Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski - portraits of evil

I know a bit more about Brzezinski than I do about Kissinger.

I guess the best place to start would be the following 2 audio presentations:

All hail President Brzezinski

Meet Henry Kissinger

Let's first talk about Henry Kissinger:

His war crimes are analyzed in depth in "The Trials of Henry Kissinger": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlWkulPb7gA&feature=PlayList&p=1B2E317CCDA8B7A3&index=0&playnext=1

Despite the fact that Kissinger is internationally recognized as a war criminal, he still gives orders to men like U.S. National Security Adviser and Trilateral commission member James L. Jones. As Jones said:

"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal (sic) Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today." (http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_munich_conference_on_security_policy.html)

This is the same Kissinger who recently said of Obama, when commenting on various international situations:

"He can give a new impetus to American Foreign policy, partly because the perception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a New World Order can be created - it's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."



And before Obama was elected, Kissinger went on the Charlie Rose Show and talked about the New World Order:



Kissinger also wrote NSSM 200, which laid out plans for depopuating third world countries. Good sources on NSSM 200 can be found here and here.

It would be helpful for others to fill me in regarding other aspects of Kissinger's life.



Now onto Brzezinski...

A good introduction to Brzezinski is provided in the folowing 2 videos:





Brzezinski, along with David rockefeller, founded the Trilateral Commission. I discuss that organization at length here: http://www.revolutioninmilitaryaffairs.com/about/

This man singlehandedly helped to create the mujahideen, which becam al-Quaeda:



[size=20pt]Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur
[size=14pt][color=blue]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?
[color=red]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.
[color=blue]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?
[color=red]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.
[color=blue]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?
[color=red]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.
[color=blue]Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?
[color=red]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?
[color=blue]Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...
[color=red]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

Brzezinski endorsed Obama before he was elected:



This is the same Obama who called Brzezinski "one of our most outstanding scholars ... and somebody who I've learned an immense amount from":



Yet Obama lied about his contacts with Brzezinski before the Ohio primary:



The relationship between Obama and Brzezinski is covered in depth in Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Brzezinski has addressed a phenomenon he called "the global political awakening". This phenomenon is analyzed in depth here: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19873

Brzezinski is "deeply troubled" by this "global political awakening":







Here Brzezinski says in a Whitehead lecture that because of the "Global Political Awakening", World "leaders" need to realize that "Its easier to kill a million people than it is to control them":



The following video montage puts this into an excellent perspective:



some background information for that video is provided here: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20028

Brzezinski promoted a domination of the Eurasian heartland, and identified Iran, China, and Russia as potential competitors. In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski said "Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization". He then spent the rest of the book describing how to achieve that imperial mobilization.

He described the "problems" of democracy:

"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" - p. 35

"A genuinely populist democracy has never before attained international supremacy. The pursuit of power and especially the economic costs and human sacrifice that the exercise of such power often requires are not generally congenial to democratic instincts. Democratization is inimical to imperial mobilization." - p. 210

"Indeed, the critical uncertainty regarding the future may well be whether America might become the first superpower unable or unwilling to wield its power. Might it become an impotent global power?" - p. 210

He describes the need to motivate the masses:

"More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. Yet the dominant culture of the country has become increasingly fixated on mass entertainment that has been heavily dominated by personally hedonistic and socially escapist themes. The cumulative effect has made it increasingly difficult to mobilize the needed political consensus on behalf of sustained, and also occasionally costly, American leadership abroad. Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties." - p. 211

He described how to achieve this:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War." - p. 211

"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

He wrote on geostrategic control:

"In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens 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

"A geostrategic issue of crucial importance is posed by China's emergence as a major power. The most appealing outcome would be to co-opt a democratizing and free-marketing China into a larger Asian regional framework of cooperation." - p. 54

He scared people into either accepting empire or "anarchy":

"In that context, for some time to come -- for more than a generation -- America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger. No nation-state is likely to match America in the four key dimensions of power (military, economic, technological, and cultural) that cumulatively produce decisive global political clout. Short of a deliberate or unintentional American abdication, the only real alternative to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy. In that respect, it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world's "indispensable nation." " - p. 195

He described regionalization leading to Global Government:

"By pioneering in the integration of nation-states into a shared supranational economic and eventually political union, Europe is also pointing the way toward larger forms of postnational organization, beyond the narrow visions and the destructive passions of the age of nationalism." - p. 57

He spoke of the need for expansion of the EU into central Europe:

"In the current circumstances, the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary -- probably by 1999 -- appears to be likely. After this initial but significant step, it is likely that any subsequent expansion of the alliance will either be coincidental with or will follow the expansion of the EU. The latter involves a much more complicated process, both in the number of qualifying stages and in the meeting of membership requirements (see chart on page 83). Thus, even the first admissions into the EU from Central Europe are not likely before the year 2002 or perhaps somewhat later. Nonetheless, after the first three new NATO members have also joined the EU, both the EU and NATO will have to address the question of extending membership to the Baltic republics, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, and perhaps also, eventually, to Ukraine." - p. 81

"It follows, therefore, that states that are in a position to begin and are invited to undertake accession talks with the EU should automatically also be viewed henceforth as subject in effect to NATO's presumptive protection." - p. 83

"Given the growing consensus regarding the desirability of admitting the nations of Central Europe into both the EU and NATO, the practical meaning of this question focuses attention on the future status of the Baltic republics and perhaps also that of Ukraine." - p. 50

He described Inter-Union integration:

"...the United States would do well to consider the adoption of an American-Japanese free trade agreement, thereby creating a common American-Japanese economic space. Such a step, formalizing the growing linkage between the two economies, would provide the geopolitical underpinning both for America's continued presence in the Far East and for Japan's constructive global engagement." - p. 192

"Tokyo can carve out a globally influential role by cooperating closely with the United States regarding what might be called the new agenda of global concerns, while avoiding any futile and potentially counterproductive effort to become a regional power itself. The task of American statesmanship should hence be to steer Japan in that direction. An American-Japanese free trade agreement, creating a common economic space, would fortify the connection and promote the goal, and hence its utility should be jointly examined." - p. 208

"A Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united EU and the United States. In any case, the EU's eventual success in burying the centuries-old European nationalist antagonisms, with their globally disruptive effects, would be well worth some gradual diminution in America's decisive role as Eurasia's current arbitrator." - p. 200

And he implied that American Empire would give over to Global Government:

"Accordingly, once American leadership begins to fade, America's current global predominance is unlikely to be replicated by any single state. Thus, the key question for the future is "What will America bequeath to the world as the enduring legacy of its primacy?" " - p. 210

"Meeting these challenges is America's burden as well as its unique responsibility. Given the reality of American democracy, an effective response will require generating a public understanding of the continuing importance of American power in shaping a widening framework of stable geopolitical cooperation, one that simultaneously averts global anarchy and successfully defers the emergence of a new power challenge. These two goals-- averting global anarchy and impeding the emergence of a power rival-- are inseparable from the longer-range definition of the purpose of America's global engagement, namely, that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation."- p. 214

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945." - p. 215

"In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower." - p. 215

Here is another interpretation of The Grand Chessboard





F. William Engdahl has some excellent history (some of which I disagree with) covering this in his book Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Brzezinski, in his book Between Two Ages, lightly touched on the fact that society was in process of succumbing to a scientific global elite "unrestrained by traditional values". He also described how command and control cybernetics would be applied to our society. Listen to some excerpts here:









Here are some readings of Brzezinski's book Political Power USA/USSR:







Here are some readings of Brzezinski's book Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics





And finally, here are some readings of Brzezinski's book The Grand Failure: