When used within one social system this set is tantamount to generalized means of ruling this system. But when applied by one social system (social group) to others, which have different internal concepts of ruling, it is tantamount to generalized weapons, i.e. means of warfare, in most general sense of this word, or – instruments of support for self-ruling within another social system, when there is no conceptual incompatibility of ruling in both systems.
This approach determines the priority order of the above classes of instruments of influence on the society because the changes in society's state under the impact of the instruments of supreme priorities, entail much more significant consequences than those incurred by the instruments of minor priorities, al-though such changes proceed more slowly, without "noisy effects". In other words, within the historically long intervals the level of effectiveness is increasing from the first point to the sixth, while the level of irreversible results of their application, which by and large determine how efficiently problems of the social life are solved in ‘now and forever’ terms, is falling.
Z. Brzezinski is either ignoring or maliciously disguising this from his students, and so their world outlook (first priority) is programmed – in one way or another – to make them lead the United States to collapse. If this was not so, then he should not start his description of American position after the end of the Cold War with the sixth priority (militarily, global reach) – what’s more, he even failed to come to so evident first priority-but after having clearly stressed the first priority (world outlook) he should gradually descend from it to the sixth priority. Then the origins of many problems affecting America itself would be clarified, and so the way would be laid to solve them.
Nonetheless, here is the final outcome of Z. Brzezinski’s reflects on culture and about significance of American culture in the world (as given on the page 38):
«Cultural domination has been an underappreciated facet of American global power. Whatever one may think of his aesthetic values[20], America’s mass culture exercises a magnetic appeal, especially on the world’s youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of lifestyle it projects[21], but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for three-fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation. Lastly, America has become a Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking to the United States, with many of the ablest never returning home. Graduates from American universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every continent», and so on and so forth, but he does not tackles the essence of «some crassness» of this very culture.
For sure, the book is addressed to American students who in majority were born and grown up in the USA, and thus the whole American culture and its inherent lifestyle are well familiar to them from their very childhood. But nowhere does Z. Brzezinski provide any assessment concerning the content of culture and the essence of its crassness. But that is what is essential to define perspectives of his «...formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy...»
With regard to films, less new ideas are being developed and implemented in American society than the amount of films that are produced there; and this is the reason why all their films may be divided in two dozens of stories where only decorations and faces of actors are changing while the content of these stories is mostly reduced to main instincts and demonism. This is one aspect of crassness of American culture whose essence Z. Brzezinski did not tackle in details.
Meanwhile, they account for three fourth of the global market, i.e. somebody needs them. But Z. Brzezinski left aside the question of who is enjoying them and what are their social implications. He also kept silent that Hollywood is being purposefully purchased by Japan: in 1989 «Columbia Pictures» was bought, in 1990 it was the turn of «MCA». Although the trade marks of these cinema companies have been left unchanged and the public does not care, who is the owner of the companies, – the one «who pays is the master of the game». Cinema is standing as the third-first priority of generalized instruments of management[22] and Japan, perhaps, has already won its cine-Midway[23], for Americans are fond of movies about oriental martial arts and mystics, mysteries of the Shiaolin Monastery etc.
With Internet the situation is roughly the same. Bill Gates & Co. have designed their computer software in such a way that the access to the English-written files for a user who does not speak English, is much easier than the access by an English-speaking user to the files drawn on other languages. It means that many more persons can introduce information (first-third priorities of generalized instruments of management) into the English-speaking community than vice-versa. It’s true that Pidgin English dominates in computer chatter within the Internet. But chatter is one thing while the meaningful broadcasting of a useful word is quite another thing, and as the same Z. Brzezinski’s book shows it, the USA may chatter or even make virtual sex in the Internet, but they have nothing substantial to say. The same is true for American education: it is defective in all aspects related to the information of world outlook nature (first priority), and for this very reason even the reliable knowledge of minor priorities is dangerous for those who receive education in the USA.
Though everything said about films, Internet and education is significant, the major aspect is not here, insofar as the global policy and American participation there are concerned.
A lot of paper, ink and time have been consumed so far in internal Russian polemic against «the propaganda in favour of American lifestyle»; the point raised is that values and ideals are different things, because the values may be sold and purchased while the ideals may not. However, Z. Brzezinski, although during his whole life he had been struggling against the Russian imperial policy, was either unaware of this polemic or just considered it insignificant when he simply made reference in a single sentence to «whatever one may think of its aesthetic values...» But the question of whether it is the point to identify «ideals» and «values» in practical policy requires much more thorough consideration than what Z. Brzezinski allowed himself. And though it may be inherent to the same person to care and support both «ideals»and «values», the difference between these notions still exists.
It’s not our purpose to fall into loquacious preaches; instead we shall simply refer to Natalie Clarkson[24], who is the chief of the Russian service at the radio station «The Voice of America». She was born and grown up in the USA. Her ancestors were both Russian émigrés and Americans, so she is a person for whom both languages are native. Thus, she noted that when she speaks English she has no problem to pronounce the words «money», «business» etc., that by their notion are somehow related to «values»; but as soon as she starts to speak Russian on the same subjects, her soul rejects this vocabulary (one of the reasons, why it is so, is that in different languages there are different systems of words with the same root and of their interlinks, and so the words with the same root in one language are not always the same-root words in other language etc.).
In other words, particular features of culture express the specific character of statistical distributions of men within society according to their mental structure. And whether one does not care, what are «values» and what are «ideals», while the other does care, – this should be taken as an objective historical reality. Therefore, the ignorance of diverse specific features of mentality in practical policy is a hundred per cent reliable way to bring the chosen political strategy to a fatal end; Z. Brzezinski, in essence, ought to tell this to his students openly and clearly, otherwise later they will lead America to collapse, and then the majority of Americans will perceive the position of Russia and that of the CIS after the state collapse of the USSR as the best dream.