21 May, 2020

Altiero Spinelli: Fake Father of Fraudent EU Federation

Spinelli, Rossi and the Ventotene Manifesto.

Spinelli as prisoner at Ventotene

In 1941, Altiero Spinelli, Eugenio Colorni and Ernesto Rossi, while imprisoned at Ventotene by Mussolini, wrote what later became known as the Ventotene Manifesto. After the War, some claimed it was the document that made Spinelli the Father of the EU Federation.
Was Spinelli really a father of a democratic, united Europe? Or did he have other plans?
Was the Ventotene Manifesto a step forward or backward?

Would Schuman applaud Spinelli?
Would Schuman have supported a Federation of Europe as described in the Ventotene Manifesto?
There is a vast difference between the Community method with its plain aim to ‘make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible’ and the federal, anti-capitalist ideas of the Ventotene Manifesto and the subsequent plans of left-wing revolutionary activist Altiero Spinelli.

Schuman as French Deputy 1946

When Spinelli was languishing in prison, Robert Schuman had escaped from his SS confinement in Germany. He decided to remain in France moving from safe place to safe place. While he was avoiding the Nazis with a 100,000 Reichsmark reward on his head, he drafted out a new constitution for France with a special article. This was later accepted by the National Assembly. It made the construction of the Council of Europe and the European Community legally possible. Similar clauses found their way into both the Italian and German postwar constitutions.
Thus a peaceful revolution that outlawed war in Europe could be brought into existence in 1953. Spinelli, on the other hand, was fomenting a revolutionary approach that would deprive people of their properties and install a political bureau that would ‘guide‘ the masses to a European federation.
While the European Community had an element of federation in it, it was limited by the sector chosen for democratic agreement and the five institutions. The High Authority – later to become the European Commission – was the sole institution that exercised federal powers.
The Community was built on the nation State and the democratic culture of those States. It did not seek to absorb States, some old and proud of their democratic history and some newly developed democracies but with their own history and contributions. It has institutions representing all aspects of interest groups to sound out and help legislate on their future.
Spinelli’s revolutionary review
Spinelli considered the Communities as inadequate and the Council of Europe irrelevant. He wanted to replace it all by a Federal Europe.
Was it a good idea?
Would Schuman have approved Spinelli’s federation?
I wrote the following in 2017 in relation to what Schuman said about fake, ill thought out schemes for European unity.
In his speech of 16 May 1949, Schuman 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.
 Schuman was a realist politician who had worked all his life on his project for peace in Europe. He was a pragmatist, not an ideologue. The 16 May 1949 speech was probably the most important speech setting out the master plan for the future of a democratic Europe where war would be eliminated and peoples could live in permanent peace.

Reading it today, the Ventotene declaration is a rambling analysis of the pre-war problems with a mixture of socialism and communism. It is not really a manifesto. It is a left-wing diatribe using dialectic materialism. The part written by Ernesto Rossi declares:
“…the European revolution must be socialist, that is, it must have as its goal the emancipation of the working classes and the realization for them of more humane living conditions.
The orientation to be chosen for the steps to take must not, however, depend solely on the purely doctrinaire principle which states that the private ownership of the material means of production must, as a general rule, be abolished, and that it can be tolerated only temporarily when there is no other choice to be made.
The general state control of the economy was the first, utopistic, form in which the working classes imagined their liberation from the yoke of capitalism. Once it was achieved, however, it did not produce the hoped for results; on the contrary, a regime came into existence in which the entire population was subject to a restricted cell of bureaucrats who ran the economy.”

It then goes on to say:
“Private property must be abolished, limited, corrected, extended: instance by instance, however, not dogmatically according to principle. This guideline is easily inserted into the forces of forming a European economic life freed from the nightmares of militarism or national bureaucracy.”
Rossi was at first a supporter of Mussolini and then grew disenchanted. Spinelli was expelled as a member of the Italian Communist party, allegedly for disowning Stalin.

Besides a few phrases like
“It will be the moment of new action, it will also be the moment of new men: the MOVEMENT FOR A FREE AND UNITED EUROPE.”
“The moment has arrived in which we must know how to discard old burdens, how to be ready for the new world that is coming, that will be so different from what we have imagined. Among the old, the inept must be put aside; and among the young, new energies are to be stimulated.” 
little is said about how a European Federation is to be formed.

How will it be governed? How do you bring together the national forces? How do you reconcile peoples who have for years been driven by hate? What of the former Nazis and Fascists? How do you bring justice to a world riven by war, slavery torture and death camps?
What is said is more disquieting. It is a revolution against ‘conservative’ forces leading to who knows what but something that does not have the agreement of the people in a referendum. The voice of the people is silent. The revolution and Europe’s future will be led by a self-appointed revolutionary elite.

“During the revolutionary crisis, it is up to this movement to organize and guide progressive forces, utilizing for its purposes all the popular organs which form spontaneously as ardent crucibles in which the revolutionary masses are melted, not for the drawing up of plebiscites, but rather waiting to be guided.
It derives the vision and security of what must be done not from a previous consecration of what is yet to be the popular conscience, but the knowledge of representing the deepest necessities of modern society. In this way it issues the initial regulations of the new order, the first social discipline directed to the unformed masses. This dictatorship by the revolutionary party will form the new state, and, surrounding this state will grow the new, genuine democracy.
There are no grounds for fearing that a similar revolutionary regime will develop into renewed despotism. This may develop if a servile society has been formed. But if the revolutionary party continues with determination from its very first action to create the conditions necessary for individual freedom, conditions under which all citizens can really participate in the life of the state, it will evolve towards increasing comprehension of the new order, even though moving through eventual and secondary political crises, and acceptance of it by the population. It will be growing, therefore, in the direction of increasing possibility of functioning, and of free political institutions.”
The document was smuggled out from the island of Ventotene by the wife of Colorni, Ursula Hirschmann, also active in anti-Fascist, left-wing politics. She is described by the European Commission as a founding European Federalist. When Colorni was killed in 1944, Spinelli married Ursula Hirschmann. She was active in promoting these ‘federal‘ ideas, especially among women. She founded the association, Women for Europe in 1975.
Spinelli and EuroCommunism
This declaration became more prominent with its use as a political instrument when Spinelli was a Member of the European Parliament. He was elected as a member of the Italian Communist Party. This was the era of EuroCommunism when the USSR wanted to undermine Europe by a softer, fluffier Communist dictatorship. They could then march through the democratic institutions and take them over ‘for the people‘. Italy was the key player. France too had a major Communist party. It succeeded in entering government. Germany was divided. Half of the country was called the People’s Democratic Republic and was under the Soviet thumb.
The USSR Communist Party paid multiple millions of dollars each year to the Italian Communists. It was often collected directly from the Soviet Embassy. This was to be used to orchestrate their electoral policy take-over of a ‘historical compromise‘ to gain power as a national government party.
Spinelli wanted to change the existing structures on a European scale. He wanted to create a federal Europe subservient to his own ideology. Spinelli’s dictatorial ‘Ventotene manifesto’ was marketed as his wartime vision for his European political programme. In reality it was just a slightly revisionist plan that would enhance Soviet control of the Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and all the countries in-between. It burst on the scene in a period of European leadership vacuum, the 1980s, when non-Communists failed to pursue the Community project’s original democratic goals.
How did he gain traction? By the 1980s Europe’s vibrant economy had hit two brakes: the autocratic and anti-Community Charles de Gaulle of France in the 1960s and the Arab Oil Embargo in the 1970s.
Spinelli came with a plan but it did not fit the facts. When Spinelli introduced his idea of a Federal Europe, he was being dishonest in his motives. He was desirous of a new high-level bureaucratic control. That would only be a further barrier to freedom and prosperity.
The Schuman Project had created unprecedented peace in Europe. That peace exposed Spinelli’s hypocrisy or his ulterior purpose. It undermined Spinelli’s alleged motive for creating a Federation: peace. Europe already had permanent peace after the first Community became active in 1953.
In normal circumstances the Community approach was a motor of prosperity. After WW2 the Community created ‘thirty glorious years‘ of growth and economic miracles. By the 1980s everyone was enjoying the longest peace known. Today Europe has had three-quarters of a century of peace, thanks to Schuman.
So Spinelli’s pursuit of a Federation was a bit of a fraud, a means to grab political power by a clutch of politicians. He wanted to give the levers of government to radical bureaucrats, unresponsive to the public’s real interests.
The European Community idea, in contrast, had minimal bureaucracy. It was active only in key sectors of the economy that could be used for war. They would come under democratic control. Progressively opening markets would allow Europeans and their companies to compete on a global scale. It would liberate a European free market allowing specialisation and expansion.
Spinelli’s Federal idea was that European politicians should create a European Super-State. A Federation is a far more difficult and complex problem. It creates many dangers if it lacks democratic control as it expands into all sectors of the economy and society.
Europe, alas, has succumbed to this path.

