Zahir Ebrahim: Why Obama got the Peace Prize

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Richard Moore

Oct 13, 2009, 1:30:27 PM10/13/09

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.” (emphasis added)
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 theMighty 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) 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 theMujahadeen 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 Sadaat 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 here.
Project Humanbeingsfirst Ebook 2009
Project Humanbeingsfirst Ebook 2009 contains all PHBF published reports and letters between 2007 and 2009 in a hyper-linked browsable PDF. This self-contained Ebook built directly from the website on October 08, 2009, will be useful for both offline perusing, as well as for archiving in a single place the detailed analyses of the myriad global crises, global financial collapse, global warming, global pandemics, global war on terror, or by their real name, imperial mobilization and one-world government of the oligarchs, plaguing mankind today.
Download PDF (20 MB) herehere, or here
subscribe mailto:



Moderator:  (comments welcome)

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages