Brzezinski, the "master of darkness"

Brzezinski

Zbigniew Kaminiev Brzezinski (ZKB) was a former consultant of some presidential administrations in the United States since President Carter. Political commentators often say that since the 70's, there have been two presidents of the United States: Brzezinski and Kissinger. He is one of the « mentors » of Barack Obama in international affairs. He is considered as the first supporter of the mujahidin during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union in the 80's. He is one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission and of the Council on Foreign Relations (one of the biggest and most influential lobbies in the United States). He is linked with the Democratic Party).

In 1997, he wrote a best-seller book entitled The grand chessboard. In this book, he explains that the United States is a new kind of superpower: for the first time in history, a superpower is really global and without rivals. Before that, some superpowers coexisted with some other superpowers (for example: The Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire and the Persian Kingdom). He says that this situation cannot continue because the weight of the United States in the global economy is too weak. This weight tumbled?? (pas compris ...). He predicts that the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the United States will represent about 10% of the world GDP.

He proposes an agenda to use the last generation as « USA hegemony » to build a special type of globalism, favourable to the elite of the American nation. He describes the future of the world society in these terms: very small groups of very influent members who run the world (pas trop compris); a middle-class of 5 to 20% of the world population to run the productive devive?? (pas compris non plus); the others are « useless ».

He wants to promote a united Europe as an ally of the United States. He says that United Kingdom does not exist anymore as a separate power of Uncle Sam. He mentions the existence of a western “hyper-class” (a term invented by Huntington) in which the Anglo-sphere will be dominant.
The problem is that Eurasia (Europe, Russia, China, India) is more powerful than that Anglo-sphere. To preserve the hegemony of the Anglo-sphere, it is necessary to fight against the union of the different States of Eurasia (it is a recurrent theme in the international policy of the United States since the « Rimland theory » of Spykman). It is also necessary to prevent the Russians (who are the center of Eurasia) to make this union.

Brzezinski says there are some fractures between Europe and Russia, between Europe and the Islamic world, between the Islamic world and India, between India and China, etc. The United States must play with theses fractures to preserve its hegemony. He does not propose a strategy based on war but on infiltration of non-American elites to influence local populations. The infiltration of these elites need a good image of the United States beside the population?? (pas compris). He speaks about « locking » the élite.

He was called the "master of darkness" or "the prince of darkness" by some commentators like Peter Dale Scott for his genius and his cynicism.

Bibliography:

- Le grand échiquier, Zbigniew Brzezinski

- Stategic Vision: America and the crisis of global Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski

- Le vrai choix, Zbigniew Brzezinski

- Choc et simulacre, Michel Drac

- American war machine, Peter Dale Scott

Is Huntington a neo-conservative?

For lot of people, the theory of clash of civilizations is a neo conservative theory in international relations. They see this as a creation of some thinkers close to some lobbies in Washington.

The creator of the theory of the « Clash of civilizations » is Samuel Huntington. He developed this view in his book The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order in 1996. Unlike the neo conservative philosophers or the political analysts, Huntington was a « culturalist », a minority school of international studies. The majority school is the « realist ». For them, the first and the most important actor in international policy is State. According to Huntington, it is the culture, and notably the cultures clash.
Huntington believed that civilizations embody cultures. The culture generates legal, political and economic facts. He followed the French historian Fernand Braudel, and especially his book Grammaire des civilisations that he often quoted to support his viewpoint.
Huntington was not a real democrat. For example, in his book Soldier and the state, published in 1957, he claimed for a military government in the United States. Unlike the neo conservative, he did not want to export human rights in other countries.

He cut out the world in nine civilizations, more or less open to the others: Western, Orthodox, Islamic, African, Latin American, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist and Hindu. To preserve the might of the United States, he advocated an alliance between America and Europe, including Russia.

There were a lot of controversies about the existence of civilizations and the border between them. In practice, the neo conservative are not « huntingtonians ». Indeed, Huntington used to say: « Islamic civilization borders are bloody, you should not approach them ». He was in favour of remoteness and separation: the border between the western and the islamic civilization has to be sealed-off.

He was not interventionist or warmonger: he maintained that the civilizational wars are the only real total war because its goal is the total destruction of the enemy (he used the term « genocide » for example).

To understand his view, we must remember that he was a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) oligarch (he used himself the term « oligarchy » several times); he thought that the better government for the United States is the soft domination of rich white American protestant.
Unlike the neo conservative, the most dangerous enemies for him are the Latin Americans. He developed this point in the book Who are we?, published in 2004 (a recovery of the second part of his magnum opus).

The neo conservative think our type of government is a mix between democracy and free market (which bring peace to the others countries). They want to make « nation building » and « state building » from this two principles.

To conclude, we can say that Huntington was not a neo conservative and that the neo conservatives are not huntingtonians. In some situation (the situation of Russia, for example), there is an opposition between the two schools.

Bibliography:
- Le choc des civilisations, Samuel P. Huntington
- Qui sommes-nous? Identité nationale et choc des cultures, Samuel P. Huntington
- L'état et le soldat, Samuel P. Huntington
- Chrnonique du choc des civilisations, Aymeric Chauprade, édition 2011

Introduction

The United States of America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, maybe the most powerful of them. It was the first country to be called “hyperpower” (« hyperpuissance »), after the cold war and the end of the Soviet Union.
This power is not something totally new. For the historians, it appeared in the first quarter of the Nineteenth century. Indeed, one of the key dates is 1823: it was the year of the elaboration of the Monroe Doctrine, which established the idea that the American continent is the private preserve of the United States. However, the first real American thought was born at the end of this century. Paradoxically, one of the first thinkers was not a politician or a soldier, but the author of « Moby Dick », Herman Melville, who expressed the idea of an « American messianism ». Thereafter, other theories was developed: a few years after the publication of « Moby Dick » appeared the isolationist theory which culminated during the first half of the twentieth century.

The goal of this blog is to present, explain and clarify (in particular for the controversial theories) the views of some important thinkers of American Power. The political and economic context of the country increases their influence through some think tank, lobbies, governmental organisations (like the « Council on Foreign Relation ») and even the government itself. We will try to understand how they see the American Power and what goals they give it. We will study their influence on the decision-makers, and in particular in the White House cabinet.