And it is from the position of recognition of this objective reality that we may be say that the social progress is expressed in the forcing out of one types of mental structure, existing in society, by others. Accordingly, the humankind may move:

in the direction of basic instincts, when the animal structure of mentality statistically prevails and when biorobots, programmed by culture, herd civilized human-like monkeys while both being dominated by demoniacal personalities;

in the direction of biorobotization, when the basic instincts are suppressed mercilessly while multiple biorobots are, as in the first option, dominated by demoniacal personalities;

in the direction of humanism, when the basic instincts, biorobotization and demonism are placed in the condition of impossibility to exist.

Hence, the global policy is an activity promoting humankind’s movement towards one of these mutually exclusive «ultimate objectives», no matter whether this activity is guided by basic instincts and their cultural covers or by programmed culture or under the pressure of possession of demoniacal personalities by other demons; or by free will of reasonable man who is not deaf of the Language of Life, in which every event has an objective meaning addressed to man by Heaven; this objective meaning a man can understand subjectively either within the limits of virtue inherent to him or within the limits of his vicious nature. In other words, a man is capable to identify double meaning and then to define in his own subjective way what meaning is closer to objective Good and what – to objective Evil, and to correspond in his behaviour either to the former or to the latter.

It is useful alike to muse on the question, which of these aspired ultimate objectives of the global policy is being supported by Creator and His Holy Might in the course of the whole history of the present civilization, and what is He rooting out of the social life of every people on the Earth?

Everyone clearly understands that when moving in any of these directions a leader may emerge, whose cultural primacy over other fellows, who selected the same direction of development, is preponderant.

American cultural supremacy has been tackled by Z. Brzezinski many times, but he did not consider in details the quality aspects of the kind of mental structure which statistically prevails in America, and of the one dominating over statistically prevailing mass, just as this is reflected in the American culture.

The same questions that he either did not notice or considered useless to explain to his students, are relevant with regard to another question, namely – who, as bearers of a particular type of mental structure, are «magnetically attracted» by American culture: human-like, biorobots, demoniacal personalities or those who aspire for humanism?

These questions are neither raised nor tackled by Z. Brzezinski; nonetheless he answered them in his book in the following way:

«More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. Yet the dominant culture of the country has become increasingly fixated on mass entertainment that has been heavily dominated by personally hedonistic[26] and socially escapist themes[27]. The cumulative effect has made it increasingly difficult to mobilize the needed political consensus on behalf of sustained, and also occasionally costly, American leadership abroad. Mass communications have been playing a particulary important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels casualties.

In addition, both America and Western Europe have been finding it difficult to cope with the cultural consequences of social hedonism and the dramatic decline in the centrality of religious-based values of society. (The parallels with the decline of the imperial systems summarized in chapter 1 are striking in that respect[28].)The resulting cultural crisis[29] has been compounded by the spread of drugs[30] and, especially in America, by its linkage to the racial issue. Lastly, the rate of economic growth is no longer able to keep up with growing material expectations[31], with the latter stimulated by a culture that places a premium on consumption. It is no exaggeration to state that a sense of historical anxiety, perhaps even of pessimism, is becoming palpable in the more articulate sectors of Western society <…>.

That lack of confidence has been intensified by widespread disappointment with consequences of the end of the Cold War. Instead of a «new world order» based on consensus and harmony,[32] «things which seemed to belong to the past» have all of a sudden become the future. Although ethnic-national conflicts may no longer pose risk of a central war, they do threaten the peace in significant parts of the globe. Thus, war is not likely to become obsolete for some time to come[33]. With the more-endowed nations constrained by their own higher technological capacity for self-destruction as well as by self-interest, war may have become a luxury that only the poor people of this world can afford. In the foreseeable future, the impoverished[34] two-thirds of humanity may not be motivated by the restraint of the privileged». (“The Grand Chessboard”, pp. 250,251).

So, if all this is true, then the USA should concentrate on internal problems- to develop their own culture and not to encroach on reforming of the rest of the world, first, making of it a province to ensure the exceedingly growing hedonist (to say in Russian-all devouring voluptuous) expectations of the American metropoly, and than-something yet unidentified but named already «new world order» which is to be established «beyond the last global superpower».

But what we read further is quite different:

«Unfortunately, to date, efforts to spell out a new central and worldwide objective for the United States, in the wake of the termination of the Cold War, have been one-dimensional. They have failed to link the need to improve the human condition[35] with the imperative of preserving the centrality of American power in world affairs. <…>

In brief, the US policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management» (“The Grand Chessboard”, p.p.253,254).

To be noted that the priority of goals, as outlined in the last paragraph, namely: 1) America’s dominant position, 2) creation of a geopolitical framework for peaceful global management (what implies that there are no grounds for mutual hostility between peoples), – is controversial to what Z. Brzezinski promulgated in the paragraph of «Introduction» that has been cited above and examined in essence, namely: 1) to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with the fundamental interests of humankind, 2) America’s global primacy in transitional period as guarantor of the fundamental interests of humankind.

It has been shown earlier that these goals do not always coincide. But given the problems facing the West and the USA, – in particular, in their development based on their inherent culture, which demonstrates statistical supremacy and dominance within society of certain inhuman types of mental structure, – whose actual existence is admitted by Z. Brzezinski himself,- the hierarchy of the US political objectives, promulgated by the author in the last paragraph cited (see the last page of the book) is tantamount to suppression of the fundamental interests of humankind for the sake of insatiable voluptuousness and ambitions of the «demonized» American elite.