---

February 28, 2021: updated commentary: Notes on Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski: PDF, EPUB/PDF/HTML

---

Commentary on Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski
(From Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970, Viking Press, New York)

Series Contents
Continued from Part 12

The Soviet Union
Brzezinski predicts the “early 1980s” for when the Soviet leadership would be fully “post-Stalin” (173). He said they would need to reduce the party’s control over ideas and allow each Soviet citizen to read whatever he wants (174). This reminds me of Gorbachev’s later Glasnost or “openness” policy.

He discussed the circumstances in which it could be possible for the Soviet Union to rejoin “the Western Marxist tradition” (175). Note that he didn’t say they would become constitutionalists and celebrate property rights and freedom. The point is they would join with the other types of Marxists in the West (who have positions of power but they don’t tell anyone they’re “Marxists”).

He wrote in 1970 that it is certain that Eastern Europeans would move closer to Western Europe despite the pull from the Soviet Union (301). Brzezinski complains that the building of international cooperation “is getting little help from the Soviet Union…” (283).
He expected the Soviets would have to cooperate internationally or suffer economically (303).

Bolshevik vs. French Revolution
He compares the Bolshevik Revolution to the French Revolution, claiming that the Bolsheviks caused more fundamental changes. They were a “professional, ideological, and disciplined party” that “ripped apart and rewove the entire social fabric”, causing an extensive “industrial and urban revolution”(fn. 175).

Czechoslovakia
He claims that if the Soviets had let Czechoslovakia develop a more democratic form of communism, Western communists would have copied it and would have become more appealing to Western electorates. He says this version of communism would have worked at harnessing the “technetronic challenge” “humanistically” (180). I guess that means the friendly version of technetronics! But I think many people look at Western forms of socialism through rose-colored glasses.

More on Communism
He did not think that only communism was the “key to effective modernization” (190). Throughout the book, communism is portrayed as a tool of rapid modernization. Tool for what and for whom? For “history”? For “evolution” or “progress”? What’s the rush if it’s all inevitable “progress”? Did the Bolsheviks act alone without backing? It’s clear to me that communism was a tool of the Western banking elites, based on Antony C. Sutton’s research – for example, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and based on the findings of the Reece Committee and Norman Dodd on the activities of the big foundations.

But it’s also clear that other ideologies and other methods are used to achieve “modernization” globally – e.g. the United States and other Western governments use war, unlimited CIA growth (see Fletcher Prouty’s The Secret Team), monopoly capitalism, corporate subsidies, public-private partnership, bail-outs, fractional reserve banking (money out of nothing), propaganda and foreign aid to carry out their policies.

As far as I can tell, based on Brzezinski’s book and the writings of H. G. Wells and others, “modernization” means standardizing the world for total control, for interfering in our lives, regulating our property rights through excuses about the environment and endangered species, interfering in our cultures, our education, our family life, and also with population and reproduction (see here and here for example). It goes beyond just technology, infrastructure, resources and military and political domination.

The word “modernization” doesn’t belong to ordinary people concerned about rights and doing the right thing. It belongs to various types of Marxists and fascists, and those who are involved in Agenda 21, and the bankers who fund them. It’s their game and they’re the only ones in the game to define “modernization” or any other destabilizing and subversive idea they promote (which we think we understand or which we think are cool because they’re shown as science fiction in a movie). They have spent years planning and studying and promoting their political and cultural propaganda – whether at Western universities or at Soviet universities – and now they carry out their policies, after all these years having received funds from Western governments and private foundations.

He isn’t necessarily happy that communism failed to link “humanism with internationalism” (193). He praises communism for helping to grow the “collective consciousness” of humanity and to “mobilize the masses for social progress” (193).

He corrects those who think that American foreign policy was conducted based on the idea of a “monolithic world communist conspiracy” (fn. 285). In fact, the United States “pioneered in aid to Yugoslavia in the late 1940s” and it was “the first to initiate American-Soviet cultural exchanges, visits between heads of state, and so on” (fn. 285).

China
Brzezinski actually refers to the lack of unity in Chinese communism, tarnishing their “undeniably impressive achievements in the struggle to overcome China’s backwardness” (187). So he is full of praise for the Chinese communists.

He predicted the growth of Chinese power (188).

He suggests “Africa, rather than Asia, may be a more promising long-range Chinese target.” (188). He mentions how they have already made “political inroads into East Africa (280).”

In 2012, you can find plenty of articles on the present day Chinese colonization of Africa.

Did he want China to expand their influence?

Brzezinski writes that the U.S. should encourage other nations to “seek ties” with China. It should also start its own “initiatives” regarding China and avoid “anti-Chinese” arrangements (289).

Do Marxists – or whatever we call the people who govern us and pretend to be “liberal” or “conservative” – really work to serve a a particular nation such as America or Canada? Do they not have a particular internationalist view of the world that excludes national sovereignty, tribalism and older traditions that aren’t humanist? It’s so obvious since Brzezinski spells it out.

What has gone on all these years? We should investigate the relationship between the United States and China over the decades since this book was written (and prior), for example: Cambodia and Pol Pot (Brzezinski involved) (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/world/death-of-pol-pot-the-diplomacy-pol-pot-s-end-won-t-stop-us-pursuit-of-his-circle.html), George Bush Sr.(Ambassador to China), Nixon, Carter and Brzezinski, Panama Canal vs. ports question of control, Ron Brown incident, major trade agreements with China, nuclear technology transferred to North Korea, the downed aircraft incident under Bush Jr,.

Big Business
Like socialist H. G. Wells, Brzezinski also praised big business, for example in the context of praising the foreign operations of international corporations in terms of their efficiency and use of technology, and the need to reform the US foreign service and policy making along those lines (292, 293).

He describes the capacity of American big business for “collective organizational efforts” and their ability to adapt new methods and pool resources. The methods developed by American business include “linear programming”, a “systems” approach and “coordinated teamwork” (202-203). He quotes Max Ways “The Road to 1977”, Fortune magazine, January 1967, who lists the techniques of “systems analysis” or “systems planning” (fn. 203). Also: “An emphasis on information, prediction, and persuasion, rather than on coercive or authoritarian power, as the main agents of coordinating the separate elements of an effort” (fn. 203).

Information Grid / Internet
He said they were already developing a “national information grid that will integrate existing electronic data banks” (202) in order to collect knowledge together (202).

And he also expected a “world information grid” (299) that would act as the “basis for a common educational program” and for “common academic standards” (299).

Foreign Aid, Trade & Global Cooperation
He talks about how the idea of foreign aid was already seen back then as an “imperative”, as part of “global consciousness” (275, 276).

He talks about cooperation leading to a “long-range strategy for international development based on the emerging global consciousness (303)”. He hoped for “more internationalized, multilateral foreign aid” (304). This sounds like the Millenium Development Goals and Agenda 21.

He worries a lot about what he calls “chaos” because of so-called “outmoded ideological concepts” (293) and he’s scared to death of a revival of “nationalism” and those who object to “aid to the Third World”, which is the center-piece and crowning imperialist scam of globalism. And they dare not surrender it to those who want old-fashioned independence and who want their money spent on their own needs, their family’s needs and their country’s needs rather than sending it off to international corporations who beat up on the Third World if necessary, take their resources and call it “aid”. This method of imperialism is described by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

To me, it’s clear that foreign aid is a means of control over those of us who pay taxes in the so-called First World. It amounts to redistribution of our wealth (we think that’s okay for our function to be tax cows) to international corporations, UN bureaucracies and governments. One of the major uses is population policies and this is disguised under all sorts of cover stories which are just firmly embedded indoctrination to allow for the aborting of babies and sterilization (“women’s rights”, “women’s health”, “poverty”, “climate change” etc.). Population reduction is necessary for a controlled global society, and it’s a consistent theme in Fabian writings (see H. G. Wells “Open Conspiracy”), and it’s more and more in the media, barely disguised.

We’re never asked whether we agree with our government loaning money overseas. Foreign Aid is never an election issue. It’s just the done thing and if you object, you’re just mean. We don’t question the legitimacy of these transactions – with our money – and the legitimacy or constitutionality of international organizations such as the United Nations and G20. The people have no say.

I suspect that exposing the truth about foreign aid and asking governments (like the Canadian government) to justify their policies to the people they supposedly represent would expose a whole lot of basic issues, and would be sensitive point with the globalists. They’ll throw the word “nationalist” at us immediately (in between their hypocritical flag-waving). But people should be careful about what groups they sign up with in case they’re just playing the role of opposition and act as a sink for our energy, money and time. We should investigate independently and shine a light on foreign aid as well as war policies and new trade agreements. We should start asking fundamental questions about why politicians are so motivated to sign all of these international agreements. When does it stop?

There are fake dialectics and fake oppositions and made-up enemies at all levels: like the Conservative Party in Canada or the Republican Party, like the US vs. China, like the Cold War. The opposition is at one level even to the point of war. But at a deeper level, the different sides are working for the same powerful people.

He talks about how it would be good to give “international bodies a larger role in economic development and to start eliminating restrictions on trade…” (289). So the elites have pushed many “free trade” agreements since he wrote this and are still pushing new ones.

He thought that “international security arrangements” should “replace” Cold War alliances. There should be an “association based on a concept of cooperative nations…” and its security arrangements are to be directed against “those who depart from established norms” (289). This sounds like the mode they’ve operated under since the end of the Cold War and especially since after 9/11. The United States government uses a policy of preemptive war and attacks countries (directly(Libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/may/23/libya-nato-bombing-no-fly-zone)) or indirectly (Syrian rebels)) that haven’t attacked it when the government of that country stands in their way. This goes against traditional doctrine on respecting the internal affairs of nations. They aren’t pretending to follow that any longer and they don’t believe in it anyway.

He says the “technetronic revolution” has somehow sped up the idea of “European consciousness” and the “autarkic ideas of the industrial age have little or no hold on it today” (294). So regionalism and the erosion of national identity is equated with the post-industrial age. Why should there be a post-industrial age anyway and why should it mean giving up sovereignty and independence? How is supposed willingness to become part of a united Europe or “European government” (fn. 294) relate to “technetronic” other than the fact that globalist and “European consciousness” and “free trade” (shut down factories, eliminate jobs) propaganda is spread through television and radio broadcasting? Everything in the post-industrial technetronic age is built on bits and bytes of data and propaganda fluff.

Also, during the “industrial age”, governments left us alone to a large degree in Western countries like Canada. Now, with the “post-industrial age”, the technology is used to harass you, surveil you and violate your privacy and make up endless rules for your life. Is this a coincidence?

And everyone is provided with politically correct ideas to accept new – and strange (because they come from “Marxists”) – priorities and legislated changes (pushed by foundations) via the media, and push these changes on others via peer pressure like a big herd of sheep. These changes do not come from us. They are paid for by politicians, think-tanks, NGOs and foundation heads we are taught to admire and obey.

He also writes about the goal of creating a “community of the developed nations that would embrace the Atlantic states, the more advanced European communist states, and Japan” (295).

He says this is more “attainable” than the goal of a “world government” (308).

This reminds me of the G7, G8 and G20 at present. The G20 includes nations such as the US, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, which includes formerly European communist states such as Poland, Hungary, etc.