Schuman said his aim was not to create a federal Super-State but to build a democratic superstructure only in sectors which were necessary to prevent war between States:
  • Coal and Steel – against armament cartels exploiting governments,
  • Euratom – preventing Atomic war
  • Economic Community – preventing trade war and international cartels.
All new institutions had to pass the scrutiny of the Council of Europe and its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Spinelli and his Crocodile Club drafted a Treaty for the European Union.
(The term European Union was originally used to describe the Council of Europe system. This emphasised its vital function to defend freedom of speech, assembly and other values. So the appropriation was in itself a theft of a name and destruction of its function!) A few Gaullist ideas were added, hardly an indication of its democratic principles.
Spinelli’s idea was to
  • bypass this human rights system,
  • dismantle (‘absorb the patrimony of’) the Communities and create a federal State.
  • The voice of organised civil society would be eliminated and become an ‘organ’.
  • There were no guarantees that the Commission would be independent and impartial of major interests whether political parties or cartels.
 Once the Federation struck down the human rights guarantees, all was set for a new dictatorship of the self-appointed leaders of the proletariat.
It is surprising that this plan even got discussed in the European Parliament. It was the sort of proposal that would not seem far-removed from the Communist People’s Democracies of the Soviet bloc. When I met Spinelli in the early 1980s he was still concerned to battle capitalism, which he saw embodied in the USA.
The draft treaty failed. Both the governments and the people rejected it.
But it led to further treaties imposed on Europeans, which never passed the Council of Europe and its Human Rights conditionality.
It then led to the Constitutional Treaty, which was rejected by France and the Netherlands plus potentially half a dozen other countries who were not allowed to vote.
These articles were then imposed by political fiat as the Lisbon Treaty. Spinelli would have been pleased at the autocratic method to ‘guide the masses‘ to a federalist, undemocratic constitution.

Father of Federal Europe?
Spinelli is acclaimed by some as the federal father of the European Union. In fact his treaty project failed.
His main idea to create a federal Super-State by fiat was, however, taken up by some politicians who wanted to impose such a solution. The first revival of the Spinelli technique was the Single European Act of 1986. This was imposed on the European people without proper debate and was much opposed. (The Italian Parliament made its approval conditional. The Danish Parliament rejected it. Only 9 out of 12 Member States signed up to it in 1986. Following a court case in another State, Ireland, a referendum was required.)
The word ‘Single’ does not refer to the Single Market. (That was initiated in 1953.) It refers to a Single document that neither parliaments nor the people can change but only acquiesce to. Its aim is to give the politicians more centralised power.
Instead of fulfilling the democratic demands of the Community treaties, politicians saw centralisation as their alternative to getting Europe out of the doldrums caused by the 16-fold rise in the price of petroleum by the Arab oil cartel in 1973 and 1979.
The Ventotene Manifesto is some way responsible for the dilemma Europeans face today. The movement away from human rights and democratic control have led to Brexit of Europe’s oldest and most democratic State.

Click on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJKfuMYCk

It has led to Brussels centralism manifested in several decades of reinforcing the democratic deficit. The treaties of the Community system obliged politicians to have properly elected European Parliament based on a single statute, and properly elected Consultative Committees representing organised civil society. Politicians refused to deal with the democratic deficit. It dates even before Spinelli’s time to de Gaulle. Spinelli, who was both a Commissioner, 1970-6, and an MEP, 1976-86, did not deal with these issues, fundamental to democracy and human rights.
Summing up Spinelli
Spinelli was a partisan of
  • A Federation without proper democratic control,
  • The dissolution of the nation State,
  • Constitution for the masses imposed by a Politburo,
  • The removal of human rights control of the Council of Europe,
  • The take-over of its former title ‘the European Union’,
  • The strengthening of centralisation of Brussels political control without the democratic control of Parliament and the Consultative Committees,
  • A politically partial Commission.
  • International Communism.

He can be called the False Father of a Fraudulent Federation.

08 May, 2020

What is the most important date in European History?

What is the most important date in European History? 

Was the most important Date in European History any of the following?

Was it the end of World War 2?
The end of bloody warfare,
concentrations camps, slavery and genocide,
mass slaughter of millions, and
the Atomic Bomb?
Was it the end of World War 1?
The end of four empires German, Russian, Austria-Hungary, Turkish Ottoman.
The rise of Hitler.
Was it the Magna Carta of 1215 in Great Britain?
The Great Charter of Freedoms laid the legal basis for due process of Law,
church rights,
public freedom from autocratic powers of government,
limitation of taxes.
Was it the French Revolution or the Democratic Revolutions of 1848?

It was none of these.

None of these brought Europe its most precious gain, its attribute of most value. What s that?
All the famous dates in history did not bring that freedom from war and belligerent tyrants.

Our most important date is when

Europe began its happiest and most prosperous period in all its history. Do you know when, why and who originated it?

Be thankful you live in THE LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE and PROSPERITY in all Western EUROPE’S HISTORY.

Proclaimed Father of Europe by the European Parliament !1950 European Community & Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
resulting in

Western Europe’s FIRST three-quarters of a century of peace in all its history !

What happened on 9 May 1950?

The French Government under Prime Minister Georges Bidault agreed officially to Schuman’s Proposal for a European Community. It therefore became official Government policy and is known as the
It called on all European countries to join with it to form a European Economic Community whose main aim was to bring eternal peace to the peoples who had known war for more than 2000 years.

What is it all about?
CLICK on the links to find the answers!

What was the Purpose of the Schuman Proposal?
Did this mark the real birth of Europe?

The first declared purpose of the Schuman Declaration is PEACE
Was the first Community to be open to all Europeans in East and West?
Was the first Community offered as an experiment or designed as a solid foundation and necessary first action to transform Europe as a whole?
Why was coal and steel so important?
How would placing these industries under a supranational authority help?
What were the main principles of supranationality?
Was an aim of the Coal and Steel Community to create a single market?
Do a Common Market and a common currency figure in the proposal?
When did the French Government first propose to other European States to create European Democracy and a Customs Union?
What is the chronology of Schuman’s work on Human Rights and elimination of war in Europe?
What are the five main democratic institutions of the European Community (as distinct from the present European Union).

06 May, 2020

Trillion Euro Torpedo: Covid Censorship, Disinformation or Global Warfare?

Who do you believe?
Is the world living through a Covid crisis affecting football fans or a Global Famine?
We could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months
There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself. The World Food Programme analysis shows that, due to the Coronavirus, an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of 2020. That’s a total of 265 million people.
The World Food Programme Executive Director, David Beasley, 21 April 2020


Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel CoronaVirus identified in Wuhan, China.
World Health Organisation, Director Tadros, 14 January 2020

How do you tell information from disinformation, truth from lies?
By analysis of all information sources. A censor is someone who is authorised by a State to stop uncomfortable information from reaching the public.
What is the difference between a censor and someone stopping ‘disinformation’? A censor stops all information the authorities do not like. Someone stopping disinformation stops information that he or she defines as not acceptable. But who guards her choice?
Disinformation may originate from someone trying to help the public because official sources are wrong or inadequate.
  • Why should that be stopped rather than lead to a public debate?
The usual sources of information may be biased as they come from commercial interests, wanting to fleece the public.
  • How should that be corrected except by public debate?
They may be party political, where, for example a Marxist or revolutionary or perhaps a fascist ideology is overactive in news media organisations.
  • Shouldn’t the people with opposing views have similar access to public debate?
Disinformation may also originate from a one-party State, such as Communist China, that wants to dominate the coming century.
  • There too, information needs to be exposed, not stopped.
The real difference with censorship and stopping ill-defined or self-defined ‘disinformation’?
  • NOTHING. Both functions depend on control and ideological judgement.
The function of a journalist and the duty of a citizen is to publish information that the controllers do not want the public to know. Authoritarian States and technocratic organisations would like to make any disagreement ILLEGAL.

YouTube CEO Wojcicki “Remove information”

Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”
Censorship? Can journalists correct government spin and disinformation (only some States are under democratic control).Who can oppose global commercial cartels, bigger than States? Can journalists correct international organisations with global power and little public control?
Only if they can publish and circulate diverse view points and unwelcome facts.
Take the case of WHO, the World Health Organisation. It gives out contradictory opinions. Must the public and the press follow this in lock-step.
* First yes sir, no threat.
* Then yes sir, just follow China’s lead about how to deal with the global pandemic threat you are in.
In mid-January it advised the world that CoranaVirus was not contagious! It was, it seems, following instructions from the Chinese Communist Party who were trying to cover up the chaos in Wuhan while letting the virus be spread worldwide. Why were no proper checks made?
The virus had already spread to France and USA in December. It is therefore likely that the Chinese knew about the contagion in November, perhaps earlier.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there was ‘an enormous amount of evidence‘ that the virus came from the Wuhan Level 4, Biological Warfare/Defence laboratory. It is known to be leaky from previous virulent epidemics like SARS. The best experts say the virus was man-made.
Several months later the world is in lock-down or rather a lock up or ‘stickum-up’.

