Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order”
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order”

on

  • 441 views

Author of ‘shock and awe’ doctrine says elite threatened by non-state actors like Edward

Author of ‘shock and awe’ doctrine says elite threatened by non-state actors like Edward
Snowden

Statistics

Views

Total Views
441
Views on SlideShare
441
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order” Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order” Document Transcript

  • Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order” Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com January 17, 2014 Author of ‘shock and awe’ doctrine says elite threatened by non-state actors like Edward Snowden Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden. The Atlantic Council is considered to be a highly influential organization with close ties to major policy makers across the world. It’s headed up by Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former United States National Security Advisor under U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. Snowcroft has also advised President Barack Obama. Harlan K. Ullman was the principal author of the “shock and awe” doctrine and is now Chairman of the Killowen Group which advises government leaders. In an article entitled War on Terror Is not the Only Threat, Ullman asserts that, “tectonic changes are reshaping the international geostrategic system,” arguing that it’s not military superpowers like China but “non-state actors” like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and anonymous hackers who pose the biggest threat to the “365 year-old Westphalian system” because they are encouraging individuals to become self-empowered, eviscerating state control. “Very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization,” notes Ullman, lamenting that “information revolution and instantaneous global communications” are thwarting the “new world order” announced by U.S. President George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago. “Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman, implying that only another 9/11-style cataclysm will enable the state to re-assert its dominance while “containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.”
  • Ullman concludes that the elimination of non-state actors and empowered individuals “must be done” in order to preserve the new world order. A summary of their material suggests that the Atlantic Council’s definition of a “new world order” is a global technocracy run by a fusion of big government and big business under which individuality is replaced by transhumanist singularity. Ullman’s rhetoric sounds somewhat similar to that espoused by Trilateral Commission co-founder and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 2010 told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government. Ullman’s implied call for an “extraordinary crisis” to reinvigorate support for state power and big government has eerie shades of the Project For a New American Century’s 1997 lament that “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” an expansion of U.S. militarism would have been impossible. In 2012, Patrick Clawson, member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, also suggested that the United States should launch a staged provocation to start a war with Iran. Ullman’s concern over failing state institutions having their influence eroded by empowered individuals, primarily via the Internet, is yet another sign that the elite is panicking over the “global political awakening” that has most recently expressed itself via the actions of people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and their growing legion of supporters.
  • NSA Official: ‘We Are Now A Police State’ Matt Vespa CNS News January 17, 2014 Last year, high-ranking NSA official Bill Binney said, “We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.” Now, Binney says that the U.S. has already become a full-blown police state. Binney told Washington’s Blog on Wednesday that: “The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. [See the 2 slides below].” “These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts – cause it has been acquired without a warrant.” “So, they have to do a ‘Parallel Construction’ and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a ‘planned programed perjury policy’ directed by US law enforcement.” “And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.’”
  • “This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process – means we are now in a police state.” Binney, a 32-year veteran of the agency, was instrumental in the creation of the NSA’s surveillance program for digital information. He also served as the NSA’s senior technical director. As a result, he’s been sought after by a multitude of media outlets, like CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and PBS. Concerning the collection of data by federal agencies mentioned by Binney, Washington’s Blog added that: “By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.” “All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally “launder” the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way … and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.”
  • Obama Calls For ‘New Approach’ On NSA Surveillance Not ‘New’ Enough For Critics Andy Greenberg forbes.com January 17, 2014 Six months after Edward Snowden began leaking the NSA’s secrets, President Obama has agreed that the way America spies needs to change. But when it comes to the degree of that change, the White House has a long way to go towards pleasing its critics. In a closely watched address Friday, Obama laid out a plan for reforms to the National Security Agency following Snowden’s leaks revealing the details of NSA surveillance programs that have outraged privacy advocates and some U.S. allies. In his speech, Obama responded with a plan to put greater limits on the use of phone metadata collected from millions of Americans, to add more privacy advocacy to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court debates over the use of data collected on Americans, and to limit the duration of the secrecy around the FBI’s National Security Letter requests for private data from communications companies. “I believe it is important that the capability this program is designed to meet is preserved,” Obama said of the phone metadata collection program, which has been perhaps the most controversial of Snowden’s revelations. “But having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that that without appropriate safeguards this program could be used to yield more information about our private lives and to open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future.” “They’re also right to point out that the [program] has never been subject to vigorous public debate,” he added. “For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach.” But that “new approach,” which Obama laid out in his speech and in a presidential policy directive published at same time, fell far short of the more fundamental reforms demanded by many of his privacy critics. The civil libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, had called on the president to stop all
  • mass surveillance of digital communications of both Americans and foreigners. Obama’s compromise, that the data only be used to surveil someone two degrees of separation from a suspected terrorist instead of the current standard of three, that the use of the data be subjected to a more balanced judicial review, that the data be held by an entity other than the NSA–exactly where remains to be determined– and that the program be conducted with greater transparency, didn’t come close to that demand. “Obama took some real steps here,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “But the NSA has overstepped its boundaries in so many areas that there’s much more to go.” In fact, on a scorecard of twelve points where the it called on Obama to enact surveillance reforms, the EFF only gave the president credit for addressing only three and a half of their recommendations. The EFF and others including the Cato CATO +1.04% Institute had also hoped that Obama would reform the use of National Security Letters, (NSLs) requiring that the secret gag orders demanding Americans’ private data from private companies only be issued with the oversight of a judge. On that issue, Obama agreed that a time limit should be set on the secrecy of those orders, but argued that to require judicial review for all NSLs would be to “set a standard for terrorism investigations that’s higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime.” But Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, pointed out that the lack of judicial oversight of NSLs goes against even the recommendations the review board set up by the White House to recommend surveillance reforms. “It was disappointing…to see that many of the recommendations offered by Obama’s own Surveillance Review Group were either neglected or specifically rejected,” he wrote in a statement. “While the unconstitutional permanent gag orders attached to National Security Letters will be time-limited, they will continue to be issued by FBI agents, not judges, for sensitive financial and communications records.” Several of the most controversial issues raised by Snowden’s leaks went unaddressed. Perhaps the most crucial were the NSA’s use of security exploits to attack commonly-used software, and creation of backdoors in cryptographic standards to weaken encryption schemes. On both of those issues, critics have accused the NSA’s blind pursuit of surveillance targets as making the Internet less secure for all users. The president’s statements also remained vague on what privacy protections might be given to foreigners, who have no legal protections from the NSA’s spying. He pledged that the agency wouldn’t surveil the communications of world leaders, but noted at the same time that its mission includes learning the intentions of foreign governments. “Our intelligence agencies will continue to collect information about the intentions of governments, as opposed to ordinary citizens, around the world, in the same way the intelligence services of every other nation does,” he said. “We will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective.” But Obama, at least in his rhetoric, seemed to acknowledge the need for the privacy debate that has come into national and international focus following Snowden’s leaks. “What’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we arein a world that’s remaking itself at dizzying speed..technology is remaking what’s possible for individuals and institutions and for the international order,” he said. “So while the reforms I’ve announced will point us in the right direction, I am mindful that more work will be needed in the future. One thing I’m certain of,” he added. “This debate will make us stronger.” Read the president’s full policy directive below: Read more INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND