As we all know there was a long-lasting global power struggle - called the COLD WAR which in reality started in 1914. It was a struggle of ideas of how people ought to live together.
On the one side the societies of individuals who were struggling each for themselves in everyday life with the goal caring for themselves leads to raise the common welfare.
On the other side state-orientated societies which led the individual to a homogeneous behaviour strengthening the impetus of their everyday life efforts to raise the common welfare of these societies.
These poles were the base of the tensions coming from different ideas of how to enhance a society.
Therefore one has not only to look to the last events of this struggle ending in the Cold War but already to the beginning of these idea lines.
Naively, all societies were marching into WWI not knowing what they would have to experience in this fight.
On the one side the Magna Carta with limited power rights of the aristocracy as well as the rights of the populace coming from the revolution of 1789 on the other side monarchies which allowed the populace to have some rights.
It was obvious: On the one side the rights were eked out from below on the other side the rights were granted from above.
This was the center of the fight of WWI.
The U.S. and Russia did not really count in that struggle. Even the Russian revolution in 1917 was paid by Germany. And the U.S. stayed in the tradition of the Magna Carta of the UK and the revolution of France.
In the following it is shown that ideas do not stay in one place. Old Egypt could keep its power only because it was adapting its abilities to the Cutting Edges of her time.
Equally it is naive to think that the gloriful idea of freedom will stay just the same as it was at the end of the Cold War. It is obvious that "freedom" was just a justification topic in a struggle over ideas of how a society ought to work.
If there is a tendency of more control of the individual within society - as Zbigniew Kazimierz "Zbig" Brzezinski said it - for understanding the current process it is useful to look to the times when the allegedly overcome conflict started. As old Egypt also nowadays societies have to look how to adapt for survival. In former times competitive ideas were combatted nowadays competitive ideas are exploited to see if they deliver any advantage for the own system. If they don't serve anything they are sent to the garbage can. If they give an advantage ideas are integrated into its own system - no matter how opposed this idea was to its own system. Best example today: a Communist Party enforces a capitalistic system in China.
It seems that everything is possible.
Therefore it is useful to look into history.
And as I put it: it started in 1914.
One of the most absurd circumstances in Germany is the media induced fear around terrorist attacks: alone in the federal state of Northrhine-Westfalia demolition experts have to mitigate 1.400 WWII bombs per year. (
http://www.westfalen-blatt.de/OWL/K...ilogramm-Sprengstoff-einen-Meter-Abstand ) There are still thousands and thousands in the grounds of Germany. In everyday life nobody thinks about it really. They are just there and there are experts to solve this problem.
But in public you have to listen to allegedly terrorism which - of course - occurs once in a while but is not really a threat. Everybody can be hit. Yes, this is true. But it is of low probability to be hit. And on the other side you have a so called "event society" which is begging for events.
Therefore - there is a political motive to scare the populace with this exact scenario of terrorism concealing that there are millions and millions of land mines all over the globe terrifying and injuring the respective local populace. So what is the political motive behind a single topic like terrorism?
It is the arousal of a longing for a freedom of danger. Despite of the everyday experience of having WWII bombs just around the corner or of the millions of landmines worldwide. The longing for a freedom of danger is supposed to be bought by a giving of personal freedom. Freedom versus freedom. That is the deal. A deal which leads to enslavery.
The latest plot: the cashless society which is driven by government and companies. The individual is an open book and the government can hide itself behind data protection.
To understand the doublespeak of the everyday world the idea of dualism within the state is discussed in the following excerpt:
"1914 - 1933: The alternative of the total action state
'The constitution of the Third Reich is the state of siege. Its constitutional charter is the emergency decree for the protection of the people and state of february 28th 1933', is the concise wording with which Ernst Fraenkel introduced the first chapter of his account of the nationalsocialistic 'double state' published in his time of emigration. For the former attorney in Berlin the action state was 'the system of rule of unlimited arbitrariness and violence which was not restricted by any legal guarantees'; he comprended under 'normative state' the governmental system 'which is endowed with extensive rule authorities to maintain the legal framework how it is expressed in laws, judicial decisions and administration acts of the executive'. With the term 'double state' Fraenkel refered to - from his point of view characteristical coexistence of these two forms of government during Nationalsocialism (Fraenkel 2001, 55). The terms 'martial law' for stage of siege and 'prerogative state' for action state can not evoke the same associations in English as in German - a point which is easily overlooked. (the same happens also to Wildt 2006). In reality Fraenkel has been putting the 'double state' in a genealogy of constitutional and jusnaturalistic thinking since early modern age. He makes reference not to the in the background standing Carl Schmitt but to the meanwhile also emigrated Emil Lederer which worked at the New York School for Social Research. Fraenkel moved in the academic environment of Lederer.
As it is presented Lederer has spoken of 'two states' during the World War which faced each other in the shape of a dichotomy: on the one side (power)statal military thinking and practical handling which would be represented in its purest shape through a stage of siege and and the action state on the other side by the parlamentarian-constitutional state under the rule of law. Like for a whole generation the war has also been always a fight around the decision - although he never expressed it like that: Said 'Dualism' is staged with the whole force in 1917 as 'the majority of the Reichstag crossed the swords with the Vaterlandspartei' (Fraenkel 2001, 220). The competition situation resulting out of it seemed to be finally overcome after the "November revolution" and the foundation of the republic - wrongly, as Fraenkel thought: The old "power state thinking" and her advocates were living on also after the 'traditional legitimized rulers disappeared from the stage'. They had two alternatives:
Either (a) praeter legem (outside of the law, Denglisch) to establish an outside of the constitutional order standing political authority and to revise the constitution for founding an authoritarian power state, or (b) contra legem to substitute a rational constitutional order under the rule of law by a dictatorship. This dictatorship would be detached from the traditional barriers of the monarchy as well as also the rational barriers of a republican constitution. (ibid, 221)
The 'era Brüning' - Fraenkel opined the system of presidential cabinets with that - followed the first path whereby - so his observation - 'temporarily the familiar picture of the dualistic state appeared', namely in the shape of a juxtaposition of the presidential authority because of article 48 of the Weimarer Reichsverfassung and the 'upkeep of a considerable part of the order ruled by the law' (ibid. 20f). The failure of this option opened the path for the 'complete Annulment of the decision of 1918' hence the year, when in the environment of the Vaterlandspartei and Allgerman Movement in Munich the 'committee for a German workers peace' was founded from which the NSDAP should proceed. The goal of the party was to realise what has failed in the recent war - namely 'the complementing of the military and economic mobilization by political mobilization'. (Ibid., 202). The sentence 'The constitution of the Third Reich is the state of siege', settles - quite in the sense of contemporary debates around 'the total war' (meaning Goebbels speech in the Sportpalast 1943, Denglisch) - ambivalent: On the one side there is the state and its social and economic constitution in a state of an - undeclared - war with the goal of total war mobilization; on the other side a formal stage of siege (...)"
Niels Werber, Stefan Kaufmann, Lars Koch (Editors)
Erster Weltkrieg: Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch
Darmstadt 2014 Page 375
ISBN: 9783476024459
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/888397636Fraenkel, Ernst; E.A. Shils (Translator)
THE DUAL STATE. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE THEORY OF DICTATORSHIP
Originally published: New York: Oxford University Press, 1941. xvi, 248 pp.
https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pag...ntribution-to-the-theory-of-dictatorshiphttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1005263772https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1906&context=uclrevThe reason why this excerpt is brought into the discussion of fascism is that the thought of two political systems within one political system has lived on. Beyond the period of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. Nowadays it is working more smoothely than in the era of Auschwitz: with all the possibilities of technologies around psychology. You don't have any camps today. You are your own camp.
This contribution of Ernst Fraenkel is not unimportant because it gives an explanation of why there is so much resistance to discuss chemtrails in public: There is only one state. The other state is opaque although you may register her traces.
Therefore also the exclusion of politically unwished thinking in the shape of "conspiracy theory". What is not allowed to percept is psychiatrized. This exclusion policy leads to political isolation of protagonists of any unwished thinking. Instead of arguing the content of each idea they are put in a psychological camp in which the protagonists may circle around without touching the political sphere: Bubbling. The idea behind it: Cyber politics. And it is even openly discussed - as Postdemocracy.
If the public talks about inclusion it means exclusion. If government talks about open government - for example by establishing digitalisation councils - it means closed government. Cyber politics means the creation of illusion to keep the public calm.
That way you are besieged from two sides: one by the doubletalk and one by the doublereality.
That way you have a dualistic state right in front of you.
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18767#Post18767Fictional: the opaque state is processed in the public by movies like Hamilton: I nationens intresse (Sweden) where the agent moves beyond the law and kills his girlfriend by the way without being made accountable.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856014/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15Or by the fictional figure like James Bond which was supposed to be Ian Flemming himself with a license to kill through the British SAS.
The opaque state of Israel for example killed at least 3.000 persons in reality to protect Israel.
https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1150221/mossad-assassinated-least-3000-people ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First In Germany, there was a socalled "Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund (NSU)" which could murder around 10 citizen of the Turkish immigration community for years without any investigation by the authorities whereby the German state is so proud of solving murders with a rate of about 95 %. This can not be understood without involvement of secret services.
Or the limitation of the freedom of art in Germany if there could be reasons of "security".
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=20351#Post20351In Turkey, there is even the origin of the word "Deep State". Therefore the Turkish State herself can only be understood in a dualistic way.
Same in Italy where "Gladio" was mentioned by Andreotti in the Italian parliament.
In France, the common populace knows what to think of their politicians. And so on and so on.
And the secret services are only the visible part of the opaque state as they have to do the dirty work and leave therefore traces.
The purpose of the described movie figures above is the back projec-tion of criminal activities of the opaque state into society for lessening the created tensions of the opaque state.
"How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism? ~ Howard Zinn"
https://www.veteranstodayarchives.c...s-lost-conscience-howard-zinn-1922-2010/
