Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

Trilateral Komisyonu Haksızmıydılar?

Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi İngiltere'dir. İngiliz devletini yöneten unsur kraliyet hanedanlığıdır. Bilindiği gibi İngilizler, Almanlar, Hollandalılar ve Fransızlar gibi Cermen milletinin bir mensubudurlar.
Birinci Dünya Savaşından sonra Dünyayı yöneten unsurun Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi ve baş aktörü olan ülkenin olduğunu anlamamız gerekir.
İşte bu İngiltere devleti, kendisinin bir uzantısı olan Amerikan devleti ve Almanya devletindeki bazı aile şirketlerini, şeytani tarikatları ve hükümet nezdindeki önemli kişileri kullanarak(ve ayrıca onları büyütüp, ünlü yapıp, sahneye çıkartıp ve sonrasındada besleyip), Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sistemini İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve sırasında kurmaya çalışmak istemiştir ve başarılı olmuştur.
Nasıl başarılı olmuştur ve bu Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sisteminin içinde kimler var?
Devlet: İngiltere-Amerika.
Devleti Yöneten Hanedan(İngiliz/Cermen Milletine Hizmet Ediyor): Windsor(İngiliz Cermen Kökenli) ve Rothschild(Hazar Türk Kökenli) sülalelerinin karışımı
Mafya: Rockefeller-Rothschild-JP Morgan gibi sülale şirketleri
Tarikat: İlluminati, Mason, Bilderberg gibi şeytani tarikatlar
Gladyo: İngilizlerin kontrolünde olan Faşist İktidarlar: İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Hitler ve Kukla Nazi Devleti/Hükümeti, ve İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Stalin ve Lenin'in Sovyetler Birliği'nin Yıkımını Amaçlayan Yeni Sovyet Devleti/Hükümeti.
Bu konu hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri bu forumdaki başlıklarda bulabilirsiniz.

Trilateral Komisyonu Haksızmıydılar?

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 05 May 2011, 22:23

WHERE THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION WENT WRONG

When we published the original TRILATERALS OVER WASHINGTON, the Trilateral Commission had no track history. Although we wrote the book from the viewpoint that Trilateral Commissioners and especially Chairman David Rockefeller were not telling the entire truth about their objectives, there was no way to prove self interested objectives.

Today, in 1994, we can look at two decades of Trilateral actions and determine just how disinterested Trilateral proposals and policies have been in the light of the extraordinary ability to place their members in every Administration.

First, we now know they have a common philosophy, this by their own statements. The radio interview of Trilateral Coordinator George Franklin Jr., in July 1979 (Radio station KLNG, Council Bluffs, Iowa, July 27,1979) highlighted specific sensitive areas of discussion that the Commission wants to avoid.
Without doubt the Trilaterals had not considered the possibility of opposition to their plans and have no damage control mechanism in place. They also demonstrate an easy ability to avoid, evade, deny and even outright lie when these sensitive areas are made public.
The central role of David Rockefeller is always disguised and his influence diluted:

COMMENTATOR: Mr. Sutton?

SUTTON: Can we go off energy for a while?

COMMENTATOR: Yes.

SUTTON: I have a question for Mr. Franklin. Who chooses the members of the Trilateral Commission?

FRANKLIN: The Trilateral Commission's Executive Committee.

SUTTON: Who comprises that committee?

FRANKLIN: Who is on that committee?

SUTTON: Yes.

FRANKLIN: Okay. William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation, who is a lawyer; Lane Kirkland, who is Secretary-General of the American Federation of Labor; Henry Kissinger, who does not need too much identification; Bruce McLaury, who is president of the Brookings Institution; David Rockefeller; Robert Ingersoll, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador to Japan; I. W. Able, who was formerly head of United Steelworkers; and William Roth, who is a San Francisco businessman and was chief trade negotiator in the previous trade Kennedy round.

SUTTON: May I ask a question? How many of these have a rather intimate business relationship with Mr. Rockefeller?

FRANKLIN: Henry Kissinger is chairman of Mr. Rockefeller's Chase Advisory Committee.

SUTTON: Coleman?

FRANKLIN: Coleman, I don't think has any business relationship with him, he is a lawyer. [In fact, William Coleman is a Director of Chase Manhattan Bank, which Franklin has already admitted to be controlled by David Rockefeller.]

