Yesterday I finished THE ROAD TO 9/11, put it in the FINISHED pile and reached for the top book in the TO READ pile. It turned out to be THE CHOICE by Zbigniew Brzezinski. I knew the name, of course, and that he had been a National Security Advisor, belonged to the Bilderberger Group, and was the founder of the Trilateral Commission. I didn't know his political positions in detail, but did realize that his positions and mine were more than worlds apart. The fact his name is associated with The New World Order condemns him all by itself. While thumbing through the book to see what I was in for, I ran across a list of issues that he considered vital to America's future. I hatched the idea that it would be interesting to explain my positions on each item before reading the book, so that I could get a good picture of the match between his outlook and my own.
While anybody reading this knows in at least general terms what Brzezinski stands for, they do not know what I stand for. Therefore, a brief description of my background and political-ideological orientation should help the reader "position" my arguments.
For my undergraduate degree I majored in wood science in forestry school (wood anatomy, wood physics, wood chemistry, wood drying and treating, etc., a pretty demanding program) and also financial management. I received my MBA from a very unusual program which was heavily geared toward preparing electrical engineers at Western Electric, at that time the manufacturing arm of AT&T, for advancement to junior management positions. It differed from traditional MBA programs in that its goal was to provide students with information they could actually USE on the job, and I profited from it immensely. I also have 66% of a Masters degree in History. After several years in wood industry management and five years as a general contractor in the Napa Valley in California, I entered the marketing program as a PhD. Student at Arizona State University.
For the last twenty five years I have taught marketing strategy from a geopolitical perspective because marketing has become heavily involved with what's happing all over the world. My views of the world are nearly antithetical to those of Brzezinski. For example, I believe that the New World Order is a nightmarish product of a social and intellectual elite that has never "worked" for a living. I am a libertarian in both the Big L and Little L sense, meaning I am a member of the Libertarian Party as well as possessing an instinctive belief in freedom and choice for everyone. Some would call me an Anarcho-Libertarian because I believe that we should have the most minimal government involvement possible in our lives. I served on the outposts of the New World Order in the early sixties, and firmly believe that the very concept of a New World Order is completely impossible. We should keep our troops at home and let the rest of the world kill itself off without bothering us. So, what follows are my own views on the questions raised by Brzezinski, without reference to his views.
1. What are the main threats to America?
One threat facing America involves the New World Order and its attempts to subvert our legitimate government and put it under the governance of agents of the Bilderbergers or the Trilateral Commission. Several people in our government or those in the past are connected with the Bilderbergers. It seems highly likely that Barak Obama was assisted into the presidency by Bilderbergers or associates. We appear to have been deliberately driven to near bankruptcy by Bush's policies which Obama has continued but at an even more ruinous level of spending. Some Web articles state that we are right at the verge of default, which Obama seems to have been working for. Now that the presidential eligibility issue is active in the courts, Obama may become more desperate and make more overt moves to cripple us before his time runs out. I am far from confident that Obama would go to extreme measures to protect us from terrorism. He seems prone to making huge concessions to Islam.
Another threat, which according to past experience is nearly as damaging as the Bilderbergers is Islamic terrorism. Although I don't believe that Muslims were behind the Trade Center destruction, it appears that they are carrying on a constant stream of relatively minor attacks such as bombing attempts on airliners. It appears that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons and its desire to use them against the U.S. is clear. Until just lately it seemed that there would be no attempt to disrupt Iran's plans, but in the last few days it is seems that there is some sort of international effort under way against Iran, but the details are not yet clear.
Islam also poses a threat from another direction. There appears to be a major effort to build up the Muslim populations in selected countries, staying dormant until they reach a tipping point when they will go active. That's happened in several European countries and could happen here.
Obama's show of weakness has also enticed allies to act against our best interests. An alliance between Brazil and Turkey seems close to fruition if it has not already occurred.
