Moral absolutism, Brzezinski and the US-jiahdist axis

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Aug 6, 2011 at 16:49

Paul Eidelberg wrote :

" May I suggest that you read Brzezinski (and Samuel Huntington) "Political Power: USA/USSR"--just the Introduction, where you will begin to see B"s moral relativism. "

I am always in favour of reading historical books. They give the reader a contrasting perspective on the present which has a nasty tendency to eat up and replace the past and the future with its own illusions and dubious interests.

Anyway, if you identify being on the right wing with truthfulness, honesty and moral absolutism, then definitely I am afraid I can't discern any right wingers in this sinful world.

Note that the book you are referring to was written in 1964 and the USSR had changed a lot and was about to change even more. Do you know who ruled the USSR in the late 50-ies and early 60-ies and what policy he was pursuing?I doubt that in your moral absolutism you care about that such details as I infer from what follows :

"And if you read his "Between Two Ages," you will see B's historical relativism as well as soft view of Soviet Communism, whose only fault, according to this internationalist, is that it succumbed to Russian nationalism. In fact, B all but condones the Gulag."

To tell you the truth, after seeing and read something by this man I can assure you that I have probably never met a more rabid and blind anti-Soviet fanatic, a doctrinaire and a hater of all things Russian in general , a man persuaded of his own infallibility and moral superiority, playing his favourite role of a teacher preaching to uneducated children . I am sure he has inherited this posture of a churchman from his Polish noble ancestors who have never forgiven the Russians freeing the Polish peasantry from serfdom in 1864 and the land reform of 1944-1945 which created free land-owning peasantry at the expence of this parasitic noble class to which Brzezinsky in full right and pride belongs.

Now coming back to communism and your manifest disgust of it , may I ask you how this "hateful" communism could create such men as Gorbachov ? Do you remember him or has your moral absolutism made you forget everything that he stood for and which apparently doesn't well fit into your own "superior" right wing world-view ? You tell me about the Gulag. Who is going to deny it ? But I am going to ask you how your condemnation of communism can be extended to such noble communists as Gorbachov and his team that started glasnost and perstroyka (do your emmember that?) , that gave freedom to Eastern Europe which America soon robbed, moving in its NATO arsenals even though James Baker solemnly had promised Gorbachov not to enlarge NATO eastwards "by a inch"?

I don't know what rightist heroes you worship. Maybe be Pinochet who was anti-leftist after your heart ? Or the Greek colonels that were put in power by CIA in 1967 to hunt down communists and socialists ?

Well, perhaps as long as things serve your own agenda you right wingers don't oppose moral relativism. But the moment this moral relativism is working against you raise an outcry. Many a moral absolutist ends this way, as history shows.

" So you are in error calling B a right-winger. He is in the Obama's "cosmopolitan" camp, a champion of Obama's anti-America foreign policy. Think again."

No,I am afraid I am not in error at all. He is a right winger even though not as pure as your criteria require it.

And the reason Obama has called him in to his camp is the same one that had made him so attractive and useful to Carter and Reagan in breaking up the USSR and unleashing jihad against the Russians. It is his grand Eurasia scheme (his "grand chessboard") that Obama is trying to implement. The official Washington is so soft on Islam, so heedless and forgetful of what happened on 9/11, so grovelling to Moslems, so eager to construct more Moslem states and favour Islam (Bosnia/Kosovo are classical examples of this perfidious policy) that you should better address this point rather than deflect the attention to whether Brzezinski satisfies your own criteria of being a perfect right winger or not .

The point is clear to me. Brzezinski was one of the engineers of the US-jihadist axis starting from 1979 which was intended to break the backbone of the USSR. Now the same axis is being revitalized and enhanced by experienced friends of jihad like him in order to carry out the second part of the scheme , namely to paralyse and defeat Russia with Moslem hands. Brzezinski envisages for Russia the future of a tiny US protectorate surrounded by some 15-20 weak khanats, emirates, republics or whatever independent of Moscow and so in turn easily contralled and exploited by the US , that is the same ideas that stood behind the break-up of the USSR with US bases now deep into the former Soviet territories and such vassal states as Georgia or Lithuania.

At the same time jihad is a potentially deadly weapon against China.The Uyghurs would be more than grateful to start a holy war under the green banner of Islam against the hated Han race that has changed this huge erstwhile Moslem Turkic province into a province with Chinese majority. They have never forgotten their jihad of the 1860-ies. Of course alone they can do nothing as relatively recent riots showed. But if jihadists from Turkey, Arab states and Central Asia joined hands with the Uyghurs, China might be in big trouble. And China in trouble means the US doesn't have to think about how to pay back its $ 1 trillion debt to Peking, its wild trade imbalance and the growing power of Chinese communists who if nothing happens will soon out-pace America.

We should rather think this cold way to understand the seeming vagaries and madness of the US policy which is contrary to appearances quite clear in its strategic objectives and not particular in choosing the means to achieve these objectives.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".