Sunday, August 28, 2016

The Fat Lady Sings

There are those in positions of power and authority – call them the elite – who desire that the United States government changes course;  no more global hegemon, as this path has led to the reality of global nuclear-superpower confrontation.  I have written words to this effect more times than I can count over the last several years.

Of course, just because this subset of the elite desire this does not mean they can make it so.  The elite don’t speak with one voice; there are likely also those in “the elite” that desire to continue in the current direction.

Even if the elite spoke with one voice, the elite don’t “control” the government and politicians in a direct manner; they have “programmed” politicians and other tools to act in certain manners, and once the virus has been let loose…well, the elite cannot change the direction of a 1300 foot-long cargo ship on a dime.

The building of an Anglo empire has roots that go back hundreds of years.  The shifting of the tool as focal point, from Great Britain to the United States, began over 100 years ago and culminated at the end of World War II.  Churchill’s biggest success might very well be as the one British politician holding positions of power throughout this transition from the turn of the last century to the end of that war – and in being instrumental in ensuring the transition.  In other words, Churchill’s most important achievement was in destroying the British Empire in exchange for securing the continuation of the Anglo Empire.

The elite work through others – hundreds of thousands of others – trained in proper universities, trained in proper methods of diplomacy, manipulation, and control.  They work through others who are trained to react to incentives – money and power.

These hundreds of thousands of people are programmed to act in a certain way.  Hillary Clinton is a perfect – and relevant for this time – example.  She cannot be and cannot act in any way other than how she has been programmed.  The person who gloated at the sodomizing of Kaddafi is what we know her to be.

And this is why I have argued that there are those within this thing we call “the elite” that are supporting Trump for president.  Hillary will bomb, because that’s what she knows; Trump will negotiate, because that’s what he knows.

While not the first elite mouthpiece to say or write such a thing (I recall Kissinger and many others), thanks to a commentary written by Mike Whitney we have a summary from an article written by one of the most formidable voices to add his to the chorus of “the US must change course”:

The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled “Toward a Global Realignment” has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extend US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia.

Whitney’s piece is worth reading, line for line.

In 1997, Brzezinski wrote the book that outlined the blueprint for US global hegemony, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.  To make a long story short, it was nothing more than a continuation of the geo-political realities identified by Sir Halford Mackinder in 1904 – control the Eurasian landmass and you control the world.  Because of Brzezinski’s association with this disastrous strategy, the fact that he now writes the opposite is rather notable. 

This strikes me as more notable than even Kissinger writing such things; Kissinger, despite his horrendous crimes, was an architect of rapprochement with China and worked to build relations with the Soviet Union.  In other words, Kissinger is walking a line similar to that which he has walked over the decades.  Brzezinski, on the other hand, has done what in some ways is to be considered an about face.

Brzezinski’s article is entitled “Toward a Global Realignment.”   While Whitney doesn’t cite this portion of the article from Brzezinski, I find it rather telling:

A comprehensive U.S. pullout from the Muslim world favored by domestic isolationists, could give rise to new wars (for example, Israel vs. Iran, Saudi Arabia vs. Iran, a major Egyptian intervention in Libya) and would generate an even deeper crisis of confidence in America’s globally stabilizing role.

Clearly, Brzezinski is not embracing an isolationist position.  He is advocating for the only position that might allow the US government to remain a relevant player on the world stage.

Brzezinski sees both the growing weakness of the United States government and the increasing strength of Russia and China.  Barely hidden under the surface, Brzezinski’s message to the United States government is: start forming partnerships or become irrelevant…or worse.  Again, from his article:

The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility. For America, that could entail enduring conflict, fatigue, and conceivably even a demoralizing withdrawal to its pre-20th century isolationism.

This is Brzezinski’s fear.

Consider: the US was offered this possibility of global domination only with the fall of the Soviet Union – a short 25 years ago.  A short 25 years ago, the US stood as the sole global power.

Fifteen years ago, the US government was handed (or created or allowed) the best gift it could ask for if one wanted excuses to surround Russia and China with war and turmoil.  That “gift,” it turns out, also sowed the seeds of ultimate destruction – the likely outcome that Brzezinski now warns against.

Twenty-five years and all of that political capital spent and wasted.  What a drastic fall in such a short time. 

Returning to Whitney:

…Clinton is still fully committed to expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn't understand the risks this poses for the country or the world. She's going to persist with the interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time in her first term.

Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka -- The "dollar system") But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

Not a chance.

For some reason, Whitney never mentions Trump as the alternative – as one who comes closer to Brzezinski’s new position. 

Yet, Trump is that alternative.  And this is why Trump has survived his many blunders to win the Republican nomination.  And this is why I place better-than-even odds that he will win in November.


  1. The real issue is that the Anglo Empire like the British Empire before it like the Roman Empire is stretched too thin. As the Empire focuses on one issue say Syria, other ends start getting into trouble like the Crimea or Sea of Japan.

    The other issue is that the cost of the Military Intelligence Security Complex is strangling the private populace. And eventually it will strangle it completely but it will take a while and unfortunately longer than 8 years of Hillary.

  2. The other item of note not in the article was that all of the foreign intervention is being paid out of currency devaluation. This was similar to both the British and Roman Empires. (Not worth a Continental come to mind?)

  3. Bionic Mosquito: "The building of an Anglo empire has roots that go back hundreds of years."

    To be precise to 1787 when the constitutional framers and the other 18th-century founders replaced the 17th-century Colonial governments of, by, and for God established upon His immutble moral law for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic traditions:

    "...3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)....

    "On February 27, 2009, James Dobson conceded that we have lost the culture wars. This is the consequence of Christians having spent the last two centuries lopping at the rotten branches of our culture’s corrupt tree while watering and fertilizing its roots.

    "We should lop away at the tree’s corrupt branches (infanticide, sodomy, the economy, etc.). However, until the root of these problems is Biblically addressed, we will never shut down the infanticide mills, we will never defeat the sodomites, and we will never fix the economy. In short, we will never win the culture wars. This issue is more than important for anyone concerned about God, our nation, and the future of our posterity, it’s the cutting- edge issue of our day....."

    Empire building is impossible under biblical government.

    For more, see blog article "5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue" at

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  4. How appropriate that this article on the panic of some elites over the American hegemon running amuck, out of their control, follows BM's article on Gene Wilder's Frankenstein. The elites had labored behind the scenes for a century to create this American Frankenstein monster, and now their creature is threatening to bring an end to human civilization. Unlike Wilder's creation, I doubt that flattery and hugs is going to pacify the American Frankenstein monster.

    The arrogant elites have to learn that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. They armed their American Frankenstein monster with all kinds of guns which he doesn't hesitate to use against anyone who crosses him. What use is the elites' power of credit creation, the control of legislatures and the manipulation of the media against the raw power of squads of soldiers ordered by the President to kick down doors in the middle of the night and drag members of the elite off to concentration camps?

    Uttering the words of a now much reviled 230 year old parchment will not get the American Frankenstein monster to give up his guns and go back into his cage!

    1. "How many divisions do the elite have?"

      Very good!

    2. In the long run ideas have been observed to triumph over guns and probably always will. But how many millions must suffer and die at the hands of armed state employees until that triumphant day?

      It's also been wisely observed that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Eternal vigilance is also the price of staying free of cancer and of keeping one's house from burning down. We are all pretty good about the latter two vigilances but our ancestors and fellow countrymen were inattentive about threats to liberty. As far as liberty is concerned, Americans today are like a couch potato blithely sporting a grapefruit size tumor while glued to his big screen TV in a room engulfed in flames!

    3. ...and are infinitely more angry with a football player who wouldn't stand for the national song of worship than they are regarding the crimes committed against them by the entity being worshiped.

  5. Any comment on how Trump's opposition to Bezos and the Washington Post fits in? I don't track enough of this stuff to understand the ins and outs, but it seems there's obviously something to it that fits in your narrative insofar as Bezos joined the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, chaired by Clinton collaborator Eric Schmidt? I'm assuming all the rhetoric about the dispute (including Bezos purchase of WaPo) being about taxes is cover.

    1. Trump doesn't in any way seem anti-military, just anti-(at least some) intervention. So if there is a connection, I do not see it easily.