SUTTON: Mr. Ingersoll?

FRANKLIN: Mr. Ingersoll, I don't think has any business relationship.

SUTTON: Isn't he connected with First Chicago?

FRANKLIN: He is vice chairman of the University of Chicago.

SUTTON: NO, what about the First Bank of Chicago? (First Chicago Corp.)

FRANKLIN: I don't believe that Ingersoll has any relationship with banks in Chicago, but I don't know for certain on that. [Robert Stephen Ingersoll, before joining the Washington "revolving door," was a director of the First National Bank of Chicago, a subsidiary of First Chicago Corp. The largest single shareholder in First Chicago is David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Ingersoll has also been a director of Atlantic Richfield and Burlington Northern. Chase Manhattan is also the largest single stockholder in these two companies. Thus, Ingersoll has a longstanding relationship with Rockefeller interests.]
Freedom of the press is distasteful to Trilaterals, and they have good reason to find it distasteful. Here's another segment of the same radio interview of Mr. Franklin, in which he disclaims knowledge of a Trilateral book recommending abridgement of press freedoms, a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

SUTTON: Mr. Franklin, do you believe in freedom of the press in the United States?

FRANKLIN: Definitely, of course.

SUTTON: Let me quote you from a book, Crisis In Democracy, written by Michel Crozier, who is a Trilateral member.

FRANKLIN: Correct.

SUTTON: I am quoting from page 35 of his book: "The media has thus become an autonomous power. We are now witnessing a crucial change with the profession. That is, media tends to regulate itself in such a way as to resist the pressure from financial or government interests." Does that not mean that you want to restrict the press in some way?

FRANKLIN: I can't quite hear you.

SUTTON: Let me paraphrase this for you. I think I will be clear in my paraphrasing. The Trilateral Commission is unhappy with the press because it resists the pressure from financial or government interests. That is one of your statements.

FRANKLIN: NOW, let me say something about our book. [NOTE: "our"] The book that we put out, the report, is the responsibility of the authors and not of the Commission itself. You will find that in the back of a number of them, and that book is one of them, that other members of the Commission will hear dissenting views, and you will find dissenting views in the back of that book on the press question.

SUTTON: I would like to quote a further statement from the same book and leave the question at that point: "The media deprives government and to some extent other responsible authorities of the time lag and tolerance that make it possible to innovate and to experiment responsibly." What the book recommends is something like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press. This seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution.

FRANKLIN: I would agree with you that we do not want something like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press.
[Michel Crozer, et al, in Crisis In Democracy, make the following statements with reference to the "Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti-trust Act":
"Something comparable appears to be now needed with respect to the media. there is also the need to assure to the government the right and the ability to withhold information at the source" (page 82).
The authors go on to argue that if journalists do not conform to these new restrictive standards, then "The alternative could well be regulation by the government. "]

SUTTON: I fail to understand why the Trilateral Commission would associate itself with such a viewpoint.

FRANKLIN: As I just mentioned to you, we hired three authors for each report. The authors are allowed to say what they think is correct. What the Trilateral Commission does is this: It says we think this report is worthwhile for the public to see. This does not mean that all the members of the Commission agree with all the statements in the report and, in fact, a majority of them might disagree with certain things. Now, where a statement is one that many Commissioners seem to disagree with, we then do put in the back a summary of the discussion. That book does have a summary of the discussion of our meeting which questions various things in the book, in the back of it.
While Mr. Franklin tries to put distance between the Trilateral Commission and individual members, he then admitted to a "common philosophy" which appears to suggest they have common views on at least fundamental issues.

SUTTON: Would you say Mr. Franklin that the members of the Commission do have a common philosophy?

FRANKLIN: Yes, I think a common philosophy. I think that all of them believe that this world will work better if the principal industrial powers consult each other on their policies and try to work them out together. This does not mean that they will agree on everything. Of course, they won't. But, at least they will know what the other countries feel, and why they feel it.

SUTTON: The Financial Times in London—the editor is Ferdy Fisher, a Trilateralist. He fired a long time editorial writer, Gordon Tether, because Tether wanted to write articles criticizing the Trilateral Commission. Do you have any comments?

