Dear cj & rn,
Today I'd like to share some unusually candid interviews with our
illustrious imperial leaders.
These quotes and interviews illustrate, in their own words, the depth of
their Machievellian depravity, and make it perfectly clear that a cynical
destabilization agenda for Yugoslavia is quite within the scope of their
standard operating procedures.
Some of the material below is excerpted due to length.
As usual with forwards - if you like one of the pieces, and would like to
"be in the loop", consider subscribing to the original list on which it
appeared. (Then you can share the best gems with us!)
The first piece is an interview with Brzezinski regarding US/CIA programs
in Afghanistan "6 months before the Soviet intervention". Brzezinski, in
case anyone doesn't know, is a _very senior US policy official - what he
says, taking into account that he's saying it for publication, is about as
close to the "voice of the NWO" as one could imagine.
regards,
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:28:44 EDT
Subject: More on Afghanistan
To: •••@••.•••
For those who are interested in the Afghanistan "trap," as described by
Brzezinski, Bill Blum has provided a translation of the original interview in
which this startling admission appeared.
Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs, From
the Shadows, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you
were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played
a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until
now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the
pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going
to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke
it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
[entendaient] to fight against a secret [ingérence] of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the
effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret
it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme],
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of
Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to
Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a
rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
=======================
rkm:
In this short interview, there is much we could usefully examine.
Brzezinski's regional angle on Islam, for example, could be contrasted with
the kultur-kampf paradigm of his colleague Sam Huntington... providing a
stereo perspective of what the NWO has in mind for global management.
Huntington's rheotoric about natural civilization boundaries is revealed by
Brzezinski to be only rhetoric, while both agree that a regional approach
to management is favored. In general, Huntington spins the rhetoric, and
sources like Brzezinski reveal some of the underlying, and more honest,
geopolitical thinking.
Of the many directions we could go with this interview, I suggest that the
following points are especially relevant to our current discussion topics:
1) The intentional setting of traps to achieve desired outcomes.
2) The explicit lack of concern regarding the pawns in the game, in
particular, the lack of regret about the Taliban outcome.
3) The admission that actual plans and goals, involving top levels
of government, are routinely kept secret for years - covered over
by PR lies.
1) B: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent
idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the
Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
If the "Afghan trap" was seen by our esteemed policy-makers as an excellent
and successful strategy - as indeed it was from their perspective - then
isn't it reasonable to assume that same strategy might be deployed
elsewhere?
The US at first encouraged Serbia to use force... is this evidence that the
US was hoping Milosovec would bring order, or evidence that a trap was
being set?
Given the history of the Balkans, the use of force by Serbia could only
lead to polarization, reprisals, counter-reprisals, and the whole scenario
which has in fact unfolded. There's no way top US planners could have been
so stupid as to think a rampaging Serbia was going to lead to stability.
When you consider as well the anti-Serb media slant throughout all of this,
the early recognition of Croatia, the military advisors sent to Croatia,
and the introduction of KLA terrorists into Kosovo - the circumstantial
evidence for a destabilization plan, enabled by one of Brzezinski's traps,
makes a rather strong case.
Also, in the category of circumstantial evidence, we have the IMF's
destruction of the Serbian econommy, and we have the choice of targets in
the current bombing - hitting at the basic economic infrastructures of the
nation.
*=> With all of this evidence, together with Brzezinski's explicit
admissions about US covert tactics, it seems to me that a Regional
Destabilization Plan deserves to be tagged
"the most likely scenario, based on all available evidence"
for what's going on in Yugoslavia.
2) B: "What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some
stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and
the end of the cold war?"
This statement is reminescent of another by Kissinger, when asked why the
US had sold out the Kurds (I forget which such occassion it was). He
replied "You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs".
What both of these gentlemen are telling us is that there are no observable
limits to their callous Machiavellian schemes. Despite all the rhetoric
about saving the noble Aghans from the evil Ruskies - rhetoric which
mobilized American moral outrage at the time - all the while the Aghans
were just pawns in the game, and their eventual fate was of no concern to
our leaders. Use them, abuse them, and then discard them... this is how
the NWO "makes omelletes".
The role of the Taliban could hardly be more parallel with that of the KLA
in Kosovo: The KLA serves a US objective; they're an extremist armed
group; their reign in Kosovo is likely to be a military dictatorship. Not
only that, but a KLA regime, just like that of the Taliban, will be
regionally destabilizing, making imperial management easier under the
kultur-kampf paradigm.
3) B: " According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the
Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the
Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the
reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise..."
For nearly 20 years, he tells us, a major conspiracy was successfully kept
secret from the American people and the world. There were changes of
administration, and changes of personnel in the various agencies invovled,
and yet nothing leaked out of the mainstream media. People at the highest
level of government were in the know, along with who-knows-how-many field
agents, support personnel, administrative staff, media insiders, etc. etc.
There is an "official version of history" and then there is reality - the
discrepency is called "conspiracy" - and by some means or the other, such
conspiracies can be kept secret successfully for decades. The Afghan Trap
is only one of many that have come to light and been well documented, if
not admitted outright as in this case.
And yet, most of my liberal friends continue to dismiss any anslysis - and
even direct evidence - which indicates conspiracies are going on... are
they blind or do they not _want to see?
-rkm
---
In the next piece, we have another interview with an elite policy-maker -
in economics rather than geopolitics. Again we see a clever mind attached
to a depraved morality...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 01:20:53 -0400
To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>
From: David Lewit <•••@••.•••>
Behold the brand new Treasury Secretary-designate, Lawrence "Larry" Summers,
tagged this week to replace Bob Rubin, as he describes (in an internal memo)
central tenets of his global economic vision.
[The Liberators of the following Outrage were the intrepid researchers over
at International Trade Information Service (E-mail: •••@••.••• and
•••@••.•••) and they should be Commended - ed]
"DATE: December 12, 1991
"TO: Distribution
"FR: Lawrence H. Summers
"Subject: GEP
"'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be
encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less
Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
"1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on
the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this
point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in
the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest
wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in
the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
"2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial
increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though
that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their
air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or
Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated
by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the
unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare
enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
"3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is
likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that
causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is
obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get
prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per
thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is
about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very
little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic
pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile
the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
"The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more
pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social
concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used
more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."
</end of interview>
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Mike Dolan, Field Director
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
ph 202.546.4996 x322
fx 202.547.7392
Subscribe to TW-LIST, the Global Trade Watch list-server.
We will keep you up-to-date on trade and globalization policy.
Send "SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST" followed by your name,
organizational affiliation and state or country in which you live
to "•••@••.•••"
-------------------
rkm:
This guy speaks in econo-techno-jargon, and a bit of translation may be in
order. Consider the following tongue twister:
"...measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution
depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and
mortality..."
What he's saying is that if someone dies from mercury poisoning, for
example, then the "cost" is equal to their lost earnings - human suffering
is of no consequence. If it's a low-wage third-world person, then the
cost is small, whereas if it's a first-world person the cost is greater.
For this reason, he's heartbroken that LA's air pollution can't be exported
to Borneo.
In Brzezinski's logic, the minor evil of the Taliban could be ignored in
the face of the greater good of Soviet destabilization - in Summers' logic,
human suffering not only can be ignored, but it has _zero cost.
Even Machiavelli was not this callous... to find this kind of ice-cold
mentality in history one must look back to Nazi Germany, where the "cost"
of liquidated Jews was equal to the tranport fuel and poison gas expended,
or to the worst days of Stalinism, where "uneeded" Georgian farmers were
left to starve so Stalin could get on with his modernization plans.
These are the kind of people who are in charge of globalization's agenda,
who set policy for the IMF and for NATO. Do I exaggerate when I refer to
the globalization regime as global fascism? I'm not trying to be alarmist,
I'm simply trying to accurately classify the brand of demons we're dealing
with.
-rkm
---
Continuing our "elite mentality" theme, the next piece includes comments
from Madeline Albright - I still think of her as our UN representative, is
she really Secretary of State??
Prior to that however, are some excerpts from an interview with NATO
commander Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark. Can you imagine it?... someone more
hawkish than the Pentagon!... where did they dig him up??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:54:54 -0700
To: TiM GW Bulletins <•••@••.•••>
From: Bob Djurdjevic <•••@••.•••>
Subject: S99-81, Day 55, Update 1 (May 17; 0:15AM EDT) - A Special TiM
GW Bulletin on NATO's
FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA
The Special Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins on NATO's war on Serbia,
such as the one enclosed below, can also be accessed at our Web site:
www.truthinmedia.org which is being updated throughout the day.
We invite you to visit our Photo Album section
(http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/tim-stmt.html + click on "Photo Album"
hyperlink) which has just been updated with many new and dramatic photos of
NATO's war on Serbia.
Issue S99-81, Day 55, Update 1
---------------------------------------
May 17, 1999; 0:15AM EDT
HEADLINES
Washington 1. Flying Coffins? Apache Helicopters on Hold;
Gen. Clark Impatient to Kill More
Troops
New York 2. "Albright at War: Madeleine's War" (Time
Magazine);
Regime Change at Home Also Needed
(Her Mentor)
Douglas 3. "Mexico's Kosovo:" Illegal Immigrants Flood
Arizona
Phoenix 4. Popova's Historical Essay Criticized by Some
Russian-Americans
--------------------
1. Flying Coffins? Apache Helicopters on Hold; Gen. Clark Impatient to Kill
More Troops
BRUSSELS, May 16 - NATO leaflets dropped into Kosovo warn
Serbian troops [rkm: and Kosovo civilians], "Don't Wait For
Me," showing a picture of an Apache helicopter swooping down
on a tank. As it turns out, it could be a long wait. For,
the Pentagon brass, fearing the Apaches may end up as flying
coffins, are getting cold feet about using them against the
tough Serb air defenses.
In a behind-the-scenes struggle over military strategy and tactics, the
Pentagon is blocking a plan by the NATO commander, Gen. Wesley Kanne
Clark, to send Apache helicopters into combat against Serbian troops, the
New York Times reported today (May 16). So Clark's impatience to waste
American lives, not just those of Serb civilians, is yet another proof that
he deserves a front row seat at an upcoming war crimes trial.
Seeking to increase NATO's firepower, Clark has pressed the Pentagon to
authorize "live fire" tests by shooting at targets in Kosovo. But he still
has not received permission to do so, as Pentagon has balked, fearing that
the mission is too risky. Two of the helicopters have already crashed
during training missions, killing two pilots.
---<snip>---
The Apache squadron is commanded by Brig. Gen. Richard A. Cody, one of the
Army's most respected helicopter officers, whose Apaches blasted two
clusters of Iraqi early-warning radars during the Gulf War, firing Hellfire
missiles and 30-millimeter guns.
But the mission in Kosovo is far more complex and dangerous, the New York
Times warns. Serbian troops are armed with SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles,
antiaircraft artillery, and SAM surface-to-air missiles - all of which pose
a major threat to helicopters.
---<snip>---
3. "Albright at War: Madeleine's War" (Time Magazine); Regime Change at
Home Also Needed (Her Mentor)
NEW YORK, May 17 - Madeleine Albright is the cover girl in today's issue of
the Time magazine. "Albright at War," reads the headline of a feature
story titled "Madeleine's War" on the inside pages. Anyone still recall
what the "MacNamara's war" and how it ended?
---<snip>---
"It was early in Clinton's first term, back when she was U.N. ambassador
during the first showdown with Serbia over Bosnia, that Albright showed her
stripes on foreign policy. At a 1993 meeting with Joint Chiefs Chairman
Colin Powell--who gave his name to the doctrine that the military should be
used only after a clear political goal has been set, and then only with
decisive force--she challenged the general: 'What's the point of having
this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it'?"
---
TiM Ed.: Which was the line which had earned Albright the "Halfbright"
epithet from TiM. For, her answer was about as bright as that of a
criminal saying, "what's the point of having this superb gun if you don't
use it to kill people?"
---
"Thus arose the Albright Doctrine that has held sway since her ascension to
Secretary of State: a tough-talking, semimuscular interventionism that
believes in using force--including limited force such as calibrated air
power, if nothing heartier is possible--to back up a mix of strategic and
moral objectives."
The Times also noted that the most scathing recent criticism came from
Peter Krogh, Albright's "close friend and mentor when he was dean of
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service during her tenure there."
Krogh wrote two weeks ago in a Wall Street Journal OpEd piece, "I cannot
recall a time when our foreign policy was in less competent hands. The
bombing of Iraq has only entrenched Saddam Hussein's power. The bombing of
Serbia has likewise entrenched Milosevic and contributed to a refugee
debacle. To make matters worse, these involvements have come at the expense
of America's primary strategic interests: integrating Russia and China into
the international system."
