http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/war-on-terror-is-not-the-only-threatI got to the above article from an infowars article that was linked on Drudge, here:
http://www.infowars.com/think-tank-extraordinary-crisis-needed-to-preserve-new-world-order/I think the atlantic council article is far more interesting than the infowars one.
Some quotes:
The major enemy and adversary are no longer states bent on disrupting or dominating the system despite those who see China as a future foe. Instead, the more immediate danger rests in the dramatic empowerment of individuals and groups, for good and sadly evil, often lumped together as "non-state actors."
At least he does acknowledge that empowerment of the individual can be used for good.
However his next paragraph certainly implies that Snowden is an agent of evil:
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, countless "hackers" and anonymous people mailing anthrax-filled letters whose actions have indeed constituted real threats and systemic disruptions are among the former. Al-Qaida and other radical groups reflect the latter.
I see his distinction between former and latter, but putting Snowden into the same camp as people blindly sending anthrax through the mail is demonstrating a rather obtuse and biased perspective on his part, I think. Especially with the significant news stories indicating a CIA manhunt and kill order for Snowden (I draw parity between individual actors using mailed anthrax who target politicians and bureaucrats, and CIA agents attempting a hit on an individual actor the State does not like).
He goes on to say:
Failed and failing government from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with Brussels and Washington in between is the largest collective impediment to the betterment of mankind.
Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance.
To his credit, he does acknowledge that a "crisis" is certainly something that can be taken advantage of. However I almost get a feeling that he wants a crisis, that the governmental/NWO folks can take advantage of.
The final element that is very chilling in the article, is the implied stifling of free flow of information. He likens the growth of the internet as a tool for individual actors, to the power of the atomic bomb for national actors. Just as nuclear deterrence and MAD became official policy, he implies that control or "deterrence" is needed over the flow of information:
Sixty-eight years ago this month, the nuclear age dawned over Hiroshima. Over time as nuclear and especially thermonuclear weapons were seen as more than just extensions of conventional munitions and potentially existential, a theory of deterrence emerged. We are at similar juncture regarding cyber where we lack an overarching understanding of the implications and possible consequences of this domain.
