The Great Reset, page 6
In other words, they could not succeed by force.
However, they could succeed by subterfuge or somehow obtaining our consent, such as the old superstition about how a vampire could not enter a house without the invitation of the homeowner. We needed to invite, or at least acquiesce to, the entry of the vampire of globalism into our house. Wood detailed a specific change to the strategy of the globalists that came about around 1974:
Richard Gardner, a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, and a professor, wrote an article in 1974 in Foreign Affairs magazine, with the title “The Hard Road to World Order.” You can find it on the internet; it’s been scanned. What he said, and this is a direct quote, was, “It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
The game changed in 1973 with the formation of the Trilateral Commission. Prior to that you had the old-fashioned frontal assault. Then Gardner was saying there needed to be an end-run around national sovereignty. And that’s exactly what they’ve done for the past forty-five or fifty years, chipping away, death by a thousand cuts, piece by piece, eroding national sovereignty.
Probably the best example today is the European Union [EU]. The EU has taken over virtually every single function of the countries that it presides over. You can say on one hand, there’s still a national government in Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Yes, there is. But do they have the same power today that they had, say, thirty years ago? No, of course they don’t.
The EU is now making all of the significant policy decisions for Europe for those individual countries. This has been the standard operating procedure for Technocracy, to chip away at national sovereignty and eventually remove the political structure altogether. That’s been a goal since the 1930s.20
If one looks at the globalists like any other revolutionary movement, it becomes easy to understand their tactics. A frontal assault on the institutions of government was not likely to lead to success. Instead, it was important for them to work incrementally. The globalists are nothing if not patient.
As we wrapped up our interview, Wood suggested three things to me. First, he suggested I reread Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley in 1933, the same year Technocracy established itself at Columbia University. “In Brave New World, there’s no political structure,” said Wood. “The world is run by the scientists and engineers. The book was a direct attack on Technocracy, so I suggest you reread it to see what things have come to pass, and what might be ahead.”
Second, he suggested I simply go to the website for the World Economic Forum and read their papers. “It’s all out in the open,” he said.
Third, he suggested I read the work of Israeli academic Yuval Hariri, probably the most important adviser to Klaus Schwab: “If you want to understand Klaus Schwab, you need to understand Yuval Hariri. He’s got some pretty strange ideas. He’s all about transhumanism and the singularity. His latest book is called Homo Deus, which means man is now God. Gives you a good idea of the man’s humility.”
I promised to do all of those things but first had some other questions. I wanted to know more about David Rockefeller’s book where he discussed the early Trilateral Commission and the book Between Two Ages, which first brought Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski to the attention of the aged billionaire.
* * *
In 2002, when he was eighty-seven years old, David Rockefeller published his 517-page autobiography, Memoirs. Chapter 27 is titled “Proud Internationalist” and details some of his pursuits in that area. After opening with a day in his life (October 23, 1995), in which he met various friends at the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, including Fidel Castro, Rockefeller then turned to his critics:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.21
It’s a bold paragraph, which does several things. First, he paints himself as a centrist, by claiming that he’s attacked by “ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum.” He mentions the claims of those who assert he’s part of a group of internationalists. And instead of denying these claims, he proudly confesses to being a supporter of an “integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will.” It’s a disarming approach.
And yet, he also engages in the demonization of his enemies. While you may believe the “populist” label is a new insult wielded by the left, it’s a little surprising to read the vitriol with which Rockefeller uses the populist label against his enemies on the right or left, in 2002:
The anti-Rockefeller focus of these otherwise incompatible political positions owes much to Populism. “Populists” believe in conspiracies, and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists and their minions, control the world’s economy. Because of my name and prominence as the head of Chase for many years, I have earned the distinction of “conspirator in chief” from some of these people.22
Let’s imagine we put David Rockefeller in the witness chair of a courtroom and cross-examine him. He’s the head of one of the largest banks in the world and criticizes his critics of the left and right, who question how Rockefeller and his fellow rich people are manipulating the world’s economy. If we weren’t dazzled by Rockefeller’s wealth, would we accept him as a credible person to discount the claim that wealthy bankers were controlling a lot of the world? No, we would not.
