| Security |
|Interest of||• Evren Balta|
• Dmytro Kolomoiets
• Edward Lucas
• Louise Sherwood
|The modern interpretation involves control technology, while a more traditional interpretation involved relationships.|
"Security", the state of being secure, i.e. safe, is such a positive word that it proved irresistible to the arms industry. Just as the "war department" was rebranded the "defense department", so the "arms industry" would rebranded itself the "security industry". "Exporting weapons" has been rebranded "exporting security". This word is commonly invoked in the 21st century because of the widespread feelings of insecurity. The attempted appropriation of the word by the MICC obscures the fact weapons-based security is not the only possible view of the concept.
Weapons-based security is the model of security relevant to the Strict father model of parenting. It views the world as a fundamentally dangerous and threatening place. According to this worldview, security is derived from weapons which are needed to present a counter threat. The more powerful the weapons, the greater the degree of security. This sort of security is more or less zero-sum, since an increase in weapons-based security for one nation means a corresponding decrease in such security for its neighbours, since their weapons are relatively less useful.
This model of security, although popular with the MICC is by the admission of the Rand Corporation M.A.D. When it was applied during the Cold war, leading to an arms race that inspired the USA and USSR to create many times more nuclear weapons than would be needed to destroy human life on earth.
Relationship-based security is the model of security relevant to the Nurturing parent model of child rearing. It views the world as a fundamentally friendly place, in which it is important to nurture good relationships and have positive interactions with other people. Security in this view is non zero-sum; because relationships are bi- (or multi-) lateral, an increase in one's neighbours' security entails in increase in one's own
- Full article: “National security”
- Full article: “National security”
The concept of "national security", deriving from wartime expediency, nominally exists to allow the interests of "the nation" (in theory, the population of that nation, in practice, the government of that nation) to trump normal legal procedure.
In practice, "national security" is often used as a legal get-out-of-jail free card used by cliques of senior officials to hide wrongdoing, and there may be no way to control for this abuse. Moreover, in the era of the Supranational deep state, the concept of individual nations having separate securities is something of a fiction. When its use is coordinated by The Deep State it has served[When?] as an effective tool to avoid The Deep State/Exposure in legal proceedings.
|Enemy image||“The events of 9/11, we were told, changed everything. The globe was now divided between the forces of good and evil. Bush communicated this quite clearly in an address to the nation just days after 9/11: “Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.””||Danny Sjursen||25 October 2017|
|Benjamin Franklin||“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”||Benjamin Franklin|
|Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil||“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”||Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil|