PDA

View Full Version : New Book Says to Fight Terrorism, Destroy the Constitution




Laja
04-17-2008, 11:35 AM
Top Neocon Calls for Destruction of Constitution
4.16.08

In a recent edition of the Austin-American Statesman a book review of Phillip Bobbitt’s new book Terror and Consent goes into how the book calls for the shredding of the Constitution. The article written by James E. McWilliams features an image of the Constitution being torn with a big bold headline that states “Everything must go.” The words “How to Fight Terrorism”, are put in place of where the Constitution is torn.

The article is blatant propaganda to make people think that the answer to fight terrorism is to destroy the Constitution. As disgusting as this is, the contents of Bobbitt’s book advocates exactly what the picture depicts. Bobbitt endorses using nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations to take over the roles and functions of nation states. He also endorses giving the United Nations the authority to wage war without approval from the Security Council and the use of non-lethal chemical weapons to fight terrorism.

If he really wanted to end terrorism using non-lethal chemical weapons, he should be endorsing the use of non-lethal chemical weapons on the headquarters of the CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad because that’s where the majority of terrorism comes from. Of course, Bobbitt won't mention that fact.

For the full article: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8315

ThePieSwindler
04-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Didn't realize a few terrorist sects blowing up some cars and planes was the scourge of human civilization as we knew it. Certainly wasn't on that history channel show of the biggest threats to human civilization, if i remember correctly.

Caveat: im very pro-capitalist pro business

But is this guy insane? With all other rebuttals aside, what incentives would multinational corporations have to fight terrorism at all? How would this transition work? It would be too risky for ANY large corporation, and certainly not worth the inexorible costs. No, businesses seek smooth operation, low costs, and profit. Something tells me that having to take over functions of government that cost trillions upon trillions to maintain would not appeal to a corporate CEO. I actually want to read this book now, because it seems either 1) insane or 2) incredibly visionary, yet obvious HIGHLY, HIGHLY flawed. Its a novel idea - one which i 100%, wholeheartedly disagree with, find distasteful and insane, over an issue blown up out of an entirely disproportionate magnitude, but depending on the quality of the writing, could be an interesting read. He's and academic, so its probably fairly well written


Edit: after actually reading the review, it seems hes not really psycho after all, except about his view of the threat of terrorism. He does call for a reordering of world structures.. but not a "new world order" in the sense of centralized government, but actually in a seemingly more decentralized system in some respects. Point is, while i think the main point is absurd (destroying the constitution and nation state to fight terrorism - he doesnt necessarily mean destroying civil liberties, though obviously hes probably all for surveillance, etc), i do think the book might actuall have some interesting radical new ideas to bring to the table. Its not as if im a big fan of the nation state either, but for wholly different reasons than bobbitt. Shit, besides the terrorism part, he actually sounds like a market anarchist, which is a cause i sympathize with. Also from the book review:


What's needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying "less on law and regulation and more on market incentives" to expand people's options. Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse of consumer demand, advocates trade liberalization, is prone to the privatization of public works and "will outsource many functions." In the seminar rooms of political science departments this change is referred to as "neoliberalism" (on the streets, it is known as "globalization") — and Bobbitt, who is a geopolitical realist, believes we have no choice but to embrace it.

I'm not sure if i agree with him even on this still, but again, its not like i particularly like the nation state or current political structures, and its not like hes your typical anti-terrorist looney calling for a fascist police state to fight terrorism at all costs (which the roguegovernment article leads one to believe. ironic they talk about propoganda).

amy31416
04-17-2008, 11:55 AM
Isn't that just charming? Wish he were the one married to Lorena, he seems deserving.

Laja
04-17-2008, 11:57 AM
at the bottom of the article is the book author's email address. looks like he's some kind of academic law honcho at UT. ugh! anyhow, for those of us who care to, we can write him a few choice words...

ThePieSwindler
04-17-2008, 12:18 PM
Again, what the book is actually about is quite different than just the little excerpt froma conspiracy theorist website.

Laja
04-17-2008, 12:29 PM
yes, of course...

orlandoinfl
04-17-2008, 12:34 PM
It would be wise to read his book or have an interview before commenting on what he's actually calling for.

Of course, this type of due diligence will fall to the wayside, but I will express it anyways.

ThePieSwindler
04-17-2008, 12:44 PM
yes, of course...

Look, i disagree with "ripping up the constitution", and dont think the world order he talks about is feasible, and i thikn hes way too worried about terrorism and overblows it far too much... but it doesnt mean all his ideas are trash. Try to be a little more open minded about EVERYTHING you read, and actually look at everything on its own merits and parse it for yourself. The whole "woken up to the truth" paradigm certainly isnt immune to groupthink, hearsay, and a lack of openmindedness.

Granted, all ive read is the book review, but i would certainly read the book as well and am interested. He calls for the "destruction of the constitution" as a provocative metaphor for wholesale change of the world political structure - and not in the direction of a centralized "new world order", but rather a more decentralized "market state" from what i gather from the book review.

ThePieSwindler
04-17-2008, 12:48 PM
It would be wise to read his book or have an interview before commenting on what he's actually calling for.

Of course, this type of due diligence will fall to the wayside, but I will express it anyways.

Are you addressing me or Laja?

acptulsa
04-17-2008, 12:51 PM
What is more terrifying than the destruction of the Constitution? Death? Not to Patrick Henry and me!

TastyWheat
04-17-2008, 01:08 PM
Jesse Ventura made a good point on Larry King Live. 10 well-trained soldiers can cripple the entire country in fear without warning. "Fighting Terrorism" is pointless because you can never effectively predict every single attack. Our goal should be improving our image and foreign relationships so that no one will want to terrorize us.

rpfan2008
04-17-2008, 01:09 PM
Top Neocon Calls for Destruction of Constitution
4.16.08

In a recent edition of the Austin-American Statesman a book review of Phillip Bobbitt’s new book Terror and Consent goes into how the book calls for the shredding of the Constitution. The article written by James E. McWilliams features an image of the Constitution being torn with a big bold headline that states “Everything must go.” The words “How to Fight Terrorism”, are put in place of where the Constitution is torn.

The article is blatant propaganda to make people think that the answer to fight terrorism is to destroy the Constitution. As disgusting as this is, the contents of Bobbitt’s book advocates exactly what the picture depicts. Bobbitt endorses using nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations to take over the roles and functions of nation states. He also endorses giving the United Nations the authority to wage war without approval from the Security Council and the use of non-lethal chemical weapons to fight terrorism.

If he really wanted to end terrorism using non-lethal chemical weapons, he should be endorsing the use of non-lethal chemical weapons on the headquarters of the CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad because that’s where the majority of terrorism comes from. Of course, Bobbitt won't mention that fact.

For the full article: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8315

Such things make Alex Jones look like a 'great visionary' of the future.
I feel like buying a gun but still its just the minimum deterrent , If Alex were to be true

AJ Antimony
04-17-2008, 01:59 PM
What's really funny is that I bet the author hasn't actually seen a terrorist.

Laja
04-17-2008, 02:05 PM
What's really funny is that I bet the author hasn't actually seen a terrorist.

maybe, maybe not. however, i'm assuming he's seen our govt.

ThePieSwindler
04-17-2008, 02:56 PM
It seems the author views terrorism as a more nuanced version of Bush's "they hate us for our freedoms" view - that they basically are seeking the negation of choice and freedom. What really interests me about the book is its one of the first times ive heard of a prominent academic talking seriously about a framework for world order that goes beyond the nation state, yet does not call for world government, or world communism. The concept of the "market state" and advancted globalization/capitalism intrigues me, which is why i responded to the OP that the book is about more than just destroying the constitution.

His view of actual terrorism, on which the prescriptions in the book are entirely based around, seems somewhat naive, without actuall investigating into the real root causes of terrorism- though i havent read the book (its not out yet) so i cant be sure.

Laja
04-17-2008, 07:19 PM
if you decide to read the book, please post your findings.