Review of Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski explores in 1970 how Internet will reshape human psychology/social climate and how United States will decline if it doesn't meaningfully direct technology that it spawned.





Zbigniew Brzezinski has long been a controversial figure and target of conspiracy theories within the United States and around the world. As one of key organizers of the Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller's globalist platform towards greater world integration), Brzezinski combined his analytic genius with the financial and social backing of the world's most energetic internationalist activist oligarch. Reading even a bit about David Rockefeller's life is enough to catch a glimpse concerning the real power structure of the world.

It was never a secret that policy formulation about global development occurs when a few hundred powerful individuals meet to eat and drink while talking and sharing stories. Among these billionaire businessmen, heads of state, and Ivy League scientists/researchers, there are always a few who become the theoretical strategists that help the rest of the elite see more of the big picture.

Brzezinski was one of these strategically minded people in whom the will to power was overflowing. He got to position of formulating international policy for Jimmy Carter by writing a brilliant book on the state of the world in 1970 and where it may possibly be headed. A very kind conspiracy website has offered the whole text of this book in PDF format: Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era to be read by anybody who is interested in one of the best, clearest, and far reaching sophisticated political science dissections of the 20th century. Used copies can always be bought for 300 dollars and libraries don't seem to readily have it at all (all adding to the conspiratorial mystique of a text by a man who perhaps did the most to collapse Soviet Union through alienating it with American international emphasis on human rights and setting a trap for Soviets in Afghanistan).

Since the book was published in 1970, Brzezinski was writing during the peak of American civilization (1968-1973). The country's raw physical power and culture were at their furthest global extent during this time. People to this day write silly articles complaining of supposed great "self indulgence" of the generation that matured during that time period. It is understandable since people who reached their productive age of mid to late 20s in years after 1973 were working with increasingly weaker and economically stagnating society and thus couldn't do as much even if they had the will. A declining society will not empower individuals and vice-versa.

Brzezinski seems to have fallen victim to a conceptual trap that happens when observing the world by standing at the peak of a great hegemony. It is like a geostrategist writing about the future of the world right after Germany conquered France early in WW2. Brzezinski himself was 42 years old just having polished, extended, and turned his greatest research paper into a book after self sharpening criticism of other brilliant minds like Samuel Huntington.

Nevertheless, even with this understandable handicap he produced a brilliant pragmatic analysis of most of the world and even United States to a degree (even his bleak scenarios for near future American domestic developments could not envision the deterioration during 1980s and 1990s). Nietzsche, in his Will to Power notes, commented that,

"It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself."

Brzezinski captures the essence of the quote in that he observed the international dynamic by looking at changes in power arrangement that will occur from technological and conceptual trends (which in turn change social/psychological development of world's people) without applying any ideological construct. He then went on to give this personal organization direction by suggesting what to do in the decades ahead and then went ahead and did everything possible to back his suggestions with physical violence.

The book can be simply summarized as follows:

3 great constructs 1) monotheistic religion, 2) nationalism, and 3) Marxism have pushed humanity the most towards understanding more about the world and igniting human desire for greater equality and freedom (each in its own gradually increasing way that responded to particular social conditions at the time). However all 3 are beginning to lose their power over the minds of men at the time the book is written in 1970. They are all rapidly losing their universal appeal and utility since they cant be meaningfully and productively applied to a globalizing pluralistic world of many interests, factions, supranational problems, and technologies that radically and quickly reshape social forces and psychological consciousness of men. The said technologies (they are primarily mass communication technology and post-industrial managerial systems techniques. Brzezinski comfortably speaks of implications from internet's revolutionary effect on social psyche in 1970) are being the most widely implemented in the United States. As such, United States will be the hardest hit and the most reshaped by being the first post-industrial great power. Mass communications technology is creating global consciousness among those exposed to it but may also contribute to great upheavals in the third world by bringing insufferable psychological appraisal of all too real inequality. United States should thus use its position as the most scientifically advanced post-industrial state to enter into increasingly closer collaboration with Europe, Asia, and Soviet Union for its own domestic security and security of the world. Since there is death of ideology (by stagnation, growing irrelevance, and conceptual inapplicability of religion/nationalism/Marxism to solve world's problems), United States as the backbone of a new world order is the most logical and humane way to go into the unknown future for which prepackaged constructs no longer apply.

That's the shortest summary that could be done and it doesn't even touch on his dissection of the severe American and Soviet problems (as well as remarkably accurate predictions on which scenarios likely await Soviet Union in 1980s).

The book's solution may sound imperialist from the summary (and in light of Brzezinski's past hawkish geopolitical dealings in breaking Soviet power that were at times more forceful than Kissinger's). However, the analysis and book's suggestions made in 1970 are not extremist at all and I cannot think of any other way that world's elite's can bring more global unity in a more peaceful way than one proposed. Some of Brzezinski's emphasis for America's domestic evolution is on:

1) Putting aside ideological bigotries when solving national problems and using scientific and technocratic governance to best apply emergent technology

2) Increasing role of scientists and engineers in government yet at the same time countering and balancing their role with soft science policy makers (since many scientists are good at their specialized field of study and not good at integrated philosophical policy making). Putting emphasis on systems analysis borrowed from the corporate world and NASA. Thus promoting integration of technological solutions with humanistic psychological/social study into effects of said solutions when applied to the country at large.

3) Relying less on coercive measures abroad and closing down most of military bases overseas. Reducing the size and arrogant presence of foreign missions and embassies by emulating the style of cheaper corporate offices, laboratories and R&D departments

4) Closing the racial inequality between blacks and whites in United States through continuous life education (1-2 years university training every 10 years of one's life) and civil service in psychologically inspiring developmental projects. Utilizing the internet and computing to bring ivy league level educational materials to all Americans into their homes and schools and to create digital voting and legislative participation. German style technical and job training in junior year in college to better close American divides between rural/urban peoples, whites/blacks, young/old.

5) Pushing for a constitutional convention (for historic anniversaries of 1976 and 1989) to remodel American governance more on the West European model of pluralistic democracy. Do away with archaic aristocratic structures to preserve liberal democracy and prevent stagnation and oligarchic corporate encroachment.

6) Break up emerging monopolies of media conglomerates to provide a more decentralized news feed to consumers

Ridiculous, absurd, authoritarian, kinda Marxist? Many semi-educated people on the Internet are saying that about these proposals ever since Brzezinski backed Obama for president. Undoubtedly, he now has communication and thus some influence on the new president the extent of which we will see by the congruence of Obama's near future policies and Brzezinski's recent recommendations (his books in last 20 years that are highly critical of republican approach to global integration). We see a lot of his quotes taken out of context. For example his thoughts that expansion of Communism's popularity was in many ways a positive evolution for humanity. The same can be said about Napoleon's influence on the world and nationalism. We can see how out of context statements can indeed sound disastrous to conspiracy minded individuals.

However, there are currently no "more acceptable" alternatives to solving 21st century problems on international scale without relying on elites like Brzezinski "conspiring" together. Even creation of more democratic methods to solve global problems will involve elites in the formulation of these methods. Noam Chomsky praises Bolivia as the most democratic nation in the world today for their mass participatory democratic efforts. As of today, key states on earth cannot use advanced Bolivian methods satisfy conspiracy theorist's desire for needed transparency and democracy.

The most fascinating aspect of the book (and prime reason on why everybody with some free time should read it) is just how relevant it is to today's world 4 decades after being written. We are now very far in construction of global consciousness with post-industrial communication technologies. A whole generation of people has lived their whole life and has been morphed by the forces discussed in the book.

The second best reason to read it is to see how Brzezinski's analysis of Soviet Union's inability to transform into a more technocratic society now also applies to United States remarkably well. In fact, in light of the great similarities of modern USA and Soviet Union in 1980s (in terms of problems they face/faced), there is uncanny relevance if one substitutes USA for Soviet Union in a lot of the book's summaries. Since I have increasingly written about many such similarities, these parts of the book drew my interest and focus the most. Here are some examples:

"it is striking how much intellectual effort has been invested in asserting and proving the distinctive character of the communist system. It once again reveals the importance attached to the notion that the Soviet past is linked to a future that is absolutely distinctive and not part of a broader stream of man's political evolution"

"Yet, in spite of this, the Soviet conception of the broad framework of contemporary reality, as articulated by top leaders and even as presented in scholarly journals, remains fundamentally dogmatic. The basic premise continues to be the Manichaean notion of the antagonistic dichotomy between the socialist and the capitalist worlds (or between good and evil)"

"The antagonists are capitalism and socialism." 18 Eventually one or the other will have to prevail, ‡ and Soviet analysts are confident that they know which one it will be. This theme runs like a thread through all major speeches, foreign policy analyses, or scholarly commentaries on world affairs."

