...with very few exceptions, a look at the advisors and handlers generally reveals who will be who in the next administration, and therefore allows us to extrapolate what the new regime will actually do.
If we look at Obama this way, we are confronted with findings that are nothing short of appalling. It turns out that none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski is the principal guru of the entire Obama campaign. His influence goes beyond the critical area of foreign policy and embraces the entire public profile of post-partisan, trans-racial, and global elements assumed by this candidate. This time around, we see the mobilization, not just of Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, but of the entire Russia-hating Brzezinski clan, with son Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the Clinton ear NSC, also on board for foreign policy, and media groupie Mika Brzezinski leading the cheering section of Obama at the cable television network MSNBC. Another wing of the Brzezinski operation is represented by son Ian Brzezinksi, currently Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Eastern Europe and NATO Affairs. Ian, it should be noted, is technically supporting Senator McCain. A kind of utility infielder in this entire effort is Matthew Brzezinksi, a supposed investigative journalist who has written an extensive profile of Ilyas Achmadov, the US resident ambassador for the Chechen terrorist organization, which appeared in 2005 in the Washington Post.
The real dimensions of the Brzezinski machine are much larger than this: .....the term Brzezinski machine indicates that entire part of the US intelligence community which assumes a left of center coloration in its public dealings. The Brzezinski machine by this definition therefore includes the strategically decisive left wing of the Central Intelligence Agency, which often does business as the National Endowment for Democracy, frequently lining up with the Soros foundations and other foundations which operate in the orbit of the intelligence community. These are more or less the same forces which dominated the Baker-Hamilton Iraq study group of 2006, and which criticized and rebelled against the policy orientation of the George Shultz-Rupert Murdoch neocon faction that had been dominant inside the US-UK banking establishment since about the time of the impeachment of Clinton in 1999.
It is therefore necessary to ignore for a moment the edifying rhetoric and Utopian platitudes spouting from the mouth of the candidate, and instead turn our attention to the handlers and advisors who represent the potential future White House palace guard, since it is these figures who will actually repair the policy options for the next tenant of the White House, and will thus actually make policy. Don't listen to the mouth; watch the motions of the hands and feet, who are in this case the advisors who will later fill the Cabinet and other key posts.
Brzezinski' influence is not limited merely to issues of war and peace in the foreign policy sphere, critical though that obviously is. The entire public persona or political profile exhibited by Obama during his campaign would appear to derive from the theoretical elaborations of Brzezinski. The key piece of evidence in this regard is Brzezinski's latest book, Second Chance. Here Brzezinski repeats his thesis that a worldwide political awakening is now taking place, and that the goal of this movement is "dignity." Brzezinski's notion of dignity, once all the obfuscation is peeled away, boils down to the quest for cultural and political self-determination and extreme identity politics on the smallest possible scale, with everything shaped by the cultural, ethnic, religious, and social peculiarities and parochialism's of the smallest groups. Brzezinski wants mini-states and micro-states with the dimensions of local control and community control projects with have so long been in vogue for counter-insurgency purposes. There is no doubt that Brzezinski's "dignity" thesis represents a declaration of war, not against this or that modern nation-state, but against the institution of the nation-state itself as we have known for the last 500 to 650 years, going back to the Visconti of Milan c. 1380 in the Italian Renaissance. If respecting the tiniest peculiarities of every conceivable group is the order of the day, then a massive wave of secession, Balkanization, subdivision, and partition of existing nation-states will be the unavoidable result. And this exactly what Brzezinski wants. The most obvious example is the secession of Kosovo province from Serbia (under KLA terrorist auspices), opening a superpower crisis between Washington and Moscow. For Africa, Brzezinski recommends the so-called "micro-nationalities" concept, which means that the national boundaries established in the 19th century should be swept aside in favor of a crazy quilt of petty tribal entities, each one so small that it could not hope to resist even a medium-sized oil multinational.
In the Middle East, knowledgeable observers have long been familiar with the Bernard Lewis Plan, which contemplates the breakup of the existing nation states into impotent, squabbling principalities, each one an easy prey for J.P. Morgan Chase, Halliburton, Blackwater, Exxon-Mobile, and other neo-feudal corporate predators. The case of Iraq is already before the eyes of the world: instead of one Iraq, we now have three---the Kurdish entity in the north, the central Sunni region, and the Shiastan in the south. Still according to the Bernard Lewis plan, Iran is one day to be divided into six or seven subdivision, Sudan into at least two parts, and Lebanon into a checkerboard of petty enclaves, while Turkey, Syria, and other Middle East states are destined to be carved and mutilated to create an independent greater Kurdistan and other will-0-the-wisps that have populated the diseased imagination of the Anglo-American geo-politicians going back to Versailles in 1918.
Policy makers in Moscow, for their part, are well aware of the Brzezinski Plan, which calls for the partition and subdivision not only of the Russian Federation, but of the age-old European Russian heartland itself. Under the Brzezinski Plan, the world map would come to look more like the map of the Holy Roman Empire in about 1600, which had some 500 theoretically independent political entities, some of them no bigger, than a small sized family farm, speckled across central Europe. Knowing Brzezinski, we must suspect that the one country destined to remain intact is Poland, perhaps in the form of a greater Poland stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as it once did, under the control of an oligarchy of imbecilic petty noblemen (or "gentry") rather like Brzezinski himself. Brzezinski's notion of dignity is thus revealed as an extreme form of local control over a Bantustan or ethnic-religious mini-homeland of the type used in the past in such countries as South Africa. The greater the local control of language, culture, and related parochial issues, the greater the subjugation of the resulting entity to outside political, economic, and military interests.
If the Russia-hating Brzezinski clan dominates Obama'a foreign policy apparatus, what of economics and finance, areas which are obviously at the forefront of everyone's concern in the present Bush world economic depression, marked by hyperinflation, universal banking panic, and the death agony of the US dollar as the world reserve currency? Here the results give rise to just as much consternation. Obama's leading economics guru is Professor Austan Goolsbee, a 1991 graduate of the ultra-elitist Yale University, where he was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society, which brought us Bush the Elder and the current tenant of the White House, to say nothing of the effete patrician, John Forbes Kerry.
Goolsbee is a leading exponent of the monetarist Chicago school of economics, founded by the unlamented Milton Friedman, whose doctrines have inflicted untold genocide on the developing countries. Milton Friedman worked closely with such reactionary Republicans as Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom used his approach to chip away and undermine the economic rights won by the American people through the epoch labor struggles of the New Deal era. The most sustained application of Milton Friedman's economic views came during the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile. Goolsbee says that he is an inveterate fan of "free markets," and any treaty with free trade on the cover will automatically get his support. When asked to differentiate the Obama campaign from the others, Goolsbee has replied that the Obama campaign is more respectful of "the market." Goolsbee is hostile to winter fuel assistance for low-income families because he thinks the program in question is "bureaucratic." He also does not like any government interference with the process of foreclosing on working families and throwing them and their belongings out into the street.
Another of Obama's economics advisors is Harvard Professor Jeffrey Liebman. Liebman is devoted to the "partial privatization"of Social Security, which is exactly the strategy supported by the current Bush. Partial privatization smacks of the Newt Gingrich "let it wither on the vine" approach used by Republicans in the 1990's. Then there is David Cutler, another Harvard professor on board with Obama, who thinks that increased monetary incentives for health insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms are the way to go. In other words, Cutler wants to increase cash transfers into the insatiable paws of these corporate predators. All of this speaks volumes about what Obama would actually do if he ever got to the White House.
And no one should be fooled into thinking that the Brzezinski-left CIA-NED faction represents a peace loving alternative to the warmongering excesses of the bellicose and truculent neocons. Quite the contrary. For all their bluster, the neocons have always chosen to pick on relatively defenseless states, meaning countries with little or no ability to retaliate against the United States for the unprovoked aggression meted out to them. The neocons in short pick on the little guys, the ones with little or no intercontinental strategic weapons.
The really alarming aspect of Brzezinski is that he lacks even the bully's instinct for survival. Brzezinski is determined to use the next US administration as a vehicle for his final settling of accounts with Russia, his own personal twilight of the Gods. Brzezinksi's self conception is that he is the statesman who successfully destroyed the Soviet Union by goading Moscow to invade Afghanistan in 1979, leading Moscow's defeat in a decade-long protracted guerrilla war from which the Soviet Union never recovered. Brzezinski also takes credit for having masterminded the dismemberment of the Warsaw Pact, starting in his native Poland in 1988-1989. Brzezinski now intends to crown the edifice of his geopolitical career with the destruction of the Russian Federation, including the Balkanization and partition of European Russia itself. This is an enterprise of incalculable folly, since the Russian Federation is the one state on earth which retains the ability to incinerate the United States, as well as Japan and Western Europe, inflicting tens of millions of casualties in the first hour of a thermonuclear exchange. Brzezinski is therefore attempting to drag the world back into the worst nightmare of the Cold War.
Brzezinski himself would most likely argue that a direct US-Russian confrontation is not what he is working towards. He would assert that his goal is to play other states off against Russia, so that the United States will be able to observe the resulting conflicts from the sidelines. China is unquestionably the number one nation on Brzezinski's list of potential US adversaries who should be turned into kamikaze stooges and pawns of Anglo-American imperialism and embroiled in conflict with Moscow. The Brzezinski plan also cannot work unless the European Union is willing to subordinate its own survival to the fulfillment of Brzezinski's aggressive plans. Countries like Turkey, Syria, and Iran are all regarded by Brzezinski as potential pawns in his apocalyptic struggle with Moscow; this is why Brzezinski is not interested in a direct US attack on these countries, in the way that the neocons have been.
....the epicenter of world confrontation is rapidly shifting out of the Middle East and towards Eastern Europe and everywhere else along the borders of the Russian Federation, as well as towards Africa and Pakistan. Brzezinski is in favor of winding down the Iraq war, but certainly not because he intends to usher in an era of golden peace. Rather, he wants those resources freed up so they can be deployed on some anti-Russian or anti-Chinese front. An important secondary theater of operations for Brzezinski is increasingly Africa. The goal here is to disrupt Chinese economic cooperation with the African countries, and hopefully to eject the Chinese from Africa entirely. Brzezinski calculates that if China cannot procure the necessary oil, energy and strategic raw materials from partners in Africa, the Chinese will have no choice but to turn their attention to the oil and mineral resources of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East.
Brzezinski intends to drive the Chinese in on eastern Siberia by using their overwhelming vulnerability to cutoffs of overseas energy, of the type that the US and British can engineer. Eastern Siberia notoriously contains much oil, many important mines, and relatively few Russians. This is the apple of discord that Brzezinksi would like to parlay into a titanic Russo-Chinese war, which he imagines would eliminate both of the main competitors to continued Anglo-American world domination. This is the reality which lurks behind the edifying messianic-utopian rhetoric of the candidate Obama. This is beyond question the most important single issue with which American voters have a right to become acquainted before the November 2008 election.......(1)
(1)Webster Griffin Tarpley, OBAMA, The Postmodern Coup, Making Of A Manchurian Candidate, (Joshua Tree, CA: Progessive Press, 2008)p.56-62.