Berit Kjos -- Homeland Security And The Transformation of America -- Part I

Few would deny that

America

faces a major crisis. But the greatest threat to freedom may be a veiled government "solution" rather than the obvious threat of terror. Yes, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction call for a wise and strong response, but our new Department of Homeland Security brings radical changes that threaten the very foundations of our nation.

Some of the changes are structural; they deal with the transformation of the republic itself. Others are designed to draw all Americans -- young and old from coast to coast -- into community consensus groups that would manipulate minds, change values, build a collective world view, and promote a form of solidarity that clashes with all the wise warnings of our founding fathers.

Looming over those revolutionary changes stands an inter-governmental surveillance network symbolized by the all-seeing eye in the pyramid. This Masonic symbol, whose roving eye covers the planet with its probing and penetrating rays, first appeared on a defense department website featuring TIA (Total Information Awareness). It must have raised some concern, since the image disappeared a few months later. See Surveillance

Some of these changes were planned long ago. Former president Clinton tried to persuade Congress to pass similar anti-terrorism measures after the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building. But he failed. Americans were not yet ready to relinquish their rights to freedom and privacy. Now, thanks to a greater crisis, the planned laws, intrusive policies, high tech surveillance and vast networks have been put in place. What does it all mean to ordinary citizens like you and me?

On November 19, 2002 , President Bush celebrated the passage of the Homeland Security Act with these words,

"The United States Congress has taken an historic and bold step forward to protect the American people by passing legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This landmark legislation, the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s, will help our Nation meet the emerging threats of terrorism in the 21st Century."[3]

Do you wonder what this "most extensive reorganization" entails? I did. And after a week of perusing the White House and Homeland Security websites, I see that the restructuring project begun by Al Gore in the nineties is well under way. Fueled by today's anxious atmosphere, the former administration's plan to "reinvent government" has been speeding ahead with relatively little public opposition. This massive project bears three distinct marks. It includes -

· A mind-changing process: the facilitated group dialogue first used in the USSR to establish a new public consciousness that reflects collective ideals.

· Standards and Assessments that hold all sectors of society accountable to top-down polices and an ultimate goal: what human resources must be, do and believe in order to build a world free from conflict and terror. The promise of "local control" means little when the end results ("outcomes") are measured and rewarded at the top.

Remember the words of the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the

United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively...."

A White House document titled, "The National Strategy for Homeland Security," admits that "American democracy is rooted in the precepts of federalism -- a system of government in which our state governments share power with federal institutions."[1] But it ignores the wise restrictions placed on the federal government. Ponder this statement:

"The Administration's approach to homeland security is based on the principles of shared responsibility and partnership with the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, and the American people.... The federal government will employ performance measures--and encourage the same for state and local governments--to evaluate the effectiveness of each homeland security program."[4]

Guess who would be the controlling partner? It would not be the state! In a government partnership between unequal members, the one who sets the standards, defines the terms, and pulls the purse-strings will always rule. Through its calculated distribution of much-needed government grants, the federal government holds all its partners accountable to its top-down agenda.[5]

Those partners include a vast network of interlocking government systems, organizations, agencies, offices and churches. In fact, every part of society has been assigned a place in this massive web. And -- as our government joins hands with corporations, private agencies, civil society and faith-based organizations around the world -- we may soon be trapped within the politically correct boundaries of the "common values" and "community oneness" so often touted by former President Clinton.

Clinton 's second executive order on Federalism set the stage. It redesigned and redefined the relationship between states and the White House. Neither Congress nor the Bush administration chose to challenge it. In the end, we may well see Clinton 's vision of community oneness fulfilled. But by the time the manipulated masses have tuned their minds to the collective heart beat of the new "greater whole", the personal freedom we have treasured may be history. [ See Capacity Building ]

Since the dialectic process has been explained repeatedly on our website, I will simply refer you to the best expose we have: "An analysis of Community Oriented Policing (COPs)" by San Diego Detective Phil Worts. He quotes from a Justice Department brochure which defines the department's federally funded COPS program -- now linked to Homeland Security:[6]

· Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of Total Quality Management [TQM] of the community. Re-identifying the police role as a facilitator in the community.

· Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community, what the significant impact on people will be, and suggesting solutions to those problems.

· Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the COMMON GOOD of the community in a broader problem-solving approach. Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole. (Emphasis added)

In other words, explains Mr. Worts, we are seeing a "transformation from a constitutionally empowered local police force performing their duty to keep the peace to that of a change agent working within the community to affect a Marxist paradigm shift." He continues,

"Pay close attention to what the influential German Marxist Georg Lukacs had to say about who the facilitators are in the community: 'The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets. They [facilitators] are the congresses [diverse groups], which facilitate the debate [dialoguing to consensus] of universal problems [social issues] in the context of the everyday.”[7]

In other words, this system was being tested in the last century, and its persuasive suggestions for change were effectively linked to relevant events, felt needs and the current crisis.

If this complex and transformational process sounds confusing, please read Mr. Worts' article. And remember that the driving force behind the global shift to TQM has been Peter Drucker, a management guru to governments as well as churches and corporations. Business Week online calls him a "social communitarian" who "brings a communitarian philosophy to his consulting."[8]

Next, consider a 1998 training manual titled "Basic Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement" used by the San Diego and Chula Vista COPS programs. It explains the function of the facilitator who must guide the group toward a pre-planned consensus, then warns potential community facilitators that some of their group members may try to block the process or hinder group consensus. These resisters might refuse to compromise their convictions or ignore the standard ground rules for group consensus (respect all members and their views; don't argue or debate; share feelings, not contrary facts or beliefs; be willing to compromise for the sake of unity....) The brochure's labels for such unacceptable behavior includes -

Aggressing: "deflating the ego or status of others; attacking the motives of others.

Blocking: "arguing too much on a point; rejecting ideas without consideration; resisting; disagreeing and opposing beyond reason; bring up dead issues after they have been rejected or bypassed by the group." [Those "dead issues" may not have been dead. Facilitators often ignore contrary voices in order to successfully declare consensus at the end of a meeting]

Isolating: "Acting indifferent or passive; resorting to excessive formality... will not voice concerns in the meeting but sabotages agreement afterwards."

Special Pleading: "Introducing or supporting suggestions related to one's own pet concerns, philosophies or biases...."[9] [Though all participants are required to share their feelings and concerns, people who bring concerns that are politically incorrect are often ridiculed, shamed or reprimanded]

The last two pages in the COPS manual deal with a strategy called "Force Field Analysis." This transformational tool helps change agents or facilitators measure and use the social and mental forces that work for or against his goal. This is important to our topic, not because of what such analysis accomplishes, but because the specific "force field" chart used by the COPS program to illustrate this process came from a 1951 manual on brainwashing titled Human Relations in Curriculum Change. Its chapters are written by leading behavioral psychologists of the times, such as Kurt Lewin. See the history of this century-old plan in Brainwashing in America and Chronology of the NEA.

Our government has provided countless opportunities for group training in this dialectic process, and hundreds of thousands of eager volunteers have responded to our president's continual invitations. In communities across the country, the "AmeriCorps," Citizen Corps, Neighborhood Watch and other participatory community programs beckon the masses to join their groups. The goal is full participation; all Americans are called to serve their country at this time of need. For example,

"The mission of Citizen Corps is to harness the power of every individual through education, training, and volunteer service to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to the threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds.

"The Citizen Corps mission will be accomplished through a national network of state, local, and tribal Citizen Corps Councils, which will tailor activities to the community and build on community strengths to develop and implement a local strategy to have every American participate.... If there is not a Citizen Corps Council in your area, please contact your State Citizen Corps representative and work with your local officials to get one started." Citizen Corps

You may want to compare this network of councils with the Soviet hierarchy of councils (or soviets). Both sets of councils are accountable to the polices or standards set at the top of the pyramid. Both operate in local cells or groups that seek consensus through the dialectic process and are accountable to the higher council. Both match the new global vision of solidarity, community, collective thinking and dedicated service to a Greater Whole.

One such example is the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Like more than 150 similar national councils, it is accountable to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. While not formally linked to Homeland Security, the new network of governmental systems and partnerships means that the massive grass-roots network (a "civil society" committed to the UN ideology) will also be supporting community efforts to organize dialectic groups under the umbrella of Homeland Security. The two fit together, for the primary goal of Sustainable Development is not "saving the earth" but social transformation through dialogue and consensus. See Local Agenda 21- The U.N. Plan for Your Community

If you follow the links from the Department of Homeland Security website, you will find both Citizen Corps and Service Learning. To understand how these nice-sounding terms are used to change values, blot out absolute truths and build solidarity through the dialectic process, read Serving a Greater Whole. It explains that community service or "service learning" is not simply showing compassion and serving the needy. The real purpose is to involve everyone in the consensus "process." To build the new community -- and to share in the "Capacity Building" encouraged by President Bush as well as the United Nations -- we must learn to think collectively. "Separateness" is out; solidarity is in.

Corinne McLaughlin, a theosophist (she follows the occult teachings of Alice Bailey) became the first task force coordinator for the President's Council on Sustainable Development under Bill Clinton. She also taught this transformational process at the EPA, the Pentagon and the Department of Education. In her book, Spiritual Politics, she wrote,

"There really is only one sin--separateness. War is more likely to spring from rampant nationalism, ethnocentrism, and intolerant religious fundamentalism--all extreme and separative attitudes ...."[15]

Her solution? The same as Clinton 's: "What is needed as a cure for separateness is a deep sense of community-that we're all in this together."

Those who set the standards and define the terms will rule the systems. Those who manage the resources and determine the consequences of failure will control their "partners" and enforce compliance. The promise of "local control" is meaningless when federal funding is tied to federal standards and policies.

If you haven't done so already, read Reinventing the World Part 3: Global Standards. It will explain the standards that bind communities and states to national and international benchmarks and standards.

Then go to solidarity and learn about the UN standard for community participation. Following UN guidelines, every community must be assessed and monitored for its social capital. At the 1996 UN Conference on Human Habitats (Habitat II) I asked Ismail Seregeldin, Vice President of the World Bank, to define social capital for me. Ponder his answer (which I recorded) in light of today's national drive to broaden the web of partnerships, community service and consensus groups:

"Social capital is the interaction between people -- the sense of solidarity or shared values that exist between them.... It is the number of voluntary associations which people enter at the grass-roots level and create a community of willingness and solidarity between them."

Neither the standards nor the transformational agenda are new. Most of the systemic changes took place before George W. Bush became president. As early as 1922, New York Mayor John Hylan warned the people that -

"... the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."[14]

Today, the top of the pyramid is international. But the Bush administration has neither slowed or blocked this silent shift. Instead, it has pushed the agenda forward and won legal support through a Congress that has been all too reluctant to slow the advance of the new world order. (Yet, it deserves thanks for one victory: it apparently blocked the TIPS program -- at least for the moment. The Justice Department probably won't be asking mail carriers to spy on the community they serve.)

By now, you may have realized that this three-pronged transformation matches the "Third Way" politics touted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It also parallels the socialist vision of Amitai Etzioni, the founder and today's main spokesman for communitarianism.

SYSTEM: "The good society is a partnership of three sectors: government, private sector, and community.... While these... may change with social condition, in a good society the three sectors seek to cooperate with one another....
"In order to encourage communities' role in social services, all state agencies should have citizen participation advisory boards. Their talks would be to find ways for citizens to participate as volunteers in delivering some services currently carried by the state. They should also play a role in providing timely, relevant and informed feedback on the performance of service providers."

PROCESS: "Third Way governments do best when they resist the rush to legislate good behavior. When there is a valid need to modify behavior, the state should realize that relying on informal community-based processes is preferable...."

STANDARDS: "To ensure that this core education principle will be heeded, an annual assessment should be made in all schools of the educational (as distinct from teaching) messages they impart, and of their approach to character formation."[10]

7. Georg Lukacs, The Process of Democratization, p 46. Soviet can mean an individual, someone who practices the dialectic, or a political system. In Russia, the soviet system consists of a hierarchy of councils, from the local level all the way to the top echelon, the Supreme Soviet Council. In this context, the soviet is the system, particularly the local council.

9. Basic Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement. Presented by Agent Nicolle DePriest, Chula Vista Police Department, in conjunction with the Regional Community Policing Institute, Sand Diego, California. (Regional Training Academy, COPPS curriculum, May 1998).

Berit Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker. A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has also been a guest on "Talk Back Live" (CNN) and other secular radio and TV networks. Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Kjos Ministries Web Site: http://www.crossroad.to/index.html