eir2.gif (5173 bytes)

EIR Strategic Studies -- Brzezinski and Foreign Policy
TWEEDLEDUM GOOFS AGAIN


by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Date: November 24, 1997

Zbigniew Brzezinski's most important political asset is that he is so obviously goofy. Back during President Carter's administration, a dean of the Washington, D.C. press corps frequently referred to him as "Woody Woodpecker." In Yiddish: "How could such a `nebbish' be a serious threat to anyone as much as himself?" Goofyness is a disarming feature of his personality, a perverse substitute for charm, which seems to deceive almost everyone but Russians. Now, since the October 24, 1997 appearance of a translation of his "Geostrategy for Russia," in Moscow's {Nezavisimaya Gazeta},(1) "Zbiggy" has made himself a menace to the Clinton Administration's Eurasia flank.

There is a nasty coincidence in the appearance of Brzezinski's rant in a Russian publication at this time. Recently, the British monarchy has been bragging, far, wide, and loud, that it has beaten out the United States, in a geopolitical race to take control over the rich strategic harvest of "Caspian oil."(2) Under those circumstances, given the content of Brzezinski's piece itself, the appearance of that piece in Moscow could have nothing but the worst imaginable, most inflammatory impact on leading circles in Russia today.

Although some of us, on the U.S.A. side, know that Zbiggy, as usual, is working for the British side on this issue, in Russia he is regarded as the U.S. strategist whose livery he affects. Russians, especially high-ranking ones, should have known that he has been a British Foreign Office asset the entirety of his adult life. Unfortunately, for reasons with which I am painfully familiar, most Russian audiences still prefer not to know that; so, in Russia, it is the U.S.A. which is blamed for his latest rush of malevolent goofyness.

Considered in the narrowness of the present moment, that immediate U.S.A.-Britain strategic conflict over "Caspian oil," is a sore point in current U.S.A.-Russia relations; but, in the larger strategic picture, in the context of the presently onrushing disintegration of the world's financial and monetary systems, his bird-like loonyness is only indicative of deeper, more durable problems which both the U.S.A. and Russia must overcome quickly. If leading Russians generally were to recognize the truth, that he is a British asset, they would understand the appearance of his piece in {Nezavisimaya Gazeta}. Therefore, for the sake of Russians, as well as U.S. patriots, we situate the matter, here, in the more important, larger context.

The United States needs Russia's strategic cooperation, especially in Eurasia. Admittedly, Russia has come upon very hard times; but, the influence of what remains functional from the old Soviet apparatus, throughout Eurasia, especially, is something whose cooperation the United States needs very much now, to protect U.S.A. strategic flanks from the U.S.A.'s deadly adversaries in London. The comments on Brzezinski's latest piece of trash, from such leading Russia economists as Sergei Glazyev(3) and Yuri Maslyukov,(4) provide a warning of the Clinton Administration's risk in failing to distance itself from him and those Anglo-American "Atlanticists" like him.

His Russian critics make no mistake in identifying the content of the threat to Russia implicitly represented by his perverse rantings. Nor do they err in abhorring the influence which he and his --you should excuse the use of the term-- "co-thinkers" might have on U.S. foreign policy. However, there is one very bad flaw in the argument of both Glazyev's and Maslyukov's reviews of that item; both critics follow the popular post-Stalin trend in Soviet mythology on this point. Most Russians, as most Arab militants, still mislead themselves today, that the military power of the U.S.A. signifies that the U.S. is the origin of virtually everything which is both important and unpleasant, in any part of the world.(5)

In short, with relatively very few individual exceptions, even otherwise sophisticated Russians simply do not recognize the reality, that the British Empire is the most powerful financial-political force on this planet, also within the UNO organization, today. For that reason, they do not recognize whom he represents. It is a hazardous error of judgment on their part.

For somewhat different reasons, most leading pragmatists (read, "opportunists") in Washington politics, are too fearful of the rabidly Anglophile, Wall Street-controlled, leading U.S. daily news media, to wish to face readily available facts concerning Brzezinski, either. Consequently, neither of these, Russians or most leading U.S. figures, adequately appreciates the what and why, which lies behind his goofball mask.

Given, the present strategic realities of a time in which the present world financial system is disintegrating, it is important that the purveyors of U.S. foreign-policy cuisine recognize the problem which that goofy bug in the soup, Brzezinski, represents. This problem must be recognized, at last, by both Russians and Americans --and, others.

A Species of Lackey

No one could rightly dispute Sergei Glazyev's charge, that Brzezinski is a "Russophobe;" sticking to the appropriate zoological similes, of "Woody Woodpecker," Canada's loon, and so on, it would be fair to describe him as, on the subject of Russia, virtually a salivating, decorticated Pavlovian dog. The mistake would be, to atttempt to explain his knee-jerk Russophobia by a wave-of-the-hand reference to the seemingly relevant, long history of Poland-Russia relations. His problem has a different root. The writer and his associates uncovered that root, during the early through middle 1970s, in the course of a continuing, in-depth investigation into the background of his sibling rival, U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.

That inquiry covered three phases of his relations with Kissinger. The first phase was the circumstances, and immediate outcome of his displacement by sibling rival Henry A. Kissinger, in a British intelligence "kindergarden" then based at Harvard University: Professor William Yandell Elliot's Wilton Park unit. The second, was his association with Cyrus Vance and Miriam Camp in a 1975-1976 operation of the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), CFR's "Project 1980s" design of what become Jimmy Carter's Presidency, including the design of the "controlled disintegration of the economy" policy,(6) which Carter appointee Paul A. Volcker used to wreck the U.S. economy, beginning October 1979.(7) The third phase of the study, was his taking over Kissinger's former position, and policies, as National Security Advisor under Carter (or, perhaps, Carter under Brzezinski and Vance).

The famous Kissinger-Brzezinski sibling rivalry, which began at William Yandell Elliot's Harvard-based, Wilton Park "kindergarden," is fairly described as something midway between Lewis Carroll's characters, "Tweedledum and Tweedledee," and the anti-social slum-characters of the film "Clockwork Orange." Nickname them "Twist (Kissinger) and Twitch (Brzezinski)," if you wish; with the caveats supplied here in mind, "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" will be the more convenient literary style.

Although neither is known, recently, to wear uniforms of any kind, one can not understand either of the pair in a significant way, without viewing them as, spiritually, liveried lackeys --virtual "Leporellos"-- of a Venetian feudal court. Any effort to interpret the behavior of either of these two sibling rivals is a failure, unless one sees the mentality of such a lackey within each. One must begin with their political apprenticeship, during their early days under the "Old Fagin" of Harvard University campus, Elliott.

Elliott himself is very revealing. He, like the intellectual author of the assassination of Louisiana's Huey Long, lying Robert Penn Warren, is representative of the Nashville "Agrarians," the Twentieth Century's most influential hot-bed of pro-Confederacy nostalgia and related cultural and moral decadence.(8) Early on, Elliott was an impassioned Anglophile, who acquired standing as a de facto U.S. resident agent of Chatham House's "Round Table" adjunct of the British Foreign Service.(9) In this capacity, Elliott acquired the franchise for the U.S. branch of British intelligence's Wilton Park organization. Both of his more famous proteges, like relatively numerous other matriculants of Elliott's Harvard "kindergarden," have retained the position of agents of influence of the British Foreign Office, to the present day.(10)

The facts, showing both of them to be the British Empire's agents of influence, deployed against the U.S.A., are incontestable. How can anyone be so shameless as to deny these facts? Many are so shameless. One is reminded of the old saw about the ostrich sticking its head in the sand when faced with threatened danger, or embarrassment.(11) The objection to the facts of Kissinger's and Brzezinski's treasonous pedigree, is reenforced by a popular misunderstanding of human nature, and therefore of both history and strategy.

Hear the truth of this matter perversely, but precisely represented by lackey Henry Kissinger, on May 10, 1982, bragging, like the Leperollo of Mozart's {Don Giovanni}, cataloging his treasonous services against the United States, all for the boot-licking amusement of this degraded lackey's decadent masters at Chatham House. Would that France's Gustave Dore had been alive and present, to supply a fitting depiction of that obscene spectacle.

"All accounts of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World war and in the early postwar period draw attention to the significant differences in philosophy between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill reflecting our different national histories....(12)

"The disputes between Britain and America during the Second World War and after were, of course, not an accident. British policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it. ... Britain remains Hobbesian: She expects the worst and is rarely disappointed. In moral matters Britain has traditionally practiced a convenient form of ethical egotism, believing that what was good for Britain was best for the rest...

"...during the '20s the U.S. Navy Department still maintained a `Red Plan' to deal with the contingency of conflict with the British Fleet....(13)

And, then, to Kissinger's own treasonous role in his official positions as virtually "acting President," under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

"Our postwar diplomatic history is littered with Anglo-American `arrangements' and `understandings,' sometimes on crucial issues, never put into formal documents.

"The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. {In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union--indeed they helped draft the document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.}"(14)

Such is Kissinger's public admission of his treasonous role under Nixon and Ford, as if under oath on the witness stand, testifying to the essential, common quality shared between himself and Zbiggy, and with other products of Harvard University's same Elliott litter. Few criminals ever voluntarily confessed their criminality with such candor-- or, might one better say, "braggadocio"?

The key word for each of our pair, is "lackey." Agreed, they are "treasonous" in the continental European sense of that term. To what purpose? Is it money? Few on this planet today are greedier than Kissinger Associates' Henry, but, the root of his evil twines deeper than that. It is a quality of moral degeneracy which springs from unnatural causes, not natural ones. The root of this moral degeneracy is found in their adopted social class. In these two, and comparable cases, the social class is that of born-and-bred oligarchical, household lackeys, whose sense of identity is located in wielding a lackey's power of arrogance, an authority which springs not from within themselves, but rather a Faustian sort of authority, delegated to them by the wealthy oligarchical families upon which they fawn.

These are the Leporellos, Rigolettos, and Iagos of the operatic stage, the sententious Polonius of {Hamlet}. Lackeys of this sort constitute a well-defined type of criminal mind, the type otherwise found in such oligarchical families' lackeys of the U.S. Justice Department's permanent bureaucracy as Jack Keeny(15) and Mark Richard.(16) It is a form of pestilence encountered world-wide, an epidemic of lackeyness, of flunkeys placing themselves against truth and justice, and above the constitutional powers of both citizens and elected government. Of that pestilence of out-of-control, amoral, bureaucratic lackies of wealthy-family interest, we must purge our governments, if this, and other nations, are to survive the presently ongoing doom of that global financial system now writhing and coughing in last extremity.

The May 1982 Chatham House address expresses that indelibly. Everything which Kissinger said of himself, is key to the moral soullessness of Brzezinski. The fault in both, as in many like them, is of a species-nature, not a matter of nationality or nominal religious confessions. Our "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" have sold their souls, to become lackeys of a global, Venice-style, feudalist financier-oligarchy. This is the continuation of that same financier oligarchy which was known to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries as "the Venetian Party" of England and the Netherlands. It is that London-centered, but multinational, financier-oligarchical faction, which has been known to insiders, since Britain's widowed Queen Victoria retired to battiness in the attic, as "the Club of the Isles."

As we note in another connection, in this same edition of EIR: Inside the United States itself, this feudalist (e.g., financier-oligarchic) social formation has been typified by three treasonous social strata which have afflicted our republic, like an assortment of veneral diseases, since the American Revolution itself.

The first of these, as we note in that other item in this edition,(17) is those New England families whose wealth and power, as so-called "Yankee bluebloods," take their origin from their role as British East India Company opium-traders of the Massachusetts-based Perkins Syndicate and the creator of George Bush's Skull and Bones cult, Yale's, and the Harriman clan's drug-running Russell and Company. The second is London-controlled Manhattan bankers, such as Bank of Manhattan founder Aaron Burr, the Peabody-Morgan clan, and treasonous August Belmont, the latter the Civil-War-period "king-maker" of the Democratic Party. The third, is the southern slaveocracy, whose tradition is typified by President Theodore Roosevelt, by the Nashville Agrarians, the Kappa Alpha Society, and that Ku Klux Klan which was revived, from the White House, and from Goldwyn and Mayer's Hollywood, by the disgusting President Woodrow Wilson.(18)

Real politics, both within the United States, and in its foreign relations, is defined by reference to the paradigmatic, continuing, mortal conflict between the anti-oligarchy tradition of Leibniz-follower Benjamin Franklin and Franklin's associated authors of the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution, on the one side, against those treasonous, pro-British, "American Tory" forces associated with the evil doctrines of John Locke.

The issue was and is, not a conflict among competing nations, as nations; it is a struggle, typified by those American patriots who repeatedly warred against our republic's mortal adversary, the British monarchy, to establish and defend a form of society consistent with the Christian conception, that every individual person is made in the image of God.(19) The issues were between two diametrically opposing conceptions of God, man, and nature: the pagan, oligarchical tradition of the Mesopotamian, Roman, Byzantine, and British empires, against the Christian republican tradition leading into the Fifteenth-Century beginnings of the modern European nation-state. Our Fausts, the British adversary's Brzezinski and Kissinger, each takes the Devil's own, financier-oligarchical side, as consistently, and with as much slipperily deceptive guile, as an intrinsically immoral lackey might do.

This oligarchical lackey's axiomatic world-outlook, is the characteristic feature, the fingerprint, of the mental life of each, the curvature --or, perhaps, better said, the "twist"-- in all of their thought-processes and writings. This geopolitical "twist," like the unprovoked twist which contorts the face of the compulsive, "bi-polar" wife-beater, is the familiar signature of Brzezinski's perverted style in all of his pieces which I have examined, as, once again, in the original, {Foreign Affairs} version of the piece which was translated for appearance in Oct. 24 {Nezavisimaya Gazeta}.

As to the motives of Brzezinski himself, the answer to such questions has been provided in a famous epigram of Britain's Alexander Pope, who, like the artless Dryden, enjoyed familiarity with oligarchic lackeys of our subject's type. Recall: written on a dog's collar, was the inscription, "I am my master's dog from Pew; pray, sir, and whose dog are you?" That is also the root of our subject's political motives: seldom more, little less. Politically, he is like Don Giovanni's Leporello, a political pimp, whose motives reside in his perception of his master's desires, not his own. His species is that of the miserable creature celebrated for the utterance: "Nothing personal: I'm just doing my job."

Brzezinski and Caspian Oil

What are the motives, then, of Leporello's master? What is the target of British imperial interest in Central Asia in general, and Transcaucusus in particular? What is the geopolitical method by means of which that adopted strategic interest is defined? Essentially, it is the same as during the British Empire's "Great Game" against Russia, China, Germany, and the United States, throughout the late Nineteenth Century, and beyond the period of World War I. The motive is geopolitics against the "Eurasia Heartland," as it was for the "Coefficients" of King Edward VII's Lord Milner, for Admiral "Jacky" Fisher, for Britain's Fabian World War I propagandist H. G. Wells, and for Halford Mackinder.

Henry Kissinger's May 10, 1982 address puts his finger on the crucial consideration which controls the mind and mouth of rival Brzezinski, as it does his own.

The war-time policy of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, terrified the British monarchy as it had been terrified of nothing so much before then, as of President Abraham Lincoln and of the American Revolution itself.

Had Roosevelt not died before the close of World War II, the result would have been precisely what Prime Minister Winston Churchill and, later, Kissinger feared. Under Roosevelt, the post-World War II world would have become an "American Century," in which all colonial empires, such as those of the British, Dutch, French, and Portuguese, would have been immediately dissolved by U.S. might. At the same time, as Roosevelt plainly forewarned the British, "British Eighteenth-Century methods," those of Adam Smith's British East India Company tradition, would have been purged from international affairs, and replaced by the proffer of American methods, those of the Franklin-Hamilton-List-Carey-Lincoln tradition, for the self-development of the victims of British and other imperialism, the former colonies.

With the premature death of Roosevelt, and the premature accession of Averell Harriman's Harry Truman, the Truman administration proceeded to attempt to uproot every strategically crucial feature of the Roosevelt heritage. It acted with approximately the malevolent zeal shown, later, against France's Charles de Gaulle heritage, by Britain's asset Francois Mitterrand. The continuing fear in London, was that some leadership might once again rise in the U.S., to reawaken the patriotic policies of Franklin Roosevelt. President Kennedy threatened to become such a leader, and he was soon dead; in his better moments, President Clinton has shown a wont for reawakening Kennedy's efforts to revive the Roosevelt legacy, and he, although still alive, is mostly tied down by a London-steered mob of our native Lilliputans, today's lunatic right.

In short, the post-war policy of the British monarchy, from Roosevelt's death to the present day, has been a cozy embrace of its intended victim, our republic; in short, our liberties have been "burked." So far, it has nearly succeeded in destroying us through our own desire to be royally stroked; the prominence of such unworthy creatures as Kissinger and Brzezinski, symptomizes the degree to which such gullibility is rampant within our leading political institutions.

Truman gave the British and French back their imperial colonies. London, at Bertrand Russell's direction, orchestrated the nuclear conflict, for reasons which never differed from U.S.A.-hater Russell's stated purpose: obsession with establishment of world government, aimed, above all, as current Prime Minister Tony Blair has freshly insisted, to destroy the power of the United States. London used the aftermath of the Cuba missile crisis, when Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev had backed down to President Kennedy, to begin the process of destroying the scientific and industrial power which President Lincoln had established the United States to be. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's London used the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the occasion to launch "globalist" policies intended to obliterate all national sovreignty from this planet, through supra-national agencies dictating the financial, monetary, social, and "ecological" policies of each and every nation of this planet. Not even the family bedroom escaped the supranational supervision of her own and George Bush's "new world order."

Granted, the U.S.A. has been greatly corrupted by this British-directed subversive influence upon our institutions. Nonetheless, the vital interests of the U.S.A. have a more durable historic basis than could be effaced by a mere several decades of Anglophile corruption. For decades, from the incumbency of British agent Albert Gallatin, under Presidents Jefferson and Jackson, and the British influence expressed by Presidents Jackson, van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, our tradition struck back, with President Lincoln, and changed the remainder of the history of the second half of the Nineteenth Century, world-wide. Since the assassination of President McKinley, in 1901, we had the worst possible political leadership most of the time, as typified by the Presidencies of such scoundrels as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge; but, our national spirit was not dead yet. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the Lincoln tradition erupted into power and led us onward and upward, until Roosevelt's untimely death.

The Leibniz legacy of Benjamin Franklin's genius persists. Still today, as during 1776-1901, the irrepressible conflict between the American republican tradition and the British Commonwealth's financier-oligarchical imperium, defines the fundamental conflict world-wide. Thus, the vital interests of the U.S.A. and the British monarchy clash again, in mortal struggle, in Central Asia and Transcaucusus. As usual for him, in this conlfict, Brzezinski is on the wrong side, the British side; his referenced piece in {Foreign Affairs}, expresses his guilty folly.

That taken into account, look at the map of those portions of Eurasia which surround the combined areas of the Transcaucusus and former Soviet Central Asia. [Figure:_____] How do U.S.A. and British global strategic interests clash ominously in this region of the planet? Brzezinski's piece of infantile play-acting the former role of Britain's Lord Curzon, expresses the British interests, working against the vital interests of the U.S.A. That should be clear beyond reasonable doubt.

The central, determining issue of the recent decades, especially since the 1989-1991 break-up of former Soviet power, is the presently ongoing, terminal phase of collapse of the world's present financial and monetary systems. The strategic issue is therefore defined accordingly. The essential strategic question is, who, what survives the early, global collapse of this doomed IMF-centered financial system?

The British financier oligarchy, for its part, has already accepted the doom of the present financial system. Unfortunately, the U.S. Clinton administration apparently has not been willing, yet, to face that reality. The most recent public manifestations in the Vancouver APEC meeting, make this potentially fatal blunder of the White House very clear. That blunder by the White House, supplies the otherwise doomed British financier oligarchy its principal margin of strategic advantage over the United States. Those British financier interests expect, even desire, the liquidation of all existing sovereign nation-states, throughout the planet, including the United Kingdom itself. This is not merely their plan; it is their ongoing practice, conspicuously so since early 1995.

The race for control of Caspian oil expresses this strategic conflict between the U.S.A. and British oligarchical interests.

As previous editions of EIR have documented this extensively, since early 1995:(20) The Anglo-Dutch financier-oligarchy --let us simply give them their traditional name, "the Venetian party"-- is bent upon grabbing up virtually total control of the world's strategically crucial raw-materials resources, as they are presently doing in South America, in Africa, and in the former Soviet Union's territory. When all existing financial and monetary systems have disintegrated, before the close of the present century, the Venetian party assumes that it will be able to determine who lives and dies throughout this planet --wherever they choose to permit life to continue. Under such conditions, at that time, the institution of the sovereign nation-state would have been rendered fully as extinct as the Dodo.

That is one aspect of the British grab for petroleum and other strategic raw-materials assets in the combined region of Transcaucusus and Central Asia. There is more, much more.

There is an alternative to such a global "Clockwork Orange" society. There is no possibility, that the present global financial system will outlive this century. The system is on its death-bed; the date of death is uncertain, but the patient's condition will do nothing but grow worse each day. By the end of this century, the system will be dead and gone. The only practical question, is whether or not the nations can survive the collapse of the financial system. If governments continue their foolish efforts to bail out the doomed IMF and similarly troubled financial markets, we are all doomed; however, if we are prepared to break free of the IMF's grip, there are alternatives for nations and their people, even if there are no more alternatives for this dying, disintegrating global financial system itself.

Survival requires that we kill the financial disease, the present international financial system, rather than waiting for the plague to die out, and our nations with it. In short, the governments must put the present financial system into bankruptcy, with sovereign governments as the receiver. This is to be done, essentially, in the same way any responsible government puts any ordinary bankrupt bank into receivership. These governments must, simultaneously, create a new international financial and monetary system, based upon scrapping all present "globalist" and related supra-national agencies and policies. That is the precondition for the survival of the U.S.A. and other nation-states beyond the close of this present century.

To do this, requires that a powerful combination of nations act suddenly, and in concert, to bring this change about, whether or not nations outside such a partnership are opposed to such measures, or simply unwilling to support such changes. If the U.S.A., together with China, act so in partnership with a significant number of other nations, their actions will be sufficient to establish the new system in effect, despite any opposition, or mere reluctance by any, or all powers outside that concert of action.

For that reason, the process of partnership into which the U.S. Clinton administration has entered with China, is the crucial pivot upon which the survival of civilization depends immediately. It is that pivotal opportunity for our nation's survival beyond the end of this century, which the British oligarchy and Brzezinski's rantings threaten. This is the standpoint from which we should view both the British grab for control of Caspian oil, and the dovetailing threat against China, presented by British agent of influence Brzezinski.

The attempt to consolidate British control over the flow of so-called Caspian oil, means a diversion of flows from the eastward and southward directions. From a standpoint of economy of movement, the most rational principal channels for export of that petroleum are southward through Iran, to the Indian Ocean, and eastward, to the great, growing market in China, and in Russia's eastern Siberia.

Although the U.S. government tends to delude itself, that it enjoys control over old Politburo veteran Gaidar Aliyev's Azerbaijan, the reality is quite different. American personnel are relatively thick on the ground, but the Anglo-French, anti-U.S.A. partnership is actually in control of the situation.

A senior British figure of relevance put the matter in the following context:

"The British are doing what thay have done for the last 100-200 years in this region, playing the role of a balancing act, an honest broker, a referee, or umpire, working all sides. We can't compete directly, we don't have the economic clout; but, we can use leverage, through our very skilled diplomats, to maneuver one side or the other, to British advantage." That is where British agent of influence Brzezinski fits in.

Brzezinski would recognize immediately, a key name on the French side of the anti-U.S.A. Britain-France Middle-East game. The name is Marie Bennigsen, daughter of the Alexandre Bennigsen, who, we must suspect, is a familiar name for Brzezinski's ears and eyes. This lady is indicated, by London sources, and correlated French actions, to be part of the Entente Cordiale's anti-U.S.A. game in Transcaucusus and Central Asia.

A few excerpts from Maggie O'Kane's featured piece, in the Nov. 12 edition of {The Guardian} present a British view of London's war against the U.S.A. over Caspian oil.

"Today, the `first oil' from the Caspian Sea will flow towards Europe and thus end the first round of the Great Game as Britain, America, France and Russia struggle again to control the wealth of Central Asia. ... As the oil begins to flow today it brings with it a British victory over the oil titans, America, France, and Russia. British Petroleum holds the biggest share in the largest consortium in the fastest growing community of Brits abroad; they're getting rich."

A similar view of the matter is presented in the referenced item in the November 24 London {Observer}.

However, as we have already stressed, this is not merely an oil-grab game. This is a strategic move by the British and their anti-U.S. accomplices, to ensure that no economic-recovery program is successfully launched on this planet during the immediate decades ahead. Turn to what should now be the familiar map of the "Land-Bridge" project, to see exactly how Brzezinski's current proposals constitute a threat to the human species generally.

The Lunacy of "Geopolitics"

The clear target of anti-U.S.A., Anglo-French operations in the Transcaucusus-Central Asia theater, is flanking operations against both Russia and China, and also Iran, India, and the nations of South and East Asia generally. A glance at the Eurasian Land-Bridge alternative [Figure: World map of routes] shows the nature of the threat these Anglo-French operations represent against civilization as a whole. Take a step back into history, to the U.S. Lincoln administration, to understand this map, and how and why the British invented geopolitics to destroy the world-wide influence of the U.S.A.

This brings us to the implications of "geopolitics" in the twisted excursions of Brzezinski's current literary outgushings.

The deadly superstition called "geopolitics" grew up during the latter decades of the last century, chiefly as a British strategic reaction against the influence of the 1861-1876 rise of the U.S. economy to world leadership, and the imitations of U.S. policy, copied in Germany, Russia, Japan, and elsewhere during the post-1876 decades. This is best described as the spread of the influence of the "Lincoln-Carey" economic revolution, establishing the 1861-1966 standard of comparison for defining a modern nation-state economy.

The British monarchy focussed expression of concern on two leading features of this Lincoln-Carey revolution. On the one side, the British were alarmed by the role of the machine-tool-design sector of economies based upon this "model." Economies so organized, tended toward much higher rates of increase of their per-capita productive powers of labor and standard of living than the models which the British oligarchy deemed tolerable. Secondly, the development of such economies required large-scale, technologically progressive modes of state-fostered basic economic infrastructure, such as transport models based upon the successful establishment of transcontinental "development corridors," from the Atlantic to the Pacific under the Lincoln-Carey program.

For British strategy, these concerns were translated into the issues which prompted the monarchy of Britain's Edward VII, to organize, and to prepare the launching of what is known variously as "The Great War" or "World War I." Of concern, was pre-1894 transpacific cooperation among Japan and the United States, and transatlantic cooperation between the United States, which provided the successful model for this, and the successful realization of that model by Germany, and, to a large degree, also the pre-1905 Russia of Mendeleyev and Witte.

Germany economic development struck the British throne with seismic political shudders. More savage, was the British terror at the prospect of continued, Eurasian cooperation among the pre-1901 United States, the pre-1898 France of Sadi Carnot and Gabriel Hanotaux, Germany, and Alexander II's, Mendeleyev's, and Witte's Russia, in developing trans-Eurasian railway development corridors, from the Atlantic to both the Pacific and Indian Oceans. For that reason, Britain bears the sole significant war-guilt for World War I.

The term "geopolitics" became the characteristic expression of Britain's fear of loss of its imperial world-domination. During the late Nineteenth Century, and first four, pre-nuclear decades of the Twentieth, Britain's leading concern was to ensure the overwhelming supremacy of British maritime --and, therefore, also naval-- power over any conceivable combination of nations outside the Empire itself. This meant, in practice, an included determination, not only to destroy the ongoing development of Eurasian continental railway "land bridges," but to slow down, even reverse the rate of economic development on the continent of Eurasia, and, in the feared and hated United States. The notion of strategy based upon political geography of sea-power versus Eurasia "heartland," emerged from this British --or, should one better say, "Brutish"-- imperial obsession.

In this setting, "geopolitics," the old Roman imperial policy of "balance of power" which Britain had employed earlier, divide and conquer, assumed new dimensions.

The act of overthrowing the existing government of France, to bring a {revanchist} assortment of political degenerates to power, against cooperation-partner Germany, was the first step of the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, toward a war aimed at destroying the potential of an anti-London concert of power on the continent of Eurasia. To bring Germany's leading continental partner, Witte's Russia, into alliance with France and Britain, against Germany, was crucial for Edward VII and his lackeys. If the U.S.A. could be summoned to support Britain logistically, against Germany, rather than continuing the U.S. pre-1901 alliance with both Germany and Russia, then Britain and its continental dupes, France and Russia, could be summoned to war for the mutual destruction and enduring enmities of a "Great War." The 1901 assassination of U.S. President William McKinley, to bring that wicked Anglophile spawn of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt, to power, and the subsequent election, with crucial assistance from Theodore Roosevlt, of Ku Klux Klan buff Woodrow Wilson, ensured Britain the position to launch the 1914-1918 "Great War" with aid of an orchestrated Balkan War.

It is that same policy which London focuses against continental Eurasia today. That is the governing consideration behind Brzezinski's disgusting opus.

Today, the possibility of moving directly from the unstoppable, presently ongoing doom of the present financial system, to economic recovery globally, demands international cooperation in great seed-crystal programs of infrastructure development. The only possibility for such a program of the needed scope, is a reconstruction program based upon what we have defined, more broadly, as the Eurasian "Land-Bridge" program, and, more narrowly, the "New Silk Road" program. These programs, engaging all continental Eurasia, Africa, and, across the Bering Strait, into all of the principal land-masses of the Americas, are indispensable for the human race as a whole, and, thus, also for the U.S.A.

A glance at the natural, as well as the political geography of our global land-bridge-route map, shows immediately the strategic significance of Central Asia and Transcaucusus for the world as a whole. Caspian oil as such, is a relatively trivial consideration by comparison.

Get to the heart of Brzezinski's rant. What is the practical effect of his proposed scheme from the standpoint of the land-bridge route-map? It is World War I all over again! The words spring to the lips of any sane person: "That miserable clown, Brzezinski!"

The fact that a clown such as Brzezinski may be goofy, does not mean that insanity can not be dangerous.

30-30-30

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Geostrategy for Russia," {Foreign Affairs}, September/October 1997. This article was presented as an excerpt from Brzezinski's forthcoming book, an attempt to rook the reader, entitled {The Grand Chessboard: Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives}, a title typical of Brzezinski's long-standing penchant for pretentious goobledegook.

2. Typified, in the London press, by such items as Maggie O'Kane, "Gold Rush," {The Guardian}, Nov. 12, 1997; James Meek and Tom Whitehouse, "Where Madness Seeps out of the Earth," {London Observer} Nov. 23, 1997.

3. Sergei Glazyev, "Russophobia," {Nezavisimaya Gazeta}, Nov. ..., 1997.

4. Yuri Maslyukov, "The Military Security of Russia," {Prav-Pyat}, Nov. 15, 1997.

5. The number of Arab and other Islamic terrorist organizations which the British monarchy openly harbors in London is an example of the way in which British duplicity corrupts Arab militants into adopting the false perception that the British monarchy is an Arab's friend against the terrible U.S. imperialist. Similar, if not as nakedly crude a selection of tactics are deployed from London to woo Russians into kindred delusions.

6. [[publication information: Lilly Foundation, McGraw-Hill]]

7. [[LaR EIR reported 1979 forecast on "Volcker measures":titles, locations]]

8. [[Note on this]]

9. "Chatham House," a.k.a. London Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), itself the co-founder of the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

10. Although Kissinger and his friends have reacted with hysteria against the present writer's persistence in identifying Kissinger as an agent of influence of the British Foreign Office, Kissinger himself was unrestrained in bragging publicly, in a public address delivered at Chatham House on May 10, 1982 ["Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Foreign Policy"], that he had been a agent of influence of the British Foreign Office during his "incarnation" under Presidents Nixon and Ford. In the aftermath of that 1982 address, the British establishment, including Lord Peter Carrington, established the firm of Kissinger Associates, Inc., as a lucrative pension for Britain's aging commissionaire. Nor, on June 20, 1995, was Kissinger loathe to accept Her Majesty's award of the title of "Sir Henry Kissinger," as Honorary Knight Commander of the order of St. Michael and St. George, an order customarily issued only to members of the British foreign service.

11. Don't blame it on the ostriches: only people are capable of such foolishness.

12. So far, Kissinger's statement is accurate. Russian readers should take note, that this is the difference between the U.S.A. and Britain as Josef Stalin understood it accurately. Citations are from the prepared text of Kissinger's May 10, 1982 Chatham House address, as supplied, at that time, by Kissinger's cronies at the Washington, D.C. CSIS.

13. U.S. "Plan Red," as in force at the beginning of the 1920s, was a complement to war "Plan Orange," for the case that Britain's ally Japan would attack the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, opening a general Britain-Japan war intended to destroy forever the global significance of the U.S. Navy. Notably, at his court-martial, General Billy Mitchell warned that air power required a change in U.S. "Plan Orange," creating far more damage than the Navy Department was then prepared to consider for such a case. Ironically, it was a last-minute change of plans by the Japan command, to reenforce greatly the aircraft deployed on its carrier force, which made the December 7, 1941 attack so relatively devastating.

14. Emphasis added to original text.--LHL.

15. *

16. *

17. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The Lesson of `The Spot Resolution'."

18. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "What economics must measure," {Executive Intelligence Review} Nov. 28, 1997. See subhead, "The modern national economy," pp. 15-22.

19. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., op. cit., passim.

20. *