It is remarkable that Francis Fukuyama got as much coverage as he did due to disintegration of one "socialist" regional power while China remained standing. We can imagine how Soviets had their own Fukuyama equivalents and how Chinese and Europeans have their own today who make proud declarations. Let's continue,

"The consequence, however, is to congeal certain formulas and claims, making intellectual innovation more difficult, even when on the operational level ideological restraints are increasingly evaded. The result is a condition of arrested ideological development, of ideological petrifaction rather than erosion, Marxist thought remaining vital only outside the Soviet Union"

This quote is fascinating in that there is good reason to believe that many societies around the world today do more to evolve and improve capitalism than United States does.

"Protracted internal decay as a result of the leadership's inability to come to grips with current problems, continued failure to catch up with the United States in the scientific competition, and internal threats to national unity could in a context of increasing ideological indifference combine with an international security threat to spark a fundamentalist spasm from a section of the elite. Such spasms are characteristic of political faiths in their decline. "

It is ironic that Brzezinski recently criticized George Bush Sr. for not taking advantage of Soviet collapse by creating new international structures. It now seems obvious that Washington DC's leadership was simply not capable of being creative and flexible enough to shape a new world order in early 1990s. Beginning of the Reagan period was the equivalent of the start of the Brezhnev period of defensive ideological orthodoxy and thus stagnation. Bush administration's heightened use of simplistic symbolism and a violent jihad abroad was the last gasp and manifestation of this period.

It may very well be that old age got to Brzezinski as well (or perhaps being wealthy he became too alienated from general society) and he was not able to articulate of a crash program to reverse these difficulties. He now hopes to preserve United States as a player by a continuing push to weaken Russia and China so there is victory by default. All his advice on how to reform United States in the 70s and 80s was definitely rejected by oligarchic coup against Jimmy Carter (the collaboration between intelligence services and Reagan's campaign to have American hostages in Iran longer for political expediency being one strong dimension of the coup).

Brzezinski's worst scenarios for United States (such as those concerning potentialities of not integrating blacks and whites, consolidation of media corporations to create ideological propaganda, not being a role model for Germany and Japan anymore, not closing the growing perceptual divide between the young and the old in the 70s, not focusing on technological solutions for political and social problems, not continuing integrated efforts to eliminate American poverty, not continually expanding corps of engineers and scientists) have been surpassed by an even darker reality.

"it follows that this society's most imperative task is to define a conceptual framework in which technological change can be given meaningful and humane ends. Unless this is done, there is the real danger that by remaining directionless the third American revolution, so pregnant with possibilities for individual creativity and fulfillment, can become socially destructive."

Unfortunately the book is often known for quotes like these

Barack Obama has arrived too late in the game to create meaningful reform. The recent Japanese election has shown total social rejection of emulating United States in the foreseeable future. The new ruling party is showing their split from their former colonial master as far as not betting on its future. Democratic Party of Japan has articulated desire to not buy any more American debt. The loss of Japan as an ideological colony after the loss of Germany (its condemnation of the Iraq invasion in 2003) is a loss of a very historically key tool for an American president. Obama may try to call for "sacrifice" and try to organize the youth to perform civic duty but that will get laughter at best and radical hatred at worst. Harnessing the "technetronic age" (Brzezinski's hybrid of technology and electronics) by politicians is now impossible on this continent without drastic political reform. Internet is now effectively harnessed from below.

If you're interested in psychology, political science, sociology, technology, futurism, or just like a great enlightening read (only 120 pages) then give Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era a go. It has aged well.

Review of "The Obama Deception"

The type of person to run for office of United States will obviously require barely comprehensible levels of narcissism. And of course the position of commanding armed forces of a nuclear empire will require the type of person capable of mass murder. But is the Obama Deception documentary overreaching in its claims?




