by Paul Eidelberg
I. Who is Zbigniew
It was reported in the New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussain
Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle
Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate
Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that
article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist,
served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not
have to read Carter’s
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to
know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same
Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the
relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure,
but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with
Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s
destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle
East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts.
Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski
rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white”
image of the American and Soviet political systems.
“This image,” he says, “is held by
Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an
anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold
War, of the age of ideology.”
Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American
and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad
regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002
that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a
statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts.
The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His
moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and
appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with
Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential
candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.
With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more
serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in
mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would
fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire
George Soros, a globalist committed to
the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government.
Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the
existence of objective or transhistorical standards for determining whether
the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to
that of another.
(The members of the
General Assembly would be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s
notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Arab
or Islamic terrorist state.)
Brzezinski’s relativism makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He
urns with the winds of power; he is nothing if not “politically correct.”
Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular
society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the
one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other.
He is quite at home with the moral equivalency
that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.
Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its
atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are
universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do
not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both
Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not
recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident
in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the
defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union.
We can expect an Obama White House to
pursue a very soft line toward Islam.
II. Iran’s Vision: A
World Without Israel and the United States
With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was
Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The
Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic
revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history,
a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state.
As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state.
Between Two Ages - America's
Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that,
“With the splitting and eclipse of
Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation
became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The
nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented
humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the
relations between nations could develop.”
Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only
partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated
the human condition.
“That is why Marxism,” he contends,
“represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s
universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for
generating a universal and secular human consciousness.”
Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism
became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian
Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement
by saying that:
“although Stalinism may have been a needless
tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is
the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large
it was… a blessing in disguise.”
Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of
Islamic imperialism. Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but
Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and
Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran.
Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral
relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s
Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict
the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United
States with a national identity and character, the same that animated
Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of
thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American
academics — is anti-American.
An Obama-Brzezinski axis has
revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization
and decline of the United States.
This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel’s Third
Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President
Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget
Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron
Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski. The mere fact that
they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of
its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski
is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or
But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism.”
Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end
of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The
nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum.
Terminate the nation-state and you are heading
for world government.
But a world government must also have a
monopoly of power
Its agents must be everywhere, to make
sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops
weapons of mass destruction
A world government must have the
equivalent of the KGB in every country
A world government would be the greatest
tyranny in human history
Israel is the target of all those who oppose the
nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes
a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral
relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites.
Will Israel be the target of CHANGE — the mantra of the Democratic Party
chanted most ominously by Barack Hussain Obama?
Brzezinski Backs Obama
by Alec MacGillis
August 25, 2007
Brzezinski Backs Obama
Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and
inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a
paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The former national security adviser announced
on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" that he is
supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.
Zbigniew Brzezinski says he
is supporting Barack Obama for president.
(By Carol T. Powers -
"recognizes that the challenge is a new
face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in
the world," said Brzezinski, who keeps an office at the
Strategic and International Studies.
"Obama is clearly more effective and has the
upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is
needed from the United States in relationship to the world."
Brzezinski, who had a relatively hawkish
reputation in the Carter administration but has been an outspoken critic of
Bush and the Iraq war, rejected the
notion that Obama's Senate colleague Hillary Clinton is more
experienced in foreign affairs.
"Being a former first lady doesn't prepare
you to be president," he said. "Clinton's foreign policy approach is
"very conventional," he added. "I don't think the country needs to go
back to what we had eight years ago."
He also defended Obama's position in his recent
foreign policy tiff with Clinton, in which she called him "naive" for saying
he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as
Iran and Venezuela.
"What's the hang-up about negotiating with
the Syrians or with the Iranians?" Brzezinski said. "What it in effect
means," he said, is "that you only talk to people who agree with you."