Rockefeller used much the same approach of lightheartedly dismissing his critics when he discussed the establishment of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller wrote:
No organization with which I have played a founding role has attracted as much public scrutiny and attention as the Trilateral Commission. Pat Robertson has insisted that Trilateral is trying to create a world government and claims that it springs “from the depths of something evil.” My son Richard, when he was a student at Harvard in the 1970s, told me his friends assumed that Trilateral was part of a nefarious conspiracy.23
If we have a little different take on what Rockefeller is saying, he admits that presumably some of the smartest students in the country, those at Harvard University, didn’t trust the Trilateral Commission. But Rockefeller did provide information about the founding of the Trilateral Commission and admits it was his idea:
The idea for an organization including representatives from North America, Europe, and Japan—the three centers of democratic capitalism—resulted from my realization in the early 1970s that power relationships in the world had fundamentally changed. The United States, although still dominant, had declined relatively in terms of its economic power as both Western Europe and Japan recovered from the devastation of World War II and entered a period of dramatic economic growth and expansion. As a result, the comity that characterized relationships among these regions for more than two decades had deteriorated alarmingly, and I believed something needed to be done.24
When it comes from Rockefeller’s own pen, it’s easy to understand why some populists might call him the “conspirator in chief.” In his mind, he was certainly the founder. However, if one is to believe Rockefeller’s account of what happened next, it’s as if his simple charitable plan caused him to be accidentally swept up into the winds of history:
We cast our nets widely in terms of membership and recruited labor union leaders, corporate CEOs, prominent Democrats and Republicans, as well as distinguished academics, university presidents, and the heads of non-profits involved overseas. We assembled what we believed were the best minds in America. The Europeans and Japanese assembled delegations of comparable distinction.25
How could anybody possibly object to one of the world’s richest men bringing together the most powerful and influential people of America, Western Europe, and Japan in the early 1970s? Of course, the rich and powerful always have such get-togethers because they want to do enormous good for the common people. The very idea that such get-to-gethers might be to retain or increase their power in an increasingly democratic world, well, it should be banned from all media!
And it was certainly a complete coincidence that among that first group of American politicians invited onto the Trilateral Commission was one who would go on to grab the ultimate prize:
The inclusion among that first group of an obscure Democratic governor of Georgia—James Earl Carter—had an unintended consequence. A week after Trilateral’s first executive committee meeting in Washington in December 1975, Governor Carter announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. I have to confess that at the time I thought he had little chance of success. Much to my amazement, however, he not only won the Democratic nomination but defeated President Gerald Ford in the November election.26
Now, even though James Earl Carter was “an obscure Democratic governor of Georgia,” what might have made him such an attractive recruit for the Trilateral Commission? Could it have been that he was trained in the Navy as a nuclear engineer, making him an ideal acolyte for this new religion of scientism in which engineers and scientists would be the new high priests? The parade of good news for the members of the newly formed Trilateral Commission just kept coming in. As Rockefeller recounted:
Carter’s campaign was subtly anti-Washington and antiestablishment, and he pledged to bring both new faces and new ideas into government. There was a good deal of surprise, then, when he chose fifteen members of Trilateral, many of whom had served in previous administrations, for his team, including Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal, and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security advisor. In his 1975 autobiography, Why Not the Best?, Carter wrote that “membership on this commission has provided me with a splendid learning opportunity, and many of the other members have helped me in the study of foreign affairs.”27
That must have set some all-time political record from starting your organization in 1973 to winning the presidency in 1976 and stocking the cabinet with fellow members. And while some who know their history will no doubt recollect that Carter quickly became bogged down in various problems, such as the Iranian hostage crisis, runaway inflation, and gas shortages, even a new president from the opposing party couldn’t seem to break free of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller wrote:
In the 1980 presidential primary campaign, for instance, one of Ronald Reagan’s supporters ran an advertisement that stated, “The people who brought you Jimmy Carter now want you to vote for George Bush,” and highlighted the membership of both in Trilateral. I am not sure how many votes were changed by this ad, but such is the nature of politics in a democratic society. I should note, however, that President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value and invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House in April 1984.28
When I read that paragraph, it only brings a sense of sadness to me, seeming to show that Reagan also had to eventually knuckle under to the power of the globalists. Maybe he just wanted to keep his enemies close. Maybe it was simply about retaining power, the common flaw of most political leaders.
I will give the final word to David Rockefeller, from the end of his chapter “Proud Internationalist”:
These organizations reflect my belief in the principle of “constructive engagement.” As an intelligence officer during World War II, I learned that my effectiveness depended on my ability to develop a network of people with reliable information and influence.
