21 March, 2017

De Gaulle's hand still darkens EU's Happiness

US Declaration-Indce 1776
The American Declaration of Independence famously gives as a ground for seeking democratic freedom that all citizens were endowed by their Creator with natural rights. Among them were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Happiness — or the freedom to pursue of it — could therefore be considered as a good indicator of the health of a democracy and a free society.
The 20th of March was declared by the United Nations the International Day of Happiness. It presented a table based on a survey of the world’s happiest countries.
The world’s happiest – and saddest – countries
Happiest Least happy
1. Norway 146. Yemen
2. Denmark 147. South Sudan
3. Iceland 148. Liberia
4. Switzerland 149. Guinea
5. Finland 150. Togo
6. Netherlands 151. Rwanda
7. Canada 152. Syria
8. New Zealand 153. Tanzania
9. Australia 154. Burundi
10. Sweden 155. Central African Republic

It is based on asking a simple question to 1000 people every year in more than 150 countries.
“Imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top,” the question asks.
“The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”
The average result is the country’s score – ranging from Norway’s 7.54 to the Central African Republic’s 2.69. But the report also tries to analyze statistics to explain why one country is happier than another.
It looks at factors including economic strength (measured in GDP per capita), social support, life expectancy, freedom of choice, generosity, and perceived corruption.
Europe did well. And so it should because, thanks to the Schuman Declaration and the first European Community that it engendered on 18 April 1951, Europe has become a zone of peace. It is living in the longest period of peace in all its history.
What is shocking from the table is that, among the first four countries, only one — Denmark — is a Member State of the present European Union. All the other three: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, have refused in votes or referendums to become Member States of the present EU.
This should be considered a Warning Signal to Brussels. While many States that are struggling to exit from autocracy and corruption are willing to join the EU, those of the most democratic States do not think that Brussels is democratic enough.
The present leadership has discarded Community principles for a mish-mash of political opportunism called the European Union. The Community system that brought peace was based on a completely impartial European Commission. Today it boasts it is political. That means political in the wrong sense — party political. One Party, the EPP, the European People’s Party, has control not only of the presidency of Commission, but of the European Council and that of the European Parliament.
Any thinking person can see that is unhealthy. Just replace the EPP with another called the People’s Party — the Communist Party — designed to tell people what is best for them.
Power tends to corrupt. It is dangerous for any one party to control all the levers of power — especially the Commission which is supposed to be non-party political and an Honest Broker for Europe.
Europe’s Founding Fathers did not design any of these institutions to be under the thumb of one party. The European Council did not exist in the original Community Model.
It is a Gaullist idea. In 1961 Charles de Gaulle invented the idea of a Summit of Heads of State and Government to rule Europe as a secretive Directory. As the only Head of State present, de Gaulle himself would direct Europe with his own autocratic power. It was his scheme to keep OUT the British with their Mother of Parliaments and persistent obsession with democracy. In 1963 de Gaulle vetoed the UK’s first application to join the Communities. It was the first of many such vetoes against UK.

DeGaulle Mr No 14 Jan 63
Brexit Front Cover 8
Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community project, had a concept of Democracy that was more sympathetic to the principles of the American Founding Fathers.
Over the years by the introduction of the closed door European Council and insistence that discussions in the Council of Ministers and the EuroGroup system should be secretive Europe has moved nearer and nearer to de Gaulle’s model.
The Commission was asked:
“Does the European Commission have any suggestion how European Union Member States could become higher in this scale of happiness?”
The European Commission Spokesman replied: “The answer is No”.

17 March, 2017

Europeans 'March on Rome' Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Map!

My message to all Europeans meeting in Rome on 25 March 2017:

Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Map!

