A month ago, the Biden Administration held their first formal meeting with Chinese officials in Anchorage, Alaska. Chinese representatives were aggressive. American representatives were limp-wristed. This is not good.
A week ago the Hoover Institute had a discussion the subject of which was How Dangerous is China? The following is a clip taken from the video.
If you didn’t catch what H.R. McMaster said about the notion that the U.S. and China would form a great power condominium, listen again. [Note: The three largest land masses that lead the United Nations are the U.S. China and the Soviet Union (Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS))
What is a condominium? An abstract from the Oxford Public International Law definition is as follows:
1 A condominium is a territory over which two or more States jointly exercise governmental authority. (see also Governments). The word coimperium is also sometimes used in this context. There is no formal distinction between the two words.
2 Traditional condominiums involved the joint exercise of sovereign authority (see also Sovereignty); modern instances frequently involve joint exercise of more limited authority. The States exercising the condominium may administer the territory jointly or they may retain common authority only over major decisions…
The Pacific Northwest Economic Regional Council is a sub-national condominium arrangement that was established by statute in the same year that the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement went into effect. Since my original research, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories of Canada were added. See the map to the right. And take a look at the leadership and their private sector partners. Is there anything even remotely resembling anything American about this organization? I don’t think so.
All U.S. foreign policy since the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War ended in 1990 has been towards the objective of condominium governing authorities. All domestic policy since that time has been to change our form of government and our society for the New World Order of a rules-based, international trading system with open borders for commerce and police state technology for control of the population internally. Open Borders with police state technology for internal control of the domestic population. Is that logical? Who does that arrangement serve? Certainly not the American people.
The following was found on the PNWER history page:
PNWER incorporated official private sector participation – including the non-elective public sector, and nonprofit organizations and NGOs in 1994; with that, a private sector council mirroring that of the organization´s legislative delegate council was established and private and public sector co-chairs became part of the working group structure. Since then, funding for PNWER has been balanced by the public and private sector. The organization is primarily funded through three sources, with approximately one third coming from state and provincial dues, one third from private sector sponsorship and dues, and one third from public and private grants.
What non-profits are being funded? How much are they getting? For what purpose are they using the money? Are they registered as foreign agents in the United States? Are the legislators involved in this organization registered as foreign agents?
The PNWER history page has a slide show that highlights significant events of the PNWER. A PNWER Timeline was extracted from the show to eliminate all the distracting event pictures. Below is one slide from that history.
Recall that in the United States, the critical infrastructure protection police state program began after the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
The Department of Homescam Security was established in 2002, but there were three studies on terrorism and response to terrorism before 2001 to prepare for the new paradigm of the internal police state surveillance system. But before that – in 1994, the G7 Economic Cooperation Group approved an initiative to consider the development of collective global systems and in 1995, the G7 approved a list of eleven systems for development. One of those systems was GEMINI (Global Emergency Management Information Network Initiative) – all hazards, all emergencies. All they needed as a disaster to kick it off. 9-11 provided that necessary justifying disaster. Theme 11 is Maritime Information Systems – noting in particular Maris Projects, Theme 8 is Global Health Care Applications.
See Themes 7, 8 & 11 G7 – One World, One System
And just so that you know the global systems are real, take a look at the following:
What they did is a two-tiered strategy. One tier is the military/corporate tier – full spectrum dominance, information for the warfighter, telecommunications, logistics including a geographic mapping systems – transformation – partnering with the multinational corporations with the military information centers (fusion) at transportation hubs (forward operations). The second tier was global poverty elimination with the promise of jobs and economic development. How those two things come together is at the transportation hubs – commercial logistics, emergency management – disaster and resilience planning – (fusion) – draws in law enforcement and first responders, hospital emergency rooms, universities/community colleges for workforce development). The philanthropy is a cover for military and commercial operations.
Background
William Perry was the Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. Congress began immediately cutting the defense budget after the end of the cold war. Perry, instituted a program of Preventative Defense in place of the cold war strategy of deterrence. What’s the difference between deterrence and prevention? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer would be technology and systems and military co-option of our domestic government as an instrument of global economic development and poverty reduction (as if poverty leads to terrorism). In other words, Preventative Defense is the weaponization of domestic government with transformation to governance – meaning the partnership of government with business with NGOs and universities. It is the inversion of power – using institutional power against the people.
The Preventative Defense program was not located at the DOD. Instead, there were two divisions, one at Harvard University and one at Stanford University. William Perry led the Stanford unit leaving the Pentagon. Ashton Carter led the Preventative Defense project at Harvard.
In 1998, Ashton Carter, John Deutch and Philip Zelikow produced a paper titled Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy.
Third Way to the Security Coup
Conplan who signed for the FBI?
On October 3, 2001, Tony Blair gave a speech titled, The Power of Community Can Change the World.
In 2002, Cambridge University, Center of International Studies produced a report titled, Catastrophic Terrorism which further explains the policy of preventative defense. The report summarizes “the Centre’s meeting in November on Catastrophic Terrorism, sponsored by the Nuclear Threat Initiative“.
MAJOR EVENTS often strengthen our determination to take action; in short, to do things that we otherwise might not have done.
This was clearly illustrated by the Centre of International Studies’ response to September 11, which provided the stimulus to establish a new programme to address broader issues of world instability.
It gives me pleasure to introduce this Report summarising the Centre’s meeting in November on Catastrophic Terrorism, sponsored by the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
Especially important are the cross-disciplinary method of analysis which the Centre will use within the University, and its joint efforts with government, the corporate world, and the NGO communities. I commend this important new initiative.
. . .
Without doubt, America, the UK and other G8 nations have the most to lose in this battle against terrorism. So how do nations with much to lose gain the cooperation of those who have less to lose, especially in countries where there is sympathy for terrorists and hostility toward the West?
Since September 11, many nations, with Great Britain in the lead, have urged far greater investment of development assistance to poor nations – many framing it as a chance to address root causes and prevent the emergence of a new generation of terrorists.
. . .
In the post-World War II period, we used to talk a great deal about the “community of nations.” At the close of the twentieth century, however, nations had lost much of their sense of community, their sense of common purpose, and their sense of mutual responsibility to each other. Security in the twenty-first century fundamentally requires a renewed recognition of our common bond and our mutual interdependence. And that interdependence is nowhere more evident than in the global coalition required to mount an effective defense against catastrophic terrorism.
Nuclear Threat Initiative
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a Foundation that was established by Senator Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, media mogul and psychopath. It was funded by Ted Turner. Nunn and Turner were co-chairs of the initiative.
As a senator, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar sponsored the Cooperative Threat Reduction Initiative in response to the alleged August Coup d’etat on Mikhail Gorbachev.
The focus of the first edition of the CTI was a military logistics – transportation system with chain of custody capability for the removal of Soviet nukes to prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists during the instability of the break up of the Soviet Union.
The transportation system (as in computers) was designed to be a border – port of entry system with a chain of custody capability from country/port of origin to country/port of destination. In other words, it was a global system – the first and the origin was for military purpose.
NATO – Partnership for Peace (PfP)
The NATO Partnership for Peace initiative was formally launched on January 10-11, 1994 at the NATO Summit in Brussels, Belgium. On the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, it says this about this PfP:
PfP – A platform for security policy issues
The PfP provides Switzerland with a platform on which to raise important foreign and security policy issues, such as:
• the extension of international humanitarian law
• the reform of the security sector
• the democratic control of armed forces
• long-term cooperation on security risks, counter-terrorism and cooperation on civilian emergency planning.
Combine those initiatives with the ideas expressed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell in 1993 while giving the commencement speech at Harvard University – following in the footsteps of General George C. Marshall when he announced the Marshall Plan for Europe. Powell was announcing the Powell Plan supposedly to assist Russia and the Soviet states recover from generations of communism – but the joke was on us as it turned out to be a global plan for worldwide communism implemented through technology based “security systems” and international humanitarian law implemented no doubt through the universities as partners in “democratization”. See Project Democracy.
Background
On March 17, 2004, Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, USJFCOM, spoke at an Industry Symposium giving an overview of the joint forces transformation plan. The following is an excerpt from Adm. Giambastiani’s presentation:
What I’d like to do now is to step back for a moment and share with you some insights on what we have learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom and, more importantly, on how we are acting on those lessons learned to develop new capabilities both in the United States and, with my hat as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, in NATO.
“Joint transformation” is something that is still not well understood within the military-both in the United States and in NATO.
To help tell the story on what we mean by “joint transformation,” I’ve brought just three slides. I should make clear that when I use the term “joint operations,” I mean the BIG “J” in joint-which refers to a seamless integration of joint forces, interagencies and multinational and coalition partners.
The article on Giambastiani’s presentation included slides. The following is the last slide – fourth block is the focus. Giambastiani was the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, in NATO, the two boxes labeled JOINT must mean NATO and US forces in the first and fourth block with the second block being government interagency process and the third block being the multinational corporate partners.
The above organizational structure becomes significant when viewed in the context of 9-11 when combined with the presentations of Thomas P.M. Barnett1 who at the time this slide was produced was working for Admiral Art Cebrowski at the Naval War College and doing a project on security in the 21st Century – with seminars at the World Trade Center. After 9-11, Rumsfeld brought Adm. Art Cebrowski into the Pentagon to lead the Office of Force Transformation. He brought Barnett with him. Notice the last block on the slide – Legal Deconstruction.
Going back to General John Shalikashvili’s Joint Vision 2010 and keeping in mind that Shalikashvili had been the NATO Supreme Allied Commander before being appointed to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he was involved with the Initiative for Global Development and he was on the Board of Directors for several defense corporations, consider the following – especially the Seattle Initiative.
The Seattle Initiative for Global Development is a group of 60 business and civic leaders who believe that significantly reducing severe global poverty is the most critical step our nation can take to improve security and economic vitality at home and abroad, and should therefore become an urgent national priority. Founded in 2003 by Bill Gates, Sr., Daniel J. Evans, Bill Ruckelshaus, and Bill Clapp, the Seattle Initiative is urging US leaders and policymakers to adopt new global development strategies focused on poverty alleviation.
What they are doing is implementing a system of fascist governance – replicating the organizational structure all over the world in the name of economic development, transportation and poverty reduction. Washington University has a medical school that I’m sure is the western center for global health. Gates Sr. was the connection with Bill Gates and his activities on global health.
The model for the metro areas and economic planning for a local area for the global systems was documented here:
City-State Conversion Planning
The military connection is of course through STRAHNET, FEMA and the Coast Guard. Disaster – emergency management and resilience are the marketing tool to get the global systems installed here in the U.S. in our domestic facilities.
The significance with the Cascadia Corridor is defense highways. Transportation – STRAHNET The police state technology is embedded in the transportation system.
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) and STRAHNET Connectors
“The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 provided for inclusion of STRAHNET and important STRAHNET Connectors in the 160,955-mile National Highway System (NHS). The primary Connector routes for the Priority 1 and 2 installations and ports are included in the NHS. Federal oversight will ensure optimum maintenance levels for the NHS, thus assuring that the roads can support an emergency deployment. With DOD’s current emphasis on continental US-based military units, the NHS will play an increasingly important role in new deployment scenarios.”
As the Department of Defense (DOD) designated agent for public highway matters, the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (formerly Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA)) is the proponent for STRAHNET and STRAHNET Connectors. SDDCTEA identified STRAHNET and the Connector routes in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the State transportation departments, the military Services and installations, and the ports. Together, STRAHNET and the Connectors define the total minimum defense public highway network needed to support a defense emergency.
What is Greater Idaho and the PNWER? I would say that it’s the model for the Legal Deconstruction – of the United States probably a replication of the strategy to deconstruct the Soviet Union.
The organizational structure is fractal – global, regional, metro.
Florida was ready to mobilize in the event of a disaster. On September 7, 2001, Governor Jeb Bush signed Executive Order 01-261 giving statutory responsibility to the National Guard to support law enforcement and emergency management personnel in the event of civil disturbances, natural disasters and in countering drug operations. The EO delegated authority to the State’s Adjutant General to assist law enforcement with port security, training with local law enforcement and community-based organizations. (The Communitarians?)
City Anchor Institutions
Communitarian Network
Universities/Community Colleges, Hospitals (Emergency Dept), Libraries, Museums and Theatres.
Are they describing the Communitarians here? I think so.
1 In 2004, Thomas P.M. Barnett gave a presentation that was broadcast on C-Span titled Military in the 21st Century. That original presentation is no longer on C-Span. They removed it apparently. It doesn’t matter though because in 2004, C-Span didn’t have their archives posted. The only way to preserve what he said was to type a transcript – which I did. The following is the transcript:
Military in the 21st Century, Presentation by Thomas P.M. Barnett
