25 February, 2016

Britexit6 Why when Britons vote to LEAVE, must they REMAIN in European Community?

On 23 June 2016 whatever way Britons vote in the BREXIT referendum, the UK will remain a Member State of the European Community. The European Commission knows this. It is not clear if Westminster government realizes this. They should.
How do I know? That is what the treaties say! This burning issue was debated a decade and a half ago, when the Lisbon Treaty existed only as an illegitimate twinkle in the eyes of politicians.
First paradox: Democracy can be reduced but it cannot be destroyed. The fact that UK remains a member of the European Community is positive proof of this! The recent calls for referendums in Greece on the democracy-destroying effects of the ill-conceived euro, that of independence for Spanish Catalonia, the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine accord, the British referendum on BREXIT and the proposed Hungarian referendum against Brussels dictating the migratory flows to the country, show one thing. Brussels is sick. Not Europe or its democratic spirit. Expect more referendums, including one in France on FREXIT!
The core problem is that the Council of Ministers has retained neo-Gaullist powers as a closed-door big-daddy government of the political cartel. Europe needs to install the democratic rights written in the treaties for more than sixty years and its Great Charter of the Community 1951, guaranteeing the founding principle of authentic ‘freedom of choice‘!
Is Britain’s referendum anti-democratic? What about the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the BREXIT referendum? That deals specifically with the question on the voting slip.
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The options for voters will be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ and ‘Leave the European Union’.”
The referendum question does not say European Community. Why?
Second paradox. Doesn’t the highly-rated British civil service and do not all the associated bands of experienced politicians (some of whom attend the Council and Parliament) know the difference between EC and EU? Why did they write such a question?
Third paradox. Is European history education so deficient that nobody has pointed out this glaring error? Has the fund of millions of propaganda euros that the EU has poured into the 875 Jean Monnet professorships around Europe and beyond been entirely wasted? They boast they have “educated” half a million students each year? Why then aren’t these passive students taking to the streets shouting ‘The emperor has no clothes!?
Fourth paradox. The European Commission knows about the referendum question result. It knows the answer. It is no secret. It was widely broadcast while the so-called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ was being fabricated. But Commission is keeping stumm.
I have had a substantial correspondence with the Commission. They won’t raise the issue, divulge any information on it or debate it.
What is the reply of officials when confronted with the issue in the press room?
“We don’t wish to discuss it!”
Why? Isn’t that a dereliction of duty of the ‘Guardian of the treaties’? The issue is obviously of supreme importance to know before voting! Britons might vote to leave the EU and find themselves still in the European Community!
This legal answer from a high-ranking official, an authoritative EU source, is positive affirmation in its way that the UK will definitely remain a Member. The UK will remain a participating member of the Council of Ministers. It will have to elect Members of Parliament to the European Parliament. It is obliged to participate in the Consultative Committees like the Economic and Social Committee (designed to deal with matters like the euro but ineffective) and the Committee of Regions (designed to deal with migration issues and equally ineffective). Both committees are supposed to be elected and radiate trust and legitimacy. Instead they are still nominated by the Council in its secret sessions.
Paradox five will be a shock! What will happen on 24 June, when Britons hear the results over breakfast?
They will find they have, for example, expressed a wish to leave the European Union, the EU. But that is not the European Community. The EU is a bloated, and often quite undemocratic, neo-Gaullist perversion of the European Economic Community. Some British like to call this the Common Market, but it was far more than that.
Today there are two active Communities. The EU is just the outgrowth of one. When the UK joined, it agreed to become active participants of THREE. Chronologically the first Community was the European Coal and Steel Community founded in 18 April 1951 and starting its activities on 10 August 1952. it created Europe’s first Single Market in February 1953.
Its treaty was in force for a limited but renewable period of 50 years. That date terminated in 2002. Lobbied hard by the steel and coal interests, the Council of Ministers decided without public debate (or a referendum!) not to renew the Community. The short-sighted cause was a 1 percent tax that provided houses and full employment for workers, new technologies for the industries and low prices for the customers and protection from unfair trade practices. Immediately after the end of the Community, prices of steel soared. Was this a coincidence? The Community had strong powers against cartel operations on price manipulation.
Since then Europe has experienced the consequences: firstly the great steel enterprises were sold off to foreign purchasers. Then more recently the steel furnaces have been shut down as China and other nations dump their cheaper products on world markets. The former industrial backbone of Europe has been broken by the greed and lack of vision of businessmen and the poor judgement of its cartel politicians.
The second Community was the European Atomic Energy Community, founded under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was envisaged by Robert Schuman in 1949 as Europe’s answer to the Soviet atomic bomb and a means to stop nuclear proliferation and war. This was the subject of de Gaulle’s ire. He paralyzed Euratom, as it was known. He then built a French atomic bomb, suborning others to contribute to the research. De Gaulle boasted that his bomb could kill 20 million people in two hours! Would you trust de Gaulle or any such autocrat with the Bomb?
The Euratom treaty would if applied have prevented any Iranian production of an atomic bomb. It would also have stopped the production of a Pakistani bomb and the Libyan and possibly North Korean operations.
The recent Iran nuclear deal shows the barrenness of EU foreign policy. Today flush with its 100 or 150 billion dollars bonanza, Iran, long considered the most dangerous terror State, is funding Palestinian terrorism. It is offering $7000 to each family for producing a ‘martyr’ and $30,000 for a destroyed house.
Euratom is not dead. Britain is still a part of its Community, the Commission, Council and Parliament. So if the referendum returns a vote to LEAVE, the authorities in Brussels and those in Whitehall will have to start explaining why leaving the European Community just is not possible. Before any BREXIT takes place that will have to be exposed, analyzed and resolved.
Reminder: the EU has an exit clause 50. The Euratom treaty has none. Why? Because those inside a club have rights as much as those who wish to leave!
The only way a Member State can leave Euratom is to persuade all other Members to revoke the treaty. That is simple democracy. We all have an interest in nuclear security and non-proliferation. We don’t need another de Gaulle-style autocrat, whether French, German or perhaps with an Islamic vision of grandeur, threatening to kill 20 million people based on shared European technology and fissile material.

