeda, should be created in order to continue Zionist and western penetration of the Islamic world and hinder the Islamic Awakening.

This is a barely veiled argument that Lewis makes in, among other places, in an essay that was published in Netanyahu’s volume "Terrorism: How the West Can Win".

The double meaning of that title is quite illuminating, suggesting that terrorism is precisely how the west can win this struggle with the Islamic world, and then Bernard Lewis picks that up and runs with it and puts forward this argument that terrorism is not characteristic of Islamic societies, and the subtext being that the west needs to create artificial extremist terrorist groups, modeled after the medieval Ismaili Assassins, in order to destabilize the Islamic world and keep it open to penetration by Imperialism, especially, Zionism, which is of course the main concern of people like Bernard Lewis.

The neo-conservatives were the other wing of this, would be the people associated with Leo Strauss who founded neo-conservatism. Leo Strauss was also an ardent Zionist and his students at the University of Chicago spent the 1960s sitting around with him in after hours bull sessions, and these were handpicked, almost all Jewish, almost all extremely bright students, that he made his acolytes and sensibly had sexual relations with some of them too, he was quite a dubious character.

These guys would hang around after hours at the University of Chicago plotting a coup d’état in America, that is how could the Zionists take over in a representative democracy in a coup d’état. This turned into a book by a leading neo-conservative military strategist called "Coup D’état: a Practical Handbook" – the author’s name is escaping me briefly; it will come back to me in a moment.

But anyway, since the 60s the neo-cons have been plotting a 9-11 style coup d’état in the US designed to turn the US in a much more hard-line and much more permanent pro-Zionist hard-line imperialist direction in future Mid-East policy.

And so this was all set out. So that is why I think that when we say that it’s a US-Israeli-Saudi operation, it is really being done primarily by people whose first loyalty is to Israel and they are doing it in order to create a 100 years’ war by the west against the Islamic world and to keep the Islamic world destabilized and in chaos.

That is not really in the national interests of the US or even Saudi Arabia. And I think the US and Saudi Arabia have been pawns of these Zionist forces which are very strong in western politics and finance.

Robles: I just thought I would mention, I was doing research for an article I wrote not long ago on 9/11 and I went to the project for a new American century’s website, here from Moscow, and within 6 hours the site went offline. It’s been online since 1997. So, I don’t know if they are trying to cover their tracks or what is going on there.

Barret: Well PNAC shut down after they were exposed. I think they shut down in sort of around 2005 or 2006 officially. They might have had their website still.

Robles: Right, right. Yes, they had a skeleton crew keeping the site up.

Barret: Yes, well they shut down because they were exposed by David Ray Griffin’s book "The New Pearl Harbor", which really popularized that phrase and pointed straight at PNAC as the likely perpetrators of 9-11. And it is interesting that PNAC was actually … when they put out that "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" document calling for a new Pearl Harbor in order to get regime change across the Middle East and to militarize America.

They were actually just rewriting a document that many of the same guys had already written for Benjamin Netanyahu in the mid-1990s. And that was called the Clean Break Document and it argued for really the same things, only it was much more straightforward in pointing out that this was all being done in Israel’s interest. So they repackaged extensively for the American viewpoint in this rebuilding America’s defenses document but, again, all of these guys are Jewish hard-line extreme Zionists whose first loyalty is Israel.

Robles: Originally I had wanted to speak with you about other issues, but this is something that is not going to go away until the people that are responsible are forced to take responsibility for their actions. Regarding everything that’s going on right now, and there is a lot going on in the Muslim world, in the Middle East and in particular Iran, if we could, Libya, Syria.

What do you think now Iran’s nuclear threat, which I would say was never a threat to begin with, is now gone, NATO says now there are 30 other countries that pose a threat, so they have to continue surrounding Russia with their missile batteries. About Iran, if we could a little bit?

Barret: Yes, I think there is a struggle going on in the US policy-making apparatus between the sort of hardline neo-con Zionist faction that did 9-11 and a more realist faction led by people like Brzezinski and those people actually are much more concerned with going after Russia and China.

Robles: Sorry sir, you are saying that Brzezinski, he’s the more "realist faction"?

Barret: Yes, Brzezinski is a relative moderate. Which tells you how crazy American foreign policy is. Brzezinski used to be the ultimate extremist lunatic hawk who was out there arguing to create and fund al-Qaeda, radically anti-Russia, he is from Polish nobility and he never really liked Russia very much.

So, he used to be considered extreme radical hardliner. He has mellowed a bit but I think the problem is that these even more insane people have risen to the highest levels of power and so now he looks relatively moderate by comparison. That is what has happened across the board in American politics.

Nixon was proposing a national minimal income of what would now be $25,000 dollars a year. Nixon would be a radical leftist, civil libertarian communist by today’s standards. That is how terrible things have gotten.

But anyway these "realists" notice that the Zionist strategy of demonizing Islam and putting all of America’s energy into fighting pointless wars in the Middle East to destroy the enemies of Israel, which is what the whole Middle Eastern policy has been since 9-11 is really fruitless from a larger western US geopolitical perspective and people like Brzezinski who are kind of hawkish regarding the grand chessboard and who trying the rule of the world from North America, means that you have to grab the middle of Eurasia where the majority of the world’s population productivity is, the guys like that are noticing that this neo-con policy of demonizing Islam and smashing up the Middle East for no good reason is completely insane.

So, that is the conflict in the American policy-making circles and gradually the sort of relatively realist faction has been taking their power back since the 9-11 coup d’état by the Zionist faction.

The problem is that these realists are not moral or really offended by things like 9-11 or really interested in peace and stability. It is more that they are actually going to use the extra-state power, the extra military money, the surveillance capabilities that 9-11 generated and turn those away from Israel or Middle East where they have been focused until now and fight this rear-guard action to maintain the US-western empire in the face of the rising power of the BRICS axis and these other non-western countries, the collapse of the US dollar which has been underpinning the whole global system.

So, they are desperately trying to prop up this crumbling imperial power and I think they notice that this Middle Eastern stuff is not getting them very far. It is maybe helping Israel by smashing every independent country in the Middle East. That has enough independence to oppose Israel but it as for larger western geopolitical interests it doesn’t do any good.

So, they are now doing this pivot to Asia where they are concerned about the rise of China and all of that, trying to manage that and then they still have this insane policy of being so bellicose with Russia which doesn’t really make much sense. You’d think that geopolitically they would be better off dealing more diplomatically with Russia but they have to surround Russia with nuclear weapons and try to achieve a first strike capacity and they are risking World War III.

I don’t really know what is wrong with these people but if you tell me, I will be grateful.

Robles: I don’t know either. Some people I know say they are not even human, so that is why nobody can understand them.

Barret: I’ve had radio guests who make that argument in all seriousness. David Jacobs is a professor in Pennsylvania who was always considered the leading American scholarly expert on the UFO phenomena from a folkloristic perspective.

All the respectable academicians turned to his work to look at that phenomenon, and I studied him as part of my folklore minor for a PHD. But at the time I was studying him I hadn’t realized that just a few years before that he’d come out with his new book called "The Threat", which argues basically that there is this evil alien invasion of Earth going on and that they are kidnapping people and creating hybrids that will inherit the earth after some kind of massive destructive episode and of course it sounds completely paranoid and insane, especially when you get into the details of "oh these aliens can float people through solid walls and they can erase people’s memories" and all this stuff. It sounds just like the most outlandish paranoid hallucination, but Jacobs is a very well-spoken careful guy who never said anything like this until the mid-90s when he finally came out and said "I think I figured out what is going on".

More and more people are saying that there is some kind of ET aspect to things, but precisely what that is, is still fairly unclear but I do think that sensible people around the world should be supporting the disclosure movement which is pushing for a complete declassification of all UFO related information in all countries of the world and starting with the US, where it seems like there is the biggest and most nefarious cover-up.

I think that is a serious issue and maybe we will find there is really nothing there once we declassify all of this, but my guess is that there actually is something there and that would explain a fair bit of what is going on.

Robles: I’ve come to the conclusion that all the UFO-sightings and all that stuff, because it’s particularly going on in the US, it is all tied up with CIA kidnappings and sex slavery and children being sold, testing of secret aircraft, but I think it is foolish and I think it started incredibly arrogant and imbecilic to believe that we (If you want to call us as a human race "intelligent") are the only intelligence in the universe. If that is the case, it is a very sad, sad fact. But if you followed scientology, it would make sense, wouldn’t it? Some alien cold and calculating force that can come in and take over human bodies.

Barret: There are probably people like this who I deal with, like veterans today, which is a haven for folks from the US military intelligence services who have gotten fed up with the nonsense. It is full of people who really believe this stuff, who claim that they have had classified briefings and stuff that supports this.

I actually was on the phone with a fellow named Leo Wantas who claims to have single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union by some kind of currency scam.

The story goes that he discovered a loophole in the way that the Soviet currency was traded and so he was able to engineer this massive vacuum cleaner operation, suck all the value out of the ruble and supposedly pile up an excessive 10 trillion on dollars which then got embezzled by the Bush crime family. That is the story he tells.

End Part 1

That was the end of part one of an interview with Dr. Kevin Barret, he is a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the owner and manager of TruthJihad.com  and a member of Scientific Professionals Investigating 9-11.

House of Saud, Zionists, Al Qaeda and CIA destroyed Middle East - Part Two

19 December 2013, 20:47  Download audio file 

Al-Qaeda, a group foun ded and organized to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by the CIA, is just one of many Muslim extremist groups such as the Wahhabi, Salafi and Takfiri (which some would say are deviations from Islam) that the West has used to destabilize the Islamic world and destroy the enemies of Israel throughout the Middle East. The Arab Spring and all of the upheavals and invasions of countries in the Middle East are all part of a plan devised by neoconservatives from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) to bring about global American hegemony and destroy the enemies of Israel, according to Dr. Kevin Barrett, who also stated in an interview with the Voice of Russia that the PNAC’s principle document "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" was the blueprint for 9-11 and simply a re-write of a document drawn up for Benjamin Netanyahu titled "The Clean Break".

Hello, this is John Robles I am speaking with Dr. Kevin Barrett, he is a doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the owner and manager of truthjihad.com  and a member of Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11.

Robles: The Muslim world now, especially with Libya, al-Qaeda, I’d like to get your opinion on al-Qaeda? What is al-Qaeda in reality, is it really just a CIA database or are they really Islamic Jihadists? Can you explain to our listeners a little bit, especially with Libya and Syria, the differences (since you are an expert) between Sunnis and Shia and Salafists and other groups that make up the Muslim world?

Barrett: OK, well al-Qaeda it means the database, and it did refer to a CIA database of Jihadis who were recruited from around the world to go fight in Afghanistan during the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union. And the CIA and its Saudi and Pakistani and other allies were working with a certain type of Muslim, and in particular I think, especially in Saudi Arabia, they were dealing with people whose style of Islam is what has been variously referred to as Salafi or Wahhabi, and extreme elements of those people are now being referred to as Takfiris.

And all of these words Takfiri in particular, these refer to a very extreme brand of Islam, some would say a deviation from Islam. It goes back historically to the reformer Abdul Wahhab about 300 years ago, and that brand of Islam has always – the good side of it is that it is opposes corruption. The problem is that it basically says everybody who doesn’t think the way we do is corrupt and so we should go out and kill them.

So these Wahhabis did engage in a lot of massacres of Shia and Sufi Muslims and made an alliance with the House of Saud about the beginning of the 19th century, and the British encouraged that alliance. And the House of Saud, and it’s kind of Wahhabi extremists then became a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Empire, and the British used this extremist wing to bring down the Ottoman Empire, and the most famous episode of this is when the British secret agent T.E. Lawrence was sent over to Arabia to open up a new front against the Ottoman Turks.

Robles: I’m sorry, pause for a minute, this was the same one that they made the film Lawrence of Arabia, right?

Barrett: That’s right, yes.

Robles: And just to comment, a sad note that Mr. Peter O’Toole passed away not long ago.

Barrett: I’m sorry to hear that. Lawrence of Arabia may have sent, he was a very complex person but he was a British secret agent, and his job was to rally these extremist Wahhabi Arabian Muslims against the Ottoman Empire, and to help bring down that Empire. And that effort of course succeeded. Post World War I the Europeans completely took over the Ottoman Empire and basically owned the entire Islamic world at that point.

And I don’t think that this alliance of western imperialism and this extremist Wahhabi brand of Islam that has been working with the wealthy Ibn Saud family has ever really stopped. And so when they created al-Qaeda, CIA needs a force to try to give Russia its Vietnam, as Brzezinski said at the time, they went through their Saudi allies and they found all of these Wahhabi extremists who were all hyped up and ready to go, you know fight for Islam against infidels and that was kind of how al-Qaeda was set up.

But I think it was set up partly as a strategy. As I said Bernard Lewis, the grand strategist of British Zionist Orientalism came up with this notion of creating a radical Muslim group to destabilize the Islamic world in the same way that the Ismaili Assassins had destabilized the Islamic world in the Middle Ages. That I think was the concept for al-Qaeda. Lewis was saying that from the time of his dissertation in 1950.

So, when they created al-Qaeda in 1979 or so, they were following this model I believe of creating a radical and destabilizing force in the Islamic world and of course they turned to the usual western assets, the Ibn Saud family and their extremist Wahhabi religious friends. So, that is where al-Qaeda came from.

Now there really are people who embrace that particular brand of or deviation from Islam and in that sense it is "real". But it is heavily manipulated by western imperialism and Zionism, which is the part of western imperialism that is most concerned with the Middle East.

Robles: Now the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s the same thing I think, they were created what in 1917 by MI-6. Can you tell us about them? How are they similar to or working with al-Qaeda, etc?

Barrett: I am actually a bit less conspiratorial about the Muslim Brotherhood. In that, yes I think that they had some contact with the British but if you look at what their program is, it is not as obvious that it is just purely created to manipulate Islam on behalf of imperialism. On the contrary, its ostensible program is to unite Muslims against imperialism and to raise the intellectual, educational, cultural level of Muslims as well as the level of Muslim piety to do that.

So, that is ostensible mission of the Muslim Brotherhood, which I think is actually a fairly reputable and defensible mission. And I think that in this case the Brotherhood like all other groups get approached, infiltrated and feared by these intelligence agencies and the forces of empire, and of course that has happened. For a long time they were getting that support against nationalism in the Arab world, which was at that time seen as the big threat to imperialism and Zionism.

Nasser’s Egypt was the biggest threat, and so to try to counter him the Western Imperialists and Zionists helped the Muslim Brotherhood to create a counterforce, in the same way that they helped Hamas against Israel, because of course at that time the Palestinian Liberation Organization was a sort of secular nationalist group and they wanted a counterweight.

So that is why the Brotherhood has gotten western support over the years, but I don’t think there is anything really inherent in its approach that is conducive to imperialism. It is just that it’s been infiltrated and steered, and it has become dependent on Saudi oil money and Gulf oil money like everybody else. That is the whole problem with everything in Islam these days is, the main money out there is coming from these wealthy reactionary Gulf petro-sheikhs, and those guys are in bed with the Imperialists and Zionists, and so no matter what kind of Muslim group you have, if you want some money to do anything, that is the most obvious source and naturally those guys are out there just buying everybody up.

And the Muslim Brotherhood has had that problem as well, when they won elections in Egypt recently, in these landslides, in real genuine democratic elections, they were I think set up to fail in part by their Saudi sponsors, the Saudis and other Gulf people, Qataris and others gave them money and then tried to steer their policy towards supporting the rebellion in Syria and doing other stupid things, being sectarian.

Robles: Were you aware they were receiving hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from the US government as well?

Barrett: Yes, the US government has been propping up the Egypt’s government forever. The main US recipient of funds in Egypt is the military, which is the real government in Egypt and always has been, and it worked very tightly with Israel as well. And the military was very uncomfortable with the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power, which is of course why they overthrew it. With a hundred percent blessings of the Israelis, who actually were behind the coup, and the 70% blessings of the Americans who were a little bit skeptical.

Robles: So you wouldn’t characterize, just real quick, you wouldn’t characterize the Muslim Brotherhood as an extremist organization?

Barrett: Not as an organization, no. I think there are extremist tendencies in the Brotherhood, I think that the people who give them money are often fostering extremist tendencies, and certainly the Brotherhood in Syria has become extremist and that is the product of the specific history of Syria, where there’s been this clash between the Brotherhood-linked forces and the government that has been going on forever. That’s created a radical and extremist kind of attitude among the Brotherhood in Syria, and they were just set up to be led into this trap to create the Syrian civil war to destabilize Syria on behalf of the Zionists.

But the Brotherhood itself as a larger organization is I don’t think extremist at all. I mean look at Tariq Ramadan, one of the leading intellectuals affiliated with the Brotherhood, he is anything but extremist and the same is with a lot of other Muslim Brotherhood people as well.

Robles: Now you just talked about Syria, the current situation, and who do you think was behind the Syrian chemical weapons attack? You’ve just mentioned Israel in connection with Syria. Why would Israel want Syria pretty much devastated and destroyed? What is your take on Syria?

Barrett: I think that destabilization of Syria was planned well in advance and the Arab Spring provided a good opportunity to launch demonstrations that could then be used as a pretext to create escalating violence often through false flag incidents. It appears that as the demonstrations broke out in Syria, that some destabilizing professionals went in there and started shooting.

They would shoot at both sides, people on rooftops would shoot at the demonstrators who thought it was the police, somebody would shoot at the police and they would think it was the demonstrators and this created escalating violence and I think that was all part of a plan to create this civil war that has ripped Syria apart. And this is primarily in the interest of the Israelis.

Robles: I don’t know, I wouldn’t call it a civil war because even Assad himself said there is no civil war in Syria, because all the fighters are imported Jihadists.

Barrett: Yes, I think there is an element of civil war but it is actually as you say in a sense it’s more of an invasion of Syria by the Saudis and these other folks who were sending in mercenaries, and emptying their jails. But I don’t think we should go so far as to deny that there has been a split in Syria. There are people in Syria who have felt oppressed and excluded. There were real demonstrations and this was all taken advantage of by these forces of destabilization, it wasn’t just created out of false cloth.

Robles: Oh sure. But then again I think those were stoked and exaggerated and encouraged like what is going on in Ukraine right now.

Barrett: Yes, this was part of … see 9/11 was as I said it was… the blueprint was PNAC’s Rebuilding American Defenses, which was a rewrite of the Clean Break Document prepared for Netanyahu by these same (mostly American-Jewish-Zionist-neoconservatives), and what those guys said was; "We need a clean break from the previous geostrategic situation, we need to essentially have regime change in all these independent Middle Eastern countries that don’t like Israel".

So that’s what they’ve done. They invaded Iraq; they threw out that anti-Israeli-Saddam-Government. They trashed Libya, they hijacked the Arab Spring, they bogged down in Iraq so that they couldn’t do the whole 9 yards of the 7 countries in 5 years that they were planning.

So then they went to plan B, which was to use the Arab Spring, which everybody knew was inevitable that at some point the people were going to start rising up against these predatory autocracies. And then when that broke out, then they steered it, to destabilize the countries that were independent enough to not take orders from the Americans and the Israelis, and so they went after Libya first and wiped out Libya. Oh they split up Sudan of course, they split up Somalia, and then they went after Syria.

And in Syria I think by now everybody has kind of figured out what they are up to, and in particularly Russia and in Iran, and to a lesser extent China, all said: "OK that is enough of these regime changes, we are not going to allow American bombers to destroy Syria, the way they just destroyed Libya".

So, we are kind of at this stalemate situation now and I think the American realists are rethinking everything and wondering whether it wouldn’t make more sense to try to achieve their objectives in a more reasonable and less bloody way.

Robles: The current situation in Libya now, it seems like the tribes are starting to take some power away from the al-Qaeda and the radical elements that have pretty much taken over the country. Are you aware of what is going on there right now?

Barrett: I think Libya has been intentionally destabilized and smashed into pieces. That was what the whole purpose of the operation really was. I think that the people that planned it knew this. We were told by these Neoconservatives that if we invade countries like Iraq, they will greet us with flowers and everybody will unite and form a nice America-style democracy and become strong supporters of Israel.

What Wolfowitz told us was coming, and you know Wolfowitz has something like a 180 IQ, and he can’t possibly be stupid enough to actually believe that stuff. I think these guys know that what they are really doing is just smashing these countries to pieces, so that they are reducing the Israel enemies list.

So Libya is in this kind of chaotic situation of various tribes and their militias and these al-Qaeda forces supported by Saudis and other extremists and then some people who will take money and orders from the Americans and it is all a big mess. Compared to all of these guys Gaddafi was pretty much of a saint.

Robles: Well sure, Libya was the richest country in Africa and everyone I’ve ever talked to who lived there before the invasion, they said that people lived fairly well there. There was peace; there was no interethnic strife, as with Iraq there was no Sunni-Shia hatred. I mean the Sunni and the Shia they would intermarry and they would be friends and everything was normal.

Barrett: Yes, I agree. And it is too bad because a lot of … there were Libyans in eastern Libya in particular, who were I think victimized by propaganda that led them to… you understand how it can happen naturally too, that people who have a somewhat different outlook from the government, end up in conflict with the government, and the Libyan government could be pretty brutal with opponents at times and so that then creates more opposition.

I knew Libyan exiles here in the US who were not at all happy with Gaddafi, and they had people in their families that had been mistreated. There were these affected people there. But overall, I think it was functioning fairly well. It was also ripe for reform. It would have been pretty easy to hold Libya together and have it become even more stable, prosperous and less oppressive. But that is not what the powers that be wanted, they just wanted to destroy it and make an example of Gaddafi who had this audacity to stand up against the west.

That was the end of part 2 of an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett, a doctor in Arabic and Islamic studies and the owner and manager of truthjihad.com . He is also a member of the Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Islam an Inclusive Religion According to Dr. Barrett - Part Three

Download audio file  24 December 2013, 21:46

Part of the Islamic faith and a concept shared by some conservative Christians is the “notion of opposing usury”, an aspect of the wars in the Middle East that is often under looked along with the fact that what are now referred to as “paper bankers” will do anything to prevent the emergence of a gold based currency or a move away from the US dollar for conducting international trade, in particular trade in oil. Dr. Kevin Barrett recently spoke to the Voice of Russia and gave his candid, no-holds-barred assessment of the real situation in the Middle East. He warned that one day the Muslim world will wake up and insist on precious metals based currency in exchange for their oil, something which will fundamentally change the economic structure of the world.

Hello this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Dr. Kevin Barrett, he is a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the owner and manager of truthjihad.com, and a member of Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11. This is part 3 of an interview in progress.

Robles: Well, I think his biggest sin and his final sin, and this happened less than 24 hours before the first bombs drop, and the same thing with Saddam Hussein - this was also within 24 hours to the invasion - I don’t know if you aware of this, but they decided to change the oil trade from the petrodollar to the Euro.

Barrett:Right, right! And they were also working on a plan to make the Dinar the currency of Africa.

Robles: A gold-based Dinar, right, which would have put the paper bankers completely out of business.

Barrett:Right! And this is one of the underlying issues, really, of this war in the Middle East. I think primarily the Zionists are trying to maintain their hegemony in the region. But there is also this aspect of propping up the petrodollar.

And one of the really interesting areas of this Islamic resurgence of the past several decades is this notion of opposing usury, and in particularly standing up against these Zionist usurers, the Rothschild family and their friends, who created Israel. You know, those people have been natural enemies of Muslims everywhere. And Muslims, unlike most other religious folks, have really held tightly to their ban on usury.

Robles: I would argue, I’m sorry, I would argue not just Muslims.

Barrett:There are conservative Christians out there who are with us on this, of course. But I think that it’s a dominant, if you ask somebody like an American Christian, what is your take on usury – the answer will be “Huh?”.

Robles: What is that?

Barrett:Yes! Whereas, if you talk to an average Muslim, “oh yes, you are not allowed to lend at interest”. And you say “well, are you borrowing at interest?” And yes, a lot of Muslims are forced to do this, because there is no other way they can have a house.

But, for instance, I know a guy who is by far from the most pious and honorable lifelong Muslim. He is the real Muslim, he prays and he believes, but he is not exactly an ultra-pious guy or much less a fanatic. But he won’t buy a house, taking a bank loan.

He’s working jobs, stacking boxes in a warehouse, trying to save up enough to buy a house outright. And obviously, he is not going to buy much of a house when he finally saves up enough. But he’s not … he just doesn't want to take a loan at interest. And there are a lot of people like that all over the Islamic world.

And that is the dominant attitude,is that’s how it is supposed to be. And that is not true in most other religions. Most religions have kind of made some kind of an accommodation with usury, and Islam really hasn’t.

And so for that reason, plus this opposition to Western imperialism, opposition to Zionism, the Islamic world is really ripe to tell the Western gangsters to go to hell, and say that from now on we are not going to take your funny-money-paper anymore for our oil. From now on, if you want oil, you are going to pay with gold.

Now guess what, and if that happens, and they create a gold Dinar based on the gold that is going to be flowing into the coffers of the Islamic world for their oil, suddenly the Islamic currency has to be become the dominant financial force on earth. And this is the nightmare of the imperialists.

And so that, I think a lot of this screwing around with the Islamic world that they’ve been doing and destabilizing it, creating phony radical movements, is really designed to prevent Muslims from just waking up and saying “Wait a minute!” Like the answer this is obvious – “all we have to do is unite on insisting on precious metals for our currency, insisting on obeying our religious edicts on usury.

Robles: Talking about Islam as a religion, if you don’t mind if we could go into that a little bit, where are these deviations, now you mentioned that Al Qaeda was a deviation? Can you explain for our listeners, a lot of people don’t really know really what Islam is and what the Muslim faith is? They just hear ‘terrorists’, ‘fanatics’ and horrible stuff all the time.

Barrett:And that is pretty ironic, because historically Islam has been the most moderate of the Abrahamic faiths. And how this happened is, I say I think it is a defensive phenomenon. When people are defensive, then, paradoxically, they become aggressive. They feel like they are weak and under attack, and then they become sort of fanatical and aggressive in response. I think that’s what happened to Muslims.

But historically Islam was a very, very tolerant, broad-minded, inclusive, open to forging alliances with all sorts of different people, including different religions. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) helped draft the Constitution of Medina, one of the earliest sort of federalist constitutions which brought into alliance a whole lot of groups, both the Muslims, Jews, Christians and some polytheists in various tribes, they also made alliances with the Muslim community in Medina.

So, he was making alliances with all kinds of people and being open to pursuing justice, and pursuing the larger objective through working things out with people. And that culminated in the peaceful takeover of Mecca. You know the (unintelligible) was at war with this new faith and this prophet. And they were dedicated to stamping out Islam.

So, there was an existential war and the Muslims against all odds won this war almost completely peacefully with this final entry into Mecca without any bloodshed. And all of that was though this kind of open-minded working with all different kinds of people and being inclusive.

And that’s how Islam grew. It took over the Persian and especially the Byzantine empires by appealing to the broad masses of people who were sick of being oppressively taxed or sick of religious persecution.

The Muslims moved in to the Byzantine empire and offered religious freedom, protection of all religious communities, including many of those which had been persecuted by the Byzantines, and lowered the taxes drastically.

And the Muslims kept order as they lived in tents on the outskirts of town and let everybody keep on worshiping in their own faith. And this is how they were able to conquer so much territory, because the people actually liked this and helped them.

If they had been nasty oppressive conquerors, they probably wouldn’t have had such a quick victory. And that was of course the conquest, Islam actually spread mostlythrough not by conquest but the example of merchants and traders. And local communities always had a place for non-Muslims in their communities and they actually encouraged non-Muslims to remain in their faith, of their traditions.

And that’s why we’ve had these sizeable Jewish and Christian minorities in all parts of the Islamic world. In fact, in the past several centuries there was a huge wave of people fleeing religious persecution from Europe to the Ottoman Empire, because it was much more religiously tolerant.

And before that the Spanish Muslims of Andalusia had been even more tolerant. There is a book by Maria Menocal called The Ornament of the World, that describes how in her view the society of Muslims in Spain was actually considerably more tolerant in several key respects than any modern society today.

So, there is a history of a pretty… you know, it has its ups and downs, but overall the history of Islam has been one of tolerant inclusiveness. And this kind of Wahhabi string of Islam flows from, I think it starts really with Ibn Taymiyyah, who was a scholar in Arabia. And it’s actually now they are not just from Arabia, but his followers arose and moved into Arabia.

He was living at the time of the Mongol conquest and invasions and he was always on the defensive, and so he rallied the people against this terrible threat that was destroying the Islamic world. And to do that he took very-very strong or even extreme positions saying “no, this Muslim governor who’s been set up by the Mongols isn’t really a Muslim because he drinks wine” – and this kind of rallying people on their Islamic identity to resist invasion and oppression.

So, actually today we have a similar situation where in the last 200 years we’ve seen the West conquering and inflaming most of the Muslim world. And so, naturally, anybody who stands up and waves the Islamic flag, and rallies people to their tradition in a very kind of strong way is going to get a following.

And I think that’s left the field open for these so-called extremist groups, many of which are sort of fabricated, manufactured false opposition groups.

Robles: I see. Very interesting! Dr. Barrett, anything big you want to finish up with? I think we have about an hour already. And that’s a lot of your time, and I really appreciate it.

Barrett:Yes, no problem. And I appreciate the work you are doing. And we need keep fighting to keep the Internet free and have real independent journalism, like the kind that you are conducting.

I hope that the recent moves to a total surveillance society will not end up squashing what remainsof Internet freedom. It is great to be able to get on these shows with you and other shows and tell the truth.

Robles: Thanks a lot. Before we go, could you comment on Ukraine, if you could, geopolitically? I mean, what do you see going on there? I know it is a big topic, but maybe you could give us your quick take on what is going on there.

Barrett:Well, I lean towards the view of people like William Engdahl. We’ve seen this attempt to go after these independent countries or in this case Ukraine. Ukraine has maintained a certain amount of a tie to Russia and so these Western gangsters have been trying to undermine that, and to bring Ukraine into the NATO camp.

And so, they had a color revolution, and now I think what we are seeing is just sort of color revolution 1.2, where they are drumming up all of this bogus, populist, you know footpath – “let’s join the EU” kind of…

Robles: It seems insane. The reaction is completely unbelievable.

Barrett:I don’t understand how the heck they can get huge crowds to run around waving flags “Let’s join the EU”. They must be using the same mind control technology they were using in Egypt to get all those idiots out there undermining the first democracy.

Robles: They had the whole orange revolution infrastructure already in place. They pay 30 euros a day for these unemployed hooligans or criminals, or whoever to go out and cause unrest.

Barrett:Yes, rent-a-mob. I guess the rent-a-mobs are a key thing in these kinds of situations. So, I hope that the people of Ukraine will see through all of this manipulation and preserve their country’s independence.

Robles: Hopefully we’ll be able to communicate further. We’ve had a lot of problems with the email and I’m sure a lot of our listeners have been having problems. And you’ve been having problems with Internet, it seems.The more we hear from Edward Snowden, it seems like it’s becoming clearer why. But I hope we will be able to continue our discussions and continue trying to publish the truth, as I’m sure you are.

Barrett: Okay, likewise. I look forward to the next conversation.

Robles: OK. It is an honorto be speaking with you, thank you Sir. I really appreciate you.

Barrett: Likewise, yes thanks John. Bye.

That was the end of an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the owner and manager of truthjihad.com,he is also a member of the Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

911: US-Israel-Wahhabists-Saudis - 'An Unholy Alliance' - Part One

сша флаг сша закат сша небо сша упадок закат америки

Download audio file   21 September, 08:58 

The United States of America continues to use the same playbook in their war for global domination against any country that they do not control: false flag terrorist attacks, demonization and then military attack disguised as intervention. 9-11 was the mother of all false flag attacks and was the catalyst for the endless war on terror that the unholy alliance between the USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda have unleashed on the world. President Putin was absolutely right when he talked about the false concept certain countries have regarding their own exceptionalism in a recent. Dr. Kevin Barrett spoke with VOR’s John Robles on these issues and more in an exclusive interview for the Voice of Russia.

Hello, this is John Robles, I am speaking with Doctor Kevin Barrett, he is the owner and the manager of the truthjihad.com website and the long time critic of US foreign policy. Hello, sir.

Barrett: Hello, good to be with you John.

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to do the interview. We have been hearing more and more about links between Al-Qaeda, Islamist terrorist groupings, the Saudis and the US government. Yet they have been demonized as the end-all-enemy for the United States for years now. Can you comment on the fact that history and news reporters showing that Al-Qaeda is being supported in Syria, in particular, I think about 90% of the fighters at the US are supporting Syria are Al-Qaeda affiliated and if you could talk a little bit about the history of Al-Qaeda and the US?

Barrett:Right. That’s one of the things that the US government is having a hard time explaining to the American people, is why it is so urgent that the US should go to war in Syria on behalf of Al-Qaeda. That conflicts with the propaganda we have been given since 9-11.

We have been told that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless band of sort of suicidal homicidal fanatics and that the only way to respond to them is to basically: exterminate them with drone assassinations and so on, and yet, here we are, with the US straining at the leash looking for any opportunity to attack Syria on behalf of Al-Qaeda.

So that raises questions about what Al-Qaeda really is and the real history of Al-Qaeda is very different from the official history. It was actually created by the US along with its Pakistani and Saudi allies to fight against Russia in Afghanistan and since then most of what Al-Qaeda has done has been to smuggle drugs and attack Russia on behalf of the CIA. And every now and then Al-Qaeda manages to whip up a kind of a false flag attack to justify US interventions somewhere.

Of course, 9-11 was the mother of all false flag attacks so Al-Qaeda serves two purposes: one is to act as the CIA’s “Arab Legion”, and fight against whoever the US looks at as a geopolitical enemy, such as Russia or Syria, and then secondly, Al-Qaeda is a sort of permanent “false flag group” in that they built this legend about the evil radical Muslims of Al-Qaeda, which mobilizes American public opinion in favor of a fear based politics and justification of basically any intervention that the government wants.

Robles: Have you seen a changing in opinion by the US populace? I mean are people like backing off a little bit?

Barrett: Oh, they backed way off. Yeah!

I think after the Boston bombing there was a huge outburst of talk about false flag terrorism and questioning about what really happened in Boston and then with this latest round of US attempt to push through a bombing of Syria, once again, here we have seen vast majority of the American population seeing right through this and being so strongly against the war that even APAC, the lobby in DC, that usually gets everything it wants, was unable to push through its plan to have the US bomb Syria on behalf of Al-Qaeda.

And so as I said, the American public is just not understanding why it is so urgent to attack Syria for Al-Qaeda and the anti-war sentiment is at 2/3 to 3/4 of the population according to all the polls, and that’s really what has made it impossible for them to do this war.

Robles: I see.

Just a reminder you are listening to an interview with Doctor Kevin Barrett.

Robles: I mean it sounds insane to me that they would try to convince the American people that somehow Syria is some sort of a threat, and the other aspect, that somehow the United States has some sort of God given authority to bomb any place they want because they are the moral policeman of the planet.

Barrett: Right, well that is the whole issue of so-called American exceptionalism that President Putin brought up in his Op Ed in the New York Times which was very well received by the way. Frankly, right now, I think that now most Americans look at Putin as more of a statesman than Obama or really just about any other leader, he’s done very well out of this Syria fiasco that Americans hashed up so badly.

And I think he is absolutely right about this issue of American exceptionalism. And you know, I think that in President Putin’s Op Ed when he made those remarks about how it is very dangerous for any group of people to consider themselves exceptional.

He was obviously first and foremost talking about this tradition of American exceptionalism: the idea that America is the indispensable nation, which is this kind of mythology that makes no sense whatsoever, every nation is different, every nation is unique and the USA is maybe the strongest nation militarily, economically, but it’s ridiculous to think that there is some kind of God given right for the USA to run around the world bombing people and thinking it is the world’s policeman and so that was the first reference that I think President Putin was making.

The second reference and the slightly hidden reference he was also making was the issue of Israeli exceptionalism which is of course based on a kind of Jewish superiority complex, and Jewish culture like all other cultures has plenty of good points, as well as bad points, but one of the aspects of Jewish culture is this notion of “the chosen people”, which has managed to survive a transition among the Jewish people from a group of people who were very religious (Judaism was just another religion) and then in the 19th century it became more of a sort of intensely nationalistic secular movement.

Today the State of Israel is obviously even more convinced of its exceptionalism than the US is, so we have the US and Israel both teaming up to bomb Syria because they both think… (and then there is of course the Saudi regime which also seems to think it’s exceptional).

The Saudis have been paying the Wahhabi Movement which believes that its version of Islam is the only legitimate religion on earth and so the Saudis attack in fury. The people who condemn other Muslims as heretics and want to chop their heads off also seem to think that they are an exceptional nation that has the right to go around doing whatever it wants.

So we have this kind of “unholy alliance” of these grey Wahhabi-Saudis, backed by this insanely corrupt and wealthy royal family, these exceptional self-appointed-chosen-people over in Israel, and then the American exceptionalists who believe that it is their destiny is to bomb the world into peace.

And I think that President Putin responded very eloquently to the challenges posed by this alliance and so far he is winning the stand-off.

Robles: It is an odd alliance. Now in Syria they are all supporting what is supposed to be the enemy of all mankind, Al-Qaeda.

Barrett: Right, and this is all so impossible to summarize and sell to the American people.

So what they did in order to try to sell their war on Syria, is they took a page out of the same old book that they used for the war on Iraq (9-11 was false flag terrorism) so here they apparently did a false flag attack in Syria and then they did the same kind of rhetoric that they used against Saddam Hussein: they said that: “Oh it’s chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc.!!”

They raised a big stink out about this horrible atrocity in Ghouta but actually turns out it was apparently a false flag attack.

END PART ONE

US/Al-Qaeda Threatened Russian Olympics Through Saudi Proxy - Part Two

Аль-Каида терроризм оружие террористическая организация

Download audio file  4 September, 17:35  

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, stepped forward regarding the Syrian chemical weapons attack, and said: “This was an Israeli false flag.” He cited his intelligence sources as saying that it was actually the Israelis that killed all those people with gas. He was just one of many people going “way off script” in the US regarding the heinous attack. Dr. Kevin Barrett in an exclusive interview with the Voice of Russia was very candid when he said it was stunning that someone like Saudi Prince Bandar would come to Putin and threaten to bomb the Winter Olympics and claim that he was acting with the full support of the US Government. According to Dr. Barrett the US government, threatening to bomb the Olympic Games with Al-Qaeda, through its Saudi proxy, turns the whole “War on Terror Paradigm” on its head.

Hello, this is John Robles, You are listening to an interview with Doctor Kevin Barrett, a Doctor of Arabic and Islamic Studies and the co founder of Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for truth, he is also the owner and the manager of the truthjihad.com website. This is part 2 of an interview in progress, you can find the previous parts on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

In progress

Robles: Now in Syria there are all supporting what supposed to be the enemy of all mankind, Al-Qaeda.

Barrett: Right, and this is all so impossible to summarize and sell to the American people. So what they did in order to try to sell their war on Syria is; they took a page out of the same old book that they’ve used for the war on Iraq (9/11 was false flag terrorism), so here apparently they did a false flag attack in Syria, and then they did the same kind of rhetoric that they used against Saddaam Hussein. They said: “Oh it’s chemical weapons! Weapons of mass destruction! Etc., etc. They raised a big stink out about this horrible atrocity in Ghouta but actually it turns out, it was apparently a false flag.

And this one incident of a chemical weapons attack, you know, there is no evidence that Assad did it, all the circumstantial evidence was against it from the get go and then as more and more evidence has rolled in, it’s become ever more clear that this was a false flag attack and so these “war mongers” were trying to sell this completely inexplicable intervention in Syria on the basis of showing pictures of dead children and claiming: “look at these terrible, horrible pictures! It’s all the fault of this demonized guy Assad”, but that wasn’t enough.

The American people were not convinced and they asked all kind of questions, like number one: “Why is it so much more terrible to be killed by chemical weapons than to be killed by all these other weapons?”

Two: “What’s the evidence that Assad really did this?”

Three” “What is the end-game, what is the strategic purpose of bombing Syria?”

Four: “If the main opponents of the Assad are Al-Qaeda fanatics, are these really the people we want to put in charge of Syria?”

So these are the types of questions that even, fairly mainstream Americans have been asking. Conservative people like Pat Buchanan, Ron and Rand Paul, even Lawrence Wilkerson who was chief of staff to Colin Powell, a guy you might term as Colin Powell’s brain, in the same way that Karl Rove was Bush’s brain.

Wilkerson stepped forward and said: “This was an Israeli false flag.”

He cited his intelligent sources as saying that it was actually the Israelis that killed all those people with gas.

So there has been a whole lot of people going way off “script” here in the US and they have dismally failed to sell this war to the American people.

And I hope this will be the start of the movement away from the post 9-11 politics of endless wars on the Middle East.

Robles: I mean: we are talking about this, I mean… I kind of get the feeling like we are talking about normal events going on, but we are talking about: “426 children were killed as a pretext to invade a country!” Is anybody thinking about that? Is anybody thinking about going after the people who were behind this, because these are obviously, monsters of historic proportion?

Barrett: The reports are… It is hard to tell for sure what’s really going on on the ground in Syria, but from the available reports it sounds like children were kidnapped, these were apparently, at least according to some reports, Alawite children.

Robles: Right! From Latakia.

Barrett: Exactly! From the mountains, these are people from the same ethnic and religion group as President Assad. They were apparently kidnapped by these rebels and killed and then shown to the world as alleged dead victims of Assad and yes, that is very much like what happened on 9-11: where these insiders butchered nearly 3,000 people and showed horrible pictures to the world and then blamed the victims!

In other words the whole thing was staged, 9-11, to go after the Middle East, and go after the Muslims. And Muslims were falsely blamed for doing it. And then this time it is all staged to go to after Assad and the Alawites and it turns out that the Alawites were the victims, their kids were the ones that were apparently kidnapped and murdered.

So yeah, we need a real investigation of what’s going on in Syria and probably the only way that’s ever going to happen is if peace is allowed to break out and the only road to peace that I can see would be for essentially the West to stop supporting these co-called rebels and allow President Assad’s amnesty offer to work.

