%s1 / %s2
 
NEDERLANDS  |  ENGLISH
  • economy
  • iran
  • e-voting
  • 9/11
  • media
  • top stories
  • read
  • news archive
  • by deepjournal
16 May 2008  |     mail this article   |     print   |  
The men behind Obama: interview with Webster Tarpley
Listen to the audio
By Daan de Wit
 
Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members. Webster Tarpley wrote a book on the men and women behind presidential hopeful Barack Obama. He argues that there is more to Obama than his charismatic appearance and that some of his advisors pose a danger to the US and the world in case Obama might be elected to become the next US president. Whether Tarpleys view is correct for now is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen, but for the public debate it is relevant to take note of his facts and arguments. Therefor DeepJournal interviewed Webster Tarpley on the topic of his recently published book Obama, The Postmodern Coup,The Making of a Manchurian Candidate.

Download the interview. MP3, 16 Mb, 34 minutes.
TRANSCRIPT. Created by Trudie Beverloo, Michiel Bezemer and Marienella Meulensteen.

It's Sunday May 11th, my name is Daan de Wit, from Amsterdam, Holland on the phone with Webster Tarpley in Washington DC, USA. Webster Tarpley, you are the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror – Made in USA, already in it's fourth edition, you are the co-author of George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography. You go way back covering the news behind the news and you just published Obama, The Postmodern Coup, The Making of a Manchurian Candidate. Now the Herald Tribune a few days ago said it is clear the race is over, same thing was clear to Arianna Huffington from the Huffington Post last Friday on Democracy Now. She talked about a 'lost cause'. Is Hillary out of the race and is Obama going to be the candidate?

Webster Tarpley: Absolutely not! No, this is a hysterical media campaign by the controlled media. We've got the biggest brainwash going that we've ever had. We're going to have the West-Virginia Primary this coming week on Tuesday the 13 th and in the West-Virginia Primary Obama will be handed the most crushing, the most humiliating one sided, lopsided defeat of any of the primary elections since it came down to the two candidates Clinton and Obama. Right now the polls show Clinton leading Obama in West-Virgina by 40 to 42%, in some polls Obama's support in West-Virginia is down in the teens, 18% and two weeks after that you'll have the Kentucky Primary which Obama will lose by about 30 to 35%.

-Why do you say this, how do you know?

Webster Tarpley: These are all polls and they're agreements of various polls, in other words more than one poll shows this. The US Intelligence Community penetrates the news organisations like mad and most of these organisations are now owned by the same bankers who want to put Obama in a kind of dictator. So I think her chances are considerable because Obama is a very weak candidate. When you look at him he wins Republican states that he will never win in the general election.

-I have always wondered, where do these candidates for presidents come from? Is there a grooming process? You actually say Obama has been recruted by Zbigniew Brzezinski as a student on Columbia University?

Webster Tarpley: Yes. This is the interesting about Obama's biography, that he has these lost years and the lost years where nobody knows anything about what he was doing, we're not even sure where he was. 1981, 1982, 1983 his last two years in college. He was a Junior and a Senior at Columbia University, actually Columbia College at Columbia University in uptown Manhattan, Morningside Heights. He had started his career at Occidental College near Los Angeles after going to a very expensive private school in Hawaii, the Punahou School. If you go back to 1981, 1982 - you can do this with the help of Samuel Huntington's Book on American politics, which I quote in my own book, which is called Obama, The Postmodern Coup, the Making of a Manchurian Candidate. If you look in here you will see that they were already sort of summing up their experiences under Carter and they were looking ahead. Huntington is explicitly looking ahead to 2010 and 2030, in other words he believes that there's gonna be a crisis of ungovernability, what he called the ‘creedal passion period'. Political upsurge and economic breakdown perhaps. All of this starting around 2010, which is now where we are, we have reached that point.
My guess is that Obama was recruted by Brzezinski at Columbia 1981, 1982, 1983. You cannot notice this positively, because Obama in his memoires, he has got this thing called Dreams from my Father, he tells you everything about himself, he tells you about marihuana, cocaine, almost heroine, but not quite, tells you all this stuff, but when it comes to Columbia University he tells you nothing. It's exactly puzzling, because why would he tell you about marihuana and cocaine, which are bad and than not tell you about his career, with this wonderful Ivy League prestigious elite Columbia University, he doesn't say anything about it.

The same thing is what The New York Times found. The New York Times, trying to do the life of Obama, they focused on his years in New York City, because they're from New York and they couldn't find anything. They couldn't find out what courses he took, who his friends were, anything that he did, he doesn't seem to be in the yearbook, it's all very strange. Chicago Tribune which is very, very favourable to Obama did the same thing, could not find anything about those years at Columbia. Now they're two possibilities. One is that he's hiding homosexual activity. Obama, I think, is pretty well established to be a bi-sexual, he's accused by Larry Sinclair of homosexual encounters with crack-cocaine. We can talk about that in a minute. But I think the deeper level is what he's covering up in terms of his contacts with Brzezinski.

Obama was a politic's major with his speciality in international relations and a thesis topic that was Soviet nuclear disarmament. Now that has Brzezinski written all over it. In those years Brzezinski was on the campus at Columbia, he was the head of the Institute of Communist Affairs, an anti Soviet thinktank. It seems to me extremely likely that he was recruted by Brzezinski at that point. Meaning that he has been indoctrinated for 25 years. If this is not true, I would invite Obama to tell us the full story of his years at Columbia and he has said zero. No friends, no professors, no transcript, no nothing. It is the biggest obsessive secrecy that we've seen. It's comparible to, you know Bush has tried to hide his drunk driving record. In this case Obama won't let you know what he did at Columbia. He should be saying, 'Oh I'm proud, I was an A-student, I wrote this wonderful thing', the highlight of his early career was to go to Columbia. So, he doesn't do that. What this means then is: 25 years of indoctrination and grooming. With Carter they only had 5 or 6 years at most. They're from 1970, 1971, 1972 until 1976 when he won the presidency. In the case of Obama I think you're looking at a 25 year process where they were guiding his career.

And than if you look at these people around him, he's got the Trilateral-Commission through Brzezinski, he's got the Bilderberger-Group through Joseph Nye. Joseph Nye is the North American Director of the Trilateral Commission and a big wheel of the Bilderberger Group. Joseph Nye writes the books about ‘soft power', because that's what we're talking about. They say: We don't mean military invasion, we need soft power, we need subversion ideology, cultural warfare, economic warfare and diplomacy, meaning to play one against another divide and conquer and so fort. Joseph Nye is a big supporter of Obama on the Huffington-blog with that awful right wing Greek woman. Other than that we got the Ford Foundation, the Council of Foreign Relations through Brzezinski and the rest of them. The Chicago School, this is interesting.
Obama's economic team, there's a guy called Austin Goolsby, who is a professor of economic's at the University of Chicago, this means he belongs to these infamous Chicago boys founded by Milton Friedman. They say: Government is the problem, smash big government and let the market work. And Goolsby has been on television saying that the Obama campaign respects the market much more than mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton has called for a stop on forclosures to prevent people from been thrown out of their house. Goolsby says: No, that interferes with the market. Mrs. Clinton said: Let's lift the gasoline tax on the public and switch the taxation to Exxon Mobil and BP and Chevron and make them pay out of there super profits that they got in speculating in the oil market. These companies are now bringing in 10 billion dollars each every three or four months, so that's obscene super profits. Goolsby says: No, we can't touch any of that. Goolsby is also the guy who was caught negotiating with the Canadians telling them don't mind what Obama says about free trade: He's a free trader, I'm a free trader, we gonna have more free trade sell outs. The North American Free Trade Zone is gonna be preserved and expanded, so don't listen to what he said, he's just demagoguing the issue for these poor little unemployment workers at Pensylvania and Ohio. So, that's Goolsby. So Goolsby is a member of Skull and Bones. If you want an administration without Skull and Bones you better not pick Obama, because his main economics guy is from Skull and Bones and from this Chicago School, so Goolsby is a free trader.
You also got another couple of people with Obama on the economic side who have talked about privatising Social Security. That would be exactly what Augusto Pinochet did in Chile under the guidance of the Chicago School. So Obama's economists are real right wingers. I mean, they're practicaly in the Bush camp when it comes to economics. So if you look at al this together, the idea that Obama is somehow different from the stuff you've seen under Bush, it's not true. He's more aggressive than Bush when it's comes to bombing Pakistan. He's just as reactionary on things like Social Security. But he does it with this left cover and of course the way he does it is the style of the utopian, messianic rethoric, hope ‘I can bring you together, I can overcome partisan divisions'.
 
If you ook at those themes; those are the typical themes of the young Mussolini.
 
People don't remember what fascism was, I am afraid. A lot of people think, especially here in the U.S. where people are ignorant, people believe that fascism is a purely top down phenomenon. When they think of fascism, they think of something like a dictatorship of Bush Cheney that becomes more and more oppressive, more and more intrusive, more and more totalitarian, more and more dictatorial. That is not fascism. You would not need a new word for that. Fascism is the march on Rome; fascism is the storm troopers fighting in the streets. It is a gutter and street level movement; it is a grass roots movement that has anti-authoritarian cover, anti-parliamentary, anti-congress cover. It has left cover. Mussolini of course was a revolutionary socialist and a lot of people in his movement were left wingers, you now, extreme trade union activists, syndicalists and stuff like this.
 
-So that is why you compare him in your book cover with Mussolini, Obama?
 
Well absolutely yes.
 
-You describe the neocons as lame ducks. Yet Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector, Phil Giraldi who writes ‘War with Iran may be closer than you think'. They all expect a war with Iran between now and January when Bush leaves. How about that?
 
I think there are a couple of things that are working here. One is pure disinformation. There is obviously a great desire to keep people thinking in the old ways. And the old ways is to think that Bush, Cheney and the neocons are the main enemy. They are not. They are now in the process of being ushered out the door. I'll just give you a couple of examples. The Iraq Study Group of December 2006 with Baker and Hamilton essentially said: ‘We are not going to attack Iran , what we want to do is recruit Iran and Syria for our own projects'. And at the end of last year, the year 2007, we had a National Intelligence Estimate that said: There is no Iranian nuclear program. It is not there. In the meantime…
 
-But since then a lot happened, and now the rhetoric…
 
I don't know, I don't think anything has happened. What I'll say is the British; the British have signaled who the new enemy is, with the [Alexander] Litvinienko story and the [Anna] Politkovskaya story, both created by Boris Berezovsky - a Russian oligarch working for British intelligence – they have signaled that the new enemy is now the people in Moscow . The other thing is of course… Let's take the key example: I would say the last gasp of the anti-Iranian project was the rogue B-52, which I called attention to. I was putting out warnings against an attack on Iran up to August and into September of last year. The key point was, this rogue B-52 that flew from North Dakota to Louisiana with six live nuclear cruise missiles on board, was supposed to go to the Middle East and attack Iran . It was supposed to take part in that Israeli air attack. The Israelis attacked Syria on September 6, as you recall, and there was supposed to be a U.S. nuclear component against Iran. That was stopped. And it was stopped by personnel on the ground and then as it went up the ladder, the further they went up the ladder, the more resistance they found. To the idea of doing this kind of rogue attack by a network I would assume to be loyal to Cheney. It was stopped.

After that you had Bush's threat of WWIII in the middle of October of last year, and since then I see that the epicenter of confrontation is shifting to other places. And in anyway, I would just point out the absurdity. People say: ‘Oh, Bush is going to attack Iran . He might attack Iran , he might attack Iran'. Well, he is already attacking Pakistan. They are bombing Pakistan every day. Pakistan is two and a half times bigger, with nuclear weapons. They may attack Sudan . That is equally plausible. They may attack Burma. And then the other thing is, they have created an insurrection in China, in Tibet which is 25 times bigger than Iran and has thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Whatever you do to Iran, and this was the logic of the neocons, Iran has zero means of striking the United States. Zero. But once you start messing with China and Russia , you are talking intercontinental ballistic missiles with thermo-nuclear and nuclear warheads and once you are talking about Russia, you are talking about the number one, premier, top nuclear power in the world. So it seems to me that this is infinitely the more dangerous.

I don't have a crystal ball, but it is very interesting that all these left liberals, basically all the names you have mentioned, are the left wing of the U.S. intelligence community, or at least some of them. Hersh certainly is, some of them represent a kind of right wing of the U.S. intelligence community. But Obama is the candidate of the U.S. intelligence community in toto. If you don't believe that, just turn on an American television station and you will see what is going on. So, I would believe that the scenario has fundamentally changed and that people are having a very hard time grasping this. We have got to radically shift our field. What you have seen going on now for the past 18 months to two years is that the field has been shifting. Tony Blair is gone; most of the top neocons have now left the government. They are trying to cash in in the private sector. And you know, you have a whole new crew coming in which are these Brzezinsky types. The Samantha Power-Brzezinsky types, the Soros people, the color revolutions crew, the people power coup crew, and they are on their way in. And that means that the face of U.S. imperialism is indeed getting a facelift.

