Destructive Centralization of Global Security

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

US hosts anti-extrem­ism sum­mit after glob­al ter­ror attacks … The US has opened a three-day sum­mit on coun­ter­ing vio­lent extrem­ism. Rep­re­sen­ta­tives from around the world are attend­ing the gath­er­ing, which fol­lows shoot­ing inci­dents in Den­mark, France and Aus­tralia. Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden said it was imper­a­tive to engage with immi­grants who may be rad­i­calised because of mar­gin­al­i­sa­tion. “Soci­eties have to pro­vide an affir­ma­tive alter­na­tive for immi­grant com­mu­ni­ties,” he said. The vice pres­i­dent said that coun­tries need­ed to pro­vide “a sense of belong­ing that dis­cred­its the ter­ror­ist’s appeal to fear, iso­la­tion, hatred and resent­ment”. BBC

Dom­i­nant Social Theme: Ana­lyze the ter­ror­ist bet­ter to con­tain him more closely.

Free-Mar­ket Analy­sis: This anti-extrem­ism sum­mit is like­ly lay­ing the ground­work for fur­ther repres­sion of US free­doms. It is using the fear of “ter­ror­ism” to do so. The legal reme­dies cre­at­ed as a result will even­tu­al­ly be aimed at domes­tic crit­ics of US fed­gov­’s increas­ing­ly repres­sive actions.

The ter­ror­ist meme itself is sus­pect. The threat of them can be used to mold soci­ety in any one of a num­ber of ways. It is a glob­al­ist phe­nom­e­non. Glob­al prob­lems such as cli­mate change, drug abuse and “ter­ror­ism” lend them­selves to inter­na­tion­al­ist solu­tions. And thus a glob­al state grows.


The White House believes Europe is espe­cial­ly sus­cep­ti­ble to ter­ror attacks because immi­grants there are often less well inte­grat­ed into society.

The sum­mit takes places fol­low­ing ter­ror attacks in Cana­da, Aus­tralia, France and Den­mark … Cor­re­spon­dents say the White House also wants to instil a sense of urgency to counter the threat posed by home-grown ter­ror­ism and the rad­i­cal­i­sa­tion and recruit­ment of Amer­i­cans, espe­cial­ly dis­af­fect­ed young people.

Vice-pres­i­dent Joe Biden was quot­ed as say­ing that the larg­er objec­tive was to “bring togeth­er broad coali­tions of com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers in the US so that all Amer­i­cans — espe­cial­ly Mus­lims — would feel integrated.”

He added, “nation­al secu­ri­ty flows from a sense of com­mu­ni­ty … We haven’t always got­ten it right, but we have a lot of expe­ri­ence inte­grat­ing com­mu­ni­ties into the Amer­i­can sys­tem, the Amer­i­can dream.”

The Chi­nese paper report­ed on the sum­mit more crit­i­cal­ly, stat­ing that the US admin­is­tra­tion was not pro­vid­ing cit­i­zens an “effi­cient secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy” and that as a result Amer­i­cans “dis­ap­proved of Oba­ma’s han­dling of the IS.”

A new CNN/ORC sur­vey released on Mon­day showed that 57 per­cent of the Amer­i­cans sur­veyed dis­ap­prove of how Oba­ma is han­dling the IS, a notice­able increase com­pared with the last Sep­tem­ber sur­vey in which 49 per­cent of the respon­dents raised their eye­brows at Oba­ma’s han­dling with the extrem­ist group.

Con­gres­sion­als are still divid­ed on the autho­riza­tion which Oba­ma request­ed to for­mal­ly autho­rize mil­i­tary force against the IS mil­i­tants, and will start hear­ing on Oba­ma’s pro­pos­al after its week­long Pres­i­den­t’s Day recess.

… Com­ment­ing on launch of mil­i­tary oper­a­tions — a typ­i­cal approach adopt­ed by the U.S. admin­is­tra­tion, Andrey V. Kor­tunov, direc­tor gen­er­al of the Russ­ian Inter­na­tion­al Affairs Coun­cil, has blamed Wash­ing­ton, say­ing mil­i­tary actions tak­en by the Unit­ed States “destroy states” and “unleash rad­i­cal forces,” and ter­ror­ism finds easy prey in these countries.

On the U.S. war on ter­ror, he said, “Def­i­nite­ly they are not suc­cess­ful in sup­press­ing the sources of ter­ror­ism and here more inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion is def­i­nite­ly needed.”

As stat­ed, it is this empha­sis on “inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion” that makes the ter­ror­ism meme so use­ful. It pro­vides all the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion nec­es­sary for fur­ther gov­ern­men­tal intru­sions into the pri­vate sec­tor around the world.

The con­fer­ence itself has yield­ed only innocu­ous sound-bites, and con­clu­sions will like­ly not pro­vide any more than that. But step by step and piece by piece, the glob­al­ist archi­tec­ture aris­es out of these pronouncements.

For the most part, despite Chi­nese con­cerns, the con­tin­ued destruc­tion of civ­il rights is not being engi­neered by the West­ern mil­i­tary. It is being choked by a web of paci­fistic words that are used to gen­er­ate ever-stronger author­i­tar­i­an­ism domes­ti­cal­ly and abroad.

Con­clu­sion: War is sure­ly the health of the state. How­ev­er, the rhetoric sur­round­ing it is what gen­er­ates increas­ing­ly destruc­tive glob­al centralization.