Some may feel this technique is cynical and manipulative. I disagree. Such an approach enabled me to meet people who were useful in advancing goals and gave me opportunities to form lasting friendships that have greatly enriched my life.29
I will leave it to you to decide whether that passage comforts you in the belief that the wealthy and powerful are looking out for your best interests, or whether that passage fills you with stark, raving terror.
* * *
Rockefeller provided the financial muscle for the Trilateral Commission, but the intellectual firepower came from former Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski and his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. There were only nineteen used copies of the original hardcover version available on Amazon, so I spent $49.50 to purchase one of the few remaining copies. Patrick Wood had given me good advice when he said I should get a copy, as it opened a clear window into the globalist mindset.
Like Schwab after him, Brzezinski spent much of the first portion of the book reciting history and the rapid pace of change. There’s a technique that persuaders will engage in to gain your acceptance. They begin by telling you things with which you already agree and, once trust has been established, ever so gently try to lead you to their position. This is how Brzezinski opened his book:
The paradox of our time is that humanity is becoming simultaneously more unified and more fragmented. That is the principle thrust of contemporary change. Time and space have become so compressed that global politics manifest a tendency toward larger, more interwoven forms of cooperation as well as toward the dissolution of established institutional and ideological loyalties. Humanity is becoming more integral and intimate even as the differences in the conditions of the separate societies are widening. Under these circumstances, proximity, instead of promoting unity, give rise to tensions prompted by a new sense of global congestion.30
As the opening of a book by a Columbia University professor, it’s not bad. It’s a little wonky but sets up a duality for you between unity and division. We feel excited, and at the same time we feel anxious. Pretty much how most people feel most of the time.
However, it’s only when Brzezinski reaches “Part IV: The American Transition” (about two hundred pages in) that he starts to lay the groundwork for his new revolution. He characterizes our war with England as the first American Revolution, the Civil War as the Second American Revolution, and the time period after World War II as the Third American Revolution. And Brzezinski starts to engage in the same kind of breathless, gee-whiz, “ain’t technology great” hyperbole that Klaus Schwab will use decades later:
The third American revolution is even harder to define, for we are now in the middle of it and thus cannot be certain of its outcome. In one respect, however, it is easier to identify than the second, for its impact and its effect are more concentrated in time. The third revolution began gathering momentum after World War II, with the massive explosion in higher learning and the growing acceptance of the social primacy of education; with the union of national power and modern science crowned by the harnessing of nuclear energy and the federal government emerging as a major sponsor of scientific investigation; with the sudden birth of rapid continental communications, ranging from the world’s most modern and developed highway systems, through rapid air passenger transport, to a uniquely effective instant transcontinental telephone system, and finally a nationwide television intimacy; with the transformation in managerial techniques wrought by the appearance of computers and other electronic devices that conquer complexity, distance, and even the diffusion of authority; and with the fading of industry as the most important source of employment for Americans.31
Can you believe that entire chunk of text contains only three sentences? A good rule of thumb is that when people use large, elaborate sentences, they want to overwhelm you.
Let me break down Brzezinski’s argument.
More people are going to college; we need a new political system!
Big government funds big science; we need a new political system!
We have nuclear energy; we need a new political system!
We have telephones; we need a new political system!
We have highways; we need a new political system!
We have television; we need a new political system!
We have computers; we need a new political system!
One might just as easily have said: we have more flavors than just chocolate and vanilla ice cream, so we need a new political system!
As always, these avatars of change can’t help but eventually tell you who they love, and who they wish would simply go away:
In the process, it is creating three Americas in one. There is the emerging new America symbolized by the new complexes of learning, research, and development that link institutions of higher learning with society and create unprecedented opportunities for innovation and experimentation, in addition to sparking increased interest in the fine arts and culture, as is evidenced by new museums and art centers. Technetronic America is in the electronics laboratories and centers of learning along Route 128 surrounding Boston, it is in the academic-scientific conglomerates around Los Angeles and San Francisco; and it is in the new frontier industries. The suburban middle class increasingly gravitates toward this America, though frequently resenting its scientism and nostalgically yearning for more community and stability.32
In the next few paragraphs, Brzezinski discusses the other two Americas, the factory workers and “the first America, the pre-industrial America of sharecroppers and migrant workers from the Mississippi delta and of obsolescent miners from Appalachia, whose income has fallen behind the American average.”33
However, they could succeed by subterfuge or somehow obtaining our consent, such as the old superstition about how a vampire could not enter a house without the invitation of the homeowner. We needed to invite, or at least acquiesce to, the entry of the vampire of globalism into our house. Wood detailed a specific change to the strategy of the globalists that came about around 1974:
Richard Gardner, a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, and a professor, wrote an article in 1974 in Foreign Affairs magazine, with the title “The Hard Road to World Order.” You can find it on the internet; it’s been scanned. What he said, and this is a direct quote, was, “It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
The game changed in 1973 with the formation of the Trilateral Commission. Prior to that you had the old-fashioned frontal assault. Then Gardner was saying there needed to be an end-run around national sovereignty. And that’s exactly what they’ve done for the past forty-five or fifty years, chipping away, death by a thousand cuts, piece by piece, eroding national sovereignty.
Probably the best example today is the European Union [EU]. The EU has taken over virtually every single function of the countries that it presides over. You can say on one hand, there’s still a national government in Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Yes, there is. But do they have the same power today that they had, say, thirty years ago? No, of course they don’t.
The EU is now making all of the significant policy decisions for Europe for those individual countries. This has been the standard operating procedure for Technocracy, to chip away at national sovereignty and eventually remove the political structure altogether. That’s been a goal since the 1930s.20
If one looks at the globalists like any other revolutionary movement, it becomes easy to understand their tactics. A frontal assault on the institutions of government was not likely to lead to success. Instead, it was important for them to work incrementally. The globalists are nothing if not patient.
As we wrapped up our interview, Wood suggested three things to me. First, he suggested I reread Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley in 1933, the same year Technocracy established itself at Columbia University. “In Brave New World, there’s no political structure,” said Wood. “The world is run by the scientists and engineers. The book was a direct attack on Technocracy, so I suggest you reread it to see what things have come to pass, and what might be ahead.”
Second, he suggested I simply go to the website for the World Economic Forum and read their papers. “It’s all out in the open,” he said.
Third, he suggested I read the work of Israeli academic Yuval Hariri, probably the most important adviser to Klaus Schwab: “If you want to understand Klaus Schwab, you need to understand Yuval Hariri. He’s got some pretty strange ideas. He’s all about transhumanism and the singularity. His latest book is called Homo Deus, which means man is now God. Gives you a good idea of the man’s humility.”
I promised to do all of those things but first had some other questions. I wanted to know more about David Rockefeller’s book where he discussed the early Trilateral Commission and the book Between Two Ages, which first brought Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski to the attention of the aged billionaire.
* * *
In 2002, when he was eighty-seven years old, David Rockefeller published his 517-page autobiography, Memoirs. Chapter 27 is titled “Proud Internationalist” and details some of his pursuits in that area. After opening with a day in his life (October 23, 1995), in which he met various friends at the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, including Fidel Castro, Rockefeller then turned to his critics:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.21
It’s a bold paragraph, which does several things. First, he paints himself as a centrist, by claiming that he’s attacked by “ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum.” He mentions the claims of those who assert he’s part of a group of internationalists. And instead of denying these claims, he proudly confesses to being a supporter of an “integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will.” It’s a disarming approach.
And yet, he also engages in the demonization of his enemies. While you may believe the “populist” label is a new insult wielded by the left, it’s a little surprising to read the vitriol with which Rockefeller uses the populist label against his enemies on the right or left, in 2002:
The anti-Rockefeller focus of these otherwise incompatible political positions owes much to Populism. “Populists” believe in conspiracies, and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists and their minions, control the world’s economy. Because of my name and prominence as the head of Chase for many years, I have earned the distinction of “conspirator in chief” from some of these people.22
Let’s imagine we put David Rockefeller in the witness chair of a courtroom and cross-examine him. He’s the head of one of the largest banks in the world and criticizes his critics of the left and right, who question how Rockefeller and his fellow rich people are manipulating the world’s economy. If we weren’t dazzled by Rockefeller’s wealth, would we accept him as a credible person to discount the claim that wealthy bankers were controlling a lot of the world? No, we would not.
