by Zahir Ebrahim
October 11, 2009
postscript Added December 11 2009
from
ProjectHumanbeingsfirst Website
How to win the Nobel
Peace Prize
In complete realization of the 'change' mantra:
“We are gonna spread happiness,
we are gonna spread freeeeedom,
Obama's gonna change it,
Obama's gonna leeeeead em,
we're gonna change it,
and re-arrange it,
we are gonna change the world!”
(The Obama Kids Song)
President
Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The
President is delighted and “Says He’s ‘Surprised’ and ‘Humbled’” according
to the New York Times.
When I first penned “How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize” in great anguish in
April 2003, in
Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave as the “shock and awe” of
Iraq was under way, I hadn't the full prescience of all the future players
at the time for I grossly omitted the new name.
My apologies to the
harbingers of 'change'.
Their mantra, and the
$2 billion spent creating it,
has obviously been very effective. After the “peace maker” moniker,
anointment as the “Messiah” really can't be that far behind. This
Machiavellian fabrication of a 'savior' was already examined in
Mr. Obama -
The Post Modern Coup in November 2008.
It is astonishing to me how simplistic the most lauded dissent-chiefs and
most profound intellectuals are in the West. Even when they critique
absurdities and war-mongering as per their good conscience, they tread
remarkably gently.
Look at historian Howard Zinn's
comment in the
UK Guardian.
He is once again simplistic in his vocal dissent
piece - just as he has been all along on 911 - by deliberately not seeing
the Orwellian propaganda agenda behind the Peace Prize:
“I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama
was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a
president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I
recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger
had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for
its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures,
and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.”
No, No, NO! Never 'superficial estimates' and
never 'empty gestures'.
Rather, laying the seeds of masterful propaganda
towards
Orwellian social engineering.
Thus, Professor Zinn's concluding prescription:
“The Nobel peace committee should retire,
and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization
which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some
understanding of history”, which, since he diagnosed the disease
incorrectly, is a cure, I am sure, to the problem that he has posited in
his own mind, but one that has no forensic bearing to the modernity
plaguing mankind. Indeed, this “modernity” is itself “as old as
mankind”.
So while Howard Zinn does conscionably lament
the bizarre awarding of peace prizes to murderous trigger pullers, he very
carefully does not mention the
prime-movers whom they work for:
“Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a
peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace
agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the
architects.
Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's
expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam,
Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war
criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!”
Ever since hectoring hegemons have existed, ever
since oligarchs have existed wielding power from behind the scenes through
their 'errand boys', ever since they discovered social engineering, and
especially ever since Edward Bernays discovered and employed Public
Relations which coincided approximately with the time that Nobel peace
prizes started to be awarded, these accolades from the high and mighty serve
the oligarchic agendas as needed.
Since Professor Howard Zinn, as a profound historian who would like us to
learn from history, is berating the Nobel Peace Committee on their lacking
“some understanding of history”, watch the BBC documentary
Century of Self
to observe how Edward Bernays himself fabricated President Woodrow Wilson's
aura as the European 'savior' right after the “he kept us out of the war”
devil had taken America to World War I at the behest of his handlers Bernard
Baruch and Col.
Edward Mandell House, both of whom represented the
international bankers.
House even penned the rationale for having
'errand boys' and controlling them in a fictional narrative based upon his
own role during Woodrow Wilson's presidency.
Who is channeling President Obama's energies
such that despite all his election promises to the contrary, he is very
predictably maintaining the same overarching policy axioms as his
predecessor from his day one in office?
These prizes are anything but “empty gestures”. It is both a payoff to
tickle the ego of the 'errand boy', and a propaganda seed. In the expert
hands of the
Mighty Wurlitzer, such a gift can convince the masses of the
most ridiculous absurdities, like the
War on Terror already has.
The proof
of these statements of fact is both empirical, and historical.
Watch Barack Obama crafted into a fine new
global 'savior' at the expense of the 'untermenschen'. That's why the United
States President, ceremoniously presiding over the most militarized
superpower in the world which has just devastated two civilizations to
smithereens, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while he rapidly accelerates
his war prosecution to bring “peace” in a
one-world government.
Here is the excerpt from Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave.
How to win the Nobel Peace Prize
President Jimmy Carter, known as the conscionable president, refused to bomb
Tehran despite recommendations from his wife and advisors, as noted by a
speaker recently, builds homes for Habitat for Humanity with his own bare
hands, and is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
His own National Security Advisor (ZB -
Zbigniew Brzezinski) took
credit for handing the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, leading to the
destruction of an entire civilization and loss of multiple of its
generations to multiple civil wars and poverty, eventually leading to
911 -
if one is to believe the facile version of 911 put forth by the American
Government.
Whether or not
Bin Laden was involved in 911,
the facts of history attest to the machinations of the United States of
America in the exercise of its military and economic power since the end of
World War II as forcefully articulated by George Kennan in 1948:
“...We should cease to talk about vague and
- for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising
of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we
are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.” *8
ZB's own confessions to this end are highly
instructive. The 1998 ZB interview to "Le Nouvel Observateur", translated
from the original French by author and historian Bill Blum, is reproduced
below.
The translator notes that:
“*There are at least two editions of this
magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress,
the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French
version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter
version.”
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began
to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet
intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to
President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote
a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.
But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked
to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting
that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United
States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a
basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It
had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want
me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border,
I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to
the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to
carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought
about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or
the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated
Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in
regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at
Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the
leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is
there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,
Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism?
Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.*9
Frighteningly amoral execution of George
Kennan's policy articulation from 1948 of “going to have to deal in straight
power concepts”. Wouldn't you say that all American Presidents have been
doing exactly that?
I had also personally witnessed on television, President Carter in 1978
toasting to the health of the King of Persia, Raza Shah, with approximately
the following words:
“To your majesty, to the love that your
people have for you.”
This to a tyrant responsible for brutally
suppressing his own people with American supplied weapons, and while Carter
is toasting his host inside the Palace, outside the streets are filled with
people protesting their king.
When the revolution proceeds a few month later,
instead of a mea culpa, a reign of vilification, long war, and sanctions is
imposed on the people of Iran. And for what crime? For wanting their freedom
from American-CIA imposed tyranny at the hands of one of their own elite?
The
Iran Hostage Crisis, covered on ABC
Nightline daily, which I would occasionally catch while eating dinner in the
late night cafeteria at MIT, as I recall was quite devoid of any significant
history or accurate analysis of the past 26 years leading up to the crisis.
I subsequently saw a shredded memo painstakingly put together and freely
available in the streets of most countries in the region about some of the
imperial work being done by the American staff in the US embassy in Teheran,
whom the hostage takers were calling CIA spies.
The taking of these hostages, many of them
civilians, was probably the biggest blunder the Iranians made after their
revolution, and were paid for in spades by America with the war imposed on
them through Iraq.
If Jimmy Carter had deserved any Peace Prize, it
would have been to avert the crisis with Tehran and successfully bring back
the hostages, made amends with Iran for its people finally exercising their
will and set the stage for friendship between the two countries, leaving a
legacy of peace and prosperity for the region and appreciated the world
over.
He did not do that.
What is the prize for?
You might say Camp David and Egypt-Israel peace accord over a desert that
was militarily occupied in a war?
When his own people call Anwar Sadat a traitor
for making his private and separate peace with Israel and breaking up the
Arab stance on Palestine which is what Israel wanted all along; and he is
also a despised dictator of his own people hated and killed by them for his
oppressive policies only to be replaced by another brutish dictator who is
also continually kept in power by being the second largest US aid recipient
in the world after Israel - is that a peace at the barrel of a gun or an
enduring peace with justice?
Brokering a “peace accord” that was only a new manifestation of an old
“divide and conquer” plan that the peoples at least on one side of it did
not want, and which only allowed Israel a freer hand to continue suppressing
the Palestinians and incrementally continue to swallow up their lands
without interference from its Arab neighbors, instead of one in which all
could have lived in justice and peace with full rights of return for those
displaced, is an imperial farce forced upon a beleaguered peoples.
And the impact of precisely this “peace accord”
for which Carter got the “peace” prize are visible to all and sundry in
Palestine - an amazing case study in faits accomplis that become
“irreversible” - a modern day genocidal resettlement of another's land right
before the very eyes of the silently bespectating world!
What about Menachem Begin? He certainly also had all the qualifications for
the Nobel Peace Prize, having blown up the King David Hotel in 1948 as part
of the terrorist Stern-Irgun gangs and was once the most wanted criminal in
Britain.*9A
Let's see who might be in line next? Ariel Sharon and
George Bush Jr. and
Sr., as well as Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski, because after all, they
did defeat the Soviet Union and bring an end to the four decade long Cold
War. They all appear to have the right pedigree of “blood-experience” for
the Nobel Peace Prize!
So pardon me if I am not tripping all over myself congratulating the “peace
prize” winners!
Read the rest of
chapter 2 in full context.
Postscript Note
December 11, 2009
Thank you Mr. President for the everlasting peace which is finally to be had
in our new world government. All the fabricated crises,
as in the Foundation
Trilogy, have provided the outstanding pretexts.
While it is true that none
are more hopelessly enslaved in perpetual war than those who are falsely led
to believe they do so for peace:
1984
by George Orwell
2009
from
VideoGoogle Website
It is also a fact that no empire in the history of mankind has accomplished
what is being achieved with these endless manufactured crises and the Nobel
Peace Prize awarded to solve them.
The poor Conservative guy voiceover-ing
the new EU Council President heralding the good news ahead of the Nobel
Peace Prize ceremony, apparently either doesn't fathom the meaning of fait
accompli, or is too darn used to the free-world order to appreciate the
desirability of a Boot stamped on the human face in the one-world order -
what a slop:
Global Governance
EU President Admits One-World Government is Here
NWO -
New World Order
by
TCCTV
November 25, 2009
from
YouTube Website
These simpleton plebeian minds,
“unexposed to the exigencies of higher
political or military responsibility”, persistently fail to appreciate the
value of the “considerable political sophistication” that has gone into the
calculus of Global Governance.
Poorly read of history as they are, and weaned on the immediate
gratification of the here and the now having pursued their 'American Dreams'
in deep slumber all of their lives, they naturally fail to recognize the
distemper of hegemony when it is inchoate and
kept brewing under covers:
“Peace and its duration, like war, is
determined by natural laws that in their fundamental principles do not
vary nor are found wanting.”; dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory' when an
odd iconoclast
reveals it.
And subsequently fail to recognize its fait
accompli once it becomes unveiled to all and sundry:
“In this epoch of war upon which the Empire
is about to enter, hopes of peace are futile; constitutions and kings
and gods are without avail, for these are the old, old struggles that
govern the growth and dissolution of national life.”
And so, Mr. President Barack Obama, I finally
offer you my humble congratulations, even if somewhat belated and for which
I hope I may be forgiven!
The story of the Brilliant Construction of World
Order during your tenure at least makes for a
good children's bedtime story,
if nothing else.