Work in progress - preview post
[Note: there is some repetition with the last article Greater Idaho: PNWER Legal Deconstruction because I took a leap way back in history to say that the intent of PNWER is legal deconstruction without the detail documentation step-by-step of how we arrived at that point. The purpose of this article is to fill in that detail.]
A few weeks ago, retired Lt. General H.R. McMaster and one of the Hoover Institute Good Fellows participated in a discussion on How Dangerous is China? He casually dropped a bombshell when he said we were supposed to build a great power condominium with the Chinese. McMaster is a retired Army Lieutenant General. He served during the Gulf Wars – Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor – replacing General Michael Flynn after Flynn was destroyed by false accusations and the media propaganda campaign. After McMaster retired from government service, he accepted an appointment to Stanford University.
McMaster wasn’t just blowing smoke. In the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 13 on page 413 there is a diagram that shows the condominium arrangement although they don’t label it as such. It’s inherent in the function shown.
Isn’t that special? “Unity of effort in intelligence” Just join with the opponents (collaboration) to eliminate the threat and since it’s the intelligence community – and the military, it was done behind a wall of secrecy.
Gosh, I’m just a novice at this defense stuff, but since our enemies are communists and criminals, that sounds like a coup d’etat to me. Under this inverse theory of reality – partnering with the enemy, it’s also logically consistent for the DEA to partner with the cartels; for the banks to facilitate money laundering; for the Department of Justice to partner with human traffickers like Jeffrey Epstein and for law enforcement to partner with gun runners. You do remember Fast and Furious right?
The Grand Strategy
The framework within which this coup d’etat was planned was that under the international agreements they dubbed as trade agreements (but weren’t), we would have open borders and would implement internal security. The internal security was/is the police state surveillance systems of control over the domestic population. It’s a logical inversion of real security. It’s the same as if you would say let’s release all the criminals to roam free in the country and put the law-abiding citizens behind protective walls and in cells.
Walking Back the Timeline
1989 – Berlin Wall Comes down
1989 – Malta Summit, Bush-Gorbachev, end of the Cold War
1990 – German Reunification.
1991 – August Coup attempt on Gorbachev
1991 – Nunn-Lugar
In response to the collapse of the Soviet Union:
“Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) in 1991 so that the United States could assist the former Soviet republics with the safe and secure transportation, storage, and elimination of nuclear weapons. The CTR program seeks to reduce the threat these weapons pose to the United States and to reduce the proliferation risks from nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. Congress has authorized and appropriated around $300-$400 million each year for CTR. Most in Congress support the core objectives of the CTR program, but some have questioned whether all of the proposed and ongoing projects contribute to U.S. national security.” CRS 97-1027F
[How brilliant is this? The soviets didn’t need to drop nuclear bombs on our country. Our own defense establishment and their private “partners” to imported tons and tons and tons of hot nuclear materials to our country legally thanks to Nunn-Lugar.]
George Washington University National Security Archive has a statement from Ashton Carter on the origins of the Harvard-Stanford Preventative Defense Project. The following is significant in that it shows continuity of idea from the private sector to DOD to the private sector Harvard-Stanford Project:
The matchmakers who brought the ideas of the Harvard Study together with the authority and skill of Nunn and Lugar were Bill Perry and David Hamburg, as recounted in Preventative Defense:
[Correction: when I typed the excerpt, I typed the date November 19, 1911. I don’t know if you could call that a Freudian slip or not but it was a slip. The Carnegie Corporation of New York was established in 1911. I was struck by the numerology of 1’s and 9’s in the date and the connection to the issue of Nunn-Lugar-Perry and Cooperative Threat Reduction.]
On November 19, 1991, David Hamburg, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, invited the two of us (Carter and Perry) and our colleague John Steinbruner of the Brookings Institute to a meeting in Nunn’s office . . . Through the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a foundation devoted to peace and education, Hamburg and his associate Jane Wales had for many years supported exchanges and discussions between Soviet and American scholars and officials, even through the darkest days of the cold war . . . We were both then outside of government, Perry leading a research team at Stanford, Carter a research team at Harvard, both studying national security problems . . . later we had both gone to work in the Pentagon, Perry as deputy secretary (becoming secretary of defense in February 1994) and Carter as assistant secretary of defense with specific responsibility for the Nunn-Lugar program.
NOTE: If any organization could or would set up the United States for a coup d’etat, it would be the Carnegie Foundations. They have been engaged in a conspiracy with the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris since about 1912. They should have been taken down in the 1950s when the tax exempt foundations were investigated by Congress for un-American activities.
- +Reese Committee - Org Chart - Scientific Dictatorship, 1954
The following chart was placed into the record of the Reese Committee, June 3rd hearing, 1954 along with the testimony The qualifier was that it was a simplified, functional diagram of the flow of money, men and ideas. It doesn’t matter whether it was simplified or not. The top box is what matters. It’s the scientific dictatorship that has been sitting on top of our government for about 3 quarters of a century.
A brief paper on the genesis of the CTR legislation and program was found on the Duke University website. It’s a must read for understanding of what follows. Note: the paper is no longer on the Duke University website but fortunately, a copy of it was saved. Cooperative Security and the Nunn-Lugar Act by Scott Kohler
The Joker and the Fool Central to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program was a transportation surveillance system with chain of custody capabilities for tracking the removal of Soviet weapons systems from point of origin to point of destruction coupled with cross-border facilitation and information sharing.
Nunn-Lugar, Cooperative Threat Reduction housed in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
The CTR Program provides funding and expertise to partner governments in the former Soviet Union to secure and eliminate WMDs at the source. The Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (ISN/CTR) in the Department of State coordinates CTR programs between U.S. government agencies and foreign governments.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) can trace its roots back to the Manhattan Project in 1942. A mission that began strictly as a weapons development program expanded during the Cold War and eventually included non-nuclear weapons development nonproliferation efforts. The November 1997 Defense Reform Initiative joined the Defense Special Weapons Agency and the On-Site Inspection Agency with two defense programs—the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) and Chemical-Biological Defense Program, Science and Technology component—forming the core elements of the new Agency. DTRA was formally established on October 1, 1998. Additionally, the Joint Improvised Defeat Organization joined DTRA in October 2016.
On another page about who DTRA is, this description was found:
DTRA works with international partners and allies to mitigate the impact of WMD. These efforts include programs to train, exercise, engage, and build the capacity of partner nations. In particular, DTRA allied and partner engagements focus on risk reduction, nonproliferation, interdiction, border security, force protection, biosecurity, and consequence management.
DTRA supports and, in many cases, serves as the executive agent for every facet of the counter-WMD (CWMD) mission. These activities include cooperative threat reduction, CWMD capability research and development, force protection, nonproliferation, arms control, partner capacity building, CBRN table-top and field exercises, plans support, and strategic dialogues. DTRA works with partners to understand, disrupt, secure, interdict, and counter WMD as well as improvised and emerging threats.
In the history of the Cooperative Threat Reduction coup d’etat, the author wrote:
Legislative action expanded and enhanced CTR’s threat reduction activities in 1997. Then, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, Congress authorized CTR activities to extend beyond the territory of the former Soviet Union (FSU) on an exceptional basis. Finally, in FY 2008, Congress provided authorization for a normalized expansion of CTR activities outside the FSU. Over more than 25 years, these efforts can lay claim to the following achievements (selected):
• Upgraded nuclear weapons inventory systems from paper records to real-time electronic inventory
• Engaged more than 30 countries on three continents in biological threat reduction efforts. These efforts include facilitating the construction or renovation of more than 100 laboratory and storage facilities and coordinating more than 300 cooperative research projects aimed at safely studying, detecting, and diagnosing especially dangerous pathogens
• Provided civilian employment for over 22,000 former WMD scientists
(Note: Where do you suppose they employed those WMD scientists? How about the GD universities? (Anthrax) What a great fricking idea right? Also, it would seem likely that the Wuhan Laboratory was one of those laboratories that DTRA built)
1993 – Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Regional Defense Strategy
A good explanation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the military’s part in it was found in a GAO report (GAO/NSIAD-97-101) to a congressional committee on National Security:
DOD’s program to convert former Soviet Union defense industries to commercial enterprises is part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which DOD has supported since 1992 to reduce the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat.2 The program’s priority objectives include helping to
(1) destroy nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons;
(2) transport and store weapons that are to be destroyed; and
(3) prevent weapon proliferation. In addition to these objectives, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 authorized DOD to establish a program to help demilitarize former Soviet Union defense industries and convert military technologies and capabilities to commercial activities.
WOW! Let the military go into business dismantling a country’s major defense industrial base – converting it to commercial enterprises. What could possibly go wrong?
- +President Clinton, 1993 American defense conversion - Westinghouse
The following are excerpts from Bill Clinton’s 1993 speech to Westinghouse Systems Group employees about defense conversion. The entire speech can be read HERE.
All of you here at Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group are proof that you can make change your friend. In 1986, just 16 percent of the work done here was nondefense. Today, it’s 27 percent. By 1995, half or more of your work will be nondefense. What you have done here is what I wish to do nationally: take some of the most talented people in the world who produce some of the most sophisticated military technology and put that to work in the civilian economy.
The military surveillance technology I have seen here can now be used to help commercial airlines avoid wind shears. Military security technology can now be used to help police officers on the streets and in their patrol cars to be safer and to solve crimes and to find missing children more rapidly. State-of-the-art batteries is helping here to develop an electric car which may well provide an enormous opportunity for America to become more energy-independent and to dramatically reduce the pollution of our atmosphere, at a time when we have been reminded anew that there really is a hole in the ozone layer and there really are problems with unlimited emissions of CO2.
Our defense reinvestment and conversion initiative will rededicate $375 million right away to help working people affected by defense reductions with employment services, job training, and transition assistance; $150 million of that will go to Government and employer-sponsored job training programs; $112 million will help members of the Guard and the Reserves make the transition to civilian life and to provide severance pay and health benefits to civilians who are leaving Government employment.
There’s also initiative to provide early retirement benefits for military personnel with 15 years of service or more, to start a new program to encourage them to put their skills to work in vital areas like teaching, law enforcement, environmental restoration, and health care. Under a provision offered by Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, any member of the military who is being mustered out with 15 years or more of service can go to work in law enforcement, for example, and earn a year of military retirement for every year they were in law enforcement, so that these people who have committed their lives to the service of our country and could not reasonably have known that this reduction would occur and would affect them can still earn their military retirement by serving their country here at home.
But all the worker training in the world and all the community assistance in the word will do no good if there are no jobs for those workers and no businesses for those communities. The private sector is the engine of lasting economic growth in our system, and therefore, our plan must help our companies to make these transitions to compete and to win.
We seek to go beyond the debate of the past in which some thought Government alone could do everything and others claimed Government could do nothing. In this area there are two things Government can do to aid companies like this one: promote dual use research and promote civilian use of technology that was formerly developed for military purposes. That is what you have done here. We want to speed and expand that process all across the United States.
One of the success stories of the cold war was the Defense Advanced Research Agency, or DARPA. DARPA helped keep America on the cutting edge of defense research. To meet the new challenges of the new world, we’re giving DARPA a new mission and restoring its old name, because before 1972 that Agency was known simply as the Advanced Research Products Agency. By going back to that name and refocusing the Agency’s efforts on dual use technologies, such as that which you have demonstrated to me here today, rather than strictly military applications, we’ll be better able to integrate research to strengthen defense and to promote our economic security here at home.
Starting now, this Agency, ARPA, will allocate more than $500 million to technology and industrial programs like the ones we’ve seen here today. We’ll support industry-led consortia and dual use technologies and promote efforts to break through with commercial uses of formerly defense technologies. Programs will be selected on the basis of merit and will require matching funds from the corporations affected.
Preventative Defense
William Perry was the Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. Perry adopted “Preventative Defense” as his national defense strategy to implement Nunn-Lugar and to take advantage of the peace dividend (weaponizing our civilian infrastructure against the civilian population).
“In May 1994 he and General John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that Defense would go forward, as required by law, with a 1995 round of base closings. In doing so Defense would consider the economic impact on the affected communities and the capacity to manage the reuse of closed facilities.” Note: Mikhail Gorbachev participated in this round of base closings – makes me wonder if this deal was a “you do ours and we’ll do yours”.
The idea of Preventative Defense was precipitated by the theatre of the coup attempt on Mikhail Gorbachev. Soviet nukes needed to be secured from “terrorists” we were told. The theatre of the Russian coup was as absurd as the January 6th “insurrection” at the capitol. A one day event completely out of character of the nation – but used for a world changing response.
What’s the difference between deterrence and prevention? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer would be transformation from defense against an outside threat TO security from an inside threat using technology and surveillance, control and information systems – and cooperative partnerships – partnering with friend and foe alike. Who is the inside threat? Why are they on the inside? (You are inside threat.)
The problem with the explanation of budget cuts for instruments of power war is that the G7 had made the decision to cooperate in the development of global systems – with the GEMINI system of disaster management being used as the strategy to conquer and control the American people. Name a threat – and the disaster people have an IT control system solution. No doubt the cuts from the military went to development of the ubiquitous surveillance and control global systems G7 – Global Systems and Global Information Society: Anarchy in Government
Partnership Between DOJ and DOD
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 after leaving the Pentagon. Ashton Carter led the Preventative Defense project at Harvard.
Janet Reno, Attorney General
March 1993 – January 2001
“In 1994 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for joint development of technology –
The Unholy Alliance: DOD-DOJ
John Deutch
Deputy Secretary of Defense
1994 – 1995
In 1998, Ashton Carter, John Deutch and Philip Zelikow produced a paper titled Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy.
Nuclear Threat Initiative – Sam Nunn and Ted Turner
Third Way to the Security Coup
Conplan who signed for the FBI?
Click for full image
Global Intelligence
- +Ashton Carter - Reverse Logic
This snippet of insight into Ashton Carter was found in his autobiography posted on the Belfer Center’s website:
I wanted a career of thinking and writing in academia, then meaning theoretical physics. I therefore went back to the United States to start to climb the academic ladder in physics, beginning in the usual way with a postdoctoral appointment. I wrote several papers. The one of which I am proudest and which is still frequently cited, was on “time reversal invariance,” the proposition that the world could run backwards according to the same laws by which it runs forwards.
Wikileaks: Cable, Moscow, December 3, 2009
Summary: Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and Joan Rolf, Assistant Director for International Relations in OSTP, met Russian government officials and scientists, and gave a press interview in Moscow October 28-30, before travelling to Kazan for the Carnegie meeting of science ministers and advisors.
Norman Dodd, Tax Exempt Foundations – objectives “merge with the Soviet Union”
When your pit bull
turns on you.
Defense becomes Security
Security becomes Tyranny
Click for full image
Big Data for Big Brother
Les Aspin, Sec. Def. January 20, 1993 to February 3, 1994
While seeking solutions to the complex budget and force structure issues, Aspin found himself beset with difficult regional problems and conflicts that demanded decisions and action. In NATO he pushed the U.S.-sponsored “Partnership for Peace” program to bring together NATO members and nonmembers for military activities, including training maneuvers, equipment sharing, search and rescue, antiterrorist efforts, environmental cleanup, and peacekeeping operations. At a meeting in Brussels in December 1993 the NATO defense ministers agreed to consider for future alliance membership those non-NATO nations that participated in the program. Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned that attempts to bring Eastern European nations into NATO would threaten his country’s strategic interests and endanger hopes for the former Soviet bloc’s reconciliation with the West. Yeltsin argued that enlarging NATO would reawaken old Russian concerns about encirclement and possibly weaken the cause of democratic reform.
William Perry, Sec. Def. February 3, 1994 to January 23, 1997. He also served as Deputy Secretary of Defense (1993–1994). Perry is the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor (emeritus) at Stanford University, with a joint appointment at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the School of Engineering.[3] He is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He serves as director of the Preventive Defense Project.[4] He is an expert in U.S. foreign policy, national security and arms control . . . He worked closely with his deputy secretaries (John M. Deutch, 1994–95, and John P. White, 1995–97).
Perry adopted “preventive defense” as his guide to national security policy in the post-Cold War world.[7][20][21] During the Cold War the United States had relied on deterrence rather than prevention as the central principle of its security strategy. Perry outlined three basic tenets of a preventive strategy: keep threats from emerging; deter those that actually emerged; and if prevention and deterrence failed, defeat the threat with military force.[22] In practical terms this strategy relied on threat reduction programs (reducing the nuclear complex of the former Soviet Union), counter-proliferation efforts, the NATO Partnership for Peace and expansion of the alliance, and the maintenance of military forces and weapon systems ready to fight if necessary. To carry out this strategy, Perry thought it necessary to maintain a modern, ready military force, capable of fighting two major regional wars at the same time.
