Brzezinski celebrates the success of the Communist Red Army

Author Topic: Brzezinski celebrates the success of the Communist Red Army  (Read 8997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,149
Brzezinski "retraces" the Long March, stressing U.S.-China strategic dialogues
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7062951.html
08:04, July 13, 2010


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/longmarc.htm

==============================================
"The Long March and its legacy had
contributed to shaping an extraordinary China"
 - Zbigniew Brzezinski

==============================================

The Long March and its legacy had contributed to shaping an extraordinary China, said former U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, when he called upon the headquarter of China's Central Military Commission (CMC) in Beijing on Monday.

His meeting with senior Chinese military leader Xu Caihou started with the memory of the Long March which set Brzezinski in mind of his trip to retrace the Long March in 1981.

"I learned you had retraced China' s Long March with your family before and your wife is a well-known sculptor," said Xu, who showed Brzezinski around the meeting hall where a set of stone carvings were placed portraying the Chinese Red Army and their epic Long March from 1934 to 1936.

"Currently China's modern construction and its reform cause are another new Long March, and to stick to a peaceful development road is China's long-term and strategic choice," said Xu, CMC Vice Chairman.

Brzezinski, who served under former U.S. President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, had retraced part of the route of the Long March with his family when visiting China in July of 1981.

After that China tour, he wrote an article for the Life Magazine titled "An American Family Retraces Mao's Long March", in which he said "For the emerging new China, the Long March is more than an epic of almost unmatched heroism. It is the reminder of the spirit of national unity essential to overcome the legacy of backwardness."

Looking around each of the stone carving with great interest, Brzezinski said the "incredible" and "superb" works had reminded him of his China visits over the years, in particular, the trip to review the Long March.

These experience helped me to better understand China and some of its historical events, said the 82-year-old strategist.

The Long March was a famous military maneuver carried out by the Chinese Red Army led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) to combat the Kuomintang Regime.

Though many soldiers died on the way of the two-year ordeal, the Red Army finally arrived at Yan'an in western Shaanxi Province after the 25,000-li (12,500-kilometer) trek, where the new headquarters of CPC was later established.

Brzezinski said all these historical events had helped to shape an extraordinary China.

In his two-hour-long meeting with Xu, Brzezinski stressed the United States and China should have all-round strategic dialogues and strengthen coordination and contact, and work for the peace and stability of the world.

Xu agreed the two sides should properly handle bilateral relations and international issues to their mutual benefit instead of as a zero-sum game.

"More than 30 years of China-U.S. relations have proved the two countries can co-exist peacefully and enjoy common development. China's development will expand cooperation between the two countries," Xu added.

Brzezinski is visiting China at the invitation of the Chinese International Institute for Strategic Society.

Source:Xinhua



The Long March of the Red Army

The Long March (simplified Chinese: 长征; traditional Chinese: 長征; pinyin: Chángzhēng) was a massive military retreat undertaken by the Red Army of the Chinese Communist Party, the forerunner of the People's Liberation Army, to evade the pursuit of the Kuomintang (KMT or Chinese Nationalist Party) army.

======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

In sum, the KMT (Kuomintang army) began as a heterogeneous group advocating American-inspired federalism and provincial independence.

However, after its reorganization along Soviet lines, the party aimed to establish a centralized one party state with one ideology - Three Principles of the People. This was even more evident following Sun's elevation into a cult figure after his death. The control by one single party began the period of "political tutelage," whereby the party was to control the government while instructing the people on how to participate in a democratic system.

After several military campaigns and with the help of
German military advisors (German planned fifth "extermination campaign"),
the Communists were forced to withdraw from their bases
in southern and central China into the mountains in a
massive military retreat known famously as the Long March
,

an undertaking which would eventually increase their reputation among the peasants. Less than 10% of the army would survive the 10,000 km march to Shaanxi province.

The Kuomintang continued to attack the Communists. This was in line with Chiang's policy of solving internal conflicts (warlords and communists) before fighting external invasions (Japan). However, Zhang Xueliang, who believed that the Japanese invasion constituted the greater prevailing threat, took Chiang hostage during the Xi'an Incident in 1937 and forced Chiang to agree to an alliance with the Communists in the total war against the Japanese.



Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and the deaths of 20+ MILLION Chinese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

The Great Leap Forward of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which ostensibly aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturalization,[citation needed] industrialization, and collectivization. Mao Zedong led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces, and intensified it after being informed of the impending disaster from grain shortages.

Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, social pressure, and violence. Food rationing was introduced, in some cases leaving rural Chinese with less than 250g (half a jin, 8.82 ounces) of grain per day.
The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, triggering a widespread famine
that resulted in possibly more than 20 million deaths.
[1]

Background

In October 1949 after the defeat of the Kuomintang, the Chinese Communist Party proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Immediately, landlords and wealthier peasants had their land holdings forcibly redistributed to poorer peasants. In the agricultural sectors, crops deemed by the Party to be "full of evil" such as the opium crop, were destroyed and replaced with crops such as rice. Within the Party, there was major debate about redistribution. A moderate faction within the party and Politburo member Liu Shaoqi argued that change should be gradual and any collectivization of the peasantry should wait until industrialization, which could provide the agricultural machinery for mechanized farming. A more radical faction led by Mao Zedong agreed that the best way to finance industrialization was for the government to take control of agriculture, thereby establishing a monopoly over grain distribution and supply. This would allow the state to buy at a low price and sell much higher, thus raising the capital necessary for the industrialization of the country.

It was realized that this policy would be unpopular with the peasants and therefore it was proposed that the peasants should be brought under Party control by the establishment of agricultural collectives which would also facilitate the sharing of tools and draft animals.

This policy was gradually pushed through between 1949 and 1958, first by establishing "mutual aid teams" of 5-15 households, then in 1953 "elementary agricultural cooperatives" of 20-40 households, then from 1956 in "higher co-operatives" of 100-300 families. These reforms (sometimes now referred to as The Great Leap Forward) were generally unpopular with the peasants and usually implemented by summoning them to meetings and making them stay there for days and sometimes weeks until they "voluntarily" agreed to join the collective.[citation needed]

Besides these economic changes, the Party implemented major social changes in the countryside including the banishing of all religious and mystic institutions and ceremonies and replacing them with political meetings and propaganda sessions. Attempts were made to enhance rural education and the status of women (allowing females to initiate divorce if they desired) and ending foot-binding, child marriage and opium addiction. Internal passports (called the hukou system) were introduced in 1956, forbidding travel without appropriate authorization. Highest priority was given to the urban proletariat for whom a welfare state was created.

The first phase of collectivization was not a great success and there was widespread famine in 1956, though the Party's propaganda machine announced progressively higher harvests. Moderates within the Party, including Zhou Enlai, argued for a reversal of collectivization. The position of the moderates was strengthened by Khrushchev's 1956 Secret speech at the 20th Congress which uncovered Stalin's crimes and highlighted the failure of his agricultural policies including collectivization in the USSR.

In 1957 Mao responded to the tensions in the Party by promoting free speech and criticism under the 100 Flowers Campaign. In retrospect, some have come to argue that this was a ploy to allow critics of the regime, primarily intellectuals but also low ranking members of the party critical of the agricultural policies, to identify themselves.[2] Some claim that Mao simply swung to the side of the hard-liners once his policies gained strong opposition. Once he had done so, at least half a million were purged under the Anti-Rightist campaign, which effectively silenced any opposition from within the Party or from agricultural experts to the changes which would be implemented under the Great Leap Forward.

By the completion of the first 5 Year Economic Plan in 1957, Mao had come to doubt that the path to socialism that had been taken by the Soviet Union was appropriate for China. He was critical of Khrushchev's reversal of Stalinist policies and alarmed by the uprisings that had taken place in East Germany, Poland and Hungary, and the perception that the USSR was seeking "Peaceful coexistence" with the Western powers. Mao had become convinced that China should follow its own path to Communism.

According to Jonathan Mirsky, a historian and journalist specializing in Chinese affairs, China's isolation from most of the rest of the world, along with the Korean War, had accelerated Mao's attacks on his perceived domestic enemies. It led him to accelerate his designs to develop an economy where the regime would get maximum benefit from rural taxation.[3]
Before the Great Leap, peasants farmed their own small pockets of land, and observed traditional practices connected to markets—festivals, banquets, and paying homage to ancestors.[3] Starting in 1954, peasants were encouraged to form and join collectives, which would putatively increase their efficiency without robbing them of their own land or restricting their livelihoods.[3] By 1958, however, private ownership was entirely abolished and households all over China were forced into state-operated communes. Mao insisted that the communes must produce more grain for the cities and earn foreign exchange from exports.[3] (continued)



Why does Brzezinski love the Long March?
Only a conspiracy factist would be interested in reading the history to figure it out.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Brzezinski celebrates the success of the Communist Red Army
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 08:29:47 am »


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=68271.0



Zbigniew Brzezinski to Radicalized Jihadists: "Your cause is right!"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=871_1203045560&c=1
http://mprofaca.cro.net/news0000.html
Zbigniew Brzezinski in late 70's, telling Afghan Jihadists: "Your cause is right. God is on your side."


BOJINKA VIII: OPERATION BRZEZINSKI
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/01/operation-brzezinski.html
Adam Larson Written late 2005 Posted 1/20/07

As he was asked repeatedly in his Q and A session, "Bust and Boom" author Matthew Brzezinski is indeed the nephew of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter. A cold and calculating thinker who has been described as the Democrats’ Henry Kissinger, the elder Brzezinski has tried his hand at non-fiction, writing many books, including his 1997 The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geo-Strategic Imperatives. In this book he noted, among other things, the strategic role of securing Afghanistan (as well as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and - surprise - Poland) in relation to the American empire to hedge in Russia or any other rival to control of the “Grand Chessboard” of Eurasia.

Zbig’s own earlier role in Afghanistan was pivotal, encouraging and provoking the Soviet invasion of December 1979 that triggered the Jihad where bin Laden and the other future al Qaeda leaders met and learned the tools of the terror trade. This was a conscious plan of Brzezinski’s to give the USSR “its Vietnam War” to “make the Soviets bleed for as much, as long as possible” but with no American deaths. [1] President Carter agreed, approved funding, and sent Zbig to Islamabad in January 1980 to show support for Pakistan’s resistance against the Soviet occupation. He took a little side-trip to the Afghan border to rally the international coalition of radical Islamists; dressed in a parka at the Khyber Pass, Zbig told them “your fight will prevail because your cause is right and God is on your side.” [2]

Whatever works at the time works, including dirty tricks like creating terrorist networks; but Zbig continued to boast of this as “an excellent idea” even as late as an early 1998 interview in which he asked his interviewer “what is more important in world history, the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” [2] At the time it may have seemed a toss-up, but later that year two US embassies blew up in Africa and bin Laden declared holy war on the US – his crusade started taking on its eventually convincing global dimensions as a replacement for the Soviet threat.

Zbig’s son Ian Brzezinski is now helping the Pentagon keep Central Europe “liberated” from Russian domination as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs, appointed shortly after 9/11, in November 2001. Ian is at virtually every Pentagon meeting where European diplomats are present, usually seated right next to the top U.S. official. A longtime NATO insider, he spearheaded the effort to shape its expansion into Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. All seven “North Atlantic” states were approved for membership in March 2004, followed by Brzezinski’s capstone article “An Alliance Transforming.” [4] His advising record and his catalog of writings indicates that Ukraine, once the second most powerful Soviet Republic, is the final prize in this campaign, a play right out his dad’s 1997 book!

Ian's brother Mark Brzezinski has also helped in this process, as a possible Secretary of State if John Kerry had won in 2004, and otherwise devoted to the “Democratic transformations” wracking the former Soviet Space in the early years of this “new American Century” - notably the dioxin-induced Orange Revolution that turned Ukraine, of all places, upside down.

Ian’s and Mark’s sister Mika Brzezinski had worked as a reporter and host for CBS News for a few years until 2000, when she went over to MSNBC for a bit. Her return to CBS in early September 2001 was rewarded with the post of top New York correspondent. She was already reporting from the WTC before the second plane hit, and continued throughout the weeks after, anchoring millions of viewers to the latest from Ground Zero from the first moments of shock and awe through the early and raw phase of the “War on Terror” mentality. [5] Thus her timely return allowed her to have no small role in shaping the “widely perceived” part of what her father had four years earlier called the “direct external threat” that would allow “imperial mobilization.” [6] She later vied for an anchor slot on the back of such notable reportage, but lost the bid to Katie Kouric.