---<snip>---
[TiM ed:]
What is happening in Serbia today is not just a "Slavic" event. It is a
criminal assault by NATO on HUMANITY and SOVEREIGNTY. Which is why
volunteers from New York, to Texas, to California, to China, to Russia, to
Sweden, to Germany... are willing to do their part in standing up to global
tyranny.
---<snip>---
----------------------
rkm:
Albright completes our little triage of elite depravity. Once again, we
see ice-cold logic, where human suffering is too unimportant to even
mention - people and nations and public opinion are pieces to be moved
around a chess board in pursuit of elite objectives.
These people are not themselves the elite, they are hirelings of the elite,
and Clinton is in that same category. They are hired _because of their
lack of human values, _because of their ice-cold logic, and _because of
their ability to lie as necessary, depending on the audience they're
addressing. These are the qualities that get high marks on the NWO
interview form.
How can anyone believe such people when they say they're pursuing human
rights in Kosovo? I bet, in private, they get quite a chuckle from the
phrase "humanitarian bombing". Big Lie, Bigger Lie, Biggest Lie. Goebbels
lives on.
Innocents like Peter Krogh don't have a clue as to what's going on:
"I cannot recall a time when our foreign policy was in less
competent hands. The bombing of Iraq has only entrenched
Saddam Hussein's power. The bombing of Serbia has likewise
entrenched Milosevic and contributed to a refugee debacle.
To make matters worse, these involvements have come at the
expense of America's primary strategic interests:
integrating Russia and China into the international system."
By calling Albright "incompetent", he shows a complete misunderstanding of
elite objectives.
By saying the "only" result of Desert Storm was entrenching Saddam, he
shows blindness to the obvious: the primary and intended result of Desert
Storm (and ensuing sanctions) has been the destruction of Iraq and genocide
against its people. Saddam is central to that strategy - if he didn't
exist we'd need to hire him. In fact - we did hire him - in the sense that
we supported him during the decade-long Iran-Iraq war, providing him with
intelligence data and military technology, while selling him all the
goodies that we now call "weapons of mass destruction". Ditto Milosevic.
Krogh talks of a "refugee debacle", as if that were some kind of failure of
policy. He'd never allow himself to see the obvious: in the short term the
refugees provide good TV footage, and are blamed not on Albright's policy
but on the Serbs; in the long term, the clearing of Kosovo gives NATO a
chance to fashion the new regime to their own liking, and assure the
security of the various mining and pipeline ventures on the agenda. Far
from causing an "incompetent debacle", Albright gets top marks from her
elite bosses.
Krogh's assumptions about America's "strategic interests" are equally
naive. "Integration" of Russia and China into the "international system"
is actually a correct prase, but he has no idea how that phrase is
interpreted by NWO planners. One does not just integrate, willy nilly -
each nation and each region must first accept its proper role in the New
World _Order. (See: Huntington, "Master Plan for the NWO", also known as
"The Clash of Civilizations".)
China would like to integrate as a sovereign regional power - but that is
not to be. It is specifically contrary to US strategic interests, as is
made explicit in Foreign Affairs, March/April 1997. China must first
accept, voluntarily or by force, a subservient role in the Order. Its
protestations over NATO bombing - which Krogh attributes to an Albright
blunder - is actually a necessary step in grinding them down. Again,
Albright gets high marks, and Krogh isn't even aware of the grading system.
In the case of Russia, the evidence is so overwhelming that I am truly
amazed anyone still believes the rhetoric. The rhetoric would have you
believe the West wishes to modernize Russia and integrate it peacefully
into the global economy. Meanwhile, everything the IMF and the West do has
the effect of destabilizing, impoverishing, and desroying. Perhaps the
first round or two of IMF actions could be interpreted as misjudgements,
but the pattern goes on and on.
How can a former "dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign
Service", in what appears to be a sincere interview, show such utter lack
of comprehension of the most basic features of US and policy and the
globalization agenda? Why do so many people have trouble seeing the
Emperor's New Clothes for what they obviously are?
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
•••@••.•••
a political discussion forum.
crafted in Ireland by rkm
(Richard K. Moore)
To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.•••
A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
(mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org)
Non-commercial reposting is hereby approved,
but please include the sig up through this paragraph
and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use".
To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
To subscribe to our activists list, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance!
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
-- Frantz Fanon
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
committed citizens can change the world,
indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
Share: