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, Brzezinski was the architect of Carter’s Afghanistan policy, that it to say he is responsible for killing thousands of innocents and organizing the Afghan Arabs, later to become “al-Qaeda.” 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.

As author Holly Sklar has noted, in “1973 the Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan Bank chairman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security advisor, and other like-minded ‘eminent private citizens.’ Some 300 members (up from about 200 members in 1973) are drawn from international business and banking, government, academia, media, and conservative labor. 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. The private Trilateral Commission is attempting to mold public policy and construct a framework for international stability in the coming decades. Throughout this book, ‘trilateralism’ refers to the doctrine of world order advanced by the Commission” (Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Edited by Holly Sklar, South End Press, 1980).

“Upon reading the 1970 book Between Two Ages, David Rockefeller lured its writer, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, away from Columbia University to become the Chairman and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission,” writes Eric Barger (The New World Order Under Clinton: Establishment Insiders and Political Deceit, The Christian World Report, May 1993, pg. 7.) “Brzezinski, who later became the mastermind of Jimmy Carter’s foreign affairs and national security blunders, is still looked to as a policy guru by the liberal media today. Using the same socialist mindset, objectives and premise as the CFR, the TC sprang from, and was purposely patterned after, Brzezinski’s book in 1973.”

In other words, Brzezinski is a consummate insider and enthusiastic proponent of world government, that is to say he has worked long and diligently for the plan to transform the world into a corporate slave plantation and mega-sweatshop.

Thus it makes perfect sense Barack Obama, billed as one of “10 people who could change the world,” according to the New Statesman, has invited Zbigniew Brzezinski aboard, or rather was told by his globalist handlers to invite him. “For Brzezinski, 79, support for Obama means support for a radical change in direction of American foreign policy,” writes MSNBC. In other words, neolibs of Brzezinski’s ilk have lost patience with the chest-pounding neocons.

“These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel,” Brzezinski told Nathan Gardels, editor-in-chief of the journal of social and political thought published by Blackwell/Oxford and Global Services of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate/Tribune. “They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East’s population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.” Naturally, neolibs of Brzezinski’s ilk prefer less obvious and immediately bloody measures. Moreover, the designs of Israel do not figure directly into the plan, a prospect horrifying to neocons and the AIPAC crowd.

“Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way,” writes Philip Giraldi. As Ronald D. Asmus and Kenneth M. Pollack write for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, “Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort. We supported the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq because we concluded that force was the only way to lance these boils. But force will not work as a normal tool of policy or social engineering in the Middle East. Our goal must be to have the Arabs embrace democracy and modernization, not to force it down their throats.”

In other words, the neolibs believe in the tried and true method of making certain corrupt leaders are installed—consider, as primary examples, the Shah of Iran, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and the monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan—and accomplishing what the neocons are slogging through by way of proxy, albeit less dramatically and at a slower pace. Of course, the main difference is that the Israel-centric neocons, like their Jabotinskyite collaborators, hate Arabs and Muslims, whereas the neolibs are indifferent and far more interested in doing the bidding of the bankers, the IMF and World Bank, transnational corporations, that is to say advancing the process of “free trade” (as in unhindered looting and plunder) as well as ushering in world government, a process long envisioned by Brzezinski’s mentor, David Rockefeller.

Thus we should expect Foreign Policy Passport, a blog sponsored by Foreign Policy, the monthly magazine published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to declare Obama “the next JFK,” echoing Ted Sorenson of the New Republic. As should be expected, the elite at Carnegie have their reservations. “But the real question is, which John F. Kennedy? The young dynamo remembered favorably by Sorenson and revisionist historians? Or the inexperienced son of privilege who botched an invasion of Cuba and brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation? The jury is still out.” Actually, the CIA botched the Cuba invasion and more or less kept Kennedy in the dark, as Peter Kornbluh notes in Bay of Pigs Declassified: The Secret CIA Report on the Invasion of Cuba (New Press, 1998), even though Kennedy had an unhealthy obsession with Cuba and the prospect of assassinating Fidel Castro.

Obama’s adding Brzezinski to his campaign reveals a widening riff between the neocons and neolibs as the U.S. moves toward the 2008 selection process. As Brzezinski has warned, tellingly tipping his hat, the neocons are not above staging yet another terror attack in order to get their way and bomb Iran, a prominent target on their list of countries to be flattened and reduced to “failed states” by way of depleted uranium.

As if to signal how dire things are for the neocons, Harvard Law professor—and advocate of torture and humiliation of Arabs and Muslims—Alan Dershowitz has thrown in his two cents in regard to Brzezinski. “It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama to select as a foreign policy adviser the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book,” Dershowitz recently declared, mentioning the Walt and Mearsheimer volume on the Israel lobby, that is to say the prime movers, along with the Jabotinskyite fanatics in Israel, of the neocon version of things. In order to balance the deck, Obama—again, his handlers—have inserted former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro, both staunch Israel supporters.

No doubt, come November of next year, a few sparks will fly, although nothing of substance will change. Kurt Nimmo