Russian historian, political scientist, sociologist and publicist Andrei Ilyich Fursov in the studio of the social and political channel "Day-TV" talks about the most influential statesman in the West Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Hello! Today we will talk about the big “friend” (of course, in quotes) of Russia, the American-Polish-Jewish analyst Zbigniew Brzezinski. Last time I promised that we will definitely talk about him, about his latest book and about his works in general. The most important thing is about what events determined the somersault that Brzezinski made in his last book, Strategic Vision.
Brief biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski
But first, a few words about Brzezinski himself. He was born in 1928 into a high-ranking Polish family. The ancestral possession of this family is located several tens of kilometers from Auschwitz, aka Auschwitz. It seems to me that this is very symbolic, because what the Germans did in Auschwitz partly resembles the plans that the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome, where Brzezinski was very active, nurtured and is nursing for most of humanity. That is, this is a reduction in the world's population, but not in such a brutal form as the Germans did, but in a more “velvety” form. Such a very interesting historical coincidence.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977.
Born in Europe, Brzezinski ended up in America and began his career there. American Poles, with whom I spoke, who have a very good attitude towards Brzezinski, nevertheless noticed that, having come to America, Brzezinski began to pedalize the Jewish component of his family, of his origin. This helped him to make a career to some extent. Of course, not only this, firstly - the ability. Secondly, Brzezinski understood very early on who to bet on, he put on those structures and on those people who were associated with the Rockefellers. And of course, his caveman played a very important role, not even anti-communism, but anti-Russianism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, one of the journalists asked Brzezinski how he fought against communism. Brzezinski said that you shouldn't fool yourself and others,
In other words, Brzezinski is Russia's traditional enemy. It is no coincidence that American economist John Gelbraith said that Brzezinski's favorite hobby is to harm Russia.
Promotional video:
Brzezinski's “strategic view”
And suddenly Brzezinski's latest book is a complete reversal of the old anti-Russian, anti-Russian tendencies. Brzezinski spoke in a completely different language. Now he is talking about the need for an alliance between the United States, Turkey and Russia. He says that the future of the West depends on how well the West is able to integrate Russia into itself. It reminds me of the phrase of Habakkuk, it sounds a little harsh, but it illustrates this situation well: “Yesterday was a fucking son, but first of all a priest”. Why did Russia become a "priest" for Brzezinski?
Book * Strategic View *.
We will talk about this a little later, but now there are some of his milestones, which clearly show how this man did not love and still does not love Russia. Just need made, pinned, as they say. In the mid-1950s, Brzezinski, together with Karl Friedrich, made a very important move in the conceptual design of the Cold War. He identifies the Soviet system, Stalinism, with Nazism, with Hitlerism, and he presents all this under the heading of totalitarianism. This was a serious departure from the Western interpretation of totalitarianism. Back in 1939, the remarkable American researcher Professor Hayes explained in his famous lecture that totalitarianism is a phenomenon of a market economy, a phenomenon of bourgeois civilization, and it does not work outside of it. Therefore, Hayes attributed only Italy to Mussolini and Hitler's Third Reich to the phenomenon of totalitarianism,but by no means was the Stalinist Soviet Union, which, in his opinion, represented something other than totalitarianism.
In the mid-1950s, Brzezinski made that move (he was a pioneer in this regard, together with Karl Friedrich), which was later picked up by the Knights of the Cold War. Then this move was picked up by our sixties. Then it was picked up by perestroika punks, and then in the post-perestroika, post-Soviet period, our liberal researchers began to sin with this supposedly scientific comparison of Stalinism and Hitlerism and their unification under the head of totalitarianism. This was his first conceptual move.
Then Brzezinski writes several works about America's role in the new era, where he acts simply as a singer of America, and sometimes it seems that America is most loved by Brzezinski because it is anti-Russia. In addition to scientific activity, Brzezinski is very actively involved in practical activities. This is generally a characteristic feature of the Western elite - circulation in different spheres of activity. A person works in science, he is a professor at, say, Harvard University. Then he moves to some law firm (where he is a vice president or a consultant), then he is called to the government (or to the special services, for example), and then he returns to the university environment. It is clear that working in such diverse fields is very enriching in social and intellectual experience and creates connections. This is a very big plus, the great strength of the Western elite,such multifunctionality, they can play at different venues. This is something that it would not be a sin to learn.
In particular, the same Brzezinski played a very large role in the creation of both the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission, behind which the Rockefellers (its owners and employers) stood, and he played a very large role in the last stages of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, developing various practical actions against the Soviet Union. In particular, he was one of the developers of the idea to lure the Soviet Union to Afghanistan. True, Brzezinski ascribes this role entirely to himself - this is not entirely true. One of the first to express this idea was the British real professional orientalist and intelligence officer Lewis - a very strong orientalist and, apparently, a strong intelligence officer. However, Brzezinski really took part in this, and he frankly admitted it already in the late 90s.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Osama bin Laden.
When a journalist from the French magazine Nouvelle Observatory asked him if he regretted the fact that so many Afghans died during the Afghan war?
Brzezinski replied:
Then he added:
You couldn't put it more clearly. A very clear position.
Rbook * Grand Chessboard *.
In 1997, Brzezinski published his very famous work "The Great Chessboard" on world politics, where he acts as a super-optimist for the American future. In this work, he writes that for at least another 30 years, Americans will dominate the world. Such a very, very optimistic work. In this work, he predicts bankruptcy and disintegration in Russia. In general, he writes so very dismissively about Russia, one can clearly feel the mood of happiness that this empire - the Soviet Union - has collapsed, and Russia is no substitute for the Soviet Union, and sooner or later its days will be numbered.
Brzezinski's “choice”
In 2003, Brzezinski writes a new book "Choice". Very different notes are already beginning to sound there, and this book is very interesting, it shows what the American establishment is most afraid of in the person of Brzezinski. Therefore, we will dwell on it in a little more detail. Brzezinski immediately states a very interesting thing in this book.
He talks about it with a plus. Looking ahead, I note that in the last book, which was published in 2012, he will talk about this trend with a minus, because it concerns the United States itself.
Further in his work "Choice", he very frankly talks about the importance of the destruction of the Soviet Union and a weak Russia for the West. He's writing:
This is a very important point. It records important changes that took place at the end of the 20th century. If we discard the socio-economic theme and dwell on the level of geopolitics, then indeed, the destruction of the Soviet Union for the first time created an opportunity for the Anglo-Saxons to penetrate there, into that zone, which during, say, the period after the 1929-30s, they could not even dream of penetrate.
Book * Choice: world domination or global leadership *.
The great game that Great Britain was playing against Russia ended at the beginning of the twentieth century, the British did not win. The Americans began to participate in this game later, and during the twentieth century of geopolitical integrity, the Soviet Union did not allow them to enter Eurasia. Now we know that the Americans are in Eurasia, moreover, they are in the underbelly of Russia - in Central Asia. An interesting thing in the work "Choice" Brzezinski tells us (an American person, but also to us) about what kind of elite Russia needs (automatically this means what kind of elite we do not need). He writes about the Russian elite of the 90s:
This passage is worth a lot. It says in plain text: the world will be ruled by an elite cut off from their countries, with psychology and values that reflect American reality. As a matter of fact, we are talking about the administrative layers-detachments, which are tailored according to the American model. Either about the ants of the managers of the global human man led by America, or about the stamped blockheads of Oorfene Juice, or about some strangers or predators who work for their masters.
What was Brzezinski most afraid of in The Choice? Revival of Russia. He writes about it frankly. That the revival of Russia is something that must be avoided in any way. In this respect, Brzezinski is not original. At one time in 1995, Clinton, speaking to the US military, very proudly said:
In this respect, Brzezinski expresses the interests and will of the establishment.
American "culture" and "democracy"
Brzezinski's second fear is the worldwide mobilization of the masses against the United States based on the triad of anti-globalism, Marxist egalitarianism and Christian humanism. It is very interesting that Brzezinski placed anti-globalism, Christian humanism and Marxism in one row, as anti-American forces. This is a very interesting Freudian slip of the tongue. Here, an intelligent representative of the American ruling stratum very clearly records the danger, and he also offers means of blocking this danger. The first remedy is to plant American-style democracy. He devotes a fairly large part of his book Choice, written in 2003 and translated here in 2004, to this topic, and the second is American culture.
However, by American culture, Brzezinski does not mean some kind of high culture, but what he calls "tittyainment" that is, "titty" - from the word "tit" - a breast that feeds milk, entertainment - entertainment. He says absolutely frankly that it was mass culture that allowed the United States to win the very important battles of the Cold War by imposing on other societies this unassuming dumb culture of television series, soap operas, pop music, MTV with its 33rd worldwide broadcast channels. In essence, Brzezinski is talking about what Antonio Gramsci called "the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie." Only Gramsci believed that it would be the revolutionaries who would make the bourgeoisie, and, addressing the bourgeoisie, he said: "We will take your children." But it turned out differently: the children of the Soviet nomenklatura and the intelligentsia were taken by the Americans. Taken away by American propagandawhich worked very clearly.
I will never forget when I read one of our such journalists of perestroika and post-perestroika, who still appears on television screens as a regular anti-Stalinist exposer. As he said in one of his interviews, he fell ill with the American way of life when he tried gum for the first time at 12 years old. Such a frank confession, and I thought: your love for your homeland is inexpensive, if for the gum, so to speak, you are imbued with the American way of life. Brzezinski very clearly records that mass culture, the culture of mass consumption, more precisely - consumerism - it worked in the Cold War and Brzezinski attaches great importance to it as a factor in the further spread of American leadership in the world.
A very important shift in emphasis in the book Choice: Brzezinski is no longer talking so much about American domination, which he talked about back in 1997, he talks about American leadership, he says that domination should be replaced by leadership, that is it is another form of world supremacy. In other words, Brzezinski understands that at the beginning of the 21st century, America may not have enough strength to perform the functions that they performed earlier. He reinforces this idea in his next work - this is the 2007 work "Second Chance", this is a harsh criticism of the neocons. “There will be no second chance, there will be no third,” Brzezinski says. He is really very concerned about the course, such a brutal course of Bush Jr., and believes that it is not working.
USA and the fate of the Soviet Union
Finally, in 2012, Brzezinski's new work “Strategic Vision” appears, in which he, in fact, abandons many of his previous views. There are two lines in this work. The first is a description of what the United States is at the moment, and the second is what needs to be done to prevent the United States from suffering the fate of the Soviet Union. In his work, Brzezinski bluntly says that the United States today in 2010-2012 is very reminiscent of the Union, the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and he identifies five points of similarity. These items are as follows:
Further, Brzezinski writes that if these trends continue, then America will not only not retain its leadership until 2027, but there is a chance that it will suffer a very serious social catastrophe. He frankly says that if in 1997 he believed that the United States would retain dominance or leadership at least until 2027 for 30 years (the life of one generation), now he believes that the loss of leadership will occur already in this decade.
The question is - what to do to keep the United States from losing its leadership? The answer is very unexpected. He says that the United States needs an alliance with Turkey and Russia, and Russia plays here, of course, a central role, and then he says that the future fate of the West (but he is primarily interested in the fate of America) depends on whether to what extent the West will be able to integrate Russia into its system. Otherwise, he writes, (and this once again suggests that he cares about the United States, America), America may dissolve in the international transnational network, among these numerous network structures, and stop somehow directing the historical process. If in his work "Choice" he talked about how good it is that America works to thin out the state sovereignty of other countries, now that America is faced with the same problem,he says it's bad.
Global "game" of world clans
Lord Jacob Rothschild.
Indeed, the struggle between these clusters defined almost the entire 20th century. It must be said that the Rockefellers won the first half of the 20th century. Both world wars strengthened their positions, and after the Second World War they felt on a horse. However, the Rothschild empire was preparing a retaliatory strike, and she decided to strike this blow at the most important, the most vulnerable place of the Rockefellers - in the lair. As Zheglov said: "And here they have a den." This den is the dollar. For forty years, the Rothschilds were digging under the dollar, and by the end of the twentieth century, this digging had its results: the dollar began to weaken.
The dollar, which is closely tied to oil, was in a worse position in the early 21st century than the yuan, which is tied to gold, and we know that the Rothschilds are very active in China. America today finds itself in a very interesting situation. We have become accustomed in recent years that the presidential elections in America (there are sometimes scandals - the scandals of the Bush family when he defeated Gore, there are other situations), but there was no such harsh intensity that we have now. This intensity looks very strange, especially when you look at the personalities of the two applicants. Absolutely two gray, nondescript people: Obama and Romney. These pre-election battles on television are really two very gray, boring, uninteresting people. However, such attention is paid to these elections. This is no coincidence.
The fact is that the price of this election is not who will head the White House for four more terms - Republicans or Democrats, Obama or Romney. The fate of the federal system of the United States and the future of the world is at stake. The fact is that this year is the expiry of the dollar printing lease that the Federal Reserve received in 1913. There are a number of interesting publications on the Internet that I actively used when preparing for today's broadcast - very interesting materials about the balance of power between the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers in the same Federal Reserve System. Of course, we do not fully know the balance of power, we need insider information. Nevertheless, the whole history of the twentieth century developed in such a way that it was the Rockefellers who played a large role in the federal reserve system.
Now is the date when the lease ends. Imagine a situation: Obama, a man closely associated with the Rothschilds, wins the election, and in November there will be elections to the Senate. There is a Senate majority. In this situation, the Rothschilds can push through a decision on the termination of the lease. If, say, Romney is president, he can veto, but if Obama is there, he will not veto. Then - goodbye, the Federal Reserve, goodbye, dollar, and goodbye, the United States of America. Then we get a completely different structure: Canada, the United States and Mexico, the Amero currency and a completely different alignment. True, in order to do this, the Rothschilds need one more thing: a favorable outcome for them of the political reshuffle in China, which will also take place in November, since the Chinese Congress of the Chinese Communist Party will take place in China.
In other words, Brzezinski, as a Rockefeller man, understands very well that his masters are in order to resist well this rush, the bulk of the Rothschilds, and to prevent the United States from dissolving. This is a very clear position of Brzezinski, I will repeat once again what he says:
This is the transatlantic union, or the North American union, where the United States loses its currency and a situation arises similar to the European Union: with a nad-American bureaucracy. This is the Rothschild program.
Russia and transnational clans
The Rockefellers need a dollar, therefore, they need the United States, and therefore they need China and they need Russia. In other words, when Brzezinski talks about the need to integrate Russia into the West, he means the integration of Russia in the interests of the Rockefeller clan. If we remember how another Rockefeller man, Kissinger, often came to visit us, it becomes clear that this line works. Although, on the other hand, the situation is contradictory. Our officials are in favor of multiple reserve currencies, and this is the Rothschild program. That is, we see a real contradiction here, and perhaps this is some kind of very difficult game.
Zbigniew Brzezinski in the center and David Rockefeller on the far right.
As for Brzezinski, I just have to tell our American friend the following: loss big. You fought for a long time against the Soviet Union, you were glad that the Soviet Union collapsed, you were glad that Russia was weak, and now history has wagged its tail, and you are on the side of those who want Russia to stay afloat and to be strong, because that the interests of the owners have changed.
In this respect, Brzezinski reminds me of a snake that has outlived its poison. There is an episode in Kipling's The Jungle Book when Mowgli goes into a cave for a sharp blade, a sharp knife, and this knife is guarded by a snake. The snake pounces on him, he grabs her by the throat, but it turns out that the snake is old, and she survived her poison. In general, this has already been seen in the work "Choice", but "Strategic Vision", where Brzezinski is forced to turn to face the country he hated, and the evil he wished, his hobby, I repeat, was to harm Russia, as Golbraith said, and now he turned in that direction. The snake survived its poison …
The opinion of Andrey Fursov