18 February, 2016

Britexit5 Democratic Disaster still awaits even if Britain votes Yes!

The ‘wrong man’ became EU Commission President. The wrong person is likely to be selected in 2018. You can be sure it will not be a Briton!
In 2014 UK Prime Minister was perfectly clear about Mr Jean-Claude Juncker as potential European Commission President. ‘He is the wrong man.’ The UK was forced by the Top Pol or Spitzenkandidat system to accept him. What will happen after the UK referendum on BREXIT? The reform package ignores a major injustice. There will never be a British Commission President while the Spitzenkandidat system exists!
Let’s move to 2018. In the BREXIT referendum of 2016 or 2017, Britain has voted overwhelmingly to stay inside the EU. Everyone is relieved. Great Britophilia subfuses the whole of Europe. British Union flags are waved everywhere. The French toast their island friends in prize-winning, home-grown British ‘sparkling wine’ which is called ‘champagne’ in other parts of the world.
At last Britain, ‘the mother of democracies‘ as some like to call her, is the darling of Europe. Britons are the heroes of Brussels. So what happens about the selection of the European Commission President?
Even if everyone in Europe is enthusiastic for British personalities, the ‘Top Pol” system of the Continentals would make it impossible to agree to a British president. The ‘Top Pol‘ system forbids it. The Europe’s biggest party political grouping can, and in fact, must, force its candidate on the willing or unwilling European public.
Only a card-carrying member of the Continental ‘Top Pol‘ EPP-Socialist Cartel is allowed.
Let’s say the largest grouping, the EPP, wanted to renew the candidature of the present incumbent, Mr Juncker, or has another candidate it has elected by its special 800 EPP electors, Mme Dupont. Then the European Union would force that candidate on the public.
Imagine that the opinion polls say Mr Jones, the British choice had 75 percent of the European public in favour of his becoming the new Commission President. Mme Dupont has the support of 20 percent and 5 percent are undecided.
According to the Spitzenkandidat system, the public would be told that Mme Dupont is the choice of the European Popular Party. If the Continentals again returned the EPP as the majority, the EPP politicians in governments would automatically demand that Mme Dupont become Commission President. The same goes for the Socialists.
We can assume that in 2018 the ballot papers for the European Parliamentary elections do not say anything that exposes this swindle to daylight. Murkiness covered the 2014 elections. Further fog is forecast for 2018.
Firstly, the politicians are likely to do everything to avoid the legal and moral embarrassment. They will try to keep Mr Juncker on. They will thus avoid any question being asked about his legitimacy.
Secondly they will use sleight of hand. Voters came to the polls in 2014 and voted for their MEPs. No ballot paper said that if you vote for an EPP politician, of whatever shade of EPP, the party cartel says you are supporting Mr Juncker. No ballot paper said that if you vote for the Socialists you will be demanding that Herr Martin Schulz become Commission President.
But the Political Pickpockets or manipulators tried to make out that was the case. The treaties say no such thing. They say the opposite. Politicians are banned. Nor does any European law or Regulation. The Commission and the European Parliament are independent institutions.
Thirdly, they will make lightning decisions on the top jobs. Mr Juncker was elected. Mr Schulz wasn’t. He got second prize. That is the presidency of the European Parliament. Nowhere do any regulations or treaties say there is any second prize! It is evident that the political manipulators cut an undemocratic deal.
Where did the second prize come from? Mathematics. The EPP has 221 members and Socialists 191 in the 751 member chamber. The two groups working together have more than 400 votes. They can dictate the programme of the Parliament. They can endorse the Commission President. They elect a Socialist Speaker of Parliament. All it takes is an undemocratic secret stitch-up.
This secret deal also depends getting away with pure chicanery. These political parties say they have the rights to elect a politician as Commission President. Why don’t all the Member State governments come clean? Why didn’t they print on the ballot paper the following:
Attention, Warning, Achtung! When you vote for any EPP candidate you are endorsing Mr Juncker to become the Commission President
When you vote for any Socialist candidate for MEP, you are endorsing Herr Schulz to become Commission President. etc ?
Wouldn’t that cause electors to think twice before casting their vote? It would poison any enthusiasm.
If politicians wished to have the same honesty as a cigarette packet they could go further. They could add:
Attention! Warning! Achtung! The runner-up may well get the Presidency of the European Parliament. The newly elected MEPs are not allowed to elect their Speaker. It is decided behind closed doors by Council politicians. In order to perform this political somersault the majority in the EP will arrange it so that they do not put up a candidate. As the majority would normally have the best chance, they will just manipulate the democratic vote in Parliament as their first act of Democracy.
What would happen to Mr Jones? Would the European public be demanding a British president? They might but it wouldn’t help.
Even if Mr Jones got all the British votes, it would be in vain. The British Conservatives are not members of the EPP and therefore, even with their allies, they would never gain a majority in the EP. The British Labour party did not endorse Mr Schulz. So that creates a double loss for a British candidate.
Let’s now turn to the opposite scenario. Following the secular trend, fewer people will vote. Now nearly three out of every five people refuses to vote at all. And of those that do, one third voted against SpitzenKandidat parties. Besides the British Conservatives and its allies, there are what Brussels calls ‘euro-sceptic’ parties: the French National Front, the British UK Independence Party, the German Alternative etc. Some of these are not anti-European but anti- the European scam and stitch-up that has been going on since the time of General de Gaulle blocked the democratic development of Europe. De Gaulle told his press secretary Alain Peyrefitte that his programme was to block all aspects of supranational democracy. It has never been unblocked. And the politicians since de Gaulle have used his system to provide jobs for themselves.
De Gaulle believed that only one election was required — to elect him. He made sure the public had no real choice by having a two-tier election process. He would then select a prime minister and his government. The Top Pols use the same system with modifications. That is how these politicians have succeeded in taking over, root, stock and branch, the key domain of the Commission presidency. They say that it belongs them. They have party membership cards. Yet they are just 2 percent of the European population. Being partisan means they have a political club and organization that can be used against the public, not for it. Talk about Apartheid!! The treaties say all members of the public have this right to office!
So if all the people, who are ‘turned off’ and in the past didn’t vote, now do start voting, and the anti-scam parties continue to increase in popularity, then It may well be that such parties could form a majority. They might, at least, have enough votes to block the mathematics of the EPP-Socialist cartel.
Let’s say they represented the biggest faction in the EP. Would you expect governments running the scam to form a Commission composed of anti-scam people?
Yet unless the 28 governments begin to act responsibly and as democrats who are against political corruption, they might well be faced with such a nightmare scenario.
It would be suicide. If in 2018 or later elections two thirds of the new Members of Parliament are ‘Euro-sceptical’ does that mean that the Commission should be chosen on the policy basis to destroy the institutions? That would make any future election meaningless. It would be the equivalent of an anarchistic revolution. Europe would be left without any governance system. With no single market and no protection, it could be picked off by powerful world forces whether in the energy field or elsewhere. They could destroy European human rights and open the countries to jihadis, religious warfare and terrorists. A disintegrated Europe would leave Europe the prey of North African terror cells and terror governments. Instead Europe would have thrown up its hands on its duty to help these States establish human rights and freedom across and around the Mediterranean.

11 February, 2016

Britexit4: The faulty UK BREXIT reform will aggravate EU's democracy scam!

The Europeans are about to have their democracy stolen. AGAIN. Who will do it? Let’s call them Pickpocket Politicians. The British who boast of their Magna Carta and their democracy might make matters a whole lot worse by their BREXIT referendum!
At the core of the problem lies the dominant Cartel of groupings in the European Parliament, aided by nearly all national politicians, it would seem. They are showing that 28 countries called Democracies cannot abide by simple democratic rules at the European level. They prefer fraud and democratic theft.
Stand by for another decade of crises in European affairs! It is looming. No one is talking about it yet. It will explode soon. I’ll give you an exact date: 2018. And a few years later, again and again and again.
    • Whatever the outcome of discussions Mr Cameron has with the European Council,
    • whatever the publicity that he tries to propagate afterwards,
    • whatever the reaction of the British public,
    • whatever the pleas of other European States for Britain to stay within the EU,
    • whatever the arguments of anti-EU parties,
    • whatever the support of pro-EU parties,
the UK Referendum will be a major failure.
Not just for the UK. It will be a major failure for all of Europe. It will be a major failure for all candidate States and Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. All Europeans will lose out from UK’s referendum.
Except the self-proclaimed ‘Top politicians’, the ‘TopPols‘.
Britain has been and will continue to be excluded from the top leadership of Europe. Not just now. Possibly for ever. It is not a member of the dominant Parliament grouping, the EPP. Even if Britain votes overwhelmingly to stay in, top jobs are excluded. Europeans had better not cheer like the Gaullists! Other countries might be in the same exclusion boat too.
When I spoke to a key member of the Prime Minister’s team about this at the June European Council last year, one thing was abundantly clear. The British government had no idea what was in store. I asked if the British government was going to deal with this vital question in their reform package.
My question was this: ‘Is the British government asking the European Council to remove the measures that exclude a Briton from ever becoming the President of the Commission? ‘
A reform referendum is the moment to make sure this error was corrected. Instead the British government has chosen to do nothing and say nothing about it. I was met with a blank look when I said that no Briton would ever become the Commission President in the future. Then when I explained, I could see the truth was sinking in.

