2010 December 14 Tuesday
Large Security Zones In Cities Due To Terror Fear
Security zones are like small police states in cities.
DENVER (Dec. 14, 2010) – A decade after the 9/11 attacks, significant parts of America's most prominent downtowns remain largely sealed off as `security zones,' but a newly published study by University of Colorado Denver professor Jeremy Németh says this has led to blighted landscapes, limited public access and a need for a new approach to urban planning.
"Our most open, public cities are becoming police states," said Németh, assistant professor of planning and design whose study was recently published in Environment and Planning A. "While a certain amount of security is necessary after terror attacks, no amount of anti-terror architecture would have stopped the 9/11 attacks, or the Madrid or London subway bombings. And by limiting access and closing off space, we limit the potential for more `eyes on the street' to catch possible acts in the process."
This is a cost of both Muslim immigration and government reactions to it. The proper place to stop the threat isn't up close in cities. Better to draw the line at national borders or beyond.
Gotta have the proper clearance.
Németh's study, the first to compare public and private security districts in more than one city, looked at areas of downtown Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco and found that while each city values and protects potential targets equally, what is deemed off-limits varies widely.
For example, 35.7 percent of New York's civic center district is within a `security zone,' meaning it is accessible only to for those with proper clearance, while only 3.4 percent of San Francisco's civic center area has the same designation. Meanwhile, 23-acres of public space in Los Angeles sit in a `security zone.'
I watch old TV shows and movies and feel nostalgic for the days when people walked into airports to greet people just as they get off of airplanes and where people could just walk into all public buildings. What a great open society we lost.
A new style: architecture of fear. Why not use castle motifs so that when people look at these security zones they think of knights and princesses? Castles might lighten the mood, give cities more of a Disneyland feel.
Németh said the zones not only affect the appearance of landmark buildings but also reflect an 'architecture of fear' as evidenced, for example, by the bunker-like appearance of embassies and other perceived targets.
"... nostalgic for the days when people into airports to greet people..." And be sure to check if you any words out!
But it isn't just Muslim immigration, it's multi-racialism in all its forms. Whole cities are are "insecurity zones" where people dare not go, and you're far, far, far more likely to be victimized by the terrorists who made them that way than by the Muslim variety. Before open borders, before Detroit, before Islamic terrorists, before MS-13, before immigration and anti-terrorism laws you have the genocidal white-hating racism that is root of them all. How about being nostalgic about being able to walk in the cities built by your ancestors? Militarized cops didn't arise with 9/11, they were already here in response to the low-level racial insurgency of crime - an insurgency, like that of Islamic terrorism in the West, purposely watered by the establishment precisely to foster a police state.
Land of the Free?? Home of the Brave??
The whole world is changing.
The world system of REPUBLICS is fading away. Very fast, if not already gone.
Google or You Tube, "mobile guard tower" as a visual reminder of what we are becoming. Now, the authorities can set up a mobile guard tower in minutes in order to control the population. What happend to "free men" who can voluntarily associate and manage our own behavior. The reality is, our authorities are the ruffians who need to be controlled.
The only weak spot I can find in their armor, where the knife can be slid in with the least amount of force and most damage, is in banking. Specifically, State Banking like that of North Dakota's. Once a State Bank is formed, it can be monitored by the people using democratic processes. The experience of ND state bank shows it returning profit to the State Government, and living within its means. The private banks in the State System have stayed in their box, and importantly they don't need or use the Federal Reserve. If states can reassert their control over money, then they can fight the money powers that have corrupted Washington.
There are huge advantages to States that have State Banks. Their money stays locally, and they can better manage their economy. It only takes a DBA, doing business as, and the will of the people. This is the knife in the soft spot. Revising the money system at Washington's level may be do-able, but I'm afraid they may be too far gone.
A world of Sovereign Countries and Republics can be had with a Bancor System. That is international clearing houses, or bank like systems. If you have an imbalance of trade, the trading house punishes the country in surplus. Meantime, the debtor country can figure out if it needs to revise its exchange rate.
Being able to manufacture money is a huge advantage, and everybody has their price. Hence our government can be corrupted through being bought off. Two mechanisms for our Kleptocracy are having labor compete across the world, that is moving industry to where there is overhanging labor. Example, U.S. multinationals in China manufacture for export back to the U.S. The other is to use the carry trade. That is borrow money in a cheap country and send it to a country that has higher interest rates. For example, borrow from Japan and send it to the U.S. This makes the bankers money on the interest spread, and also increases the dollar value. Win Win and easy money.
The only way out is State Controlled Banking, which seems anathema. Why give the State power when they are corrupt? Actually, the State has been corrupted by Private unelected money. Only the people watching the state with strong laws on their side, can contain money power. In other words, the people need to hold the money power, because it is theirs. Only then can Federalism and Republics have a chance of surviving. Attack where they are weak.