The leaders received this message: 

” Today European institutions have fallen into a crisis of trust, disunity and confusion of policy.
Europe arose from the initiative of 18 April 1951 when six war-torn States signed a Compact of Destiny in Paris.
Signature of Treaty of Paris and Great Charter April 1951

It created the democratic institutions of a European Community. Democratic principles were that day defined in the great Charter of the Community. By rendering “unthinkable and materially impossible” a seemingly inevitable world war exploding for a third time from European soil, this compact saved, not only Europe but the world from ruin. Instead of war, Europeans planted the seeds of an unprecedented peace. It stimulated decades of growth and prosperity.
Today Leaders of the EU need to review and renew those high principles of a supranational Community. They should agree on applying them for the 21st Century.
This renewed compact is necessary to confront current crises and future challenges. It acknowledges the wisdom of our ancestors. It recognizes our responsibilities to future generations.
To help citizens regain full confidence in those institutions so that they rightfully represent and reliably serve Europe’s citizens, Europe’s leaders must re-focus on that original compact. They should then ensure they are fulfilling the letter and spirit of existing articles of the treaties.
These all stipulate:
  • a single pan-European election for Parliament under a single statute.
  • Doors in the Councils and Committees should be wide open to the public and the press.
  • The European Commission should be reduced to around a dozen members so that it acts, not for lobbies, but impartially as an Honest Broker for all European individuals, nations and interests.
Confidence and trust are the reward free citizens give to open and honest government.”

1957 marked the signature of Europe’s second and third treaties. It also marked de Gaulle’s take-over of France. He wanted to “chloroform” or destroy the European Community system to establish an autocratic control of the European Continent. In this plan the United Kingdom would be excluded. He bamboozled the Germans into paying for the Common Agricultural Programme at the expense of all other Europeans and their democratic rights.
All the deals were made by an autocratic Council of Ministers meeting behind closed doors and excluding the public and press.
Are Europeans still being fooled by de Gaulle?

08 March, 2017

EU White Paper's Fake History says Peace "just happened"!

Counterfeiters and fraudsters. That’s what Robert Schuman called tricky European politicians who abused their powers.
“Nothing is easier that for political counterfeiters to exploit the illusion of good principles. Nothing is more disastrous than good principles badly applied.”
Today we have a product that fits in that category of fraud: The EU’s White Paper on the Future of Europe.
EC White Paper Future of Europe xHow can any citizen prove it is fake?
1. The 1957 treaties of Rome do not mark Europe’s Birthday.
Clue: The Common Market means money. Politicians like money. But money had nothing to do with the birth of Europe! It is an old trick. President Barroso tried it ten years ago.
In his Forward, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker starts by saying
“On 25 March 2017 leaders of the European Union’s Member States will stand united in peace and friendship in Rome. That alone is an achievement that many would have thought unthinkable when the six founding Member States agreed on the Treaties of Rome 60 years ago.”
This is Fake History. It is a ham-fisted attempt at a Fake 60th Birthday of Europe. A schoolchild should know it is historically incorrect. The author got “facts” wrong. It is deception.
Firstly “Peace and friendship” were not generated by the Treaties of Rome.
Peace. What did the Common Market do for peace? It is a customs union. Bismarck used the concept of a customs union to declare war on France and rob its iron ore and other riches of Alsace-Lorraine.
Secondly, ask: “Would those at the signing ceremony in Rome in 1957 have “thought it unthinkable” to have peace and friendship?” Obviously not. Why? Because they had already created a peace-enhancing compact years earlier. Those who signed the Rome Treaties (Schuman was not one of them) recognized a miracle. They were already experiencing lasting peace. It had been achieved with the 1951 Treaty of Paris. This peace-making treaty made possible the second and third European treaties at Rome.
The very first words of the first treaty in 1951 are:
“Considering that world peace can only be safeguarded by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that threaten it;”
The unnamed author of this White Paper deception clearly understands, consciously or unconsciously, that he is writing a lie.
One clue is in the word “unthinkable”.
Why is this important? Because it is a word rarely used in relation to treaties. However, Robert Schuman used this word in relation to the launching of the European Community in 1950 – when in fact diplomats, think tanks and the military were preparing the public for what they considered to be an inevitable war with the Soviet Union. It would be a war in which the position of Germany was still ambiguous. Would it support the West? Would it lean to the Soviets in order to unite with Communist East Germany, the DDR? Would it try to play off both sides to its own advantage?
On 9 May 1950 Robert Schuman declared that his Plan would
“make war between France and Germany not only unthinkable but materially impossible.”
He succeeded. Immediately after the creation of the European Community, the signature of the Charter of the Community establishing the Rights of all its citizens to Freedom of Choice, and the functioning of the European Coal and Steel Community, he confirmed that the Community of coal and steel with its innovatory system of democracy had made war impossible. Impossible not just for a few years but for the long term – perpetual peace.
2. Misuse of Schuman’s quote
The Schuman Declaration, the Schuman Plan, the European Coal and Steel Community are not mentioned anywhere in the White Paper. After Mr Juncker’s Forword, one quotation of Robert Schuman is made and then all that follows tries to contradict it!
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.”
Schuman showed that public opinion both national and European must agree with each step for unity. He created the first European Community which provided a working example of the democratic five institutions. He read out the same day of 18 April 1951 the great Charter of the Community. This declared that all citizens of the Community must be free to choose in accordance with the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that had just been signed.
Each step involved the creation of a new Community that had to be agreed by all democratic States. The Economic Community or Common Market was just one of these. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Euratom, signed in Rome the same day, was another. Other sectors need such democratic control but are, due to the malfeasance of politicians, lacking them.
So what is the politicians’ fake for the Community? The reader has only to turn the page to find out. It is the plan of the Italian Communist, Altiero Spinelli to create a federation, not composed of steps but driven by a highly party political central government!
Europa as Womanx
Would Schuman have approved Spinelli’s federation? No. In his speech of 16 May 1949, he analyzed a series of such immature federation follies from Abbé de St Pierre of 1308, Rousseau, Kant and Proudhon. His conclusion as a realist politician? He plonked them all with Thomas More and his fiction called “Utopia”. None would work practically. Neither would Spinelli’s. The governments binned his draft treaty.
Yet the White Paper spends much wasted space on this. And how much space is given to the innovatory concept of a supranational Community that actually produced the longest peace in more than 2000 years? Nothing. The White Paper tries to indicate that this extraordinary pace arose from hazard and “false starts”!
“Our troubled past has given way to a peace spanning seven decades,” it says.
Whaaaat! “given way to”! If only the Middle East knew how this peace could happened so easily. Europe’s politicians would be hard-pressed to define “supranational” and “Community Method”.
3. Options with no democracy.
The White Paper ends up by giving five options about how the Brussels autocracy should define its future policy. They are all pretty useless. Why? Because there is not a word about democratic accountability. The authors seem to be totally oblivious that Europe is in an existential crisis of trust. This is not just about Brexit. When the British threatened to leave Brussels treated the news with scarcely concealed glee and demands to do so immediately.
Brussels should ask itself: Is democracy going to be improved when the British leave, and Mme le Pen and other anti-Brussels politicians sit in the European Council? Brussels is closing its eyes and ears. But the people are Europe are not.

