Brzezinski, Obama, and moral relativism

Brzezinski, likely influence behind the Iran nuke deal, has it in for Israel from the start.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Intercollegiate Review. I bring this article to your attention because I therein revealed something unheard of in academia: the tyrannical mentality lurking in moral relativism, a doctrine linked to modern liberalism! I see this tyranny latent or lurking in the mentality of President Barack Obama. We need to elucidate and expose Mr. Obama’s mentality because at stake is nothing less than the national security of both America and Israel.

Brzezinski and Carter

Before citing the most relevant passages of my 1985 article, the reader should recall that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser between 1977 and 1981, and that it was he who facilitated the 1979 return to Iran of the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had been exiled in Paris. This was a catastrophic event. Khomeini’s return to Iran triggered the 1979 Islamic Revolution, arguably the most momentous revolution in history. Indeed, one may even connect the dots from that 1979 event to the recent Islamic massacres in Paris, Nice, and Orlando!

Returning, however, to the pedestrian Jimmy Carter, one does not have to read his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that the former president is an anti-Semite. Professor Brzezinski has earned the same reputation. Not only did Brzezinski express the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure. He also urged a U.S. dialogue with Hamas whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. Since Brzezinski served as an advisor to Obama, it behooves us to gain an in-depth understanding of this academic.

Brzezinski and Obama

In August 2007, Brzezinski endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with this disarming statement: “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and people.”

In a September 2007 speech on the Iraq war, Obama praised Brzezinski as “one of our most outstanding thinkers.” In a September 2009 interview with The Daily Beast, Brzezinski was asked how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct an air strike on Iran. Brzezinski replied: “We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” This was interpreted by some commentators as advocating the downing of Israeli jets by the United States to prevent an attack on Iran. But there is more here than meets the eye regarding Iran’s “ayatollahs.”

The name “ayatollah” originates from a passage in the Qur’an which Shi’a Muslims interpret to mean human beings who can be regarded as ‘signs’ or ‘evidence’ of God.

Obama’s outreach or cozy attitude toward a tyranny like Iran is consistent with his unabashed Islamic sympathies, and it conforms to Brzezinski’s anti-ideological approach to foreign affairs.

Brzezinski embraces moral relativism and equivalency

Long before he became Carter’s National Security Adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he termed the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government. “This image,” he scornfully declared, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” He deplored anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Brzezinski not only rejected the “black-and-white” image of the United States and the Soviet Union; he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural relativist. This relativism has stamped the mentality of Barack Obama.

The influence of relativism permeates not only academia; it underlies Brzezinski’s anti-ideological approach to foreign affairs. Relativism rendered him all the more inclined to appease terrorist regimes like Iran.

As a moral or cultural relativist, Brzezinski denies the existence of objective norms or standards by which to determine whether the ideas and values of one nation are intrinsically superior to those of another. This relativism has profound political consequences. The logical and psychological tendency of cultural relativism makes Brzezinski “a man without a country” – which may also be said of Mr. Obama, who repeatedly apologizes for America’s superiority in world affairs.

Moral relativism: an academic disease

Too much is at stake for me to be less than brutally frank about a political scientist of Brzezinski’s potential if not actual influence. Steeped in cultural relativism while earning his livelihood in a pluralistic and egalitarian society like America, Brzezinski finds it convenient to use multiculturalism as his working principle, on the one hand and equality as his primary value on the other – precisely the ingredients of his anti-ideological foreign policy. In fact, and with the exception of his animosity toward Israel, he promotes or reinforces the moral equivalency that dominates the American State Department. Ignoring philosophical consistency, Brzezinski, like Obama, harbors a benign attitude toward the PLO, a consortium of terrorist organizations committed to Israel’s destruction.

But let us probe deeper. What I have said of Brzezinski applies to countless American academics and policy makers tainted by cultural relativism. This doctrine has influenced the mentality of several generations of students at all levels of American education. This includes law schools, hence judges of the Supreme Court.

Cultural relativism is inherent in Marxism. Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Marxism and Islam reject the idea of the nation-state. In fact, neither Marxism nor Islam recognizes international borders, and both have global aspirations. This makes them expansionist creeds.

Globalism

Brzezinski is nothing if not a globalist. And one may also say this of Obama’s two Supreme Court appointments, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Brzezinski’s globalism infected Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter pursued a “North-South” or “Third World” policy as opposed to an “East-West” or anti-Soviet U.S. policy. Consistent therewith, Carter slashed U.S. defense spending. Obama follows the same policy. He cozies up with Iran as well as with Russia, while curtailing ballistic defense systems for Europe.

Down with the nation-state

Brzezinski’s systematic deprecation of the nation-state appears in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technocratic Era. He baldly declares:

With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty.

And:

The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could [peacefully] develop.

This is the anti-nationalist or globalist attitude of Obama’s Supreme Court appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor!

Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social or global consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition. He contends,

That is why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.

Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.”

However, once the Soviet Union institutionalized Marxism, it degenerated into a party dogma. And under Stalin it “was wedded to Russian nationalism.” For Brzezinski, this was not entirely a tragedy.

Apologizing for Stalin

While he poses as a humanist, Brzezinski has the callousness and audacity to say:

Although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was a blessing in disguise.

Brzezinski could as readily have said:

Although Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people since Muhammad, Islam nonetheless brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Islam and the Qur’an.

What a charming humanist!

Brzezinski: anti-American

Let us conclude. First, the moral relativism of Brzezinski contradicts the American Declaration of Independence. That document affirms the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Second, Brzezinski’s anti-ideological foreign policy toward Iran and Islam cannot but subvert the Judeo-Christian foundations of the American Republic and the magnificent idea of American Exceptionalism. To put it bluntly: Brzezinski’s relativism is anti-American. He and Obama are two birds of a kind. Like liberals in general, they appear oblivious of the tyranny of which their moral relativism is susceptible and which may activate them. In fact I perceive tyranny lurking in Obama’s silence regarding black American violence and Islamic terrorism. That tyranny, in Communism, Brzezinski deemed a “blessing in disguise”!◙

One Response to Brzezinski, Obama, and moral relativism

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.