Rockefeller used much the same approach of lightheartedly dismissing his critics when he discussed the establishment of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller wrote:
No organization with which I have played a founding role has attracted as much public scrutiny and attention as the Trilateral Commission. Pat Robertson has insisted that Trilateral is trying to create a world government and claims that it springs “from the depths of something evil.” My son Richard, when he was a student at Harvard in the 1970s, told me his friends assumed that Trilateral was part of a nefarious conspiracy.23
If we have a little different take on what Rockefeller is saying, he admits that presumably some of the smartest students in the country, those at Harvard University, didn’t trust the Trilateral Commission. But Rockefeller did provide information about the founding of the Trilateral Commission and admits it was his idea:
The idea for an organization including representatives from North America, Europe, and Japan—the three centers of democratic capitalism—resulted from my realization in the early 1970s that power relationships in the world had fundamentally changed. The United States, although still dominant, had declined relatively in terms of its economic power as both Western Europe and Japan recovered from the devastation of World War II and entered a period of dramatic economic growth and expansion. As a result, the comity that characterized relationships among these regions for more than two decades had deteriorated alarmingly, and I believed something needed to be done.24
When it comes from Rockefeller’s own pen, it’s easy to understand why some populists might call him the “conspirator in chief.” In his mind, he was certainly the founder. However, if one is to believe Rockefeller’s account of what happened next, it’s as if his simple charitable plan caused him to be accidentally swept up into the winds of history:
We cast our nets widely in terms of membership and recruited labor union leaders, corporate CEOs, prominent Democrats and Republicans, as well as distinguished academics, university presidents, and the heads of non-profits involved overseas. We assembled what we believed were the best minds in America. The Europeans and Japanese assembled delegations of comparable distinction.25
How could anybody possibly object to one of the world’s richest men bringing together the most powerful and influential people of America, Western Europe, and Japan in the early 1970s? Of course, the rich and powerful always have such get-togethers because they want to do enormous good for the common people. The very idea that such get-to-gethers might be to retain or increase their power in an increasingly democratic world, well, it should be banned from all media!
And it was certainly a complete coincidence that among that first group of American politicians invited onto the Trilateral Commission was one who would go on to grab the ultimate prize:
The inclusion among that first group of an obscure Democratic governor of Georgia—James Earl Carter—had an unintended consequence. A week after Trilateral’s first executive committee meeting in Washington in December 1975, Governor Carter announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. I have to confess that at the time I thought he had little chance of success. Much to my amazement, however, he not only won the Democratic nomination but defeated President Gerald Ford in the November election.26
Now, even though James Earl Carter was “an obscure Democratic governor of Georgia,” what might have made him such an attractive recruit for the Trilateral Commission? Could it have been that he was trained in the Navy as a nuclear engineer, making him an ideal acolyte for this new religion of scientism in which engineers and scientists would be the new high priests? The parade of good news for the members of the newly formed Trilateral Commission just kept coming in. As Rockefeller recounted:
Carter’s campaign was subtly anti-Washington and antiestablishment, and he pledged to bring both new faces and new ideas into government. There was a good deal of surprise, then, when he chose fifteen members of Trilateral, many of whom had served in previous administrations, for his team, including Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal, and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security advisor. In his 1975 autobiography, Why Not the Best?, Carter wrote that “membership on this commission has provided me with a splendid learning opportunity, and many of the other members have helped me in the study of foreign affairs.”27
That must have set some all-time political record from starting your organization in 1973 to winning the presidency in 1976 and stocking the cabinet with fellow members. And while some who know their history will no doubt recollect that Carter quickly became bogged down in various problems, such as the Iranian hostage crisis, runaway inflation, and gas shortages, even a new president from the opposing party couldn’t seem to break free of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller wrote:
In the 1980 presidential primary campaign, for instance, one of Ronald Reagan’s supporters ran an advertisement that stated, “The people who brought you Jimmy Carter now want you to vote for George Bush,” and highlighted the membership of both in Trilateral. I am not sure how many votes were changed by this ad, but such is the nature of politics in a democratic society. I should note, however, that President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value and invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House in April 1984.28
When I read that paragraph, it only brings a sense of sadness to me, seeming to show that Reagan also had to eventually knuckle under to the power of the globalists. Maybe he just wanted to keep his enemies close. Maybe it was simply about retaining power, the common flaw of most political leaders.
I will give the final word to David Rockefeller, from the end of his chapter “Proud Internationalist”:
These organizations reflect my belief in the principle of “constructive engagement.” As an intelligence officer during World War II, I learned that my effectiveness depended on my ability to develop a network of people with reliable information and influence.
Some may feel this technique is cynical and manipulative. I disagree. Such an approach enabled me to meet people who were useful in advancing goals and gave me opportunities to form lasting friendships that have greatly enriched my life.29
I will leave it to you to decide whether that passage comforts you in the belief that the wealthy and powerful are looking out for your best interests, or whether that passage fills you with stark, raving terror.
* * *
Rockefeller provided the financial muscle for the Trilateral Commission, but the intellectual firepower came from former Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski and his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. There were only nineteen used copies of the original hardcover version available on Amazon, so I spent $49.50 to purchase one of the few remaining copies. Patrick Wood had given me good advice when he said I should get a copy, as it opened a clear window into the globalist mindset.
Like Schwab after him, Brzezinski spent much of the first portion of the book reciting history and the rapid pace of change. There’s a technique that persuaders will engage in to gain your acceptance. They begin by telling you things with which you already agree and, once trust has been established, ever so gently try to lead you to their position. This is how Brzezinski opened his book:
The paradox of our time is that humanity is becoming simultaneously more unified and more fragmented. That is the principle thrust of contemporary change. Time and space have become so compressed that global politics manifest a tendency toward larger, more interwoven forms of cooperation as well as toward the dissolution of established institutional and ideological loyalties. Humanity is becoming more integral and intimate even as the differences in the conditions of the separate societies are widening. Under these circumstances, proximity, instead of promoting unity, give rise to tensions prompted by a new sense of global congestion.30
As the opening of a book by a Columbia University professor, it’s not bad. It’s a little wonky but sets up a duality for you between unity and division. We feel excited, and at the same time we feel anxious. Pretty much how most people feel most of the time.
However, it’s only when Brzezinski reaches “Part IV: The American Transition” (about two hundred pages in) that he starts to lay the groundwork for his new revolution. He characterizes our war with England as the first American Revolution, the Civil War as the Second American Revolution, and the time period after World War II as the Third American Revolution. And Brzezinski starts to engage in the same kind of breathless, gee-whiz, “ain’t technology great” hyperbole that Klaus Schwab will use decades later:
The third American revolution is even harder to define, for we are now in the middle of it and thus cannot be certain of its outcome. In one respect, however, it is easier to identify than the second, for its impact and its effect are more concentrated in time. The third revolution began gathering momentum after World War II, with the massive explosion in higher learning and the growing acceptance of the social primacy of education; with the union of national power and modern science crowned by the harnessing of nuclear energy and the federal government emerging as a major sponsor of scientific investigation; with the sudden birth of rapid continental communications, ranging from the world’s most modern and developed highway systems, through rapid air passenger transport, to a uniquely effective instant transcontinental telephone system, and finally a nationwide television intimacy; with the transformation in managerial techniques wrought by the appearance of computers and other electronic devices that conquer complexity, distance, and even the diffusion of authority; and with the fading of industry as the most important source of employment for Americans.31
Can you believe that entire chunk of text contains only three sentences? A good rule of thumb is that when people use large, elaborate sentences, they want to overwhelm you.
Let me break down Brzezinski’s argument.
More people are going to college; we need a new political system!
Big government funds big science; we need a new political system!
We have nuclear energy; we need a new political system!
We have telephones; we need a new political system!
We have highways; we need a new political system!
We have television; we need a new political system!
We have computers; we need a new political system!
One might just as easily have said: we have more flavors than just chocolate and vanilla ice cream, so we need a new political system!
As always, these avatars of change can’t help but eventually tell you who they love, and who they wish would simply go away:
In the process, it is creating three Americas in one. There is the emerging new America symbolized by the new complexes of learning, research, and development that link institutions of higher learning with society and create unprecedented opportunities for innovation and experimentation, in addition to sparking increased interest in the fine arts and culture, as is evidenced by new museums and art centers. Technetronic America is in the electronics laboratories and centers of learning along Route 128 surrounding Boston, it is in the academic-scientific conglomerates around Los Angeles and San Francisco; and it is in the new frontier industries. The suburban middle class increasingly gravitates toward this America, though frequently resenting its scientism and nostalgically yearning for more community and stability.32
In the next few paragraphs, Brzezinski discusses the other two Americas, the factory workers and “the first America, the pre-industrial America of sharecroppers and migrant workers from the Mississippi delta and of obsolescent miners from Appalachia, whose income has fallen behind the American average.”33