01 March, 2017

EU's White Paper on Europe's Future fails Basic Democratic Test

Democracy? What Democracy?
EC White Paper Future of Europe x
The day before the European Commission’s launch of a White Paper on the Future of Europe, the European Commission was asked directly about Democracy. Its main responsibility is enhancing democratic accountability in Europe. Robert Schuman, the founder of modern Europe, defined democracy in a way that makes it the best definition yet. He defined European Democracy on 18 April 1951 with the Great Charter of Europe and the first Economic Community Treaty, the treaty of Paris.
The Commission failed the democratic test.
It also fails its elementary history test as it thinks Europe was born with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The 60th anniversary of Europe occurred in 2011, as I wrote in an Open Letter to the then Commission President Barroso.
Enhancing democratic accountability‘ was promised in the Five President’s Report, 2015 on Deepening Economic and Monetary Union. The Brussels leaders had already taken unprecedented powers, overturning referendums against the Constitutional Treaty (and renaming this corpse the Lisbon Treaty). They overturned other referendums, as in Greece and told old-established democracies to vote again in their referendums because the No vote was unacceptable. They parachuted a former Commissioner to become a Prime Minister in Italy. They replaced another country’s by a banker.
Enhancing democratic accountability? Some would say ‘Nothing but PR chaff‘. But what is the opinion of the Commission? It avoids the issue.
The Brussels leadership does not seem to get it. Europeans have lost trust in Brussels. For them Brussels Democracy is heading for the cliff.
The White Paper gives options, but no democratic option. Democracy is not about setting different options that government politicians choose. It is not about governments choosing. It is about people choosing. And first of all the people must choose who their leaders are.
It says we, the Politburo, are in power. All that is needed is for you to choose whether we will do a lot of things you do not like or just a few.
Here’s the test. If the Brussels Politburo is really democratic it will point to the record it has achieved in improving democracy. If it is a bunch of autocrats, they will not.
What are the great achievements can the EU claim in two years?
The Chief Spokesman was asked:
“Two years ago the Commission adopted the Five Presidents’ Report. This said that in the first stage of {deepening Economic and Monetary Union} there would be “enhancing European democratic accountability.” Since then we have had the rise of what one might call anti-Brussels parties or “popularist” parties as some people might call them. And we had the Mother of Parliaments, the United Kingdom, rejecting what “democracy” is in Brussels.
Can you give us some positive developments that have happened that have enhanced democratic accountability?”

 EC Margritis Schinas x
He was unable to come up with any positive measures. “I don’t see the centre of gravity of the question,” the Spokesman said, adding unconvincingly that “if you want me to reiterate that Europe is about democracy, then yes, I am happy to say so.”
The reality is quite different. Brussels is under siege by anti-Brussels political parties, not only in the UK but in nearly all the Member States. They object both nationally at the attitudes of governmental “main-stream” parties and Europe-wide at Brussels closed-door autocracy.
Brexit Front Cover 8
When the UK, the Mother of Parliaments, is so fed up with Brussels autocracy that a nation-wide referendum gave notice to quit the “European Union”, the Brussels clique, its Politburo, only seems to rejoice. Within hours of the vote result being announced, four presidents (Commission, Council, Parliament and European Council) issued a statement.
It said: “We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way.
The Brussels Politburo failed to take the situation seriously. The core of the problems is Brussels itself. The politicians there do not follow even the most elementary articles of the treaties, never mind “enhancing them”.
While avoiding to catch my eye for the usual immediate follow-up question, the Spokesman eventually relented at the end of the press conference.
Question: “The White paper will talk about options. One option that is in all the treaties is that there should be a Europe-wide election for the European Parliament. Is this going to be in the White Paper?”
“The election for the European Parliament does not have to be in the White Paper because it is a reality since 1979.”
Not true. The present system of 28 national elections to Parliament is fraudulent on several accounts. The actual treaty article 136 of EEC or 108 of Euratom said:
“The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.”
The politicians had refused any sort of elections up to 1979. Some parties like the British Labour party boycotted the European Parliament because it was not elected but was chosen by party chiefs without the voice of the people. When the politicians were forced by the Courts to have elections, they did so with great reluctance … and a pair of scissors.
They cut out the end of the sentence about a uniform procedure. They agreed to one election for each State under quite different rules for each set by the government parties.
Thus the Assembly/Parliament moved from Cronyism Mark One to Cronyism Mark Two.
Anyone who knows what the treaties say — and we hope the Commission’s Spokespersons’ Group are aware of the most basic principles — should know that elections ought legally to be:
  • under a single Statute, not 28 national Statutes,
  • for the whole European Union, not 28 separate territories,
  • and for all the European citizens not just those with national IDs to be counted separately,
  • that a voter should have ONE vote not up to the equivalent of a dozen, as happens now.
The original democratic principles of the European Community system includes:
  • elections to the European Parliament,
  • elections to the Consultative Committees that control European laws affecting the economic, social and regional life of citizens. These are the bodies the Founding Fathers saw as being instrumental to manage the European Currency and also various aspects of the economy including Migration.
  • the means to refuse potential members of the Commission, who are not of sufficient sterling character and impartiality. All candidates should be refused if they they are obviously biased or partisan (members of interest groups, political parties, national representatives). They should be refused if they are without sufficient character or experience to withstand the influence of lobbies, whether national or global.
  • all meetings of the Councils that discuss, debate or decide such laws should be open to the public and press.
Until the Commission publishes a White Paper on legal and proper elections to the European institutions, Brussels will continue to be classified as an autocratic Politburo system, not a democracy.

01 February, 2017

Brexit Spivs in London and Brussels? Or Humpty-Dumpties?

Is HMG, Her Majesty's Government, acting like a Spiv or Humpty Dumpty?
If you don’t remember what a wartime and postwar Spiv is, the dictionary says it is a petty crook living dishonestly by his wits with a little bit of blackmail thrown in. Typically he opened his coat to show sought-after articles like nylon stockings for sale without ration coupons or watches of dubious origin.

Do we have Spivs running Whitehall and Brussels? You judge. One of the weakest parts of HMG’s position on Europe — if not the weakest — is Euratom. It retains a semblance of democracy which the EU has abandoned.
The much vaunted Article 50 deals only with exiting the Lisbon Treaty. It is a pretty poor treaty and many would say: “Good Riddance to it!” Legally it smells like rotten fish. The Lisbon Treaty is practically identical with the dead Constitutional Treaty that was rejected in their Referendums by the French and Dutch .
It would have been rejected by the British and a whole string of other democracies — if they had had the chance to vote. They didn’t. Instead the articles were forced undemocraticly through Parliaments against the wishes of their populations. Now that UK referendum that was refused so many times for Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitutional and the Lisbon treaties is coming back to haunt both HMG and Brussels.
The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community. It was agreed as a Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was supported by referendums and free votes in parliaments when all of the present Member States joined.
Lisbon only is rejected. On 23 June 2016 37 percent of the electorate voted to Leave the European Union. (63 percent refused to vote or voted Remain.) Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to leave immediately but it was as difficult to herd the Brexiteers in her government into a single policy direction on how to leave and what to negotiate. She wished to use royal prerogative powers, just like Henry VIII. "I decide, no debate or vote in Parliament!"
That failed when Gina Miller brought the matter to Court.

Brexit, Miller and Henry VIII FCover
PM May has now been forced by the UK Supreme Court to introduce an Act of Parliament before the Government can issue the Article 50 letter that says the country would like to leave the EU. Presently, in the European Union (withdrawal) Bill before Parliament, the UK Government is trying some very dubious skulduggery. It is attempting to withdraw from both the European Union and Euratom.
The 23 June 2016 Referendum was on Remaining or Leaving the European Union.
The EU is a product of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU is quite separate from the Community.
As far as Brussels and lawyers at the European Court of Justice would look at it, there are two separate treaties with two separate clauses on exit.
The Lisbon Treaty has Article 50. Euratom has something quite different. It has a NON EXIT clause Article 208. Why? because it is about the democratic control of nuclear material and nuclear security. Its aim was to stop an atomic war in Europe. It says:
“The treaty is concluded for an unlimited period.”
The Government has tried to confuse this (but only in British eyes) in the UK’s EU (Amendment) Act of 2008. In it they say that when “they” say “EU” they mean “EU and Euratom” if there is a context that “permits and requires this”. Who judges the context– especially if none exists? Who judges the legality of a surreptitious sale of nylon stockings without a ration coupon? A Spiv or a Humpty Dumpty! The Act has a spiv-like features! Back in 2008, the Act was also the means to refuse the British people a referendum !
Here we can say there is no context given in publications or official Statement that allows HMG to say it is permitted or required to include Euratom with its No-Exit Article.
Are ministers living in Wonderland? This misdemeanor is more serious than Alice in Wonderland where words mean whatever you want them to!
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Through the Looking Glass, chapter 6.
This tactic of HMG is fraudulent. The Humpty-Dumpties might want to add exit NATO, the Council of Europe or the UN !!
humpty-dumpty Words Mean What I say
It is like saying when I bought your second hand car for two hundred pounds, I own your house too because when I say car, I mean ‘car and house’ !!
Besides this the real owner — the depository of the treaties — has no document saying that the 27 other Member States agree with this fraudulent, spiv-like practice! Hence the European Court of Justice could not agree with this.
The fairest and simplest amendment to any EU (Withdrawal) Bill would be to omit all mention of Euratom. No one campaigned for exiting Euratom!
In the Brexit campaign I know of no Government Statement or any publication where HMG has specified that the UK is leaving the Euratom treaty. Do you? If so then HMG has NO MANDATE to leave Euratom or alter its status.
Further backgound is available in the free eBook on academia.edu. It is at
In other words the present negotiations will be useless until Europe’s core problem is tackled — distrust of Brussels and also HMG’s refusals to hold timely referendums. The UK should work for democratic reform in Brussels. This should start with the treaty requirements that all Councils should be open to the public AS THE TREATIES SAY. The European Community was initiated by Robert Schuman to bring honest Government to Europe. The Commission, Europe’s Honest Broker, should be composed of honest men and women who refuse to be members of partisan organizations or interests.

26 January, 2017

500 years ago, Erasmus predicted a Golden Age of Knowledge, Science and Technology

In 1934 Stefan Zweig in a biography said Erasmus represented the supranational ideal He used the term ‘supranational‘ many times throughout the book. What did he mean?
Robert Schuman declared on 9 May 1950 that peace could be built in Europe based on the same supranational principle. It brought an end to 2000 years of Western Europe’s internal wars.
Look back over the last 500 years since the great work of Erasmus in 1516, and we will see a world changed from top to bottom. Science and technology are the great dominant forces in society. We owe much of our comfort and prosperity and the fecundity of earth’s population to science and technology. So it would seem.
But the elements, the materials and the means to assemble the proponent parts of inventions existed throughout the history of mankind. Are we more intelligent today? Probably not, probably the reverse. Many of our everyday books on mathematics, philosophy, and politics originated one, two three millennia ago. How many people today could write from first principles a book on the geometry of conics or work out how to predict eclipses like the ancient Babylonians did?
Why is it then that only our last half-millennium was able to put the various pieces of these many different jig-saw pieces together to create a jet plane, satellite technology or a probe to the limits of the solar system and beyond? What sparked our scientific and technological revolution from around 1500? Up till then society plodded along at the same speed as the Romans.
We have electricity – a force that propels much of our traffic. It sparks our internal combustion engines. It propels our electric cars, some of which now drive themselves without the aid of a human. Electricity activates tiny splodges of metal on boards made from the same silicon material as seaside sand. We call them our computers. It also makes our light for us to see at night. It powers our ability to communicate as I am doing right now. Artificial intelligence answers our verbal questions.
What lies behind this great change of society, this supranational innovation that changes the way we live and think? Was it the genius of one man? Do we owe all this to someone like the practical Michael Faraday or the mathematics of James Clerk Maxwell?
Here we are confounded by the facts of history. Our west European society was not the first to have electricity. We may have been the first to exploit it on such a wide scale.
Parthian Battery
Two thousand years ago, the Parthians, that great super-power that rivaled and defeated the Roman Empire many times, possessed the electric cell. The construction of it implied that they used the cells in series to create a stronger current of electricity. They may have used the electricity to electroplate base metals with gold or for other uses we know not of.
But they did not, as far as we know, create semi-conductors as the essential elements for digital computers.
Some intellectual impulse far greater than the life-and-death battles, that the Romans fought on the Euphrates, in Israel and Greece, ignited and motivated our western society. The Parthians had abundant wealth, wealth so great that it provoked the covetous Romans to try vainly to conquer them.
The Parthians also debunk a common assumption of today’s Erasmus programme of student exchanges. The presumption is that students will gain from cultural exchange. Science will progress because one set of students or scholars interact with another who approach a problem from a different cultural point of view.
Parthia map-X
Yet the Parthians had global reach in their cultural interactions. They traded with the Far East. It was probably the Parthians who in the first century introduced silk from the Far East to the Romans in their Far West.
Yet despite all this cultural exchange neither Romans or Parthians had aeroplanes. The native brilliance of Parthian rulers established a rich and long-lived empire that confederated different tribes and competing religions for nearly 500 years from 250 BCE to 226 CE. Neither Romans or Parthians produced a scientific society like our own. Why? The Romans on the contrary may have destroyed the early roots of it.
One can perhaps excuse the Roman Empire for its lack of accomplishments in these areas. It was for most of its time involved in a bloody struggle to attain the peak of a military dictatorship. Once they had reached the emperorship, many of the emperors gave themselves over to sexual excess and the persecution of dissenters.
What of the great engineering accomplishments of the Roman Empire? These have been much vaunted by too many of the West’s historians who still live under the Stockholm symptoms of the Roman conquest of their lands. Many of the most extraordinary achievements of the so-called Roman Empire were in fact due to engineering skills that existed prior to Roman conquest. Take for instance, the building of harbor at Israel’s Caesarea, the largest port in the Roman world. Jewish engineers set huge limestone blocks 15m by 2.7m by 3m exactly in place, one exactly on top of the other, in 60m depth of seawater. Figure that out.
Then look at the great fort of Jerusalem, Antonia. How would you manoeuvre a polished limestone oblong block 13.6m x 3m x3.3m still in its foundations? How would today’s engineers, smooth it to perfection and place it exactly within millimeters? It weighs an estimated 570 tons.
 Masada stamp
Look high to the mountain fortress of Masada where a city and a palace with its Roman baths were created in what many would today say was barren, arid Dead Sea.
In the west Keltic Britons built hundreds of astronomical circles and ellipses to measure the calendar and examine the stars. Hero of Alexandria, Egypt, created a steam engine but neither he nor the next generation built a locomotive.
 Hero Aeolipile
The Antikythera Mechanism was a fished out from a vessel sunk off the Greek island. It contained an amazing array of cogs and delicate settings. What was its purpose? it was a mechanical computer able to predict the movement of the planets, eclipses and dates based on the 19-year Metonic cycle that controls our seasons and religious festivals.
Our last 500 years has not just seen great engineering achievements and computers, it has seen together with the microscope the realization that human beings are composed of cells. Further, for the proper functioning of the human body, we call on 100 trillions of bacteria and other creatures. Each human is really a community of living organisms. Scientists have explored the material components of the cell such as its DNA and the part it plays in genetics.

Antikethyra Mechanism

Why did ancient societies not investigate these vital matters themselves? Were the microscope or the telescope too complex for a society that could create the Antikythera mechanism around 100 BCE? Not at all. Did the microscope require the intervention of a highly educated scientist and advanced optics?
Leeuwenhoek_Microscope x
A century-and-a-half after Erasmus, the Royal Society in London was amazed at the extraordinary sketches of microscopic creatures coming from a correspondent, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, in the Netherlands. From 1670s he wrote more than 500 letters to the Royal Society about his discoveries. This self-educated, independent-minded businessman invented a single-lens microscope that could render visible unicellular bacteria, sperm, blood, and minute water life.
Today we know that the human body is composed of nearly 100 trillion cells, with more than half independent uni-cellular bacteria etc. This form of life makes up most of what we are, not our own flesh! With specimens attached to the spike he could examine the various types of life on this planet — some of these forms were eternal — and they did not need sex to reproduce.

Leeuwenhoek_Microscope lens
Yet Leeuvenhoek, “the father of microbiology” created his single lens from a small sphere of glass. And glass has been around for 4 or 5000 years. It was a recognized profession and trade. Ancient Egyptians made multi-colour glass vessels that compete with the finest Venetian glassware. Where were the ancient Leeuvenhoeks in antiquity who looked through a tiny ball of glass? Why don’t we have an Egyptian name for the father of microbiology?
From around 1500 all areas of knowledge, science and technology flourished all across Europe. What was the motor? Did Erasmus know it in 1516? What was the secret that Erasmus spoke of, when in 1517 — 500 years ago, he wrote:
” At the present moment I could almost wish to be young again for no other reason but this — that I anticipate the near approach of a golden age.”

19 January, 2017

Davos exposes Europe's Fake News and Fake History

Davos Wld Ec Forum Which Europe Now x
The World should note and shudder! Fake News is being spouted by European leaders about the crisis of Europe’s future.
Meeting at the Davos World Economic Forum, a special discussion was held on “Which Europe Now?” Sixty minutes of hot air followed, enough to melt the Alpine snows.
Citizens, be afraid! The leaders seem to know little about how Europe got its peace after 2000 years of warfare, how it got its unprecedented prosperity.
Robert Schuman and the founding fathers created a system to build trust between nations and peoples and industries. Lack of public trust in Brussels is the prime cause of today’s crisis. Schuman said: “Bureaucratic expansion and complexity are no guarantee against a breach of trust. They encourage political nepotism. Administrative inflexibility is the prime danger threatening our supranational services.” Elections, he said, should be Europe-wide not national. They should accord with the Great Charter of the Community (that de Gaulle buried.)
Leaders today have little clue how to best deal with the future. Would you hire a hot air salesman to be in charge of a fire brigade, someone who knew nothing about fires and could not even drive a fire engine?

Rutte at Davos 19 1 17 x
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte boasted that “I am a historian”. He then destroyed that illusion. Just four minutes into the conference he said that the treaty that made sure “No More War” was that of 1958. What was he thinking of? Euratom? Or the so-called “Common Market”. What happened between the end of the World War and then when the Cold War raged?
In its first announcement of the year the European Commission gave the same Fake News. They said they would celebrate Europe’s 60th Birthday in Rome in March this year. Is Fake News contagious? The treaty that made war “not only unthinkable but materially impossible” was the Treaty of Paris, signed on 18 April 1951. The quote comes from Robert Schuman’s speech of 9 May 1950 that launched the Community process and the European Coal and Steel Community.
Then we had the French moderator, Maurice Lévy, the boss of Publicis. This is a communications and media group. Why, any normal person would ask, does the European Union require a marketing consultant to get its message across? Is lack of trust not apparent or do leaders just want to cover it up?
Mr Levy asked: What are the great ideas that Europeans need? What makes a better Europe?
Mr Levy came up with the false and hoary old story that Jean Monnet had said that “if I had to start again” (with presumably single-handedly creating the European Union), he would “start again with culture.” It takes a minute on the internet to prove this is a Fake!
It is also false to say Monnet “invented” the Community. It has long be debunked as false. Monnet’s Memoires even claim he invented the word ‘Community’ on 21 June 1950! False! When did he have this brainwave? The day after he had sat next to Schuman at the opening of the Schuman Plan conference on 20 June when Schuman described exactly how a Community would work.
As for the quote about culture, it is rubbish. The Community was created in 1950 when nuclear war loomed between USSR and the West with Germany playing one off against the other. It was not created to make films.
Davos Ana Botin, Santander x
Nor was it designed to create a uniform European culture as the other panelist, the banker Ana Botín of Santander, seemed to want. If she wants her fellow bankers to understand Europe she should buy them some decent history books. The bankers of Europe could learn about what Schuman called the supranational management system of Europe. That’s what he called it in his speech of 10 August 1950 before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Its use in banking, commerce and services would revolutionize the economy!
The quote about “starting again with culture” probably originated with Jack Lang, once a French Minister of Culture. He admitted it. But it certainly did not come from Jean Monnet.
Nor did Jean Monnet have much to do with “creating” the first European Community except distracting the Prime Minister Georges Bidault from Schuman’s activity (which he opposed vehemently). The Schuman Declaration was written by his fellow Lorrainer, Paul Reuter, the deputy Jurisconsult at the French Foreign Office and his watchman there against nationalist and Gaullist plots. He used Monnet’s office and secretarial help. You can read the account on schuman.info or in Reuter’s own words in the book: Robert Schuman, Jalonneur de la Paix Mondiale.
So what did Martin Schulz, the long-serving president of the European Parliament, say about Monnet and starting with culture?
“He (Monnet) was right!” He blamed politicians who came out of closed door meetings of the Council and refused to tell the truth of what had gone on! Secrecy is not democracy!
Next we had the Commission, in the person of Vice-President Frans Timmermans. He faked his own News/ history. Today, he said, “governance is more important. Some of the facts — we’re talking about history — need to be reassessed. No more paternalism. That was Schuman etc. Very paternalistic people. They said we are going to fix Europe but please don’t tell the people how we are going to do it. ”
Whaaat! They created Europe's peace for the first time in 2000 years and Schuman didn't tell the people how he did it? Schuman created the major forums for public opinion to act "like lighthouse" for the new idea of supranational democracy.
What an insult. Who created the Council of Europe with its Assembly to act as a public laboratory for new ideas? Who created the European Parliament? Who created the institution of which Mr Timmermans holds an office (in spite of his party political membership which contradicts his oath of office for impartiality?) Mr Timmermans got into a verbal fight with Prime Minister Rutte. He denounced his party political ideas and theories.
Mr Timmermans, why are you so ignorant about European history? It involved the greatest postwar public debates. Why are you so defamatory of humble, democratic Robert Schuman? Are you confusing him with the autocratic Charles de Gaulle? 

In either case you should have thought before you spoke. Distrust springs from fakes.
Schuman and the treaties say that the Commission should act independently of party, country and profession. He used the term “supranational“. I wonder how many "Commissioners" and "leaders" even know what it means. Why today do so many "democratic" leaders prevent the European Council being held in public like the treaties say?
As multinationals announced they were quitting Britain, UK Prime Minister Theresa May also visited Davos. She praised the institutions that brought peace and prosperity. She said:
“We should never forget… So we must uphold the institutions that enable the nations of the world to work together. And we must continue to promote international co-operation wherever we can.”
Democracy in Europe requires open Councils and elected Consultative Committees. It requires many elections that Europeans have never had in 75 years. Democratic leaders should read article 15 of the Lisbon treaty TFEU which says
“Union institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies shall work as openly as possible. …” It adds the Council shall meet in public like the Parliament.