Visigoth Fontaine's Bookmarks tagged britain →  View Popular

EU “Democracy” Unveiled *

Wise Up Journal

23.06.2008

by Gabriel O’Hara

When countries took the first step in what would expand in to the EU, the people and their political representatives never imagined their nation’s rights along with their culture would not be respected and undermined.

The assumption was each nation would be treated how the law treats individuals. Just like how a young red haired woman is legally equal to a tall broad portly middle-aged man, they both have the same rights which are respected regardless of size or opinion.

Unsurprisingly it is not legal even for two large men to intimidate a young lady to down a dark lane against her wishes.

But psychologically things have changed in the EU.

The unelected leadership are implanting their “imaginative” opinions around the union with their easy access to the media.

Under the EU’s own rules if one nation rejects a treaty it does not get passed in to law.

It is now EU psychologically acceptable, even if it’s against the rules, for large nations to drag smaller nations in to a treaty against their wishes. No will not be accepted, nations must be pressured in to giving the only answer, yes.

It is also EU acceptable to say Ireland is undemocratically holding back other EU countries that ratified the Lisbon treaty, such as France .

To accept this statement all one is required to do is to demote information.

Undervalue the information that French citizens had a referendum on the EU Constitution (over 96% the same as the Lisbon Treaty) in 2005 and voted No.

The next step is to put a neutral value on the fact the French citizens were denied a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Finally overvalue the information that a few hundred French politicians ratified the Lisbon treaty and now you can “think” the Irish people are denying the French people democracy.

With practice one can become fluent in this way of “thinking”. EU “democracy”.

On the day of the No vote, Gordon Brown according to reports, called French President Nicolas Sarkozy, “to assure him that British ratification would continue.” After the vote was announced on Friday June 13th European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the treaty is “alive and we should now try to find a solution.”

Rogue Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen had the choice to stand behind his people’s democratic decision but he choose, like his predecessor, to squirm up to the EU elite and ask for time to find an “option” around democracy.

Last Thursday at an EU summit Cowen said, “We also agreed it is necessary for Ireland to have time now to analyse last week’s vote and explore options.”

The Cowen option is not to exercise his right to demand ratification to end but to buy time allowing the other EU governments (not the citizens) to ratify the treaty; manufacturing a 26 to 1 situation allowing pressure to pile on the Irish people for YES vote in a second referendum.

Inside sources have informed the Irish Independent that Cowen has until next spring to prepare for a second referendum.

EU politicians are calling for Irish Commissioner Charlie McCreevy to resign because of what he also said he never read the treaty and expressed his opinion on certain negative aspects of the EU, but when Irish MEP De Rossa actually voted not to respect the Irish referendum last Feb at the EU parliament they remained silent.

The EU parliament voted in favour of not respecting the Irish referendum by a huge majority of 499 to 129, obviously the EU does not support democracy by the citizens of Europe but rather democracy for the hand-picked political management of the elite, an oligarchy.

Irish had to vote twice on Nice until we said yes.

In 1992 the Danish voted No to the Maastricht treaty and were forced to vote a second time until they vote yes a year later.

Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum, maybe on the sixth time the propaganda will work. But once you vote yes they don’t ask again.

Over 80% of laws in countries under the Union now come from the EU not their national parliaments.

What type of people are managing the EU?

Let’s briefly have a look at what the European Commission president Mr. Barroso’s calls a “high quality commission”, as stated by British Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage:

- Commissioner Barrot

“From France we have Mr. Jacques Barrot, he will take on transport. In 2000 he received an 8 month suspended jail sentence for his involvement in an embesslement case and was banned from holding public office for two years.”

- Commissioner Kovács

“From Hungary we have Mr. Kovács. He will take on taxation. For many years a communist apparatchik. A friend of Mr. Kadar, a dictator there, and an outspoken opponent of the values we hold dear in the west.”

- Commissioner Kallas

“From Estonia we have Mr. Kallas. For twenty years a soviet party apparatchik, until his newly acquired taste for capitalism got him in to some trouble. Though to be fair he was acquitted of abuse and fraud, but convicted for providing false information. And he is going to be in charge of the anti-fraud drive.”

- Commissioner Peter Mandelson

“From the UK we got Peter Mandelson. He’ll take on the trade portfolio. He of course was twice removed from the British government”

- Commissioner Kroes

“From the Netherlands we got Neelie Kroes, she’ll take on competition. She is accused of lying to the European Parliament, now these may only be allegations, but they are made by Mr. Van Buitenen and I think should be listened to.”

MEP Farage continues his speech to the EU Parliament and asks, “would you buy a used car from this commission?”

As expected, the EU has preformed a “survey” of the Lisbon vote with a small number of people, 2,000. From this small sampling the EU will make up excuses why the Irish must vote again until they vote the way they are supposed to, yes, the only option.

The excuse for why they forced another referendum with Nice was because of a low turn out, however the Lisbon treaty had the highest turn out this decade for an EU treaty in Ireland , higher than Nice II, which means they will have to think of another excuse.

A ready-made excuse could be that they Irish people were too dumb to understand the treaty. Ready-made because it is widely admitted that the Lisbon Treaty was designed to be unreadable: “They decided that the document should be unreadable.”

(Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the EU Constitution Convention - 2007), “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable” (Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, June 2007).

Even the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen admitted he never read the treaty (but he voted Yes).

The Irish people will be told they voted for mostly unfounded silly reasons and in October after the next EU summit the media will report to the public how Cowen bravely battled for Irish declarations (unreliable promises from weak politicians) to be added on to the Lisbon treaty.

Important reasons why the Irish voted no will not be highlighted, such as desiring the other 26 nations to hold a democratic referendum, Qualified Majority Voting (weakening Ireland’s position in Europe by cutting our voting weight in half and doubling Germany’s and others), the fact that the self–amending article 48 means the treaty can be changed without another referendum, an unelected 2.5 year to 5 year president and so on…

The Irish media lead the public to believe No campaigners were trying to mislead the electorate about important issues such as EU corporation taxes, they portrayed issues to vote No as fantasy, while promoting the lies that Ireland would be thrown out of the EU, and when news comes out that proves the No campaign right RTE casually reports the story slipping by an admittance that the media lie on corporation taxes undermined the country.

Already the media wheels are spinning that the Irish No voters were not informed (never mind the Yes voters) and as an excuses for a bad reason to vote No the media are saying for some reason Irish No voters thought the EU could make a better treaty.

After France and Netherlands rejected the EU constitution the EU changed it by 4% and called it the Lisbon Treaty, now they say they don’t know why the Irish people thought there would be a new treaty in the future.

The media is important because it shapes people’s opinions, especially those who are too busy to verify what they’ve been told, and the media have been working overtime with the result of this referendum, letting the Irish people know that the result is not acceptable

They are continuously highlighting the celebration among right wing groups and personalities excluding the widespread popular support from ordinary citizens who are celebrating our no vote. This is not a win for extremists but for ordinary people who are deeply concerned with the direction the EU has now taken.

We are being exposed to double-speak on a massive scale. The real extremists are now the elites in Europe who are completely alienated from the people and pushing forward their agenda with no mandate.

Let us never forget that the French and Dutch said no to the EU constitution.

The EU’s response was to take out 4% and call it the Lisbon treaty, make it unreadable so it wont go to a referendum were it would be voted down again, have the French and Dutch politicians pass the Lisbon treaty in spite of their people’s wishes, for the third time a nation voted No, the Irish, and the EU are still trying to push it through.

If they do push it through the illusion of EU democracy that fooled so many for so long will fall and be replaced by an “out in the open” oligarchy for all to see.

They come further out in the open by inventing minor “plausible” excuses mixed with fear trying to push through the Lisbon treaty.

If Ireland resist political terrorism and vote No again the EU might take 2% out of the treaty, make it even more unreadable, rename the treaty and come back in 2 years, which will unveil the anti-democratic mechanisms of the EU further.

Up to the second referendum the media will bombard the Irish people with political terrorism, continually reporting legally incorrect opinions of how Ireland will be thrown out of the EU if they don’t vote the only way, yes.

The fact that the EU gave Irish politicians billions to spend in the past (like farmers who are paid to grow nothing) will be used against the Irish people, who will be pressured like a prostitute to do what they are told.

To keep the illusion of EU democracy up these reports will be mixed with “nice” statements of how the EU will be patient with Ireland and how the Irish voters will be “educated” better this time.

It’s vital for the Irish people to stand firm again, we voted against this treaty not for the spurious reasons we are now being led to believe, but because deep down we had a sense of unease that something isn’t right, and that we are losing too much control over our nation to unelected politicians.

It is the goal of the politicians and media to distract you from this sense of unease and use whatever means possible to get their way.

They have absolutely no concern for you or what you want, their goal is to have more power over you and sell you out to a small political group in Brussels .

We already know how corrupt the politicians are, now it’s time for the people to take back control of our own lives and stop being manipulated for their agenda.

TAVISTOCK

 

 

 

By
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

February 11, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

[Note:
Regarding my recent article mentioning
Benazir Bhutto's December 27, 2007 assassination, in a November 2,
2007 interview with David Frost she mentioned that an earlier assassination
attempt by a former military officer connected with Omar Sheikh, "the
man who murdered Osama bin Laden."

Have you heard the power elite-controlled
American press or media mention this?

Bhutto was the woman the U.S.
State Department wanted to become Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Now
why would the U.S. want someone to head Pakistan who has and publicly
uses very bad information (Osama's murder) if she was wrong?

Or, if
she was correct, why would the press and media censor such important
news from the American people?

Could it be that the power elite doesn't
want the public to know Osama's dead because that would decrease interest
in the "war on terror"?

And could Bhutto's "spilling the beans" have
played a role in her own assassination?

Concerning another of my recent
articles, "The Power Elite's Use of Wars and Crises" (January 28),
someone may have gotten the impression that the First World War was
planned beginning around 1910.

Actually wars are planned by the power
elite far in advance, and the First World War, followed by a world
government, was planned long before 1910.

For example, in 1908 THE
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY (Vol. 2, No. 4) begins with these words:
"'The most fearful war of the century is coming soon. After the war,
will come world-peace--the highest development of the race in this
cycle.'

This is the prediction made a few days ago by a distinguished
political economist."]

I
was listening to a discussion regarding the Middle East and thought
to myself "Don't they understand that what's happening has been planned?"

This is not only true in geopolitics (FDR said nothing happened in
politics by accident) but in all facets of life.

In music in the 1950s
and 1960s, rock music didn't just happen by accident. Theodor Adorno
and others theorized years earlier how it could change people.

Similarly
in art, Bertolt Brecht said, "Art is not a mirror held up to reality,
but a hammer with which to shape it."

Many
people are familiar with the impact of the Leipzig and Frankfurt Schools
upon society, but relatively few understand the impact of Tavistock.

Therefore, this article will look at that organization and how it
has shaped/planned our lives and the course of the world.

The
name Tavistock is associated with human relations and psychiatry (see
statue of Freud in front of Tavistock Institute).

Charles Dickens
(who had written of "pencils of light," which is similar to the term
"points of light") moved to Tavistock House in October 1951.

Tavistock
is an area in southwest Devon in England, but the story begins elsewhere.

The
term "psychiatry" was first used in 1808 by Johann Christian Reil,
and it means "doctoring of the soul."

The primary schools of psychiatry
were established in the early 1800s in Leipzig and Berlin.

At
Leipzig University in 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological
laboratory, and among his students were Ivan Pavlov, William James
(the "Father of American Psychology"), and G. Stanley Hall (who would
become the mentor of John Dewey, the "Father of Progressive Education").

Pavlov is well-known for his stimulus-response experiments with dogs.

In Clarence Karier's SCIENTISTS OF THE MIND (1986), one reads concerning
James that "we pass from a culture with God at its center to a culture
with man at its center."

James was also noted for his famous description
of reality as "one great blooming, buzzing confusion."

Of possible
interest in this regard is that a symbol of Rosicrucianism is "buzzing"
bees seeking the nectar (wisdom) of a (blooming) rose.

And Hall founded
"genetic psychology" while also using Wundt's experimental psychology
in the area of child development.

Hall and James meshed in John Dewey,
an educational psychologist, who co-authored the first "man-centered"
HUMANIST MANIFESTO in 1933.

Dewey, John B. Watson and other leading
psychologists in the early 20th century were interested in the behavior
of people.

They didn't believe that man had a soul in the Biblical
sense of the word.

Thus it was not surprising that at the 6th International
Congress of Philosophy, which took place at Harvard University in
1926, it was stated that the "soul or consciousness... now is of very
little importance.... Behaviorism sang their funeral dirge while materialism--the
smiling heir-- arranges a suitable funeral for them."

What
does all this have to do with Tavistock?

In 1920, the Tavistock Institute
of Medical Psychology (TIMP) was founded.

It was involved in psychotherapy,
and psychiatrists at the Tavistock Clinic wanted to apply their findings
to the general public in the form of certain social service programs.

John
Rawlings Rees (who would be a co-founder of the World Federation for
Mental Health in 1948) was Deputy Director of Tavistock at this time
(he would become Director in 1932).

Rees developed the "Tavistock
Method," which induces and controls stress via what Rees called "psychologically
controlled environments" in order to make people give up firmly held
beliefs under "peer pressure."

Rees'
Tavistock Method was based on work done by British psychoanalyst Wilfrid
Bion regarding the roles of individuals within groups.

This design
was later shifted in a series of conferences (1957-1965) led by A.
Kenneth Rice, chairman of Tavistock's Centre for the Applied Social
Research.

The shift was to the dynamics of leadership and authority
relations in groups.

According to the A.K. Rice Institute, "In 1965
Rice led a conference in the United States, as the Tavistock Method
began to be developed in the U.S. by Margaret Rioch and others.

The
A.K. Rice Institute is now the U.S. equivalent of the Tavistock Institute."

In
1930, TIMP had been involved with the second biennial Conference on
Mental Health, where psychiatrist J.R. Lord advocated challenging
old values, saying "the aim should be to control not only nature,
but human nature." And he spoke of the "necessity to disarm the mind."

Rees
went even further than this on June 18, 1940 at the annual meeting
of the National Council for Mental Hygiene of the United Kingdom.

In his speech on "Strategic Planning for Mental Health," he proclaimed:
"We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of view
with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though
our knowledge be incomplete.

We must aim to make it permeate every
educational activity in our national life.... We have made a useful
attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally
are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult
are law and medicine...

Public life, politics and industry should
all of them be within our sphere of influence....

If we are to infiltrate
the professional and social activities of other people, I think we
must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column
activity!

If better ideas on mental health are to progress and spread
we, as the salesmen, must lose our identity.... Let us all, therefore,
very secretly be 'fifth columnists.'" (See MENTAL HEALTH, Vol. 1,
No. 4, October 1940)

In
1935, Harvard psychologist (1930-1967) Gordon Allport co-authored
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RADIO with Hadley Cantril.

Allport would be a leading
agent in the U.S. for the Tavistock Institute, and Cantril in 1937
would be a member of the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Office of Radio
Research at Princeton University established to study the influence
of radio on different groups of listeners.

In 1940, Cantril would
author THE INVASION FROM MARS: A STUDY IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PANIC
regarding the radio broadcast of H.G. Wells' THE WAR OF THE WORLDS.

Tavistock senior staffer, Fred Emery, would later (HUMAN RELATIONS,
Vol. 12, No. 3, August 1959) begin his article on "Working Hypotheses
on the Psychology of Television" with the words: "The psychological
after-effects of television are of considerable interest to the would-be
social engineer."

During
the Second World War, Tavistock was part of Great Britain's Psychological
Warfare Department.

On May 7, 1944, Dr. Rees of Tavistock and the
British War Ministry injected Nazi prisoner Rudolf Hess with the narcotic
Evipan.

According to Lt. Col. Eugene Bird in PRISONER NO. 7: RUDOLF
HESS (in the chapter titled "A Secret Drug"), Rees examined Hess 35
times.

Rees and his associates via chemicals caused Hess's memory
to fail and then "explained that they could bring back the memory
with an injection of Evipan." Hess was told that "while under its
influence he would remember the past he had forgotten."

In
1945, Rockefeller Foundation medical director Alan Gregg was touring
various institutions that had been involved in war medicine to see
if any group would commit to undertake the kind of social psychiatry
that had been developed by the Army during wartime (e.g., cultural
psychiatry for the analysis of the enemy mentality), and see if it
could be relevant for the civilian society

(on April 11, 1933, Rockefeller
Foundation president Max Mason assured trustees that in their program,
"the Social Sciences will concern themselves with the rationalization
of social control,... the control of human behavior").

This led to
a Rockefeller grant that resulted in the birth of the Tavistock Institute
of Human Relations in London in 1947.

Tavistock would join with Kurt
Lewin's Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) at the University
of Michigan the next year to begin publication of the international
journal, HUMAN RELATIONS, relating theory to pracice.

The first volume
contained articles such as "Overcoming Resistance to Change," and
"A Comparison of the Aims of the Hitler Youth and the Boy Scouts of
America." The Tavistock Institute would use Lewin's techniques to
arrange "therapeutic communities."

Lewin
had received his Ph.D. from Berlin University in 1914, and in 1932
came to the U.S. in the area of child psychology.

During the Second
World War, he worked for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (which
would become the CIA) in psychological warfare.

He founded the RCGD
in 1946. The next year his research center along with a division of
the National Education Association (NEA) began the National Training
Laboratories (NTL) which furthered Lewin's social engineering via
"T-groups" (training groups), where group consensus is facilitated
by trained individuals.

Over
the next two decades, the NTL would spread its operations to various
countries around the world.

And in its ISSUES IN (HUMAN RELATIONS)
TRAINING (1962), its sensitivity training is referred to as "brainwashing."

Recently, NTL has conducted programs relevant to Tavistock such as
"NTL and Tavistock: Two Traditions of Group Work," "Tavistock Program:
Re-Thinking and Planning for Organizational Change," and "The Tavistock--Task
Working Conference which is a program structured around various group
configurations....

Periodically each group will review its actions
and results to learn from processes, roles, values, and methods as
they evolve."

Other recent NTL programs have featured people such
as New Ager Jean Houston and the witch Starhawk.

The
year after Tavistock and the RCGD began publishing HUMAN RELATIONS,
the journal (Vol. II, No. 3, 1949), published "Some Principles of
Mass Persuasion" by Dorwin Cartwright who helped establish the Institute
for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

In this article,
Cartwright reveals: "It is conceivable that one persuasive person
could, through the use of mass media, bend the world's population
to his will."

The article goes on to describe "the modification of
cognitive structure in individuals by means of mass media" and how
"a person can be induced to do voluntarily something that he would
otherwise not do."

The article also provides "a list of essential
requirements for the success of any campaign of mass persuasion."

Seven
years after Cartwright's article appeared, prominent psychiatrist
R.D. Laing was appointed senior registrar at the Tavistock Clinic
in 1956, three years after he left the British Army Psychiatric Unit.

He began experimenting with LSD in 1960, and then in 1962 when he
became a family therapist at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations,
he also met Gregory Bateson while visiting the U.S.

Bateson had been
with the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA), and
then led the MK-Ultra hallucinogen (LSD) project.

Bateson's and Margaret
Mead's daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson, along with New Ager Jean
Houston, would later help Hilary Clinton write IT TAKES A VILLAGE.

IN 1964 Laing met LSD proponent Timothy Leary in New York and also
authored "Transcendental Experience in Relation and Psychosis" (THE
PSYCHEDELIC REVIEW, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1964).

Three years later Laing
participated in the July 15-30 1967 Dialectics of Liberation Congress.

In
1964, Fred Emery, who would be a senior member of Tavistock, wrote
"Theories of Social Turbulence" which he explained more fully in FUTURES
WE ARE IN (1975).

According to this theory, individuals or societies
faced with a series of crises will attempt to reduce the tension by
adaptation and eventually psychological retreat as if anesthetized
(similar to Pavlov's "protective inhibition response").

This can lead
to social disintegration, which Emery called "segmentation."

In
1970, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
of the NEA published TO NURTURE HUMANENESS: COMMITMENT FOR THE '70s,
in which Sidney Jourard (Fellow at the Tavistock Clinic and former
president of the Association for Humanist Psychology), wrote: "We
are in a time of revolt.... The new society will be a fascist state
or it will be pluralistic and humanistic."

The primary characteristic
of the fascist state is increasing control over people's lives by
government in league with corporations. Sound like today?

Relevant
to this, in October 1997 the Tavistock Institute (and Manchester University)
completed a final report (under Contract ERB-SOE2-CT-96-2011) for
the European Commission, and described in a report summary was that
there will be "partnerships between government, industry, and representatives
of worker organizations."

The report summary also described "the relevancy
of Goals 2000, SCANS (U.S. Department of Labor SECRETARY'S COMMISSION
ON ACHIEVING NECESSARY SKILLS) typology with its profound implications
for the curriculum and training changes that this will require,"