48 Following


Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era - Zbigniew K. Brzezinski About the author- Zbigniew Brzezinski was born to a Polish "noble" family in 1928. His father was a Polish diplomat, first to the Soviet Union, and then to Canada, where the family resided throughout World War II. As an adult, he studied and taught political science at Harvard and Colombia universities, and has been political advisor to John F Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Brzezinski is a consistent advocate of supranational government, which perforce requires a surrender of American sovereignty. To these ends, Brzezinski has been a member of the Builderberger Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and in 1973 he co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller. AN OPEN LETTER TO ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI============================================Dear Dr. Brzezinski,Hey, I just finished your book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technitronic Era. It was okay, I guess, but kind of roundabout in getting to the point, don’t you think? A lot of it was kind of like "Lalalalala…. the Soviet Union is changing… lalalalalalala… America is changing… lalalalalalala…. technology is changing…. lalalalalala… things won’t always be the same as they are now… " You have to admit: it was all a bit on the vague side. To give you your due, you did say the Soviet Union might disintegrate one day, which it did; and you said China was so big and insular that it might turn Communism into something more homegrown, which Marx and Lenin wouldn’t recognize. That seems to be more or less true, unless Marx & Lenin would merely recognize present-day China as capitalist. Congratulations on predicting the internet, which you called the "global information grid" (page 299); nice job!Aaaaaanywayyyyyy, from the title of your book, I get that you thought America in 1970 was between two Ages: the Industrial Age, and what you called the "Technitronic Age". By the way, it’s too bad your neologism "technitronic" never caught on; it has a cool Jetsons© vibe to it, but maybe it was too daring to be taken seriously. Your "Technitronic Age" is more or less what we call the Information Age today, and you were right about a lot of it: how global communication facilitates more grass-roots responses to the challenges we all face, and thus tends to turn what used to be more conventionally political problems into more like social issues (environmentalism is a good example). You had some interesting things to say about education, and America’s recent (in 1970) political history too, but that was all off-topic, wasn't it? I ask because as I read, I kept getting the feeling that you weren’t being completely above-board about what this book was really about, and what it was for. For example: what’s up with the stylized little "eye-in-the-pyramid" graphics you have at the beginning of each chapter? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit out-of-place, in an ostensibly academic work about the impact of technology on politics? And what about some of the people you reference in the appendix? Eugenicist cheerleader Julian Huxley? Have you read any of his Galton Lectures? It‘s like straight out of the Third Reich. And Bertrand Russell?! You don’t agree with him that the home is a destructive influence on children, and the State should raise children with an intensive program of propaganda conditioning, do you? I’m not trying to declare guilt by association here, but you reference them, so are these the other fish in your school? It seems like you drop a lot of little hints that this isn’t just a book about technology. I think your real thesis is on page 256, when you say "Studies of the future, organized on a large scale (both by special academic commissions and by well-endowed private institutes), indicate mounting national recognition that the future can and must be planned, that unless there is a modicum of choice, change will result in chaos." That’s what all the technitronics is for, right? Don’t get me wrong, planning in and of itself is fine; I just get a little worried that your idea of planning involves a rigid top-down autocracy from an oligarchy of unelected Elites.Of course you could never just boldly say such a thing outright, so a lot of the things you predict are couched in aloof, distant, hypothetical terms. Nonetheless, if some aloof, distant, hypothetical would-be oligarch (say, your friend David Rockefeller?) wanted a top-down autocracy, he’d certainly get a lot of interesting ideas from this book, wouldn’t he? Like on page 81, where you breezily opine: "[T]here is always the likelihood that the ruling elite can at least temporarily succeed in compartmentalizing the scientific community, in extracting its talents, and in corrupting it with a system of rewards- all the while reserving to itself the definition of the larger objectives." Not that you would want such a thing, I’m sure; you’re just putting it out there that it could happen, right? Same with page 15, where you quote somebody else saying "I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain." The context surrounding this quotation makes it unclear whether you personally regard this as a good thing. Same with page 16, where you start talking about how technology will "give rise to difficult problems in determining the legitimate scope of social control." Sounds vague. I suppose there could be problems determining the legitimate scope of social control… do you mean like maybe all those surveillance cameras going up in the public square? At least you clarify: "The possibility of extensive chemical mind control, the danger of loss of individuality inherent in extensive transplantation, the feasibility of manipulating the genetic structure will call for the social definition of common criteria and use of restraint." Damn! You think "extensive chemical mind control" is a gray area in "determining the legitimate scope of social control"!!?! At least you threw in that part about restraint at the end! How about on page 253? That's some heavy stuff, when you "warn" your readers how, "a more directed society" "would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillence and control. Are you starting to see pattern, Dr. Brzezinski? Do you see why I might be worried when you quote (this time) Teilhard de Chardin, saying "Monstrous as it is, is not modern totalitarianism really the distortion of something magnificent, and thus quite near the truth?" What should readers make of page 59, where you warn "The creation of the global information grid, facilitating almost continuous intellectual interaction and the pooling of knowledge, will further enhance the present trend toward international professional elites and toward the emergence of a common scientific language (in effect, the functional equivalent of Latin). This however, could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically-activated masses, whose "nativism" -exploited by more nationalist political leaders- could work against cosmopolitan elites." ? You don’t think nations should be led by people who have their local best interest in mind? Rural folk who aren’t part of the oligarchy maybe shouldn’t have access to all the benefits of the internet? In light of all this, do you see how I might take other, more innocent things you say the wrong way? Why do you call for a new constitutional convention on page 258? What about our constitution would you like to change, and why? Why do you use East Germany’s use of cybernetics and computers for social control as a good example of "technological adaptation"? I mean, I get how it is technological adaptation, but in the rest of what you’re saying, adaptation to new technologies is presented as a good thing. Do you think East German methods of social control are a good thing, or were you throwing in a bad example, to show how technology can go either way? Re-reading this page, it seems like you could have meant it either way.Then there’s the issue of your use of the coded phrase "order out of chaos" on page 65. In the text, you’re talking in broad sweeping terms about how mankind has built elaborate social and technological systems, and you say man has created "order out of chaos". It’s harmless enough on the face of it; the phrase evokes most creation myths, but you know that’s a buzzword (phrase) among Masons and other secret societies, too, right? They like to talk about "order out of chaos" . It sounds nice and innocent, like if you were walking around one day, and you found a spot of chaos- maybe some lawn furniture scattered around somebody’s yard, and then you brought order to it by arranging the furniture neatly. But the truth is that the phrase means something different. It means creating chaos in a place where you wish to impose your own brand of order. A good example is the PATRIOT ACT. In the old order of things, freedom-loving Americans never would have accepted that law, but after the chaos of 9/11, it could be introduced as the new order. Naomi Klein writes about the same thing in Shock Doctrine, and presumably it’s what Rahm Emanuel meant when he said "You never want a good crisis to go to waste." This has the same underlying principle as the Hegelian Dialectic… but then, I’m sure you knew that, didn’t you? In the last ten pages or so, you gush on about how wonderful it would be if some technologically savvy, culturally sophisticated, politically-connected, and financially adept tripartite organization could be created to represent the political and financial interests of America, Europe, and Japan for the purposes of collaborative discussions and planning. It sounds very harmless, utopian even. But looking back from 2012, it’s clear you were describing the Trilateral Commission, which you co-founded with David Rockefeller in 1973, three years after this book was published. Whether by intent or not, the Trilateral Commission has gone the way of many utopias, hasn’t it? Instead of bringing a more enlightened perspective to world leaders, it’s been an unelected think-tank of megalomaniacal insiders bent on establishing a world rule by collectivist oligarchs. [Ref 1], [Ref 2], [Ref 3]I don’t really expect you to really read this letter, Dr. Brzezinski, and I certainly don’t expect you to respond, but if you somehow do read this, let me be clear about my purpose in writing it. It’s this last part right here: your side is not going to win. 9/11 was an overreach in the globalist’ "Order out of Chaos" strategy, and the 9/11 Truth movement is growing. The mainstream media your cronies have controlled for decades no longer holds a monopoly on information and commentary on current events. As you predicted, the internet is a powerful tool for grassroots political organization, and efforts to censor it have met with spectacular opposition. Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Builderburg Group, and others are being scrutinized, and the public is waking up to the oligarchical intent behind their decades-long drive for world government and a world currency. Now in the December of your years, you may not care about avoiding prosecution for crimes against humanity, but perhaps you do. Or perhaps you care about your legacy. Regardless, you -and many others in a similar position- have a choice: you can continue aiding and abetting maniacal would-be dictators like David Rockefeller, or you can turn on them and join the winning side. You can expose the history of their false-flag operations, and their currency manipulations, and help pave the a way for an open, fair, democratic, meritocratic, freedom-loving technitronic era, or you can go down with your co-conspirators in infamy, as universally-reviled criminals. When they are brought to justice, their trials will make Nurenberg look piddling. No doubt many of your cronies are contemplating the same options. Good Luck; I hope you choose well!Sincerely, -BirdBrian