Big bang noises, fire, debris, bodies and shrapnel flying have a way of focusing one’s attention on the idea that security failed, an enemy has crossed the breach and in order to be safe, one must seek out and destroy them before they destroy us.
When the enemy comes in guise of “just business” and the killing zone is administrative – attacking the organizational structure, nary a word is heard.
The military is glorified because they put brave men and women on the front lines to face the fire of the enemy but the military is crippled without the administrative structure and logistical capability to supply them. As we saw early in the Iraq war, when the soldiers didn’t have bullets and didn’t have armor for their vehicles, they became target practice for the enemy.
The same is true for the administrative functions of the civilian government.
Deregulation and Privatization
These two executed an administrative Pearl Harbor attack on national governments. It was the set up for the privatized (corporatized) system of “governance” that we are dealing with now.
Deregulation of the utilities began during the Reagan Administration.
Libertarians are fond of quoting Mayer Amschel Rothschild… “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”. That’s what I call a sleight of mouth deception. The laws gave the Federal Reserve regulatory power and that regulatory power controls the money supply. The money is not the issue. It’s the regulatory power that is the issue. The Federal Reserve was the first privatization of regulatory function. That should tell you something about both the Libertarian methodology and agenda because they were the biggest proponents of privatization.
The point is, there are other ways of waging war on the people of a nation-state. Guns and violence are one way. Attacking the administrative state is another. War was waged against our administrative state decades ago but it was not recognized as a war. Our administrative state has been captured now and the regulatory system has been turned against us. The American people themselves are now considered the enemy. That can only happen when the real enemy is on the inside controlling the administrative state. That’s the snake eating it’s own tail.
Globalization and the Privatized Administrative State
A privatized administrative state has no loyalty to the geographic boundaries of the nation-state the same as it has no loyalty to the people of the nation-state.
In July of 2009, Parag Khanna gave a TED talk in Oxford, England titled: Mapping the future of countries. It’s an important presentation because he is talking about the conversion of political systems from those based on political geography (nation-state) to political economy (economic centers). Borders are meaningless when political economy dictates policy. That’s globalization.
Khanna begins his talk by showing two maps. First the nation-state map:
Then the economic map that Khanna calls TEDistan. Khanna: In TEDistan, there are no borders, just connected spaces and unconnected spaces. Most of you probably reside in one of the 40 dots on this screen, of the many more that represent 90 percent of the world economy. (Note: the only color on the map is under the backward half moon.)
The following are other important quotes from the transcript of Khanna’s presentation:
This is just to give you a taste of what’s happening in this part of the world. Again, globalization Chinese style. Because globalization opens up all kinds of ways for us to undermine and change the way we think about political geography. So, the history of East Asia in fact, people don’t think about nations and borders. They think more in terms of empires and hierarchies, usually Chinese or Japanese.
Well it’s China’s turn again. So let’s look at how China is re-establishing that hierarchy in the far East. It starts with the global hubs. Remember the 40 dots on the nighttime map that show the hubs of the global economy? East Asia today has more of those global hubs than any other region in the world. Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Sidney. These are the filters and funnels of global capital. Trillions of dollars a year are being brought into the region, so much of it being invested into China.
Why did he call it TEDistan? Because the world is being redefined by globalized commercial connections – the most important of which are energy connections. The connections are pipelines, electric transmission grids, railroads, highways and telecommunications – fiber optic cables for the Internet.
You know there has been a global power shift when a whelp like Parag Khanna feels secure enough to openly declare their objective is to undermine the nation-state and then to present a new order of the world – and you know that what he is talking about – is what is actually happening.
Last lines in Khanna’s presentation:
The new world leaders are the controllers of global hubs and the globalized commercial connections. Effectively, they are a breakaway civilization and they are redesigning the systems of the world to suit their own economic and political interests through the IT systems that control the flows through the critical infrastructure through which the energy and money flows.
The following is a collage of the diagrams Khanna displayed during his presentation. The point is to show who controls Europe and why and what they intend.
The second part of the strategy in the shift of global power – is to global hubs:
Also in July 2009, an economist named Paul Romer gave a presentation titled: Why the world needs charter cities.
He began his presentation by showing some presumably African boys studying under a streetlight because the electric utility in their country has not been privatized and is not being run for profit. Because of that, there is no incentive to expand service. He asks why it is that the boys have cellphones but do not have 100 year old technology for generating electric light in the him. According to Romer… the answer is RULES.
“Bad rules can prevent the kind of win-win solution that’s available when people can bring new technologies in and make them available to someone like Nelson. What kinds of rules? The electric company in this nation operates under a rule, which says that it has to sell electricity at a very low, subsidized price — in fact, a price that is so low it loses money on every unit that it sells. So it has neither the resources, nor the incentives, to hook up many other users.”
Here is another excerpt from Romer regarding RULES:
The president wanted to change this rule. He’s seen that it’s possible to have a different set of rules, rules where businesses earn a small profit, so they have an incentive to sign up more customers. That’s the kind of rules that the cellphone company that Nelson purchases his telephony from operates under. The president has seen how those rules worked well. So he tried to change the rules for pricing on electricity, but ran into a firestorm of protest from businesses and consumers who wanted to preserve the existing subsidized rates. So he was stuck with rules that prevented him from letting the win-win solution help his country. And Nelson is stuck studying under the streetlights.
The real challenge then, is to try to figure out how we can change rules. Are there some rules we can develop for changing rules? I want to argue that there is a general abstract insight that we can make practical, which is that, if we can give more choices to people, and more choices to leaders — who, in many countries, are also people. (Laughter) But, it’s useful to present the opposition between these two. Because the kind of choice you might want to give to a leader, a choice like giving the president the choice to raise prices on electricity, takes away a choice that people in the economy want. They want the choice to be able to continue consuming subsidized electric power. So if you give just to one side or the other, you’ll have tension or friction. But if we can find ways to give more choices to both, that will give us a set of rules for changing rules that get us out of traps.
The whole purpose of this discussion of RULESETS and choices for people was to introduce the concept of a “special economic zone” later referred to as a Charter City and what I called a Trojan Triangle in my research before I understood what it was I was looking at.
So the proposal is that we conceive of something called a charter city. We start with a charter that specifies all the rules required to attract the people who we’ll need to build the city. We’ll need to attract the investors who will build out the infrastructure — the power system, the roads, the port, the airport, the buildings. You’ll need to attract firms, who will come hire the people who move there first. And you’ll need to attract families, the residents who will come and live there permanently, raise their children, get an education for their children, and get their first job.
With that charter, people will move there. The city can be built. And we can scale this model. We can go do it over and over again. To make it work, we need good rules. We’ve already discussed that. Those are captured in the charter. We also need the choices for people. That’s really built into the model if we allow for the possibility of building cities on uninhabited land. You start from uninhabited territory. People can come live under the new charter, but no one is forced to live under it. The final thing we need are choices for leaders.
This is the really important part:
And, to achieve the kind of choices we want for leaders we need to allow for the potential for partnerships between nations: cases where nations work together, in effect, de facto, the way China and Britain worked together to build, first a little enclave of the market model, and then scale it throughout China….
In some cases this will involve a delegation of responsibility, a delegation of control from one country to another to take over certain kinds of administrative responsibilities. Now, when I say that, some of you are starting to think, “Well, is this just bringing back colonialism?” It’s not. But it’s important to recognize that the kind of emotions that come up when we start to think about these things, can get in the way, can make us pull back, can shut down our ability, and our interest in trying to explore new ideas.
Why is this not like colonialism? The thing that was bad about colonialism, and the thing which is residually bad in some of our aid programs, is that it involved elements of coercion and condescension. This model is all about choices, both for leaders and for the people who will live in these new places. And, choice is the antidote to coercion and condescension.
