Neo-Con Calls For Shredding Constitution, Imposing World Government
A "malcontent's" response to Philip Bobbitt's call to end America
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetWednesday, April 16, 2008
farkItButton("Neo-Con Calls For Shredding Constitution, Imposing World Government");
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetWednesday, April 16, 2008
farkItButton("Neo-Con Calls For Shredding Constitution, Imposing World Government");
'A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitts new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words "Everything must go," which acts as a suitable entr饠to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitts call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror.';
A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt's new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words "Everything must go," which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt's call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror.
The words, "How to Fight Terrorism" are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.
Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as "a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University," but anyone with a basic grasp of what America's founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the "shining city on a hill" would be more apt to describe Bobbitt - nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor - as an enemy of the Republic.
McWilliams' fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.
As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt's argument is to provide a solution "for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century," we're already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.
So what exactly is Bobbitt's solution?
The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new "order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations" that will have the power to pursue "more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare," meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.
Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt's technocracy, he admits that there will be "no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise," as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The reviewer cites Bobbitt's justification to impose world government as a means of combating,"The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security," all problems that were created by globalists' drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.
This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda - global government.
"Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization," and "In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as "counterforce measures," writes McWilliams.
The "use of chemical weapons," where have we heard that one before?
It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
Since Bobbitt cites "non-lethal chemical weapons" as a means of "preventing terror" what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans' drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.
Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, "not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils."
And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place.
As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR's Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are "not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, "Countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it... When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..."
We are those "malcontents" that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit - love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.
Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the "malcontents," will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong - on the scrapheap of history.
A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt's new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words "Everything must go," which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt's call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror.
The words, "How to Fight Terrorism" are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.
Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as "a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University," but anyone with a basic grasp of what America's founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the "shining city on a hill" would be more apt to describe Bobbitt - nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor - as an enemy of the Republic.
McWilliams' fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.
As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt's argument is to provide a solution "for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century," we're already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.
So what exactly is Bobbitt's solution?
The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new "order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations" that will have the power to pursue "more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare," meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.
Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt's technocracy, he admits that there will be "no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise," as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The reviewer cites Bobbitt's justification to impose world government as a means of combating,"The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security," all problems that were created by globalists' drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.
This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda - global government.
"Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization," and "In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as "counterforce measures," writes McWilliams.
The "use of chemical weapons," where have we heard that one before?
It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
Since Bobbitt cites "non-lethal chemical weapons" as a means of "preventing terror" what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans' drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.
Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, "not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils."
And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place.
As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR's Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are "not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, "Countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it... When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..."
We are those "malcontents" that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit - love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.
Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the "malcontents," will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong - on the scrapheap of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment