New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02 ... nds-globalism-not-america.html
Published: Feb 7, 2012
Author: Brandon Smith
Post Date: 2012-02-07 18:46:29 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 3796
Comments: 16
The Department Of Homeland Security is the very epitome of unnecessary bureaucracy. Its formation was predicated on the existence of terrorist threats, many of which the U.S. government and orbiting alphabet agencies either created through acts of war, or fabricated out of thin air. Its policies of centralization were sold to the public as necessary to prevent systemic “miscommunications” that never actually took place. Throughout our history, it has been a rare occasion indeed when an attack falls upon American infrastructure or interests that was not influenced, directly or indirectly, by the actions of agencies which were supposedly employed to prevent such events from ever occurring. Whether through ‘blowback’, or through ‘false flag’, frankly, most of the harm that comes to our nation is perpetrated by the guiding hand of our inexorably corrupt government. Knowing that the DHS was established on false pretenses forces us to question the agency’s true intentions, especially when a professional fear-monger like Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that the globalization of the world economy falls within her jurisdiction: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/27/the-urgent-need-to-protect-the-global-supply-chain/ Average citizens would assume that the DHS is a U.S.-centric institution, and regardless of its Orwellian behavior, is at the very least a distinctly American brand of tyranny. However, under encroaching strategies enforced since 2006 through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), it is becoming very apparent that the Department Of Homeland Security is quickly taking on an “all-of-nation” role, most prominently in the defense of globalization: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf In her most recent op-ed / propaganda piece published by Reuters, Napolitano makes it clear that the business of the DHS is lately focused on what she calls “global supply chain security”. This by itself could be seen as a perfectly logical extension of the DHS mandate to protect America. Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple. A few talking points and guidelines within the NIPP platform are rather disturbing, and create an open door for the internationalization of the DHS. Ironically, Napolitano sets the stage first by pointing out the brittle nature of globalization, along with its numerous vulnerabilities: As I have pointed out many times in the past, the utter lack of redundancy within our globalized system makes it the most impractical and downright destructive economic model in history. Janet Napolitano seems to agree at least in part on this point. The problem is that the weaknesses of globalization are not a mistake; they are a deliberate and useful tool for further centralization of once sovereign economies. Instead of addressing the obvious concern that globalization does not work, Napolitano, like every other globalist in our government, claims that it must be propped up at all costs for the “greater good”: “…we will continue to think globally, enhancing our coordination with the international community and international stakeholders who have key supply chain roles and responsibilities. We will seek to develop and implement global standards, strengthen detection, interdiction, and information-sharing capabilities, and promote end-to-end supply chain security efforts with the international community.” What “benefits” are we “reaping” from globalization? I haven’t the foggiest idea. The internationalization of banking and finance has led to the creation and subsequent implosion of the world’s largest debt bubble and further devaluation of many of the world's currencies. Centralized and corporatized food production has led to a complete lack of self reliance within our society, contributed to food scarcity, not abundance, and opened our means of sustenance to the mad-science and genetic criminality of monstrous entities like Monsanto. The globalization of law through treaty has supplanted the U.S. Constitution, fed the growth of unaccountable and unelected councils and committees, and stricken our country with policy initiatives that weren’t even written by officials that live here. There are absolutely no substantial benefits to globalization that outweigh its considerable detriments, unless, of course, you are one of the elite few who stand at the helm of the machine. At the Davos Economic Summit which took place in the final week of January, Napolitano announced a program called the “National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security”: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_strategy_for_global_supply_chain_security.pdf Within this plan, the DHS seeks to unite with international corporate interests in an effort to ensure the dominance of the globalist ideal of centralized economy. The collectivist rhetoric inherent within the document above is apparent. Napolitano summarizes it well when she states: Napolitano treats globalism as an inevitability; a future without recourse and without option. A smart person might ask; “What business is it of Janet Napolitano to comment on the global economic model, let alone utilize DHS resources in its defense!” But look at it this way; by using the failings of globalization and the spectral boogie-man of terrorism as a rationale, the DHS has created a grey area in which the U.S. government can be more fully integrated into the global corporate dynamic, which furthers the disintegration of American sovereignty. The global supply chain encompasses everything! It is a vast artificial international construct. For the DHS to truly “defend” its integrity, it will be REQUIRED to sacrifice the specific and sovereign interests of the U.S. In a globalized trade system, every economy is important, as long as it does not compete with any other economy. The U.S. economy is no exception. Harmonization diminishes the wealth of more successful nations and transfers it to less successful nations. This transfer of wealth does, in a sense, create equality; it makes everyone equally poor. By becoming the militant hand of globalization, the DHS is put in the position of hurting America in order to “save” America. The National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security document is extraordinarily vague when it comes to the manner in which the DHS will implement defense directives. More DHS agents at shipping ports? Of course. More DHS involvement in airline cargo centers? Certainly. But what about DHS agents overseeing trucking and freight, or even stationed at highway checkpoints (remember, the TSA is an agency under the direct authority of the DHS)? What about DHS agents acting as permanent corporate liaisons? Will corporations decide who is a threat to the global supply chain and who isn’t? What about the usage of copyrighted materials on the internet? Is this a disruption of global trade? How does the DHS actually plan to return a disrupted supply line to normal efficiency? The DHS has no production capacity, and would have to TAKE (possibly by force) a supply from somewhere in order to reinstitute it elsewhere. What about communities, states, or countries which refuse to participate in globalization? What about those who choose to decentralize? Could this not be labeled as an attempt to derail the global system, and thus be interpreted as an act of terrorism? Under any collectivist society, the act of non-participation is always painted as an attack on the group. In a fully interdependent system, refusing to contribute automatically hurts others, and therefore, makes you a criminal by default. These systems are built this way deliberately, in order to control a population by exploiting their sense of innate guilt. The DHS may claim a limited involvement in globalization, restricted to security issues, but the very process of integration with the international corporate framework as well as foreign institutions makes the agency a catalyst for forced collectivism. Bombs in shipping containers (the bombs we’re supposed to believe are everywhere), do not warrant the massive shift of our security apparatus into a policy of global centralization. In the end, this move on the part of the DHS has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with manipulating the attitude of the general public towards globalization. It is much more difficult to challenge a methodology when that methodology is suddenly treated as a national security issue, and is defended by an army of bureaucrats and blue-shirted thugs. When a world view is made violently essential to the very survival of a people, defiance is held tantamount to treason, and change, no matter how wise, becomes impossible.
“A vulnerability or gap in any part of the world has the ability to affect the flow of goods and people thousands of miles away. For instance, just three days after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear tragedies struck Japan last March, U.S. automakers began cutting shifts and idling some plants at home. In the days that followed, they did the same at their factories in more than 10 countries around the world…”
“Because protecting the global supply chain is inherently an international challenge, it will take an international effort to meet it. The tremendous benefits we all reap from an interdependent global economy means that we are all stakeholders in the security of that system…”
“As globalization brings nations closer together, we need to jointly disprove and leave behind the notion that security and efficiency cannot coexist, and together build a security architecture that better uses information to assess risk. By taking a coordinated, strategic and thoughtful approach, we can expedite legitimate commerce while focusing our attention on that much smaller portion that poses harm. Security and confidence in the global supply chain enhance our collective economic strength, rather than impeding progress.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
It turns you stomach, doesn't it? America's leaders reaching out for more globalist planning while America sinks into despair on a domestic basis. It is the antithesis for what US government is all about.
Globalization... too big to fail.
But not the antithesis of what capitalism is all about.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I'll give you credit; only you and loonybitch so often- and so efficiently- demonstrate the effectiveness of propanaganda. You both prove that you can indeed fool some of the people all the time. Your dull stupidity is simply staggering.
To: mcToejam, rat-boy, drippy, Alzheimer Fred, whitesands, t-bird, loonymom/ming, e-type jackoff, goober56, wreck, cal-CON, rabid dog, dummy DwarF, biff, harrowup the communist, and meguro. You're on the "a waste of human flesh" list. Piss off.
You both prove that you can indeed fool some of the people all the time. Your dull stupidity is simply staggering. Odd, I was just thinking the same thing about you but am not dumb enough to say it.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
I guess I'm not sufficiently worshipful of the almighty god of capitalism to suit him, but I didn't realize what a brilliant 'propanagandist' I am. Maybe there will be a few job offers in the future.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You could set up as a consultant and use Eric's posts as testimonials to your skill.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
You're NOT. You demonstrate why propagandists continue to ply their trade; you two bimbos are actually dumb enough to swallow the pap propagandists spoon-feed you. Your gullibility is not something that can be parlayed into a consultancy.
To: mcToejam, rat-boy, drippy, Alzheimer Fred, whitesands, t-bird, loonymom/ming, e-type jackoff, goober56, wreck, cal-CON, rabid dog, dummy DwarF, biff, harrowup the communist, and meguro. You're on the "a waste of human flesh" list. Piss off.
Sounds like you already know that from having tried it yourself. And here I was going to cut you in for a percentage.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Oh Eric, you're just jealous.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
And easily agitated.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I would have put it a different way, but yes he is.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Regarding being easily agitated, HQ just mailed me four times with the same message. Seems like my ability to spread propanaganda is quite effective today.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Cyber stuttering? Seems like my ability to spread propanaganda is quite effective today. Where is pegler - let's see how he reacts.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
HQ later emailed back and said it was a computer glitch.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Ah, so then it was cyber stuttering.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
ANYONE WHO UNDERMINES A CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE [NEWT GINGRICH]IS AT RISK OF BEING BANNED ~ Goldi-Lox, eternal mad&angry mistress of LP, circa February 5, 2012
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
Instead of addressing the obvious concern that globalization does not work, Napolitano, like every other globalist in our government, claims that it must be propped up at all costs for the “greater good”:
#3. To: buckeroo (#1)
It turns you stomach, doesn't it? America's leaders reaching out for more globalist planning while America sinks into despair on a domestic basis. It is the antithesis for what US government is all about.
#4. To: mininggold (#3)
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
I'll give you credit; only you and loonybitch so often- and so efficiently- demonstrate the effectiveness of propanaganda.
#6. To: lucysmom (#5)
(Edited)
Odd, I was just thinking the same thing about you but am not dumb enough to say it.
#7. To: mininggold (#6)
I guess I'm not sufficiently worshipful of the almighty god of capitalism to suit him, but I didn't realize what a brilliant 'propanagandist' I am. Maybe there will be a few job offers in the future.
#8. To: lucysmom, mininggold (#7)
mininggold: I didn't realize what a brilliant 'propanagandist' I am.
You could set up as a consultant and use Eric's posts as testimonials to your skill.
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#8)
(Edited)
Your gullibility is not something that can be parlayed into a consultancy.
#10. To: Capitalist Eric (#8)
Your gullibility is not something that can be parlayed into a consultancy.
#11. To: lucysmom, Capitalist Eric (#10)
Oh Eric, you're just jealous.
#12. To: mininggold (#11)
And easily agitated.
#13. To: lucysmom (#12)
(Edited)
I would have put it a different way, but yes he is.
#14. To: mininggold (#13)
Regarding being easily agitated, HQ just mailed me four times with the same message.
#15. To: lucysmom, Hapy Quanzaa (#14)
Cyber stuttering?
#16. To: mininggold (#15)
HQ later emailed back and said it was a computer glitch.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]