Guest Post: The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market

The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America

The Department Of Homeland Security is the very epitome of unnecessary bureaucracy.  Its formation was predicated on the existence of terrorist threats, many of which the U.S. government and orbiting alphabet agencies either created through acts of war, or fabricated out of thin air.  Its policies of centralization were sold to the public as necessary to prevent systemic “miscommunications” that never actually took place.  Throughout our history, it has been a rare occasion indeed when an attack falls upon American infrastructure or interests that was not influenced, directly or indirectly, by the actions of agencies which were supposedly employed to prevent such events from ever occurring.  Whether through ‘blowback’, or through ‘false flag’, frankly, most of the harm that comes to our nation is perpetrated by the guiding hand of our inexorably corrupt government.   

Knowing that the DHS was established on false pretenses forces us to question the agency’s true intentions, especially when a professional fear-monger like Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that the globalization of the world economy falls within her jurisdiction:

Average citizens would assume that the DHS is a U.S.-centric institution, and regardless of its Orwellian behavior, is at the very least a distinctly American brand of tyranny.  However, under encroaching strategies enforced since 2006 through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), it is becoming very apparent that the Department Of Homeland Security is quickly taking on an “all-of-nation” role, most prominently in the defense of globalization:

In her most recent op-ed / propaganda piece published by Reuters, Napolitano makes it clear that the business of the DHS is lately focused on what she calls “global supply chain security”.  This by itself could be seen as a perfectly logical extension of the DHS mandate to protect America.  Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple.  A few talking points and guidelines within the NIPP platform are rather disturbing, and create an open door for the internationalization of the DHS.

Ironically, Napolitano sets the stage first by pointing out the brittle nature of globalization, along with its numerous vulnerabilities:

“A vulnerability or gap in any part of the world has the ability to affect the flow of goods and people thousands of miles away. For instance, just three days after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear tragedies struck Japan last March, U.S. automakers began cutting shifts and idling some plants at home. In the days that followed, they did the same at their factories in more than 10 countries around the world…”

As I have pointed out many times in the past, the utter lack of redundancy within our globalized system makes it the most impractical and downright destructive economic model in history.  Janet Napolitano seems to agree at least in part on this point.  The problem is that the weaknesses of globalization are not a mistake; they are a deliberate and useful tool for further centralization of once sovereign economies.  Instead of addressing the obvious concern that globalization does not work, Napolitano, like every other globalist in our government, claims that it must be propped up at all costs for the “greater good”:

“Because protecting the global supply chain is inherently an international challenge, it will take an international effort to meet it. The tremendous benefits we all reap from an interdependent global economy means that we are all stakeholders in the security of that system…”

“…we will continue to think globally, enhancing our coordination with the international community and international stakeholders who have key supply chain roles and responsibilities. We will seek to develop and implement global standards, strengthen detection, interdiction, and information-sharing capabilities, and promote end-to-end supply chain security efforts with the international community.”

What “benefits” are we “reaping” from globalization?  I haven’t the foggiest idea.  The internationalization of banking and finance has led to the creation and subsequent implosion of the world’s largest debt bubble and further devaluation of many of the world's currencies.  Centralized and corporatized food production has led to a complete lack of self reliance within our society, contributed to food scarcity, not abundance, and opened our means of sustenance to the mad-science and genetic criminality of monstrous entities like Monsanto.  The globalization of law through treaty has supplanted the U.S. Constitution, fed the growth of unaccountable and unelected councils and committees, and stricken our country with policy initiatives that weren’t even written by officials that live here.  There are absolutely no substantial benefits to globalization that outweigh its considerable detriments, unless, of course, you are one of the elite few who stand at the helm of the machine.

At the Davos Economic Summit which took place in the final week of January, Napolitano announced a program called the “National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security”:

Within this plan, the DHS seeks to unite with international corporate interests in an effort to ensure the dominance of the globalist ideal of centralized economy.  The collectivist rhetoric inherent within the document above is apparent.  Napolitano summarizes it well when she states:

“As globalization brings nations closer together, we need to jointly disprove and leave behind the notion that security and efficiency cannot coexist, and together build a security architecture that better uses information to assess risk. By taking a coordinated, strategic and thoughtful approach, we can expedite legitimate commerce while focusing our attention on that much smaller portion that poses harm. Security and confidence in the global supply chain enhance our collective economic strength, rather than impeding progress.”

Napolitano treats globalism as an inevitability; a future without recourse and without option.  A smart person might ask; “What business is it of Janet Napolitano to comment on the global economic model, let alone utilize DHS resources in its defense!”  But look at it this way; by using the failings of globalization and the spectral boogie-man of terrorism as a rationale, the DHS has created a grey area in which the U.S. government can be more fully integrated into the global corporate dynamic, which furthers the disintegration of American sovereignty. 

The global supply chain encompasses everything!  It is a vast artificial international construct.  For the DHS to truly “defend” its integrity, it will be REQUIRED to sacrifice the specific and sovereign interests of the U.S.  In a globalized trade system, every economy is important, as long as it does not compete with any other economy.  The U.S. economy is no exception.  Harmonization diminishes the wealth of more successful nations and transfers it to less successful nations.  This transfer of wealth does, in a sense, create equality; it makes everyone equally poor.  By becoming the militant hand of globalization, the DHS is put in the position of hurting America in order to “save” America. 

The National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security document is extraordinarily vague when it comes to the manner in which the DHS will implement defense directives.  More DHS agents at shipping ports?  Of course.  More DHS involvement in airline cargo centers?  Certainly.  But what about DHS agents overseeing trucking and freight, or even stationed at highway checkpoints (remember, the TSA is an agency under the direct authority of the DHS)?  What about DHS agents acting as permanent corporate liaisons?  Will corporations decide who is a threat to the global supply chain and who isn’t?  What about the usage of copyrighted materials on the internet?  Is this a disruption of global trade?  How does the DHS actually plan to return a disrupted supply line to normal efficiency?  The DHS has no production capacity, and would have to TAKE (possibly by force) a supply from somewhere in order to reinstitute it elsewhere.  What about communities, states, or countries which refuse to participate in globalization?  What about those who choose to decentralize?  Could this not be labeled as an attempt to derail the global system, and thus be interpreted as an act of terrorism?

Under any collectivist society, the act of non-participation is always painted as an attack on the group.  In a fully interdependent system, refusing to contribute automatically hurts others, and therefore, makes you a criminal by default.  These systems are built this way deliberately, in order to control a population by exploiting their sense of innate guilt.  The DHS may claim a limited involvement in globalization, restricted to security issues, but the very process of integration with the international corporate framework as well as foreign institutions makes the agency a catalyst for forced collectivism.  Bombs in shipping containers (the bombs we’re supposed to believe are everywhere), do not warrant the massive shift of our security apparatus into a policy of global centralization.  In the end, this move on the part of the DHS has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with manipulating the attitude of the general public towards globalization.  It is much more difficult to challenge a methodology when that methodology is suddenly treated as a national security issue, and is defended by an army of bureaucrats and blue-shirted thugs.  When a world view is made violently essential to the very survival of a people, defiance is held tantamount to treason, and change, no matter how wise, becomes impossible.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael's picture

The society we live in now could not be more depraved and debaucherized than it is today.

Maybe 20% of society still recognizes things as they should be in a properly running government. We are the Ron Paul Crew.

That should be enough.

cranky-old-geezer's picture



Nope, it won't be enough, because that 20% just wants to vote, that's it, just vote, and voting is meaningless.

It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.

--- Joseph Stalin

Ron Paul will not be elected president. 

All you folks putting your hopes in Ron Paul to turn the government around are gonna be very disappointed.

Then what?  Who will your next "messiah" be you can keep sitting on your ass doing nothing ...other than voting?

Not only will Ron Paul not be elected, America will not be "saved" either.

Your hopes that your children and grandchildren will have a better nation to live in are futile. It won't happen.

The most likely thing in my opinion is Russia and China and the ANA in general will nuke America back to the stone age.

Dead will be better than alive.

onthesquare's picture


I want to down arrow you so bad but I can't.  You are absolutly correct in your summary.

There will be some more flu viruses and more vacines, then a full blown wipe out of over half the worlds population.  Was it the virus or the vaccine?  WHO (World Health Organizatin) knows?

When Nancy starts talking about contolling natural disasters we know she, and her handlers, have gone into another realm.


engineertheeconomy's picture

its easy to control a disaster. look how well they did when they dropped the towers

Bananamerican's picture

2 weeks and two days....


Bloodstock's picture

It's not looking good but never give up or you play into their hands. Keep the faith brother it makes them nervous, they hate it!

boooyaaaah's picture

They all had a moral philosophy, the founding fathers. It was that much maligned term called Deism.
John Loche was the idea man.
From what I gather
Deism was not an establishment religion.
Yes it believed in God the creator the giver, the endower of rights to man, the created one.
And from reading the bible, probably the King James version. Locke reasoned that man was not born depraved or corrupt or doomed to debasement.
And man did not need or was not required to have a king ,a tyrant, direct his ways on earth. Adam the first man was like all men, created capable of deciding.
And when Adam decided incorrectly he got the consequences, but Adam was not the first in a line of rulers that were chosen by God, (through through the church) to rule.
This was revolutionary.
And the Rulers had no defense. Until Darwin took creation away from God and put it in the grip of meaninglessness. This the tyrants good work with. THEY would give meaning to mankind.
We the created man. Created in Gods image. We have to save the created word from warming. From tsunamis and its global impacts. From our own population. To say no means we are the problem.

boooyaaaah's picture

Not bad. Boooyaaaah.

But what kind of decentralized society are you talkin bout

Each man responsible to God for his actions?

This cuts out a lot of intermediaries, Cept the One.

And what about laws. We have a pretty good example.
Simple, readable, clear, and punishable.

You mean there will be no paying of fines without admission of guilt?

And money won't just disappear into algorithms?

Cathartes Aura's picture

which "God"?  which god's image?  the white god, the brown god, the black god? which one are you referring to - because there are literally dozens of "gods" currently believed in - and now you've got the man-made gods, in YOUR image, what about the rest of human-ity?  the females - where do they fit in your man-god's created "reality"?  conveniently missing from your mind-narrative - as per usual.

until you people learn to let more truth into your heads than narrow-minded versions of "god" you'll be defending that reality from other god-worshipers, just as "history" has shown you - neverending wars over fictive "gods".

the definition of crazy.

Randall Cabot's picture

Hitler had a lesbian running the Gestapo? And 53 people here are as clueless as the OP?

Moe Howard's picture

those nose-picking roadside shitting running dogs are destroying the environment. Derb.

Hey Assholes's picture

Hey - I resemble those remarks! 


Japes's picture

The cesspool-ness-monster I guess...

Hey didn't the conservative-Bush sign this agency into existence? I guess he didn't let the 911 crisis go to waste.


I wonder what new agency the conservative Mitt Rommel will bring us after he's elected?


RP 2012 - thank you very much.


I am not Chumbawamba

Vendetta's picture

Its the globalists dream, doncha know?  Janet wants to protect that supply chain of cheap slave wage 'products'.  An aquaintance worked there for a year and refused to stay longer, he didn't want to kill his family.

sethstorm's picture

Then we should make sure they're unwelcome in the US.


fnordfnordfnord's picture

Holy shit that's true. I've lived in China. Want to see what unrestricted capitalism/fascism looks like? Your socks will never be white again. Try gray or yellow.

lynnybee's picture

ever been to detroit?  ...  Yea, as a matter of fact, i have been to DETROIT...... we used to go all the time when i was a kid & lived on the other side of the state.    back then, DETROIT was considered a crown jewel in this country.     we'd go all the time to the TIGER's games & watch Al Kaline, Denny McLain & others.    I remember how much fun it was & we were so proud to be living in Michigan, the lakes, the 4 seasons, the opportunity in all the local communities.      I hear that they are plowing DETROIT under now, & turning it back into farmland or green areas .    

SoNH80's picture

DETROIT city is the place to be, Motor City madness set me free

- Ted Nugent

I come from a town of 7000 that had a pre-fabricated home plant, a railroad car plant, a plastics plant, a sawmill, a circuit board printing plant, all gone.  A new Dunkin' Donuts though!  And 7 more buy-here-pay-here car dealers!  THANKS DEINDUSTRIALIZATION!

GMadScientist's picture

Now you can stand in line to be a slave for Japanese manufacturers in one of those states that receives more from the Feds per capita than anyone else (hint: they're all red).

Then: American steel. American know-how. American innovation. Now: American debt. American trade-deficit. American unemployment.


How many companies did Bain Capital outsource to death?

How hard did Newt Gingrich work to get NAFTA passed?

How many fuel tax credits and tax breaks will Santorum propose for his multinational friends?

How can they look at themselves in the mirror and not puke incessantly?


Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Don't be fooled. That's communism over there, not capitalism. Granted its more economically efficient than old-time Communism but it is still a command economy.

Bananamerican's picture

Bullshit. It's a corporate paradise...The dream of the capitalist world made real.

It's "come on in corporate round eye and use our people like the disposable "animals" they are. No unions, no environmental regulations, no MINIMUM WAGE!, no OSHA.....NOTHING... but an endless supply of pliant desperate slaves".


AnAnonymous's picture

Clearly, hard to admit for US citizens who think they do not have free markets.

The government is just a cogwheel in US citizenism. The initial impulse comes from private entities.

In a planned economy as thought during at the end of the 19th, the initial impulse comes from the government.

In US citizenism, the government is just a tool, not the head.

Problem is that US citizens can not self indict.

They have been very successful at knocking out everything else and impose US citizenism as the only horizon.

When they perceive failures,failures have to come from something else than US citizenism, something exterior, a corruption of their system.

And they have to deny more and more obvious facts.

Private entites are in command of the economy. So one has not to tell that it is not free market economics.

Mad Cow's picture

Clearly, the globalists chose the proper location for the world industrial park, along with using the ant-like, nose picking, open mouthful chewing, spitting food particle while talking, arrogant public farting, roadside shitting, testosterone challenged, diminutive wannabe a westerner replicators.

Makes me laugh.

akak's picture

I say, good show old chap!

Indeed, there is nothing more uncouth and foul than the public displays of nose-picking, spitting and roadside shitting regularly witnessed in the regime of Chinese citizenism.  Rabbit-breeding, antheap-living, public farting Chinese citizens are the bane of all civilized humanity.

High_Pockets's picture

you had me at "ant-like". haaa!!

CH1's picture

a corporate paradise...The dream of the capitalist world made real.

Dude, you really need to upgrade your definitions.

Vendetta's picture

wrong, its a corporatist monopoly paradise.  Crush all world competition with cheap products made with slave wage, expendable and highly controlled labor.  Currently, the trade model essentially dumps cheaply made products into economies like the US like memory chips from Japan in the 80's and destroys any competition, they gain 'market share' in this fashion.  The globalists continue to push the whacky ideas of a dead fascist economist.

nmewn's picture

"The globalists continue to push the whacky ideas of a dead fascist economist."

Yes, indeed.

Again, JMK's General Theory foreword in the German edition...

"The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory. Since it is based on fewer hypotheses than the orthodox theory, it can accommodate itself all the easier to a wider field of varying conditions. Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced."

John Maynard Keyenes...7 September 1936

GMadScientist's picture

Reading comprehension: not your strong suit.

nmewn's picture

How so heir scientist?

Instead of just doing a drive by...tell me how Keynes' nonsense is not a gift to statists & tyrants everywhere...I'll even buy the popcorn ;-)

GMadScientist's picture

How is saying that government intervention is more easily accomplished in a tyrannical regime in any way an endorsement of tyranny?

We'll wait while you find something else to cut and paste without bothering to understand.

nmewn's picture

Do you "people" (you said we, not me spud) always answer a question with a question?

It is widely known that Keynes father was a member of the Fabian Society. And of course, the Fabian's were socialists and much worse. He himself was part of the Bloomsbury Group and a member of the Apostles (look t up yourself). 

Within the German foreword I cited above (which sent you off the rails for some he cites Alfred Marshall. As a matter of fact, at the very first of it. Marshall was aslo a socialist and one of Keynes mentors at Cambridge.

Aside from his predisposition to having a central authority actively engaging in the allocation of production and consumption instead of people freely engaging in it (for profit) without interference, why do you suppose Keynes would not recognize his audience as his fellow travelers...hmmm???

And of course, the socialist/communist model of economic-societal thought has contributed more to the destruction of lives and property than any other model. By's not even close. From Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot. All made possible by willing accomplices (like Keynes) who think and live only for the day and never of the future. Demand must be pushed forward at all times dontch'a know.

I would say that, heir doctor, is the definition of tyranny and he and others like him endorse it.

I have a saying that I love throwing out every now and then, it goes like this...Every pregnant socialist always gives birth to a bouncing baby communist.

Now I have a question for you, are you pregnant? ;-)

GMadScientist's picture

I can't possibly expect you to rise above your rather obvious cognitive limitations. question there.

nmewn's picture


Whassa matter, facts getting in the way of your dogma or is it your cognitive ability to understand the written word & historical reference?

Reading comprehension issues, perhaps.

I understand your wants and needs during this "special pregnancy" of yours...but the child isn't mine and I refuse to pay for it ;-)

GMadScientist's picture

No Socratic method for you, one year!

nmewn's picture

How very Yahooish of you...certainly denoting your stature here.

But I hope you learned something just the same...ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever.

GMadScientist's picture

Your example shines on "forever", that's true enough, and I'm glad to have "learned" from it. LOL

You asked about questions, and have been answered, but, as I said, I certainly can't rescue you from what you yourself have pointed out will live on in perpituity.

It is a great fool indeed who can't even tell his opinions from facts.

nmewn's picture

Funny how the "we" in one of your firsts to me, never showed up to protect your honor...just fucked ya and forgot ya, how sad for you, just a stupid pregnant socialist who doesn't know where or who the father is waiting on someone to bail you out of your self imposed tyranny.

Now, you're just boring me.


GMadScientist's picture's okay, precious; "we" (that is, people with reading comprehension skills) feel poorly about beating on those that genetics have deprived of the ability to intellectually defend themselves.

Good thing you've been Newt-ered; would hate to see any more "Squires" born into your lot in life.


Vendetta's picture

I was thinking more of Friedman than Keynes.  Irregardless, has anyone noticed how the money power pushes only selected ideas of their favored economists and totally disregard the more sensible parts of what may have been written.  Similar to religious types select parts of their religious texts to push on 'the people' and ignore other ideas in those books that contradict the 'agenda'.

nmewn's picture

Well, when someone introduces the words "dead fascist economist" Keynes is my first thought. Perhaps my bias, but the world is overrun with highly educated economists practiced in his theory of state intervention in just about everything. Whatever flavor of monetarist Freidman was, he was for the individual at the end, not the state.

One could make a very strong case (and many do) that there is no long term national benefit to running up insurmountable sovereign debt in the short term.

Keynes theory doesn't balance because it relies on a certain human action. Those humans in his theory, are politicians, who would never place themselves at risk of being out of "work" for taking away the chicken in every pot and goodies their status bestows on them.

And yes, people do like to select the parts of any subjet that fit their view and discard the rest...agreed.

Kiwi Pete's picture

Don't you be fooled. There's nothing communist about China today. Except for the name of the party in charge. They just kept the name of the old ideology while dumping it and become the China Capitalist Party. It was obvious even to them that communism doesnt work. But rather than admit that and lose face it was and is so much easier to hold on to the power they already have and funnel all the best contracts to their kids.

Just like any other corrupt crony capitalist 3rd world dictatorship. It will work for a while then the whole thing will collapse in a big stinking mess of corruption, pollution and suppressed ethnic tension. Tibetan monks self-immolating is just the beginning.

Think for yourself's picture

China is not a whiff more communist than the US is capitalist.