And then there’s nephew Matthew’s article that claims to expose the roots of al Qaeda’s sinister plan that led to all this. Some, like Matt, explain that the name Bojinka is a Serbo-Croatian slang word for “loud bang.” Some sources interpret it as meaning “chaos in the sky” or something to that effect. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected financier of both this plan and September 11, explained in a 2003 interview that Bojinka is simply a nonsense word he picked up in the international bazaar that was the Afghan Jihad. [7]

Maybe this is coincidence, but I think it also sounds a little like “Brzezinski” (pronounced Brr-jhin-skee). If I let my imagination run for a minute, and I will, I can visualize “Bojinka” starting out as a nonsense nickname Osama gave Zbigniew when they met in Pakistan in 1980. They were both in country at the same rough time and for the same reason. As we’ve seen, Brzezinski visited the bustling Khyber Pass on a side-trip from his mission to Pakistan in January. Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion had made Osama “furious,” as he later recalled, and he was far from alone. As one of many sons from the Saudi Kingdom’s second richest family, he was the top export they had at the time. He first arrived at Peshawar, near the Khyber Pass, within weeks of the invasion - January. [8]

He and Brzezinski were both there to boost the funding and the morale of the frontline troops and to show the unity of purpose in the anti-Soviet alliance: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the U.K., and the U.S. Thus as the top representatives of their respective allied nations, it would in fact be a bit odd if the two men hadn’t met. It is a hard name to pronounce. “Ah, here he is now, our American friend Mr. Buruz… zuzzuz.. Mr. Baarrjjuzzz… Mr. Bojinka!” (big hearty laughs all around, it evolves among the Muj into a little frontline joke, one thing leads to another…) Both men would, and have, denied such meetings; bin Laden claims he never knew he was serving America’s interests at all. But it’s an intriguing thought, and vaguely possible. Weird things abound, I’ve found, around this weird name.

Sources:
[1], [2] CNN. Cold War Experience. Episode 20. Soldiers of God. Accessed November 9, 2005 at: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/20/script.html

[3] Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

[4] U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda. Volume 9, Number 2. June 2004. (CIAO Date 9/04 - ?) Accessed November 10, 2005 at: http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/fpa/fpa_jun04/
[5] Mika Brzezinski profile. CBS News. Copyright 2002. Accessed November 9, 2005 at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/28/broadcasts/main527208.shtml
[6] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York. Basic Books. 1997. Pages 210-211
[7] 9/11 Commission Final Report. p 488-489
[8] Frontline: “A Biography of Osama Bin Laden.” PBS. 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html



"[The G]rand imperative of imperial geostrategy [is] to keep the barbarians from coming together."

-Zbigniev Brzezinski 1997 "The Grand Chessboard"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
https://www.mega.nu/ampp/privacy.html
-Zbigniew Brzezinski



Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2057538/between_two_ages_by_zbigniew_brzezinski/

Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages- America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, (1970) p 57:

“As one specialist noted, ‘By the year 2018, technology will make available  to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need to be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces.  Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm….”



This is a commentary from 1990: The Creation of FEMA and the Continuity of Gov't
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=60527.0

Read this interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski from MotherJones.com
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58004.0

Zbigniew Brzezinski - After NATO Enlargement
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=22279.0

Intelligence for a New World Order Foreign Affairs Magazine Fall 1991
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28671.0

CIA - The Arms to Ankara affair
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4619.0

WEATHER MANIPULATION FOR GLOBALIST AGENDAS
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35408.0

War, Inc.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=44382.0

History Corrected—U.S. Wanted Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=20321.0



http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
================
Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear:
The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon


Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Published 15-21 January 1998 Translated by Jean Martineau

I. Comment: The US & European States are still using Brzezinski's Muslim terrorist strategy! by Jared Israel
II. Interview with Brzezinski [Posted 6 September 2004]
=======================================
Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.  It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression. Not so, says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.  He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

"I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets."

Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called "conspiracy theory." To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels. One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue  *in principle* that they would not use it again?  We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).

========================================================
Lying with dollars
========================================================

Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahideen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahideen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression:

U.S. Provides $500,000 So Afghan Rebels Can Tell Their Story
AP, September 16, 1985, Monday, PM cycle SECTION: Washington Dateline  By JOAN MOWER WASHINGTON

Guerrillas in Afghanistan are about to get money from the United States government for a public relations campaign intended to bring their struggle against Soviet troops to the world's attention.  The money will train Afghan rebel journalists to use television, radio and newspapers to advance their cause. Reporters will be given mini-cameras to photograph the war inside Afghanistan.  "It is the goal of this project to facilitate the collection, development and distribution of credible, objective and timely professional-quality news stories, photographs and television images about developments in Afghanistan," said a notice in the Federal Register. The program will be overseen by Uncle Sam's own propaganda arm, the U.S. Information Agency. Congress appropriated $500,000 to hire experts and may provide more later.

In making the money available, Congress all but instructed USIA to consider an organization like Friends of Afghanistan, a new group whose board includes former Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for hard-line anti-Soviet views.  USIA has solicited proposals, due Sept. 25.  Friends of Afghanistan includes other American foreign policy luminaries such as Lawrence Eagleburger, a former undersecretary of state, and Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, a Columbia University political science professor and some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan.
[Note from Jared Israel - Eagleburger played a prominent role in first Bush administration in demonizing the Bosnian Serbs.]
[...]
Afghan rebels, called the Mujahadeen, have been battling 100,000 Soviet troops who have occupied the rugged, mountainous country since December 1979.
[...]
[Excerpt from Associated Press dispatch ends here]


The Associated Press referred to Khalilzad as a "some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan." This was in the late summer of 1985. Less than three years later Tass, the Soviet news agency, reported that Khalilzad was delivering the mujahideen an important message from the State Department.  Khalilzad told them that the State Department would continue to support them a) only if they could consolidate control of Afghanistan and b) only if they maintained an attitude of implacable hostility to the government in Kabul. In other words the US ordered the mujahideen *not* to make peace:

"'The United States has told the Afghan guerrillas that it would support them in an effort to form a provisional government if they consolidate their control of most of the country and meet other criteria,' the newspaper New York Times today quoted State Department officials as saying. A top State Department official made it clear that the government must oppose 'the soviet-backed regime in Kabul' and said that the USA did not 'accept the legitimacy' of the authorities in Afghanistan. The relevant message was delivered to the rebels in the Pakistani city of Peshawar last week by Zalmay Khalilzad, a special adviser on Afghanistan to under secretary of state Michael H. Armacost..."
[-- To Support Afghan Counter Revolutionaries New York; The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, May 6, 1988, Friday]

========================================================
Applying the techniques developed in Afghanistan to Bosnia
========================================================

Brzezinski's interview has tremendous importance today.  According to a Dutch intelligence report on Bosnia, in the early 1990s Pentagon intelligence worked with the Saudis and Iranians to bring weapons and mujahideen terrorists - the 'Afghan Arabs' - into Bosnia to indoctrinate and lead Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremists in fighting the Bosnian Serbs.  [1] The same terrorists had been used against the pro-Soviet side in Afghanistan. Once again the media lied, claiming the Bosnian Serbs were fighting to destroy the Bosnian Muslims (i.e., genocide) when they were in fact defending their communities from the mujahideen, and were allied with a large group of moderate Muslims. [2] This picture appeared in the London Times on December 11, 1995. The caption reads: "One of the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades marches through Zenica in a demonstration of strength by 10,000 soldiers." Note that according to the Times these 10,000 troops constituted only *one* of "the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades..."

During the 1990s, pictures like this were as rare as hen's teeth in the Western media.  Why? Because they graphically demonstrated that the media was lying when it claimed that the "Bosnian Government" was moderate and multiculturalist and so on. The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahideen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahideen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence.  In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon. [3]

In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.) By the late 1980s Brzezinski's protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the  top strategist of the Afghan war. Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon.  We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahideen in Bosnia. So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski's protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight.  The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.
========================================================
2001: Brzezinski's protégé Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed Senior National Security Director for Southwest Asia, the heartland of Muslim extremist terror...
========================================================
Want some food for thought? From May 23, 2001 until November 27, 2003, Prof. Khalilzad was "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues, National Security Council." Southwest Asia covers the area from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, including Iraq and Iran; it includes most of the Middle East and extends to Georgia. See White House map at
http://www.politicsol.com/terrorism/maps.html

* Khalilzad was in charge of US policy on the ground in Afghanistan before and during the 2001 war. He then personally chose the Afghan government. It was under his watch that the US and Iran cooperated in convening a top level conference to give Afghanistan a government based on Muslim religious law. Now he's Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan. [4]
* Even while Khalilzad was in charge of Afghanistan he was also the key man on the ground before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. He was in charge of political relations with Iraqi exile politicians and the Iranian and Saudi governments up until the fall 2003. A crucial period.
* His area of official responsibility included Georgia during the period when the US was intensifying the financing and training of the Georgian military.  Russia accuses Georgia of aiding the Chechen terrorists.

So Brzezinski has been the key hands-on strategist, the leader on the ground, in a vast area plagued with Muslim extremist terror during most of the so-called war on terror. Oops - did I say Brzezinski? Sorry; I meant Zalmay Khalilzad...
Regarding US-Iranian cooperation to use Muslim extremist terror in Bosnia, see "How the U.S. & Iran have Cooperated to Sponsor Muslim Terror," at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm
Also see 'Articles Documenting U.S. Creation of Taliban and bin Laden's Terrorist Network' at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm
Regarding Brzezinski's protégé Zalmay Khalilzad, see http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm
For more on the calculated creation of a Muslim extremist apparatus in Afghanistan in the 1980s by the US and Saudi Arabia, see the Washington Post's analysis at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm

The Brzezinski interview follows.

-- Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

***

Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur
Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.
Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.
Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...

* Footnotes and Further Reading
[1] Regarding Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremism, see "Who was Alija Izetbegovic? Moderate 'George Washington' of Bosnia or Islamist Murderer?" http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/izet.htm  
[2]Regarding the Pro-Yugoslav Muslims who allied with the Bosnian Serbs, thus giving the lie to the charge that the Serbs were religious bigots, see "Pro-Yugoslav Muslim Leader Put on Trial," at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/abdic.htm
[3] Regarding Khalilzad's role in the Pentagon under the first Bush administration, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#head
* Regarding the Dutch intelligence report on the Pentagon's coordination of intervention in Bosnia by Muslim states (especially Iran) see http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm#dutch
[4]Regarding Khalilzad choosing the Afghan government, see http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#3

Regarding the top level conference where the US and Iran cooperated to design an Afghan constitution based on Muslim religious law, see "The IDLO, Backed by the US and Iran, Planned Muslim rule for Afghanistan," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/idlo.htm  

The strategy Brzezinski helped develop is the key to understanding U.S. government actions today. See:
* "Why has USAID been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?" at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
* 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan' by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Brzezinski celebrates the success of the Communist Red Army
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2010, 08:32:08 am »
Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives  
Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book

http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Background

According to his resume, Zbigniew Brzezinski lists the following achievements:
Harvard Ph.D. in 1953
Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University
National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission
International advisor of several major US/Global corporations
Associate of Henry Kissinger
Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy
Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations
1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.
Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

How does this contradict what our elite want?
Let me give you the quotes, this is not what they had in mind. The odd thing is, that China and Russia seem to be doing exactly what Brzezinski is afraid of, I seriously believe that their politicians may have read his book and used it to determine how to counter American global hegemony. You can look this up yourself here:
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

Let's start with the quotes, you will see that what has happened is their biggest fear, and they now have to look for a way to destroy Russia and China:

"The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign
and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in
keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests
of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no
Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and
thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive
and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of
this book." (p. xiv, page 9 on the pdf)" Read; America must create the New World Order, and to do this we must make sure that no great power emerges that could stand in our way.

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55, 63 in the pdf)

"Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand
coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an "antihegemonic"
coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.
It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge
once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would
likely be the leader and Russia the follower. Averting this contingency,
however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S.
geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters
of Eurasia simultaneously."
(!!!)
-Page 55, (63 in the pdf)

I can not stress enough that people read the last quote, and understand it's significance.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately