Skip to main content

Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Decline Of The US And The End Of The American Empire

















Posted by cln 




JULY 1, 2014


Brandon Turbeville |Activist Post | June 26th 2014

 








Ever since 9/11, it has been apparent that the American empire is living on borrowed time. In more recent years, the inevitable collapse of American world hegemony and the unipolar world is one that very few informed observers can continue to ignore.






Riddled with massive unemployment, an overextended military, entrenched police state, crumbling infrastructure, and the ever-present threat to the US dollar, it is clear that the United States is merely the shell of its former self. 





Indeed, in 2014, the concept of long-term American primacy is only a fantasy maintained by the mainstream media with its constant repetition of meaningless and absurd notions of recoveries, humanitarian interventions, and national security.






More credible researchers, however, are well aware of the fact that the United States, as an empire as well as a nation, is headed the way of every empire before it. 







There is little doubt that the United States will soon run out of steam in its march across the world and a crackdown at home while reckless economic policy continues to be dictated from the halls of Wall Street.





Yet the decline of the United States is not simply the result of a few years of stupid mistakes made by the ruling class. 





The truth is that the end of America is nothing more than a waypoint in a script that was written long ago.






In order to gain a deeper grasp of the level to which the fall of the United States is a scripted development, it is worth consulting the work of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the infamous geopolitical strategist, architect of al-Qaeda, former US government official, and current advisor to Barack Obama.[1] Particularly, it is important to consult Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.








It should be remembered that it was in this very book that Brzezinski uttered the famous statement that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”[2]







In addition, Brzezinski also wrote that “as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”








He went on to write that



In the absence of a comparable external challenge [to the Cold War and WWII], American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require and enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement.[3]





The book, written in 1997, seemed to lament the fact that the public would not support such blatant imperialism unless they truly viewed the crusade to be in their own immediate self-interest. Only four year later, the public would receive such a “sudden threat or challenge” to their “sense of domestic well-being” as well as that “widely perceived direct external threat” in the form of the 9/11 attacks.





The ultimate decline of the United States, however, is dealt with in Brzezinski’s concluding section of the book which it tellingly titled “Beyond The Last Global Superpower.” Here, Brzezinski opens with the announcement that, not only will American hegemony soon come to an end, but that there will never be another superpower to emerge as powerful as the United States is at the time of the writing of the book, in 1997. He writes,





In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but is also likely to be the very last.






This is so not only because nation-states are gradually becoming increasingly permeable but also because knowledge as power is becoming more diffuse, more shared, and less constrained by national boundaries. Economic power is also likely to become more dispersed. In the years to come, no single power is likely to reach the level of 30 percent or so of the world’s GDP that America sustained throughout much of this century, not to speak of the 50 percent at which it crested in 1945.[4]






Keep in mind that the permeable nature of nation states that Brzezinski refers to is a result of the process of globalization of economies and the harmonization of laws worldwide as well as the globalization of culture.





Also notice that Brzezinski states that the “concentration of hegemonic power” will not be concentrated in the hands of a single state – not that concentrated hegemonic power will cease to exist. Indeed, such world power will simply move from the hands of a perceived national entity to those of an international and global institution.






Describing “American primacy” as having only a “relatively brief” window of historical opportunity, Brzezinski states that the fall of the American empire will be due to both internal and external reasons – namely, pessimism and addiction to entertainment at home and overextension abroad.





As quoted above, Brzezinski begins his argument by discussing the lack of will to go to war held by the average American absent the existence of the perception of some serious threat to their safety or the security of the country. 



He writes,



Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. It was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.







In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies that cannot be directly related to central beliefs and widely shared cultural-ethnic sympathies and that still require an enduring and sometimes costly imperial engagement. If anything, two extremely varying views on the implications of America’s historic victory in the Cold War are likely to be politically more appealing: on the one hand, the view that the end of the Cold War justifies a significant reduction in America’s global engagement, irrespective of the consequences for America’s global standing; and on the other, the perception that the time has come for genuine international multilateralism, to which American should even yield some of its sovereignty.[5]







Brzezinski thus describes a society that loses its taste for war with other cultures as a result of increased diversity in the makeup of the American public and a lack of cohesion of what has been American culture since the beginning of the country. The fact that America has itself earned the label of the “hostile totalitarianism” that was once foisted onto a number of other countries and governments has finally become too overwhelmingly obvious to hide for many Americans.








Brzezinski also identifies the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War as a potential hindrance to the drive to fight and conquer across the globe. In other words, the lack of the perceived “direct external threat” results in the lack of desire for empire in the minds of the general public. After all, the average person does not desire war or the glory of empire but merely the ability to provide for themselves and live in some level of comfort.[6] Empire is the goal of psychopaths.








Still, Brzezinski sees the lack of the presence of the Cold War as a potential excuse for the sacrifice of sovereignty under the guise of “genuine international multilateralism” and, of course, globalism and globalization. 





One can clearly see from reading the Grand Chessboard that this concept only alarms Brzezinski in terms of the possibility that the lack of will to expand the empire might come before America has been exhausted in the pursuit of it.







Unfortunately for those who will be the cannon fodder for any overseas adventure, that perceived direct external threat was provided to them in the form of radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorism in 2001 and, in 2014, the reemergence of the Cold War propaganda between the United States, Russia, and to a lesser degree, China.






In this regard, Brzezinski appears to avert the question of direct confrontation only to present the possibility in apocalyptic terms. 




He writes,

With the more-endowed nations constrained by their own higher technological capacity for self-destruction as well as by self-interest, war may have become a luxury that only the poor peoples of the world can afford. In the foreseeable future, the impoverished two-thirds of humanity may not be motivated by the restraint of the privileged.[7]




Of course, by “restraint of the privileged” one must read restraint against attacking one’s military equal. Restraint is by no means a word that could be used when referring to the policies of Western or “developed” nations toward “undeveloped” countries.






Brzezinski continues by stating,





It is also noteworthy that international conflicts and acts of terrorism have so far been remarkably devoid of any use of the weapons of mass destruction. How long that self-restraint may hold is inherently unpredictable, but the increasing availability, not only to states but also to organized groups, of the means to inflict massive casualties – by the use of nuclear or bacteriological weapons – also inevitably increases the probability of their employment.[8]






Yet, while the prospect of general war and the employment of nuclear weapons clearly exists, another possibly even more dangerous threat to the American empire is the culture it has deliberately created for the benefit of the ruling class. While Brzezinski presents the American cultural crisis as a threat merely because its hedonism and self-absorption precludes a desire to fight foreign wars, his acknowledgement of the existence of this crisis is revealing in terms of how the American culture has been manipulated into that of egocentrism and entertainment addiction and a type that eschews sacrifice, cultural connection, and identity.









Thus, Brzezinski writes,



More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. Yet the dominant culture of the country has become increasingly fixated on mass entertainment that has been heavily dominated by personally hedonistic and socially escapist themes. The cumulative effect has made it increasingly difficult to mobilize the needed political consensus on behalf of sustained, and also occasionally costly, American leadership abroad. Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties.










In addition, both America and Western Europe have been finding it difficult to cope with the cultural consequences of social hedonism and the dramatic decline in the centrality of religious-based values in society. . . . . . . The resulting cultural crisis has been compounded by the spread of drugs and, especially in America, by its linkage to the racial issue. Lastly, the rate of economic growth is no longer able to keep up with growing material expectations, with the latter stimulated by a culture that places a premium on consumption. It is no exaggeration to state that a sense of historical anxiety, perhaps even of pessimism, is becoming palpable in the more articulate sectors of Western society.[9]






After decades of increasingly decadent, demoralizing, and dehumanizing entertainment, the deliberate dumbing down of each generation, and the intentional destruction of cohesive social and cultural structures, average Americans undoubtedly lack the ability to engage in undertakings that require intellectual commitment or group cohesion that reaches across racial, social, gender, or other divisions.






The growing egocentric nature of American culture renders most people entirely incapable of the empathy needed to interact with others in a positive and productive manner. In addition, this type of culture negates the value of self-sacrifice required for the undertaking of a project for the common good, particularly if that project requires long-term planning and effort with the ultimate effects that may not be witnessed in the worker’s lifetime.








While the lack of motivation to fight foreign wars on the behalf of the ruling class is something that should be encouraged and nurtured, the lack of motivation and desire to engage in any activity outside of oneself or the immediate benefits of such activity spells the death of any culture in short order. Such a culture breeds ignorance, apathy, lack of empathy, and cruelty as well as the destruction of the potential for human progress. The latter, however, is of no real consequence to the ruling class.







Brzezinski also points out the pervasiveness of drugs in a culture that is already obsessed with immediate gratification and escapism. 






Compounded with the absurd “War on Drugs” which violates the rights of all Americans in immeasurable ways, the persistent spread of drug abuse continues to the point of rendering a significant portion of the American populace unemployable and entirely disconnected from the plight of the nation as a whole or simply incapable of taking effective action to change their own miserable situation.





A culture of hedonism coupled with an economic depression and an entrenched police state has undoubtedly produced what Brzezinski deems a “sense of historical anxiety” and “pessimism” is the order of the day, at least among “the more articulate sectors of Western society.”[10]






Brzezinski writes that this pessimism or “lack of confidence” “has been intensified by widespread disappointment with the consequences of the end of the Cold War.”[11]






“Instead of a ‘new world order’ based on consensus and harmony,” he writes, “’things which have seemed to belong to the past’ have all of a sudden become the future.”[12]





Brzezinski’s “things which have seemed to belong to the past” is a reference to the writings of historian Hans Kohn, who defined those “things which have seemed to belong to the past” as “fanatical faith, infallible leaders, slavery and massacres, the uprooting of whole populations, ruthlessness and barbarism.”[13]





Brzezinski’s answer, of course, is to provide fleeting optimism to the American people in order to keep the empirical ship of state temporarily sailing.[14]






Keep in mind, however, that Brzezinski’s analysis does not provide for an indefinite American empire. The United States will lose its empire as well as what little internal wealth it has left.





Thus, whatever optimism is provided to the public, rest assured it will be false and temporary.







Notes:



[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Progressive Press. June. 2008.http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Postmodern-Making-Manchurian-Candidate/dp/0930852885/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215453402&sr=8-2



[2] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 40-41



[3] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 211.


[4] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 209-210.



[5] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 211.





[6] “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Hermann.Goering.Quote.65D2 and http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp








[7] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 213.




[8] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 213.



[9] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 211-212.



[10] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 212.



[11] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 213.



[12] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 213.



[13] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 212.




[14] Brzezinski, Zbigniew.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 213.







Recently from Brandon Turbeville:







Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria



Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. 



Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. 



Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
More from Activistpost










http://consciouslifenews.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-decline-american-empire/1174839/


Popular posts from this blog

THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER MANGOES IN THE WORLD ....

While "Flavor" is very subjective, and each country that grows mangoes is very nationalistic, these are the mango varieties that are the most sought after around the world because of sweetnesss (Brix) and demand.

The Chaunsa has a Brix rating in the 22 degree level which is unheard of!
Carabao claims to be the sweetest mango in the world and was able to register this in the Guiness book of world records.
Perhaps it is time for a GLOBAL taste test ???





In alphabetical order by Country....










India




Alphonso





Alphonso (mango)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Alphonso (हापुस Haapoos in Marathi, હાફુસ in Gujarati, ಆಪೂಸ್ Aapoos in Kannada) is a mango cultivar that is considered by many[who?] to be one of the best in terms of sweetness, richness and flavor. 


It has considerable shelf life of a week after it is ripe making it exportable. 

It is also one of the most expensive kinds of mango and is grown mainly in Kokan region of western India.

 It is in season April through May and the fruit wei…

INDIA 2016 : Mango production in state likely to take a hit this year

TNN | May 22, 2016, 12.32 PM IST






Mangaluru: Vagaries of nature is expected to take a toll on the production of King of Fruits - Mango - in Karnataka this year. A combination of failure of pre-monsoon showers at the flowering and growth stage and spike in temperature in mango growing belt of the state is expected to limit the total production of mango to an estimated 12 lakh tonnes in the current season as against 14 lakh tonnes in the last calendar year.



However, the good news for fruit lovers is that this could see price of mangoes across varieties decrease marginally by 2-3%. This is mainly on account of 'import' of the fruit from other mango-growing states in India, said M Kamalakshi Rajanna, chairperson, Karnataka State Mango Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd.




Karnataka is the third largest mango-growing state in India after Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.



Inaugurating a two-day Vasanthotsava organized by Shivarama Karantha Pilikula Nisargadhama and the Corporation at P…

MEET MELANIA TRUMP: The 5'11" supermodel married to Donald Trump

Aly Weisman, INSIDER

Sep. 2, 2015, 3:28 PM 











Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images







While Donald Trump loves to be the center of media attention, his third and current wife, Melania Trump, is a bit more camera shy.










The Slovenian-born model keeps a lower profile than her husband, doing philanthropy work, raising their son, working on a jewelry collection with QVC, and creating a $150-an-ounce caviar moisturizer.




With Trump on the campaign trail, Melania has stoically stood by his side.




But who exactly is Melania and where did she come from? Learn about Trump's other half here ...





Melania Knauss was born April 26, 1970, in Slovenia.




Wikimedia/Getty







The 5'11" brunette began her modeling career at 16, and signed with a modeling agency in Milan at 18.



Chris Hondros/Newsmakers via Getty









She took a break from modeling to get her degree in design and architecture at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.








Wikimedia/Getty

Source: MelaniaTrump.com









But after graduating, her modeling career took off and Me…