Posted on 04/04/2008 4:38:39 AM PDT by Fred Nerks
I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
It was reported in The New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussein Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy.
Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.
Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts.
Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”
Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts.
The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. 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 transhistorical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly would be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Arab or Islamic terrorist state.)
Brzezinski’s relativism makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He urns with the winds of power; he is nothing if not “politically correct.” Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.
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.
II. Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States
With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state.
As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.
“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”
Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism. Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran.
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-Judaizing of 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.
Will Israel be the target of “change”—the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussein Obama?
Brzeinski is also the father of Mika, the Morning Joe Bimbo.
"Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism"and the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller wing of the related movement pushing for global socialism and population control, which has much influence and little media scrutiny.
Foreign foreign policy experts don't just grow on trees. There are growers, groomers, and pruners.
Few people had heard of Barack Obama.
Just like that other Brezinkski clown... 
STOP OBAMA :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueI-vlcaqGY
Brzezinski’s secular humanism and CFR population control will be of little help in promoting hegemonic power in Eurasia and the New World Order. Maybe he (and Barry Obama) could write a paper or book report on the artificial depopulation of Western Europe for the next meeting.
bookmark
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1996366/posts
McPeak’s remarks under fire
The Oregonian ^ | March 27, 2008 | JEFF MAPES
Posted on 04/03/2008 4:15:18 PM PDT by Nachum
Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak of Lake Oswego was once again in the middle of a campaign flap Wednesday when Hillary Clinton’s campaign questioned his role as an adviser to Barack Obama because of his views on Israel.
McPeak, known for his sharp tongue, stood by his position that U.S. policy in the Mideast is influenced by pro-Israeli voters, but he did apologize for last week’s comment accusing former President Clinton of McCarthyism.
An Obama spokesman said the senator disagrees with McPeak’s comments on Israel but continues to stand behind him as a military adviser and co-chairman of his campaign.
McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, became a hot subject in the political blogosphere after The Atlantic Monthly’s Marc Ambinder reported that the Clinton campaign circulated an article from the conservative American Spectator harshly criticizing the retired general.
The article zeroed in on a 2003 interview of McPeak with The Oregonian in which he said that the United States failed to push Israel for the territorial concessions he said were necessary for peace. When asked where the problem was, McPeak replied, “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote . . . here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.”
The American Spectator article goes on to accuse McPeak of being an “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish ‘adviser.’ “
On Wednesday, McPeak said he worked closely with the Israeli military as an Air Force officer and considers himself a strong ally of Israel. But, he added, “the way to get to peace is to find some way out of the box canyon that Israel has built for itself with the West Bank settlements. . . . And it is just a fact that the Israeli vote — or the Jewish vote — is something that all politicians have to consider.”
During Obama’s visit to Oregon last week, McPeak told reporters he strongly objected to a statement by former President Clinton that a campaign between his wife and John McCain would involve “two people who loved this country.”
McPeak said it “sounds more like Joe McCarthy.” McPeak said he was still critical of Clinton’s remarks but conceded that “perhaps the comparison with McCarthy was not appropriate.”
Earlier this year, McPeak retracted a statement that Obama “doesn’t go on television and have crying fits,” a reference to Hillary Clinton tearing up in a New Hampshire appearance.
Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker released a statement saying, “General McPeak has shown a troubling pattern of personally attacking the Clintons that raises serious questions. Is the Obama campaign really committed to changing the tone of our politics, or are those just words?”
Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every position their advisers take” and Obama disagrees with what McPeak said about the power of pro-Israeli voters.
After reading this, some mysteries of Hussein ObamaSamma have been revealed.
Do we have another Jimmy Carter, anti America/Israel Manchurian candidate with Hussein ObamaSamma?
Thanks Fred.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for your post.
The ZB connection to Hussein ObamaSamma is very scary.
sorry, forgot to post the link to Paul Eidelberg’s website:
http://foundation1.org/wp-en/2008/02/28/the-brzezinskiobama-axis/
Great find!
thanks.
He 'd be hauling garbage in Samoa if it wasn't for affirmative action and this country has given him his place, and why is there no patriotism ion Obama? But I guess thats not enough for Obama, he wants historical pay back for slavery? Reparations? Who ever votes for this POS needs their head examined.
Yeah, hire Zbig, you little penny anti punk Chiocago Pol. Omamba has the genocidal blood of Kenyans on his hands. I hope he pays for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.