• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zondag 9 april 2017

Bas Heijne's Propaganda 9

Het opmerkelijke feit doet zich voor dat de zelfbenoemde ‘politiek-literaire elite’ in de polder niet in staat is te accepteren dat haar privileges onhoudbaar zijn geworden. Net als de populisten wordt ook de zogeheten intellectuelen beheerst door geconditioneerde reflexen.  

Op dinsdag 4 april 2017 opende de NRC op de voorpagina onder de kop 'Tientallen doden in Syrië, mogelijk aanval met gifgas’ met de mededeling dat:

De luchtaanval, uitgevoerd door Russische of Syrische vliegtuigen, plaats[vond] in Khan Shaykhun in de provincie Idlib die in handen is van de Syrische rebellen... 

Volgens de NRC was het artikel geschreven 'Door onze correspondent,' in het Midden-Oosten, zijnde Gert van Langendonck. Omdat op dat moment de stelligheid van de NRC-bewering merkwaardig was, vroeg ik Van Langendonck via email of hij 'die vliegtuigen zelf ook gezien' had. Zijn antwoord was:

nee, dat heb ik niet geschreven. De redactie moet dat toegevoegd hebben. Dat had niet so stellig gemogen.

De conclusie kan niet anders zijn dan dat deze bewering in de mond is gelegd van correspondent Van Langendonck, omdat deze valse informatie perfect past in de anti-Rusland/pro-NAVO propaganda van de NRC-redactie, die als één van haar beginselen heeft dat zij 'het Atlantisch bondgenootschap' steunt omdat 'het ontstaan van machtsvacua' de neoliberale orde bedreigt.




Niet zonder reden schreef de gezaghebbende journalist en documentairemaker John Pilger op donderdag 26 februari 2015 in een artikel over ‘Why the rise of fascism is again the issue’:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: ‘The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack... In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.’ In the Guardian (van zondag 1 februari 2015. svh) Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. ‘Putin must be stopped,’ said the headline. ‘And sometimes only guns can stop guns.’ He conceded that the threat of war might ‘nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement’; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that ‘America has the best kit (gereedschap. svh).’

In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, ‘has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones.’ He lauded Blair as a ‘Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist.’ In 2006, he wrote, ‘Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran.’

The outbursts — or as Garton-Ash prefers, his ‘tortured liberal ambivalence’ — are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: ‘The F-35. GREAT For Britain.’ This American ‘kit’ will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world.  In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas ‘investment.’ She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.

Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbor, Russia. They want to Balkanize or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilization to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.


Kissinger: 'Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it,' the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine’s anniversary that touched on most of the world’s most pertinent international issues. 'If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities.' 

In tegenstelling tot Kissinger's realisme, probeerde Henk Hofland daarentegen paniek te zaaien in zijn column in De Groene Amsterdammer van woensdag 11 februari 2015 toen de ‘beste journalist van de eeuw’ met grote stelligheid beweerde dat ‘President Poetin geen compromis [wil],’ en ‘het dus noodzaak [is] voor het Westen om grenzen aan de Russische expansie te stellen. We naderen het stadium waarin van Poetin alles te verwachten valt. Eerst werd de Krim geannexeerd, nu is er deze burgeroorlog in Oekraïne' waardoor 'het niet meer dan redelijk [is] je af te vragen wat daarna op de agenda van Moskou staat.’ Het doel van de hernieuwde Koude Oorlogsretoriek is het legitimeren van een gewapend conflict met de Russische Federatie, een oorlog waarvan alleen het westerse militair-industrieel complex zal profiteren. Dat bleek tevens toen de NRC-redactie op 20 maart 2003, de dag dat de Amerikaanse shock and awe-inval van Irak begon, in haar krant het volgende adviseerde:

Nu de oorlog is begonnen, moeten president Bush en premier Blair worden gesteund. Die steun kan niet blijven steken in verbale vrijblijvendheid. Dat betekent dus politieke steun — en als het moet ook militaire.

Zodra het neoliberale kapitalisme, dat 8 individuen zo rijk heeft gemaakt dat zij nu evenveel bezitten als de helft van de hele mensheid, weer moet expanderen, staat de voltallige ‘politiek-literaire elite’ — waar volgens dezelfde Hofland, geen enkele ‘natie zonder kan’ — in het gelid om de dringende noodzaak van grootscheeps geweld aan het grote publiek te verkopen. Niet voor niets wees de prominente Amerikaanse socioloog C. Wright Mills al zes decennia geleden erop dat ‘het doel van de opinie-organisatoren [is] om de bevolking in een voortdurende staat van emotionele onderworpenheid te houden,’ en 

als het maar eenmaal gelukt is om een mentaliteit van volgzaamheid en gehoorzaamheid te kweken, is het niet moeilijk meer om de mensen te doen geloven en te doen voelen wat men maar wil.


Op zijn beurt stelde Edward Bernays, grondlegger van de public relations-industrie die door het tijdschrift Life in 1999 werd uitgeroepen tot 'one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century,' al in 1928 dat 'the engineering of consent the very essence of the democratic proces' is, oftewel 'the freedom’ van de elite ‘to persuade and suggest.' Bernays benadrukte dit nog eens met de woorden:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Vandaar de telkens weer opmerkelijk goed gecoördineerde propaganda van de westerse mainstream-pers zodra er weer eens grof geweld verkocht moet worden als ‘humanitair ingrijpen’ of ‘responsibility to protect.’ Die kadaverdiscipline is niet verwonderlijk, aangezien elke dissidente stem al geruime tijd uit de westerse commerciële massamedia is gefilterd. En dus moet het Nederlandse publiek het doen met een mainstream-opiniemaker als Bas Heijne, die doorgaat voor de absoluut ‘scherpste pen’ in de polder. Toch is hij geen enkele partij voor een serieuze journalist als de oud New York Times-correspondent Chris Hedges. Op de Amerikaanse website http://www.truthdig.com beschreef Hedges begin 2017 het opportunisme van de westerse mainstream-pers als volgt:

Rebels will be persecuted, imprisoned or forced to become hunted outcasts, much as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are now. A public example will be made of anyone who defies the state. The punishment of those singled out for attack will be used to send a warning to all who are inclined to dissent.