Mankind is “moving steadily toward large-scale cooperation” (296). He claims that despite set-backs, “all human history clearly indicates progress in that direction” (296). But I don’t agree at all. Only those who seek to dominate others want to see everyone “cooperate” on a large scale, because how would that happen except through coercion? Doesn’t it require constant harassment and hectoring, and the offering of “solutions” for supposed crises and scams such as climate change (even though the earth hasn’t warmed in 16 years). He even says there need to be “deliberate efforts to accelerate the process …” (296). So it’s not natural. Natural cooperation happens without coercion or it doesn’t happen at all.

He doesn’t see it in terms of creating one large formal world state. He wants to “associate existing states” through “indirect ties” and “limitations on national sovereignty” (296) that are already in development.

He mentions the idea of a “council for global cooperation…” (more than the OECD) that brings together “the political leaders of states”. This body would be “more effective in developing common programs than is the United Nations” (298). He says that advanced nations are becoming “post-industrial and are in some regards moving into the post-national age.” (299)

He talks about creating an international convention that would make it possible to “outlaw the use of chemicals to limit and manipulate man and to prevent other scientific abuses …” (300). He was concerned about that, but I think people are being prescribed these chemicals now unfortunately, and they are eating and drinking them (see here and here and here for example).

“In the economic-technological field some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices” (300). Why are more “sacrifices” required by Americans? Does this refer to Western technology and factories (see Jack Layton’s comments here) going to China and other Asian nations in order to build a global system?

He talks about efforts to create a new “world monetary structure”. (300) “with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position” (300). Was he talking about the same idea as the Nixon change, ending Bretton Woods, or was he talking about something further off?

Why should Americans be made to suffer such risks and economic sacrifices because of their own government’s policies? A government run by globalists cares about their ambition of “international cooperation”, which means world government. Their wars also and the sacrifices involved in those wars are for building a system of international “cooperation” also where everybody does what they’re told. I’m sure “international cooperation” will mean censoring inconvenient opinions (UN attempts to regulate Internet), because you can have more “cooperation” that way by shutting people up.

He said progress would likely require getting rid of restrictions (from 1949 and 1954) put on American corporations abroad (300).

He mentions the need for a “new theory of international production” (300).

He also mentions the creation of a “free-trade area, which could be targeted in progressive stages” (300).

He says the world is “still unstructured politically….” (305)

He talks about the possibility of a “global taxation system” (304). His reference is the “Bulletin of Peace Proposals” prepared “by the International Peace research Institute, Oslo, in the autumn of 1969”. (fn. 304)

He talks about “the problems confronting man’s life on this planet…” (305) but the biggest problem of all are the wars funded by the US government. But he doesn’t seem to include that as a problem. Can we stop the wars first please before talking about made-up “problems” or problems that aren’t any of our business? Can we write a few books about how we can get governments to stop unleashing bombs and drones on people all over the world? But I suppose the elites see the real “problem” in terms of power and control over people, so their solutions are: standardization, population, taxation, surveillance, loaning out our money, burdening us with debt in the name of “foreign aid” etc.

“This country’s commitment to international affairs on a global scale has been decided by history. It cannot be undone…” (306)

He talks about “educational reforms” to “promote rational humanist values” (308), and a “more functional approach to man’s problems, emphasizing ecology rather than ideology…” (308). The spread of “a more personalized rational humanist world outlook” would gradually “replace the institutionalized religions, ideological, and intensely national perspectives that have dominated modern history” (309).

Articles of Interest
One of the end notes on p. 314 (about p. 65) II. 3. “… see Jacques Soustelle, Les Quatre Soleils, Paris, 1967. … Soustelle attacks the progressive theory of history as expressed by Marx, Spengler, Toynbee, and Teilhard de Chardin. For a more complex analysis, see Michel Foucault, Folie et deraison, Paris, 1961; American edition, Madness and Civilization, New York, 1965.”

Another article by Brzezinski is mentioned on p. 324 (Note V 13) “Global Political Planning,” Public Interest, Winter 1969.

Continued: Part 14
Series Contents