Post: #1

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter, has died, according to an announcement from his daughter, MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski.
A controversial statesman who had his stellar hour when he took advantage of a very naive President James Carter to assemble and execute the US foreign policy in that administration, but had huge influence under the Reagan years.
He's credited the design and execution of the fall of the Soviet Empire and, of course, the military fiasco the USSR faced in the Soviet-Afganistan War.
However, and in spite of his russophobia, he understood in his last days, that a new tripolar World, that is a Russian-American-Chinese ententé, is needed for World stability and properity in the next future with no options on the other side. American strategists are going to miss him.

Post: #2

Fuck him - he was a major enabler of radical Islam:

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Quote: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 2001

Question: 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 intended to fight against a secret involvement 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 fundamentalism, 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.

Post: #3

(05-26-2017 11:41 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Fuck him - he was a major enabler of radical Islam:
[url=https://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html]
re 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.[/b]

[/quote]

No shit! Well, nobody said that defeating the Russkies would come up cheap.

Post: #4

Saw this pop up on my facebook newsfeed. Immediate reaction: "RvF will approve of this"

Post: #5

Post: #6

This is the kind of guy that stood over the world and looked at its inhabitants the way we stand over the pavement and look at ants.

So whether he crushed this group of ants or that group of ants, as an ant I welcome his death.

Post: #7

Globalist sheister and scientific elite member. Even they have to die. He worked tirelessly for his money masters and was busy serving Satan all his life.

Too bad that there is no shortage of others who are willing to take his place.

Post: #8

This is an utter tragedy... that this vile, disgusting turd escaped worldly justice.

Scumbag, traitor, scoundrel. May he burn eternally for the evil he gleefully aided and abetted here on Earth.

Post: #9

I always wonder how these globalist (soros, Kissinger etc.) assholes live so long. No doubt they are getting first choice fresh transplants off of teenaged cadavers.

Post: #10

(05-27-2017 10:49 AM)uncledick Wrote:  I always wonder how these globalist (soros, Kissinger etc.) assholes live so long. No doubt they are getting first choice fresh transplants off of teenaged cadavers.

I figured their victims were vivisected on the table next to them.

Possibly grown err raised on an organic farm just for that purpose.

Post: #11

I wouldn't go far as that saying "grown" but definitely they will get first scoop of the fresh transplants of people who donated them. Maybe even before some president / PM in need gets them.

Post: #12

As far as American globalist geopolitical analysts go, he was actually much more of a moderate and a pragmatic policymaker, he wasn't particularly loved by most neocons. He was actually not fully on board with the Trotskist NWO vision, particularly later in his career.

He's had a good influence overall on recent policy, he was less of an interventionist on Syria for example, there is a whole lot of daylight between him and the McCains and Kristols. He was pretty much sidelined by the Bush43 administration because he wasn't on board with their brand of globalism. He's a pure analyst and dare I say, somewhat of an American patriot who was not swayed by special interests, and who toned down the more aggressive globalist stance that even he advocated in the late 20th century.

He had a certain bias against Russia due to his Polish roots, but it wasn't nearly as aggressively partisan a bias as that of the Ashkenazi neocons like Kagan or Nuland, who still harbor a great visceral hatred for the resurgent Christian Russia that drives their confrontational stance. Zbigniew on the other hand had a more positive influence on Obama, he was probably one of the main proponents of not intervening more aggressively against Assad in the aftermath of the 2013 (false flag) chemical attack on Ghouta.

Here's an example of this:

Quote:MSNBC: Are those different events the result in some way of the U.S. not exerting its leadership? Is there some way we can solve those problems or are they outside our sphere of influence?

Brzezinski: Well maybe alternatively, we exerted too much leadership. I was against the war in which the United States attacked Iraq in 2003. I thought it was fraudulent and it has produced a mess in Iraq, which continues to perplex and engage us. When we first went into Afghanistan after the al-Qaida attacks of 9/11, I told the secretary of defense myself that I fully supported the decision to go in and overthrow the Taliban and see if we can destroy al-Qaida. I did not feel we should stay there in order to promote democracy because I thought this would engage us in a prolonged and eventually self-destructive conflict.

I think we made some errors. We were on top of the world by the beginning of this century. I think our position has dramatically declined. We’re still the strongest, but we’re not necessarily the most respected or the most legitimate leader as the United States historically was prior to the beginning of this century.

Quote:MSNBC: It seems like there’s a contradiction there between the U.S. exerting leadership – standing up for our values and moral vision for the world in a steadfast way – and the realist vision you also espoused, most particularly for Syria, where hundreds of thousands of people have died and the president has stood back. Do you think we made the right choice there in not getting involved earlier? Should we continue to be as uninvolved as possible?

Brzezinski: I supported the president’s decision not to be involved because I didn’t feel that the parties that were trying to overthrow Assad were dedicated to the establishment of a democratic regime – they were even, in some respects, more fanatical on some issues than Assad. I think Assad was a dictator, without a doubt, capable of very brutal activity, without a doubt, and he demonstrated that. But in some ways he was more tolerant of non-Muslims than some of the Muslim countries now engaging themselves in some sort of special operation to unseat him.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/zbigniew-brze...ican-power


On a personal level, he was a pretty professional civil servant and a nice guy, held in high regard by those who worked with him, according to a friend from college who was at DoS.



Zbig at Camp David nearly 40 years ago

Post: #13

I'm not getting the reasons behind the hating on this guy. Somebody help me out here...throw me a bone....

He was an old-school balance-of-power realist. He was not a neocon warmongering fanatic, of the type that inhabit the highest levels of government now. He was against the Iraq invasion of 2003 and sincerely believed in an equitable settlement to the Palestinian question.

The only gripe I can lodge against him was that he was excessively anti-Russian. But what the hell do you expect...the guy was of Polish immigrant stock and probably had family who suffered under the Soviet yoke.

Where's the hate coming from, guys? Would you rather have a neocon warmonger? Or a blase, limp, dishrag like John Kerry?

Hmmm?

Man, you guys can be a tough crowd sometimes....

Post: #14

Together with Rockefeller he founded the Trilateral Commission with the goal of controlling the sovereignty of all countries of the world via corporations. That is why the hating shown for this non-human being ... a not-so-public face of the scum of the world who dedicate their lives to suppress liberty and freedom of the plebe, in favor of control-order?

"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969.

I celebrate today

Post: #15

That guy could of course speak the truth about the Iraq invasion, because he was no longer involved in the daily affairs of bullshit-lying to the public.




And he was all for this public mind control.



Calling a Trilateral Commisson member a man of the people and a sane voice - this is just utter misunderstanding of the reality of our world.



Guys should read his books and the morsels hidden in it instead of the propaganda bullshit.



Yeah - a true man of the people. Somehow I think some folk believe that if a guy is not Jewish, then he cannot be that bad. The elite are beyond those tribal affiliations.

Post: #16

^^^

I think those quotes are being taken out of context. Was he advocating for those things, or merely warning of the approaching dangers of them? I don't think he was saying those were good things.

I'm not saying this guy is a hero, or even a good Secretary of State. To me he seems pretty run-of-the-mill.

Post: #17

(05-27-2017 06:03 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  He was an old-school balance-of-power realist. He was not a neocon warmongering fanatic, of the type that inhabit the highest levels of government now. He was against the Iraq invasion of 2003 and sincerely believed in an equitable settlement to the Palestinian question.

He was right about a US-Russo-Sino entente being the penultimate source of power globally. If this ever manifested itself, image the golden age we would enter...and simultaneously realize this is why the 'old world' European elite do not want this to happen.

Post: #18

(05-27-2017 08:08 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ^^^

I think those quotes are being taken out of context. Was he advocating for those things, or merely warning of the approaching dangers of them? I don't think he was saying those were good things.

I'm not saying this guy is a hero, or even a good Secretary of State. To me he seems pretty run-of-the-mill.

He was a big honcho. What he told as a politician was often not what he did and said in private. That book he wrote in the 1970s was the most candid one. It also shows that he was highly initiated.

Whether he was likeable on a personal basis - possibly. Hitler supposedly too was very likeable. Everyone has a human element to him - though some were clearly hated even by their own closest associates - Mao, Stalin, Hillary (heh)....

Either way - the quotes are real, he often made statements of what is about to come as if he was talking about fact. He made a few choice others - for example that the proles don't count, they will never rebel, they will just turn around and eat their dead. I think he made that statement in one of his countless interviews, but I cannot find the link there.

Anyway - he is gone. The current scientific elite CFR members are a bit smarter - Peter Thiel for example is one of them. He is even publicly giving plenty of contrarian truth, while being one of the biggest honchos at the CFR and Bilderberg meetings.

Post: #19

He's right. The paroles don't rebel. Sometimes they just get up and literally walk away. There's several examples of ancient cities (like Rome) that are simply abandoned because people said "fuck this" and decided that living in he wild on their own homestead would be better.

Post: #20

He was a highly intelligent and supremely skilled functioning sociopath. As I was growing up intellectually I became fascinated with Brezinski as he implicitly taught me more about the elite than most literature on the subject (except maybe The Prince). However he was a cold war relic and the world is better off without him.

Post: #21

(05-28-2017 08:50 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  He's right. The paroles don't rebel. Sometimes they just get up and literally walk away. There's several examples of ancient cities (like Rome) that are simply abandoned because people said "fuck this" and decided that living in he wild on their own homestead would be better.

Rome fell to barbarian armies, but it mainly collapsed due to a multitude of reasons. One reason among a few is that if you have a 50%+ slave population, then the moment the biggest army falls, then that is the moment the system crumbles. Because slaves will never fight for their host country. That is how the Spaniards could have been outnumbered 1000 to 1 by the Aztecs and still succeeded. The reason was mainly that 60% of the Aztec men were pussy-less, power-less, slave-like. Try to conquer a motivated people of uniform culture, language and race that consists of free families - those societies fight to the last man and those cultures only fall when overpowering force is used. (Example Zulus and British in the 19th century. Zulus were utterly outgunned technologically, but managed to slaughter entire divisions because they fought for their home, for their family and they only gave in when the Brits came in with overwhelming force.)

The Ottomans tried to circumvent this by getting slave soldiers very young, so that the European slave soldiers felt more Turkish. But they still occasionally fought with massive slave contingents - in some battles those slaves were liberated and began to slaughter their masters right in the middle of the battle.

What the globalists are doing now is a bit similar by pitting women against men, by attacking masculine independent men at every chance, by pitting the tribes against each other artificially, also by flooding the countries with tribes which hate the native ones or bring further division. In the end every man stops caring for his home country and that is the main reason he does not rebel.

I think part of the migrant crisis is created to destroy the uniform organized rebellious spirit of Westerners. The truth is that they did rebel frequently in the past in massive labor wars, Battle of Blue mountain, massive upheavals until good living wages and benefits were achieved. There were even huge vaccine riots some 120 years ago in the UK, where men fought against the government vaccination program, which caused a lot of mayhem among their children.

When a population is highly divided and has no meaningful connection to a country with a family, then those of combat-age who only matter in rebellions - they don't rebel.

But Brzezinski knew about it, he had contempt for the proles, but more because they were easily enough misled and manipulated. The Western tribes would not turn around and eat their dead - they would rather storm the gates until victory or death. That is however only where masculine men are concerned. Women would already be cooking grandpa.

Post: #22

(05-27-2017 07:15 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That guy could of course speak the truth about the Iraq invasion, because he was no longer involved in the daily affairs of bullshit-lying to the public.




And he was all for this public mind control.



Calling a Trilateral Commisson member a man of the people and a sane voice - this is just utter misunderstanding of the reality of our world.



Guys should read his books and the morsels hidden in it instead of the propaganda bullshit.



Yeah - a true man of the people. Somehow I think some folk believe that if a guy is not Jewish, then he cannot be that bad. The elite are beyond those tribal affiliations.

Great points Zel, this puts my post above in proper perspective...

I was more familiar with his body of work on geopolitics, like The Grand
Chessboard, not so much with those quotes, which are mostly taken from
Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, book he wrote
all the way back in 1970, here's an archive, this looks like a must-read:

https://archive.org/details/pdfy-z5FBdAnrFME2m1U4

Apparently, David Rockefeller was really taken with his theories on
technocratic oligarchic rule and the cold tools of population control,
he viewed this book as a manual for global domination, and worked
closely with Brzezinski, putting him in the Carter cabinet.

This interview of Patrick M. Wood about modern technocracy dives
into the emergence of ZB as the mastermind of the modern American
technocracy:





Wood talks about the book above and its impact on society at the 15min
mark, but I would strongly recommend listening to the whole interview.

Patrick Wood collaborated on that book about the Trilateralists
with the Hoover Institute's Anthony Sutton, one of the most brilliant
(and red pilled) political scientists and historians of the 20th century.
Most of his books are essential reading.

Post: #23

Good segment on the subject by Jay Dyer, from the last Sunday Wire podcast (which also had a very good report on Syria by Anglican rev. Andrew Ashdown, link to the 3hr show below)





https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/21wir...isode-link

Post: #24

I am just getting this now. I was disconnected for eleven days.

His father fought for Polish independence against the Germans and Russians. He was still in Poland apparently in 1939.

Post: #25

Short video from Jay Dyer.