‘Before societies fall, just such a stratum of wise, thinking people emerges, people who are that and nothing more,’ Solzhenitsyn writes of those who see what is coming. ‘And how they were laughed at! How they were mocked! As though they stuck in the craw of people whose deeds and actions were single-minded and narrow-minded. And the only nickname they were christened with was “rot.” Because these people were a flower that bloomed too soon and breathed too delicate a fragrance. And so they were mowed down.’

‘These people,’ he goes on, ‘were particularly helpless in their personal lives; they could neither bend with the wind, nor pretend, nor get by; every word declared an opinion, a passion, a protest. And it was just such people the mowing machine cut down, just such people the chaff-cutter shredded.’

When I returned to the newsroom at The New York Times after being booed off a commencement stage in 2003 for denouncing the invasion of Iraq, reporters and editors lowered their heads or turned away when I was nearby. They did not want to be touched by the same career-killing contagion. They wanted to protect their status at the institution. Retreat into rabbit holes is the most common attempt at self-protection.

The right-wing cable shows were lynching me almost hourly. Soon I was given a written reprimand and public rebuke by the newspaper. I was a leper.

The machinery of the security and surveillance state, the use of special terrorism laws and the stripping of civil liberties become ubiquitous. The lofty rhetoric of liberty and the reality of the chains readied for the public creates magic realism. Reality and the language describing reality are soon antipodal. The pseudo-democracy is populated with pseudo-legislators, pseudo-courts, pseudo-journalists, pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-citizens. Nothing is as it is presented.

Demagogues, Solzhenitsyn reminds us, are stunted and shallow people. ‘Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty,’ he writes.

‘The overall life of society comes down to the fact that traitors were advanced and mediocrities triumphed, while everything that was best and most honest was trampled underfoot,’ he observes. Ersatz intellectuals, surrogates ‘for those who had been destroyed, or dispersed,’ took the place of real intellectuals. 

‘After all,’ Solzhenitsyn writes, ‘we have gotten used to regarding as valor only valor in war (or the kind that’s needed for flying in outer space), the kind which jingle-jangles with medals. We have forgotten another concept of valor — civil valor. And that’s all our society needs, just that, just that, just that!’

This kind of valor, he knew as a combat veteran, requires a moral courage that is more difficult than the physical courage encountered on the battlefield.

‘This unanimous quiet defiance of a power which never forgave, this obstinate, painfully protracted insubordination, was somehow more frightening than running and yelling as the bullets fly,’ he says.

The coming arrests mean that a wide range of Americans will experience the violations that poor people of color have long endured. Self-interest alone should have generated sweeping protest, should have made the nation as a whole more conscious. We should have understood: Once rights become privileges that the state can revoke, they will eventually be taken away from everyone. Now those who had been spared will get a taste of what complicity in oppression means.

Maar dit zullen de Hollandse ‘ersatz intellectuals’ zich pas realiseren wanneer de desastreuze gevolgen van hun houding een feit zijn. Ondertussen blijven de Heijne’s van de commerciële pers een hetze voeren tegen Rusland, waarmee ze de aandacht afleiden van het economisch, politiek, financieel, moreel en vooral ook ecologisch failliet van het neoliberale bestel. In feite is het wat het klimaar betreft nu al te laat, de positive feedback is wereldwijd al begonnen. Vrijdag 31 maart 2017 schreef Kieran Cooke, ‘a founding editor of Climate News Network’ en ‘a former foreign correspondent for the BBC and Financial Times. He now focuses on environmental issues’:

Clive Hamilton’s book ‘Defiant Earth – The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene’ (mei 2017. svh) is not for the faint-hearted. Basically, its thesis is that the Earth — and us along with it — is going down the tubes.

Our rampant, irrational use of the planet and its resources, including our exploitation of climate-changing fossil fuels, means we are interfering and upsetting the functioning of the Earth system that sustains us.

‘This bizarre situation, in which we have become potent enough to change the course of the Earth yet seem unable to regulate ourselves, contradicts every modern belief about the kind of creature a human being is,’ says Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Australia.

We — the post World War Two generations — have a lot to answer for. Yes, the trouble can be traced back to the 18th century when the Industrial Revolution began in Britain and factories started spewing carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
But the pace of change and the destruction of much of the Earth system has dramatically speeded up over the last 70 or so years — a period referred to as the Great Acceleration.

A dizzying surge in global economic growth, along with resource exploitation, loss of diversity, including the extinction of numerous species and ever-increasing waste volumes, have brought about a profound transformation of the human relationship with the natural world, says Hamilton.

The Holocene period in the Earth’s history — the 10,000-year epoch of mild and constant climate that has permitted civilization to flourish — is at an end.

‘Experts are already suggesting that the changes caused by humans in recent decades are so profound and long-lasting that we have entered not a new epoch but a new era — the Anthropozoic era — on a par with the break in Earth history brought by the arrival of multicellular life,’ Hamilton says.

The idea of the Anthropocene was first put forward by the Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen in 2000, in order to capture what was felt to be an entirely new time in the geological scale that segments the Earth’s history.

Anthropocene, says Hamilton, is a term describing a rupture in the functioning of the Earth system as a whole…

We are entering uncharted territory. The forces of nature have been roused from their Holocene slumber, the climate system is becoming ever more energetic.

‘Humans have never been more potent and have never exercised more domination over nature,’ Hamilton says, ‘yet we are now vulnerable to the power of nature in a way we have not known for at least 10,000 years, since the last great ice-sheets finally retreated…’ 

In this new, unstable and unpredictable geological era, says Hamilton, we must face the brutal reality that, as a result of our actions, we are contemplating our own extinction.

The Great Acceleration continues, pushed forward by the pursuit of economic growth above all else.

‘Even now, cognizant of the dire consequences, decisions are still being made to privilege carbon-intensive energy sources,’ says Hamilton.

‘Vast new coalfields are being developed, along with new sources of carbon pollution like Canada’s tar sands.’

Hamilton struggles to find a silver lining… Can humankind be redeemed (behoed worden. svh) Hamilton does not answer his own question.
http://climatenewsnetwork.net/new-era-dawns-wont-human-friendly/
 

Dit is anno 2017 de centrale vraag voor de hele mensheid, ook voor de mainstream-opiniemakers die de publieke opinie voortdurend mobiliseren en daardoor het gevaar van een oorlog met de Russische Federatie almaar vergroten. De hetze tegen Rusland begon onder het presidentschap van Barack Obama. In zijn boek The War Against Putin. What the government-media complex isn’t telling you about Russia (2014) beschrijft de Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Marcus S. King de achtergrond van de demonisering van ‘Poetin.’ Zo wijst hij erop dat donderdag 24 juli 2008 Barack Obama als Democratische presidentskandidaat de volgende oproep deed tegenover naar schatting 200.000 jubelende Berlijners:

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations — including my own — will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one. 

Marcus King zet uiteen dat Obama in feite zei:

‘A world Government will require greater state control over private industry, an end to national sovereignty and a world tax on Carbon.’

For guilt-ridden and delusional White liberals, the idea of ‘the first Black President’ sent them into a state of neurotic euphoria. ‘Oh he's so thoughtful and articulate; such a great orator!’ they did ejaculate with that condescending soft bigotry so ironically typical of the ‘anti-racism’ crowd. Not once did they pause to notice that the slick sophist's ghost-written grand discourses were all read off of a teleprompter. 

For non-White Americans, the Obama candidacy represented the affirmation that they had finally ‘overcome.' Obama the Righteous was about to give the ‘rich White Man' his long overdue comeuppance (terechtwijzing. svh), thought the colored masses. 

For uneducated and poorer Americans, Obama was the Santa Claus that was going to 'tax the rich’ and magically fulfill their wish list. For war weary Americans, Obama was the Christ figure who would heal a broken world and bring our troops back from Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the titans of Wall Street, Obama was the free spending interventionist who would bail out their bad investments on the taxpayer's dime. Yes indeed, the rabble-rousing empty suit with the grossly embellished resume (overzichten. svh), canned platitudes and recycled mantra of ‘Hope and Change’ was all things to all people. 

But astute observers of geo-politics were not so easily fooled. Author and historian Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley quickly spotted George Soros's 'Obama Deception' and tried to warn anyone who would listen. Months before Obama was even elected, Tarpley stated, in 2008: 

‘The project of the next administration, if it is Obama, is to smash both Russia and China. People in Europe had better wake up. That silly romantic illusion that they have about Obama is going to be suicidal… Obama's foreign policy is to have a global showdown with Russia and China.’ 

Met het oog op oorlogen met nucleaire grootmachten als Rusland en China gaf president Obama opdracht voor ‘a nuclear modernization program that would cost $1 trillion, that’s a “T,” over the next 30 years. This is unnecessary.' aldus de Amerikaanse deskundige dr. Barry Blechman, ‘a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center -- a nonpartisan, nonprofit think-tank in Washington.’ Hij stelde dit in The New York Times acht jaar nadat Obama in Berlijn gloedvol had betoogd dat: 

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. 

Typerend voor Obama’s holle woorden was tevens het feit dat hij

chose Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski's son, as foreign policy advisor for his campaign. His Republican opponent, John McCain, tapped Ian Brzezinski, Zbigniew's other son, as foreign policy advisor for his campaign. 

The only difference between Obama's and McCain's foreign policy was that Obama represented that faction of America’s foreign policy establishment which places an emphasis of long term ‘Soft Power’ strategies; saving war as a last resort should their phony NGO ‘protests,’ hunger sanctions and ‘rebel’ proxy wars fail to achieve the intended effect. 

Het feit dat Obama juist Mark Brzezinski als ‘adviseur’ op het gebied van de ‘buitenlandse politiek’ koos is veelzeggend, niet alleen omdat deze jurist ‘served on President Clinton's National Security Council as an expert on Russia and Southeastern Europe,’ maar ook omdat hij een zoon is van de havik Zbigniew Brzezinski, de Nationale Veiligheidsadviseur onder president Carter. Brzezinski is één van de belangrijkste Amerikaanse geopolitieke ideologen van de afgelopen halve eeuw, en heeft in die hoedanigheid een belangrijke stempel gedrukt op de agressieve, expansionistische politiek van de Verenigde Staten. Sinds de ineenstorting van de Sovjet Unie is hij ‘one of the foremost advocates of NATO expansion, die in 1998 benadrukte dat ‘Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’ He later came out in support of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo war. Verder is bekend dat hij:

In August 2007 endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He stated that Obama ‘recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world.’ — also saying, ‘What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and people.’ In September 2007 during a speech on the Iraq war, Obama introduced Brzezinski as ‘one of our most outstanding thinkers’ {…] In 2011, Brzezinski supported the NATO intervention against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan Civil War, calling non-intervention ‘morally dubious’ and ‘politically questionable.’

On 3 March 2014, between the 22 February ouster of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych and the 16 March Crimean referendum, Brzezinski authored an op-ed piece for The Washington Post entitled ‘What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response.’ He led with a link on Russian aggression; he compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's ‘thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea’ and ‘thinly camouflaged invasion’ to Adolf Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938, and characterized Putin as a cartoon Benito Mussolini, but stopped well short of advocating that the U.S. go to war. Rather, he suggested that NATO should be put on high alert and recommended ‘to avert miscalculations.’

Deze top-adviseur van president Obama stelde in zijn in 1997 verschenen The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives:

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal (de middelen. svh) to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

En dit kan de expansionistisch ingestelde elite in Washington en op Wall Street absoluut niet accepteren, zoals zij telkens weer laat zien. Eén van de best ingevoerde experts op dit gebied is Paul Craig Roberts, die als voormalige staatssecretaris van Financiën onder president Reagan, het machtsstreven van de VS van nabij kent. Woensdag 25 februari 2015 waarschuwde hij voor ‘The Neoconservative Threat To International Relations’ door het volgende te schrijven:

What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the ‘world’s only superpower.’ Neoconservatives proclaimed ‘the end of history.’

By the ‘end of history’ neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen ‘American Democratic-Capitalism.’ It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.

In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.

The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being ‘the exceptional country,’ and the American people acquire exalted status as ‘the indispensable people.’

If a country is ‘the exceptional country,’ it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are ‘indispensable,’ it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.

We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.

The neoconservative ideology requires that Washington maintain its Uni-power status, because this status is necessary for Washington’s hegemony and History’s purpose.
The neoconservative doctrine of US world supremacy is most clearly and concisely stated by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative who has held many high positions: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Director of Policy Planning US Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador to Indonesia, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank.

In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz stated the neoconservative doctrine of American world supremacy:

‘Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.’

For clarification, a ‘hostile power’ is a country with an independent policy (Russia, China, Iran, and formerly Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad).

This bold statement struck the traditional American foreign policy establishment as a declaration of American Imperialism. The document was rewritten in order to soften and disguise the blatant assertion of supremacy without changing the intent. These documents are available online, and you can examine them at your convenience.

Softening the language allowed the neoconservatives to rise to foreign policy dominance. The neoconservatives are responsible for the Clinton regime’s attacks on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Neoconservatives, especially Paul Wolfowitz, are responsible for the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. The neoconservatives are responsible for the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in Libya, the assault on Syria, the propaganda against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, the color revolutions in former Soviet Republics, the attempted ‘Green Revolution’ in Iran, the coup in Ukraine, and the demonization of Vladimir Putin.

A number of thoughtful Americans suspect that the neoconservatives are responsible for 9/11, as that event gave the neoconservatives the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ that their position papers said was necessary in order to launch their wars for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 led directly and instantly to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Washington has been fighting since 2001. Neoconservatives controlled all the important government positions necessary for a ‘false flag’ attack.

Neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is married to another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, implemented and oversaw Washington’s coup in Ukraine and chose the new government.

The neoconservatives are highly organized and networked, well-financed, supported by the print and TV media, and backed by the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. There is no countervailing power to their influence on US foreign power.

The neoconservative doctrine goes beyond the Brzezinski doctrine, which dissented from Detente and provocatively supported dissidents inside the Soviet empire. Despite its provocative character, the Brzezinski doctrine remained a doctrine of Great Power politics and containment…

While the neoconservatives were preoccupied for a decade with their wars in the Middle East, creating a US Africa Command, organizing color revolutions, exiting disarmament treaties, surrounding Russia with military bases, and ‘pivoting to Asia’ to surround China with new air and naval bases, Vladimir Putin led Russia back to economic and military competence and successfully asserted an independent Russian foreign policy.

When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and Washington’s planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed the ‘first objective’ of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and had allowed ‘the re-emergence of a new rival… on the territory of the former Soviet Union’ with the power to block unilateral action by Washington.

The attack on Russia began. Washington had spent $5 billion over a decade creating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians. The NGOs were called into the streets. The extreme nationalists or nazi-elements were used to introduce violence, and the elected democratic government was overthrown. The intercepted conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, in which the two Washington operatives choose the members of the new Ukrainian government, is well known.

If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics. If the information is correct, Russia can expect more ‘color revolutions’ or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union. Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.

The conflict in Ukraine is often called a ‘civil war.’ This is incorrect. A civil war is when two sides fight for the control of the government. The break-away republics in eastern and southern Ukraine are fighting a war of secession.

Washington would have been happy to use its coup in Ukraine to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base as this would have been a strategic military achievement. However, Washington is pleased that the ‘Ukraine crisis’ that Washington orchestrated has resulted in the demonization of Vladimir Putin, thus permitting economic sanctions that have disrupted Russia’s economic and political relations with Europe. The sanctions have kept Europe in Washington’s orbit.

Washington has no interest in resolving the Ukrainian situation. The situation can be resolved diplomatically only if Europe can achieve sufficient sovereignty over its foreign policy to act in Europe’s interest instead of Washington’s interest.

The neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony is a threat to the sovereignty of every country. The doctrine requires subservience to Washington’s leadership and to Washington’s purposes. Independent governments are targeted for destabilization. The Obama regime overthrew the reformist government in Honduras and currently is at work destabilizing Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, and most likely also Armenia and the former Central Asian Soviet Republics.

Yalta and its consequences have to do with Great Power rivalries. But in the neoconservative doctrine, there is only one Great Power – the Uni-power. There are no others, and no others are to be permitted

Therefore, unless a modern foreign policy arises in Washington and displaces the neoconservatives, the future is one of conflict.

It would be a strategic error to dismiss the neoconservative ideology as unrealistic. The doctrine is unrealistic, but it is also the guiding force of US foreign policy and is capable of producing a world war.

In their conflict with Washington’s hegemony, Russia and China are disadvantaged. The success of American propaganda during the Cold War, the large differences between living standards in the US and those in communist lands, overt communist political oppression, at times brutal, and the Soviet collapse created in the minds of many people nonexistent virtues for the United States. As English is the world language and the Western media is cooperative, Washington is able to control explanations regardless of the facts. The ability of Washington to be the aggressor and to blame the victim encourages Washington’s march to more aggression.

Hoewel de ‘Brzezinski doctrine’ vooral de ‘containment’ van de Sovjet Unie als doel had,  hamert de invloedrijke Brzezinski er sinds de val van dit rijk erop dat de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek ‘America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still,’ zo nodig ‘meedogenloos’ moet voortzetten, dat wil zeggen: met zoveel mogelijk geweld. Hij zette uiteen dat:

Geopolitical pivots (zoals Oekraïne. svh) are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.

Vandaar dat de neoconservatieve beleidsbepalers in Obama’s regering 5 miljard dollar uittrokken om in Oekraïne een zogenaamde ‘democratische oppositie’ te creëren, die in werkelijkheid bestaat uit extreem nationalistische figuren van wie een deel openlijk neo-nazi-opvattingen uitdraagt. Desondanks stelt Brzezinski dat 'Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots (spil. svn).Ondertussen wordt zijn boek The Grand Chessboard door velen  gezien als een blauwdruk voor het creëren van de Amerikaanse hegemonie in de wereld. Eurazië vormt daarbij ‘the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played.' Het is daarbij 'imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.’

Dit verklaart waarom de VS na de val van de Sovjet Unie, en de ontbinding van het Warschau-Pact, de NAVO niet ophief, maar in ledenaantal liet verdubbelen, terwijl het neoliberale imperium zijn militaire bases steeds verder oostwaarts verplaatste, waardoor de Russische Federatie nu volledig in ingesloten, en de toenmalige NAVO-opperbevelhebber, de Amerikaanse generaal Philip Breedlove, steeds dreigendere taal begon uit te slaan. Begin maart 2015 beschuldigde hij de Russische president Vladimir Poetin er zelfs van ‘met opzet' een  ‘vluchtelingencrisis' te hebben gecreëerd om Europa in moeilijkheden te brengen.’ Op die manier trachtte de hoge militair met politieke uitspraken een toekomstig gewelddadig conflict met de kernmacht Rusland bij voorbaat te legitimeren. Zonder enig concreet bewijs te leveren namen de westerse mainstream-media deze zware beschuldiging klakkeloos over. De basis van elke oorlog is propaganda, en dit bewijst waarom de afgelopen jaren de Amerikaanse elite en haar woordvoerders van de commerciële pers zo koortsachtig de anti-Rusland hetze op gang houden. In dit verband is het interessant te weten dat het Brzezinski was die als eerste

compared Putin to Hitler in a March 3 (2014. svh) Washington Post Editorial. Hillary Clinton followed-up the next day with her comments comparing the two, followed by John McCain and Marco Rubio who on March 5 agreed with Clinton’s comments comparing Putin and Hitler. Apparently Brzezinski still continues to influence US political speak.

Centraal in Brzezinski’s 'rechtvaardiging' van de Amerikaanse heerschappij over de wereld staat zijn overtuiging dat 'America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily… economically… technologically… and culturally,’ maar zelfs hij beseft inmiddels, twee decennia na het verschijnen van zijn destijds alom geprezen boek The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, dat het ‘Amerikaans primaat’ voorbij is, al was het maar omdat de VS  sinds de Korea Oorlog niet in staat is geweest zijn oorlogen te winnen.   

Was eind vorige eeuw Brzezinski er nog diep van overtuigd dat zowel Rusland en China: 

Lacking the ability to project forces over long distances in order to impose their political will ands being technologically much more backward than America, they do not have the means to exercise — nor soon attain — sustained political clout (macht. svh) worldwide, 

in 2014 was hij al een stuk minder zeker van zijn gelijk en adviseerde hij tijdens de Oekraïne-crisis dat

NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.


5 mind-boggling things about 'The Coming War on China': Pilger's documentary. 


Weer twee jaar later begon ook bij deze top-adviseur van Obama het inzicht te dagen dat ‘the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment’ en dat gezien de ‘given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances’ de VS ‘no longer the globally imperial power’ was. In het tweemaandelijks verschijnende neoconservatieve tijdschrift The American Interest merkte hij op dat ‘As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.’ De zogeheten ‘herschikking’ van de macht in de wereld is niet minder gevaarlijk dan de Koude Oorlog was, een periode waarin de mensheid op het nippertje aan een nucleair armageddon ontsnapte, zoals mijn generatiegenoten weten. Het begrip ‘new global realignment’ is even eufemistisch als de nazi-propaganda over ‘Frontbegradigung,’ of ‘Frontverkürzung,’ waarmee het 1000-jarige Derde Rijk vergeefs probeerde te verhullen dat zijn strijdkrachten begonnen te verliezen en de geallieerden naar Berlijn oprukten. Een werkelijke grootmacht hoeft zijn hegemonie nooit te ‘herschikken.’ De satellietlanden doen wat Rome dicteert, of worden genadeloos gestraft voor hun ongehoorzaamheid. Zodra het front moet worden ‘verkorst,' of wanneer de noodzaak ontstaat voor een ‘global realignment’ is de centrale macht te zwak geworden om haar directieven met geweld te kunnen afdwingen. Feit is dat de VS astronomisch hoge bedragen besteedt aan het militair-industrieel complex, en bij machte is met Shock and Awe ontzagwekkende schade aan de burgerbevolking toe te brengen, maar tegelijkertijd weet het geen enkel gewapend conflict militair en politiek te winnen. En dit weten de vijanden, in tegenstelling tot de westerse opiniemakers à la Henk Hofland, die vlak voor zijn dood 'nog altijd bij voorkeur onder Amerikaanse leiding,’ de toekomst in wilde, tenminste wanneer de president ‘een Democraat,’ was. Voor hem was ‘Hillary’ dan ook ‘de ideale kandidaat,’ aangezien zij als havik het militair-industrieel complex van de gevestigde orde blind steunde, inclusief de illegale inval in Irak. 