Let us just for second look at the war aspect if we can. Brzezinsky is known for one thing: He hates Russia. He is a passionate, fanatical hater of Russia. The same goes for his son Mark and he has got another son Ian Brzezinsky who is currently a top official in the Pentagon, and Ian Brzezinsky runs John McCain's foreign policy and writes a lot of McCain's foreign policy material. So, interestingly enough, if you don't want a Brzezinsky dynasty, you'd better support Mrs. Clinton. She is the only way you escape having Brzezinsky in the background running the show through one or more of his two sons.
Brzezinsky's hatred of Russia is now this: Brzezinsky looks at the neocons and he says to the neocons: ‘You bunglers'. Brzezinsky and Samuel Huntington, his right hand man, says: ‘We gave you the clash of civilizations as an idea' and he says: ‘What you should have done is to play these different countries one against the other. The essence of imperialism is you don't attack Iraq , you play Iran against Iraq. You don't attack Venezuela , you play Colombia against Venezuela. You don't attack Somalia, you play Ethiopia against Somalia'. ‘And ultimately you don't attack Russia ' he says, ‘You play China against Russia , or some variation of that'. So the strategy that Brzezinsky has is to say first of all: ‘There should be no attack on Iran. There should rather be an effort to turn Iran against the Russians'. And this is realistic, bas ed on the fact that there is a large degree of anti-Russian resentment in the Iranian population. He would also say: ‘You can probably turn Syria against Russia at the same time'.
But now the heart of Brzezinsky strategy is this. Brzezinsky looks at China. And he says: ‘China can be manipulated through their raw material and oil dependency on Africa, and in particular Sudan. We know that now Sudan is supplying 7, 8% maybe of China 's oil needs, petroleum, in general. Brzezinsky would say: ‘What you have to do first of all is kick the Chinese out of Africa. That is why Bush went to Africa, that is why the U.S, is creating a new Africom, U.S. African command, probably in Ethiopia. That is why you have Al Qaeda in Algeria, Tunesia and Morocco to help this destabilization. You've got the campaign against Mugabe. You got a quasi civil war in Kenya , you've got destabilization in Chad, and most of all you've got this attempted coup now. In the last couple of days there was an attempted bloody coup in Khartoum , Sudan , undoubtedly piloted by these Brzezinsky forces.
So the first step of this is to use Obama as the facelift of U.S. imperialism; a new face for U.S. imperialism in Africa specifically, to kick out the Chinese. At the same time you've got a campaign to dest roy Pakistan as a state, as a nation. And that is being done through bombing now, demanded by Obama, and now going on; a bombing of so-called Al Qaeda bas es in northern Pakistan. It is a very interesting story.
 
Originally back in the middle of last year, Obama said he wanted to bomb Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government. Bush said no, McCain said no, Clinton said no. Obama is the most aggressive warmonger of the entire Democratic field. And guess what? Even though Bush said no last year, the US has now been bombing Pakistan without consulting Musharraf or the Pakistani government, in January, February, March, and I belief now into April and May of this year. So he is getting what he wants. The goal here of course is not Al Qaeda, this is a fairytale, but it is to destroy Pakistan . And why? Because Pakistan is a traditional ally of China , an important economic partner of China.
You've also then got this insurrection in Tibet which is being fomented by the US . This is now Gene Sharp and the Albert Einstein Institute. These Tibetan monks, these crazies – and they are terrorists and killers – they were trained in Burma . You've also got in the meantime a possibility for a US humanitarian invasion of Burma , carried out under left cover: No longer will they say “You're a terrorist”. They will say “You have a humanitarian emergency and your government is incompetent and therefore we're gonna invade you”. The ultimate goal I think in the short run, is to have a color revolution revolution or an tempted coup in Beijing in this summer under the cover of the Olympics.
 
Now, the endgame is the following. Once you have stripped China of all of its allies, cut off their supply of oil and raw materials, destroyed any economic partners that they have, you've got China isolated. At that point the US will essentially say to China : “If you want oil, you go get it in Eastern Siberia .” In other words: To force the Chinese under a weakened government to try to look for oil and raw materials on Russian territory.
 
The oil wells of Eastern Siberia are of course there – they are very significant. There are very few Russians, lots and lots of oil, lots and lots of minerals. And that is Brzezinski's strategy.
Now, I would point out, this is pure insanity. This goes back to what the British did with Hitler. In the 1930s, the British basically said: “Well, we have Hitler. Let's play Hitler against Stalin, let's play Germany against Russia and destroy both of them that way.” Traditional imperialism. The problem is that this thing is going to blow up in Brzezinski's face because both Moscow and Beijing know exactly what Brzezinski is doing. And if they didn't know I have told them now in my book, which is circulating in Moscow and also in Beijing.
 
So this is a hopeless task. And the goal of course is that the crisis of imperialism has entered a qualitively new phase: We've had Bear Stearns. We've had banking panic in California last August. We've had Northern Rock in the autumn of last year. Now we've had the panic run on Bear Stearns. We've had the dead agony of the US-dollar. We've got dollar hyperinflation, heating up with oil at $126 a barrel. The whole structure of Anglo-American finance is in deep trouble. What they need to do is to find ways to destroy enemies in a much cheaper way and at the same time to qualitively increase the austerity and sacrifice and gauging here on the home front. The credibility of somebody like Bush for any of this is minimal.
 
Some of the people who support Obama have argued that if we had a false-flag attack inside the United States now, it would no longer be believed. People would say: “It's Bush's fault.” That would be the majority. And then a strong minority would say: “Bush, you did it!” So they are actually lamenting. They are saying: We need a change of leadership so we can come back to having the kinds of false flags that we would like to have to manipulate the public. Bush's approval is now at a, I don't know if it's an all-time low but it's at a I think a 30 of 40 year low in the American presidency. He gets about 27% support and that of course would go up with a false flag but it wouldn't go up enough to even make it 50% I would guess. So the ruling class is basically saying: We can't accomplish anything more with these discredited and hated and well known, fully exposed methods of Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons, we've got to radically shift our field.
 
-You call Obama a Manchurian candidate, a sort of mind controlled man. Why do you do that?
 
First of all Obama is the most synthetic. He is the most prepared, indoctrinated, and I would indeed say brainwashed candidate that we've had. Obama himself is nothing. He has no legislative record, he has no accomplishments, no commitment, no loyalties. He is essentially an empty slate on which people are invited to project what they think.
 
His pedigree is first of all the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation is of course the institution which more than any other, tries to maintain the existing social order in the United States , which is to say: The dominance over this society by Wall Street, by financier oligarchs and the super rich. So his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham - he had a mother named Stanley which is interesting in itself – his mother was a pro-communist who worked for the Ford Foundation. She was part of the gender equality program of the Ford Foundation. She also worked then for the Word Bank and the US Agency for International Development. Obama himself has worked for the Gamaliel Foundation. This is a counter insurgency operation. It is the Saul Alinsky community organizing foundation of Chicago and the Gamaliel Foundation is a satellite of the Ford Foundation. And the idea with them is organizing community control projects, autogestion, local control on a very very local basis , always with the idea of pitting white against black, against Hispanic, against Asian, against Korean or Chinese or whatever it is, always keeping the population fragmented. On the lowest possible level, very parochial, very local and not allowing therefore a challenge to Wall Street to emerge.
 
He is also associated, this Obama, with the Woods Fund. And here he sat next to Bill Ayres, the Weatherman terrorist bomber, a professed an unrepented terrorist, an odious personality who I had a chance to observe in the late 1960s inside Students for a Democratic Society. Ayres is somebody who has also promoted Obama's carrier. Ayres hired Obama to become president of the board of the Edinburg – Chicago Challenge, which is yet another foundation funded effort at social engineering and racial conflict inside the Chicago school system. So we've also got the fact that Obama attends a church the pastor of which is now a Ford Foundation scholar, a guy who got his college education thanks to the Ford Foundation, and that is the Trinity United Church of Christ. You must have seen things about this.

-But is it fair to go that far to portray a man?

You have to because you're dealing with somebody… This is a man who wants to get his hands on the thermo-nuclear button. How in God's name can you allow access to the thermo-nuclear button by someone of whom you know basically absolutely nothing? Someone who consorts with terrorists, who consorts with gangsters like the Mafioso Rezko, and his backer Auchi, when reaching now into the Iraq world of organized crime, the Iraq - Syria mafia with this character Auchi. The only way to know anything about Obama is to look at his advisors and to look at these people around him. And the overwhelming thing you see around him is what I would call ‘left CIA'. And let me just try to explain this.
 
The right-wing CIA is clear to everybody. The right-wing CIA is for example the force that brought you 9/11. You can think of the spectacular terrorist events of 9/11 as a provocation staged by the right-wing CIA in order to get the pretext for war, for attacks in Afghanistan , Iraq and all the rest. T hat is the right-wing CIA. Now there is also a left wing. The left wing is made up of the National Endowment for Democracy, the Brzezinski faction, the Soros foundations and in particularly this institution called The Albert Einstein Institution, with its head Gene Sharp. These are the people who organize color revolutions, coup d'états under human rights cover, invasions under human rights cover and things of this sort.
 
-You link this to Obama…
 
Yes. This is the thing that Obama is a product of, an asset of the left wing of the US intelligence community so you've got to look in to this.
I just want to add in terms of that church: This Jeremiah Wright is of course a racist provocateur, working in the framework of something called ‘Black Liberation Theology'. It's a synthetic religion created by the Union Theologian Seminary in New York and then spread with the help of the Ford Foundation, in order to do what? In order to perpetuate racial conflict. The model of the Ford Foundation is divide and conquer. Play white against black in every conceivable way to prevent the emergence of a class based challenge to Wall Street. And what they've done is take this into the realm of theology and church affairs, knowing the importance of churches in the black community and in the United States.

-Obama denounced Wright…

He denounced him after sitting at his knee for 20 years, 20 years! Practically half of Obama's life he was sitting at Wright's knee, imbibing hatred and the philosophy of racist provocation and indeed, some would say indeed Satanism. In other words a religion based on hatred cannot be identified with Christianity but is something else.
He first said he could not denounce him. He said: “I can no more disown him then I can disown my own mother or the black community.” That was until the temperature got too high. And once Wright had paraded his insanity [and his racist provocations] at the National Press Club, then, then and only then did Obama finally turn around and separated himself from him or attempt ed to, because he can't. You can't sit at the knee of somebody for 20 years and say: “I'm his disciple, he is my mentor, he is my guru, he is my boss,” and then say: “Oh, sorry, it's now expedient for me to break contact.”

With Obama, if you look at what his program is going to be, we only have to look Zbigniew Brzezinski's writings on this stuff. When Carter came in, he came in as the candidate of the Trilateral Commission; of David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paul Volcker. He turned American foreign policy over to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who then did things like start the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan . Brzezinski systematically provoked it and boasts in his memoirs of having provoked it. Brzezinski also started the Iraq – Iran war, with probably a million and a half dead. So Brzezinski is up there at about three, four, five million dead, just based on what he did in the Carter administration. The other side of it, equally destructive in some ways, Paul Volcker, the Trilateral member who was placed by Carter at the Federal Reserve, raised the interest rate to 22% prime rate, which meant 25 to 30% for many people. That systematically destroyed the industrial infrastructure and fabric of the United States . The steel mills, the chemical plants and every kind of other industries shut down, so that what we've got now is this post-industrial rubble field in most parts of the United States that goes back precisely to the last Trilateral administration.
 
The trick tough was, that Carter had some idea of Christianity in his head. And Carter would sometimes say: “Well, the austerity these bankers want from me is too much.” Brzezinski argues that the American standard of living is still much too high. I would argue that American standard of living has been reduced now by about 2/3 since about say the Kennedy assassination. We've lost 2/3 of the standard of living. Brzezinski says: “No that's still too much. They are opulent,” he says, “they are hedonistic, they have monstrous consumption.” And Brzezinski says: “This is a problem in the world because people are envious and resentful of this so we're going to lower it even further.”
 
Now, the obvious courses are first of all, a global warming tax, a carbon tax, that will further cut into the standard of living, then probably a Third World solidarity tax. So with Obama they are going to say: “We're gonna teach you now into savage austerity, killer austerity, in the name of the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World.” Now the trick of course is that none of this money will go for the polar bears, the ice cap and the Third World. It will go into the pockets of David Rockefeller, George Soros and other Wall Street thugs, who are running Obama. Because that is what Obama is today, you can look at the cast of characters. It's pretty much the same as Carter: He's got Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mark Brzezinski, that is to say Zbigniew's son who now is on the scene. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the guru of the entire campaign, although efforts are being made to conceal this fact. Brzezinski has put forward the entire profile, the austerity, the globalization and this question of the final showdown with Moscow.
____________________________________________________________________________

DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list.
12 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4
When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.
10 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - 3
8 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2
In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.
7 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1
On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.
18 September 2012  |  
Liver flush - Geertje van der Burgh on How and Why
Until five years ago, she was often sick and suffered from all sorts of infections. In the course of researching these problems, she discovered a liver flush that ultimately cured her, improving her condition to a level better than it had ever been. Geertje van der Burgh on the how and why of the liver flush.
Contact - About - Donate - RSS Feeds - Copyright © 2006 DeepJournal, All rights reserved