Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, March 25, 2010
As part of the lurching advance towards the kind of society that we thought had been consigned to the darkest days of the 20th century, the Nazi-fication of Britain continues with the news that the police are working with Internet cafe owners to spy on users who visit “extremist websites”.
“The intitative is part of the Prevent strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, which aims to stop radicalisation by winning the “battle of ideas”. Café owners are asked to use their own judgement as to what amounts to extremist material,” reports the Register.
Of course, since British police are also training the public that using cash, closing your curtains or enjoying your privacy is a potential hallmark of terrorism, the definition of “extremist material” will undoubtedly include anti-establishment political websites like the one you are reading right now.
Indeed, major transportation hubs in Britain such as London St. Pancras already censor Prison Planet.com and even mildly political websites, protecting their users from accessing “extremist” information that dares to question the motives of our illustrious leaders and the real agenda behind their war on terror.
Arun Kundnani of the Institute of Race Relations described the initiative as “dangerous”.
“It… potentially criminalises people for accessing material that is legal but which expresses religious and political opinions that police officers find unacceptable,” he said.
And that’s precisely the point. Creating a chilling atmosphere where people are afraid to express dissent, or merely read about other people expressing dissent, for fear of being labeled a terrorist and shopped to their local bobby by the dutiful thought police.
Using Internet cafe owners to spy on their users’ browsing habits is just one offshoot of the gigantic program undertaken by MI5 to train 60,000 UK citizens as a civilian network of terrorist spotters.
As we reported last year, staff at rail networks, at airports, shopping centers, public buildings, hotels and sports venues have been trained by MI5 and the police to watch for “suspicious behavior” and report it to the authorities.
As America and Britain sink deeper into militarized police states, society begins to parallel more and more aspects of Nazi Germany, especially in the context of citizens being turned against each other, which in turn creates a climate of fear and the constraining sense that one is always being watched.
One common misconception about Nazi Germany was that the police state was solely a creation of the authorities and that the citizens were merely victims. On the contrary, Gestapo files show that 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by “ordinary” Germans.
“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors,” wrote Robert Gellately of Florida State University.
Gellately discovered that the people who informed on their neighbors were motivated primarily by banal factors – “greed, jealousy, and petty differences,” and not by a genuine concern about crime or insecurity.
Gellately “found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments.”
“And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said.”
Gellately emphasizes the fact that the Germans who sicked the authorities on their neighbors knew very well what the consequences for the victims would be – families torn apart, torture and internment in concentration camps, and ultimately in many cases death – but they still did it with few qualms because the rewards of financial bounties and mere convenience were deemed more important to them.
There can no longer be any doubt that Muslims and political dissidents are the new Jews. Anyone who dares to speak truth is now instantly marginalized by the establishment as a crazy conspiracy theorist or a dangerous extremist.
Governments have feverishly exploited staged terror attacks such as 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings to launch a purge against society’s malcontents in order to eliminate the only roadblocks to their agenda, just as Hitler did after his own adjutants burned down the Reichstag.
They have gone about this by creating an army of tattle-tale informants eager to spy on and report people in their own community under the delusion that they are carrying out a patriotic duty, when in reality they are laying the groundwork for a repeat of the horrors that historically follow when the state is successful in setting the people against each other on such a massive scale.
April 29, 2009
Humboldt County, California voters passed measures F and J last November prohibiting military recruiters from initiating contact with minors. Now the Obama administration is demanding that the law be overturned. A court hearing is scheduled for June 9 in Oakland, California. The measures which passed by a large margin allow recruitment to occur if the minor initiates contact. Federal government lawyers claim “irreparable harm” if the laws stand.
The cities of Eureka and Arcata cite international treaties which prohibit recruitment of children under 17. If the Cities prevail over the Obama administration in court, the legislation could likely be brought before voters in communities across the nation. Enforcement of the laws is on hold pending the court action.
The author of the legislation, Dave Meserve, described the ordinances as protecting youth from slick and persistent professional salesmen who identify the children as “prospects” though never reveal the facts that 18% of Iraq war veterans return with traumatic brain injuries and 20% with diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder.
“The federal government sets no minimum age limit below which recruiters may not contact kids to promote military enlistment” writes Meserve. An official Recruiter Handbook has this advice: “You will find that establishing trust and credibility with students, even seventh and eighth graders, has a strong impact on your high school and post-secondary school recruiting efforts.”
While minors can’t enlist without parental consent they can be signed up in the Delayed Entry Program, where they commit to enlistment after they turn eighteen. Those who have second thoughts are routinely misinformed about their right to rescind the commitment, in many instances the highly pressured recruiters resort to false threats of prosecution.
Dawn Blanken, a counselor with the GI Rights Hotline, has written that a common problem voiced by callers is that promises are made by the recruiter that cannot be kept. “A promised job (MOS), a particular base, school, a non-deploying assignment, all disappear when the recruit arrives at basic training. Often soldiers accept this situation, complete their training and move forward.” However, as an example, “a seventeen year old, in a single parent household, with younger siblings, and a mother undergoing treatment for cancer, is vulnerable to promises (often misrepresented) of pay, beneﬁts, assignments, education and “career opportunities” available through enlistment that a more mature adult would be able to analyze more critically.”
Soldiers can be reassigned to a different branch of the military. Some are misled into enlistment, being told they can “opt out” after arriving at basic training by “just talking” with their drill instructor. In the army once a recruit reports for basic training the recruiters quota is credited. “As a result of this misinformation, many of these kids go AWOL from basic training, or their ﬁrst duty station, then call the Hotline for information.”
In her counseling, Blanken has found that “recruits who experience difficulties during training risk being victims of violence perpetrated by squad leaders, fellow recruits, and even instructors, who become frustrated at the struggling soldierʼs limitations, or failures, and resort to violence as a motivational tool and a method to affect morale in the rest of the unit. This violence and hazing is always debilitating, sometimes disabling, and occasionally deadly. Some complete their training and even a deployment, but can, even years into their term of service, get into trouble over issues stemming from recruitment violations. These problems can result in disciplinary issues and action against them, or charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and court martial and the discharges these people can receive can impede their future education and career goals. The worst cases end in suicide.”
Background: America’s Child Soldiers: US Military Recruiting Children to Serve in the Armed Forces November 2.