Om de diepte van de immoraliteit en kortzichtigheid van Amerikaanse beleidsbepalers goed te kunnen beoordelen, dient men het volgende te weten. In 1998 verklaarde Brzezinski tegenover het Franse kwaliteitsweekblad Le Nouvel Observateur dat de Verenigde Staten vóór 1980 de voormalige Sovjet Unie bewust had geprovoceerd om Afghanistan binnen te vallen door in het geheim islamitische extremisten in dat land financieel en militair te steunen, waardoor ze een gewapende strijd tegen de pro-Sovjet regering konden beginnen. Op de vraag of hij daar geen spijt van had, antwoordde Brzezinski:

Spijt waarover? Die geheime operatie was een uitstekend idee. Het had als resultaat dat de Russen in de Afghaanse val trapten en wil je dat ik dat betreur? De dag dat de Sovjets officieel de grens waren over gestoken, schreef ik aan president Carter, in essentie: ‘We hebben nu de gelegenheid om de USSR zijn eigen Vietnam Oorlog te geven.’ 

Deze geopolitieke terreur kostte een miljoen Afghanen het leven, maakte drieënhalf miljoen Afghaanse burgers tot vluchteling en verwoeste de infrastructuur van het toch al zo arme land. Desalniettemin vertelde Brzezinski verheugd:

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. 

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

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? 

Le Nouvel Observateur: ‘Some hotheads?’ But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam.

Maar nog geen twee decennia nadat de in het Westen zo gerespecteerde adviseur van de ’s werelds machtigste politici had beweerd dat ‘enkele islamitische heethoofden’ een te verwaarlozen detail waren in het geopolitieke machtspel, bekende dezelfde Brzezinski dat mede als gevolg van het geweld van ‘enkele islamitische heethoofden’ de Amerikaanse elite in Washington en op Wall Street genoodzaakt was de werkelijkheid onder ogen te zien, namelijk dat

the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment,

waarbij de VS ‘no longer the globally imperial power’ was. Ondanks zijn gebrek aan inzicht in de onveranderlijkheid van de realiteit bleef hij bij de elite in hoog aanzien staan, hetgeen niet vreemd is, aangezien ‘There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat,’ zoals Gore Vidal het formuleerde. Dus toen ‘de Republikeinse senator John McCain in 2000 in de race was om de conservatieve presidentskandidaat te worden,’ was ‘Brzezinski zijn buitenlandse adviseur,’ terwijl hij ‘Acht jaar later, in 2008,’ als ‘buitenlandse adviseur van de nieuwe Amerikaanse president’ optrad, ‘de Democraat Barack Obama, die het in de verkiezingen opnam tegen dezelfde John McCain.’ 

Dit alles kan omdat de VS, in de woorden van oud-president Carter, een ‘oligarchy with unlimited political bribary’ is, een feit dat in mindere of meerdere mate altijd al het geval is geweest, en in de nabije toekomst zo zal blijven. Daarom zijn de huidige machtsverschuiving zo bedreigend voor de status-quo, de hegemonie van Washington en Wall Street, dat een neoliberaal systeem met propaganda en geweld verdedigt. 

Nu  de VS ‘no longer the globally imperial power’ is, spreekt het voor zich dat de vraag urgent is geworden wat de westerse elite gaat doen om de snelheid van haar slinkende macht op zijn minst af te remmen. 


U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban fighters. The video shows four men in U.S. Marine combat gear laughing and joking as they urinate on what appear to be dead men somewhere in a rural part of Afghanistan. News sources describe the dead men as Taliban insurgents. There is a wheelbarrow next to them and the scene appears as rural farming area. One of the bodies is covered in blood and the Marine can be heard joking 'Have a great day, buddy,' 'Golden like a shower' and 'Yeahhhh!'


In het invloedrijke tijdschrift Foreign Affairs — gepubliceerd door de invloedrijke Council of Foreign Affairs waarvan David Rockefeller de ‘Honorary Chairman’ was, betoogde Brzezinski in 1996 onder de kop 'A Geostrategy for Eurasia’ dat

America's emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative.

Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America’s.

Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.

 Belangrijk is te weten dat Foreign Affairs als spreekbuis functioneert van 

the world’s foremost policymakers, business leaders and public intellectuals to discuss the most important global, regional and industry developments of our day. Each event and conference draws on our unique network of experts who shape opinion, influence policy and move markets.

Vanuit het Amerikaanse geopolitiek perspectief blijft ook nu van kracht dat

Europe is not now and is not likely to become a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis…

the currently violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims is, in part, a belated reaction to their occasionally brutal suppression mostly by European powers. It fuses a delayed but deeply felt sense of injustice with a religious motivation that is unifying large numbers of Muslims against the outside world; but at the same time, because of historic sectarian schisms within Islam that have nothing to do with the West, the recent welling up of historical grievances is also divisive within Islam,

aldus Brzezinski. Juist omdat de VS ‘no longer the globally imperial power’ is, benadrukt hij dat

the United States must take the lead in realigning the global power architecture in such a way that the violence erupting within and occasionally projected beyond the Muslim world — and in the future possibly from other parts of what used to be called the Third World — can be contained without destroying the global order.

Die ‘orde’ is de neoliberale ‘orde’ die de huidige chaos heeft veroorzaakt, waarbij het westen in een permanente staat van oorlog verkeert met mens en natuur, de kloof tussen arm en rijk almaar toeneemt, het Amerikaanse militair-industrieel complex met succes het meeste belastinggeld opeist, en de klimaatsverandering het voortbestaan van de mensheid bedreigt. Hoewel Brzezinski zich inmiddels realiseert dat de VS niet meer de ‘only superpower’ is, kan hij tegelijkertijd geen afstand nemen van de veronderstelling dat de Amerikaanse elite de toekomst van de mensheid moet blijven bepalen. Donderdag 21 april 2016 publiceerde de ‘thinktank’ Katehon, ‘an independent organization consisting of an international network of people,’ allen specialist op het gebied van ‘geopolitical, geostrategic and political analysis of world events’ het artikel ‘Zbigniew Brzezinski’s American New Strategy Towards Russia and China,’ waarin werd gereageerd op het feit dat:

Famous American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski once again frightened mankind by saying that ‘the end of America's global role... would most probably be global chaos.’ To avoid this, the supporter of the American hegemony of the United States suggested Global Realignment. That's the name of his article in the Journal The American Interest. So, what is the American Interest according to Brzezinski? To briefly summarize the content of Brzezinski’s article it boils down to two theses:

1) The United States is no longer a global imperial power.

2)  As was already mentioned above - the probable chaos as a result of the collapse of the US imperial hegemony.


Centraal in Brzezinski’s betoog staat de noodzaak voor de Amerikaanse elite

[t]o maintain the US military presence in the Middle East by any means. The text states that this is crucial for the United States, as withdrawal will immediately trigger the collapse of American hegemony:

‘A comprehensive US pullout from the Muslim world favored by domestic isolationists, could give rise to new wars (for example, Israel versus Iran, Saudi Arabia versus Iran, a major Egyptian intervention in Libya) and would generate an even deeper crisis of confidence in America's globally stabilizing role. In different but dramatically unpredictable ways, Russia and China could be the geopolitical beneficiaries of such a development even as global order itself becomes the more immediate geopolitical casualty. Last but not least, in such circumstances a divided and fearful Europe would see its current member states searching for patrons and competing with one another in alternative but separate arrangements among the more powerful trio.’

In other words, Brzezinski offers the following strategy, where the Middle East is playing a key role:

1. To foment chaos and war in the region, relying on the strength of ‘global democratic awakening.’

2. Declare war on terrorism and to shift the burden onto Russia and China, drawing them into a hopeless conflict in the region.

3.  Maintain or even increase its military presence under the pretext of preserving stability in the Middle East.

Of course, all of this is masked by the theses of the struggle against terrorism and paying attention to the suffering of Muslims and the inhabitants of the Third World in general, and because the main actors in the crisis in the Middle East chessboard of Eurasia — Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Europe, and Saudi Arabia — are invited to participate in it. The pretext is that they are all interested in resolving the conflict, but in fact it will only lead to a conflict of interest and increase the chaos.

‘The overall threat of Islamic terrorism’ is not a ‘threat’ per se. The US were seriously hit by Islamism only once in its history, on September 11th, 2001. In the US, Muslims consist of around 1% of all citizens, as opposed to the multi-million Muslim populations of Russia and China. And unlike these two countries, there is no region in the US where the threat of Islamist separatism may emerge.

The US is separated from the conflict region by the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, the US can afford to play at two tables at once — to covertly support extremists and combat terrorism, drawing Russia and China into the conflict and subsequently weakening the Islamic world as well.

America hopes to use the US-grown Islamic extremists to re-engage Russia into their orbit, as has been noted — probably post-Putin. It will be the threat of Islamism that will be used in order to engage Russia in an America-centric system. Brzezinski openly declared that this pro-Western strategy relies on Russian nationalism, or on Russia’s transition from the Byzantine imperial expansionist ideology to the concept of Russian national bourgeois European states as part of the Western world:

‘Russia's own future depends on its ability to become a major and influential nation-state that is part of a unifying Europe.’

It is significant that Brzezinski, in accordance with the classical geopolitical tradition, considers the main US enemy to be Russia, not China:

‘And that is why it behooves (moet. svh) the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.’

Brzezinski’s analysis is based on a manipulation of facts and outright lies, designed to hide the rough edges of his vision.

Firstly, he is absolutely wrong when he assesses Russia's position. From the point of view of Brzezinski, this country is in the latest convulsive phase of its imperial devolution (ineenstorting. svh). Meanwhile, Russia reunified with Crimea in 2014, and before that in 2008, conducted a successful military campaign in Georgia. In 2015-2016, for the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia launched a military campaign overseas - in Syria. Russia demonstrates not imperial devolution, but imperial renaissance. Even if Russia tries to become a nation-state, is will only push it to expand, as millions of Russians live in the territories of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, and Kazakhstan. Both imperial and truly national versions of Russia do not fit into the Brzezinski’s vision of Russia - as one of the states of the European Union.

Secondly, Brzezinski did not take into account the new rising superpowers: India, Brazil, and South Africa. Indirectly, this may mean that the United States dropped them off, hoping to overthrow their independent elite by color revolutions and coups, like what is currently happening in Brazil. However, their demographic, economic, and, as in the case of India, ideologically anti-Western potential is extremely high.

Thirdly, he overlooks the potential for disintegration within the ‘European Union.’ The migration crisis, the collapse of the Schengen, diametrically opposite positions between leaders of states on key issues, and the growth of Euroscepticism, are all problems in the euro zone. This is not a Union that Russia would like to enter. This is not a Union where Brzezinski's ideas may promote the globalist agenda: ‘play a constructive role in taking the lead in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human survival.’

Fourthly, Brzezinski demonstrates thinking within the neorealist paradigm of ‘hegemonic stability.’ The collapse of US hegemony in his opinion would mean the collapse of the world order as such. But, first of all, the US does in no way contribute to the preservation of world order, turning the whole world into a zone of controlled chaos using the theory by another American analyst — Steven Mann. Why would it be a factor of stability in the future? Secondly, a number of neo-realists believe that the bipolar world will have a greater equilibrium than a unipolar one. Thirdly, there is a model of a multipolar world as a world divided by the imperial ‘big spaces,’ which takes into account the diversity of the world’s civilizations. It is also not chaos, but the most adequate alternative to American unilateralism.