As it stands the Continental powers will make sure that there will NEVER be a British president of the European Commission. This is a fairly obvious outcome of the subversive scheme that the Continental parties have already activated. The Conservatives are not part of the EPP. As long as they remain independent, they will never have one of their own called to be Commission President.
It is called the ‘Top Politician’ scam. Or if you want it in German: SpitzenKandidatenBetrug‘ The present Commission president is M. Jean-Claude Juncker. Nobody in the United Kingdom voted for him. If you add up all the votes cast within the UK, the highest figure I have seen that had anything to do with Mr Juncker is less than 0.2 percent of all votes cast. Even that is wrong. The answer is ZERO votes.
That is hardly surprising because no ballot paper in all the European Union said that Mr Juncker was a candidate for the office of President of the European Commission. He simply ’emerged’ from the European Parliament elections of June 2014. All this is a bit bizarre for a post some (wrongly) compare to the President of the USA and which pays a higher salary.
Just reflect a second. If the European Parliament elections were really about the election of the President of the European Commission, then obviously the ballot papers for the electors would say so. Legally, no election of the President took place. Hence everyone can shout out loud: FRAUD! SCAM! THIEVES! The 28 national elections for the 2014 European Parliamentary elections elected national members to the European Parliament, nothing more.
The national politicians know it is a fraud. Public research revealed that hardly anyone inside the EU even recognized his name, Juncker. Even Frau Merkel objected that no one really knew his name. It took some behind-the-scenes arms-twisting before even the national politicians agreed they could get away with it. The Socialists wanted to control Parliament and name its president. Eventually they all agreed.
Mr Juncker was the ex-prime Minister of Luxembourg, a tiny country at the heart of Europe known for a controversy of being a tax haven. He was out of office but still active in partisan politics.
Why then was Mr Juncker elected? Well, he had support. Who exactly? He was given the office because he was chosen by 382 party politicians. Who were they? They were those out of 800 special members of the European People’s Party (EPP) who voted ‘yes’ that Mr Juncker should be a ‘Top Politician.’ In other words, a Spitzenkandidat.
So less than half of the 800 EPP voters wanted Mr Juncker.
Were any of the 382 voters British? No. In fact none of the 800 who cast their vote was British.
All that should smell a little fishy to any democrat. Smelly, rather like a fish that is a week old.
Why were there no British voting for Mr Juncker? That is because the mainstream British parties are not in coalition with such operations as the EPP. The EPP is considered centre-right in European politics. But the centre-right British Conservative party is in another coalition with smaller parties it considers more like-minded.
The EPP has been and still is the biggest trans-European coalition of governmental parties. It dominates politics in the European Parliament. It is the equivalent in politics of what, in economics, is called a Cartel. And it dominates as if it were a monopoly power. The consumer, Joe Public, becomes a victim of extortion.
The EPP has managed to bring into its ranks major government parties of most of the EU’s Member States. The first major problem for Democracy and Justice is that Britain is excluded from its internal machinations.
That’s not all. It gets worse. The second major problem is that the prominent political parties, together with other coalitions among the Liberals and the Socialists have all agreed on what is an open fraud to bamboozle European citizens out of their democratic rights. What’s in it for them? Jobs on the Commission too.
They are saying that only politicians, not ordinary citizens, can be members of the Commission and that only their parties have a right to put up candidates for the office. In that they are dead wrong! The treaties say exactly the opposite. They say that Commissioners must be totally non-partisan and independent, like a judge in a court case. They swear in the European Court with the oath of office to be independent.
“I solemnly undertake:
  • to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
  • to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
  • in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity;
  • to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.”
And then do the opposite! An active partisan of a political party is member of a body with a dogma. By being national party politicians they are apt to take instructions from governments. By speaking to lobbyists in private, they are doing the wrong thing. Such matters should be discussed in public in legislative Consultative Committees or not at all. Being a party politician is the exact opposite of non-partisan. It is being highly partisan.
So this Continental fraud not only deprives the average citizen of his or her rights to become a Commissioner. It restricts the right to certain Continental politicians.
Furthermore, and most striking for the British Government’s ‘reform’, it completely eliminates all British politicians from  the latest, corrupt Commission game. So it discriminates against the average citizen by stopping independent citizens from becoming Commissioners and acting fairly. And, while committing this fraud, it discriminates against British politicians and excludes them from the top politicians’ ‘closed shop’!
If you need to have an analogy it is equivalent to the Soviet Politburo system. Only those who were Communist party members could be considered to take leading roles in Soviet society. The same applies to the way the top politicians have rigged the EU governance system.
Robert Schuman designed the Community system to have three levels of democracy and only the EP level was supposed to be party political. The Commission was defined as being the non-governmental, non-lobbyist, non-party political Honest Broker among these institutions.
How do the Top Pols get away with it? The Commission is supposed to be — and so it often boasts — the ‘guardian of the treaties’. So that once the Commission was full of politicians, they simply passed declaration saying: 'Only ex-politicians are welcome here.' They then said: 'We can be active in politics too.' The treaties say the opposite but the Commission declaration has not yet be tested in the European Court of Justice. Once it is raised there, there will be more than sparks flying.
If the treaties say that politicians cannot become Members of the Commission unless they renounce their allegiance to party dogma, doctrine and ideology, government representation and lobbyist activity, what is to be done about it?
If the UK refuses to raise the alarm against this flagrant discrimination both against the British nation and against all British citizens, then matters will go from bad to worse. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, it will be highly unlikely that Britain will seek a further reform referendum of the EU scam for another decade. Whether inside or outside the EU the corrupting of Schuman’s democracy will make the whole of European affairs more unmanageable.
The worst aspect of Britain’s refusal to apply Magna Carta principles of democracy is that the next referendum on reforming the EU is likely to be pushed back for years as politicians do not like referendums. Europeans will have to live with the Cartel’s distortion of democracy on immigration policy and the euro debacle for the near future.

05 February, 2016

Mein Kampf2: Nazism versus Democracy

Mein Kampf became a holy book for the Third Reich in the 1930s. Hitler’s aim was to replace the Bible and in that he succeeded. The Reich’s Church worshipped Hitler and its orators quoted it as the holy book. It became the main instrument to idolize Hitler in a religious context. His book was set on the altar and the Bible banned.  

Let’s look at the authorship of the Mein Kampf fraud itself.
1. Who wrote it? Hitler supposedly wrote it when in a comfy prison in 1924. He writes in the introduction:
‘On April 1st, 1924, I began to serve my sentence of detention in the Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of the Munich People's Court of that time.

