Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński: Death of an Anti-Russian Terrorist

________________________

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński is dead at the age of 89. The former US National Security Advisor put the feuds of his homeland above the interests of his adopted USA. Richard Nixon had more foreign policy achievements that just about any modern American President. However, Nixon’s scandal-plagued White House generally overshadowed these achievements. Amongst his most important achievements was engaging in détente with the USSR. Nixon’s de-escalation of tensions with Moscow ultimately led to the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975, wherein America and its allies and non-aligned states of Europe agreed to respect the borders and sovereignty of existing states, including that of the USSR and her allies. The Helsinki Accords affirmed renouncing violence as a means of settling disputes and forced signatories to respect the right of self-determination among peoples. This was a rare moment; the USA admitted that it couldn’t win the Cold War and that engagement and peaceful dialogue were preferable to threats against the Soviet superpower.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States after Nixon’s former Vice-President Gerald Ford failed to win over an America hungry for change on the domestic front. While many remember Jimmy Carter as a man of peace, his Presidency was anything but peaceful. The reason for this was the power behind the throne, Carter’s National Security Advisor, Brzeziński. The Polish-born Brzeziński put the historic blood-feud of his mother country ahead of American interests. He openly opposed Nixon and Ford’s policy of détente and orchestrated the use of American power to arm and fund all those who sought to undermine the USSR.

This became most apparent when he decided to use the USA’s resources to fund, arm, and train the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Among the fighters Brzeziński’s policy helped to arm was Osama bin Laden, the founder of the Salafist terrorist group al-Qaeda. The USA later blamed that group for orchestrating and executing the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. Brzeziński was happy to ally with blood-soaked jihadists to topple the secular modern government of Afghanistan, for the simple reason that it was a Soviet ally. Brzeziński’s jihadists took over the country in the 1990s; they famously executed and then mutilated the corpse of Afghanistan’s pro-Soviet President Dr Mohammad Najibullah in 1996. Many blame the Brzeziński-authored policies in Afghanistan for unleashing the plague of jihadist terrorism throughout the wider world.

Brzeziński’s formal time in the White House was only for Jimmy Carter’s single term, but many of his policies lived on long after his formal period in power. Throughout the rest of his life, Brzeziński continued to vocally advocate policies designed to cripple Russia, including NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. He was a strong supporter of the 2014 coup against the legitimate Ukrainian government and more recently said that the Russian Federation would break up. Furthermore, he said that the USA must help those wanting to break it up, irrespective of who they are. He continued to advocate sanctions against Russia until his dying day, in spite of the fact that the sanctions ended up hurting his native Poland more than the Russian Federation he sought to destroy.

Brzeziński was a deeply violent and hateful man. He was also dishonest; he told the last Shah of Iran that the USA would give him full backing, knowing well that there was division in the White House on the issue. He was a man who brought ancient hatreds, hatreds which long pre-dated the USA’s existence, into the heart of American policy making. At the age of 89, Brzeziński is dead. Even if he lived another hundred years, he’d never see his dream, the death of Russia. Russia remains alive and well, and in this sense, perhaps, he died knowing that his entire reason for being was a failure.

26 May 2017

Adam Garrie

The Duran

http://theduran.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-death-anti-russian-terrorists/

Advertisement

A Blast from the Past… “Something Died on Election Day”… It’s as Good as it was When it was Written Two Years Ago… Four outta Five Ain’t Bad

A sign from the Anglo Southwest (the former Northwest Mexico under American occupation)… note the ignorant apostrophe in “White’s”… THIS is the Republican base on a good day… any questions?

______________________________

Editor:

This still has cred after two years… the only wrong guess was that the GOP would abandon the “dumb white Southern redneck” strategy. They “jess know” that Obama was born in Africa (if that were so, the GOP would’ve been before the SCOTUS toot-suite… and BHO wouldn’t have become president), that Willy Romney was OK in skipping the Vietnam War draft (but that all other “draft-dodgers” are scum), and that blacks and Mexicans are gumming up the welfare system (most welfare recipients are white). Still, four outta five ain’t bad!

BMD

******

There was much to celebrate on election night. However, nothing is more worthy of our collective huzzah than seeing so many dumb Republican ideas implode, all at once. Let’s begin…

The Southern Strategy

Republican operatives have used some form of the race-dividing Southern Strategy since Barry Goldwater’s team invented it in the 1960s. That led to nearly 50 years of race baiting aimed at under-educated white rednecks. The Southern Strategy tapped into the ludicrous belief that black people are dumber, lazier, and more venal than white men are. It helped secure victories for Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush Sr by fomenting the view that white people needed to band together to keep black people from stealing the national cookie jar. Nevertheless, it fell entirely flat this time. Apparently, you can call the President a Muslim-Socialist-Kenyan-Anti-colonial-Black Nationalist-Terrorist-Food Stamp-lover who worships at the feet of his Southern Baptist-Anarchist Pastor. Although, you can no longer expect a large proportion of voters to take you seriously if you do. You’ll never see the Southern Strategy practised again. Good riddance to this maggot-laced pile of rubbish, we say. {this was his wrong guess… I wish that it HAD happened: editor}

That Karl Rove is a genius

Now… for the second presidential election… Karl Rove’s strategies and predictions crashed in spectacular fashion. His American Crossroads spent a mammoth 100 million bucks in rich guy’s money to try to buy national and local elections. End result? 1.29 percent of the millions Rove spent through Crossroads had the desired result. Arguably, his spending had a negative effect. There was also a sweaty late-night meltdown on Fox News, just at the moment they called the race for Obama. Just then, a wild-haired Rove realised his abject failure… on camera, no less. If he wasn’t such a despicable charlatan, one could almost feel sorry for him. However, two days later, he blamed his losses on “voter suppression by the Obama campaign”.

That Americans want a government that provides no actual services to actual citizens

Bubble conservatives believe that Americans don’t want the government to help anyone. On every issue from Obamacare, to Medicaid, to Medicare to disaster relief, Americans told exit pollsters just the opposite… and said so by large margins. Fully 60 percent of voters want taxes raised on at least the top earners to pay for government. (Only about 2 percent of households earn 250,000 USD or more.)

That you can take Donald Trump seriously on any topic

On election night, a seditious Donald Trump tweeted that the Obama victory was illegitimate and that real Americans needed to revolt. Combined with his birther jihad, what he illuminated is a small, pernicious, and simple-minded man… the kind who might insist that all of his employees call him “Mr”. Trump is best left to host his Celebrity Apprentice show (which itself looks more and more like Celebrity Rehab these days). Anything bigger is beyond his abilities.

That conservatives simply need to be more conservative

The Far Right always blames their governing failures on not being conservative enough. However, the rise of the Teabagger led to attempts to redefine rape into legitimate and illegitimate kinds. Then, attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and limit birth control. Then, talk of electrocuting border crossers and outright lies about food stamps, black people, and Jeep. It’d be hard to argue that the right-wing didn’t go far enough to the right. They went all in this time, and most of us responded with a thoughtful, “Not on your life, buddy”.

Therefore, now, those right-wing pundits operating in and around the Fox-Limbaugh bubble argue that the election “wasn’t a mandate”. However, those who still won’t call for a less radical Republican platform or still won’t admit that Americans no longer tolerate intolerance or intransigence don’t have the interests of the Republican Party in mind. They’re just trying to protect their own turf. They’re trying to keep that low-information white guy flapping on the outrage hook. Moreover, that’s just to keep the advertisers on their shows.

10 November 2012

Jimmy Zuma

Tucson (AZ) Sentinel

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/110812_dyingmemes/something-died-election-day/

Editor:

The vilest usage in the language is “some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)”. I don’t have such… I have FRIENDS… full stop. I don’t enquire about their background… I enquire into their character. It’s time to call racism “racist”… you wonder why the Republican Party supports the Uniate racists in the Ukraine? It’s because they find kindred spirits there! Shitbirds of a feather DO flock together! The GOP hates blacks and Latinos as much as Galician Uniates hate Rusins, Russians, and surzhik-speakers (and all members of the real Orthodox Church of whatever nationality). They find that their hates are compatible. Both support killing, torture, and lynching… so, why does it surprise you to find the Republicans supporting the Uniate filth in the notional Ukraine?

I wish that the “Southern Strategy” were dead. It isn’t. It’s one of the foulest and most despicable aspects of the Republican Party. Vote AGAINST Republicans on Election Day… they’re for violence at home and violence abroad. The Democrats aren’t much better, but they’re not as racist. Don’t let the Republican “Pro-Life” plank mesmerise you… they’re in favour of a soulless corporate dictatorship with all the bennies of society flowing to the Affluent Effluent. That’s what you vote for when you vote Republican.

It’s your choice…

BMD

A Russian POV: Deal with Iran could Create New Balance of Power in the Middle East

_______________________________

At a meeting in Genève, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (known as the P5+1) reached a deal with Iran. It stipulates that the Islamic Republic would halt enrichment of uranium above 5 percent purity and dispose of its stockpile of 20-percent-enriched uranium by diluting it to less than 5 percent. In addition, Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow and Natanz would be under IAEA control, whilst it’d halt the construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak, capable of producing plutonium. In return, the P5+1 group, or… to be more precise… the USA and the EU, agreed to ease some of the sanctions against Iran. This would allow Iran to resume limited trade relations with the USA in the oil and gas, petrochemical, and automotive sectors, as well as trading in gold and precious metals. The resulting benefit for Iran would amount to 5-7 billion USD (166.1-232.6 billion Roubles. 5.32-7.45 billion CAD. 5.48-7.68 billion AUD. 3.7-5.2 billion Euros. 3.1-4.3 billion UK Pounds).

However, this deal isn’t just about money. The P5+1 group tabled their demand that Iran shut down and dismantle its already operating centrifuges. This and other provisions of the deal allowed Iran to claim that its key demand… recognition of its right to enrich uranium… was met. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov offered the following clear summary of the essence of the compromise, “This deal means that we agree that it’s necessary to recognise Iran’s right to peaceful atoms, including the right to enrichment, provided that the questions that remain to the Iranian nuclear programme and the programme itself come under strict control of the IAEA. This is the final goal, but it’s already been set in today’s document”.

The opponents of the deal insist that Iran retained the potential to create a nuclear weapon. The whole of its uranium enrichment infrastructure remains intact. A disappointed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I emphasise… the deal doesn’t envisage the elimination of a single centrifuge”. Already, many experts pointed up that such a large nuclear infrastructure as Iran’s, which consists of some 17,000 enrichment centrifuges, is necessary if a country has 12-15 operating nuclear plants that require fuel rods. However, so far, Iran has only one nuclear power plant, in Bushehr, which receives fuel from Russia. The Iranians have a hard time trying to explain why they need so many centrifuges, but they’re ready for any form of control, including video cameras, meters, and snap inspections.

The willingness of the USA to agree to the deal also requires some explanation. Why has its attitude to the Iranian nuclear programme undergone such a sudden change? Why were American diplomats engaged in secret talks with Iran for nearly a year? After more than 30 years of hostility, why did Washington decide to relent on some of its demands? Granted, Hassan Rouhani replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the President of Iran is no more than the head of government. Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual and supreme leader, decides all matters of principle… nothing has changed.

The answer may have more to do with American domestic politics than Iran itself. In the early 1970s, the USA suffered a devastating defeat in Vietnam. Then, the Watergate scandal forced US President Richard Nixon to resign under threat of impeachment. It was at that moment, putting all sentiments aside, that the USA resorted to an unprecedented rapprochement in relations with the People’s Republic of China. Today, the USA is coping with failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the challenges of the Arab Spring, and allies that would like to drag it into military operations in Libya and Syria… the goals of which would be difficult to communicate to ordinary Americans. The time may be right for the USA to engage with Iran, which is ready to fight for leadership in the Middle East with the oil monarchies of the Gulf. Such a move could restore the balance of power in the Middle East to the situation that existed prior to the 1979 revolution, when Iran served as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabia.

 26 November 2013

Andrei Ilyashenko

Russia Behind the Headlines

http://rbth.ru/international/2013/11/26/deal_with_iran_could_create_new_balance_of_power_in_the_middle__32037.html

Editor’s Note:

The most important takeaway from this is that the USA vexed Israel. There’s going to be no attack on Iran anytime soon or anytime later. To put it mildly, the minor Gulf States are shitting bricks, whilst the Saudis are apprehensive. If the USA makes nice to Iran… what’ll happen to OPEC and its highway robbery tactics? There’s much more to this than is immediately apparent… and we don’t know the full import of it yet. Is this a step-back from the neocon opium dreams of world hegemony? One can hope that it is…

BMD   

Please Don’t Lecture Russia

THIS was the REAL USSR… any questions?

______________________________

When I first visited Russia more than 30 years ago, it was still part of the USSR. The idea of any independent or critical press, of open debates in a parliament, or of popular demonstrations against government policies that would bring scores of thousands of people into the streets of Moscow, was inconceivable then. Today, Russia has many critics in the West, who accuse it of sliding back into dictatorship. What is their proposed solution? Usually, it is to criticise Russia and its leaders and try to strong-arm them into adopting policies of greater democracy and alleged greater respect for human rights.

These attitudes stem from a pervasive faith shared by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in the USA that’s so pervasive, that its greatest believers are totally unaware of how much they’re in thrall to it. They believe that democracy is the only acceptable political system around the world, and that, consequently, the USA should wage a ceaseless ideological crusade, not resting until, at least, all the major nations of the world share the same limitless blessings of a perfect democratic system.

Now, I’m all in favour of democracy myself… I prefer living within a fully-democratic system rather than under a communist, fascist, or repressive theocracy. However, I’m against waging wars to imposing the American, or any other, democratic system, on other nations. I’m equally opposed to a purely-ideological foreign policy that would treat the governments of the world purely according to how Freedom House and similar bodies grade them according to how it assesses their freedoms. This is hardly an anti-American position. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and modern Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton believed and acted exactly the same way.

Ironically, the history of the West and the USA over the past three-quarters of a century exposes the dangerous folly of such self-righteous fantasies. Britain and the USA only won World War II against Nazi Germany because they were allies with the USSR under Iosif Stalin. I believe that not one in 100,000 Americans alive today knows or remembers that it was the Red Army, not the American or British forces, which liberated the Nazi extermination complexes of Auschwitz and Majdanek in Poland.

Nor did Western pragmatism… or hypocrisy… end with the destruction of the truly-evil Third Reich. Many still hail President Nixon as an American statesman and peacemaker for his détente policy with the USSR and his outreach to China. Not all the repercussions of the Watergate scandal that forced him to resign can take that away. Yet, Nixon, like Reagan after him, supported the two most corrupt régimes on the planet for decades, which ground hundreds of millions of their unfortunate peoples into degradation and despair. These were the kleptocratic dictatorships of Indonesia under President Suharto and Zaïre (today called the Democratic Republic of the Congo) under President Mobuto Sese Seko.

Russia has come an amazingly long way since I first visited it in the spring thaw season of 1982. That doesn’t mean its political system is the same as those of the USA or the major nations of Western Europe. However, it’s no Indonesia under Suharto or Zaïre under Mobutu either. What’s more, the USA never had any trouble getting along with them. All the moral lecturing of Russia by Western critics misses two crucial points.

First, even if Russia were to relapse back into some form of strict authoritarian government… and so far it hasn’t… that wouldn’t make war or conflict with the USA or the West inevitable. The USA, the British Empire, and the communist USSR were reliable and exceptional successful allies to each other throughout World War II. Then, the USA and the USSR successfully steered clear of any direct conflict in the 44 years of the Cold War from 1945 to 1989. It wasn’t easy; at times, they came dangerously close to war. Second, ensuring Russia remains a democracy won’t be a guarantee of peace with Russia, even if such a starry-eyed, ill-defined, reckless, and irresponsible policy such as intervening in Russia’s internal affairs could ever succeed. For throughout modern history, democracies have often waged war on other countries, including on other democracies. The idea that the best guarantee of world peace is a world filled with, and dominated by, democracies is just another myth.

What the USA and Russia really need is a serious dialogue between their top leaderships aimed at defusing tensions and managing real and unavoidable conflicts of interest. Both nations need to work hard on identifying their areas of mutual interest, and expanding them. The last thing American and other Western leaders need to do is to cave into the mounting hysteria from the think-tanks and the armchair strategists churning out their endless morally-outraged columns for the op-ed pages, and embrace a policy of ideological criticism and name-calling against Russia. The two thermonuclear superpowers need to respect each other and improve their cooperation… the peace of the world demands it.

9 March 2013

Martin Sieff

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_03_09/Please-don-t-lecture-Russia/

Editor’s Note:

Orthodox people should note that Victor Potapov, Alexander Webster, James Paffhausen, and Rod Dreher have sold out to the American Consumerist Dream and to the American Democratic Fantasy. They’re Sergianists (those who suck up to the powers-that-be for the scraps that fall from the high table) of the foulest and worst sort. They’re part of the “mounting hysteria from the think-tanks and the armchair strategists churning out their endless morally-outraged columns for the op-ed pages, and embrace a policy of ideological criticism and name-calling against Russia”. Potapov was/is an open US government propagandist. Webster and Dreher are “stink-tankers”; Paffhausen is tied to the American Enterprise Institute (one of the most Far Right stink-tanks in the District). In short, these people are traitors to the Orthosphere, and we must treat them accordingly.

You can follow HH and his support of Social Justice… or you can follow the above sell-out jabronies who’re supporters of “Greed is Good” and “The Race Goes to the Swiftest” (that’s what support of the contemporary Republican Party means). I’ve chosen… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know where I stand… by the way, I’m far from alone…

BMD