And apparently there have been over a thousand of these former rebels who have taken this amnesty offer, the actual Syrians who have been fighting against Assad and I would say with some reason: there is a real conflict in Syria that goes back decades and I don’t really blame some of these people for hating their government. But that joining these lunatics from Saudi Arabia in the pay of Israel and the US is not the solution, and more and more of them are seeing it.

So the best outcome I can think of would be for Assad to belatedly become a bit generous and really make sure that this amnesty offer really works and bring in the Syrians who have been fighting him, bring them back in the society and work out a way for peaceful change in Syria.

That would be the best possible outcome and then if Syria comes back under control, and there is law and order in the country, at that point it would be possible to do a real investigation of this atrocity.

Robles: I don’t think the United States wants that to happen. I mean 90% of the fighters there are being imported. I mean there are these Al-Qaeda affiliated groups, Al-Nusra, Wahhabbists and others. President Assad gave an interview yesterday to the US media and he said up to 90% of the so-called rebels are foreign fighters. So, I think they have to be extracted before anything can actually happen as far as peace goes.

Barrett: I agree. It is really a disguised war on Syria that they have managed to sell as a civil war. I think it was a set up, I think that there are plenty of indications that this has been planned for a long time, and that the Arab Spring provided an excuse.

They were able to get lots of people out into the streets, and of course, that wasn’t all that difficult, given the fact that there are these sectarian differences in Syria that have had a long bloody history.

So once they got those people out in the streets, then it appears that a lot of false flag activity was going on with snipers, firing on crowds, to make them think that government troops were shooting them and then other snipers firing on the government troops to make them think that the crowds were shooting them.

There were these mercenaries and killers sent into Syria to turn the Arab Spring demonstrations into a civil war and once they had this pretext of a civil war, then the mercenaries could start flooding in.

And it’s really a disgrace to Islam. I have been a Muslim since 1993 and it seems to me, that it is just tragic to have this kind of regime in Saudi Arabia run by playboy billionaire hypocrites, funding these kind of murderous activities on behalf of an empire that seeks to just keep on crushing Muslims all over the world.

And these poor people who are brainwashed into becoming mercenaries, for these extremist Saudi rulers are really not using their heads. I think that it’s a combination of: there is a certain element of fanaticism, that is being played with, there is also a lot of money being paid to people who are willing to go fight. But there is a noble intention to defend Islam, which really is what motivates a lot of people, when they want to go fight somewhere, is being warped and twisted and turned inside out by propagandists and in particular by the Saudis, who I think are really the worst offenders in this regard.

Robles: The Saudis, now they are the principle here, in funding, controlling, financing, organizing, importing/exporting, arming all of these terrorist groups. And Bandar “Bush”, or Prince Bandar, he even admitted to President Putin that they control the Chechen terrorists and threatened Russia with a terrorist event at the Sochi Olympics in 2014 if President Putin didn’t pull his support for Syria.

Do you see the US being supportive of a Saudi agenda bringing about all this violence, or do you see the US pushing this agenda and the Saudis going along with it? Who is really behind all this? And 9-11 as well, if you could comment.

Barrett: Right. I don’t think it’s any particular nation that’s behind any of this. I think it is a global ruling elite that has been very well explored by Peter Phillips, whose the professor in California who put together “Project Censored”.

His most recent work concerns figuring who are actually the members of this sort of hidden global elite that control most of the finance capital on earth. And so these are the people who are really making the decisions and they are making the decisions on behalf of their class, not really in the interest of any particular country.

Now it is true that these people tend to be overwhelmingly white and Euro-American, they are probably grossly disproportionally Jewish, but probably not the majority, but certainly more than 1 or 2% of the western population is Jewish and so there is a certain affinity for Israel in this group as well. But generally these people are just protecting their power and their class interest, and so: “Who are this people?”

Well, we have on the one hand, the Rothschild family, and these other big banking families and then we have all sorts of technicians who’ve risen to the top and are now the managers of these investment funds. Those kinds of people and the Saudis obviously control quite a bit of money.

They have cut a deal with this empire, they are allowed to pocket many many billions of dollars, in return for serving, as sort of the “custodians” of this oil rich peninsula.

So at the very top of this global elite, the people controlling most of the money. I think this are that people who are making these decisions.

They want to expand their empire which currently dominates Europe, the US, and several other parts of the world, but doesn’t really, fully control the world yet, but I think they would love to control the whole world, they want to keep expanding.

So that strategy they’re following, whenever there is country that is fairly cohesive and is not cooperating with their program and Syria would qualify, Iran would qualify, Russia would qualify, maybe tomorrow it would be China, then these nations and their leaders become targets.

So I think that is the way the game is being played. And when you cited this meeting between Bandar, who is sometimes know as Bandar “Bush” because he is an honorary member of the Bush Crime Family here in the US, and President Putin… in which Bandar Bush rather outrageously said: “Which do you want billions of dollars in this hand or do you want us to go stage a huge terrorist attack at the Winter Olympics next year?”

Talking about an outrageous Mafiosi style approach, it so crude and thuggish. The reports are that President Putin rejected this approach.

Robles: He just gave him a big “NYET”.

Barrett: A bit “Nyet” saying that we are not interested in this kind of dealing. We want to be dealing in an above board way, with people that we can have confidence in. I think that is the best possible way…

Robles: With people who share our views, right?

Barrett: Yeah. So, but it is kind of stunning that someone like Bandar would come to Putin and threaten to bomb the Winter Olympics and claim that he was acting with the full support of the US Government. Since when is the US government, you know, going to be threatening to bomb the Olympic Games with Al-Qaeda, through its Saudi proxy, it kind of turns the whole “War on Terror Paradigm” on its head.

That was the end of part 2 of an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies and the co founder of Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for truth, he is also the owner and the manager of the truthjihad.com.

This is part 2 of an interview in progress, you can find the previous parts on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

911 Designed as Quasi-Religious Event Dividing Time into Before and After - Part Three

11 сентября 9/11 атака взрыв

Download audio file  24 September, 21:57  

9-11 was designed as a quasi-religious event that would divide time into a before 9-11 and an after. The architects needed the event to wage endless aggressive wars around the world and continue to stage false flag events, such as the Boston Marathon bombing to continue the myth that we are all being threatened by terrorists. The entire War on Terror paradigm that we have all lived with since 9-11 was recently turned on its head when through its proxy Saudi Arabia, the US and Al-Qaeda (the CIA Database) threatened Russia with a terrorist attack. Dr. Kevin Barrett explained in detail all of these events and more in an exclusive interview with the Voice of Russia.

In progress

Barrett: …whenever there is country that is fairly cohesive and is not cooperating with their program and Syria would qualify, Iran would qualify, Russia would qualify, maybe tomorrow it will be China, then these nations and their leaders become targets.

So I think that is the way the game is being played. And when you cited this meeting between Bandar, who is sometimes know as Bandar “Bush” because he is an honorary member of the Bush Crime Family here in the US, and President Putin… in which Bandar Bush rather outrageously said: “Which do you want billions of dollars in this hand or do you want us to go stage a huge terrorist attack at the Winter Olympics next year?”

Talk about an outrageous Mafiosi style approach, it so crude and thuggish. The reports are that President Putin rejected this approach.

Robles: He just gave him a big “NYET”.

Barrett: A big “Nyet” saying that we are not interested in this kind of dealing. We want to be dealing in an above board way, with people that we can have confidence in. I think that is the best possible way…

Robles: With people who share our views, right?

Barrett: Yeah. So, but it is kind of stunning that someone like Bandar would come to Putin and threaten to bomb the Winter Olympics and claim that he was acting with the full support of the US Government. Since when is the US government, you know, going to be threatening to bomb the Olympic Games with Al-Qaeda, through its Saudi proxy, it kind of turns the whole “War on Terror Paradigm” on its head.

Robles: Exactly, exactly and, I mean, the western media has almost ignored that completely but I think it goes all the way to… the root of all this and 9-11 and the whole Bandar family connections with the Bush family, his mad desire to be king even though he is out of the running because of his mother etc.

What can you say about the Saudi connection to 9-11 again, to Boston for example, was there any connection there? When he made the revelation that the Saudis control the Chechen terrorists and can you tell us anything about Boston that you might know?

Barrett: Yes, I think that Saudis had some involvement in both 9-11 and probably the Boston attacks as well. Of the 19 hijackers, I believe it was 17 of them were Saudi nationals, and these guys were apparently intelligence connected Saudis, who were brought to the US on “snitch visas”. These are visas that the CIA issues to Saudis who are willing to spy for the CIA in Saudi Arabia, and as a reward they are given some money and then they are given special type of visa.

So 17 of these hijackers came over on CIA “snitch visas” meaning that they are all CIA agents and they are also presumably reporting to Saudi intelligence as well, which is very tight with the CIA.

While they were here, several of these hijackers did have connections with Royal family Saudis. And then after 9-11 suddenly all of these well connected Saudis, Ben Laden’s family, Bandar-Bush I believe, were packed up on planes and flown out of the country at a time when planes were not allowed to fly. They were basically evacuated to save them from being interrogated by the FBI.

So there are some interesting Saudi connections around 9-11, I don’t think they are quite as overwhelming as the Israeli connections, or even the US connections, but I think Saudi Arabia was a player in 9-11. And I think part of the purpose of 9-11 was to prevent Saudi Arabia from leaving the US orbit.

The king of Saudi Arabia had threatened to leave the US orbit in August of 2001, saying that: “The time has come for a partying of the ways.” And I believe that part of the purpose of 9-11 was to cut the knees off of the people in Saudi Arabia who wanted to move in the direction of independence and to restore that part of Saudi Arabia that is basically just a slave of the empire, people like Bandar Bush.

Robles: I see.

Barrett: And with Boston, I think that… To me at least it was very counter-intuitive that they would be telling us that radical Muslim Chechens would be bombing the Boston Marathon, because these radical Muslim Chechens, as you say, are part of this US-Saudi Axis, the element of so called Al-Qaeda that has been harassing Russia, ever since Al-Qaeda meaning: “the CIA Database”, was created during the Afghan war.

So why would radical Muslim Chechens want to bomb the US when it’s actually the US that’s supporting them in their fight against Russia? That makes no sense. And then all sorts of information popped up indicating that yes, these guys were probably patsies, they were controlled by these CIA-Saudi, so called Al-Qaeda types.

Apparently the older one had gone to Chechnya and maybe got trained. Their uncle is a CIA man, so it seems that probably the CIA and its Saudi, so called Al-Qaeda, proxies were involved in setting up these brothers for the Boston bombings. But I don’t believe that the Tsarnaev brothers actually carried out those bombings, I think they were probably set up as patsies.

Robles: The reason behind that is to increase defense and security spending to expand the police? What was the reason for that?

Barrett: It is actually to keep the post 9-11 regime going. 9-11 was designed as a kind of “mythic event” that would create what Philip D. Zelikow called a ‘whole new world’.

Philip D. Zelikow was the author of the 9-11 Report, who wrote the whole report in chapter outline before the commission ever convened, meaning he probably just took his script for the 9-11 attack itself, which he wrote before the attack and it was used to stage the attack and made that script into his 9-11 Commission Report.

Robles: Was he part of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?

Barrett: No, I don’t believe that Zelikow was actually a member of PNAC but he was associated with the same people, and he was the author of the Bush Doctrine of the preemptive war. He was a member of the Bush Administration and in fact the guy that was most responsible for that change to a preemptive war doctrine.

He described himself as an expert in creation and maintenance of public myths, such as the myth of Pearl Harbor, which we’re told was a perfidious Japanese surprise attack and that was used to turn the American people away from this 85% anti-war sentiment on the eve of WWII. And since Pearl Harbor Americans have been willing to allow the US to run rampant all over the world, and so Zelikow is an expert in this kind of thing.

He wrote an article in 1998 speculating on the likely “psychological, social, political consequences of a massive Pearl Harbor style attack on the World Trade Center, such as the “destruction of the World Trade Center”, was a quote from his article. So he nailed that three years in advance.

Basically this whole new world that Zelikow created using myth-making techniques, it’s the same way that time is always divided into “a before and an after”, by all myths and Zelikow talks about this in his article. He says that the destruction of the world trade center will divide time into a before and an after.

Just like, the great myth such as Christianity, divided time into before Christ and after Christ, BC and AD. And in Islam its before the Hegira and after the Hegira. Every great mythic sacred system divides time into a before and after.

So Philip Zelikow, the expert in public myths, staged 9-11 as this epochal human sacrifice, that would be a kind of quasi-religious event, that would divide time into before 9-11, when there was the Constitution and one set of rules, and then post 9-11, when we are in this whole new world where the government can do anything it wants and waging aggressive war all over the world with no restraints.

And in order to maintain ‘this whole new world’ that was created with the September 11th attacks, they have to keep staging a lot of follow up attacks.

They can be relatively small but they have to be spectacular enough to get a lot of attention and convince the people that were still living in this whole new post 9-11 world where we are all threatened by terrorism.

This is not true. The average American is more likely to be hit by lightening or drown in his or her bathtub than to die of a terrorist attack. But the media is being used to brainwash Americans in an Orwellian fashion to believe that they are in danger from terrorism.

So these insiders who staged 9-11 have to keep staging follow up terrorist attacks in a way that they will get a lot of media attention in order to maintain this illusory “whole new world” that was created with this mythic event of September 11th.

Robles: Thank you very much sir, it was great hearing from you. Thank you.

Barrett: You too. Bye bye.

That was the end of part 3 and the final installment of an interview with Dr. Kevin Barret.

Cancer epidemic among Latin American leaders not coincidental – Dr. Barret

Cancer epidemic among Latin American leaders not coincidental – Dr. Barret

12 March, 10:34     Download audio file

With the untimely death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez many respected experts and individuals are finally listening to what Hugo Chavez said when he publically contemplated the possibility that the fact that all anti-US imperialist Latin American leaders, including himself, had come down with cancer or heart conditions, was not coincidental. Dr. Kevin Barret adds his voice to those questioning the suspicious nature of the death and the “coincidental” epidemic of cancer among Latin American leaders.

I am speaking with Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies and the Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner of  truthjihad.com.

Robles: Now, you wrote an article shortly after the death of Hugo Chavez and what he called “an epidemic of cancer” among anti-US Latin American leaders. Can you tell us why you are certain his death and those incidences of cancer were not coincidental?

Barret: It really can’t be a coincidence that all of the leading opponents of the US Empire in Latin America suddenly caught cancer at the same time.

Besides Hugo Chavez we have Argentina’s president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who got cancer symptoms although it may not have been cancer, but these weapons may not cause ordinary cancers anyway. Her husband Nestor had died of a serious heart attack at age 60 in 2010.

Then we had Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, who caught cancer, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, Lula of Brazil and of course retired Cuban leader Fidel Castro, came down with cancer in 2006.

This is really the top 6 or 7 people counting, Nestor Kirchner, that the US empire would want to take out. All of them except him had cancer, and he died of a heart attack, somehow I don’t think that is a coincidence.

And if you look at the US history of meddling in Latin America and all over the world, assassinating leaders, overthrowing governments installing fascist regimes, this is pretty much all in a day’s work.

Additionally we know that the US did try to assassinate Hugo Chavez before. Everybody knows about the coup d’etat attempt in 2002.

What most people don’t know about is that Venezuelan prosecutor Danilo Anderson when was looking into and investigating that coup d’etat was killed in a car bomb in Caracas on November 18th, 2004, and later the prosecutors in Venezuela got a confession out of one of his killers, a man named Giovani Jose Vasquez De Armas. Who is a member of Colombia’s right-wing paramilitary group the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, that confessed, to the Venezuelan authorities that not only he had been involved in killing Danilo Anderson, and plotting to kill Chavez, but he did that with the help of the CIA and FBI.

So they were trying to kill Hugo Chavez in 2004. Given the track record of the US Empire and this mysterious outbreak of 6 cancers among their top six enemies, I don’t see how anybody could write this off as a coincidence.

Robles: Since when has FBI gone international in assassinations?

Barret: You know, you’d be surprised John, the FBI is a profoundly corrupt agency at the top. There are plenty of honest low-level FBI agents but the FBI at the top is essentially is an appendage of organized crime. It is been like that for a long time.

J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI during its formative many, many decades and was viewed by some as the most powerful man in America. Reason was that he held blackmail and film and photos on all of the most important political leaders in the US, and in other countries in some cases, and of course he was controlled by the actual head of organized crime internationally Meyer Lansky who had similar blackmail photos on Hoover.

So the FBI is profoundly corrupt, and they have worked with other US agencies and non-governmental private assassins in other operations.

So, I don’t have any problem accepting the confession of De Armas that an FBI and a CIA agent were involved at the committee meeting that plotted the killings of Danilo Anderson and Hugo Chavez.

Robles: You’ve mentioned in your article a group of assassins called the Asteroids. Can you tell us a little bit about them and what you know about them?

Barret: Sure, the best single source on the Asteroids is the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. He knew the real hit men. In fact I think he knows 2 or 3 of them personally, and Perkins job when he was an the economic hit man was to travel to countries around the world on behalf of the big banks that own the US government, these are the IMF, the World Bank. He was working for them and I think he had a connection with the National Security Agency as well.

So his job as an economic hit man was to go to these countries, approach the president, have a meeting with the president, sit down and say, “Okay, I’ve got fist-full of hundred dollar bills in this hand, I’ve got a bullet in the other. Which one do you want?”

If the president cooperated, the president would take huge unpayable loans from the IMF and the World Bank, and then that country would drown in debt and go bankrupt and the Banksters would move in and seize control of its resources and its government.

If the president of that country did not cooperate, then the Asteroids would be sent in. The Asteroids are the world’s highest level, highest-paid professional killers. They specialize in causing plane crashes. They are suspect in many, many plane crashes in the United States as well as abroad.

They undoubtedly killed Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002 to prevent him from looking into 9/11 and stopping the Iraq war, and they’ve killed a number of Latin American leaders as well.

So, the Asteroids are the next line of attack on these third world countries, and if they can’t succeed in assassinating the leader if his security is too good, this was the case with Fidel Castro, it was a case with Saddam Hussein, and it was the case in Panama with General Noriega.

Robles: What about Muammar Gaddafi?

Barret: Yeah, Gaddafi is another one, where they had to actually invade the country to get rid of the leader. So, that is the last final option, is to invade with the US forces.

The only reason they didn’t do it to Cuba is that after the missile crisis in 1962 the US signed an agreement with Cuba and with Russia, that it would not invade Cuba.

So, this kind of hamfisted, criminal attempts to take over the world through overthrowing and killing leaders is just business as usual for the US Empire.

Robles: I wrote an article myself about this and I was doing a little bit of research on cancer delivery methods and things like this, and I kept coming up on these CIA programs like MKULTRA, Paperclip and Doctor Cornelius Rhoads etc.

Can you tell us about any CIA programs that you know about involved in the delivery of biological agents or for example cancers?

Barret: The most interesting one is the program described in the book “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” by Edward Haslam. Haslam is a very good thorough researcher and he documents the amazing story of the cancer laboratory in New Orleans that was operating out of a secret US government program and among the people involved in this program researching ways in delivering cancer to enemies was a guy named David Ferrie.

David Ferrie was a defrocked priest, defrocked for his pedophilia, he was also a CIA agent and a pilot who had been involved in trying to overthrow Fidel Castro.

David Ferrie had a huge home laboratory, he was testing ways of delivering cancer, he and the CIA who employed him of course, were planning to use it to go after Castro, Castro’s associates and presumably other non-cooperative leaders, people like Hugo Chavez would one day become.

End part one visit our site in the near future for the rest of this interview with Dr. Kevin Barret.

Cancer is a very convenient assassination tool – Dr. Kevin Barret

Cancer is a very convenient assassination tool – Dr. Kevin Barret http://m.ruvr.ru/2013/03/13/1341833961/images.jpg

13 March, 12:35       Download audio file

One of the prime suspects in the JFK Assassination, who dies mysteriously before he could testify in court, was working on cancer delivery mechanisms for the CIA. Such programs continue and assassination by cancer and other illnesses is convenient because of its deniability. In an interview with the VOR outspoken Professor Dr. Kevin Barret, details the above as well as the Mossad connection to 9/11.

Hello! This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Dr. Kevin Barret - a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic studies and the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner of truthjihad.com .

Barret: This is quite a fascinating story given that David Ferrie, not only, was trying to give people cancer for the CIA at that time, working on delivery systems, that he was also a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. He was actually being prosecuted by New Orleans’s District attorney Jim Garrison. And he himself died suddenly and mysteriously shortly before he was scheduled to testify in court against his fellow JFK assassination conspirators. And his killing essentially killed Jim Garrison’s case and allowed JFK’s killers to walk free.

Robles: Do you know any programs in existence right now that are, actually working on cancer delivery? Most of the stuff I found was a couple of decades old. Do you know anything that is going on right now?

Barret: No, I don’t. And if I did, they’d probably have to kill me.

Robles: Yes, right!

Barret: Seriously, this sort of thing is, of course, normally kept secret, it is very rare when somebody talks about it.

