“The Bush operation in Iowa had all the smell of a CIA covert operation.” William Loeb, Manchester Union Leader, February 24, 1980.
By Webster G. Tarpley
The New Hampshire Democratic primary was no exercise in grass roots retail politics, but rather a clash between two cynical covert operations run by contending factions of intelligence community professionals. On the one side was an attempt to replicate here in the United States on behalf of Obama the sort of “color revolution” or “CIA people power coup” which the National Endowment for Democracy and the Brzezinski intelligence faction have carried out in such countries as Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. On the other hand, an opposed intelligence faction was able to win the day by a more traditional type of Diebold voting machine pattern fraud in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The people power coup in particular was designed to abort the entire Democratic primary season, prevent further radicalization of the Democratic base on economic issues, and submerge the issues raised by John Edwards, the wild card in this race and the Democratic candidate Wall Street organized money hates for his introduction of the rhetoric of economic populism into the campaigns of both parties.
Mrs. Clinton came into New Hampshire as the candidate of the machine bosses of what remains of the Democratic Party, the Shaheen machine of New Hampshire, of much of the trade union bureaucracy, of Washington lobbyists, and of large sectors of Wall Street. Barack Obama came in as the candidate of the Brzezinski-Soros machine, overwhelmingly focused on the need to assert Anglo-American world domination over Russia and smash the Shanghai Cooperation Organization during the next presidential term. Obama’s appeal was primarily to independents, many of them well-heeled elitists and good government types of the chablis and brie set. Edwards represented a new variable, with significant trade union backing and a broad potential appeal to the traditional “Joe Sixpack” blue collar Democratic base.
The outstanding lesson of the Iowa caucuses had been the ascendancy of anti-Wall Street economic populism, a theme pioneered by Edwards. This had been shown by Obama’s tendency to appropriate as his own the basic themes of the Edwards campaign: poverty, the Two Americas of rich and poor, the horrors faced by 50 million people who lack medical insurance, and the criminal practices of insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms. This approach had been successfully copied on the Republican side by the clever evangelical demagogue Mike Huckabee, who had used it to defeat the most plutocratic Republican, the stockjobber and asset-stripper Mitt Romney, a man who wanted to conquer Iowa with his all-powerful checkbook. Many reactionary commentators, including the Wall Street Journal and George Will, had savagely attacked Huckabee and Edwards for their verbal attacks on the finance oligarchs.
Behind Obama, The Brzezinski Clan Of Russia Haters
George Bush had no foreign policy background, so it turned out to be his advisors who called the shots: these were the neocon fascist madmen, who have created a disaster. Obama has no knowledge and no experience of foreign policy, so it is reasonable to examine who his top advisers in this field are. We immediately find that Obama’s foreign policy is made by the Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies and the gray eminence of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment. Brzezinski’s enthusiastic endorsement of Obama and scornful rejection of Mrs. Clinton last summer was a turning point in the rise of the Illinois senator. But Zbigniew is not just an individual; he is the gruff patriarch of an extended clan of intelligence operatives around which an entire coterie of the intelligence community is grouped. One is his son Mark Brzezinski, who served in the National Security Council during the Clinton era. Zbigniew and Mark jointly directed the infamous orange revolution in the Ukraine in November and December 2004, which brought a pro-NATO puppet regime of kleptocrats and oligarchs to power deep into the former Soviet territory. At one point in this operation, it looked like the pro-Russian eastern Ukraine might secede, leading to possible civil war within that country. If Russian troops had come into such a war on one side, and Polish NATO troops had intervened in support of Brzezinski’s puppets, the result might have been a general European and world war. The Brzezinskis are happy to take such risks, sure in the knowledge that it is the Appalachian poor and black ghetto victims who will pay the price, and not their own circles of the cosmopolitan decadent émigré nobility.
It is plausible, although not yet proven, that Obama was discovered by the Brzezinskis and created from the ground up starting in the early 1980s. Zbig taught at Columbia University from 1960 to 1989, and was the head of the Institute for Communist Affairs, a nest of anti-Soviet ideologues. After two years at Occidental College in California, Obama transferred to Columbia for his junior and senior years, majoring in political science with a specialization in international relations – Brzezinski’s own bailiwick – and receiving a B.A. degree in 1983.
