Part 2: Democracy is all but dead, the world is threatened by American hegemonic war – a Brexit vote could change all that
Preface by Pam Barker | TLB staff writer
This is the second part of an interview Dr. Paul Craig Roberts recently gave to Julian Charles of The Mind Renewed. The loose transcript of this interview – the 2nd part – is below.
In the first part, a very important article from 2000 by Ambrose Pritchard-Evans writing for the Telegraph was referenced. The link to that can be found here. The link to Dr. Roberts’ recent blog post, also referenced in the first part, can be found here.
TLB: this transcript begins around the 25-minute mark in the interview
Russians saw all this [the German Luftwaffe attacked Russia] with Germany in 1941. They won’t accept this and have said as much. We need to start listening to what the Russians are saying. You can’t go around picking a fight with the world’s most powerful military – which is Russia’s, not the United States’.
The Rand Corporation (Rand is essentially a CIA outpost) did a study analyzing war games, and said that a war between Russia and the US/Europe would take merely 60 HOURS to be over, not 60 days. Russia has a much more sophisticated army and would overrun Europe very quickly. The US is so outclassed militarily.
Some would say that Rand claimed this in order to get more military funding, but there are too many independent military analysts out there who can verify this. And nobody has criticized the Rand studies.
The EU enables American war crimes
What the US is doing with NATO is forcing Europe into a conflict situation with Russia. But the US also uses NATO to cover up for its war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Without NATO cover, it would be called naked aggression and the US would be put on trial for war crimes. But the cover of NATO makes it look like their activities are an exercise in democracy because other countries are deemed to support it all.
So Europe enables Washington’s war strategies and geopolitical military moves, which are creating vast numbers of refugees coming into Europe. That’s how stupid the Europeans are and the British.
JC: So the consequences of the Brexit vote go far beyond UK national borders although we’re always told to think about this in terms of the British perspective only. The EU and NATO would unravel, and many of these problems would be overcome.
PCR: The US is threatening the entire world by picking a nuclear fight with Russia and China (conventional war is impossible against these countries, especially as they have a strategic military alliance). We’re pushing the whole world in this direction. And Europe is enabling this! If European countries had independent foreign policies, they would refuse this involvement in American world hegemony and foster good relations with Russia. Real leaders in Europe would say this, but they are all bought and paid for.
JC: So a Brexit vote is a vote against Washington’s attempt at a New World Order.
PCR: Yes. An absence of a Brexit vote loses everyone an opportunity to stop Washington’s aggression, and the chance of nuclear war is greatly increased.
Democracy is dead in the West
JC: But a situation with Ireland could play itself out again where Ireland had TWO opportunities to vote over the Maastricht Treaty and their repeated rejection was not recognized. The Brexit vote might not have any effect.
PCR: Or the government could simply not accept the vote. We already see this happening. Not long ago, one of your top generals said that if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime Minister, they’re not going to let him take office.
Democracy in the West is gone, it’s dead. Look at Greece. There is no respect for democracy. Look at France. They’re supposed to be left-wing socialist governments. Governments are doing the opposite of what people want despite people’s protests in the street.
Our view of the EU is false
JC: So often we are given the view of the EU that it’s gently left-leaning and socially democratic. A documentary I saw ‘The Brussels Business: Who Runs the European Union?’ gives evidence that the institutions of the EU are massively influenced by thousands of corporate lobbyists based in Brussels. So it gives the lie to the idea that it’s left-leaning.
PCR: There’s nothing left about it. There is no left-wing in the west – it’s gone. Tony Blair passed for a Labour government. Really?? He is more right-wing than Ronald Reagan. Look at the so-called socialists in France – Francois Hollande. And Sarkozy. These people are essentially facists. There is no respect anywhere in Europe for democracy. The whole ideology is to accept rule from above.
The US is completely ruled by private oligarchy interests. We have Wall St, the military-security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness – Monsanto, extracted industries – energy, mining, timber. These are the people who make the laws, make the regulations, who staff up the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency – they rule. So Europe is no surprise.
JC: And in this documentary, I hadn’t heard of the European Round Table of Industrialists. It’s made up of corporate CEOs which have privileged secret access to the very European Commission we were talking about earlier. It’s just stacked with names people would recognize – BASF, Heineken, Total, Erikssons, Fiat, Phillips, Rio Tinto, Nokia, Royal Dutch Shell, Siemens, Volvo, etc. – they have secret access to the European Commission, which puts forward the legislation to be voted on.
‘Yes’ to Brexit would finish the TTIP
PCR: So the companies put forward the legislation just like in the US. The politicians are a front – they provide a cover. The private interests run it. Notice the treatment and acceptance that Monsanto, GMOs and glysophate get from the EU, but not from the member countries like France. The minister responsible in France said that glysophate will continue to be banned in France despite the EU giving more time for trials of this stuff – so there is a conflict between France and EU law. These kinds of conflicts will only get worse.
But because the CIA is running the show, ultimately the individual governments will lose.
JC: So the CIA is behind the push for things like TTIP. If TTIP goes through, people won’t know that these things are in their food supplies because there will be no labelling.
PCR: If the TTIP partnership goes through, Monsanto will be able to sue France for loss of revenues it would have earned because of French national laws. And the suit would take place in a private corporate tribunal, not public courts, where only the corporations make the decisions. And so all of these laws can be overturned by the corporations. And so can any kind of health or safety regulation because it prevents profits from being made. I think it can even be used to get rid of taxation.
In the UK, private American health corporations will be able to come in and do away with the National Health Service (NHS) because it interferes with their profits.
JC: So a vote for Brexit is the end of the TTIP, too, because the end of the EU means there is no bloc to negotiate with.
We need to remove the threat of WWIII
PCR: That’s right. The British people could do the whole world and themselves a massive favor – it would block the corporate takeover of Europe, it would block the American use of Europe to create hostility with Russia and would greatly remove the threat of war. But what we seen now in Russia and the US is a massive increase in nuclear forces.
Everything Reagan and Gorbachev accomplished has been overturned by Washington. Their two big goals were that they ended the risk of nuclear armageddon and the end of the Cold War – they believed that nuclear weapons should be gone. It’s now a far worse situation. It’s worse in every respect. The war doctrines of the countries used to be retaliatory force only, that nuclear weapons can be used to retaliate only. Now both sides have nuclear first-strike doctrines. So the situation is far worse than at the height of the Cold War.
During the Cold War, American administrations used to make every kind of effort to be on good terms with Russia. But now our government and presidential candidates are demonizing Russia and telling lies at every opportunity against Russia and about Russian ‘invasions’. Reagan wanted to end the state of risk that existed. But now the risks are all back. Washington will simply be encouraged if the Brexit vote fails.
JC: But none of this is made clear to the British people. It’s always presented in terms of what’s good for the country and whether or not it’s good for the pound, jobs and trade with EU markets, etc. None of this is spelled out to us at all. We’re sheltered from the reality.
The press and government are complicit in the propaganda
The propaganda we’re bombarded with is having an effect. In 2013, polls showed that more people were wanting to leave, but then there were more stay votes in 2015. Now the situation is worryingly close, and I think people will lose their nerve at the last minute. We’re told it’s all uncertain if we pull out of the EU. That fear of the unknown is being played on. People like the feeling of things being familiar and certain.
PCR: So the consequence is that the British and their justice system will disappear, and the conflicts with Russia will intensify. And neither Europe nor the US will exist in any form if war happens.
Everything is being done to warp our judgement, to make us mistrust what’s going on by the press and by the government. It’s a mystery to me why anybody trusts anything the press says. It’s nothing but propaganda and lies.
Look, a couple of years ago, we had a big German editor (TLB: Dr. Udo Ulfkotte) who said that he and the other press outlets were told what to publish and were essentially CIA agents. It’s true for all major news sources throughout Europe. It’s true in England – there is no independent press.
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte
JC: But people don’t know this, and still trust familiar-sounding institutions that they believe can be relied on. So the economic case for staying in is supported by the Bank of England and IMF. So we trust these famous names to tell us what to do. But Tory MP Daniel Hannen says we’ve shackled ourselves to a corpse. We should follow Norway and Switzerland who have association agreements, which make them independent and still have freedom to trade with the EU. Why are we shackled in this old-fashioned 1970s way of thinking when the UK was the sick man of Europe? We should be able to trade with whom we like in this globalist age. But the big institutions tell us what to think. People haven’t learned to distrust these big institutions and think for themselves.
The British pound is a strength and weakness
PCR: Washington will say no to a Brexit vote most probably. It won’t permit an exit. Or if the UK does leave, then there will likely be a massive attack on the British pound. On order by Goldman Sachs, all the central banks along with the Federal Reserve will gang up on Britain – they’re all puppets (the central banks) – to drive the pound down to nothing, and turn around and point to the departure from the EU as the cause. And then they’ll make a case for going back in to the EU because no-one has confidence in the pound.
JC: So you mean an economic false flag that they won’t admit to.
JC: Are you saying there’s no point in voting in the Brexit? It would flag up the issues, surely, that there is a dissatisfaction with the EU.
The powerful knock-on effect of Brexit
PCR: Such a vote would encourage other countries without their own currency – they don’t face an attack on their currency in order to be brought in line because they don’t have their own currency to be attacked.
So take the Greeks. If they saw such a situation, a Brexit could embolden them to get out because they couldn’t experience such an attack. And there is no sense in attacking the euro. This applies to the Portuguese, Italians and Spanish. Even the French. In that sense, it would be good as a way of starting people to vote to leave.
And these countries actually have every reason to leave.
JC: So that sounds like the poorer countries would be the ones leaving. Would it be a redefinition of the EU, leaving the richer countries in?
PCR: That would mean that Germany would have to turn to France to make them pay instead of Greece and loot France instead. Look, Greece is being looted – they’re being forced to turn over their public assets to private foreign investors. That’s why the German and Dutch banks don’t want any debt relief because they’re using the debt as a reason to loot Greece, as they did with Ireland, Latvia and Portugal. It’s what the US did in many countries in Latin America.
They use debt to loot countries and it’s really severe in Greece. So Greece has no reason to stay in and they feel intimidated. But they might take heart from the example of the British.
So Britain can’t be looted because of their own currency, but it makes their own currency vulnerable to attack and destruction. So a strength becomes a weakness. But it’s a strength for the weak countries to simply get out because they don’t have their own currency. It’s easy for them to get out.
JC: Going back to Daniel Hannon’s comment, that the EU is stagnant. Was it always the intention of Washington to make Europe weak in economic terms so that it wouldn’t be an effective competitor against the US? Europe could be economically stronger under different circumstances where they could trade freely.
PCR: I don’t know about that – it’s speculative, I have no way of knowing. But I do know Washington always wanted Europe for control reasons against the Soviets initially. So for that reason, they would have wanted Europe to be economically strong against Russia.
That’s why Washington invented Operation Gladio whereby the CIA and other groups went around Europe bombing places such as train stations and blaming other groups such as Bader Meinhof, etc.
JC: Yet the CIA was also funding mild left groups. It’s a very weird situation indeed.
PCR: So they would have wanted a strong Europe at that time. When Russia collapsed, that’s when the goal or demon of American hegemony came to the fore. Russia was the only obstacle to world domination. So if NATO were broken up, the threat to human life would be taken away. Now we see reckless, irresponsible attacks on Russia. If they WERE being aggressive, we would know it because those countries wouldn’t be there anymore!
Why would Russia invade the Baltics? Russia gave them their independence. There’s simply no sign of Russian aggression there or planning or buildup, but the press makes it all an indisputable fact.
PCR: They always pull out this argument of having a ‘place at the table’ argument in favour of Britain remaining in Europe. It’s been going on for decades from the British side. The logic is, if we’re at somebody else’s table, we COUNT. What has happened to this great nation ?
Britain’s greatest achievement being threatened
Liberty is a human achievement mainly achieved by the British over many centuries to get accountable government, and people protected by the rule of law. Law was taken out of the hands of government as a WEAPON and turned into a SHIELD to protect the people. The creation of liberty by turning law into a shield and not a weapon – that was the great British achievement. Now it’s all being thrown away.
JC: So now the British people have an opportunity NOW to do the ‘right thing’ as Cameron would call it. A Brexit vote, even symbolic, could embolden people in other countries. So we do have a serious opportunity here, to vote for a much wider view and really change things.
PCR: It’s a vote for humanity, for life on earth. What’s at stake is life on earth. It can change everybody’s mentality and convince others to disbelieve the propaganda mechanism of our governments. It says that people can see through the lies and propaganda – that’s the message, the important thing. It would influence people in other countries across the world as well as US and the EU. The propaganda basis of all western governments would disappear. It’s the only way people can get control back over their lives. Right now they have zilch, especially in the United States.
About the contributor
Pam Barker is a TLB staff writer/analyst based in France. She has an extensive background in the educational systems of several countries at the college and university level as a teacher and administrator.