GEO-POLITICAL MOTIVES
GLOBAL SUPREMECY & THE GEOPOLITICAL PLANS FOR WORLD DOMINATION
Marina Oswald, widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, is quoted as saying
"The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank. Don't underestimate that. It's wrong to blame it on [James Jesus] Angleton and the CIA per se only. This is only one finger of the same hand. The people who supply the money are above the CIA."
The late Howard Hughes is claimed to have believed that the Rockefellers own the U.S. courts and judges.
David Rockefeller is claimed, through his Chase Manhattan Bank, to be a top stockholder in the Federal Reserve Bank. That idea is not delved into enough: The "Federal" "Reserve" is a private bank; who are the other stockholders?
A History of the The Republic
The Establishment historians and others have a way of explaining great tragic events:
[1] They attribute it to an unrelated series of circumstances.
[2] They blame the happening on supposedly known national, international culprits or "enemies".
[3] In setting forth the elite's version of what occurred, they seek to demonize or finger some religious, racial, ethnic, or other supposedly identifiable group, as the perpetrators or "enemy".
[4] The "powers that be", the Ruling Class---plainly, THEM---use the occurrence as an excuse to go to war or to retaliate in some way. In the process, are hounded or actually rounded up and put in enclosures or "concentration camps", supposed long-known sympathizers or secret domestic resident accomplices of these now-fingered "enemies".
BUT, are there geopolitical reasons and rationales not quickly discussed by the plutocrats' commentators and journalists, and other such mouthpieces?
AND, how many years if not decades must pass, before there is an open discussion, that the Establishment had an excuse, for example, to allow a supposed "sneak attack" on the Nation? Simply put, those who make national and international policy rulings without our consent, would they try to soon after the happening, ask us to consider THEIR reasons for knowing in advance, but allowing the tragedy to occur anyway?
Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941:
A newspaper in Hawaii, then a U.S. colony or possession, printed a headline, a week before December 7, 1941, that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent. In fact, U.S. General Billy Mitchell pointed out 18 years before, that Pearl Harbor was the target of a likely air attack. The General was punished by a Courts Martial for upsetting the other Military brass with Mitchell pointing out such things in emphasizing air power over sea power.
[A copy of the Hawaiian newspaper front page was published about a decade or so ago by a populist paper now defunct, "The Spotlight". The staff of that publication now publish "American Free Press", Washington, D.C.]
General Billy Mitchell was punished for his air power predictions.
[See the book "A Question of Loyalty: General Billy Mitchell and the Court Martial That Gripped the Nation" by Douglas C. Waller.]
Prior to December 7, 1941, the Roosevelt White House ordered the bulk of the U.S. fleet of Battleships and such, berthed at Pearl Harbor, to be located IN THE CENTER OF THE HARBOR where they made a good air power target. Excuse? Supposedly to save them from possible on-land saboteurs. The fleet of Aircraft Carriers, however, was ordered out to sea by the prior-knowledge of the impending airplane attack by Japan.
A warning of sorts was sent by the White House to the Pearl Harbor commanders BY THE SLOWEST MEANS POSSIBLE, arriving AFTER the attack by Japan was already in progress. The commanders were falsely blamed and later removed and defamed.
[Numerous books on the treason in permitting the attack on Pearl Harbor. See, for example list at www.amazon.com and for Barnes & Noble, www.bn.com ]
Was there an explanation, a rationale, that the highest level of the U.S. Government might have historically defended? That is, a geopolitical motive that the commonfolk of the U.S. were already too-poorly informed by the monopoly press to understand?
Despite the supposedly impregnable Maginot Line, France caved in to the Nazi armies. France was sold out by internal traitors, some called them the Gagliards, "the hooded ones". Great Britain was run by a pro-Hitler Monarchy. Just prior to the war breaking out in 1939, King Edward the 8th abdicated, 1936. The excuse? He wanted to marry a forbidden commoner who was herself one of the richest women ever, owning huge shipping combines. The actual excuse was that this couple were pro-Hitler. They became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and ran the Bahamas during World War Two. They treasonously arranged for Nazi submarines to re-fuel right offshore the U.S. Many British and U.S. sailors and merchant marines lost their lives by this treachery. [In recent years, the History Channel did a two-hour never seen before pictorial documentary on the treason of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.]
The successor to King Edward the 8th, King George 6th (1936-1952) was himself pro-Hitler. (He was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth 2nd, herself pro-Nazi, being actually not from the House of Windsor, but from German royalty, the House of Hanover. Through her private enterprise, Coutts Bank London, she has a joint account for One Hundred Billion Dollars with the Pro-Nazi Bush Crime Family. See document www.cloakanddagger.ca )
During the war, Sir Anthony Blunt, art expert for the Monarchy, endeared himself to the Throne, by infiltrating behind Nazi lines to retrieve secret documents from a French castle that showed King George 6th was a Hitler-supporter. Although later identified as a dreaded "Communist agent", Blunt was never prosecuted.
Realizing that the U.S. was a sleeping giant industrial complex, with its own oil reserves and facilities, Nazi Germany did NOT want to attack the U.S., separated from Europe's war by an ocean not easily crossed in those years by airplanes. BUT, by 1941, England was about to be over-run by the German invading armies. Not giving a hoot for the British working people, the Brits had in the 1930s allowed their industrial works to get completely out of date and rusted out. Large numbers of the British were on "the dole", and not up to date on production methods.
England's purported leader, often a fallen down drunk, Winston Churchill, persuaded his more or less cousin President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that throwing away 3,000 American lives in permitting a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, would be "a small price to pay" to bring U.S. into the war to save England.
The behind-the-scenes justification for sacrificing, to start with, 3,000 American lives at Pearl Harbor, requires the understanding of those years. The Axis Powers consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan. If any nation declared war on any one of these, then the others would declare war on that nation. So right after the U.S. declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941, Germany declared war on the U.S.
In simple terms, the supposedly "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, was to warrant the U.S. getting into the war against Nazi Germany that did not otherwise want to fight the industrial strongman, the U.S., easily mobilizing a large army from the U.S. unemployment that was over 14 per cent in 1941.
The Overthrow of the American Republic
In summarized and simple terms, those that occupied the New World, were those of the Reformation, Protestants who fled backward Europe, centers of arrogant and arbitrary Monarchies and hidebound religious dictators.
From at least 1812 when they re-invaded the U.S. and in 1814 burned down the White House, and onward, the British Monarchy vowed to break up the United States of America, into provinces warring with each other, so as to be no financial competition to England. The inhabitants of the Continent that includes the U.S., to revert back to being subjects of the Crown, not citizens of the U.S. and the States.
In plain terms, a faction in the British/American aristocracy has the mindset that the sizeable population now in America, some 300 million people, cannot all be granted what is in the Bill of Rights. Scholars of American history often fail to point out that the Bill of Rights was reluctantly and grudgingly added to the U.S. Constitution because otherwise the commonfolk would not accept alone the basic government system set up by the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, seldom discussed is the apparent clinker in the U.S. Constitution. Article VI provides basically that the debts and monies owed and contracted by the Americans to the British and their Monarchy prior to the U.S. Constitution, are to be forever obligations of the U.S. Government. Presumably, at compound interest accumulating in perpetuity, that is, for ever a British noose around the American necks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brzezinski (born March 28, 1928) is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board with Carla Hills. He is a professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. He is cochair of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya.
Earlier, he was a member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State from 1966 to 1968; chairman of the Humphrey Foreign Policy Task Force in the 1968 presidential campaign; director of the Trilateral Commission from 1973 to 1976; and principal foreign policy adviser to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential campaign.
From 1977 to 1981, Dr. Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Carter. In 1981 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role in the normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations and for his contributions to the human rights and national security policies of the United States. He was also a member of the President's Chemical Warfare Commission (1985); member of the NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (1987-1988); and member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (1987-1989). In 1988, he was cochairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force. Dr. Brzezinski received a B.A. and M.A. from McGill University (1949, 1950) and Ph.D. from Harvard University (1953). He has been a member of the faculty of Columbia University (1960-1989) and Harvard University (1953-1960).
Dr. Brzezinski holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University, College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, and Vilnius University. Dr. Brzezinski is the recipient of numerous honors and awards.
His many books include The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (Basic, 2004), The Geostrategic Triad: Living with China, Europe, and Russia (CSIS, 2001), The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (Basic, 1997), and The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the 20th Century (Scribner, 1989).
Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11th
*********************************************************
Gulf War Pullout
Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert (Z Magazine, February 1991)
The "Logic" of War
To effectively combat war in the Gulf we have to understand its motives. Bush is seeking to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Possibly he is seeking to reduce Iraq to rubble. But that is not the whole story.
Hundreds of U.S. bombers are not "storming" Iraq to maintain cheap oil. (1) The cost of more expensive oil would be much less than the cost of the military operation. (2) Oil prices have a marked-regulated cap anyhow. If oil producers raise prices too high for too long, users drift away which is self-defeating for oil rich countries. (3) Insofar as high oil prices cause problems to industrialized economies, Europe and Japan are more vulnerable than the U.S., so relative to these countries higher oil prices often help our economy at a time of its threatened dissolution.
Fleets of U.S. helicopters are not "storming" Iraq to honor Kuwait's national sovereignty. U.S. history is a near continuous chronicle of violating other countries' national sovereignty for even less compelling reasons than those Saddam Hussein offers to rationalize his militarism. For example, Kuwait's oil policies were certainly more damaging to Iraq's economy than Panama's policies were to the U.S. economy. No U.S. elected official or mainstream media commentator has even hinted that our invasion of Panama was just as much a violation of national sovereignty as Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Respect for national sovereignty is an after-the-fact rationalization of Desert Storm, not a motive.
U.S. troops are not "storming" Iraq because we fear Hitlerite expansionism. Iraq is only a local power, not pre-World War II Germany. Iraq just spent the 1980s failing to conquer Iran despite U.S. support.
The real reason for U.S. opposition to Iraqi occupation of Kuwait is not to keep oil prices low, but to keep Washington, Wall Street, and their allies in charge of setting oil prices. We are fighting to maintain and even enlarge one of our few continuing claims to international economic clout: control of oil prices. The Bush administration and the New York Times alike view the Mideast as an extension of Texas. It is "our oil," not theirs. The U.S. oil posture is not a sober defense of countries dependent on oil. It is a greedy offensive that pursues U.S. oil advantage. Most countries, particularly Third World countries, suffer horribly for these policies
*********************************************************
The Invasion of Afghanistan
Plans for the invasion of Afghanistan arrived on president Bush's desk 4 days before the attacks of 9/11. The military preparations had been going on for several years. We had US troops on Tadzhikistan , Ubeckistan, the Pakistani military was involved, it was being published in Russian newspapers, Uzvestia, that a join military invasion was already on the table. There was a book which came out right after 9/11 by Guillaume Dasquie and Brisard called, Bin Laden the Forbidden Truth which has some good stuff, some bad stuff in it but they document the negotiations of a group called 6+2� over pipelines and oil reserves in the Caspian Basin but it was widely known that the US was going to invade Afghanistan.
This is from the BBC's George Arney, US plan attack on Taliban, it was in place, he published this 18 September but he documents that going back 6, 8 months, a year, well back into the Clinton administration. Before the attacks, the US. military had a plan to invade Afghanistan
There appear to be at least eight motives for the war on terrorism and, in particular, the war on Afghanistan:
1. To advance U. S. geopolitical and imperialist goals by controlling Central Asia (the Imperialist Motive).
2. To force an agreement on Afghanistan to allow the building of petrochemical pipelines through Afghanistan for the benefit of U. S. oil interests (or course, the use of the threat of force as a bargaining chip in commercial negotiations, a fact possibly known to al-Qaeda, may have ironically been the impetus for al-Qaeda to attack the U. S. as a form of preemptive attack)(the Pipeline Motive).
3. Related to 2., to assist the extremely good friend of the Bush Administration, Enron, which was in grave financial trouble and could have used the pipeline as a source of funds for its involvement in the financing and construction of the pipeline and, perhaps more importantly, use the promise of the pipeline as a source of cheap fuel for its white elephant Indian energy plant as an inducement to a purchaser, allowing Enron to sell the energy plant and temporarily at least stave off ruin (the Enron Motive).
4. To create an excuse for the U. S. to go on a war footing in order to take war emergency powers to stifle dissent and create a neofascist security state (the Fascist Motive).
5. To use the war as an excuse for huge war expenditures and massive increases in the U. S. military budget, all to the benefit of military contractors (the Military-Industrial Complex Motive).
6. To use the war to artificially improve the Bush Administration's sagging popularity and get it out of the aimless malaise in which it was already sinking (the Bush Malaise Motive).
7. To continue the supply of Afghan heroin (the growing of poppies had been stopped by the Taliban), which formed the basis for a large heroin supply business to Europe using the services of Kosovar Albanian terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the CIA (the Heroin Motive).
8. To provide an excuse to use the war on terror for Israeli motives in controlling the Palestinians, and U. S./Israeli motives in removing Saddam Hussein (the Israeli Motives).
A War In Planning
A War in the Planning for Four Years
Zbigniew Brzezinski and the CFR Put War Plans In a 1997 Book -
It Is "A Blueprint for World Dictatorship," Says a Former German Defense and NATO Official Who Warned of Global Domination in 1984
"THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.
These are the very first words in the book:
"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- p. xiii.
Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress, just days after the attacks of September 11, as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.
Major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan - at least four years in the making - and that, from reading Brzezinski's own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.
There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco - and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report - is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."
Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans.
World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and - as their architects would like to believe - controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan - the plan of the CFR - Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.
This position is corroborated by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. On November 6, he told FTW, "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."
Brzezinski's own words - laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism - are self-incriminating. The U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval for a war that is now in progress. It is a war, as described by Vice President Dick Cheney, "that may not end in our lifetimes." What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.
These are the "terrorists" the U.S. now fights in Afghanistan and plans to soon fight all over the globe.
BATTLE FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries - almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).
He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 - March 31, 2001)
An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.
"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance.
Brzezinski writes: "This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbors, is likely to be a major battlefield, both for wars among nation-states and, more likely, for protracted ethnic and religious violence. Whether India acts as a restraint or whether it takes advantage of some opportunity to impose its will on Pakistan will greatly affect the regional scope of the likely conflicts. The internal strains within Turkey and Iran are likely not only to get worse but to greatly reduce the stabilizing role these states are capable of playing within this volcanic region. Such developments will in turn make it more difficult to assimilate the new Central Asian states into the international community, while also adversely affecting the American-dominated security of the Persian Gulf region. In any case, both America and the international community may be faced here with a challenge that will dwarf the recent crisis in the former Yugoslavia." - Brzezinski
"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)
"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
While insightful, Brzezinski's book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures, it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.
While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Brzezinski in the White House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter's Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct presentation at a Bilderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.
His fall was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power.
"All we have now are pseudo-democracies."
Koeppl recalls meeting U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald in Nuremburg in the early 80s. McDonald, who was then contemplating a run for the Presidency, was a severe critic of these elites. He was killed in the Russian shootdown of Korean Air flight 007 in 1985. Koeppl believes that it might have been an assassination. Over the years many writers have made these allegations about 007 and the fact that someone with Koeppl's credentials believes that an entire plane full of passengers would be destroyed to eliminate one man offers a chilling opinion of the value placed on human life by the powers that be.
In 1983, Koeppl warned, through Op-Ed pieces published in NEWSWEEK and elsewhere, that Brzezinski and the CFR were part of an effort to impose a global dictatorship. His fall from grace was swift. "It was a criminal society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in the so-called respected publications. My 30 year career in politics ended."
"The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people. Therefore what we need is education for politicians, a form of training that instills in them a higher sense of ethics than service to money. There is no training now for world leaders. This is a shame because of the responsibility that leaders hold to benefit all mankind rather than to blindly pursue destructive paths."
"We also need education for citizens to be more efficient in their democracies, in addition to education for politicians that will create a new network of elites based upon character and social intelligence."
As to the present conflict Koeppl expressed the gravest concerns, "This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."
LINKS OF REFERENCE:
Michael Ruppert on Unwelcome Guests
*********************************************************