to have to root for the Rockefellers. Blog entry by Lew Rockwell:
“The Eastern Establishment Is Pro-Peace
Well, not quite, but the Rockefeller-neocon split continues. I hate to agree with the Trilateral Commission types, but the more conservative warmongers and imperialists are right to see the neocons as insane. The Rockfellers opposed the 2nd Iraq war, or at least the regime-change part, and now oppose the planned war on Iran as possibly leading to an economic calamity (the dead don’t much bother them). The Iraq Study Group was intended to be a shot across the neocons’ bow, but it had little effect. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s startling testimony against this war and the new one has been ignored by the court media.
“Bill Clinton was the last Rockefeller president, and now he looks pretty good in comparison to Bush. Bush’s own heritage is pure Rockefeller, since his grandfather Prescott, but he fell in with worse companions. (Thanks to Kev Hall for the link.)
“PS: On the pro-peace question, I should note that the Eastern Establishment helped promote, and mightily profited from, US entry into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, among other adventures.”
Not so fast, says Anthony Gregory:
“Re: The Eastern Establishment
Lew, the Establishment seems to oppose the neocon insanity because it jeopardizes the US empire and has already ruined its post-WWII reputation worse even than Vietnam — which is the only silver lining of the Bush administration.
I think they want to clean up. I think the Anglo-American establishment and the neocons, while they disagree now, will agree once again when the time is right. Or, the next Rockefeller takeover, if it happens, will make us miss the days when the realists actually opposed intervention.
The neocons love the World Wars and Cold War, and so do the realists and Rockefellers. I fear that those who have their influence in both camps see some long-term, globalist Hegelian benefit from this supposed split. (Not to mention those in the military industrial complex who, in the short term, benefit from war no matter who wages it.) Isn’t it possible? Or do you think the split is real?
Me: Lew’s right, the split over Iran has to be real. Quote the mouth of David Rockefeller:
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”
It must be an emergency for Zebigniew Brzezinski to be saying such things in open hearings before the Imperial Senate. (Not that everyone doesn’t already know that governments resort to such things all the time and always have.)
Let’s just hope that a silver lining to all this madness will be the death of the golden goose – the American Empire – for all these factions without any more destruction here in the States or in U.S. colonies overseas. Let these idiots fight over their country club privileges and leave us alone.