Here truly is the rest of the story. TED presents these two individuals, Parag Khanna and Paul Romer as innovative young thinkers for a new world order. The thing is that the strategies for the “borderless world” that were presented by Khanna and Romer were in place before either of these two were born. They are merely vocalizing them and putting them in a modern context.
First, we should define a Charter City. Wikipedia has a pretty good description – emphasis added:
A charter city is a city in which the governing system is defined by the city’s own charter document rather than by state, provincial, regional or national laws. In locations where city charters are allowed by law, a city can adopt or modify its organizing charter by decision of its administration by the way established in the charter. These cities may be administered predominantly by citizens or through a third-party management structure, because a charter gives a city the flexibility to choose novel types of government structure. Charter cities are similar in administrative structure to special administrative regions.
Essentially, a Charter City becomes a country unto itself. If the location of the Charter City is within an existing country, it becomes a logical island, landlocked but still separate from the rest of the territory. Another term for Charter City that is a little more clear is “inland port”. From the beginning of international trade and the development of admiralty law, a port is a separate jurisdiction from the rest of a country. They are under administrative rule of a Harbor Master with the same godlike powers over the port that the ship’s captain has over the ship. The theory is equal power between ship’s captain and Harbor Master.
The concept of a Charter City carries the concept of port and harbor master to inland locations making the jurisdiction of the inland port, the same as a seaport. The District of Columbia is essentially a Charter City. It is a separate jurisdiction from the states where the District sits. The Vatican is also essentially a Charter City – separate jurisdiction from the land in Italy where it sits. Of course, the city of London is also a Charter City.
The stage for Charter Cities in the U.S. was set in 1934 when legislation was passed to allow the definition of foreign trade zones. They were not well used until 1991 when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act provided money and strategic guidance from the Federal Highway Administration on the establishment of intermodal commerce zones that evolve – layer by layer into what ultimately becomes a charter city – linking it to the global economy as a separate zone of insurgency within the borders of the United States.
What I did get from Romer’s talk is the admission that the idea is to have foreign administration of the jurisdiction. Despite Romer’s denials to the contrary, this is colonialism – British style. The British always aim to control the administrative state.
The following diagram was prepared a few years ago as working theory in the analysis of the anomalous development of a zone in Meridian, Idaho. This diagram focuses on the colonization strategy through the concept of foreign administration of a port – or charter city as they are calling it. Click on it for a larger image.
The following is page 3 from a report I produced titled Losing Our Sovereignty that includes the detail of how this treason has been accomplished in our country.
You’ll note that under Global Systems I included a reference to the OECD. That may not be correct – or it might be only partially correct. The Commonwealth of Nations (formerly called the British Commonwealth of Nations) is also involved in the establishment of a global administrative state. (Note: The Jigsaw Puzzle is Part 8 of a series I did on the Reinvention of Government (right hand side).
In 1993, Jacques DeLors, President of the European Commission published a white paper proposing the issuance of EU Bonds to borrow money to build EU-wide infrastructure projects. On the surface, the ostensible purpose was to create jobs, provide growth and competitiveness (sound familiar?). The real purpose was to provide the chains of connection that bind.
With linked critical infrastructure, it doesn’t matter how much posturing politicians do, their hands are tied.
The idea of EU Bonds apparently goes back to 1963, when SG Warburg, a London based investment bank, became the first issuer of bonds for joint liabilities of all countries outside the jurisdiction of the issuer.
The EU Bonds gave the European Commission a lot of money to throw around to buy political influence in the individual countries of Europe while the chains of bondage were being built linking the countries together with the foreign bond holders holding the reins.
This strategy of foreign bond money to build infrastructure was the strategy to create the global system of linked infrastructure. The flood of money coming in to build the global hubs created the economic bubbles that appeared to be economic booms – but when the construction was over, so was the boom. My presumption is that when the foreign administrators take over, they are working for the bond holders who are taking control after the inevitable default. That’s how order of the new world is accomplished and it is war in a different context than a battlefield.