FRANKLIN: I didn't know that at all. It sounds terribly unlikely, but if you say that it is so, probably it is. [See Chapter Seven, "Trilateral Censorship: the case of C. Gordon Tether" in Trilaterals Over Washington. Trilaterals see the media as the "gatekeeper" and comment as follows: "Their main impact is visibility. The only real event is the event that is reported as seen. Thus, journalists possess a crucial role as gatekeepers of one of the central dimensions of public life. "]
George Franklin got into further deep water about control of the press when asked how it chose writers and whether it approved of the chosen writers.

REES: Yes, Mr. Franklin, I noticed that you were saying that the Trilateral Commission takes no responsibility for the use of the publisher's imprimatur, but I would be interested to know about how you go about selecting your writers to put out the various positions.

FRANKLIN: Well that is a very interesting question. We have a meeting with the chairmen. The way the situation is organized is this. There are three chairmen, one from each of the three areas. Three secretaries, one from each of the three areas, and I, have got an intermediate staff job called "coordinator." Now, the chairmen and secretaries meet with what they have jointly, will discuss not only topics they think will be useful to have, but also authors for these topics. The topics are then discussed by the whole Commission and approved or changed slightly. The authors are chosen by members of the staff and consultation with the chairmen.

REES: SO, although you do not take responsibility for the finished product you are responsible for the selection of the writers.

FRANKLIN: Very much. No question about that.

REES: SO it does have your imprimatur stamp of approval each time?

FRANKLIN: In that sense. We certainly choose the writers, and we choose them because we think they are very good, obviously. So far, every single report that has been written by the authors has, in fact, been accepted for publication by the Commission.

REES: Then the report on the news media was accepted?

FRANKLIN: It was accepted, but there was a lot of disagreement with that. It was felt that it was an important statement, with quite a lot of interesting new ideas in it. It was also a very strong opposition which was reflected in the back of the report in a section, I think it is entitled, "Summary of Discussion."
Whatever Mr. Franklin's evasive statements, common sense suggests that Trilateral reports do in fact reflect a common philosophy, else the Commission would hardly pay out funds for their production. The "do not necessarily agree with the authors" is a mere ploy to evade responsibility for unwelcome views.
In one sensitive area, the abnormally low tax rates paid by Trilateral banks and firms, George Franklin Jr. was highly evasive — and for good reason. Trilaterals have been getting away with murder, taxwise.

Here's the Council Bluffs segment on taxation:

COMMENTATOR: Mr. Sutton, do you have any other questions?

SUTTON: I have one more question, that goes to a new field entirely: taxation. We have established that David Rockefeller is chairman and single most powerful influence in Chase Manhattan Bank. Now, do you happen to know the tax rate that Chase Manhattan pays in the United States? FRANKLIN: I don't know. . . happen to know — it is about 50% (fifty percent),

SUTTON: I will give you some figures. In 1976, Chase Manhattan Bank's tax rate was precisely zero. I am wondering why, if you are so influential politically, why at least you cannot pay a tax rate more equivalent to that of the average American taxpayer, which is 15%, or 20% or 30%.

FRANKLIN: I have nothing to do with Chase Manhattan Bank. But if the tax rate was zero, it must have been because it had very large real estate losses in that year, I think.

SUTTON: In 1975, it was 3.4%. It is always way under 10%.

FRANKLIN: Well, that is extremely interesting. It is a new fact for me.

SUTTON: Well, my point is this, that you are willing to guide the United States into the future, but apparently you are not willing to pay your fair share of the costs.

COMMENTATOR: YOU are talking about the Commission members as a whole? SUTTON: Yes.

FRANKLIN: I think you will find that the Commission members pay whatever the laws say they are supposed to pay under the circumstances. I do not know what the particular reason was on Chase. They did have heavy losses; I am not familiar enough with their situation to be able to tell to you.

In brief, our Trilateral friends have been dealing themselves favors when it comes to taxation. Trilateral firms are notorious for the ridiculous low tax rates they appear to pay, zero being quite common. And it's all legal because Trilateral policies are put into law by Trilateral politicians — so George Franklin can truly say that "the Commission members pay whatever the laws say they are supposed to pay under the circumstances.''

Kaynakça
Kitap: Trilaterals over America (1995)
Yazar: Antony C Sutton
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Dön İngiltere ve Amerika Birliği Faaliyetleri: 2. Dünya Savaşı ve Türk Soyumuzun Baş Düşmanı olan Cermen Menfaat Merkezi'nin Kuruluşu

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 2 misafir

cron