There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking place around the world; it is unprecedented in reach and volume, and it
is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the ‘global
political awakening.’ The term was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and
refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote:



For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically
activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global
activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and
economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or
imperial domination.[1]



It is, in essence, this massive ‘global political awakening’ which
presents the gravest and greatest challenge to the organized powers of
globalization and the global political economy: nation-states,
multinational corporations and banks, central banks, international
organizations, military, intelligence, media and academic institutions.
The Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), or ‘Superclass’ as David
Rothkopf refers to them, are globalized like never before. For the first
time in history, we have a truly global and heavily integrated elite.
As elites have globalized their power, seeking to construct a ‘new world
order’ of global governance and ultimately global government, they have
simultaneously globalized populations.



The ‘Technological Revolution’ (or ‘Technetronic’ Revolution, as
Brzezinski termed it in 1970) involves two major geopolitical
developments. The first is that as technology advances, systems of mass
communication rapidly accelerate, and the world’s people are able to
engage in instant communication with one another and gain access to
information from around the world. In it, lies the potential – and
ultimately a central source – of a massive global political awakening.
Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed elites to
redirect and control society in ways never before imagined, ultimately
culminating in a global scientific dictatorship, as many have warned of
since the early decades of the 20th century. The potential for
controlling the masses has never been so great, as science unleashes the
power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and new forms of modern
eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite equipped with systems of
psycho-social control (the use of psychology in controlling the masses).



What is the “Global Political Awakening”?



To answer this question, it is best to let Zbigniew Brzezinski speak for
himself, since it is his term. In 2009, Zbigniew Brzezinski published
an article based on a speech he delivered to the London-based Chatham
House in their academic journal, International Affairs. Chatham House,
formerly the Royal Institute of International Relations, is the British
counterpart to the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, both of which
were founded in 1921 as “Sister Institutes” to coordinate Anglo-American
foreign policy. His article, “Major foreign policy challenges for the
next US President,” aptly analyzes the major geopolitical challenges for
the Obama administration in leading the global hegemonic state at this
critical juncture. Brzezinski refers to the ‘global political awakening’
as “a truly transformative event on the global scene,” since:



For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is
politically activated, politically conscious and politically
interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the
remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged
with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today
around the world. The resulting global political activism is generating a
surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic
opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long
alien colonial or imperial domination.[2]



Brzezinski posits that the ‘global political awakening’ is one of the
most dramatic and significant developments in geopolitics that has ever
occurred, and it “is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to
Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet.” As the Economist explained, “Though
America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the
wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a
different direction: It's about dignity.” Further, argues Brzezinski,
“The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge
inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening.”[3]



In 2005, Brzezinski wrote an essay for The American Interest entitled,
“The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign,” in which he explains the
geopolitical landscape that America and the world find themselves in. He
wrote that, “For most states, sovereignty now verges on being a legal
fiction,” and he critically assessed the foreign policy objectives and
rhetoric of the Bush administration. Brzezinski has been an ardent
critic of the “war on terror” and the rhetoric inherent in it, namely
that of the demonization of Islam and Muslim people, which constitute
one of the fastest growing populations and the fastest growing religion
in the world. Brzezinski fears the compound negative affects this can
have on American foreign policy and the objectives and aspirations of
global power. He writes:



America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality:
that the world's population is experiencing a political awakening
unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics
of populism are transforming the politics of power. The need to respond
to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America an
historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America's
global role?[4]



Brzezinski explains that formulating a foreign policy based off of one
single event – the September 11th terror attacks – has both legitimized
illegal measures (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc) and has
launched and pacified citizens to accepting the “global war on terror,” a
war without end. The rhetoric and emotions central to this global
foreign policy created a wave of patriotism and feelings of redemption
and revenge. Thus, Brzezinski explains:



There was no need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually
were, where they came from, or what historical motives, religious
passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on America.
Terrorism thus replaced Soviet nuclear weapons as the principal threat,
and terrorists (potentially omnipresent and generally identified as
Muslims) replaced communists as the ubiquitous menace.[5]



Brzezinski explains that this foreign policy, which has inflamed
anti-Americanism around the world, specifically in the Muslim world,
which was the principle target population of ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, has
in fact further inflamed the ‘global political awakening’. Brzezinski
writes that:



[T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism,
but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of
global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and
politically radicalizing.[6]



This ‘global political awakening’, Brzezinski writes, while unique in
its global scope today, originates in the ideas and actions of the
French Revolution, which was central in “transforming modern politics
through the emergence of a socially powerful national consciousness.”
Brzezinski explains the evolution of the ‘awakening’:



During the subsequent 216 years, political awakening has spread
gradually but inexorably like an ink blot. Europe of 1848, and more
generally the nationalist movements of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, reflected the new politics of populist passions and growing
mass commitment. In some places that combination embraced utopian
Manichaeism for which the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Fascist
assumption of power in Italy in 1922, and the Nazi seizure of the German
state in 1933 were the launch-pads. The political awakening also swept
China, precipitating several decades of civil conflict. Anti-colonial
sentiments galvanized India, where the tactic of passive resistance
effectively disarmed imperial domination, and after World War II
anti-colonial political stirrings elsewhere ended the remaining European
empires. In the western hemisphere, Mexico experienced the first
inklings of populist activism already in the 1860s, leading eventually
to the Mexican Revolution of the early 20th century.[7]



Ultimately, what this implies is that – regardless of the final results
of past awakenings – what is central to the concept of a ‘political
awakening’ is the population – the people – taking on a political and
social consciousness and subsequently, partaking in massive political
and social action aimed at generating a major shift and change, or
revolution, in the political, social and economic realms. Thus, no
social transformation presents a greater or more direct challenge to
entrenched and centralized power structures – whether they are
political, social or economic in nature. Brzezinski goes on to explain
the evolution of the ‘global political awakening’ in modern times:



It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the
population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and
in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely
conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often
resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity. The nearly
universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is
creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be
galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions.
These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to
existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of
which America still perches.[8]



Brzezinski explains that several central areas of the ‘global political
awakening’, such as China, India, Egypt, Bolivia, the Muslims in the
Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia and increasingly in Europe, as
well as Indians in Latin America, “increasingly are defining what they
desire in reaction to what they perceive to be the hostile impact on
them of the outside world. In differing ways and degrees of intensity
they dislike the status quo, and many of them are susceptible to being
mobilized against the external power that they both envy and perceive as
self-interestedly preoccupied with that status quo.” Brzezinski
elaborates on the specific group most affected by this awakening:



The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful.
The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as
well. With the exception of Europe, Japan and America, the rapidly
expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under age bracket is
creating a huge mass of impatient young people. Their minds have been
stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar and which intensify
their disaffection with what is at hand. Their potential revolutionary
spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of
students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary
level" educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on
the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently
worldwide between 80 and 130 million "college" students. Typically
originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed
by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are
revolutionaries-in-waiting..,
already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet
and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired
years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical
energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a
cause, or a faith, or a hatred.[9]



Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global “challenge” to
entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that cannot sufficiently
address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands,
what is required, is “increasingly supranational cooperation, actively
promoted by the United States.” In other words, Brzezinski favours an
increased and expanded ‘internationalization’, not surprising
considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral
Commission. He explains that “Democracy per se is not an enduring
solution,” as it could be overtaken by “radically resentful populism.”
This is truly a new global reality:



Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy
can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national
self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social
rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic
inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through national
self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of
self-assertion by the world's underprivileged.[10]



Thus, writes Brzezinski, “An effective response can only come from a
self-confident America genuinely committed to a new vision of global
solidarity.” The idea is that to address the grievances caused by
globalization and global power structures, the world and America must
expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply in
the economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is a
flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to this problem is to
enhance and strengthen the systemic problems. One cannot put out a fire
by adding fuel.



Brzezinski even wrote that, “Let it be said right away that
supranationality should not be confused with world government. Even if
it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government,
and the American people certainly do not want it.” Instead, Brzezinski
argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global
governance, “in shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of
state sovereignty and more by the reality of expanding and politically
regulated interdependence.”[11] In other words, not ‘global government’
but ‘global governance’, which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as ‘global
governance’ – no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it
presents itself, is in fact a key step and necessary transition in the
moves toward an actual global government.



Thus, the rhetoric and reality of a “global war on terror” in actuality
further inflames the ‘global political awakening’ as opposed to
challenging and addressing the issue. In 2007, Brzezinski told the US
Senate that the “War on terror” was a “mythical historical
narrative,”[12] or in other words, a complete fiction.



Of Power and People



To properly understand the ‘global political awakening’ it is imperative
to understand and analyze the power structures that it most gravely
threatens. Why is Brzezinski speaking so vociferously on this subject?
From what perspective does he approach this issue?



Global power structures are most often represented by nation-states, of
which there are over 200 in the world, and the vast majority are
overlooking increasingly politically awakened populations who are more
shaped by transnational communications and realities (such as poverty,
inequality, war, empire, etc.) than by national issues. Among
nation-states, the most dominant are the western powers, particularly
the United States, which sits atop the global hierarchy of nations as
the global hegemon (empire). American foreign policy was provided with
the imperial impetus by an inter-locking network of international think
tanks, which bring together the top political, banking, industrial,
academic, media, military and intelligence figures to formulate
coordinated policies.



The most notable of these institutions that socialize elites across
national borders and provide the rationale and impetus for empire are an
inter-locking network of international think tanks. In 1921, British
and American elite academics got together with major international
banking interests to form two “sister institutes” called the Royal
Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, now known as
Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United
States. Subsequent related think tanks were created in Canada, such as
the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, now known as the
Canadian International Council (CIC), and other affiliated think tanks
in South Africa, India, Australia, and more recently in the European
Union with the formation of the European Council on Foreign
Relations.[13]



Following World War I, these powers sought to reshape the world order in
their designs, with Woodrow Wilson proclaiming a right to “national
self determination” which shaped the formation of nation-states
throughout the Middle East, which until the war was dominated by the
Ottoman Empire. Thus, proclaiming a right to “self-determination” for
people everywhere became, in fact, a means of constructing nation-state
power structures which the western nations became not only instrumental
in building, but in exerting hegemony over. To control people, one must
construct institutions of control. Nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, etc., did not exist prior to World War
I.



Elites have always sought to control populations and individuals for
their own power desires. It does not matter whether the political system
is that of fascism, communism, socialism or democracy: elites seek
power and control and are inherent in each system of governance. In
1928, Edward Bernays, nephew of the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund
Freud, wrote one of his most influential works entitled “Propaganda.”
Bernays also wrote the book on “Public Relations,” and is known as the
“father of public relations,” and few outside of that area know of
Bernays; however, his effect on elites and social control has been
profound and wide-ranging.



Bernays led the propaganda effort behind the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala,
framing it as a “liberation from Communism” when in fact it was the
imposition of a decades-long dictatorship to protect the interests of
the United Fruit Company, who had hired Bernays to manage the media
campaign against the democratic socialist government of Guatemala.
Bernays also found a fan and student in Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s
Minister of Propaganda, who took many of his ideas from Bernays’
writings. Among one of Bernays’ more infamous projects was the
popularizing of smoking for American women, as he hired beautiful women
to walk up and down Madison Avenue while smoking cigarettes, giving
women the idea that smoking is synonymous with beauty.



In his 1928 book, “Propaganda,” Bernays wrote that, “If we understand
the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to
control and regiment the masses according to our will without their
knowing it.” Further:



The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society...
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . .
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of
politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we
are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who
understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is
they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[14]



Following World War II, America became the global hegemon, whose
imperial impetus was provided by the strategic concept of “containment”
in containing the spread of Communism. Thus, America’s imperial
adventures in Korea, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America
became defined by the desire to “roll back” the influence of the Soviet
Union and Communism. It was, not surprisingly, the Council on Foreign
Relations that originated the idea of “containment” as a central feature
of foreign policy.[15]



Further, following World War II, America was handed the responsibility
for overseeing and managing the international monetary system and global
political economy through the creation of institutions and agreements
such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO, the UN,
and GATT (later to become the World Trade Organization – WTO). One
central power institution that was significant in establishing consensus
among Western elites and providing a forum for expanding global western
hegemony was the Bilderberg Group, founded in 1954 as an international
think tank.[16]



Zbigniew Brzezinski, an up-and-coming academic, joined the Council on
Foreign Relations in the early 1960s. In 1970, Brzezinski, who had
attended a few Bilderberg meetings, wrote a book entitled, “Between Two
Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” in which he analyzed the
impact of the ‘Revolution in Technology and Electronics,’ thus, the
‘technetronic era.’ Brzezinski defines the ‘technetronic society’ as, “a
society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and
economically by the impact of technology and electronics – particularly
in the arena of computers and communications. The industrial process is
no longer the principal determinant of social change, altering the
mores, the social structure, and the values of society.”[17]



Brzezinski, expanding upon notions of social control, such as those
propagated by Edward Bernays, wrote that, “Human conduct, some argue,
can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control,” and he quoted
an “experimenter in intelligence control” who asserted that, “I foresee
the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the
temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of
all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the
brain.”[18].