135 of 140 people found the following review helpful
A Spine Chilling prediction of present circumstances.,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (Paperback)Like others offering their reviews, I rate this book very highly not because it is a real "page turner" or is particularly well written, but because of its cold Machiavellian analysis of the need to protect and expand the American Empire and what that means to the ordinary Joe and Jane Citizen.
Three things in this book made my blood run ice cold. The first is the complete absense of any sense of morality in the whole discussion. I do not mean that this is an *im*moral book, it is not a moral book, it is *a*moral in that there is literally no discussion whatsoever whether what is being proposed is RIGHT or should be done. That the recomendations to grow the American Empire are valid is simply assumed, not proven or even argued. The second thing was the whole discussion on how the political center of mass was Central Eurasia (i.e. the region between Turkey and Pakistan and between Iran and Turkmenistan) and how unlikely it was that we were going to be able to have a substantial presence in the region (in the near term) unless we have SOME PERL HARBOR CLASS EVENT to accelerate the populations willingness to accept the costs. Also, This Was Bad because it would delay our needed expansion. Then, just on cue, we have the 9/11 attacks, and dang if we don't end up with a Whole Bunch of military presence all throughout the heart of Eurasia... Coincidence? Makes one wonder. As if that is not enough, the book closes with a clear and unambiguous reference to the steps needed to get us to the One World Government of the New World Order.
Read it and weep because, as another reviewer stated, he is not predicting the future, he is *planning* the future. Coldly. Methodically.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 14, 2008 11:57:59 PM PST
Show Me says:
How is this book that much differant from the PNAC statements and objectives. Brezezenski is supposedly a member of North American Union or Trilateral commision, which fits into this mold. The book proposes exactly what we are already doing in the M.E. One can sqauble over certan tactics but th ebasics are the same and this is Obama's man. But then maintaining a military presence and U.S. interests is not really bringing the troops home, it will be more of the same just differant tactics. Domination no matter who gets elected.
Posted on Jun 6, 2010 7:44:24 AM PDT
Lasse Ellingsen says:
I can completely emphatize (Brezinsky can`t) with the feeling of your blood running ice cold. Mine does to whenever I hear Brezinsky speak or read something of his. He is the Rove\Cheney of the left. Brezinsky is much more chilling though and more intelligent I suspect.
Posted on May 16, 2011 5:16:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2011 5:26:16 AM PDT
The tactics used to subdue foreign countries are being used now in the United States to ensure that Americans cannot object to our Shadow Government's foreign military aggression. To stifle domestic dissent, the warmongers have established a virtual prison for ALL Americans right under Americans' noses. (See: gangstalking, directed energy weapons, American Gestapo.) They have refined their techniques of destruction by taking a lot of the "face to face" unpleasantness out of killing. They kill from 10,000 feet altitude, they kill with predator drones while sitting at computer screens. They kill with directed energy weapons that leave no evidence on the body. These weapons cook a person's insides, imitating death from natural causes. Yes, it doesn't take many 200 IQ psychopaths to destroy civilization; they gravitate to the power positions.
Posted on Sep 21, 2011 7:45:32 PM PDT
Ted P. Gemberling says:
This book seems (I haven't read it yet) to present a pretty gloomy view of our future. While I bet much of what Brzezinski says is true, I still think there's room for optimism. Actually, I think the world may get better regardless of what Americans do. I recently read a book I found in a used book store called "The Third World War, August 1985" by General Sir John Hackett (a NATO general) and others. It was published in 1978 and gives you an interesting snapshot into what people in the West were thinking in the late 70's. I think it was something of a best seller at the time, but with the passing of August 1985, it kind of ended up on the dustbin of history. The book is his projection of what might happen if we didn't toughen up our military preparedness in the West. Of course the WW III projection didn't happen, but it's interesting how many other things he projected didn't turn out right. For example, he believed that the younger generation of people in the Soviet Union would be more ideologically committed to Communism than their elders. I suppose maybe that was just caution on his part: maybe he thought it was reckless to assume they wouldn't be. It's best to be prepared for the worst. But he also could not conceive that white South Africans would give up apartheid. He expected us to fight alongside the Afrikaners against the Communist hordes. Of course it turned out they did give it up, and I think it was at least partly due to good will among the Afrikaners themselves, who realized their system wasn't tenable. That is my big example of the world getting better. The cooling down of tension in Northern Ireland is another one. Hackett was right about one thing: he could recognize that Communism was unraveling in Poland at his time. He thought the Communists' need to hold onto power would get stronger and more desperate as it unraveled in places like Poland.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›