It may be concluded that Brzezinski’s article demonstrates the desperate attempts of the American elite to maintain its hegemony in the world. At the same time it is full of propaganda clichés, and in many cases its assessment of the situation does not correspond to reality.

De hierboven overgenomen geopolitieke analyse wordt angstvallig verzwegen door de  Nederlandse mainstream-media. Soms vallen ze evenwel zonder het zelf te  beseffen door de mand. Zo meldde de Vlaamse hoofdredacteur van NRC Handelsblad, Peter Vandermeersch, via email op de dag dat ik dit schrijf, zondag 9 april 2017:

'Ommekeer' en 'bocht van 180 graden.’ Dat waren de woorden waarmee collega’s deze week de buitenlandse politiek van Donald Trump beschreven. De Amerikaanse president kwam aan zet in verschillende grote dossiers en verraste veel waarnemers.

Zo opende Amerika onverwachts de aanval op Syrië, een bondgenoot van Rusland, dat ervan verdacht wordt nog maar eens chemische wapens te hebben ingezet tegen eigen burgers. Het Amerikaans buitenlands beleid staat door de aanval volledig op zijn kop. Maakt Trump een draai naar een 'gewoon' presidentschap, vraagt correspondent Guus Valk zich af.'

Met andere woorden: naar het oordeel van NRC Handelsblad bestaat 'gewoon' presidentschap uit het voeren van agressieoorlogen. Ik had het niet beter kunnen formuleren. Maar hoe gewoon is dit 'gewoon'? Ik weet dat de NRC-redactie als ‘beginsel’ heeft het door dik en dun steunen van 'van het Atlantisch bondgenootschap,’ maar dat de krant ervan uitgaat dat een agressieoorlog 'gewoon' is, tenminste wanneer een Amerikaanse president daartoe opdracht geeft, is toch weer uitermate radicaal, aangezien dit soort oorlogen sinds de Neurenberger Processen beschouwd worden als zwaarste oorlogsmisdaad. NRC’s houding toont haar diepe ontzag voor illegaal massaal geweld. In dit opzicht verschilt de zienswijze van deze krant in niets van dat van  die van de ‘gewone’ fascisten in de geschiedenis. Let ook op de opgeluchte toon van ‘correspondent Guus Valk’ wanneer hij schrijft dat het eerder door de mainstream-pers zo fel bekritiseerde ‘machtsevenwicht in Washington’ nu 

verschuift De Amerikaanse aanval met kruisraketten op een vliegveld van de Syrische regering toont aan dat president Donald Trump zich door andere groepen laat beïnvloeden dan in de eerste weken van zijn presidentschap. De macht van de gevestigde politieke en militaire orde groeit. De vrijbuiters in Trumps entourage, die de eerste weken gezichtsbepalend waren, spelen opeens geen rol meer.

Dat we hier niet te maken hebben met geclaimde ‘objectieve’ verslaggeving blijkt uit de kwalificatie ‘vrijbuiters.’ Het begrip ‘vrijbuiter’ staat voor ‘piraat of zeerover die kaapt voor eigen gewin,’ dan wel ‘1) Avonturier 2) Bandiet 3) Boekanier 4) Bohémien 5) Kaper 6) Levensgenieter 7) Oplichter 8) Ovengerecht 9) Piraat 10) Vagebond 11) Zeerover 12) Zeeschuimer.’ 

Kortom, De ‘oplichters’ zijn kaltgestelt, en nu kan dan Trump eindelijk toch de rol gaan spelen van een ‘gewoon’ president van de zwaarst bewapende natie in de geschiedenis der mensheid. Meer over deze misdadige voorstelling van zaken de volgende keer. 


Het creatieve lab van… Peter Vandermeersch: 'Ik wil de beste krant van de wereld maken'



En terwijl de dwazen de oorlogspropaganda opvoeren werd in de namiddag bekend dat:

Russia and Iran warn US they will 'respond with force' if red lines crossed in Syria again

Threat comes after UK Defence Secretary demands Vladimir Putin rein in President Bashar al-Assad

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-iran-us-america-syria-red-lines-respond-with-force-aggressor-air-strikes-war-latest-a7675031.html





1 opmerking:

  1. A hundred years ago...

    April 1917 marks the first time chemical weapons were used in the middle east where the Brittish army introduced it during the Second Battle of Gaza.

    'Gas was employed primarily on the Western Front—the static, confined trench system was ideal for achieving an effective concentration. Germany also made use of gas against Russia on the Eastern Front, where the lack of effective countermeasures resulted in deaths of over 56,000 Russians,[40] while Britain experimented with gas in Palestine during the Second Battle of Gaza.[41] Russia began manufacturing chlorine gas in 1916, with phosgene being produced later in the year. However, most of the manufactured gas was never used.[19]'
    - Wikipedia: Second Battle of Gaza / Chemical weapons in World War I


    'Palestine would also provide Britain with a deep port in the eastern Miditerrainean such as Haifa on the Palestinian coast which would also be a destination for an overland pipe from the Persian Gulf through which oil could flow and be shipped out.
    Smuts underpinned Loyd George's policy to take Jerusalem* by saying that the initiative should be seized from the flagging hands of the French on the Western front. To ensure succes for the Second Battle Of Gaza in April chemical warfare was introduced.'
    [*] 'No other destination on earth could have such a spiritual or sentimental appeal. Muslims had been in control in Jerusalem the Holy City for over twelve centuries, and the idea of it's conquest would stir the imagination of Christian throughout the world' God, guns and Israel - Jill Hamilton

    Hardly worth a mention in The Balfour Project.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen