Is a Radical Geopolitical Realignment Happening Under Our Noses?

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Over the past few years I've read a number of articles about the coming demise of America's global supremacy. By way of contrast, about 10 years ago I read a book that argued that America would be the ruling global power for the next 100 years. (I believe it was called The Next 100 Years.) Having read a couple other books about the rapid decline of Great Britain and Western Europe in the first half of the last century, I am reluctant to make those kinds of assumptions. On Wall Street they say, "The Trend is your friend." Until it isn't.

Just out of curiosity I decided to ask ChatGPT what its thoughts were on this matter. I asked, "Is a radical geopolitical realignment underway that is hastening the demise of American global supremacy?"

ChatGPT began with its usual disclaimer. "As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future or provide a definite answer to this question. However, I can provide some insights based on the available information."

Here are the points this AI bot presented.

The international system is always in a state of flux, and it is not uncommon for countries to rise and fall in terms of global power and influence. There is no doubt that the global geopolitical landscape is undergoing significant changes, with emerging powers such as China and India, as well as resurgent powers such as Russia, challenging the traditional dominance of the United States in various ways.

Some experts argue that the current international system is undergoing a "power transition" or a "power shift," in which the relative power of various states is shifting. This shift is driven by a range of factors, including economic growth, military power, technological advancement, and changing patterns of global governance.

However, the extent to which these changes will lead to the "demise of American global supremacy" remains a subject of debate. While the United States faces significant challenges from rising powers, it continues to possess significant economic, military, and cultural power, as well as a powerful network of alliances and partnerships around the world. Additionally, the international system is highly complex, and it is difficult to predict how various factors will interact and shape the future.

In conclusion, while a radical geopolitical realignment is certainly underway, it is difficult to predict its ultimate impact on American global supremacy. The future will depend on a range of factors, including the actions and strategies of various states, as well as broader global trends and developments.

In 2003 Noam Chomsky published a book titled Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. U.S. hegemony refers to the United States' position as the dominant global power, with significant influence over the international system, including political, economic, and military spheres. Chomsky suggests that we have not achieved or maintained our leadership or dominance in an admirable way. Rather, it is maintained through a combination of coercion, persuasion, and consent.

In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky argues that the socio-economic elite who control the United States have pursued an "Imperial Grand Strategy" since the end of World War II to maintain global dominance. In doing so the US has repeatedly shown a total disregard for democracy and human rights, in stark contrast to the US government's professed support for those values. This policy has been responsible for a range of negative consequences, including increased global instability, the erosion of civil liberties, and the perpetuation of poverty and inequality around the world.

Chomsky lays out numerous examples, which make him a thorn in the side for those who look at our country through rose-colored glasses. Chomsky argues that the United States has pursued this policy of global dominance through a variety of means, including military force, economic coercion, and political manipulation. He also argues that the United States has been able to maintain its dominance through a system of propaganda and control of the media. 

The book also explores the roots of American foreign policy in historical events such as the Cold War and the Vietnam War, and examines the role of corporations and the military-industrial complex in shaping American foreign policy. 

Chomsky concludes that the pursuit of global dominance is not only morally wrong, but also counterproductive, as it creates more enemies and perpetuates the very problems it seeks to solve. He argues that a more cooperative and equitable approach to foreign policy is needed if the world is to address the urgent challenges it faces, including poverty, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

Getting back to the main question, is a radical geopolitical realignment happening? It is my opinion that the manner in which this country has dealt with the rest of the world has resulted in a loss of respect for the US. As a result, we have made many enemies, and (worse) many of our friends (allies) are weary of having to kowtow to our perpetual demands. If there were an alternative sandbox to play in, they'd leave us in an instant.

Though Pat Buchanan is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Chomsky, his 1998 book The Great Betrayal made a pointed observation regarding our role in the world. The full title is The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy. When I read this book two decades ago, one key message came through loud and clear. Empires rise and empires fall. And they can fall quickly.

If you know your history, the British Empire was the dominant force in global affairs for 300 years. For three centuries the ruled the high seas and thereby played a significant role in all things related to global commerce. As the 20th century unfolded, this would all change. In fifty years, Britain became a shadow of itself, a former empire gone bust.

Buchanan's book is a warning to American's that it can also happen here, and it can happen faster than you might imagine. 

It's ironic that US newspapers are printing stories about the International Criminal Court having an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes without mentioning that the same tribunal sought to have US leaders and the CIA arrested for war crimes in the Middle East. Neither Russia or China are part of the ICC, nor is the US.

As for the geopolitical realignment question, when I re-asked the question, ChatGPT's conclusion was yes, "a radical geopolitical realignment is underway which is hastening the demise of American global supremacy." 

Related Link

10 Examples Where the US Has Supported Leaders Who Violate Human Rights

NPR Takes a Swipe at Ben Shapiro

In March I wrote a blog post about the Top Ten Podcasts that people have been tuning in to. The reason for this was that I'd heard that one of these was a local Duluth Catholic priest called Father Mike. When I shared the list I noticed that Ben Shapiro was also in the top ten. 

I only listened to parts of his videos a couple times but have read enough about him in recent years to know who he is. I got the impression that his schtick is similar to the boy who said, "Oh my! The king doesn't have any clothes on!"

About ten days ago NPR did what I would call a "hit piece" on Shapiro. The angle was interesting because of the angle of their attack. The title of the article -- a transcript of what played on All Things Considered -- is "Outrage As A Business Model: How Ben Shapiro Is Using Facebook To Build An Empire."

The article begins by showing the size of his audience and the success he has achieved. He has more followers than the Washington Post.  What's more, the content he creates has more likes and shares than any other news producers "by a wide margin." In short, what he's doing is generating engagement. What's wrong with that? 

Well, to paraphrase, it's not fair. The NYTimes and Washington Post have big staffs to support. In other words, he gets so much more reach and has more impact than he deserves. 

One things that's not fair to his competitors, including NPR I suspect, is that he doesn't do journalism. That is, he doesn't have a staff researching stories. Rather, he talks about the stories that the paid staff of other media enterprises create. He's basically a reporter on the way that they -- liberal media -- cover the news.

I think what irks left-leaning media like NPR and CNN is that Shapiro is successful. Also, he seems skilled at showing how THEY are spinning the stories they tell.

The story makes a fascinating accusation a little further on. They interview an expert who explains how even when there is nothing untrue in what is said, the effect is to create a false narrative. "If you've stripped enough context away, any piece of truth can become a piece of misinformation." 

Well, it takes one to know one. This is precisely the game liberal media has played for ages. Bernard Goldberg's book Bias showed how Dan Rather would discard stories that countered the narrative he was constantly striving to weave. Bias uses example after example to make its point. The book's subtitle is, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News. (For the record, Goldberg was second in command behind Rather at CBS. He saw it all, firsthand.)

Last year there were journalists on the New York Times who protested when the Times printed an editorial by a conservative GOP congressman on their Opinion page. The impression I got from the article was that some staffers think balanced reporting is wrong, that we are in a war of ideas and journalists have to take a stand. (i.e. slanting the story is O.K. if it serves higher purposes.)

Here's another barb from the NPR story. "Traditional media would set the agenda but not necessarily tell people what to think," Freelon said. "Ben Shapiro is sort of cornering both aspects: telling [people] what to think about, and secondly, telling them what their opinions should be about those particular topics."

When Freelon says, "traditional media" he is referring to mainstream media, which conservatives have dubbed MSM as a pejorative. Conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro (I suspect, having never listened much to either) may agree that MSM does not Tell people what to think, they just EXPECT you to think this way "because it is the correct way to think."

MY TAKE is that people need to use their brains, read both sides and not behave like infants eating baby food, eating whatever flavor is spooned into their mouths. We need to assume responsibility for mental hygiene as well as our physical health. "You know that what you eat you are" applies to mind food and not just to vitamins and veggies. 

HERE'S THE ORIGINAL STORY FROM NPR:  
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1013793067/outrage-as-a-business-model-how-ben-shapiro-is-using-facebook-to-build-an-empire

SEE ALSO: He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

East and West

Somewhat busy today. We finally have a hot one. Summertime's here and it does create a pair of feelings. First, the desire to get things done outside because it's a weekend, and the weather is nice rather than crappy. Simultaneously, it makes one wish to just kick back and take it easy. So, what's a fella to do?

This month's Wired magazine has an extensive article about Facebook's battle to dominate Google. Personally, I'm tired of Facebook. It's interesting, however, that no company can rest on its laurels, and Google is no exception. The same can be said for countries, I suppose. All the great empires have come and gone and we're kidding ourselves if we think our nation is going to be the exception.

But I'm talking Facebook and Google here, so I'll try to stay on task. In 1996 I wrote an article about search engines in my Screen Net column for Screen Graphics magazine. I listed 25 search engines and described how they were different. Google did not even exist yet, its birth date arriving in 1998.

According to Wired, Facebook has a four step plan for online domination.

1) Build critical mass by creating a cybernation within cyberspace. (In the past eight months their membership has grown from 100 million to 200 million.)

2) Redefine search. In the Facebook worldview, people will look to their friends for information rather than Google's algorithms.

3) Colonize the Web... utilizing thousands of partner sites or apps which somehow become part of the Facebook realm.

4) Sell ads everywhere, utilizing everyone's personal data so that advertising can be targeted with pinpoint relevancy.

The rest of the story is how a new Berlin Wall will be built to keep Google out. My personal opinion? Why can't we all just get along?

How Will It End?

The Truman Show, starring Jim Carrey as Truman, is a wonderfully original film about a man whose whole life, unbeknownst to him, has been lived in front of TV cameras. His life is a TV show. The story becomes a vehicle for many insights and questions about our own lives, the roles we play, our level of awareness as regards what is really going on outside our own little world.

One of the themes in the film is a pin Truman is wearing. "When Will It End?"

Despite the comic story line, amplified by Carrey's naturally inventive style, the film is serious in tone. And this question is not simply for Truman's audience, but for each of us as well.

We're all familiar with sayings like "it came to pass," with which we comfort ourselves during hard times or a cold spell. Nothing lasts forever, we say. Yet when we say this, we seldom apply this across the board. We generally live as if we ourselves are not going anywhere any time soon. And by extension, few of us can imagine a future in which the United States is no longer the United States.

So when we read books and articles about the fall of the Roman Empire, designed to teach us lessons about how nations and empires fall, how is it that we do not, almost cannot, relate it to our own nation, which is currently the world's strongest superpower?

Last Saturday I wrote about bread and circuses. Someone responded Monday by sharing an article with me from the Wall Street Journal that day regarding a prediction that the U.S. will be history by 2010. According to Andrew Osborn, a certain Igor Panarin has predicted for more than a decade that the U.S. will break up in a civil war due to economic and moral collapse.

This is no lightweight academic. Panarin is a former KGB analyst who is head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. The factors that will bring us down include "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation"... along with collapse of the dollar. His new portrait of our United States will be a breakup into six pieces, Alaska ultimately returning to Russian control.

The story sounds far fetched, but stranger things have happened. No one expected the USSR to unravel as quickly as it did when the Soviet empire began to implode. Would the Wall Street Journal print something like this if it were the rantings of a lunatic? The friend who forwarded this to me found it on The Drudge Report.

There was a time when Britain basked in the glow of knowing that the sun never set on the British Empire. How long can the United States be so blissfully oblivious to the reality that all things must pass?

Which leads directly to my question. How will it end? Nothing lasts forever. We know that. So, what next? The evidence that America is in decline is all around. Predictions of decline have been heralded for some time. How serious is our sickness? Will the patient recover?

Is this all too far out? You tell me... because an inquiring mind wants to know.

Bread and Circuses

Are Americans indifferent to the events in the larger world because of their preoccupation with bread and circuses?

In the course of a lifetime I’ve often seen writers compare our American empire to that of Rome. As with all the great empires beforehand Rome, too, fell. In Gibbon’s classic analysis, the cratering of that empire was due to internal factors, not external.

By means of bread and circuses the ruling class of ancient Rome maintained their power and control of the people. As long as the masses were happy, their labors could be used to fuel the wheels of progress... or at least maintain the status quo.

Starvation, infant death, malnutrition, terror, slaughter, oppression, torture, violence… these things abound in our world today. Simultaneous to these global maladies, we have in this country a 24 billion dollar amusement park industry, a 30 billion dollar entertainment industry, a 200 billion-plus sports industry, and an even larger gambling industry. (Called “gaming” because gambling has negative connotations.)

Meanwhile, according to the World Hunger Organization, 800 million people go to bed hungry every night, mostly women and children. 24,000 die every day. Two hundred million children under five years of age are underweight due to lack of food, which can lead to mental retardation and stunted physical stature. And while you read this, one child will die of starvation every seven seconds.

By way of contrast, according to A.C. Nielsen stats from a recent year, the average American watches 3 hours and 46 minutes of TV each day (which would add up to more than 52 days of nonstop TV-watching per year). By age 65 the average American will have spent nearly 9 years glued to the tube. A few may be watching educational television, but most are simply watching whatever distraction the channel is tuned to at the time.

As tensions rise between India and Pakistan, most Americans have no clue what the fuss is about. As tens of thousands visit the grave of Benazir Bhutto, how many understand the significance of this woman who was killed in a gun-and-suicide attack one year ago already? How many understand that the Mumbai incident has significance nearly as important as our 9/11? Just because it is not longer in our U.S. newspapers, it doesn’t mean there have been no reverberations set in motion.

I’d be half willing to bet that most Americans don’t even know where Pakistan is located, let alone that there was a 1971 war fought between India and Pakistan that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were pre-occupied that year with All in the Family, Flip Wilson, Marcus Welby, Gunsmoke, and earning money for our next Disneyland vacation.

I realize I am being a little harsh. Let me say that I am not aiming to impose new restrictions to behavior. (“Don’t smoke, don’t chew, don’t go with girls who do.”) I am simply making an appeal to conscience. We live in a world where there is suffering, and the aim of our lives needs to be something bigger than next weekend’s bash. An Old Testament maxim from the Book of Ecclesiastes comes to mind here. “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of pleasure.”

Is it possible that those who control the marionette strings love the power they hold? Who gets the bailouts? Who has the golden parachutes? Who gets the wool when the sheep are fleeced?

A lot of questions in life have no easy, clear cut answers. One of the toughest: What should our relationship be to the culture we find ourselves in? Sure, the gladiators are putting on quite a show for us today. Is that what it’s all about? More bread? More circuses?

Shooting An Elephant

“As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos – all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.” ~ George Orwell

The past few weeks I’ve been reading Simon Schama’s A History of Britain, Volume 3: The Fate of Empire 1776 – 2000. It has been quite fascinating. To some extent our nation’s history is inextricably bound to that of Britain, from conception to destiny, much like a child reflects its parent. While unique, we are still offspring.

It was once said “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” Indeed, at one time the power of Britain ruled the high seas and its territories spanned the globe. How long ago this was.

Schama’s book is a three part epic. I’ve only tackled Volume 3. The breaking away of the New World to form first the Colonies, then these United States, is but the beginning. The moral challenges, the dark justifications of maintaining power over unwilling subjects, the internal erosion of confidence in its own national mandate… so many fragments of this story resonate with aspects of our own national experience.

Descartes did not trust history as a basis for truth because no historical situation is identical. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be gained from studying history.

George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” is not only first rate writing, it is a deeply moving account of the problems Britain had to wrestle with while controlling foreign territories with strangely different peoples and cultures. It is Orwell’s first job away from home, a police officer in Burma. The story describes an incident that occurs during that period abroad as a young man. More than just what happens, the young Eric Blair (Orwell was his chosen pen name) reveals the personal angst he experiences.

The essay begins thus: “In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.”

Essentially, there is an elephant that has broken loose and is causing trouble. The elephant’s owner, due to misinformation, is hours away and the damage has been escalating. Orwell, as a representative of the law, must deal with it.

“The Burmese sub-inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palmleaf, winding all over a steep hillside,” Orwell writes. Anyone who has seen Third World squalor can picture the scene. Orwell is a stranger in a strange land.

It turns out the elephant now has killed a man. It’s a hideous sight for the young officer. Worse, it starts to become inevitable that he will have to do something about it. The following crowd has been growing, and there is an escalating anticipation.

“But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. At that age I was not squeamish about killing animals, but I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. (Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal.)”

As Orwell reveals his deepest motivations, we understand that on the pedestal of world opinion, it is not always "right" and "wisdom" that is the driving force behind nations' behaviors. Too often, they simply don't want to play the fool.

“For at that moment, with the crowd watching me, I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of "natives"; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do.”

These were the kinds of motivations that led to France invading Mexico during our American Civil War. And perhaps the real motivations behind the nations who engaged in that bitter, futile blood bath called World War I. Perhaps, to some extent, it was a driver for the Pentagon's escalation in Viet Nam? And what was that Somalia maneuver all about? And then, even if you win, what do we get? Orwell seems to be saying that you get forced into shooting elephants that you really don't want, or need, to shoot.