Analyst's Opening Statement:
The (new) term is “COMMULISM” (COMMUNISM fueled by CAPITALISM), one NEVER before mentioned or annunciated in either the public or political lexicon. Here is Part 5 of a comprehensive, integrated 10 part article “Commulism Series”; providing an Analysis, Assessment and Commulism Response Framework on this, the most significant threat to long term U.S. national and economic security.This 10 Part "Commulism Series" was seven months in development. Considering how fast data changes, the Analyst has strived to keep current the volumes of relevant data throughout, recognizing there may be a few data points that might not be absolutely current at publishing date, particularly during these past few weeks of highly volatile financial market activity. However, the threat assessment, core themes and Counter-Manual (Framework) Guidelines remain fully supported, and not sensitive to the day to day data fluctuations.
Also, the Analyst views (and intends) this document to be a vehicle to provoke public debate on the theme article issue and that the White House/DOD/State Department et al to read this, "acknowledge" the threat, and revise the following proposed "Commulism Response Framework" accordingly. The ideas presented are aggressive, if not unconventional in some areas, as they must be given the seriousness of the threat. They are provocative, for the sole purpose of sparking that much needed, yet currently absent public and government debate, in the vital interests of collective U.S. national and economic security.
Finally, it would indeed be refreshing to hear one of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls in either party or a soon to launch Independent, move beyond petty badmouthing of the other candidates. Instead, having them prudently focus on something of substance both the American people and themselves have yet to recognize and mention, but promptly need to become aware and understand. It is an issue/term/moniker ("Commulism") NEVER media et al mentioned. Who on the campaign trail is ready to broach and champion an issue which dwarfs other issues in terms of future U.S. national/economic security impact, yet has never been mentioned in the public or campaign lexicon? Hopefully one of these candidates is ready to step up and be the first to declare the rise of Commulism, and the plan to address it - the "Counter-Commulism Framework". Any reader that is within one, two or three degrees of separation to a 2008 Presidential candidate is encouraged to direct them here to begin that important awareness and education process.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Part 1: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080125_u_s__economic_securi.htm concluded with the integrated "5 Pillar Superpower (Commulism) Sustainability Framework" to support the core ideology - Communism:
Economic/Military/Social/Technology/Partnerships
Note: For the visual, see the illustrative Commulism 5 Pillar Structure Chart at the end of article (note included in all 10 Parts). The columned look was chosen to denote the insidious nature of Commulism, by capturing the underlying Communist ideology intent to displace Democracy.
Part 2: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080126__22commulism_series_22__.htm provided the first half of the analysis and assessment of the first of the 5 Commulism Pillars - "Economic".
Part 3: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080127__22commulism_series_22__.htm completed the Commulism "Economic Pillar" analysis and assesment with "What's the Endgame?"
Part 4: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080130_part_4____22commulism_.htm provided analysis and assessment of the next three Commulism Pillars - Military, Social Order and Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 5 will now analyze and assess the final Commulism Pillar – Strategic Partnerships (and Polarities).
E) STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS/POLARITY (i.e. Power Block):
Lesson – The Soviet sponsored Warsaw Pact demonstrated that any superpower still needs some minimal strategic partnering to compete (and buffer itself) against another (e.g. the U.S. and NATO, ASEAN, OAS (ex Venezuela), Africa, etc. – i.e. WEAST). This lesson complimenting the one above regarding being an economically “functional” superpower.
Analyst Note: Polarity: From a “polarity” in international relations perspective, the overall Cold War situation was really one that can be described as bi-polar, with the world strategically aligning in two camps. Of course the Sino-Soviet split during that period might suggest a multi-polar situation, but the Chinese were again visibly quiet and aside from population numbers arguably not true super power status. So it's questionable during that period whether there was an active third power, and too if it came down to picking sides, they’d likely align Communist (Soviet).
While on the polarity issue, one can argue the period from 1989 until just recently as the world living in a uni-polar situation, with but one superpower being the U.S., possessing most of the global cultural, economic, and military influence. Call it the age of U.S. hegemony, which is now rapidly disappearing as the world moves back to a bi-polar if not derivative multi-polar mix. Bi-polar from the standpoint that China has emerged as the new superpower offset to the U.S.. Multi-polar from that standpoint that a resurgent Russia is on the heels of China in regaining superpower status. Other key nations, most notably BRIC + V countries India and Brazil are on the rise and at the cusp of achieving that status too. Vietnam (V), has aggressively embraced Commulism and is rapidly on the rise and emerging as a global power player. The Analyst suggests it be added to the high profile BRIC mix. With Russia (and Vietnam) clearly aligned with China and communism, it then comes down to how India and Brazil and their own respective global strategic partners ultimately either align or not to the U.S. or China or a derivative block unto themselves and others, that will determine final global polarity at least over the intermediate term.
A final polarity comment, the term superpower, in the purest sense, which historically implied the ability of a nation to sustain itself more or less independent of the rest of the world may be a term of the past as respects both the U.S. (and China too) which is now deeply rooted and dependent on the global economy. China too needs natural resources from across the globe to support its population, generating growing dependencies on other nations too.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
