- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Brzezinski’s Back

Ted Belman

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

Events of the past few days indicate that the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction of lunatic Russia haters have now won the upper hand inside the secret councils of the Anglo-American finance oligarchy, displacing the hitherto dominant George Shultz-neocon faction. Although George Bush and his cronies still occupy the White House, the policies that are being carried out are coming from the Brzezinski left CIA machine. Brzezinski has returned to public prominence in recent months due to his role as top establishment controller for the Obama campaign. But Brzezinski is not waiting for the outcome of the November elections to take over key parts of the US government.

Brzezinski and his left CIA allies are already moving to assert their strategy, even as the neocons and their characteristic obsessions are moved to the back burner. The probability of an attack on Iran or Syria is declining, even as the danger of confrontation with Russia, China, and Pakistan “all much more dangerous targets to trifle with” increases exponentially. (SOURCE)

Hmmm. Out with the old, in with the older.

Obama, Brzezinski and the Neolib/Neocon Family Feud

Let’s call Barack Obama what he is—a sock puppet for the ruling elite. Obama made this plainly obvious recently when he tabbed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign policy adviser. In addition to his affiliations with the Council on Foreign Relations (as director), the Trilateral Commission, and the National Endowment for Democracy[..] It is said David Rockefeller asked Brzezinski to create the Trilateral Commission and details were hammered out at Rockefeller’s Pocantico Hills estate outside New York City. Rockefeller later introduced the idea to the Bilderberg group in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972.

The Commission’s purpose is to engineer an enduring partnership among the ruling classes of North American, Western Europe, and Japan — hence the term ‘trilateral’—in order to safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world.

Rest assured that Brzezinski wouldn’t have endorsed Obama last summer had he not believed that Obama supported his foreign policy vision.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, in Brzesinsky/Obama Axis tells us of their commonality.

His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.

With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government.

Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam . Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt . To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.

This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizingof Israel’s Third Commonwealth. Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski . The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish!

But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism. ” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum. Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government. But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction . A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country. A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history .

Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites.

Brzezinski was behind the Camp David Accord in which Israel was required to give back every inch. What does this auger for the current peace process?

Brzezinski/Carter undermined the Shah and enabled the Islamic Revolution in Iran which as we see has far reaching consequences. In return Iran has become a fierce enemy of Israel as the Carter/Brzezinski axis wanted.

Brzezinski/Carter created al Qaeda in Afghanistan to defeat Russia. But al Qaeda went on from there to challenge the US and 911 was the result.

Brzezinski/Carter took Arafat under their wing and appointed him to negotiate with the Mullahs in 1979 for the release of the US hostages. They also engineered the appearance of gun-toting Arafat at the UN General Assembly and gave the PLO observer status. They were also in power when the infamous resolution Zionism is Racism was passed by the UN. Arafat and the PLO were supported to undermine Israel.

It was Brzezinski’s policies which led to the destruction of Yugoslavia as a means to undermine Russia. Pushing the independence of Kosovo down Russia’s throat to keep the pot boiling is part of his policy. Once again the Brzezinski’s CIA are backing an Islamist terrorist group the KLA to destroy a country, Serbia .

Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not partheid”tells you where his sympathies lie and probably where Brzezinski’s policies lie. Carter also supports Obama.

They both publicly endorsed The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt as have all Obama’s team both past and present.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

It is obvious that during an Obama presidency, Israel will be forced to accept the Saudi Plan if it doesn’t willingly do so.

Some Jews think that accepting the Saudi Plan is in Israel ’s interest and accordingly are working for Obama’s election. These same Jews do not see Islam as a threat.

All candidates support the peace process as it is politically expedient to do so. The question is who will force Israel to accept it or who will be more flexible.

Other’s see both Islam and the peace process negatively and will not vote for Obama and actively oppose him and such thinking.


On March 30/08 Brzezinski recently wrote A Smart Way out of the Foolish War

He is right on many things. The war accomplished no good. I am not in favor of humanitarian intervention except in very extreme circumstances. So what if Hussein was a brutal dictator. Under Hussein, Iraq was stable. The whole idea of spreading democracy is an impossible task.

One might even question why the US stayed after the first Gulf war. Whatever threat a resurgent Iraq might have been, it is nothing compared to the one posed by Iran now.

ZB was the father of 9/11 given how he stirred up the Islamists to fight Russia and others in the far east. In effect he opened up a pandora’s box. Talk about disastrous policy decision.

What drove him to do it and what drove Bush to invade Iraq is the desire to advance American interests throughout the world. If terrorism helps, so be it. If the war on terrorism helps, so be it.

ZB makes the case for American interests being better served by getting out than by staying in. The GOP stands for the opposite. But they are not so opposite. Except to me, ZB seems to back Iran whereas the Us currently backs S. Arabia.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Isn’t that what Bush wants to do? The rest of his arguments for faster or slower troop withdrawals have to do with tactics. Bush thinks more can be accomplished by hanging around a bit longer and ZB thinks the opposite. Have I got that right?

The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

Even in this they both want the same thing or say they do. Bush wants to get there by more management of the process and the protection and advancement of US economic interests in Iraq. BZ seems to prefer the law of the Jungle. Let the factions duke it out, so to speak. But of coarse managed by regional agreements in which everyones interests are balanced. But how long will the balance be maintained. It assumes a desire for stability. Shouldn’t ZB be factoring in Iran’s appetite for more. ZB isn’t worried about that. He can work with Iran just as he worked with al Qaeda or other Islamists. For him, they are just a tool to advance US interests just as “humanitarian intervention” is a tool for others.

Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development - all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

This reminds me of the US attempts in Vietnam to negotiate terms of withdrawal. As soon as it left, the deal was meaningless. It was unenforceable.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East ,

Yet he understands that the result will be more fighting in Iraq, the opposite of “calming”.

Even if a balance is worked out now, it will merely be a Hudna. Iran will continue to advance its interests throughout the ME. The US will be powerless to stop it. Which brings us to Israel.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region’s religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East ’s growing wealth.

Once again there is an assumption that the “region’s religious and nationalist passions” are assuageable.

While he calls for forced “mutual concessions” his starting point is what each side wants, not what each side has a right to.i.e. The Palestinians want it all and Israel wants it all so let’s agree on the armistice line. Regional stability would follow and everybody including Israel would benefit.

Even if a deal is force fed, why will it not be a stepping stone to Israel ’s further isolation and destruction. He doesn’t care. America will still be there to protect its own interests. As for Israel, well, it was a nice experiment.

It has always been American policy to shrink Israel. We must understand why this is so. What’s America’s grand design?

Ted Belman also writes for