[hydrogonian]

(04-21-2016 11:40 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

The events which are now taking place, which NASA Test Pilot has continually alluded to, have been planned for some time. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter, and organizer of the Trilateral Commission wrote in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997):

I have carefully read through all of NTP's posts. The prevailing question for me, after doing so, is the identity of the powers at war.

For instance, there is no collective interest known as "America" in my observation that extends through the ranks of the populace. "America" is merely a geographically located amalgamation of differing interests.

"America" is an abstraction and a weak one at that. The "American people" (increasingly a contradiction in terms) largely cannot identify their interests in the actions of "America" both at home and abroad.

I can observe China's identity and interests at home and abroad. I can observe Israel's identity and interests at home and abroad. And that's about where it ends.

Why are China and Israel driven toward a more politically effective national cohesiveness, while other nations are split apart? Other nations, other than the aforementioned two, which assert national identity are categorized as evil in propaganda.

I would offer that unless such a national identity is aggressively asserted, as we see with Israel and China, that it does not exist and there are truer entities to be identified under the guise of the national moniker.

I propose that the actual "nation", or the people, in such a politically disconnected country is a population present mostly for economic purposes but to be ignored, used, sacrificed, etc. for political purposes.

In short, they (ie: the American People) are not a politically active nation, on the global level, and should not be viewed as such in the context of an attempt to define geopolitics on the world stage.

At best, they are a local nation, or collection of nations, whose global political interests are ignored by those who claim to represent them.

Quote:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival – would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p.30)

America's political identity is required.

Quote:

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p.40)

Here we have an admission that geopolitics is a competition between nebulous "elites".

I have three observations:

1. That Brzezinski is implying, whether purposefully or not, a political disconnection between the goals of (inter)national elites in Europe and the popular interests of European nation(s) as a whole.

2. That Brzezinski fails to note a specific group identity for these "elites", even though it defies logic to think that he could not.

3. That this is a geopolitical strategy book published by a large publisher and, thus, that his offered perspective may not be the entire picture. It overuses an appeal to American national identity, that is largely nonexistent, while identifying (implied nationalist) European "elites". I would assume that both perspectives, especially in the context of one another, are askew from reality.

Quote:

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

Identity. Convince me that American elites care about the well-being of Somali refugees in terms of how much they are represented by a "global power".

Quote:

[Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict – describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124)

I'd be impressed if anyone, even China, could wrest them away from Russian influence and protection given the terrain.

Quote:

What Brzezinski is describing (in 1997, nearly a decade ago) is the goal of achieving a world governed by a single global power. Independent sovereign actors such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China, are described as "barbaric" or "anarchaic" because they are not currently subject to direct centralized control. It's also appropriate to note that the Trilateral Comission which Brzezinski helped organize is an international organization which encourages globalism and is not subject to any national laws.

So, what is Brzezinski's group's identity? "American"? I don't think so for the reasons described and because that identity forgoes internationalism by definition. Banker? industrialist? homosexual? Jew? Catholic? (along with 100 million Filipinos, right ) Royalty? White?

Someone's interest is being served in this world government utopic vision. If it is a competition of interests for such control, then those interests need to be specifically identified.

I have a suspicion that the competing interests are not all that far apart, and may instead only be engaging in a certain amount of theater to eliminate resistance to a world government on the popular level, in some countries, rather than between most major players. That's not to say that nations like Iran aren't legitimate resistance. I'd also suspect some nation(s) to survive both as strong and unified.

This conversation has likely reached its limit in how much space it should take up in this thread. I invite NST, or anyone else, to pm me if he or they would rather discuss my questions there rather than to take up any more room; unless he or anyone else wants to continue here.