We know that there’ve been all sorts of assassination attempts, and you know, there were 600-some attempts on Castro’s life by the CIA, and they tried every methodology you could ever imagine. So, obviously they are working on this as well. And it is very convenient for them because this is deniable. You know, they can say: “Oh, our top 7 enemies in Latin America have all just either gotten canсer or dropped dead, it is just a coincidence! You must be a crazy conspiracy theorist to even think twice about it.”

Robles: You’ve mentioned the connection between the author of the book and the NSA. Is the NSA also involved in stuff like this?

Barret: Well, I think that at the top level, you have a lot of overlapping of people and agencies, and you also have some overlapping of the government agencies with private forces. And ultimately, I think the private forces are actually, probably more powerful than the government forces.

John Perkins was basically working for the World Bank. There were some kind of NSA connections, but his official job title I believe was with World Bank. And he said that these “Asteroids”, these professional killers who like to cause plane crushes and other kinds of very exotic and elaborate ways of killing their victims, are essentially private contractors.

And they sometimes work for the CIA, or other government agencies, they sometimes work for the World Bank or the leaders of these big banks, and they sometimes work for private individuals.

And the same thing is true within the CIA. Some people are actually on the government payroll, and they are not all that well-paid, and then there are people that they recruit, like the CIA station chief recruits a bunch of so-called informants, and some of this people are thugs and killers and drug dealers and so on. So, when those informants do something, it is deniable because they are not actually collecting a regular government pay check.

So, this kind of work is done in a very, kind of strange cross sections of ways of sending government and private people to do it.

Robles: I see. I found it interesting that the Vice President, Nicolas Maduro, he expelled, on the eve of Hugo Chavez’s death, two US Air Force military attachés. They were accused of trying to recruit military personnel for destabilization exercises or programs. Obviously, that’s not something the US Air Force does I think. Or is it? And is this something new for, if it’s CIA, for them to be using US Air Force cover?

Barret: Sure, the CIA always uses military cover, it happens all the time. There is a fellow named Brad, whose last name I’m forgetting. He is one of our best sources on what was going in organizing the JFK assassination at the CIA station in Miami. And he was actually there at that CIA station in Miami under, I believe it was US Marine Corp cover, either that or Army. It is one of the many-many examples of how the CIA runs people in all kinds of government covers, the military would be the number one form of doing this. Like these Air Force guys in Venezuela. But…

When Jesse Ventura, for example, took over as governor of the State of Minnesota, the first thing he did, was… He was marched downstairs into a big room in the basement that he didn’t know existed in the state capital, and he was sat down with the whole bunch of CIA agents who were operating under the cover of state employees of the State of Minnesota. And these CIA agents proceeded to grill Jesse Ventura to find out precisely how he had managed to get himself elected governor without playing the usual game and being a third party candidate.

The CIA has… It is totally illegal, they are not supposed to even operate within the borders of the US, but CIA has essentially run the US along with the other criminal organizations and big money people, at least since they killed President Kennedy in 1963. And even though their charter says they cannot operate in the US, they could care less about the charter. They are everywhere, they can do anything they want. And so, it is not at all surprising that these kinds of people with their bloated egos, are running around the world killing perceived enemies.

Robles: So, you would say it is a given that Hugo Chavez was assassinated?

Barret: Absolutely! As I said, they tried that coup in 2002. They tried to organize a more conventional assassination in 2004 and they missed, but these people always should keep on trying. And so, when all of these; the top enemies list of the US empire, suddenly they all get cancer, all at once. I just can’t see how anybody can be seriously claiming that it just happened.

Robles: What do you think about Yasser Arafat, Milosevic, I mean would you like to talk about them for a minute?

Barret: Sure. Well, Milosevic, I don’t know a whole lot about that, but it is rumored that he was killed. Arafat obviously was killed by his enemies, the Israelis. I actually suspect that Edward Said, who was the biggest intellectual enemy of the Israelis here in the US, was also killed.

The Israelis are even more ruthless than the Americans, pound for pound, you know, population for population, they are an even more murderous country than the US is.

And Arafat was a thorn in the side of the right-wing forces in Israel, that were, I believe, the number one force behind the 9-11 operation, which was a coup d’état here in the US by the hardliners! Notably Zionist Neoconservative hardliners, and they essentially were trying to redraw the map of the Middle East, allow Israel not just to survive, but to thrive. And everything they’ve done since 9-11 has been towards that end.

And one of the things they needed to do was get rid of Arafat because Arafat had a certain amount of international prestige, he was able to command the loyalty of his people and hold the Palestinian people together. He was basically somebody that was in the way of destroying and fragmenting the Palestinian opposition to Zionism.

They tried to kill him many times before. And so, when he drops dead of such a mysterious illness that the best French doctors can’t figure out, I don’t think you really have to be a paranoid to understand what probably happened.

Robles: We talked about 9-11 in the past, we talked about the planned demolitions, that were the collapses of all the buildings. Can you give us a little bit of information about this Mossad and Israeli connection?

Barret: Sure! You know, speaking of various heart attacks and cancers, we start with pointing out that one of the first couple of major researchers into the Israeli connection to 9-11, who is a guy at antiwar.com named Justin Raimondo, who was more responsible than anyone else for getting the story out to a broad audience, about how the Israelis had been running a massive spy operation against the US during the run up to 9-11 and this appeared to be tied into 9-11. Raimondo, right after he broke the story, suddenly he had a heart attack while working out in the gym. He is a young guy, in perfect condition…

Robles: Yes, I remember that!

Barret: And after that happened, he didn’t say another word about 9-11 and he still really hasn’t. So, the tie ins between the Israelis and 9-11 are certainly very interesting.

Robles: So, you think that was an artificially induced assassination attempt, I mean the heart attack?

Barret: Sure! You know, I don’t think it is a coincidence that the guy who is most responsible for exposing this Israeli connection to 9-11 suddenly gets a heart attack and then shuts up. And the Israeli connection to 9-11 is evident in many areas, one is the big smoking gun of 9-11, which is the controlled demolition of building 7.

The landlord of the World Trade Center, who purchased the entire World Trade Center two months before 9-11 and doubled the insurance, is a fellow named Larry Silverstein. He is a big arch-Zionist billionaire and a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, who speaks to Netanyahu once a week on the phone.

Silverstein actually, accidently, screwed up and confessed on the national TV to having demolished his own building, building 7. And he still managed to walk away with nearly $1 billion in insurance money for that building alone and another $4.5 billion for the rest of his property, even though he had only put down only $15 million of his own two months before 9-11.

And of course the World Trade Center and the towers were condemned for asbestos. There was a court order that that asbestos had to be removed, from a court case earlier in 2001. It would have cost possibly in the double-digit billions, to scrape that asbestos off all of the steel frame members of the Twin Towers.

So, when Larry Silverstein, the noted Zionist crime figure, purchased this complex and doubled the insurance two months before 9-11, he would have just gone broke in just a few months if those buildings had continued to stand. They had high vacancy rates, they were condemned for asbestos, the city had been desperately trying to figure out a way to take them down for more than a decade.

And so, when a mobster buys them, doubles the insurance, confesses to having blown up one of them and walks away with a big pile of insurance money from a mobbed up court, it is pretty clear what happened. And the fact that he is a close friend of Netanyahu and an arch-Zionist is no coincidence.

Other evidence surrounding the Israeli connection to 9-11 includes the so called “Dancing Israelis”, the team of Mossad Agents who were arrested after wildly celebrating the attacks on the Twin Towers and the destruction of the towers. They were dancing around, flicking cigarette lighters, taking pictures of each other, flicking lighters in front of the burning towers and then howling and cheering when they were blown up. These guys spent a couple of months in prison in the US. They failed lie detector tests and then they were sent back to Israel by Michael Chertoff; dual US-Israeli citizen.

But the most important tie in between Israel and 9-11 possibly, among all of them, and there are so many, is the attempts to blow up the bridges and tunnels on 9-11.

Most Americans have never even heard beyond the first news reports that Israelis were arrested on the George Washington Bridge with the truck full of explosives that then blew up.

These guys were then sent back to Israel by Bernard Kerik, the then Police Commissioner who is now in prison for corruption, presumably under orders from the Bush Administration. And there were other trucks full of explosive which were intended to blow up other bridge tunnels.

This story has been systematically suppressed. I’m told by inside sources, that there’ve been a number of murders designed to cover this up, witnesses have been killed, all kinds of efforts have been gone to, to keep this secret.

So, these are just some example of the many-many ties-ins between Israel and 9-11 coup d'état.

Robles: This was John Robles. I was speaking with Dr. Kevin Barret. He is a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic studies and the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth, the site owner of truthjihad.com and the author of question The War on Terror.

This was part 2 of a 3-part-interview. Please visit our site in the near future for part 3.

9-11 was massive mind control exercise – Dr. Kevin Barret

25 March, 19:10  

11 сентября 2001 11 сентября теракт Всемирный торговый центр башни близнецы

Download audio file

The events in the United States on 9-11-2001, plunged the entire world into America’s own “War on Terror” paradigm. High level military officers, academics, doctors and professors from almost every field, citizens, scholars, legal specialists, and millions upon millions question what they witnessed before their very eyes, namely the controlled demolitions which took place on 9-11. Slowly as the collective shock of the world’s citizenry wears off and we see how it has been exploited and used by those who took power in the United States, more and more media outlets and individuals are beginning to realize that, yes, something is very, very wrong with 9-11.    

This is part 3 of interview with Dr. Kevin Barret.

I am speaking with Kevin Barrett, a Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies and the Co-Founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner of Truthjihad.com

Robles: I’ve researched 9/11 myself, a lot, and I always suspected that there was something like you’ve just mentioned; the buildings were condemned due to asbestos. How widespread is that information, because I’ve never heard it before?

Barret: There was a court case, so it’s a public record and I believe the court case was in something like February or March of 2001. It was early 2001 in any case, and a Federal Judge ordered the city of New York Port Authority, which then was the owner of the buildings, to do an asbestos abatement plan or to, basically remove the asbestos from these buildings, and as I said that would have been prohibitively expensive.

There are some good pieces on this, I have cited some of the sources on this including that there was a lawyer from a New York law firm, a pretty straight-laced law firm and the guy was a little bit careful about the way he wrote it up but he did cover many of the bases and I’ve cited that article a number of times in my own essays on this topic at veteranstoday.com.

Robles: That was actually ”another” reason to demolish these buildings, they were supposed to be demolished, “anyway”, right?

Barret: Yes, the towers had become white elephants. They had outmoded communication equipment, they had high vacancy rates, they had all that asbestos and increasingly the city was seeing them as a big eyesore, so there had been all kinds of talk, in New York, about how to get rid of these things before 9/11.

Of course it is kind of hilarious, they did it in such an obvious way, having notorious mobster Larry Silverstein, who got his start in the illicit sex industry, supposedly before he became a real estate mogul, buy the entire world trade complex, just 2 months before 9/11.

