In a recent news summary commenting on a possible double dip reccession, a commentator on CNN stated that while China is the leading economic power of the world that the United States--the leading military power, is still relied upon for "world leadership" in this global economic crisis.
Every since the housing market crash of 2008--caused by the credit bubble resulting from living as an "empire of consumption," a unipolar world system dominated politically and economically by the United States has now given way to a set of nations interconnected through mass dissemination of English language and western corporate consumer culture, a process known as "globalization," with the U.S. in debt to the IMF/World bank and having its military garrison the world, but no longer dominating the globe financially. This was part of a deliberate plan over the decades to deindustrialize the U.S. manufacturing base in favor of building up Asia as the production center of the world.
With the military hub of world policing on one side of the globe and the new economic powerhouse of manufacturing on the other, we truly now live in a one world government system of corporate power enforcing a producer consumer relationship between the U.S., which polices the worlds second and third largest reserve oil resources in Iraq and Afghanistan, and China, which produces virtually all goods for the U.S. market.
Investigator and filmmaker Bob Fletcher says that this division of the world into specific interelated functions was planned years ago to undermine the soveriegnty of America.
"The corrupt people in government sat down years ago and said we have to take the two or three wealthiest nations of the world and bring them down to their knees to where they are all mutually requiring each other to exist. It used to be that years ago the United States was the world center for being not just the manufacturing but also for being able to provide services so we could be technically independent at any time if we needed to,"Fletcher said."Once you break the world down to one area of the world like Africa being the suppliers of the raw materials and countries like China being the manufacturer of most goods for the world and then someplace else in the world like the United States possibly being a servicing nation, then you have total financial interdependence on each other."
"The goal is to bring economic interdependence where the United States or any single country in the world isn't able to stand on its own. What they've slowly accomplished is that they have allowed the Chinese to be the manufacturers for everything. We don't make anything. This is a necessary step to bring along a singular world government, a body, maybe a body under the United Nations or at least under the general concepts of the United Nations where it would be a handful of people at the top," Fletcher added.
"It would be sort of a bureaucratic sort of a parliamentary quasi democracy only mixed where the real democracy would be gone, it would be synthetic and there would be a handful people in a parliamentary structure that own and control every single thing."
Radio Liberty host, physician and long time world geopolitical analyst Dr. Stan Monteith believes that the global drive among U.S. leaders to dominate the world militarily since World War II has been anything but "national" in its motives. Rather, hollowing out the domestic economy while placing our troops all across the globe and within the 50 United States is really part of bringing humanity under one single regime, he says.
"The reason you have this all powerful military is certainly not to protect us from other nations. It is to establish our world empire. America has an empire and that's so our military can be used right here in the United States," Monteith said. "We have a North American Command, we have a South American Command, we have an African Command and Asian Command, but why do we have a North American Command? Because we have our military stationed here to control our population. Our founding fathers didn't want a standing army because they knew it could be used against the people. They didn't want a standing army for the United States. Yes, you could have a framework for military officers, but they didn't want a standing army."
With the United States now the leading torturer in the world, holding hundreds of detainees without due process of law in Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base, Iraq and Somalia, and several U.S. citizens who have been held incommunicado and tortured for years before finally getting a sham trial such as Jose Padilla, John Walker Lind and now Bradley Manning, is it any wonder that Obama's national intelligence director, Adm. Dennis C. Blair, has now declared the right to kill American citizens anywhere in the world deemed a threat? Under Global government, civil and constitutional rights are redefined and this was the true reason for the U.S. moving from the "prisoner of war" definition of holding detainees under the Geneva Conventions to the "enemy combatant" designation under the Bush administration, which allowed violence against those held in U.S. custody to reach any point short of "organ failure" to occur without being called "torture," in other words, death.
The Obama Administration actually has a "kill list," that includes Anwar Al Awlaki, a U.S. born Yemeni, accused of but not judicially guilty of connections to the Fort Hood Massacre and the 2010 Times Square bombing. Having the U.S. government, the example to the rest of the world, placing American citizens of any kind on a kill list, especially when the U.S. military reach into the planet is global is surely an indication of the motives of global international government/financial world rulers to implement a world wide plan in utilizing police and military anywhere, including America, to assassanate/execute individuals deemed enemies to corporate/government power without due process of law. What's more, Awlaki actually dined at the Pentagon after 911 so what kind of Americans, specifically, could this law really be applied to? Could it be white Americans, Black Americans, Mexican Americans?
Fletcher's research shows the startling implications of the U.S. military's new drone warfare technology which would use biometric face scan technology to seek out enemies within the world population. With new statements by our government leaders declaring the right to kill Americans as well as a 12 member council of governors appointed by Obama to replace our 50 governors under FEMA in a declared "national emergency," where up to 20,000 troops would be deployed in the U.S. should national rebellion arise, one can anticipate the startling implications in terms of Constitutional rights for Americans. It is also disturbing since there is now a world wide race to purchase drones among 50 nations of the world, including China, Isreal, Germany, China, Russia and Iran and local police departments in the U.S. are getting Homeland Security grants for these machines for surveilliance use in law enforcement.
"The expansion of the technology and the capability of robotic weapons has grown and grown and grown in rapid increments where some of these were just ideas a few years ago and now they're in full production and being used in a whole variety of forms in several ares of combat around the world. The scary thing is that this is almost a science fiction space story type thing--that is that they're moving forward to utilize and increase the capability of these remote control robots to share information, knowledge, directional information between each other and they've reached a point where they have these very small micro type flying robots that are called swarms where they actually can use five, ten or 15,000 at a time and they actually can take off and carry out a mission which can either be intelligence tracking and camera work to transmit micro camera images back wherever they want to but they actually share information between each other and they don't even have to have a complete designation of where they're going to go, they actually figure this out themselves with limited intelligence knowledge put into these machines," Fletcher said.
"The machine then shares its experiences and then they can actually end up--if there's five of them, they actually select the leader themselves and then the leader will go through the doorway first, the other four will line up behind the leading robot and follow it in and then analyze the terrain and carry out whatever it's supposed to carry out. This is the kind of thing that we sat and watched on Twilight Zone years and years ago--this is now a complete reality and the frightening thing is that now they have capabilities to decide themselves, the robots, what they're going to kill, blow up, shoot up or explode or what they will not. They actually have the capability to make those decisions themselves in the air without necessarily having to have an individual direct them and they can do it with the new facial identification that we've heard so much about now. They can program a person's face--the enemy, whoever that might be, into the computers, send out the drone robot, fly over an area, scan 30 to 45 people, find the person they need and then drop a bomb right into his lap and doing it without individual instruction by someone back at home base."
"Of course war is not extremally moral to begin with, but if you start where we are allocating the decision to kill in a non human, non feeling, emotionless machines, that's really reaching a scary point and time. We are there."
Imagine a future television scenario where Americans who are deemed a "threat" to the global government either for being anti-war, pro-labor, pro-environment, constitutionalist, or just poor people looking for food are hunted down for points by a hybrid military/police global force that uses drones to assassanate on American soil.
The FAA has already indicated it will enter negotiations with our government to lower the height limit that police department drones can fly when surveilling urban U.S. neighborhoods.
Journalist Allen Nairn agrees with my conclusions and thinks that this frightening scenario of drones from other nations targeting Americans is a real possibility if America doesn't stop its war/threat ideology and become a peaceful nation.
"The U.S. defines who the adversaries is. The default U.S. position is to kill the adversary. When you kill the adversary, you kill 10 civilians. What are the survivors, the loved ones of those civilians, supposed to do, when the international legal system is rigged so that there is no peaceful redress, so they have no place to go? It’s unjustified. It’s terrorism by the U.S. law’s own definition.
But it’s also ominous for Americans, especially ominous in a historical moment where the U.S. is losing its edge. Right now it still has the massive military advantage, but how long is that going to last? Other countries have more people to field as troops. Other countries can manufacture weapons more cheaply. The U.S. still has the edge in military technology, but in today’s information age, that can’t last very long. So, if the appeal to decency can’t wake up Americans and make them say stop, maybe the appeal to self-interest and fear can do it.
Imagine a moment not too far in the future — some of the technical magazines just started writing about this — where foreign countries would have the capacity to put drones in the skies over New York, over San Diego, over Alabama, over Chicago. How would Americans feel about that, when the discretion on whether to push the button on the missile and launch it at anyone — at anyone in the U.S. — a member of Congress, a member of the President’s staff, a GI, someone walking down the street — when that discretion lies with someone in some foreign capital, some commander? And imagine how Americans would feel if those overseas controllers of the drones flying in the skies over the U.S. decided to apply American standards; if they decided to apply the Brookings standard that says, OK, if we target one American military planner and we kill 10 civilians, that’s OK; if they decide to apply General Hayden’s standard that, well, it’s our default position to kill these adversaries; and if they decide to apply the U.S. State Department standard, which says no matter what we do, we can’t be prosecuted. That’s the situation that the U.S. is setting up. And it’s going to be increasingly dangerous for Americans as time goes by."
(C) Bill Lewis
Sources:
Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/global-race-on-to-match-us-drone-capabilities/2011/06/30/gHQACWdmxH_print.html
Drone surveillance in the US? Alex Jones says 'the whole world is in danger'
Allan Nairn: As U.S. Loses Its Economic Edge, Its "One Clear Competitive Advantage is in Killing"
AFRICAN UNION PART OF WORLD GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL SOMALIA
U.S. PENTAGON WILL EMPLOY MILITARY APPROACH TO WEATHER DISASTERS AROUND THE WORLD
No comments:
Post a Comment