‘After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first time to begin a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes to a description not only of the aims of our Movement but also of its development.’
 What landed him in clink?  An attempted putsch or coup d’Etat in Munich organized by Hitler and Ludendorff.
Let’s first go back to 1920, when the pair visited the politically active Strasser brothers, Georg and Otto. We find that the tall and imposing General Erich Ludendorff arrived in his car with the pale-faced, former Sergeant Hitler in his tow at a respectful distance ‘like his orderly’. Ludendorff told the Strassers: ‘We must unite all nationalistic groups.’ He said he was in charge of all military operations and Hitler was responsible for political training. 

By 1922 American diplomats report that Hitler as a firebrand orator addressed his 1200 ‘roughnecks.’ They shouted ‘Death to the Jews’ accompanied with frantic cheering. (When asked point-blank about this anti-Semitism by the American, he replied that he merely favored disenfranchising Jews and excluding them from public affairs.)
The US diplomat Robbins reported that ‘Hitler, the young Austrian Sergeant, leading the Fascist movement known as the ‘Grey Shirts’ is working very .. efficiently along the same lines as Mussolini. … He is obtaining a great deal of money from manufacturers just as Mussolini did. He told {us} that he is collecting funds and equipment and that all was going well.’ (Toland’s Hitler).
The Munich Beer Hall Putsch took place in November 1923. What is often not recalled was the putsch was attempted with the WW1 military supremo, General Erich Ludendorff. Secondly, Hitler was already drawing funds from industrialists, although Ludendorff was of much higher prestige as a nationalist leader and war hero. In the latter part of the war, the country was virtually controlled by General Hindenburg and General Ludendorff. Hindenburg was chief of the General Staff, but Ludendorff, who was designated Quartermaster General, overshadowed the civil government of the time.
Who was the chancellor of Germany at this time? It was, unusually for Protestant-dominated Germany, a Bavarian Catholic. The aristocratic academic Georg von Hertling was then in his mid-seventies. He was a political philosopher, writing on law and the State, medieval thinkers, as well as metaphysics and ‘Darwinism as an epidemic’. At the start of the war, he had become Minister-president of Bavaria. He was well aware through Count Lerchenfeld, his envoy in Berlin, that the military clique had started the war.
Hertling was also a significant figure in another area. He was the politics professor of Robert Schuman who later created the European Community. Von Hertling, a Catholic, created the very influential, international academic association called the Görres Society. It published a wide range of erudite and scientific publications including the multi-volume Staatslexicon encyclopedia. Hertling wrote several articles including that on Democracy. (He remarked that democratic ideas can be active outside of the framework of a Democracy and that Americans themselves related how industrialization and the mega corporations corrupted the voting system. The Presidency could be bought for two million dollars. ‘To the victors, the booty!’)
Schuman later provided a definition of democracy that surpassed that of Lincoln’s. It was firmly based on Judeo-Christian conclusions. ‘Democracy owes its existence to Christianity.’
‘What characterizes a democratic State are the objectives it proposes and the means by which it attempts to attain them. It is at the service of the people and acts in accordance with it.’
Both the objectives and their limitation and the means to attain them have to be understood by the common good of all peoples and their consent to them. He reached the same conclusion as the French Jewish philosopher Henri Bergson: ‘Democracy is by essence evangelical because it has love as its motor.
The nationalistic Ludendorff was a promoter of the Stab in the Back theory that Germany had been defeated because left-wing politicians had betrayed it. His biographer defines him as a social Darwinist who considered war was the natural condition of mankind. War was the foundation of society. Military dictatorship was the normal form of government. He considered Judaism and Christianity a weakening force within society and worshipped pagan gods such as Wotan. All that sounds very similar to what is found in Mein Kampf.
It is ironic that when Graf von Hertling became Chancellor for the last year of war, the country was virtually in the hands of a military dictatorship.
In 1920 Ludendorff had taken part in an earlier Coup d’Etat, the Kapp Putsch against the Weimar central  government. So when Ludendorff worked with Hitler in Bavaria in the provincial south, his reputation would have been even greater.
But at the Munich trial following the failed Putsch, Ludendorff bawled out the judge as if he was speaking in the parade ground. He was freed. He dissociated himself from Hitler.
Ludendorff was not therefore in prison with Hitler, although some of his ideas may have been included in the book. Among those who were in prison there was Rudolf Hess who was Hitler’s secretary. According to historians he typed many parts of the script and made substantial revisions. Others in prison with Hitler may have made major contributions. Or they may have even ghost-written it. Who were they and how did such a mixed bag of bad ideas get published in the millions?
That we will explore next time.