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s brand of lunatic geopolitics would obviously dominate a future Obama administration, but that is only the beginning. Zbigniew’s most recent book is Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007). Here Brzezinski argues that there is a global political awakening going on, and that the US is missing the boat. The goal of this global awakening is, in Zbig’s opinion, “dignity.” Not economic development, not the alleviation of poverty, not national sovereignty against the IMF and World Bank, but just dignity, with strong overtones of small-state particularism, parochialism, and local control. Obama’s alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig’s cosmopolitan prescription. Many have pointed to Second Chance as the manual or printout for the entire Obama campaign, starting with the cultural and ideological profile assumed by the candidate. The entire Obama operation may be regarded as a cloak for Brzezinski’s resurgent ambition to go out in one great blaze of revanchist glory. Obama did not choose these advisers; it is a safe guess that the advisers chose Obama. The outlines of Zbigniew’s plan are also clear: he considers himself the man who shattered the Warsaw Pact, and who then brought on the collpase of the entire Soviet Union. Now he wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself, with the option of carving up the Russian heartland. Perhaps Zbig is dreaming of a Greater Poland with the dimensions it had about 1600: from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all controlled by petty szlachta aristocrats like the Brzezinskis. Brzezinski’s lunatic vendetta against Moscow cannot be worth a single American life.
It is widely recognized that Zbig has provided the playbook for Obama. David Ignatius made this relationship clear enough in his review of Second Chance in the Washington Post when he wrote: “The most intriguing part of Brzezinski’s book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (He doesn’t call it that, but I don’t think he would quarrel with that characterization, either.) Brzezinski argues that the world is undergoing a “global political awakening,” which is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet. Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It’s about dignity.” (March 14, 2007) Zbig’s brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanization, and the creation of a weak petty state for each ethnic minority – starting with Kosovo and Chechenia. This is the mine of neo-Wilsonian demagogy that an Obama administration will exploit –in the service not of peace but of US world domination and encirclement of Russia.
Zbig said in endorsing Obama: “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 peoples.” This may sound edifying, but the real meaning is to put a trendy multi-cultural mantel over a revanchism inherited from World War II and its aftermath. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/12/358475.aspx)
London Economist: Zbig Is Obama’s Brain
The London Economist recently revealed to its readers that Zbigniew is Obama’s brain in much the same way that Karl Rove or the neocons in general have been considered as Bush’s brain. The Economist blog enthused: “A NEW brain for Barack Obama! It’s 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery exnational security adviser to Jimmy Carter.” (March 14, 2007)
Working under this brain are numerous subsidiary ganglions. As already noted, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s son Mark Brzezinski served in the National Security Council as Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs under President Clinton. Mark Brzezinski was in his own right one of the prime movers of the November/December 2004 people power coup or color revolution in Ukraine. He is also prominently listed as an adviser to the Obama campaign. In a recent op-ed, Mark Brzezinski gushed in praise of his family’s standard bearer: “Mr. Obama’s early opposition to the war in Iraq is well known. But his opposition to the war in Iraq is related to his more general concern that America is bungling it in global leadership. His candidacy gives America an opportunity to redefine itself in relationship with the world precisely because he takes a global approach to our challenges rather than a more conventional approach. That global approach comes from a man who at an early age lived abroad, learned a foreign language and was raised by parents who themselves were foreign or desired to live in a foreign country.” (Mark Brzezinski, “Obama’s Global Approach,” Washington Times, Oct 26, 2007) Reality is much uglier: as the Voltaire Network wrote during the 2004 election, on the eve of the Kiev coup: “Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that aroused the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Empire’s Adviser: The Outrageous Strategy to Destroy Russia, Voltaire, October 22, 2004)
Another of Zbigniew’s sons is Ian Brzezinski, currently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO affairs and a backer of NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia. This project means that Americans will be committed to fight and die for a gangster regime in the Caucasus, at the far end of the Black Sea. Ian is also pushing the installation of US ABM missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. He is also a protagonist of the independence of Kosovo, to be accomplished under the gun-running, drug-running KLA terrorist organization.
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter is Mika Brzezinski, who holds forth every morning as the sidekick of former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. NBC and MSNBC were at the leading edge of the attempt to stampede the New Hampshire vote in favor of Obama. The most hysterical partisan for Obama in this context was of course the mentally unbalanced Chris Matthews, who acted as an open partisan and cheerleader for Obama, quite possibly violating Federal Elections Commission rules in the process. Other pro-Obama propagandists at NBC/MSNBC included Andrea Mitchell, the wife of Alan Greenspan, Tim Russert, and Scarborough himself. Mika Brzezinski was slightly more discreet, skewing the coverage in favor of Obama without the same level of bombastic excess exhibited by Russert. Mika Brzezinski’s major interview with Michele Obama of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the wife of the candidate, was a significant contribution to the general media swoon in favor of the newcomer. Mika’s mother and Zbigniew’s wife is a Benes, a relative of the President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Chamberlain’s Munich sellout of September 1938, who was later the head of the London-sponsored Czech government in exile. Such anti-Russian, anti-Austro- Hungarian, and anti-German political figures in eastern Europe are often descendants of the old 1848-1870 Mazzini pro-terrorist networks, and this tradition of British subversion is alive and well with the Brzezinskis today.
Finally, there is Matthew Brzezinski, who reported in the Washington Post Magazine of March, 2005 about his amicable discussions with Ilyas Akhmadov, “foreign minister” and US envoy of the Chechen terrorist opposition, who is living high on the hog with a comfortable apartment in the Woodley Park area of Washington, a Reagan-Fascell stipend, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy, a secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations expense account – all to rehabilitate the public image of the Chechen terrorists, all paid for by the US taxpayers with checks signed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all courtesy of the lobbying efforts of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Matthew Brzezinski, quite possibly a Canadian citizen, went out to have a few beers with Akhmadov. Hobnobbing with a spokesman for terrorists, provided that he is anti-Russian, is typical of the Brzezinskis. The group Akhmadov represents specializes in killing defenseless women and children in the hospitals and schools of southern Russia. Russia has repeatedly demanded the extradition of Achmadov as a terrorist, but the Bush regime has refused.
A Color Revolution Attempted In New Hampshire
The model of the orange revolution run by Zbig and Mark Brzezinski in Ukraine is the key to understanding what was attempted in New Hampshire. Methods that the Brzezinskis, the George Soros Open Society Foundation and their helpers at the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED, also known as Project Democracy) have perfected overseas are now being brought home to promote the Brzezinski agenda and continue the line of stolen elections from 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Mob rule, what the Greeks called ochlocracy, is the essence of the color revolution or people power coup. The modern theoretical basis of these mob coups has been provided by the writings of a certain Gene Sharp. In order to carry out a color revolution, large sums of money are required to pay bribes and buy support. Beyond that, the following ingredients are necessary:
- MEDIA: It is essential to control the key television channels, or at least one major network. In less developed societies, a well-known radio station might suffice, but here in the US it takes a broadcast network and one or more cable networks, backed up by news magazines, daily newspapers, and various internet sites. These organs must attempt to create a collective hysteria or mania in the whole society in favor of the people power coup. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the media swoon was led by NBC/MSNBC, but included most of the networks, plus Newsweek, the Boston and New York tabloids, and many others. Obama was fawned over by George Will, David Broder, Robert Novak, and many other columnists, including those with markedly right wing profiles.
- RENT-A-MOBS: This term became widespread during Brzezinski’s 1978 overthrow of the Shah of Iran in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini. No self-respecting anti-Shah politician in Teheran could venture outdoors without a numerous rent-a-mob. In Kiev, large numbers of young people camped out in the central square of the city to drive home their demand that the pro-Moscow government be replaced with Brzezinski’s pro-NATO puppets, although many of them were too naïve to realize that this was the issue. In more prosperous countries, such as the US, the dupe-amob offers a more economical equivalent. In any case, the mobs must be big enough to be shown on television, thus creating the illusion that the coup leader is riding a wave of overwhelming popular support and truly represents the Collective Will in Rousseau’s sense. The large crowds of well-meaning but ignorant and poorly informed young people who stood in long lines outside Obama’s events on the Sunday and Monday before the New Hampshire primary are examples of such dupe-a-mobs. One modish technical term for these procedures is swarming, but the idea is as old as the mob itself. As Bill Engdahl has noted, “The Pentagon and US intelligence have refined the art of such soft coups to a fine level. RAND planners call it ‘swarming,’ referring to the swarms of youth, typically linked by short message services and weblogs, who can be mobilized on command to destabilize a target regime.”
- SYMBOLS AND SLOGANS: Ukraine had the orange revolution; Georgia had the rose revolution. The Prague velvet revolution was an earlier pilot project for the same thing. The cedars revolution in Lebanon did not fare so well; here the groups of well-heeled and privileged young people could not match the actual organized power of the Hezbollah mass base. A similar attempt in Byelorussia also collapsed in failure. Jeans, tulips, the colors blue and purple, and even bulldozers have been mobilized as mindless symbols. In addition to the catchy color or symbol, an effective slogan is also required. In Belgrade, at the start of the current series, that was “Gotov je” – “he is finished,” meaning that Milosevic had to go. Other slogans have included “It’s enough” and “It’s time!” For Obama, the solution in this regard was “Change We Can Believe in.”
- FAKE POLLING: Since the color revolution usually takes place under the cover of an election, faked polling for mass manipulation purposes is indispensable. In Ukraine, the pro-Moscow candidate Yanukovich was declared the winner by the official government vote count, but the rent-a-mobs and dupe-a-mobs in the streets began yelling that this was vote fraud. How could they prove it? Project Democracy had thought of everything: the polling firm of Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates was on the scene, and had carried out an exit poll of voters leaving the polling places. The results of this faked and doctored exit poll, a masterpiece of NATO intelligence, were the basis of the accusation of vote fraud, which was then endorsed by international observers from the European Union, the NED, and the Helsinki CSCE watchdog groups. Who was Brzezinski’s pollster? It was none other than Mark Penn, currently the much-hated boss of the entire Hillary Clinton campaign, for which he is top strategist and top pollster at the same time. There are many indications that Mark Penn, the former partner of Clinton’s Svengali Dick Morris, is not really interested in Mrs. Clinton’s victory, but is rather dancing to the tune of the Brzezinski machine. Mark Penn’s probable role will be described shortly.
- A SUITABLE DEMAGOGUE: In Serbia and Georgia, these were young and attractive oligarchical politicians, often western trained, and always on the make. In Ukraine, the coup candidate was Yushchenko, something of a tired retread and therefore not entirely plausible for the purpose at hand. To drum up sympathy for Yushchenko, he was apparently submitted to some form of disfiguring chemical or biological attack, and this was blamed on the Russians. Demagogue in chief is the role assigned to Obama, an ambitious and unprincipled politician who had been thoroughly vetted by the Soros apparatus, in addition to being groomed by the Brzezinskis.
The net effect of these elements, orchestrated together in ruthlessly coordinated fashion, is to create an atmosphere of mob hysteria which can grip an entire nation, or at least the capital and certain other selected areas, and when amplified by controlled media for long enough can bring down a government and replace it with the protagonists of the coup. In this case, the various components of the coup were designed to converge on Monday, January 7, and on Tuesday, January 8, primary election day in New Hampshire.
Inside The People Power Coup: Mark Penn’S Divided Loyalties
The serious weakness of the Hillary Clinton campaign was its adoption of a rhetorical profile suitable at best to a presidential general election in calm times. Instead, in 2007- 2008 Hillary was attempting to win over radicalized antiwar Democratic primary voters in the midst of a Big Change or party re-alignment election along the lines of 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968. On the surface it might have been argued that this was because no member of the Clinton inner circle had fought a contested primary since 1992, ages ago in political terms. But it appears increasingly that this confusion between general and primary voting was willful, the result of a hidden agenda on the part of Brzezinski’s man Mark Penn.
On January 3, 2007 Robert Novak wrote in the Washington Post that Mark Penn had been guilty of “premature triangulation,” advising Mrs. Clinton to pose (in the Dick Morris tradition) as a third force halfway between the leftists and right-wingers long before it was the suitable time to do so. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly exposed the warmongering nature of her campaign, leaving little doubt that she would keep at least 75,000 US troops in Iraq during her entire presidency, as she told the New York Times last March, and that she would act as an eager cheerleader for an attack on Iran, which had almost occurred with the new staged Gulf of Tonkin incident near Hormuz on the Saturday night before the voting in New Hampshire. Before the caucuses, published Iowa polls were showing that Obama and Edwards were pulling ahead of Mrs. Clinton. Novak gloated that this was “white knuckle time” for the New York senator, and threatened her with the specter of Howard Dean’s debacle in Iowa in 2004.
Mark Penn purported in public not to believe the last-minute polls which showed Mrs. Clinton losing. According to one blogger, “based on everything I’ve heard and read, Penn genuinely didn’t believe the Des Moines Register poll showing Obama up big prior to the caucuses.” (Noam Scheiber, “Can Someone Explain Mark Penn To Me?”) According to other sources, Mark Penn was telling Mrs. Clinton that his own private internal campaign polls were showing her on the way to victory. The guess here is that Penn knew better, but was stringing Hillary along, counting on the notorious tin ear that helped her to bungle her 1993-94 health care campaign. Penn’s argument was reportedly that the upbeat internal polls could not be wrong, and so the traingulation and trimming strategy that was producing them could not be wrong either. In reality, both polls and strategy were disastrous, and Zbigniew’s friend Mark Penn must have known it. Clinton lost to Obama in Iowa by 9 points, and to Edwards by 1 point. Did Penn give wretched political advice, and then cook his polls to hide the damage done to Mrs. Clinton by her right-wing posturing?
A Cynically Orchestrated Media Swoon For Obama
The shock of this thoroughly unexpected Iowa defeat explains the stunned disorientation of the Clinton forces when they arrived in New Hampshire on Friday, January 4. The feeding frenzy of the corporate media, doubltess stirred up by intelligence operatives favoring the Brzezinski-Obama project larded through the various news and polling organizations, took an increasing toll. Penn made matters worse by claiming that there would be no Iowa bounce for Obama in New Hampshire, presumably on the basis of his internal polling, but more likely to keep the Clinton campaign totally disoriented and confused. “What I don’t understand is why Penn, having been proven completely, disastrously wrong in his reading of the Iowa numbers, would then go out on another limb yesterday, claiming Obama would get no bounce from Iowa based on a very early set of polls,” wrote blogger Noam Scheiber.
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted from January 4 to 6 had Obama at 32 and Clinton at 28. A Marist College poll conducted January 5 to 6 showed Obama at 34% and Clinton at 28%. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted from January 4 to 6 showed Obama 13 points ahead of Clinton. The thesis here is that these polling organizations, especially in acutely sensitive points like Iowa and New Hampshire, are regarded by the ruling circles as critical components of political control, and are throughly compromised and penetrated by the intelligence community. This has been the case for many decades. We will have to wait for a new Church Committee and a new Pike Committee to provide the details, but the general outlines are clear: the Obama vote totals were inflated in an effort ot produce a people power stampede in favor of Obama as the Brzezinski candidate, while deflating both Edwards and Hillary. This hypothesis presumes the plausible presence of intelligence community represenatives in most of the leading polling organizations, something that no student of the 9/11 events would venture to deny. The Republican primary was left to vegetate away on its own, apart from stealing votes from Ron Paul, as far as can be determined.
The critical time arrived on Monday afternoon, when the merciless pounding of the Chris Matthews storm troopers of the controlled corporate media and the barbs of the Boston and New York tabloids converged on the New Hampshire voters and the Clinton campaign. Through the afternoon rumors swirled that Mrs. Clinton was going to drop out even before the voting started, or, failing that, as soon as the dimensions of her humiliation became evident on primary night. The sooner she dropped out, the better, in any case. Edwards was given even less attention, but was also informed that his campaign was hopeless. The poetry of Obama had outclassed the prose of Hillary, crowed the New York Times, flagship of the Wall Street financier oligarchy. The Washington Post, which had been supporting Hillary, began to signal a turn against her. The watchword of the color revolution forces had become the slogan that Obama was no longer just a candidate – he had become “a movement.” This was the hype emanating from millions of television sets. The goal was to stampede the voters onto the Obama bandwagon, make Obama the Democratic nominee by the acclamation of a virtual dupe-a-mob, force Hillary and Edwards to go home, and shut down the entire undesirable primary process. The media were offering Obama the crown.
On Tuesday, January 8, primary day, the shameless and naked media hype for Obama continued. Exit pollsters sent by the media consortium appeared at the polling places, and one politics professor from St. Anselm College remarked later on MSNBC that the exit pollsters she had seen were feckless and callow youths, wildly flailing in their task, not knowing whom they should interview, not understanding voter profiles, and all in all throughly unprofessional. But the exit polling did not have to be accurate, and there was no point in hiring experienced professionals: this time the field data would be supplanted and overriden by cooked and massaged figures coming from the computers controlled by the coup – perhaps those of the National Endowment for Democracy, which has carried out this routine so many times abroad.
Chris Matthews stated on MSNBC that he was provided polling data that afternoon showing that Obama was winning big. Shawn Hannity of Fox News confirmed that the data he was given showed the same thing – Obama way ahead. Novack’s post-election column suggested the same thing. Once again, the ochlocrats of the Brzezinski networks are the prime suspects. The results of the exit polls kept most of the television talking heads firmly committed to an Obama victory until the polls closed.
The Clinton Machine Strikes Back
But the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party bureaucracy, their trade union allies, and the relevant intelligence community factions were far from defenseless. They relied on more traditional methods of manipulating election outcomes. There are persistent reports that the Clinton forces brought in large numbers of out-of-state voters on buses in observance of Walter Mondale’s famous 1976 dictum of “Vote early, vote often.” Reports allege that voting is possible in New Hampshire on the basis of a verbal declaration of residence and intent to remain in the state. More important were the Diebold machines, which were used in by 80% of New Hampshire voters. Where the votes were counted by Diebold, Mrs. Clinton had an advantage of about 3 %. In the 20% of the state where there were paper ballots, Obama was ahead by a similar amount. The result was not the will of the people but rather a vector sum of two competing covert operations, each one cynically created by factions of the US intelligence community.
Congressman Kucinich has attempted to secure a recount of the paper trail left behind by the Diebold system used in New Hampshire, and this enterprise should be supported by others, such as Ron Paul. But Kucinich should not thereby gain sympathy for his foolhardy instruction to his supporters in Iowa to transfer their support to Obama on the second round of the caucuses there. Obama is the most right wing Democratic candidate, to the right of Hillary and far to the right of Edwards on all the major economic issues. He wants to expand the US military by almost 100,000 soldiers. Obama has also called explicitly for the bombing of Pakistan, a nation of 160,000,000 people armed with nuclear bombs. Obama is doubtless being instructed by his handlers, just as Jerry Ford was in November 1976, that his work of healing and reconciliation is not compatible with a challenge that is likely to uncover some serious vote fraud. Given Obama’s apolitical apathy and rejection of any form of struggle, it is possible that the real story of the 2008 New Hampshire primary may not be known for a long time. But in order to understand the whole picture of what did occur, it is necessary to take unto account both people power coup/color revolution side of things, which leftists have a very hard time understanding, as well as the Diebold voting machine fraud aspect, which leftists are better equipped to comprehend because of the experience of 2000 and 2004.
An Encore For The Brzezinski Doctrine Of Revanchism
The Obama campaign deserves the closest sustained scrutiny; its Messianic qualities have not been seen since the days of Jimmy Carter, the president who promised that he would never lie. Obama, like the Carter of 1976, is a highly artificial product. Carter turned his foreign policy over to Brzezinski and his clique of Russia-hating eastern European émigrés and their children. Brzezinski’s entire adult life has been dedicated to what might be called revanchism – the obsessive desire to obtain revenge from the Russian people for the events of the Second World War and the Cold War. It was in the service of that anti- Russian monomania that Brzezinski decided in 1976 to foment the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which he touted as the greatest single bulwark against Soviet communism. As part of this insane project, Brzezinski was the prime mover in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and was then instrumental in installing the Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Tehran. Brzezinski cared less about the Middle East and its oil than he did about the need for a center from which Islamic fundamentalism of the most retrograde type could radiate out into the soft southern underbelly of the USSR. For Brzezinski, the space between the southern frontier of the Soviet and the Indian Ocean littoral became an “arc of crisis,” and his handiwork is with us until this day. The 1980 Carter Doctrine, which announced that the United States was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf against all comers, is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the clash with Iran which could come at any moment, as the most recent Gulf of Tonkin stunt near Hormuz has demonstrated.
Brzezinski, as he himself boasted ten years ago in then pages of the Nouvel Observateur, ordered US subversion teams into Afghanistan in the summer of 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, with the clear object of provoking Moscow to intervene. To this day, Brzezinski takes diabolical pride in having unleashed the decade-long Afghan War, which he touts as the Soviets’ Vietnam debacle, which restored the world balance during the 1980s. Brzezinski was very much a part of the effort that led to the creation of al Qaeda as a wholly owned subsidiary of US and UK intelligence, with an initial tasking of bleeding the Russians white north of the Khyber Pass. Brzezinski was eager to go to the brink with the USSR over Poland, even though this meant running a risk of general nuclear war with Moscow. “Brzezinski, acting under a lame duck Carter presidency, but encouraged that Solidarity in Poland had vindicated his preference for engagement and evolution in Eastern Europe, took a hard-line stance against what seemed like an imminent Soviet invasion of Poland. He even made a midnight phone call to Pope John Paul II—whose visit to Poland in 1979 had foreshadowed the emergence of Solidarity— warning him in advance. The U.S. stance was a significant change from previous reactions to Soviet repression in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.” (Wikipedia, “Zbigniew Brzezinski”) In other words, Brzezinski was more of a lunatic adventurer than John Foster Dulles or Dean Rusk.
The current tensions in US-Russian relations are the merest hint of what things would look like under a Brzezinski-controlled Obama foreign policy: the US might soon find itself locked in combat with the most formidable foreign power in today’s world, the resurgent Russian Federation of Vladimir Putin. In this sense, the “post-partisan” rhetoric of Obama could be the overture to World War III.
For Open Conventions And Robust Platform Debates
The US financier elite does not like the idea of a long primary election campaign leading up to national political party conventions in late summer — August 25-28, 2008 in Denver for the Democrats, and September 1-4, 2008 in Minneapolis-St. Paul for the GOP. Since they come so late, these conventions are likely to be conducted after a long spell of deepening economic and financial breakdown crisis, increasingly bad news from the Iraq and Afghanistan war fronts, and incessant political radicalization. Even more than they wanted the acclamation of the apolitical and “post-partisan” Obama, the financiers wanted to bring the primary process to a rapid end, especially on the Democratic side. It is already a good thing that the financiers have not succeeded so far in doing this. In every state in which there is a primary election, the level of politicization is raised, and local concerns, especially economic breakdown and economic insecurity, are highlighted. If the clever populist demagogue Huckabee, who talks to Wal-Mart Republicans and attacks Wall Street Republicans, can gain against the lavishly funded plutocrat takeover artist and asset stripper Romney, the warmonger McCain, and the would-be il Duce Giuliani, that will indicate which way the political wind is blowing. The same goes for South Carolina, for all the states who will vote on February 5, Super Tuesday, and for states further down the road like Maryland, which votes on February 12. Pennsylvania votes on April 22. All these states have a right to a real primary with real contending candidates. The primaries and caucuses should go on through all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories, no matter how much the Rumpelstiltskin Chris Matthews may scream and bluster. We have all had enough of pollsters, push polling, pundits, propagandists, perception-mongers, consultants, and the K Street-Madison Avenue axis of evil generally.
Many of the later primaries, unlike the New Hampshire paradise of petty-bourgeois independents, are strictly limited to the registered voters of each party. Independents are not allowed to vote unless they change their registration. Among such straight party line voters, the bland platitudes of bi-partisanship have far less appeal. Joe Sixpack may want to vote for a Democrat or for a Republican, but he seldom wants to vote for the bipartisan party. The results in these states may thus promote a more pronounced radicalization.
At traditional party conventions, the candidates were chosen by delegate votes, not brainwashing media hype and attempts to stampede the voters by idiotic hyperbole. The last truly open and contested party convention was the 1952 Republican convention, marked by the clash between the Eisenhower and Taft forces. Conventions were also the scene of real political clashes, quite often in the form of battles over issue planks for the party platforms. An example of this was the protracted fight over the Vietnam war plank at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August of 1968. If the current campaigns can breathe new life into the party conventions of the existing parties, that will be a sign of the realignment of the 40-year old party system going back to Nixon that is finally in progress this year.
Forget the pundits, forget the commentators, forget the pollsters. Ignore the hysterical demands of the controlled corporate media that certain candidates whom Wall Street does not like should immediately drop out of contention and go home. Instead of paying attention to this babbling, watch the delegate count. After the New Hampshire primary, the approximate delegate count was Obama 26, Hillary 25, and Edwards 18. (There are of course the 800 or so Democratic superdelegates, party hacks who will try to go with the winner.) This still indicates a much closer race than the raving pundits of TV land are willing to concede. Above all, we must be on guard to prevent the Brzezinski clan from manipulating and stampeding the electorate through the use of new color revolutions or CIA people power coups here on the home front.
Beware Of Messianic Platitudes
In 1976, the Carter candidacy was plausible because of the Republican debacle of Watergate, the prolonged war followed by defeat in Vietnam, and economic downturn after August 15, 1971. Carter made utopian promises – “I’ll never lie to you.” He was mellifluous and ambiguous. But he turned economic policy over to Volcker, and foreign policy over to the Russophobe Brzezinski, who used the lofty rhetoric of human rights to begin systematic meddling in Soviet internal affairs, and created the Khomeini regime in Iran. Brzezinski’s grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they in fact turned out to be. By 1980, disillusionment was great, Carter went down to defeat, and the nightmare of the Reagan regime began.
In 2000, another obscure southern governor, George W. Bush, came forward with an array of utopian platitudes. He would be a uniter and not a divider, he promised. He would practice a compassionate conservatism. He would initiate a foreign policy of humility, and would restore the honor of the presidency. Deluded independent voters chose to believe these assurances. But since Bush knew nothing of the world, he called in his neocon advisors, the Vulcans, carefully chosen by George Shultz, just as Bush and Cheney themselves had been. The Vulcans were Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and the rest of the neocon cabal, who had their own utopian fantasy of re-ordering world affairs and giving US world domination a new lease on life. But their fantasy reflected an obsession with the security needs of Israel in the Middle East and a pathological hatred of Arabs and Moslems. The resulting disaster is all around us today in the form of lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all predicated on the 9/11 myth.
In 2008, we have an obscure Illinois senator, a neophyte with no legislative achievements to speak of and no track record of courage or principle, who has evidently been groomed by the deans of the Democratic Party establishment. A new raft of utopian promises are floated: the race problem in America and its attendant collective guilt will be expunged with a single vote. The clash of contending interests in Washington DC will be replaced by a magically harmonious bi-partisan and non-partisan cooperation. The bitterness of the clash derives from real conditions, and especially from the fact that the economic pie has shrunk to such a point that the traditional demands of the various ruling class factions can no longer be fulfilled, leading to life boat ethics in the elite itself, as some groups must necessarily be shut out completely. But no matter: a golden age and the earthly paradise are proclaimed by the pundits to be at hand, thanks to the magnetic personality of the new purveyor of platitudes. Even on the surface, the new leader caters to the overclass and exhibits a studied indifference to the concerns of black ghetto victims and the oppressed poor of all races, but this callousness is re-defined as post-partisan, trans-racial, and global. But since he knows nothing of foreign policy, these matters will be managed by the Brzezinski cabal, which brings with it yet another set of fantasies of world renovation and social engineering, but still directed at preserving US-UK world domination. At the heart of the new fantasies is the desire to eliminate Russia and Putin as a factor capable of contesting Anglo-American hegemony. The potential for catastrophe here is if anything even greater than the perils of neocon meddling among the Arabs and Moslems.
If they are to survive much longer, the American people need to become far more skeptical and critical in their evaluation of political candidates. They need to finally invalidate P.T. Barnum’s famous dictum about suckers and how there is one born every minute. They need to radically reform their own set of political criteria of judgment. Have they learned anything from their disastrous choices of recent decades? Many of them voted for Nixon, Carter, and the Bushes, to name just a few failed presidents. Have they learned anything from their own colossal folly? Are they ready to repeat their own tragic gullibility with Obama, or with some other demagogue? The failure of the New Hampshire people power coup gives them an opportunity to reflect and hopefully learn something.
The Republicans have their neocons, obsessed with war with Iran, a danger that is far from being over. Any Republican can be relied on to continue the bankrupt Bush-Cheney neocon line for four more years, including a wider war with Iran. That is bad enough. But the entire foreign policy establishment of the Democratic Party is infected with raving hatred of Russia. If Mrs. Clinton wins out, her secretary of state will most likely be Richard Holbrooke or Wesley Clark, both mad bombers of Serbia in the spring of 1999, a piece of vandalism whose real goal was to deliver a warning to Moscow. Holbrooke and Clark come in at about 80% insanity due to hallucinatory Russophobia. But Obama’s Brzezinski clan handlers come in at 125% insanity on the same scale, which is worse. As for Edwards, he co-authored a “get tough with Russia” op-ed with Jack Kemp, among other sallies, but the guess here is that his Russophobic insanity index is on the whole lower.
This is a dismal situation, although it is still possible to distinguish better and worse outcomes. If the 9/11 truth movement had been able to maintain its cohesion, and resisted the temptation to divide between two candidates (Ron Paul and Kucinich) who have absolutely no interest in 9/11 truth, things might be somewhat better. If the networks of September criminals in the US government had been exposed and eradicated, we might not have the New Hampshire primary being decided as the vector sum of two contending covert operations, as has just happened. The task now falls to the people’s candidates’ movement, which is focusing on candidacies for House and Senate in November 2008, and beyond. No matter what the presidential contests may bring, it is these outsider candidates for federal office who will represent the leading edge of political progress over the coming months. Those who are rightly horrified by the likely presidential choices have no alternative but to support these people’s candidates.