Have a listen to what Clark said when asked by Thomas about what to do with 'all these radicals':
Here's a transcript of Clark's response:
We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We've got to cut this off at the beginning. There is always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don't get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn't feel happy here and we can watch for signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.Detention camps are coming to the USA! So what else is new. After all, conspiracy websites and alternative media have been sounding that particular alarm for years. But is it plausible?
But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.
So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle, that's fine. It's their right, and it's our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we're going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.
The conspiracy theory version has the UN/Chinese or 'New World Order' taking over the US and throwing dissident Americans into FEMA camps, i.e. the source of the totalitarianism would be up-front and obvious, in the form of a foreign invader. The way it's actually happening is far more sinister, and yet, strangely 'normal'.
The American criminal 'elite' have spent at least two decades laying the groundwork for public acceptance of measures like internment camps. From 9/11 to the 'endless War on Terror' to near-constant 'terror plots' and 'terror attacks', it is not necessary to force internment camps on Americans because Americans will clamor for them. Only later - once the narrative shifts and internees begin to include non-Muslims 'suspected of sympathizing with the terrorists, etc' - will some realize it was a trap. But most will still fail to understand because, at every step in the process, every police state law passed will have been explained and understood by most as being in the best interests of the American people.
Concentration camps were most famously used by the Nazis during WW2 (although before and since then most other Western 'democratic' nations have also used them). To the average German living under the Nazis, the idea of segregating 'minorities' was absolutely logical and necessary because that idea had been carefully implanted in German people's minds by their government. Minorities were attacking honest, hard-working Germans, they were a threat to the German way of life, and had to be kept apart to safeguard German 'values'.
In the same way, Clark's proposal sounds eminently reasonable to an American audience: "radicalized people" are attacking Americans - recently American servicemen and women - and these radicals clearly 'don't accept our way of life', therefore they must be segregated so they can do no harm.
Of course, segregation in the USA isn't anything new. But back in the 1800s and 1900s, segregation was overtly racist in nature, even if white Americans were encouraged to believe blacks were 'dangerous'. Today, most Americans are so much more tolerant and respectful of diversity and would never dream of accepting the return of racial or religious segregation, unless, that is, they can be made to believe that their lives might be at risk if they don't accept it.
If this idea of 'segregation camps' had come from the mouth of any other retired military general via Fox News, they might have been dismissed as the deranged 'Cold Warrior' paranoia of a right-wing nut. But Wesley Clark is perceived in the US as being 'someone of sound mind'. Indeed, one blogger who commented on the story prefaced his post by saying:
I have always liked Clark. And he said some reasonable stuff in his interview with Thomas Roberts this morning before he said the following...Millions of liberal and conservative Americans alike undoubtedly feel the same about this military veteran who joined the 2004 race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. But the real reason Clark's internment camps proposal should be taken seriously is because he is an extremely well-connected public figure, arguably since he graduated from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, the pre-eminent career route for sworn members of the Anglo-American establishment.
Clark is known to most Americans as the 'Supreme Commander' of NATO forces in the 1990s, when his forces leveled and dismembered Yugoslavia. He is known in Russia as the 'madman' who risked World War 3 in June 1999 by ordering troops under his command to "attack and overpower" Russian forces that had beaten British and American troops to control of Pristina Airport in Kosovo province (the British refused to follow the order). In short, he's actually a dyed-in-the-wool war-hawk, and probably psychologically-deranged (the two are often very compatible in our war-loving, post-modern global 'culture').
He is also known to readers of alternative media as the man who said this:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."By the time Clark disclosed this in 2007, to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Iraq had been 'taken out'; Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had been assassinated (by Mossad or the CIA), precipitating the so-called 'Cedar Revolution'; and Somalia had been taken over by a right-wing Islamist group. Later, a color revolution would be attempted on Iran; Sudan would be split in two; and both Libya and Syria obliterated. So indeed, the countries on that 2001 Pentagon list were "taken out", in one sense or another.
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the Secretary of Defense's office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
Given the type of political animal he is, it's highly unlikely that Clark simply 'blurted the truth' to a journalist in the alternative media without there being some reason for doing so. Whatever that reason was, the point we're making here is not that 'The Post-9/11 Plan' was revealed to Clark, nor that 'The Plan' as related by Clark has in fact been executed (the list of US/Western interventions is actually far longer), but rather that Clark's being 'in the know' right after 9/11 about long-term US foreign policy projects indicates, at the very least, that Clark is privy to certain information coming from the highest authorities.
So when Clark is selling 'segregation' and 'camps', you know the idea is being taken very seriously, or that it is already a definite part of the plan for the very near future of American citizens, of all races and creeds.