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

Psikoloji ve Kamu Kontrolü

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.

Psikoloji ve Kamu Kontrolü

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 17:47


WHILE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO EDUCATION, IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that in Nazi Germany, while labor was extolled and glamorized, the power of labor unions was all but abolished. All labor matters were combined into the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, or German Labor Front, a monolithic Nazi organization created by Hitler to replace the old labor union system.

Again, the agenda of the corporate globalists was at work to curtail any meaningful power within the working class. However, despite early labor support based on pro-labor Nazi slogans and propaganda, the workers soon realized that the promised labor-professional equality was a myth, and labor problems continued to plague the Nazi government right through the end of the war.

in light of the continuing problems in Nazi Germany, the globalists declined to create a labor-controlling mechanism with modern America. Instead, they began a successful program of buying corrupt labor leaders, making deals with the crime syndicates that controlled certain unions, and crippling labor through federal legislation pushed through congress with corporate money. The Reagan and both Bush administrations were particularly antiunion.

One example of this occurred in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration crushed collective bargaining by air traffic controllers, who desired increased air safety through better working conditions rather than just higher wages. Another example came in mid-2002, when a labor dispute between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) caused a stack-up of cargo ships along the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle, which threatened to cut deeply into the 2002-03 holiday season profits. The strike was broken in October, when President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act, a controversial 1947 union-busting law that was passed over President Truman's veto. Under this law, an eighty-day "cooling off" period can be ordered during a "national emergency."

Although Bush's action received scant attention in a media focused on the impending invasion of Iraq, one official of ILWU, Jack Heyman, termed Bush's intervention "a historic juncture in the labor movement." Heyman added, "By invoking Taft-Hartley against the longshore workers, Bush is effectively declaring war on the working class here and the Iraqi people simultaneously."

It has already been demonstrated how many U.S. government and corporate policies have been instituted by firms and organizations created and controlled by America's wealthy elite globalists.

The globalists also created the myth that the Rockefellers represent the apex of America's wealthy elite, a description the Rockefellers have done little to discourage. The long-standing idea that American oil magnate John D. Rockefeller was driven solely by greed obscured the fact that he was financed by outside sources. According to Eustace Mullins, the Rockefeller combine has never been an independent power. It was this Rockefeller myth of a homegrown elite that distracted attention from the international globalists and allowed the American public to accept the family as the nation's preeminent power. "[T]he Rockefeller oil trust [became] the 'military-industrial complex,' which assumed political control of the nation; the Rockefeller medical monopoly attained control of the health care of the nation; and the Rockefeller Foundation, a web of affiliated tax-exempt creations, effectively controlled the religious and educational life of the nation," wrote Mullins.

"The Rockefeller Syndicate operates under the control of the world financial structure, which means that on any given day, all of its assets could be rendered close to worthless by adroit financial manipulation," noted Mullins, who observed that patriarch John D. Rockefeller was able to gain almost total control over U.S. oil with financing from the National City Bank of Cleveland, named in congressional reports as a branch of the Rothschild banking empire. According to Mullins, "This is the final control, which ensures that no one can quit the organization. Not only would he be stripped of all assets, but he would be under contract for immediate assassination. Our Department ofJustice is well aware that the only 'terrorists' operating in the United States are the agents of the World Order, but they prudently avoid any mention of this fact."

In pointing to the awareness of the Justice Department, Mullins, like authors John Loftus, Gary Allen, Mark Aarons, and others, was fully aware of the lack of detection or prosecution of Nazi war criminals who came to America, or of any serious prosecution of prominent corporate miscreants. Examples of the machinations of foreign financial powers in the United States, including the secret societies behind the War Between the States, may be found in my book Rule by Secrecy.

While it is true that the families that originated the wealthy elite in America—the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Schiffs, and the Warburgs— have in recent years lost much of their previous influence, their giant global enterprises today remain as powerful as ever, maintaining all the functions for which they were first organized. This mechanism today has been brought under the control of the fascist globalists, who created both communism and National Socialism using the wealth brought from Europe by the Nazi ratlines.

"Since he set up the Trilateral Commission, David Rocke feller has functioned as a sort of international courier for the World Order, principally concerned with delivering working instructions to the Communist bloc [now the Russian Federation], either directly, in New York, or by traveling to the area," Mullins argued.

AMAZINGLY, IN JANUARY 1945, with their cities in ruins from round-the-clock Allied bombings, German war production was actually higher than in 1940, the year of spectacular military successes. Germans were still heading off to work each day, and production facilities, many moved underground, were producing at record capacity.

Historians have faithfully recorded the reasons for this—propaganda and hidden terror. The official, controlled government news bombarded the public with assurances that there was light at the end of the tunnel. New secret weapons were coming on line, they were told, and this, as has been noted, was not a total lie. According to their media, God was on their side and all would end well.
There also was the knowledge, only heard in whispered rumors, that anyone who spoke out about the true state of Nazi Germany would disappear into the offices of the Gestapo, likely never to be seen again.

The globalists have learned from the Nazis of the Third Reich how to employ these methods to ensure obedience from an intimidated public. From the constantly changing terrorist alerts and color codes in public places, since September 11, 2001, Americans have learned to live with fear. Unspoken fear is rampant in many levels of contemporary American society, and it is not all caused by unknown foreign terrorists. Fear of government harassment and surveillance is widespread.

Beginning with the still-controversial assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., on through the 2002 fatal plane crash of Minnesota Democratic senator Paul Wellstone eleven days before an election—whose seat was then taken by a Republican, which created a Republican majority in the Senate—the trail of dead dissidents, witnesses, accusers, and whistleblowers has grown longer with each passing year. Just as in the days of the Third Reich, if any individual threatens to become too popular or brings too much attention to the fascist activities, they seem to disappear from the scene quickly. One such person was Republican Texas senator John Tower, whose Tower Commission was highly critical of the Reagan-Bush handling of the Iran-contra scandal, and Tower had confided to friends that he planned to write a t ell-all book. Tower, who had chaired the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee and the Republican Policy Committee, was killed in a plane crash at Brunswick, Georgia, on April 5, 1991. Other persons who died under suspicious circumstances included Clinton.

White House counsel Vince Foster, whose July 1993 death was ruled a suicide, and James McDougal, a convicted partner of Bill Clinton in the Whitewater scandal, who was a source of insider information to prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Foster's body was found in a park with a pistol still in his hand. McDougal died of an apparent sudden heart attack while being held in solitary confinement in a Fort Worth federal institution. Others, while not actually killed, have been shot or intimidated from running for office, such as former Alabama governor George Wallace and 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot, who publicly stated his reason for dropping out was concern for the safety of his family. With the protection of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and U.S. military, who did Perot have to fear?

Thanks to the modern surveillance state, many members of Congress find themselves susceptible to blackmail by damaging information from any number of government and corporate databases. It is reminiscent of the many allegations that former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover—perhaps with files from Interpol, as previously discussed—blackmailed government employees and congressmen into supporting his agendas. All too often, this type of coercion is more effective than campaign contributions.

BUT IT IS not only Congress members who find themselves at the mercy of increasing surveillance and control.
Beginning in December 2009, Americans will face the prospect of carrying their "papers" to conduct daily life, similar to the identity papers demanded by the Nazi Gestapo. Under provisions of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (2005), popularly known as the Real ID Act, for all practical purposes, a national identity card will be required of every citizen. Today it has become unlawful not to provide identification documents to a police officer upon demand. The sheer act of failing to properly identify oneself can today result in arrest and jail.

Under the pretext of combating terrorism, this law requires national standards for state-issued driver's licenses as well as nondriver identification cards. It specifically states that no federal agency can accept any state ID card or license unless it meets the requirements as stated in the Real ID Act. Since the Transportation Security Administration provides security at airports, anyone without identification compliant with Real ID Act may be unable to fly on commercial aircraft. And as the federal Social Security Administration requires states to maintain a new-hire directory, employers would no longer be able to hire anyone without a Real ID Act-compliant document. Of particular concern to libertarians is the requirement that all financial institutions would be required to accept only Act-compliant IDs. Customers without such federally approved docu-mentation could be denied financial and banking services.

This thinly disguised nationwide citizen-registration law languished in a hesitant Congress until it was attached as a rider to a military spending bill and signed into law on May 11, 2005. In 2007, perhaps in light of several states passing legislation opposing the Real ID Act, it was announced that enforcement of the law would be delayed until December 2009. In 2007, states that opted out of the Real ID Act were told their citizens might not be able to travel freely around the country.

Author Steven Yates is a teaching fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, a research and education center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and economics. Following the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises, a renowned economist who has been called the "uncontested dean of the Austrian school of economics," the institute supports publications, programs, and fellowships. Yates noted, "It is a testimony to how much this country has changed since 9/11 that no one has visibly challenged [national IDs] as unconstitutional and incompatible with the principles of a free society." He and many others see the slow encirclement of law-abiding U.S. citizens with national ID technology advancing a globalist agenda while doing little if anything to safeguard us against terrorism.

However, many legislators, such as Representative Jane Harman of California, seemed agreeable to citizen registration.

She stated:

"I think this issue must be looked at. We don't automatically have to call it a national ID card, that's a radioactive term, but we can certainly think about smart cards [such as driver's licenses with chips] for essential functions, but we need the database to support that."

This need for a national database, so necessary for Hitler's euthanasia and extermination programs, was addressed in the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorized $150 million in tax money for the "expansion of the Regional Information Sharing System [to] facilitate federal-state-local law enforcement response related to terrorist acts." Asked if she thought the public was ready for such measures, Harman replied, "I think most people are really there. Keep in mind that if we have a second wave of attacks, the folks who are raising objections will probably lose totally."

What disturbs many thinking people is a vision of the near future in which, should the feds decide to stifle dissent, they could "freeze" the dissident's assets by reprogramming his database information. Scanners would not recognize him and he would become officially invisible, unable to drive or work legally, have a bank account, buy anything on credit, or even see a doctor. "Do we want to trust anyone with that kind of power?" Yates asked.

Lest anyone think this is naive or even paranoid nonsense, consider that in late October 2002, Applied Digital Solutions, Incorporation, a high-tech development company headquartered in Palm Beach, Florida, announced the launching of a national promotion for its new subdermal personal verification microchip. The "Get Chipped" promotion was describing a device that can be implanted under a person's skin to transmit data to various locations. The "VeriChip," according to company litera-ture, is "an implantable, 12mm by 2.1mm radio frequency device . . . about the size of the point of a typical ballpoint pen. It contains a unique verification number. Utilizing an external scanner, radio frequency energy passes through the skin, energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal containing the verification number. The number is displayed by the scanner and transmitted to a secure data storage site by authorized personnel via telephone or Internet."

In addition to "VeriChip Centers" in Arizona, Texas, and Florida, the firm also fields the "ChipMobile," a motorized marketing and "chipping" vehicle. The new "Get Chipped" campaign was launched just days after the Food and Drug Administration ruled that the chip is not a regulated medical device and stated it found "reasonable assurance" that the chip was safe. However, neither the manufacturer nor the FDA mentioned a series of veterinary and toxicology studies conducted in the mid-1990s, which found that chip implants "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats. According to an Associated Press report in September 2007, Keith Johnson, who led a study in 1996 at Dow Chemical Company, said, "The transponders were the cause of the tumors." Several leading cancer experts contacted by the AP cautioned that while animal tests do not necessarily apply to humans, they were "troubled" by the findings and urged further study before the chips were implanted in people. Some stated they would not allow their family members to receive such implants. The head of the federal Department of Health and Human Services when the VeriChip was approved was Tommy Thompson, who after leaving his government post joined VeriChip Corporation as a director. He resigned from the company in early 2007 to run an unsuccessful campaign as a Republican presidential candidate. The law firm in which Thompson was partner—Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP—was paid $1.2 million to represent VeriChip, according to the SEC.

Uses for the chip include controlling access to nonpublic facilities such as government buildings and installations, nuclear power plants, national research laboratories, correctional institutions, and transportation hubs— either using the chip by itself or in conjunction with existing security technologies such as retina scanners, thumbprint scanners, or face- recognition devices. Company officials envision the chip will come to be used in a wide range of consumer products, including PC and laptop computers, personal vehicles, cell phones, homes, and apartments. They said the anted chip will help stop identity theft and aid in the war against terrorists.

By early 2006, fears of the chip became reality when a Cincinnati video surveillance firm, CityWatcher.com, began to place the VeriChip in the arms of some of its employees who worked in sensitive areas. While the firm did not require employees to receive the chip to keep their jobs, some saw the company as establishing an unsettling precedent.

A NATIONAL ID card or chip may be the least of a citizen's worries. Today, authorities are availing themselves of technologies the Nazis of the Third Reich could only have dreamed about. Satellite surveillance and the increasingly ubiquitous cameras in public places have curtailed privacy to a large extent in the industrialized world. Sophisticated miniature cameras now can read license plates and track vehicles even traveling at speeds of more than sixty miles per hour.
The U.S. federal government utilizes an electronic eavesdropping satellite and computer system called Echelon. This system tracks international telephone calls, faxes, and e-mail messages all around the world. It was so secret that the government would neither confirm nor deny its existence until 2001. According to a study by the European Union, Echelon accumulates electronic transmissions like a vacuum cleaner, using keyword-search software in conjunction with massive computer data banks.

The Echelon system, housed within the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, has caused protests in several nations—excluding the United States, whose population rarely sees any news concerning this powerful global wiretapping system.
As technology continues to advance, so does the means of manipulating, even controlling, whole groups of individuals. The means to control the human mind has come a long way since the days of Nazi concentration camps and the subsequent CIA drug experimentation. Today, beamed electromagnetic frequencies can alter perceptions, instill emotions, and even cloud normal reasoning.

All organic life consists of living cells controlled by the DNA within them. The chemical action within the cells is driven by electromagnetic frequencies that pulse, oscillate, and vibrate. Collectively, the energy within a living organism creates a surrounding, albeit weak, electromagnetic field.

Dr. Nick Begich Jr., executive director of the Lay Institute on Technology and author of Angels Don't Play This HAARP, stated scientists today "have succeeded in isolating many of the healing frequency codes of the human body and, importantly, are adding to a growing body of remarkably practical medical advancement toward the diagnosis and treatment of numerous disease states and conditions."

In the 1930s, Dr. Royal Raymond Rife demonstrated the ability of precise electrical frequencies to disrupt viral and bacteria cells. A Special Research Committee of the University of Southern California confirmed that Rife frequencies were reversing many ailments, including cancer. Opposition immediately came from Dr. Thomas Rivers of the Rockefeller Institute, who had not even seen Rife's equipment in operation. By 1934, Rife had isolated a virus that bred cancer and stopped it by bombarding it with electromagnetic frequencies. He was successful in killing both carcinoma and sarcoma cancers in more than four hundred tests on animals. It has been widely reported that in the summer of 1934, Rife, along with doctors Milbank Johnson and Alvin G. Foord, succeeded in using his frequencies to cure sixteen cancer patients diagnosed as terminal by conventional medicine.

Rife described the operation of his frequency machine thus:

"With the frequency instrument treatment, no tissue is destroyed, no pain is felt, no noise is audible, and no sensation is noticed. A tube lights up and three minutes later the treatment is completed. The virus or bacteria is destroyed and the body then recovers itself naturally from the toxic effect of the virus or bacteria. Several diseases may be treated simultaneously." A general analogy to this effect is glass shattering when a singer's high note is sounded.

It did not take long for the medical establishment to realize that such a device not only would wreck the pharmaceutical industry but damage medicine in general, since cures meant fewer visits to the doctor. Overworked and underfunded, Rife and his associates were easy targets for attack. False claims were made against him, test procedures were altered, causing his demonstrations to fail, and impossible and diverting demands were made on Rife's research. Barry Lyne, who chronicled Rife's story in his book The Cancer Cure That Worked, elaborated: "[Rife] was curing cancer while the [International Cancer Research Foundation] broke their agreements, insisted on procedures with inexperienced people, which were doomed from the outset, and ignored the larger goal which Rife was achieving—the cure of cancer in human beings."

After he declined an offer to partner with Morris Fishbein, then head of the American Medical Association, Rife's troubles turned more serious, with lawsuits and health authorities coming at him from all sides. The university's Special Research Committee's work was ended, Rife was marginalized, and his device today is available only as a costly research instrument employed by a few doctors and private citizens. Rife died a broken man in 1971.

But while electromagnetic energy manipulation was seeking to make humans healthier, such technology also brought horrific possibilities for mind control. "The early attempts used chemicals and hallucinogenics to achieve some measure of control," wrote Begich, the son of Alaskan Democrat senator Nick Begich Sr., who disappeared along with congressman and member of the Warren Commission Hale Boggs when their plane was lost over Alaska in 1972. "Then in the early 1960s the interest changed to nonchemical means for affecting behavior. By the early 1970s, within certain military and academic circles, it became clear that human behavior could be modified by the use of subtle energetic manipulations. By 2006, the state of the technology had been perfected to the point where emotions, thoughts, memory, and thinking could be manipulated by external means."

According to reports from the military in both the United States and Russia, psychotronic generators are being developed, which can create an infrasonic oscillation in the 10-20 Hertz range. It is destructive to living organisms; can cause behavior modification by transmitting frequencies through normal telephone, TV, and radio networks; and can produce frequencies to paralyze the central nervous system.

"In recent years, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has pursued research into brain decoding and the development of electronic micro and nanocircuits that will directly interact with the brain," stated Dr. Begich. "New microchip technology could be used for direct interaction between the brains of people and computers."

Several methods have been found to allow persons to hear sounds and speech without the use of the ears or normal auditory pathways—such as the Neurophone. This device uses a vibrational technology developed by Patrick Flanagan in 1958, which allows the transmission of sound vibrations through the skin, much like the vibration of a speaker. Bypassing the ear, a completely different part of the brain processes the sound, creating new neural pathways. Such technology is used to increase concentration while studying or learning languages, and it helps with meditation, relaxation, and healing.

Unfortunately, it was also found that amplified brainwave frequencies can be imposed on others. One U.S. patent even described how very low or very high audio frequencies can be used to transmit subliminal messages to the human brain. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,170,993, accepted in 1965, is called the "Means for Aiding Hearing by Electrical Stimulation of the Facial Nerve System."

According to Dr. Begich, all Americans are already under constant bombardment from microwave frequencies "one thousand times higher than the level considered safe in the former Soviet Union [a leader in mind-affecting energy technology]. The reason that the Soviets set their safety standards as low as they did was because they detected biological effects at levels ignored by the West," he explained.

But while microwaves may be affecting large segments of the population in the United States, this issue pales when one considers the possibility of a program to consciously target whole populations. Such a program exists in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a vast array of powerful transmitting dishes located near Gakona, Alaska. Officially, HAARP is designed to study the uppermost portion of the Earth's atmosphere: the ionosphere. However, critics of the program, including Dr. Begich and other scientists, claim this powerful array can be used as a weapon, to deliver energy blasts equal to an atomic bomb, destroy communications across the planet, and even influence human behavior.
Critics argue that HAARP has the capability of stimulating the ionosphere to return a pulsed electromagnetic signal, which, at the proper frequency, can override normal brain functions.

In 2002, the Russians, who experimented with both psychic and mind-altering technologies as far back as the 1970s, expressed their concern with HAARP. A complaint letter from the Russian State Duma to President Vladimir Putin stated that HAARP was influencing near-Earth atmosphere with high-frequency radio waves. "The significance of this qualitative leap [in science] could be compared to the transition from cold steel to firearms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons. This new type of weapon differs from previous types in that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence," stated the letter. Despite this objection, no discernible action has been taken by the United States, and the HAARP system continues to operate.

Dr. Begich warned that allowing the military-industrial complex to solely guide such mind-control research not only runs the risk of creating an Orwellian thought-controlled society but would prevent the "enabling enhancement of human potentials in ways only reserved in the past to mystics, religious figures, and those who sought to change people."

INCREDIBLY, COMPUTER SYSTEMS are under development today to anticipate criminal or antisocial behavior. They are designed to read human body language that might indicate potential "criminal" activity and summon authorities, reminiscent of prewar Nazi plans to preempt crime and dissent.

In Vienna, during September 1940, at the First Conference of the German Society for Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education—later changed to the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry—Dr. Anna Leiter, a genetic researcher from Dresden, who studied three thousand youngsters for possible antisocial traits, stated, "We demand that as soon as a careful and responsible analysis shows an extremely unusual lack of emotions in connection with other criminogenic reactive tendencies, we detain these children as early as possible, since they represent an unbearable burden and danger for the entire country."

Nazi educators pointed to these symptoms of "bad student material" that would qualify for such detention:

actual and potential repeaters of lower public school grades, students recommended for special school, "borderline and questionable cases," uneducable children, those with special educational difficulties, and schoolchildren whose siblings and families are or have been in special schools. It was stated that "genetic and national health considerations recommend their preventative registration." Of course, such registration led to the euthanasia centers.

The trend to identify and detain potential troublemakers before they have actually committed a crime is being perpetuated today. The British government, in May 2007, responding to news accounts, acknowledged it had secretly established a new national antiterrorist unit to protect VIPs by first profiling, then arresting persons considered to be potentially dangerous. Amazingly, this power to detain suspects even before they actually committed a crime was based on mental health laws.

"The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly established last October [2006] and is set to reignite controversy over the detention of suspects without trial," wrote The Times reporter Joanna Bale. "Until now it has been up to mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained, but the new unit uses the police to identify suspects, increasing fears that distinctions are being blurred between criminal investigations and doctors' clinical decisions."

The FTAC unit will be staffed by four police officers, two civilian researchers, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a community mental health nurse. It was hailed as the first joint mental health-police unit in the United Kingdom and a "prototype for future joint services" in other areas. Even as this police unit was assuming the power to arrest and hold potential "suspects," Scotland Yard refused to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalized by the team, because of "patient confidentiality." Meanwhile, the British government was introducing legislation to broaden the definition of mental disorders to give doctors—and now police—more power to detain people.

"There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution," said Gareth Crossman, policy director for Britain's National Council for Civil Liberties. "This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people's liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police. This raises serious concerns. First, that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of antiterrorism at a time when the government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial."

Is this coming to America soon? Libertarians fear that such measures might be slipped into legislation such as funding for the military or Homeland Security. Many conspiracy researchers suspect that the glo-balists try out new policies and methods in the United Kingdom first, to see if they are accepted by the public.
Once offenders are picked up, today they face new types of unconstitutional trials. Some researchers saw Bush's Military Commissions Act with its secret tribunals as an echo of the Third Reich "special courts," which were designed to prosecute political resistance to the Nazi administration. "The main duty of the special courts was to criminally prosecute the political resistance to the Nazi regime," wrote Dr. Thomas Roeder, Volker Kubillus, and Anthony Burwell in their book Psychiatrists—the Men Behind Hitler. "During the Second World War, they gradually took over the duties of ordinary justice and from 1942 on, most of the sentencing. Experts estimate that the special court of Hannover alone, one of several in today's Saxony, sentenced 4,000 defendants, about 170 of them to death."

Another eerie parallel between the Bush administration and the Third Reich involved the Fuehrerprinzip, or leader principle, which was outlined in Hitler's book Mein Kampf. This principle stated the leader embodied National Socialism and therefore the people. All decision-making rested with him. Such thinking evolves from the lack of trust in the people. National Socialism, like our democracy, was supposedly a movement of the masses. But its leadership had little faith in its followers.

"[Nazi] ideology denounced civilian methods of elections, negotiation, and compromise as horse trading and called for authority of command, discipline and obedience," noted Professor Louis L. Snyder in his Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. This top-down leadership principle sounds eerily similar to calls by President George W. Bush for a "unified presidency" as well as his comment to reporters in April 2006, "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best." "Perhaps the most unique feature of the Bush administration is its protracted period of unified party control of the government, a stark contrast to the divided governments of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan," noted Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution.

Civil libertarians historically have heeded the statement of patriot Thomas Paine, who wrote in Common Sense, "In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." In other words, no one is above the law.

Yet, Bush has argued that actions allowing him to ride roughshod over the Congress, the courts, and the Constitution were somehow necessary to preserve the presidency. "I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch," Bush argued in mid-2002. In launching the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush preempted the power of Congress, as the U.S. Constitution under Section 8 clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war. When he and his appointees rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through a cowed Congress, with little or no input, he likewise took powers from the representatives of the people.

A panicky House of Representatives, still in shock over 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, rushed the PATRIOT Act into law by a vote of 339-79. The act was 342 pages long and made changes, both great and small, to more than fifteen different U.S. laws, many of them enacted following revelations about the misuse of surveillance powers by the FBI and CIA. It was hurriedly and enthusiastically signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The speed with which this legislation was presented to Congress left little doubt in many minds that it had long been prepared and simply needed some provocation as an impetus for action.

According to some congressmen, many lawmakers had not even read the entire document when it was passed. The ACLU also reported that some members of Congress had less than one hour to read the extensive changes of law contained within the act.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, described the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed:

"There was great fear in our great Capitol. . . . The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. . . . It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote." Texas congressman Ron Paul, one of only three Republicans to vote against the House bill, said he objected to how opponents were stigmatized by the name alone. "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what was in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it—therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirmed rumors that the bill was not read by most members of the House prior to their vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote—at least I couldn't get it," he told Insight magazine. "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." Paul's view of the PATRIOT Bill was echoed by the only independent in the House, Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who said, "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, until 1976, the USA operated under four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency—the one declared by President Roosevelt in 1933; a national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict; and two states of national emergency declared by President Nixon, on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971. Years of debate over the need for such emergency powers resulted in the creation in 1973 of the U.S. Senate's Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency. By 1976, the committee had consolidated the emergency declarations and produced the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651), which limits such emergencies to two years.

The Senate committee found that the weight of all these often-underreported proclamations "give[s] force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the president extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the president may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

Few people in the United States today have been informed that they have been living under a state of emergency since September 11, 2001. This was quietly but officially declared by President George W. Bush three days later, when he issued a proclamation stating, "A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, NY, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
"Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq)."

With this proclamation Bush activated what the media called the "shadow government," those unelected officials and appointees who, under the guidance of his father, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, had years earlier began to alter the form of this former republic, including the use of warrantless electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency.

In mid-2007, Bush codified the "shadow government" with the ominously worded National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, innocently titled "National Continuity Policy." In the interest of "continuity of government," this directive stated, "the president shall lead the activities of the federal government for ensuring constitutional government." The implication was that he would lead the entire government, not just the executive branch.

This takeover of the federal government was contingent on a "catastrophic emergency," defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank that promotes constitutional safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize unchecked executive action."

ALSO TROUBLESOME IS Bush's contention that he must defend his office from the loss of power. In January 2006, Vice President Cheney stated on NBC, "For thirty-five years that I've been in [Washington], there's been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the powers of the president of the United States. And I don't want to be a part of that." Bush has stated, "I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn't end up running the executive branch."

This is blatantly untrue. The American president today carries far more power than ever imagined by our Founding Fathers or even more modern chief executives, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, as expounded in Richard Loss's 1990 book The Modern Theory of Presidential Power. John W. Dean, the White House counsel to Nixon, who served jail time after Watergate, said "the institutional powers of the presidency all but overwhelm those of Congress. They are, in fact, stronger today than thirty years ago." Dean added, "To claim a need for secrecy to restore presidential power is disingenuous at best, and a deliberate falsehood at worst. Secrecy is the way of dictatorships, not democracies."

A June 29, 2006, Supreme Court ruling bolstered efforts of those in Congress who had been trying to curtail overreaching presidential power that claims unilateral authority to determine not only how terrorism suspects are tried, but also to set rules for domestic wiretapping, to interrogate prisoners, and to pursue other wartime powers. It was this 5-3 decision to overrule the president's actions that required the Bush administration to draw up the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Volumes have been written about the Bush White House's penchant for secrecy. It has almost become policy. Even conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly has attacked the Bush policy of unnecessary secrecy, writing, "The American people do not and should not tolerate government by secrecy." She added that no one is "going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush administration has some sort of duty to protect the power of the presidency." "What the president is claiming is legally and historically absurd and politically stupid," declared former Justice Department official Bruce Fein.

Bush's secretive manner of drawing ever more power unto himself came in the form of "signing statements"—written responses by the president issued upon the signing of a bill into law. Such statements have drawn severe criticism from credible legal sources. Jennifer Van Bergen holds a law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is an adjunct faculty member at the New School for Social Research in New York, and is a member of the board of the ACLU Broward County (Florida) chapter. She criticized this activity by noting that from 1817 until the end of the Carter administration in 1981, only 75 "signing statements" were issued. From the Reagan administration until the end of the Clinton administration, this number had grown to 322. But in the first term alone, Bush issued at least 435 signing statements, many noting his concept of a "unitary executive."

Such signing statements convey a president's view toward the law and his own power. Bush's use of the term "unitary executive," according to Van Bergen, is merely a code word for a doctrine "that favors nearly unlimited executive power."

"In [Bush's] view, and the view of his administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution—even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, or (as shown by recent developments in the Padilla case) involves offering a federal court contradictory justifications for a detention," Van Bergen wrote.

Charlie Savage, writing in the Boston Globe, said Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, thus giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. (In late 2007, Bush's veto of a $23 billion water resources bill critics claimed was laden with pork projects was overridden by both the House and the Senate, marking the first time in a decade that Congress passed legislation over a presidential veto.) Bush often invites the bills' sponsors to signing ceremonies, at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

But Savage noted:

"Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files 'signing statements'—official documents in which apresident lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills—sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill."

Van Bergen took particular note of Bush's signing statement while he was signing into law legislation curtailing torture on prisoners. "When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator [John] McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a presidential signing statement," said Van Bergen. "That statement asserted that his power as commander in chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed."

Portland State University law professor Phillip Cooper told newsmen Bush and his legal team spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power in the White House. "There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government. This is really big, very expansive, and very significant," Cooper said.
Little is said of such things, because the Bush White House is more closed-mouthed than any previous administration. In the Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations, loyalty has been seen as a requisite for those serving the White House. Many people working with the highest levels of power in the United States see their superiors as public servants, only looking after the best interests of America. Such unquestioning loyalty and allegiance was a hallmark of the Third Reich.

Many loyalists around Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and the two Bushes truly saw their leader as a paragon. They appeared blinded to their leader's actions, as happened to so many in the Third Reich. "I admit, I was fascinated by Adolf Hitler," recalled Traudl Junge, the last surviving occupant of the Fuehrerbunker, shortly before her death in 2002. She was twenty-two years old when, in 1942, she was selected to become a secretary to Hitler. "He was a pleasant boss and a fatherly friend," she recalled. "I deliberately ignored all the warning voices inside me and enjoyed the time by his side almost until the bitter end. It wasn't what he said, but the way he said things and how he did things."

Soon after the War on Terror got underway, the Germans, who should know, could see the parallels between their Nazi era and modern America. The attacks of 9/11 and the Reichstag fire, Bush's PATRIOT Act and Hitler's Enabling Act, the use of German Army reserves to attack Poland and Bush's use of reserves in Afghanistan and Iraq to avoid a military draft must have seemed quite familiar to them. German justice minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin brought heated criticism from President George W. Bush in September of 2002, when, in criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq, she stated publicly, "Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." For her remark, Daeubler-Gmelin was asked to resign by German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an attendee of Bilderberg meetings.

And it is not just politicians who must be careful of voicing their opinions in the new American empire. Demonstrators are routinely herded into fenced "free speech zones," or arrested for speaking out. Thanks to the Internet, millions witnessed twenty-one-year-old Florida university student Andrew Meyer screaming in pain after being tasered by campus police on September 17, 2007, after simply asking John Kerry why he had not challenged the 2006 presidential election.
On top of the ubiquitous nature of surveillance technology and the intimidation of dissenters, there is very real control through the print and electronic matrix we know as the mass media.

Kitap: Rise of the fourth reich
Yazar: Jim Marrs
Kullanıcı avatarı
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 0 misafir