Although our industrial might has been literally ripped out of the country, nobody from any political faction seems to have even made plans to stop this process or build new industries that we can maintain. The next presidential election is more than two years out but no one with any substantial political power has shown signs of preparing for such a move. Newt Gingrich has made vague musings about a run, and has revived his presence somewhat with the publication of a recent book, but there is no one showing signs of a serious run. Mitt Romney shows signs of interest, but I understand that he is a Mormon and therefore stands little chance of winning a national election. Everyone assumes Obama will seek a second term but judging by his aggressive actions on his agenda and the possibility of an adverse ruling on his eligibility to serve as President, I suspect that he knows a second term is unlikely, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he intends to do all the damage he can and step aside. In that case, Hillary Clinton would seem to be a shoo-in.
Another threat is the immigration bomb. All the top people seem to assume that whites will be a minority in another decade or two. The real danger is not the addition to the population itself but the makeup of the increase. Mexicans and other Latin Americans will almost certainly dominate immigration by far, but it's not clear that they have those qualities needed to maintain and build a leading economy. I've written a paper that we should seriously consider bringing in Chinese, but this idea will probably not gain any traction.
2. Given its hegemonic status, is America entitled to more security than other nations?
A country is entitled to all the security it can afford and the willingness to spend
its financial resources. Security is not an entitlement so it's not a question of whether it is entitled to more security, but to what lengths it is willing to go to protect itself. A key security measure would involve bringing our entire military forces home instead of spreading them all over the world. When countries we spend billions on for protection begin building their own military facilities abroad to serve their own purposes, such as is the case with Japan building a base in North Africa, there is no justification to spend scarce financial resources protecting them. It has been made quite clear by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, that nation building is a no win undertaking for us. People need to be willing to do and spend what it takes to protect them. If the protection they need is beyond their reach, it is not our responsibility to provide it for them. They need to develop the alliances and mutual protection agreements necessary to protect themselves, or come to terms with a possible invader, not rely on us for their protection. We have worked hard and invested billions in our own defense. We are entitled to the protection are willing and able to pay for.
3. How should America cope with potentially lethal threats that emanate not from powerful rivals but from weak foes?
We should try to convert them from foes to at least neutrals. If this is not possible, we should target them with nuclear weapons and inform them of that fact. We should also deploy other damaging but not-lethal weapons, such as biological, chemical, or fuel-air bombs. I understand that there are at present approximately twenty five nuclear capable countries. Obama's wish to eliminate all nuclear weapons is a dangerous fantasy, these countries did not sacrifice to create these forces just to destroy them. A no first strike policy is unrealistic today. Rather than sending our citizens abroad to fight conventional wars that kill many and disable more, we should make it clear that as a last resort nuclear weapons are no longer off the table. Maintaining our President's intention to reduce nuclear weapons and his unwillingness to employ them only creates the opportunity for weak foes to nibble at our assets around the world as long as they maintain their aggression below the level that would provoke a response on our part.
We need to show the world, especially Islam, that we are no longer going to be bled to death. Today, the term "weak foes" essentially means Islamic countries. What weak non-Islamic countries threaten us? Islam is not a rational religion by our standards nor is there a rational Islamic country. The only thing that will deter them is the threat of overwhelming response to aggression, and there is no sense in risking our citizens' lives to limit their actions. If anyone attacks our citizens here or abroad, or our facilities, they should look up to see that incoming streak in the sky. We have to accept that SOMEONE, sooner or later, IS going to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Nuclear disarmament is not a realistic goal. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in order to destroy them, and there is no force on Earth that could convince the Israelis to give up their nuclear weapons. We need to convince the rest of the world that we will not be a passive target. It might be possible with today's technology to use fuel-air bombs, or non-lethal chemical or biological weapons without resorting to nuclear weapons.
4. Can America manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world, many of whose 1.2 billion people increasingly view America as implacably hostile?