It is interesting to think how the first generation that politically matured with the internet would view United States politics if Al Gore had won instead of Bush. It is doubtful that the level of outrage would be as great considering Gore's better neural faculties. We could however expect the same level of popular dissatisfaction as occurred against the similarly well spoken and relatively sharp Tony Blair. The ability of internet browsing to strengthen connections in the frontal lobe (unlike more passive media) allows heightened political participation and criticism to emerge during the growth period from puberty to 30 years of age.

A crisp younger challenger like Barack Obama supported by youthful internet backing would have emerged in the United States regardless. We are seeing the overall age of world leaders drop because the internet capable youthful brains see youngerl politicians as more similar to themselves. The cutting edge of technology is then used against the elderly politicians and entrenched interests. Senior citizens like McCain are less capable of fighting back since the increasing complexity of the world allows their younger challengers to override decades of experience with meritocratic functioning when it comes to political power plays. We see the age of new leaders in China and Russia drop with every succession cycle and we're about to witness Cameron take office in the UK. Throughout the third world governmental structures trying to find themselves must have growing younger members within them if they are to prudently evolve. The Russian government is staffed with 40 somethings and we should expect to see Chinese government continue to undergo similar overall drop in age.

Now that Obama is in office, the constantly expanding social networking and internet tools will be directed at him in mass attack. The shrinking republican party is too pathetic and weak to be honored by professional attacks.

Another Alex Jones documentary has been making rounds on the internet. It is called "The Obama Deception" and utilizes familiar quickly made style of 911 truthers and simple youtube editing. The production quality is poor and the interpretation of real world facts is at times incoherent. So why honor it with a review? Well, it's more of a review of the mindset of the opposition and analysis of how same facts can be interpreted in vastly different ways.

Strong willed individuals like Alex Jones, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh do not have enough power to become national elites and decision makers through skill (forceful behind the scenes corruption, psychopathic power plays, and constant lies that are required). They then make the rational decision to attain power by rallying the masses against the elites. They don't have the creativity and life energy to build and command and exploit but they have more than enough talent to react and force multiply popular outrage. The Obama Deception is a prime example of strong willed on the outside looking in and resenting their position. They'd rather burn down the gated mansion if they can't be inside of it.

This documentary has been spreading on the internet and became very popular on youtube. Once Ron Paul supporters and dissatisfied ideologue democrats get financial support from dissatisfied oligarchs, more documentaries of higher quality can be made regurgitating the same points in the future. Lets review these points and see if they can be put in context.

Point 1: The presidency of US has been a puppet position since JFK got assassinated. Obama has been groomed and successfully marketed by the banking interests to resell the same oligarchic control to the American people as existed under Bush and many others. Puppets that grow beyond control and challenge banking interests are often physically or character assassinated. Examples are: 1) Lincoln who spoke against moneyed interests, 2) Andrew Jackson who prevented a national bank from being formed through increasing his power by giving non-wealthy men the vote, and 3) JFK who wasn't a weak playboy drunkard but started exerting against oligarchs.

Woodrow Wilson is mentioned as having apologized to the American people before his death for getting them into a war that only benefited the bankers.

An interesting quote from a rural agricultural oligarch and revolutionary intellectual Thomas Jefferson is given,

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Reply: The power of the moneyed interests is undeniable as well as manipulation of politics by banking interests throughout history. However, rise in popularity of a certain way of managing resources is a good indicator of the way's utility and efficiency for power elites. It is natural for a certain way of hierarchical exploitation to become popular and thus to raise the influence of those who do that business best. History has shown us that majority of elites tend to agree on increasing bank centralization which then morphs into a reserve bank. Quasi public bank like Federal Reserve does a much better job at preventing constant busts and booms than a more decentralized banking system (busts and booms lead to populism from the poor and are thus destabilizing to elites as whole). The bank always evolves and adapts. It might arguably just reduce the frequency of busts and time between them but they still come with greater intensity as shown by Great Depression. Overall however, due to evolutionary nature of the reserve bank, we've seen less economic disturbance in last 50 years than the last 50 years of the 19th century.

Each crisis creates a more intense centralizing tendency and co-operation with national government and governments abroad. Just like seatbelts didn't reduce fatal car crashes since people now could drive faster safely, each new stronger bank allows more risk taking to happen safely. Gambles increase, bubbles occur, and major corrections are inevitable. The final result (as long as the inefficient monetary way of doing business continues), will be a central world bank with one global currency and close co-operation of leading world powers, UN, and nations' reserve banks. America has already passed its civilizational peak in 1970s and its economic decline can only be managed non-violently by powerful men who talk and listen to each other. It would be very dangerous for global social stability if powerful men and women didn't meet, talk, dine, and laugh together.

European Central Bank will most likely be the example that the world reserve bank will follow. ECB was modeled on old German reserve bank which grew out of multiple states shrugging off confederacy and becoming a German state. German oligarchy has been through all the busts booms and confederate difficulties that have plagued US oligarchs in 19th century. They not only overcame them by becoming a nation but also created a good way to curb inflation for a whole continent by losing German sovereignty within a new greater EU confederacy. The world's reserve bank of the future will without a doubt have many former oligarchs within it because of their "expertise" (whatever you may think of such notion).

Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism for the world is at this point impossible and neither is it possible for United States or any other country. Technological means of production and distribution are evolving rapidly and undermining a possibility of a very decentralized monetary system that ideologues like Ron Paul desire. The only way forward towards the inevitable global economic/political unification is for world's financial and political elites to meet frequently and discuss how to evolve towards global currency safely. For the most part, they want to do this with compromise and without great depressions or outbursts of genocidal violence. Many of these powerful people do not want catastrophic world events to occur since it would be bad for business, electoral/political success, or even for personal safety if wars go nuclear. Some blatantly psychopathic elites undoubtedly only care about quick profits (instead of glory and desire to use their power to shape the world in their image as is the historic case with strongest elites) but they are collectively managed and restricted by majority of other powerful internationals.

Jefferson is correct. Bankers are more powerful than jack booted thugs but they are instrumental at bringing world peace and rapid technological/social progress that would follow (once creative energies and resources are less focused on weaponry but transport and communication which then ensures an international anti-monetary system solidarity). There is no immediate safe alternative to evolving banking. Only thing to be discussed is how much transparency and public/private integration to have to minimize detrimental private influence. Even if there is one nationalized bank as the Soviets had, the underlining exploitation of most of society would continue through wage labor.

Banking elites are without a doubt major players and stronger than military industrial complex players or oil company executives. That does not mean that they can run rampant indefinitely during an international recession of their own making. Other elites in business want economy to recover so they can sell more tanks or Pepsi and public/political elites can always smell blood in the water. Wall Street banking/financial big wigs can be divided and conquered like any other group. During the upcoming chain of bank failures and consolidations, many will survive to serve and thrive in new financial structures. Legislative and executive branch have always been the right hand man of the oligarchy in the western world. What people forget is that bankers are just one stripe of oligarchs among many. They are not guaranteed to always have undivided attention from their personal lawyer (congress) or guard (military).

Obama is only a puppet to collective opinion of strong individuals if his power is roughly the same as the average power of congressmen/wall streeters/industrialists/generals. If he is further on the power bell curve of American heavy weights, he can lead and direct them with time. It's too early to talk about his puppet status. It's also early to speculate why a mulatto won presidency at this time. Most likely it's simply due to personal strength and cunning (dutifully obtaining Jeremiah Wright's support for votes like Hillary did in Congressional prayer meetings), obtaining elite support (yes, including some bankers) that want new image for America, as well as obtaining support from common men personally. Men like that are historically unpredictable, especially if they are young and adapt/grow rapidly.

Point 2: Obama's administration is stuffed with individuals who belong to secretive elite organizations like the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission. These organizations restrict access to only the world's most wealthy and powerful and create a secretive internationalist agenda without any concern for opinions of the common man. Their goal is to eventually form a North American Union and integrate United States into either a North Hemispheric Block or make USA a backbone of a new world government controlled by bankers.

Reply: Trilateral commission's purpose is to bring closer union/understanding between Europe, USA, and Japan. Founding members, like David Rockefeller, were always blunt that they want more integration to prevent another world war. Considering how oligarchic control in USA is beginning to stagnate American society, perhaps USA losing a bit of sovereignty to Europeans and Japanese (with their technocratic tendencies) is a good thing. Increase in international political/economic co-operation and emergence of common world reserve currency is inevitable as long as world economic system is capitalist.