Trump: “Who would believe that!”

The West economies are cut to ribbons. And China? China released statistics showing that very few people died in China.
“Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”
What does the European Commission say about ‘censorship’?
YouTube is banning any discussion which criticises the WHO (World Health Organisation). They have taken down other YouTube videos which are very relevant on the statistics of Covid problems in various countries. And so the whole discussion on the economics and politics of the Covid problem are being curtailed by YourTube and other large international InfoTech companies. They are taking down important information. Has the Commission reacted to this policy?
Commission Spokesman Response
I am not aware of any information that would substantiate the comments that you are making on this issue. We would need more precise information from you to ascertain that this is really happening in order to assess it.
DP, EurDemocracy
The Chief Executive Officer of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, made this public announcement.

“Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”
Commission Spokesman
We are not aware of that statement. We will come back to you if we have a comment on this.

My Email from eurDemocracy to Commission
re: My question today at the midday press conference.
At around 5 minutes
This is the interview with Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, on CNN and comments by Fox analyst Tucker Carlson. YouTube is the largest video hosting site in the world.
In it she says that anything that disagrees with WHO policy will be taken down. (WHO has had contradictory policies and has been shown to be unreliable and biased leading to corruption.) Are journalists supposed to follow its pronouncements or be banned?
She also says that anything her company disagrees with will also be taken down. Who guards the guardians?
The company has also taken down video of press conferences by doctors with millions of views reporting on serious problems with official positions on
  • vaccines
  • therapeutics
  • false post mortem designations and
  • other matters having implications for the work and mental health of the public.
This information censorship has massive implications about how to resolve Europe’s political, social and economic policy problems about Covid-19, its origin and dispersion, here and elsewhere. Trillions of euros are involved. Fundamental freedoms are being denied. The effects of the pandemic have unforeseen consequences. This is no time for censorship.
A number of international disputes and court cases are under way so a diffusion of accurate information to the public is vital.
Q: What is the Commission’s reaction to the misuse of dominant position of this infoTech company and its effects on the EU?
Reply from Commission Spokesman
Thank you for following up and for providing clarifications to your Midday question in writing.

We are aware of the statements by Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki – from several weeks ago – saying that the platform was focused on “raising authoritative information” and removing information that is false and “medically unsubstantiated.” We have no comment to make on her comments directly. We would however suggest not to confuse the fight against disinformation with “censorship”.
As I had the occasion to express also from the podium recently, we are aware of an increasing number of false information about the coronavirus outbreak appearing in public discourse. We are concerned that some of them can lead to public harm. In this context, we are in contact with online platforms.
The Commission is meeting regularly with online platforms, including Google / Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Mozilla and trade association EDiMA to discuss the spread of disinformation around the outbreak of coronavirus. All these platforms are signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation.
To help fight disinformation, the EU is working in close cooperation with these platforms. We are encouraging them to promote authoritative sources, such as public health authorities or the World Health Organisation, and demote content that is fact-checked as false or misleading, and take down illegal content or content that could cause physical harm.
During her last meeting with the platforms, Vice President Věra Jourová urged the companies to share relevant data with the research and fact-checking community, as well as to work together with authorities in all Member States and the Commission to fully enforce their new policies and offer more evidence that their measures are working. The Commission will continue to monitor actions taken by the platforms.
You may have also seen today the reaction of the Commission on the intermediary report of the European Regulators Group of Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) regarding the effectiveness of the Code of Practice on disinformation, that is the framework of cooperation with these platforms. It will feed in the reflection for upcoming actions, such as the Digital Services Act and the European Democracy Action plan.
(my emphasis)
Schuman’s open information policy
Robert Schuman the architect of the European Community, implemented a fair and open, democratic system for the European Community’s information policy. Schuman was asked by the United Nations Secretary General to advise them on how to do the same for their organisation. I passed on a copy of his report to the then European Commissioner for Information, vice president Margot Wallstrom.
Both the EU and the UN seem to have buried it. The EU in general, and the European Commission, ‘the Guardian of the Treaties’, have seemingly forgotten that this year 9 May should celebrate the longest period of peace, 75 years, initiated by the Schuman Declaration, seventy years ago.
Fake News and Fraudulent Information is now rampant in Europe and USA. The European Union is projected to lose more than 7 1/2 percent of its economy in the Covid crisis.
Q: Is this economic torpedo due to Fake News, Fraud, student errors in the Wuhan Virology Institute laboratory or economic warfare? If the latter who are the willing or unconscious troops?