It is kind of shocking that they can do it in such a obvious way, and then Silverstein actually goes and confesses to participating in the demolition of building 7 on national television. It really shows just how in control the US media is that can do these things so obviously.

Robles: What is this confession? I mean can you “refresh” our memories?

Barret: Yeah, sure. In a PBS documentary called “America Rebuilds”, Larry Silverstein is seen talking about what happened to building 7.

He says: “You know I remember I was talking with, ah err, fire department commander and we said, ‘… you know, there’s been such a terrible loss of livf that maybe the best thing to do is, pull it!”

“So, we made that decision to pull and we watched the buildings collapse.”

Pull, “pull it” is a slang term for controlled demolition. It is quite stunning! That.

If you want people to wake up to 9-11, you can show them a 3-minute film by Doctor Bob Bowman called WTC7 Smoking Gun, it shows the obvious controlled demolition of building 7 which starts with a little crimp in the middle of the roof and comes straight down at free-fall acceleration, 6.5 seconds for a 47 storey-building. Perfectly symmetrical like an elevator going straight into the ground, and then you can see, in the same little film WTC7 Smoking Gun, Larry Silverstein confessing to the demolition, and then you can see the BBC reporting that building 7 has collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did. Apparently somebody had planted the news a little early.

Robles: I see. A lot of people who are against any kind of questioning of 9-11, one of the things they always bring up is: “Oh, our government could not have possibly killed, 2,999…or almost 3,000 people!”, and they say; “What about the people on the planes?” What do you think happened to the people on the planes? Especially the one that was supposedly… a “piece” of it was found in a field in Pennsylvania? They say those people were all murdered in Ohio. What can you tell us about all the people, the pilots and the planes?

Barret: Well it’s still a bit of a mystery, what happened with these planes, or we could even say “alleged” planes, because there is no evidence, that should be there, for actual crashes of any of the 4 alleged attack jets, at any of the 4 locations, where they supposedly crashed.

Not one coded part has ever produced from any of these planes from these alleged crash sites, and that has convinced a number of high-level former US military officers that there is something very, very wrong with this story.

And anybody can see by simply closely examining the damage pattern at the Pentagon and this 15-foot hole in the ground in Shanksville, Pennsilvania, that there is no evidence of a big plane crash.

At the Pentagon there is evidence of 2 separate bombings that are quite widely separated, but it is obvious that no single plane or even no single bomb could possibly create the 2 big bomb craters at the Pentagon.

And in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that 15-foot-hole-in-the-ground, without any plane debris, is the sorriest excuse for an alleged jet plane crash site that ever been used to deceive the public.

It is actually kind of humorous. The government claims that this the huge 757 just disappeared.

Robles: It evaporated! The whole thing evaporated.

Barret: That was at the Pentagon, they said the Pentagon plane evaporated, that is why there was no wreckage, the hundred tons of wreckage just didn’t exist at the Pentagon because it all evaporated. But in Shanksville they actually claimed that the plane buried itself in the soft ground, and they claim that they excavated it but nobody has shown us where are the plane parts and the body parts and so on, that they excavated.

There is no record whatsoever of any such excavation. It is really stunning how absurd this official story is.

Robles: And people still buy it. I mean it is like the biggest lie in the history of mankind, I think, and… Why are Americans so fearful of questioning the official version?

Barret: I think 9-11 was a very clever psychological operation. It is what we call “Trauma Based Mind Control”.

The CIA has long researched how to mind-control people using severe trauma.

We learned about this from among other sources from Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine”, by using electro-shock and torture and things like that.

It turns out if you shock people profoundly, they become extremely vulnerable to imprinting, and an authority figure can imprint, just about anything they want, on the brain of a person who has been profoundly shocked.

Well in 9-11, more than half of the population has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, clinical level PTSD, just from watching these images on the television.

So, there was a profound shock to the nervous system of the people, especially the Americans who watched this, and there is a thing called coercion, which is this kind of Trauma-Based Mind Control where they shock someone or otherwise confuse the person so that they are disoriented and once the person is disoriented, then a parental authority figure steps in and seizes control and basically imprints anything they want on the victim’s mind.

And that is what happened on 9-11. They shocked people with these horrible images and the authority figures were the newscasters and the politicians, President Bush who stepped in and told people what happened, and people just accepted it.

It was imprinted on their brain in the same way as a baby duck is imprinted by whatever they first see, they think it is their mother and they follow it around.

All of the American people were imprinted with this image of Bin Laden and this 19 Arab story immediately, and they have been following it around like a baby duck, following a dog around.

Robles: Very interesting. Thank you very much Kevin, Dr. Barret. I really appreciate you speaking with me on this.

That was John Robles. I was speaking with Dr. Kevin Barrett, the Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies and the Co-Founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner of Truthjihad.com

 

Who Benefitted from 911? Answer: Zionist Israel and the Rothschild Cabal

14 September 2011, 21:32  Download audio file

Interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and a Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish Christian Alliance for Truth, he is also the owner of Truthjihad.com. Today I would like to ask you some questions on 9/11. My first question is - who benefited from the tragic events of September 11 2001?

Interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and a Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish Christian Alliance for Truth, he is also the owner of Truthjihad.com.

Today I would like to ask you some questions on 9/11. My first question is - who benefited from the tragic events of September 11 2001?

Well, it is very clear that the Muslims didn’t benefit. Why would any Arab Muslim extremist want to do something like 9/11, which tripled the American military budget and launched American wars of aggression against the Islamic countries. So the answer of course is that it was the exact enemies of the people who were blamed for 9/11, who benefited from 9/11, and that would be the neo-conservative authors of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a documents put out by The Project for the New American Century just one year before the 9/11, calling for a massive increase in the US military budget, the launching of pre-emptive wars of aggression, especially in the Middle East, and in particular an effort to make the world safe for Israel in the Middle East. The two parties who benefited the most from 9/11 were the US military industrial complex and the hardliners in Israel.

There is a statement in the document you mentioned – that the US needed a new Pearl Harbour.

They said that to get the changes that they wanted - it wouldn’t happen without a quote: “Catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor.” In the 1990s the US military did extensive psychological studies, they hired the world’s leading focus group expert to try to look at why Americans still hated the Japanese, and they found that Pearl Harbour had shattered American’s sense of invulnerability and that this had led to a sort of undying hatred, and that is what they wanted to replicate, to allow for an endless war of aggression against the Arab and Muslim peoples.

What are the key discrepancies in the official version?

Probably the most obvious one is the destruction of building 7, it came down into it’s own footprint at about 5.23 or so in the afternoon, for no discernable reason, there were only a couple of small fires in this building. There is no reason for that building to come down the way it did. There is absolutely no question that  building 7 was a controlled demolition, and yet our government and its NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, released a long-overdue report on building 7 a couple of years ago that claimed that the reason was ordinary office fires. It’s one of the most egregious cases of scientific fraud ever perpetrated. I mean anybody who takes a hard work at what happened to building 7 will have to admit that there is a huge problem in the official version of 9/11, and then they will look at the towers and discover that those too were controlled demolitions. We are talking about the most complex and sophisticated controlled demolitions that have ever been, even attempted, on this planet. So real experts did this, after a tremendous amount of planning and calculation and thought.

The plane that was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania, there was a television broadcast in Ohio that the plane had landed, had taxied to a NASA hangar and the people on board had been evacuated and no one has ever ever seen them again. Do you know anything about that?

There is a new member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth who is also an experienced pilot of these large airliners, and he is currently hiding in fear for his life in Pakistan, and in his statement, he states, flat out that the passengers on these planes were unloaded at Cleveland airport and killed, that is one very plausible hypothesis.

All right…the Pentagon…

Thierry Meyssan got it right in his book; L'Effroyable Imposture (9/11: The Big Lie) which came out in early 2002, and then he put “Hunt the Boeing” on his website, looking at these pictures of the Pentagon immediately after impact and you don’t see any evidence whatsoever of any plane crash there, and there is a little tiny hole in the first floor of the building…

And there is a broken window on the first floor, and that’s it.

But around the hole, the windows are actually unbroken, and then the lawn is unscratched. Now how can a plane go into that 20 foot hole and not break all the windows around it, not even any dents where the engines would have hit the building and not leave a scratch on the lawn? This plane is 40 some feet high, and it is just ridiculous to imagine that it could have gotten into that hole and not impacted the lawn and not left any marks where the engines were. There was very likely a bomb at the Pentagon, that went off at 9.31. Other witnesses agree that what happened was probably a bombing, April Gallop, who was injured, along with her baby, while working in the Pentagon, walked out of the hole and saw no evidence whatsoever of any plane crash and was taken to the hospital, and then surrounded by military guys, brow-beating her and telling her that there had been a plane crash. She is suing the Bush administration today for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. If you look at the actual facts, they don’t add up, they don’t make sense, it was an insane idea to do this, they don’t care about any of this, because it was so shocking and terrifying that they were able to get the American people to swallow this insane story without even any evidence to back it up. We have strong evidence against them, and all we need is a subpoena-power-possessed investigation and this set of dominos will come down very, very quickly.

How has the world changed since 9/11?

It has changed for the worse, in so many ways. As I said the US military budget tripled, and that means that the amount of money that human beings are wasting on building technologies to kill each other is completely out of control and these bureaucracies of mass murder and lies have grown cancerously. So today the US economy is dead-in-the-water and it has been dead-in-the-water since September 2001, and that is the reason for the world economic crisis, the great exaggeration in military spending right here in the USA, what is changed is that we have gone from living in a reality-based world to living in an Orwellian nightmare world, of a boot-stomping-on-a-human-face-for-all-eternity, which is what we have been given post 9/11, and the only way to get back to some semblance of reality is to get to the truth of 9/11 and to establish the truth in court and for the history books.

Afghanistan, Iraq.. Would that have that all been possible without 9/11?

Absolutely not. You may recall that when Bill Clinton bombed the factory in Sudan, in retaliation for the Cole bombing he bombed the Taliban or supposedly al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, he was met with tremendous resistance, people said: Why are you killing all these innocent people in this nebulous retaliation for these nebulous events…so at that time the hands of American executive power were relatively tied. Today the President of the United States is just slaughtering people all over the world, he claims the right to murder, disappear and torture anybody including American citizens without any due process of law. So that has been the real change, I think, that they wanted to institute since 9/11.

 

 

Last Update: 07/26/2017 14:57 +0300

 

Site 1JAR2 Blog Button

 

JAR2 Biz

 

 Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page

 

  Please help keep us going and make a donation Thanks to all supporters!

PayPal, Yandex, Qiwi, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4543 8756

Copyright JAR2 2003-2017 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003