The best way this can be done as smoothly as possible is for all the world's heavy weights to gather and talk, become cosmopolitan friends, and develop mutual respect. All countries in the world have elites meeting behind closed doors and this isn't an American problem in the slightest. We saw what happens when elites fight or when some elites refuse to sit down with others, talk, and listen. When some of the world's strong headed don't want to give any power to others (through attention, co-operation, trade, or not disrupting world order too much) all the others unite against them. Chinese leadership has learned from the experience of Napoleonic, Nazi, and Bolshevik leaderships and definitely chooses to sit down in exclusive hotel gatherings rather than be destroyed. Obama and people like Putin also learned from the experience of earlier independent strong willed nationalists who tried changing domestic or international environment. It requires slow compromise making, divide and conquer of domestic opponents, keeping it real with the people, and energizing the legislative branch through strength of personality and hand outs to wealthy. True success comes from listening to other aristocracy and making former enemies a function of oneself or at least tacit allies.

USA will not merge with Mexico or Canada into one state on EU model. It's too late for that considering the crisis of confidence we are seeing in our socioeconomic system. Canadian elites don't want our problems and being controlled and destroyed culturally. They can make a lot more money and thus gain a lot more power if they exploit their vast national resources to sell down south. American citizens although completely politically impotent still matter and definitely don't want Mexico's problems. Surrendering national sovereignty however is a good way of achieving more power for the nation's ruling ethnic group. Germans have had a history of losing national sovereignty in order to increase influence. It goes back to Holy Roman Empire and the Prussians becoming leaders in a new German state. Recently they've done it again with unification and now gradual transformation into the heart and wallet of EU. Russian elites also know that losing sovereignty doesn't mean losing control. If USA enters into some sort of loose confederation in the western hemisphere with other states, white Americans will still be able to really benefit financially from the arrangement since domestic exploitation of the poor and uneducated will continue. Nationalist conservatives have always effectively performed their function of filtering immigrants and making economic/political union with other states organic and gradual.

Losing economic sovereignty is not a matter of if but when and The Obama Deception has a valid point for those who would be adversely affected by that (most Americans if not most Mexicans). However, people like Alex Jones always view it from the perspective of American citizens not gaining anything at all from the arrangement. Citizens of 13 colonies uniting into a more perfect union also had a lot of conservatives screaming about their lifestyles being destroyed. Many Europeans now don't want to go back to the days of visas and trade barriers and tariffs on the continent. The cultural argument of American way of life being wiped out remains the best one and internationalists have to be kept on their toes in that regard. EU does not want Turkey in and USA has plenty of Turkey equivalents in its neighborhood. In any event, considering that 50% of babies born in United States are now Hispanic and that white American population will slide under 50% in the near future, the cultural argument will soon fade compared to the economic class argument. There is also the wild card of potential separatism that some regional elites might entertain if global economic downturn becomes severe enough.

Point 3: Obama has gone back on most of his campaign promises thus he is in cahoots with the elites. He lies all the time.

Reply: Yes, Obama is a politician who now tasted reality on the inside. One lies to get elected. This is a democracy with a poorly educated public. Ideologues don't get financial support from elites since they are seen as inflexible, uncompromisable, and thus likely to fail and be pushed around. People like Ron Paul are not really politicians but conduits for ideology. Somebody like that can be easily marginalized and out thought and thus would pose a national security risk. One also forgets that politicians don't just lie to the public but lie to the elites and fellow politicians. Obama is as likely to break promises to his donors as he is to the public. Second term will show his real intentions and the fruits of more mature thought process. Obama is also not a white blue blood and doesn't have the pedigree binding him to other elites in the same way George H Bush/Reagan did. If Obama has Putin level prudence he will keep the public and the elites constantly guessing while bringing surprises and making examples of certain organizations.

The very first major speech Obama gave to the nation was the one he gave to congress. That speech was directed mostly at the congressmen and not the audience in front of TVs and computer screens as one would think. He was telling them that if they work together they can achieve serious influence on the world stage. He was appealing to their desire for power. Many of the congressmen, Republican and Democrat, once were passionate about something and overflowed with life energy. Obama's first speech had the feel of a frat house rally. He was trying to energize the world's most powerful individuals. He would not be doing that if he thought he was their equal. If he thought he was their equal (or in Bush W's case even their intellectual inferior) he would just be giving the TV watching public regurgitated bland statements.

Since Barack Obama is racially different than fellow congressmen and have achieved more at younger age than many of them, he thus feels different, superior, and more capable than them. Many congressmen are possibly open to being inspired by a new dynamic world leader and might join him on this quest. They can recognize a life force at this point. A person like that only stays a puppet until he is able to figure out a way to break free. It took Putin a couple of years to not be seen as Yeltsin's puppet. Obama is growing and unpredictable. He is as likely to make banks buy each other out and then make the survivor his tool as he is to bring social authoritarianism that Alex Jones fears. The recent Obama meeting with South American leaders has shown that he is perhaps too confident with powerful people. Fidel Castro wrote an article recently calling Obama's smiles and handshakes the manner of a conceited aristocrat. He said Obama was humoring the Latin leaders in a way one humors old or uneducated people. Castro knows a thing or two about power hungry intellectuals ( being one himself). He thinks Obama is a real American nationalist as opposed to Bush (who only benefited his supporters) and as such, a bigger threat to Cuba.

Point 4: Globalists now don't have Soviets to keep them in check and be more accountable to the people. They can expand their global agenda endlessly and just switch one puppet for another every election. To accomplish that goal they need to deny African natural resources to Chinese and to encircle Russia with military bases.

Reply: That might be applicable to Anglo-American internationalists. England is not as integrated into the Euro Zone since their currency is not regulated by the European Central Bank. Considering the decline of American economy and the status of the dollar as a good reserve currency, if major international structures arise, it will be despite Anglo-American designs rather than because them. Anglo-American elites don't want Russian integration with Europe and as such are troublemakers to be overcome. European Union has more future economic common interests with Russia and China than with America. US does not have enough funds and incentives to keep central Europeans loyal for too long at the expensive of Russo-German cooperation. If Obama is prudent he will join with Europeans as partners, equals, and allies before America declines to the point where even that is not possible without hurtful compromises. That means a gradual end to NATO and encouraging German-Russian economic integration despite British objections. China gets 60% of African resource exports with EU getting the second biggest share and USA only getting 10-15%. Westerners can compete with Chinese in African deal making better if they co-operate.

Chinese have made a bit of a splash recently by proposing that IMF have more Chinese members and encouraging it to start a process that will lead to a global currency. Brazil, India, Kazakhstan, and Russia have joined this call. Chinese elites are culturally more alienated from the laughing white playboys that typically make up a Bilderberg Group meeting. Some of them might view Western leaders and billionaires as a temporary annoyance to be cooperated with until they can be overcome. This separation needs to be dealt with rapid action of the internationalist community so it doesn't pose a security risk. The mere fact that China feels secure enough to propose a new international structure (and be supported by countries with 1.5 billion people) is a serious warning light to Anglo-American leadership. Americans still have enough time and power to propose an alternate road to global currency where the declining dollar can play a bigger role. This will prevent humiliation of going along with some internationalist plan not of their own design in the future.

Point 5:  Globalists want a world wide carbon tax and to really tax all manner of things in authoritarian way in the name of pseudo-science of "global warming' (which is really caused by sunspot activity)

Reply:  This is either a positive sign that world leaders finally take climate change seriously enough for this kind of coordinated action or a sinister revelation that the scientific community is in the pockets of the bankers. Or that this review is finished.

CONCLUSION:

We all thought Bush was on the payroll of oilmen and military industrial complex leadership since he promoted their interests. We were right. Many documentaries touched upon it. Oligarchs in America really expanded their reach. However, we had a very incapable president who didn't respect himself and didn't attempt to seem respectable. So far everything Obama said in press conferences seemed that he was keeping it real. He repeatedly made a point that he has to overcome many entrenched interests and obstacles. We'll see where he is in a year. So far his power has been rapidly growing and it doesn't seem that he is puppet material. Even the right hand man of the rich that is US government can at times have the tail wag the dog. As far as exploitation goes, corruption is inevitable at higher levels of power since those people make the rules. Obeying the fluid rules that they create over drinks, fine food, and laughter is a silly thing of them to expect. The most we can hope for in immediate future is to live on a better plantation with kinder masters who provide us with more autonomy.