NO. We have markedly different world views that neither we nor Muslims are going to change to any great extent. Psychologically, we live in different worlds, and we are not going to adapt too much to please them, and they are probably not going to adapt at all. In the past, the majority of immigrants to this country were European, and in a broad sense, were able and willing to adapt enough to live here with a minimum of violence. The same thing used to apply to Mexicans. While some, mostly elders, chose to cling to their own language and customs, by and large Mexicans fit in enough that discord, and especially physical hostilities remained at a minimum. Today, however, there is increasing hostility between two peoples that had lived together mostly harmoniously for several generations. Mexicans are taught by several nationalistic organizations and even by the Mexican government that they "own" western America and want it back. They not only don't attempt to acculturate, but intentionally abuse our social systems. They contribute considerably to our health care costs, consume public services and welfare payments, damage entire neighborhoods, drive without licenses or insurance, and vote illegally. Illegals are actually taken by busses from precinct to precinct by "community activists" to cast illegal ballots.
Geert Hofstede has developed a long accepted method of analyzing different cultures. The closer in culture people are, the more likely they are to get along. Conversely, the more different they are, the more likely they are to experience conflict. The latest statistics I've seen are about ten years old, but I think the conclusions still hold. Of the approximately fifty wars that rage constantly around the world at any one time, almost all of them are within countries between people of different cultures. From my own studies, it appears that as a rough rule of thumb, peace will tend to exist when one culture dominates all others. A very rude approximation seems to indicate that as long as a country remains roughly seventy percent of one culture, peace prevails even if uneasy. When there is no clearly dominant culture, conflict and war almost inevitably follow.
France and England provide good examples. When France consisted mostly of Frenchmen (what a quaint notion), Algerian Muslim residents caused almost no problems. As the balance of cultures changed, latent conflict increased. I don't know the exact percentages of each culture, but within the last ten years or so Muslims achieved near parity with native Frenchmen and started demanding more and more accommodations. They wanted restrictions on women's dress relaxed or increased. They demanded that schools adapt to Islamic standards, including teaching religion in public schools and adapt to Arab speaking youths. I don't know if Muslims have actually reached parity with the French, but articles on European web sites state that the French have lost control of their country to Muslims. They have allowed Muslims to choose to follow Sharia law, which seems incredibly strict toward women. So now citizens of France live under two different legal systems that are not very compatible.
England is obviously worried about the same trend there, but seems a little more determined to maintain its own dominance. While Muslims have adopted such tactics as creating huge traffic jams at rush hour, so far the English have refused to have a dual justice system. Reportedly, many English people recognized that the country needed more workers, but doubt that they made a good choice in turning to Muslims. Interestingly, England's population replacement rate is noticeably lower than ours.
To refocus on the question, I don't believe that we can maintain peaceful relations with a society that encourages suicide bombers, honors Islamic hijackers of all types, totally refuses to recognize the legitimacy of other religions, puts women to death for actions that we in the West consider normal, bury alive teenage daughters who have had sex, and whose leaders have repeatedly stated that they are going to rule the entire world according to Islamic law.
5. Can America act decisively to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the overlapping but legitimate claims of two peoples to the same land?
No, it is not going to happen. As explained above, Muslims do not believe that it is correct to tolerate other religions. Beyond the restrictions of the question, Muslims are never going to rest while there is a Jew alive in the world. Some Islamic leaders say that it is possible and desirable to share land with the Jews, but they are being less than forthright. I have several videos of important Islamic religious leaders yelling at huge crowds that Islam cannot rest while a single Jew remains alive. They are VERY convincing.
6. What is needed to create political stability in the volatile new "Global Balkans" located in the southern rim of Central Eurasia?
Aside from sorting out the various ethnic and religious groups and somehow keeping them apart, there is no chance of maintaining political stability in the area. And such a sorting process is extremely unlikely to occur.
7. Can America forge a genuine partnership with Europe, given Europe's slow progress to political unity but increasing economic might?
