Brzezinski’s Final Solution

The Soul of the East

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era has become something of a conspiracy theorist’s holy – or rather “unholy” – writ. Ironically, this came to pass precisely in the wake of the fulfilment of some of Zbig’s predictions that littered the margins of the first third of his book. Yes, he really does mention the possibility of weaponizing the weather, exercising mind control by psychotropic means, and the creation of a certain “global consciousness.” All of this he expresses in a curious, morally vague, manner: you really can’t pinpoint whether he exalts the possibility or warns the reader about it. However, if you think that this means that he is simply being scientifically neutral, you are dead wrong. Between Two Ages is not a scientific treatise, albeit it disguises itself as such. It is one of two things: either it is a philosophy of…

View original post 2,016 more words

4 Comments on Brzezinski’s Final Solution

  1. This article is indeed thought provoking as noted by a previous comment on the original blog. However I question how thewriter can use the term conspiracy theorist in such a derogatory way when this article could just as easily be referred to likewise. Since I am almost certain the writer cannot know beyond more than their opinion what Zbig intended for his writings and/or the exact meaning therefore is it not arrogant for the writer to so casually dismiss others that share their opinions on these matters as well?

    • To grasp history as a whole and project it’s image in sequence of few stages is either a prophecy or pamphletism. However you flip it, it’s arogant to the bone because it casually dismisses reality. People who fall in such cognitive trap dismiss others to such an extent that it becomes understatement of everything they say, be it preaching of progress or universal brotherhood, so I think while my arrogance is obvious only insofar it is an irrational personal streak God put in to compensate for my good looks, theirs is an arrogance of men who want to rule the world. “To rule” is “to measure”, you see. The only purpose of making history an absolutely transparent system is wielding absolute power over it. Whether it’s done from Columbia University or someone’s living room is essentially immaterial. As for opinions of others, I more or less agree with most things the owner of this site and his sources on Brzezinski (Fitzgerald and Gould above all) have to say.

      • History is nothing more than events pieced together with the goal of naming the who, what, where, when and (as best it can) the why. That process is used in everything that we – as a linear species – do in our lives and our thoughts. Take any event in your life and you will see that these steps are fundamental to knowing what happened from point A to point B. When that picture can be drawn, or rather the dots can be connected, then there is understanding as the various players and pieces are revealed. I am not a philosopher but this is what I believe and have experienced. However i realize i may also be missing any sarcasm you added to this comment.

  2. No sarcasm, just a bad joke.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: