17 October 2010

The Left Wages McCarthyism


"But unfortunately, there is an even larger number of people who massively enrich themselves over the last decade, incredibly so, to the degree that we now have this highly disproportionate social divisions between the rich and the poor. And I think they should be made known publicly. Public pressure, public condemnation, public shame can be very effective…I think public disclosure by the mass media could go a long way towards a social awakening that's responsible and constructive in its effects and doesn't produce stupid counterproductive witch hunt." 

- Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski


Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor to President Carter and a frequent guest on his daughter Mika’s MSNBC program, made a series of strange statements during his segment on “Morning Joe” earlier today.

Talking with the MSNBC crew about the concentration of wealth in America as motivation for “Occupy Wall Street,” Dr Brzezinski seems to believe that publishing the names of people who make a lot of money would be helpful in redistributing wealth:




 
DR BRZEZINSKI:  "You know, I've been looking at this worldwide riots that are developing. They're all a reflection of deep passion, deep resentment, and fear. Now the question’s where will this go? How can this be sort of concretized? And one thought that has occurred to me, and let me sort of mention it here casually without having really thought it through systemically. I think it will be increasingly helpful if there was a movement to publish worldwide lists of people who make largely through speculation enormous amounts of money almost instantly and basically hide the fact from their social contexts. You know, how many Americans are really fully aware of how many other good people – that’s like Warren Buffett and others - who really donate a lot of their earnings to charities, to philanthropy?"
 
"But how many more are there in the hedge funds, in the banks, in a variety of other places who on the basis of speculation literally make millions of dollars that it would take a century or two for the average person ever to make. I would like to see those lists. And they shouldn't be that difficult to produce. And I think public pressure might have also some effect, not only in terms of moving towards more systematic international coordination and regulation, but also to pressure some of those people to give some of it back, back to society." 

- Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski wants anyone making a lot of money to be pointed out, but a short time later he says he does not want Wall Street “demonised.” Then, he returns to his demonising of people who legally earn a lot of money and spend it in ways that apparently he would not. Pay close attention to his statements about “control.”
“We have to have disclosure. We have to have transparency. We have to have control.  More fair distribution of Social Responsibility through taxation and elimination of loopholes.  And pressure even on the rich to avoid flaunting their wealth."
Who is "we," Dr Brzezinski?  Are you claiming to be part of the 99%?  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but as one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, along with David Rockefeller, and a hobnobber at Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Relations meetings, you are going to have a hard time convincing the peeps that you are one of them.  You ARE the trifecta, Zbig!

Imagine that.


We just had riots in Rome with destruction of private property as a result of this movement. Last week, protesters in New York City went to the houses of some of the wealthiest people in the country to demonstrate.


Now, a former National Security Advisor - note the hypocrisy there! - is advocating "public disclosure by the mass media" of lists of rich people so the protesters can put more pressure on such people to give some of their money "back to society."

In essence, a former National Security Advisor is calling on the Internal Revenue Service and the media to assist in taking people's money away from them.  Will he support force?  Should a man that makes $10 million be taxed at 90% if he decides that he would rather spend his money on his children and a woman, who earns $10 million, be taxed at 25% because she donates money to NOW, NARAL, PETA, and an array of other socially-acceptable (in other words, progressive-approved) causes?  Is LeBron James safe from the figurative and literal slings and arrows of ZBig and his Peoples' Army making $100 million a year because he is "labour," but Mr Big the White-Hedge-Fund-Hunter on Wall Street, who earns a similar amount, fair game because his profession is considered to be part of the bourgeoisie and a component of the oppressive capitalist system that exploits the labour of the poor and coloured?


If we're going to do this, why should we stop at Wall Street speculators? How about members of our government that have made fortunes of money relative to the common man and don't give much to charity?  For those that have forgotten, Al and Tipper Gore were found in the '90s to give very little to charity. More recently, so was Joe Biden.  How about those that have used their positions in government to become millionaires?  How does a poor, country lawyer like Harry Reid become a multi-millionaire making less than $200,000 in government while maintaining two homes?  How do scores of politicians INCREASE their net worth during the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression when the rest of the country is watching $7 trillion of their wealth be eviscerated?  Could it be the FACT that they are exempt from insider trading laws?


If we're going to start pressuring people to give more money back to society, it certainly shouldn't just be folks on Wall Street.  Let's include everyone, especially those working in government who really are supposed to be representing the people and not themselves.  Of course, we know how such a suggestion would go over in Washington.  Seriously, if we can't even get James Johnson and Franklin Raines, who just cooked the books at quasi-governmental entities, prosecuted for their fraud, does anyone believe we are going to see our
"public servants" giving back their gains to society?  Please.


Sadly, as Brzezinski was making his absurd suggestion, nobody on the set thought of this.  I wonder why.  Not really.  Those of us, who actually understand Marxist theory in practise and reality, know why it is not absurd for Brzezinski to make such a suggestion nor is it remarkable that he would see himself as one of the 99% and not the 1% nor is it the least bit shocking that ANYONE on the set at MSNBC would be the least bit surprised by his remarks.


According to Professor Paul Eidelberg, who is a political scientist, author, lecturer and founder and president of Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel’s system of governance, "long before he became Mr Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems.   'This image,' he says, 'is held by traditional anti-Communists.'  Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as 'a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.'”

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that:

“With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation.   The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty.   The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity.   It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.”

As a globalist, Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.  While many of the protestors of OWS are anti-globalisation, many of those behind the scenes are not.  One should recall that Marxism is an international endeavour.  This is one of the few differences between Marxism and Fascism.


“That is why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision...was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.”  

- Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski

According to Dr Brzezinski, embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”  As early as the mid-1950s, Brzezinski and other Leftist intellectuals began to argue that the Soviet Union wasn't really a communist country.  It was a totalitarian country and Stalin had "perverted" the teachings of Marx.  Per Dr Brzezinski, no true Socialist State is totalitarian.  Jean-François Revel wrote extensively of this nonsense during his life.  In his book, Last Exit to Utopia, he explained how, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European Left didn't recognise the failure of Marxism.  Instead, it claimed that true Marxism had never been tried.  The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were not really Marxist, Communist, Socialist, etc., after all.  They were perversions of Marxist ideology.  I suppose that, since Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, it has never really been tried, according to ideologues like Zbig.  (Yes, you read that right).

"Humanist" he may pretend to be, but inhumane are his words.  Consider this:

“...[A]lthough Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalising possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.”

How could more than 150 million dead people have been a blessing in disguise?  Only eugenicists, population control nuts, megalomaniacs with Messiah-complexes, etc., would consider such a blessing.

"In earlier times, it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people."


We also know that, like the President for whom he worked, Dr Brzezinski is not a supporter of Israel.  In a September 2009 interview with The Daily Beast, Brzezinski replied to a question about how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct an air strike on Iran, saying: "We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?" This was interpreted by some supporters of Israel as supporting the downing of Israeli jets by the United States in order to prevent an attack on Iran.


Let's recall one of Mr Brzezinski's previous achievements:

The CIA’s role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?



  
at

No comments:

Post a Comment