This question was asked six years ago when the phrase "Europe's increasing economic might" was not a joke. Again, we are talking about unifying people of very different cultures. Given my background in history and culture, I think it is irresponsible to claim that achieving a useful measure of unity in such a diverse group is even possible. Let's look at what they are trying to do. To start with an example, they want to accomplish a meaningful unity between Germany and Greece. Can we possibly imagine a greater clash of cultures and the "mental world" each country lives in? Germany is disciplined, Greece is not. Germany takes life seriously, Greece does not. Germany sees economic solvency as a fundamental and mandatory ingredient of nationhood, Greece has no idea what that means. Germany believes that sound and cross generational financial, economic, cultural, political, scientific and philosophic institutions are what really make a country. Greece says "Hunh?' Germany lost two world wars but was not "defeated." England won both wars but was "defeated."
And just what, exactly, do we mean by "economic might?" Do we mean Gross Domestic Product? Well, some are much bigger than others, so that won't do. Do we mean Gross Domestic Product per capita? I'm no economist, don't believe in them, actually, but this sounds reasonable. So when we say "Europe's increasing economic might," do we mean that all of the countries have the same Gross Domestic Product per capita? Uh, well, probably not. What I suspect it means is that a handful are doing pretty well, while all the rest are nealyr basket cases. What I expect we can honestly say is that Germany, and two or three others, are doing well, but most are not. What I think is, just like "the Emperor has no clothes," "there really is no "Europe." What I strongly suspect is the reality of the case of "Europe," is that you have Germany, Country B, Country C, and maybe Country D.
So the real question is, "Can we forge a genuine partnership with Germany?" I read somewhere that Germany and Russia are getting closer together. That probably makes sense for Germany, and definitely makes sense for Russia. But does this mean that we can't forge a genuine partnership with Germany? Or, to really think outside the box, could we include Russia? Do the United States and Russia HAVE to be at each other's throats? When I was just a kid, probably not even in school yet, Germany and Russia lost MILLIONS of men fighting each other over one city. Now the word is that they are working together. If THEY can do that, why can't we?
So, my answer to the question is no, because there is no "Europe." I spent all four years of high school in a Department of Defense high school in Frankfurt, Germany. I never learned German because I couldn't cough, choke, and gurgle all at the same time, but I met lots of Germans and even worked with them in the Post Exchange. They are GOOD people. Even the working class. We worked with them all through the Cold War. I see no hope of working with "Europe," but we could definitely work with the Germans if they wanted to. And the Russians? The Russians will always make us nervous because they MUST secure their borders, having no natural boundaries. But I don't think they want to conquer the world anymore, if they ever did. Sure we could work together as a Group of Three. But forget "Europe." There isn't one.
8. Can Russia, no longer a rival to America, be drawn into an American-led Atlantic framework?
Sure, but I don't think we should join in. The Bildergergers, the Trilateralists, and the CFRs all want that, but what's in it for us? Old wisdom is often very good wisdom. Either Washington, Jefferson, or Sam Jones said, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot that when Wilson wanted into World War I, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of American troops, Wilson suckered us into the war anyway. Did the sacrifice that resulted accomplish anything? Not for us.
We forgot that lesson when Roosevelt tricked us into World War II, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of Americans. Did their sacrifice accomplish anything? Nothing worth their death. But the Japanese ATTACKED us! Not until Roosevelt duped them into it. FDR really wanted to fight the Germans to help the British, but the country wasn't buying it. But Germany and Japan were allies, so if one got into a war with us, the other would declare war on us, too. So Roosevelt cut off Japan's oil. The only other place to get it was way down in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. But Bull Halsey and his aircraft carriers stood in the way. So Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to sink the carriers, but they weren't there. But we were now at war with Japan so Hitler declared war on us, and Roosevelt was tickled pink. But one of my uncles was killed in the Pacific, and I'll NEVER believe it was for a good cause.
Let's get real for a minute. Unless we are attacked again, which is very unlikely, there is no reason for us to be in an Atlantic alliance framework. Europeans have been killing Europeans ever since there were Europeans, and chances are good that they will again. (They also killed a LOT of non-Europeans, but that doesn't count). But it is not our business. We don't need to be in a military alliance with anyone except probably the Canadians. They're good guys. All we would get out of an Atlantic Alliance Framework are dead Americans, and we don't need any more of those. Let the Europeans play the Bilderberger's game while we practice the excellent advice, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot this advice before. Let's promise ourselves "Never Again." Let someone else's kids die for David Rockefeller, and Kissinger, and Brzezinski, and all those other self-important One World Order Jokers. They're so sick they think our government works for them! I can hear it now: "But that's ISOLATIONISM!" You're damned right it is, and it's a damned good thing. If our kids have to fight someone, let it be the IRS.
9. What should be the American role in the Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant dependence on the United States, as well as its quietly growing military might, and also given the rise of Chinese power?
America's role in the Far-East should be the same as our role in Europe, discussed in detail above. The short version: Be good trading partners.
10. How likely is it that globalization might breed a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against America?
Extremely likely, which is why we should stay out of "entangling alliances.
11. Are demography and migration becoming the new threats to global stability?
Not necessarily, but the people of some cultures will fit into ours better than those from a different culture. Political correctness aside, we should pursue people from the most compatible cultures. We should have the wisdom to say who we want here and who we don't, and not just accept anyone who manages to get into the country. Concerning cultural compatibility, review the discussion about Germany and Greece in question 7.
12. How should America respond to the emerging inequality in human affairs, which the current scientific revolution may precipitate and which globalization may precipitate?
If you look at any country there is inequality, including the US. But traditionally those with lots of money invested much of it here, which made most of us reasonably well off. In addition, governments and a lot of private organizations made a huge investment in schools, hospitals, physical infrastructure and invisible infrastructure (think radio). Lately, the extremely rich seem to think its better to invest abroad, which could lead to one of two states: (1) We could learn to adapt and accept a lower standard of living. (2) We could hang them and take all their money. After all, greed is a sin. (I assume my preference is obvious)
In many countries, however, such as India, there is a very tiny super-wealthy class that couldn't care less about the less fortunate. They plow very little of their money back into their country, so much of the population lives in extreme poverty and hunger, with huge child death rates. Persistent conditions like this usually end up in an extremely violent revolt against the wealthy. But the extremely wealthy, if they are in the country at all, keep their Lear Jets ready, and almost none of their wealth is in the country, so they leave little behind for the enraged poor to plunder. The end result of such an uprising is always the same as acceptance of the status quo: starvation, illness, and early death.
How should America respond? Our professional politicians are seldom wise in difficult disciplines like economics, and can be very harsh on business through regulation, taxes, bureaucratic harassment, and a very anti-business attitude.
Conversely, the present administration can't seem to shovel enough money to huge banks and corporations. Hopefully, a tiny bit of this will actually stimulate the economy, and rich economies tend to reduce inequality. Mainly, however, we should keep our requirements for immigration high so we don't become more of a dumping ground for the world's hopeless.
13. Is America's democracy compatible with a hegemonic role, however carefully that hegemony may be camouflaged? How will the security of that special role affect traditional civil rights?
"Hegemonic Role" means someone's kids dieing in some God Forsaken pest hole to save the money and property of the psychopathic rich. This usually means meddling in someone else's country, and leads to "blowback." This is Chalmers Johnson's term which basically means people don't like foreigners meddling in their affairs and they react to such intrusion violently.
As for how our "traditional civil rights" would be affected, Zbigniew obviously meant this as jest. Writing in 2006, he certainly knew that his class had already destroyed them very quickly after 9/11 with the Patriot Acts, the Military commissions act, Presidential Orders, FEMA's construction of concentration camps for citizens, and many other violations of the "Constitution Of Historic Interest Only."
For more information on the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council of Foreign Relations, see The True Story of the Bilderbergers Group by Daniel Estulin.
Roger McIntyre, PhD., is a senior marketing professor at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina