Nobel3: EU Council's brazen Nobel Expo Fraud: General de Gaulle originated Europe's peace!!

At the December European Summit, the political leaders announced an exhibition with a brazen propaganda falsification about Peace in Europe. It contradicts what the Nobel Foundation said that the EU and its forerunners had brought ‘more than six decades of peace‘.

That apparently was a great shock for Europe’s leaders! On 10 December 2012 the Nobel Peace Prize  was awarded to  the EU and received in Oslo by Mr Herman van Rompuy of the European Council, Mr Barroso of the European Commission and Mr Schulz of the European Parliament.
All of them had simply ignored or rewritten their history. It was too dangerously democratic!

• The European Commission did not celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of its first meeting on 10 August 2012.
• On 11 September 2012 the European Parliament did not celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of its first assembly under the presidency of Paul-Henri Spaak. It did not get any mention even though the EP was in session in Strasbourg. Mr Barroso gave his State of the Union speech. He passed over that event in silence and that Spaak created a special assembly to form a European Political Community, exactly 60 years before. (It was sabotaged by Gaullists.) Mr Barroso announced the logically impossible goal of a Federation of Nation States. Meanwhile in the Paul-Henri Spaak building in Brussels, cracks in the ceiling of the parliamentary hemicycle put it out of action for more than a year.
• The Council of Ministers did not celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of its first meeting on 8 September 2012.The Council initially met on 18 April 1951 at the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the Great Charter. Both required all future developments of this supranational Community to be based by the ‘free will of the people.’ De Gaulle buried this Charter. Who knows about it today?

The official website of the Council still falsely announces that the European Union began in 1958 — the date of the seizure of power of General de Gaulle. How is it that the Schuman Proposal was made on 9 May 1950 and brought about a democratic system with five independent institutions? How long will the Council try to out-Goebbels the Nazi propaganda chief by repeating lies?

Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjørn Jagland said peace in Europe was built by means of :

‘a binding commitment. It had to build on human rights, democracy, and enforceable principles of the rule of law. And on economic cooperation aimed at making the countries equal partners in the European marketplace. By these means the countries would be bound together so as to make new wars impossible. The Coal and Steel Community of 1951 marked the start of a process of reconciliation which has continued right to the present day.’ He was referring to supranational values like honesty, anti-corruption measures, openness, public debate about tax and budget and truth.

Released at the European Summit, the Council’s official brochure for the Nobel Peace Prize celebration is a gross perversion of history and truth. It distorts how Europe’s peace suddenly happened — when everyone expected continuous war for the future. The brochure announces the exhibition ‘The European Union working for peace‘ that opens on 18 December to 15 February.

Who made peace in Europe possible?
General Charles de Gaulle !!! His photo dominates the brochure. De Gaulle???

• Yes , the same French autocratic General who wanted Spain’s autocrat Generalissimo Franco to join the Common Market and excluded democratic Norway, Ireland, Denmark and the UK! It also excluded Cyprus and Malta who had applied.
• Yes, General de Gaulle who blackmailed by the ‘Empty Chair policy‘ the other Member States to accept a Common Agricultural Policy where European secretly subsidized French farmers above all. The Council shut its doors firmly closed to the taxpayers. It created the present unacceptable ‘package deals’ system of the Lisbon Treaty were the European citizen is milked without any democratic right to refuse.
• Yes, de Gaulle who refused in 1959 the European Parliament’s demand (and Robert Schuman’s as its President) to end to the Parliament’s odyssey and have a single seat for Europe’s institutions in Brussels.
• Yes, de Gaulle who hegemonicly tried to seize the levers of power through the 1961-2 Fouchet Plan. His French policy was to dominate all the other countries as the only A-Bomb power and UN Security Council member. Schuman wanted equality of Member States. (Paul-Henri Spaak denounced the plan, declaring that ‘Europe of tomorrow must be a supranational (democratic) Europe.’)
• Yes, de Gaulle who after his outrageous attacks on Community Europe had a mass resignation of Europhile, democratic ministers in 1962. In reaction de Gaulle formed the Franco-German axis with the 1963 Treaty of Elysee, to the protest of the Europeans including Jean Monnet and Walter Hallstein and numerous other Franco-German deputies. They insisted on an anti-Gaullist preamble. Two months later on 29 March 1963 the European Parliament reaffirmed its attachment to ‘A supranational and democratic  Community based on the equality of rights of the Member States provided with its own institutions independent of the governments.’

Of all the leaders of Europe, the real Founding Fathers, the Council chose a photo of de Gaulle, who opposed the Founding Fathers like Poher, Rochefort, Mollet, Pleven, Monnet, Spaak, Bech, Luns, van Zeeland and so on. Adenauer opposed de Gaulle at first and all his anti-European and anti-Nato policies but eventually submitted to his wily politics because he wanted to tie BRD Germany to the West and avoid the reunification with the Soviet-dominated DDR. However de Gaulle wanted to create a DDR-style Gaullist Politburo in the Council of Ministers to dominate West Europe. We have it still today.

De Gaulle is shown shaking hands with Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in January 1963. No other names are mentioned. So the Great French Autocrat must be responsible for making ‘war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘. Is the Council now openly declaring it is the Bastion of Gaullism? Who wrote this nonsense? Obviously not a 68-ter with a functioning memory who was involved in the anarchic riots in France that nearly brought the country to total impotence at de Gaulle’s autocratic, paternalistic ways. Paternalism or autocracy treats all other citizens as children. De Gaulle tried to bring the same anarchy to Europe so that he could divide and rule.

Supranational means that politicians should be honest and that the people should be free to choose as defined in Europe’s Founding Charter. Thanks to the Gaullists in the French Foreign Ministry this European Charter was buried and lost in the archives for sixty years.

Why is de Gaulle singled out in the Council’s extraordinary affront to history? Few people as much as Charles de Gaulle opposed the Community system that brought peace in Europe — the supranational Community system. Here’s what de Gaulle told Alain Peyrefitte, his confident and Minister of Information, about his secrets aimed at destroying the European Community.
In July 1960 — after the signature of the Treaties of Rome in 1957 — General de Gaulle told Peyrefitte:

‘Alfred Fabre Luce has just written that now that the French have shown the proof over the last two centuries that they have been incapable of governing themselves, supranational integration is going to allow the Germans to teach them organisation and discipline. All that is monstrous! Monstrous!’

When he conducted Peyrefitte to the door, General de Gaulle asked him to write a policy paper on the practical means to stifle supranationality. He explained that his policy so far to emphasize nationalism through the Pan-Europe movement (emphasizing a utopian Federation of Nations) was not succeeding. He needed greater means to activate and feed the major newspapers with more powerful anti-Community (that is anti-democratic) propaganda.

Peyrefritte  said: ‘It entails precisely creating situations where we can only get out of them by raising the dose of supranationality‘ (that is improving democracy at a European level).
De Gaulle replied: ‘That’s what we don’t want! That won’t do. That would be gross stupidity. Of the two treaties of Rome, I do not know which of them is the most dangerous! The Treaty on Euratom is worse that useless. — It is pernicious. I ask myself if we should not denounce it openly. And then there is the Common Market. It is a customs union, which can help us, provided that we realize a common agricultural policy, which is not instituted there, and several other common policies, which are not even mentioned.

Thus Europe got one of its great scandals of intergovernmental corruption: the Wine Lakes,  Meat Mountains, and the useless infrastructure projects  that were paid for by the European taxpayer to help de Gaulle garner in French voters to his party. No wonder the Greeks and others were so keen to join the same corrupt deals.

De Gaulle continued: ‘But the Common Market also includes (democratic) pretensions, that they call ‘supranational potentialities‘ (European democracy) which are not acceptable for us. ‘Supranationality that’s absurd! Nothing is above the nations, how then can nations decide together! The pretensions of the Commissioners of Brussels who want to give orders to the governments are ridiculous! Ridiculous!‘

De Gaulle thus showed himself to be a man of vision — a vision of returning to the nineteenth century of national conflict, the unstable ‘balance of power’ politics trying to crush opposing powers and resulting inevitably in bloody warfare. He wanted to put a stranglehold on Western Germany against what he called the Anglo-Saxons and the Soviet Union. He was willing to compromise European defence by kicking NATO headquarters out of France (that Schuman had arranged) and sabotaging the 1952 European Defence Community and the Council of Europe and its Human Rights system. For all these postwar achievements, Europeans owe a great deal to Robert Schuman.

Peyrefitte suggested that they make the supranational democracy inoperable in the two treaties of Rome but also attack the Treaty of Paris of the Coal and Steel Community — which had an even stronger dose of supranationality.

The Coal and Steel Community aimed at creating a strong, competitive energy and steel industry was eventually dropped after 50 years of service. Today we see Europe’s steel industry in catastrophic decline and the whole continent blackmailed by energy cartels with a vicious ulterior foreign policy motive. In those days oil was sold for around a dollar a barrel. Today it is priced at anything from 100 to 147 dollars!Today Europeans are calling again for Coal and Steel Community institutions to save industries from oblivion!

What a man of vision de Gaulle was!

Peyrefitte prepared a policy for de Gaulle about the practical means to stifle supranationality. His policies were pursued by de Gaulle including the Fouchet Plan to turn the European Commission into a Gaullist secretariat.

Unfortunately for de Gaulle and Peyrefitte, due to a clerical error, one of his texts was released to pro-European members of the Liberal faction in the European Parliament. A scandal broke out.
When Georges Pompidou presented his first Gaullist government to the French National Assembly he was met with stiff opposition. This is how Jean Legendre, deputy from Compiegne, hammered the policy to delight of all the deputies except the Gaullist UNR party. He said:

‘Mr Prime Minister we don’t know your ideas but we know those of Alain Peyrefitte who kindly sent us a note two years ago. In this he explained how the policy was to ‘deactivate the federal potentialities of the treaties of Rome‘ and to ‘chloroform Euratom‘. Well let me tell you, these ideas are exactly contrary to ours! We want to activate the federal potentialities of the treaty of Rome! We want supranationality! We want the United States of Europe! We will fight you if you try to damage it in any way!’

Peyrefitte said the UNR were in consternation as all the other benches gave this speech thunderous applause.

So it is with some public incredulity that the European Council and Council of Ministers dared to impose the history that illegitimately brought them massive corruption against the citizens of Europe. The financial crisis has brought Europe to the chasm of ruin today. The politicians need to learn supranational values like openness and honesty. The Council and the European Council should be open for all to see what goes on and the Commission should be composed of honest men and women who refuse to have any membership of political parties as the treaties insist. Instead, intoxicated still with Gaullist techniques over the years, the Council can not even discern the lies it has been spouting from the truth it has to present as real history.

‘For over six decades,’ says the brochure, ‘the European Union and its forerunners have contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe and beyond.’ Who and what were the forerunners? No idea!

According to the brochure, wars suddenly stopped because they kept recurring and World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe’ !

Apparently all  it took was for General de Gaulle shake hands with Konrad Adenauer!
The Council has lost all credibility. This is an additional reason why the Nobel Prize should not have been awarded to an organization that denies its own history. They are as short-sighted as they are corrupters of facts and tax.

And where does the exhibition on peace take place? On a corner between the Council and the Commission buildings on the Robert Schuman Roundabout!!

Nobel2: Why the EU should not be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Was the Nobel Prize Foundation wrong to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union? Yes. The prize should have gone long ago to the European Community and Robert Schuman. On 9 May 1950 he presented the idea and convinced the French government to initiate the Great Experiment in Peace. The EU has distorted the supranational democratic principles of the European Community that brought peace. It changed it into intergovernmentalism.

IF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HAD NOT BEEN CREATED EUROPE WOULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN AGAIN BY AT LEAST ONE WAR, MAYBE TWO!!! The Community made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible. The US Marshall Plan that gave generous aid to Europe did not do that. Instead US diplomats worried when it was coming to an end that this reconstruction aid was helping start the industrialization that would bring another war. NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was signed on 4 April 1949. Its key article was largely fashioned by Robert Schuman. Yet NATO did not bring peace to Europe. Schuman made that clear. After NATO was formed US|diplomats still foresaw war in Europe as inevitable.

Before the Schuman Proposal creating the European Community, the outlook for Europe was WAR.  Perpetual war every generation, not perpetual peace, was the near unanimous voice of the most experienced diplomats and think tank analysts. They foresaw that the European Continent would remain a battlefield for the future.

Economic reconstruction does not bring peace. The Marshall Plan  did not change the attitudes of hatred and the desire for revenge. It did not bring peace. It merely rebuilt national industries, many of them at the origin  of national economic rivalries. Tariffs were built up to prevent the entry of goods from neighbouring European countries. They preferred to trade with USA. These imports provoked a major shortage of dollars. The reconstructed industries merely provided the means for each country to build up their war industries. That is not surprising as it may seem today. European countries had been doing just that for centuries: recovering from war, waging war or preparing for next war.

Industrial power merely reinforced economic nationalism and divisive ideologies. EUROPEANS HAD GONE TO WAR EVERY GENERATION SINCE BEFORE THE TIME OF THE ROMANS.
The Americans in early 1950 admitted that they could do NOTHING to prevent Europe becoming a war zone again and again.

Look at this extract from the US-based Foreign Policy Association report on Europe and the United States. It was written and finalized March 1950 by Vera Micheles Dean, research director, FPA. She made an extensive tour of Europe speaking with government ministers and lecturing on US foreign policy around Europe.

“We realize … that the United States, no matter how generously inclined, cannot under the most favorable political circumstances re-establish the economy of the continent on the foundations of 1914 or even of 1939. Some of these foundations, as already noted, have vanished beyond salvaging; others are perhaps not a total loss, such as the resources of colonies of southeast Asia, but their intrinsic value is greatly diminished, and their future contribution to the continent’s economy remains in doubt.

“No power on earth can remedy Europe’s impoverishment as a result of two world wars. The only remedy one can recommend for the future would be the avoidance of conflicts so costly in terms of human values and material wealth. Whatever we do, Europe will sooner or later have to adjust itself to a radically altered world economic situation and face the fact that the singularly favorable position it enjoyed during the five centuries following the discovery of the Indies and the of the New World and the conquest of the colonies in Asia and Africa is now drawing to a close. While the Russians and the Communists have capitalized on the predicament of western Europe, they did not bring it about.”

She further observed that teenage Germans are ‘strongly imbued with Nazi ideas and, at best, apathetic towards democracy, which for them is associated with the rule of conquering western nations.’

The same conclusion was reached by the annual conference of US ambassadors in Europe in 1949. They considered European solutions as ‘pipe dreams’ and their ‘golden goose’ of the Marshall Plan was being sacrificed to various forms of nationalism. They were keenly aware of Soviet designs on Germany especially the industrial Ruhr.

This is the conclusion of General Lucius Clay, US Military Governor of Germany in March 1949.
“I repeat what I said in a cable a few days ago. We have lost Germany politically and therefore it really does not matter except that history will prove why there was World War III. No gesture can we make to draw Germany westward so why do we spend money on Germany. Thank God I will be out of it soon … “   (Papers of General Lucius Clay, vol 2, p1063.)
Emphasis added.

The Supranational Community, the centre of the 9 May 1950 Proposal of Robert Schuman changed the whole future of Europe. It created a new destiny. Today the EU has the largest GDP at 17.5 trillion dollars, equivalent to USA plus Canada plus India.
Today Europe is living in the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE in more than TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

The supranational system provides a means to turn States on the brink of war into a prosperous and thriving Community.
The present EU has abandoned much of the democratic principles of the Community. As proof can be cited the fact that nowhere else in the world have European leaders succeeded in creating a system that ‘makes war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘ Do they know how it happened in Europe? Since the time of de Gaulle and his secret intergovernmental ‘package deals‘, Europeans have reneged on promises of European democracy. Instead they created a so-called ‘European Union’ that reduces the Community idea and places power in a closed-door European Council.

• The EU has not even established Europe-wide parliamentary elections under a single statute that was required in the treaty sixty years ago!
• It has not agreed to elections to the Consultative Committees like the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. These are still the national playthings of the governments in Council, not European bodies. They should represent Europe-wide associations of enterprises, workers and consumers according to the original agreements with goverments.
• The European Council makes its deals behind closed doors — just like the DDR writ large. The DDR, the German Democratic Republic was a psuedo-democracy, run as a puppet by the German Communist party and the Sovi8et Union.
• The politicians of the EU have hidden for sixty years the great Charter of the Community that says the Community should be developed on supranational principles and that no decision should be made without the full-hearted agreement of the people.
• Instead governments and eurocrats shamelessly ignore referendums that say the people do not agree with the fraudulent treaties such as the Constitutional and Lisbon treaties.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize and the burgeoning financial crises of the intergovernmental method are a clarion call for all Europeans to reassess Plan D for Democracy.

Euratom2: Alfred Nobel, the Peace Prize and Robert Schuman

The awarding today of the Nobel Prize for Peace is a great recognition of the most prominent peace-making system the world has seen. Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its more than 2000 years of history.

It is also ironic. The Nobel Prize Committee recognized the six decades of peace that should be celebrated this year as the European institutions began their work in 1952.

But WHY did none of the European institutions themselves celebrated the 60 years and the 60th Anniversary!!

The European Commission did not celebrate the sixty years of its entering in function in August 1952.

The Council did not recognize or celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of its first session after the signature of the Europe’s first treaty coming into force. Nor did it celebrate the signature of the European Community Treaty of 18 April 1951!

The European Parliament did not celebrate the first session of the democratic Assembly of the European Community under the presidency of Paul-Henri Spaak.

Secondly, Why has the EU not fully developed the EURATOM Community — the means to create a powerful non-proliferation instrument that would prevent nuclear bomb technology turning the world into flames. Robert Schuman whose Proposal created the European Community the core of the present EU, said in 1949 that he was inspired by some aspect of the Nobel Dynamite trust to make sure that such powerful materials should not be misused. Explosive materials such as dynamite owed its existence to coal tar chemistry. These explosives were far more powerful than gunpowder used up to the beginning of the First World War.

Schuman's first Community, the European Coal and Steel Community created Europe's FIRST SINGLE MARKET in coal and steel products. This made the secret production of weapons of war 'not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. He provided the most democratic means to run the Community, but this requires that the politicians properly apply the treaties. For example the politicians still need to agree on having fair elections.

Let us hope that the European institutions will now begin to examine their past histories and reverse the disastrous political decisions that reject Community principles.

Eretz3: Northern Ireland, Jihad and my unpublished Reply to a "Palestinian diplomat"

Today Queen Elizabeth sealed the Irish peace process with a handshake and a private talk with Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. He was the former chief of the IRA, responsible for mayhem and the murder of Earl Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin. This peace was acknowledged by the Irish Nobel Peace Prize winners as owing a great deal to European reconciliation, supranational law and the recognition of Human Rights. Much more can yet be done with properly functioning European institutions.

In contrast to the Irish peace process, the 'Peace Process' of the Israel government and Arab States has been going nowhere for two decades. There are little indications other than that the 'Palestinian' side will always refuse any offers Israel makes for peace. Its media encourage children to become suicide-bomb fodder, they name squares after bombers and the celebrate vicious killers who blow up innocent people on buses. Meanwhile 'president' Mahmoud Abbas remains unelected. Although the multi-millionaire is rather 'poorer' than billionaire, terrorist Yasser Arafat, he has not had the charity to condemn the 1972 Munich killing of Israeli athletes for which he was partly responsible. Nor has he withdrawn the circulation of his doctorate on Holocaust denial.

Has the EU nothing to say to Arab forces about this? How about: GET REAL! OR THE WORLD WILL END IN FLAMES!

Below I give my reply made last week to a blog published by the 'Blogactiv team'. I was surprised that the Euractiv organisation had prepared an article full of elementary factual and historical mistakes. It is called The Palestinians and the “Piece” of the Process.
I replied only later to find out later it was written by Fadi Elhusseini, described as 'a Diplomat at the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Turkey, responsible for Political and media affairs.' That was a shock. I didn't know there was such a thing as the State of Palestine. Palestine is the land of the Philistines, a nation that is long extinct. Fraud is no basis for democracy or world peace.

My comment is still 'awaiting moderation'. As this may take a long time yet, I am publishing my response here.

You’re right the whole peace process is a fraud. It was foisted on Israel by the West because Saudi Arabia wanted it. The West needs oil. Arafat called it the Two Stage solution to destroy Israel. I didn’t see in this article a reference to the 13,000 rockets (around 360 500 this year) from Gaza, Sinai, that have been launched at Israeli cities in this period of the ‘Saudi Plan’. Why? If a European country was subject to such a barrage and children lived in terror in any European democratic country wouldn’t this be covered in the news? I do not see why Jews cannot build garages, extend housing or build homes in a country that was deeded to the Jews by international law in 1922 at San Remo, was recognized by all member States of the League of Nations and was then re-affirmed in the Statutes of the United Nations. After WW1 with the defeat of the Ottoman empire, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab nations were founded by the same laws. What is most objectionable is Jew-free policies funded by the EU.

I do not see anything here about the huge problem of illegal Arab settlements (building without permission) in Judea and Samaria. Why? See:
http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/23/eretz2-how-to-tell-a-fraud-call-your-nation-palestine/ Why has the EU not dealt with race-hate in subsidized text books and TV for kids that encourages them to become suicide bombers?
Europeans should be applying European principles of justice to the dispute not encouraging Nazi-like policies of ‘Jew-free’ territories, exclusive enactment of the most extreme Sharia law that excludes Christians and Jews, and extols terrorism and race hate and religious exclusivism see: http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/05/03/jihad4-eu-must-reverse-its-nazi-like-support-for-holocaust-denial-jew-hatred-and-jihadi-terrorism/

What is called the West Bank and was called Judea and Samaria in the original UN documents was illegally occupied in 1948 by Jordan and other armies. It does not belong to Jordan nor to other Arab States including far-way Saudis. Jews were also called Palestinians before 1948 because this anti-Semitic term ‘Palestine’ was invented by the Romans to describe the land of Israel. To call the PNO/PLO Palestinians is a fraud see http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/13/eretz1-the-declaration-of-a-second-palestine-is-declaration-of-war/ When will Europe cease fooling itself for oil? http://www.schuman.info/diplomacy1.htm

While that response is still awaiting acknowledgement and publishing with the article, I might add the following additional factual corrections for the attention of the European External Action Service and European democrats.

1. It is not just a 60-year conflict. That only dates back to the time when six Arab armies ILLEGALLY invaded the Mandate territory, defying the laws, and resolutions of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

2. Long before 1948, peaceful Jewish residents were killed and massacred by mobs led by ideologues. During most of the time of the British Mandate Jews were targeted and the British reacted inadequately. In 1929 59 people were killed in Hebron, a city that was the home of Jews and Israelites for nearly 4000 years.

3. The idea of Palestinian nationhood, that is, an identifiable Arab people is a fiction, invented by the Egyptian dictator Abdul Nasser. He hired Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian-born militant to become the third leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Syrian dictator Assad would not speak to Arafat because he was convinced by Arafat's Egyptian accent that he was just an Egyptian agent planted to cause trouble. At that time the so-called West Bank was occupied illegally by Jordanians! What liberation?? At no time in the last 2000 years has there ever been any entity called a Palestinian State. There is no Palestinian culture which is any different from a Syrian or an Egyptian culture because most of the so-called 'Palestinians' came from Egypt or Syria to work in the Jewish Mandate territory.

4. Just before getting the Nobel Prize, Arafat said in Stockholm to Fatah supporters that 'We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.' He added 'We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs.' That is the same policy today as articulated in Arabic by a female Fatah official.

5. The idea of Palestinian State is to destroy the Jews and then the West. In Arabic on Al-Hekma TV on 23 March 2012, Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hamad angrily shouted out the truth to his Egyptian brothers. He said that "Palestinians" originate from other parts of the Middle East. 'Palestinian nationhood' is a total fraud. 'Palestinians' do not come from 'Palestine'!!

According to Gazan minister Hammad. 'Every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties.'

"Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis," he exclaimed. "Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aksa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad."

6. With the Muslim Brotherhood holding the presidency in Egypt and Hamas the militant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Europe and the Mediterranean is in increasing danger. One aide of the new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Safwat Hajari, told roaring crowds that he wanted to make Jerusalem the capital of Egypt!

WHEN WILL EUROPE SAY 'NO MORE' AND EXPOSE LYING PROPAGANDA?

REAL PEACE HAS FLOURISHED IN EUROPE AFTER MORE THAN 2000 YEARS OF WAR.

PEACE HAS BLOSSOMED IN IRELAND AFTER CENTURIES OF SECTARIAN STRIFE.

WHEN WILL EUROPE'S LEADERS SOUND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT REAL PEACE IN A WORLD OF LIES?

Research1 FP8. Is the EU too proud, too atheistic, to scientifically research its origin and Europe's future?

What is the scientific topic that is of most vital interest to the entirety of European research? What is the European scientific discovery that countries around the world look for with green envy and wish they had it?

It is a scientific achievement that has the world gazing in open-mouthed wonder.

Clue: it is the topic that the present European leaders refuse to fund as part of the Framework programme for research. Not only in the present programme, but I know of no funded research in any of the multibillion euros programmes in the past.

That intellectual question, of course, is:

How did Europe create a system that brought PEACE to the warring, bloody states of Europe? After exporting its quarrels and creating two world wars, how is it that today Europe is now living in the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE IN 2000 years? Why are there continuous wars and violence, authoritarianism and misery to the north, south and east of the European Union? How did the European Community become a prosperous ZONE of PEACE?


Robert Schuman called it Europe's great SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. The Framework Programme for research, however, has become an iron box constraining all research into the materialistic scientism of our deformed educational system and the economic egotism of politicians. Politicians want to set the goals of research -- and in the 2020 and 2030 programmes they want no more talk of democracy! They have other goals wrong too, by any impartial analysis. Research by its very nature should be open to new ideas. The European Union, if driven by these false motives and fed by billions of taxpayers' money, is directed to goals away from the noblest achievement of European history.

Why? Because both the atheistic educational system and the vanity of politicians is scared of addressing the miracle of our times.

How did nations and peoples who for 2000 or more years have for every generation killed and conquered each other, how did these warlike people suddenly embark on PEACE?

Robert Schuman attributes it to two factors: a scientific study of the history of humankind in various sectors and the revelation of Christianity. It is the latter -- or rather the combination of science and religion that that sends the politicians and the scientists into a tizzy.

Their reaction is irrational, emotional and unscientific. Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of modern times, acknowledged as such by Einstein and others, spent more of his time studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew than he did on the experiments and theories of gravitation, optics and the creation of mathematical tools like calculus. Why? Because by studying the Bible he drew inspiration for solving the deepest mysteries of the physical world. His motives were not scientific discovery alone but the quest of personal truth and understanding his place in the Creator's universe.

The same is true for Michael Faraday, the chemist and great experimenter of physics who discovered electromagnetism and its invisible fields. Without his work on electric motors and dynamos, modern society could not function. The theoretician of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell, also drew his inspiration from the Bible and his belief and faith in his Creator.

These men made great discoveries. Their faith taught them humility and they often refused honours and decorations. Humility and the search for truth is necessary in establishing scientific facts from myths and errors.

They described physical processes that had escaped the wisest men of antiquity. Our universities teach Aristotle, Plato and many other ancient pagan philosophers. They were undoubtedly smart, perhaps they were even cleverer than any of the present generation. Yet they never discovered the physics of gravity or were able to apply the principles of electromagnetism. Without a spiritual revelation the material characteristics of the physical world around them remained a mystery.

In our times a great mystery has been revealed. Yet when it comes to the miracle of our times -- the means to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible -- the EU is silent and dumb. It wants its research to pursue dumb projects that have nothing to do with Man's purpose on this planet. Where did Schuman gain his insights? Is it a coincidence that he also studied the Bible on a daily basis? Is it not worth scientific study that if the greatest innovators and scientists of our age say they drew their inspiration from the Bible, then we should study whether this is coincidence or divine revelation? To dismiss the remarkable 'coincidence' is a sign of prejudice not science. It is a manifestation of the pervading religion of our times -- arrogant, materialistic scientism with its own atheistic dogmas and ideologies.

What did Schuman say about the philosophers he had studied at universities and which he continued to read in the original Latin and Greek? 'The Book of Proverbs in the Bible is richer in sense than all the vast tomes of philosophy.' Was it practical? Was it useful for a statesman and Prime Minister who had steered France through its greatest external post-war threats (Soviet expansion, an attempted Communist coup d'Etat and the resurgent German problem), resolved its financial crises (massive inflation combined with enormous deficits), and set the foundation for a new age of peace in Europe? 'My long experience allows me to confirm how correct it is,' he told his colleague Rene Lejeune.

If this phenomenon is thus proven, if the results are confirmed by the greatest scientists, including Schuman, shouldn't Biblical philosophy be studied? Shouldn't it be part of the European research programme?

Woaah! That would shock the advisers and experts of the FP8! Why? Because the scientific research programme of the EU is not scientific. There are No Go areas. Set by whom? An anti-religious minority. The entire programme it would seem is in the control of atheists or sympathizers who do not call them out, who ban any research into the study of any philosophy that is not atheistic or comes from pagan Greek philosophers. These experts apparently are cleverer than Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein and Schuman combined!

Pagans? OK! Christianity? You will get NO money, only ribald laughter. Jewish philosophy and the Hebrew Bible? Huh. Do not even ask the question! Yet there are proportionally more Jewish Nobel prize winners than any other race or religion.

Why does the EU exclude what it despisingly calls the 'religious' that is non-pagan philosophy from the techniques and requirements for scientific discovery? Prejudice. Totally unscientific. One in five of the around 800 Nobel Prize winners have Jewish blood. Yet Jews amount to only one in 500 of the world's population. They make a extraordinarily disproportionate, rich and varied contribution to the scientific culture of the planet.

They come from all countries of the world. Babies start with zero education. Surely there must be something in the Book and culture that the Jews have preserved in all these environments for three or four thousand years. Even in the USA, those of Jewish origin gain 27 percent of the Nobel prizes, (3 % of the population) Protestant origin 72 percent and Roman Catholic 1 percent (with a quarter of the population). Einstein had a passionate zeal for ancient Jewish Solomonic philosophy in his youth and interestingly his theory of relativity draws on concepts of time and space long exposed in ancient Jewish writings.

With the EU's outdated, false ideas of the war of science and religion, it is no wonder that Europe's research is entering an impasse of its own making, and that of its unenlightened political leaders.

The Research and Innovation Directorate General of the Commission is requesting opinions on their latest Framework Programme and a Green Paper. Here are the replies of the Schuman Project.

Consultation on the Green Paper –

"Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding"

The name of my organisation is Schuman Project on the origin, purpose and future of the supranational European Community system and Robert Schuman's thought and action

 

Have you or your organisation received funding in the last three years from EU FP7, CIP or other EU programmes? ... None of the above

 

Have you or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation ... Don't know

 

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

 

1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification?   The European Commission's 2020 paper and the 2030 report have major flaws which are outlined in commentaries at http://www.schuman.info/2020-1.htm and /2020-2.htm plus /2030.htm dealing with the Gonzalez Report. These analyze the inadequacies of the Commission's position in relation to (1) democracy in a supranational Community of Europe (2) Energy security and the need for an Energy Community based on supranational democratic lines outlined by Robert Schuman and others in the past plus the need to set energy independence as a strategic goal. The criticism of the Gonzalez Report deals with (a) the lack of research in Security and Defence and in particular how the European Community system developed a security Community that 'made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. Those are the words of the Schuman Proposal of 9 May 1950. Schuman said his proposal was like 'a scientific experiment'. He had proved the theory and applied it. The result? Western Europe now has the longest period of peace in 2000+ years while neighbouring States still go to war. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu (b) the Energy problem and supply blackmail (c) democracy (d) the financial crisis and supranational solutions. The major question for the Commission is whether it wishes to get involved in the supranational question since it has avoided this research over the last decades. This is bizarre as the supranational system has produced the most beneficial outcomes in Europe's entire history

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

2. How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake?   The EU should first acknowledge the area of research of the supranational which provided innovations such as 1. Europe's first Single market 1953, yes 1953! 2. Peace system is vital for research 3. Economic unity comes from this supranational process 4. Monetary union is possible but this needs to be coherent with supranational principles and at present it is not. The above are far more basic than usual considerations of the innovation cycle.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

3. What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding?   Funding is secondary to a healthy policy orientation. Funding without correct orientation can reinforce errors such as over-reliance on inter-governmentalism and disparaging of European democratic structures, including the proper place for organized civil society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

4. How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported?   The structure of inter funding and cooperation should be coordinated with the properly set up supranational political and democratic structures rather than ad hoc committees.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

5.What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones?   In the applied research area coordination is necessary. In the pure research it is a matter of judgement of the results. In other areas planetary targets are necessary, comprising both small and large projects. This requires a system able to tackle complexity such as the supranational system.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

6.How could the Commission ensure the balance between a unique set of rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs?   Bureaucracy is a drag on research. The administration should be light and controls against corrupt practice should be managed via a multi-layered approach where appeals for analysis and inspection can be made when various alarm bells ring and help can then be sought from expertise to resolve problems. It is necessary to have a political decision that allows smaller amounts of money to be free of strings to allow and encourage research participation where innovative ideas are involved. Some other funding requires strict control. The supranational system provides possibilities for a democratic GosPlan of vast complexity. It could be more efficient than China's innovative approach and more flexible.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

7.What should be the measure of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performances indicators could be used?   The concentration on economics is often counter-productive. The Schuman system took a Maslovian approach starting with creating peace, not war. Then economic gains can be made, followed by social and political innovations, then monetary union with corresponding enlarged democratic control (which we do not have). Further stages of development deal with ontological questions and human happiness (rather than the present politics of greed and selfishness). Thus a hierarchy of performance indicators is required involving the accumulation of wisdom, the principal matter.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

8.How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesion policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development fund?   The European institutions are at present still undeveloped. The Council does not act as an open forum as treaties require, nor does it integrate properly with national parliaments and other national bodies in free and open debate. The Committee of the Regions is not yet even democratically elected. it shoudl have its own elected sub-committees as well as the Economic and Social Committee which also has never had an election in its more than 50 years of existence. The reaction to this democratic tardiness is to create alternative committees while waiting for these institutions to gain the democratic spurs is often anti-progressive as it increasing the comitology. All decisions should have democratic legitimacy by elected representatives not by bureaucrats or their invitees. Money should not be earmarked by technical committees. Elected representatives should coordinate policies inside the well-designed Community system, not the horror we have today.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

Tackling Societal Challenges

 

9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven activities?   The focus of societal changes has not been properly addressed as the European Council issues its own pronoucements without full democratic consultation. It has returned to closed door intergovernmentalism. Thus full democracy is necessary BEFORE goals can be set. If ministers refuse to recognize referendums, if the elections get ever-declining turn-outs, if there is more and more discontent about the budget handling and if the support for political parties decline further (it is already far less than half of the popualtion), then the main work needs to be focused on democracy not artificial goals (sometimes lobby-driven) of the European Council.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities?   There should be adequate activities for democracy at all levels: 1. European with an eye on the planet, 2 national, 3 regional 4 economic and social (organized societies), 5 individual and 6 legal.

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy making and forward looking activities?   This is vital as politicians in an intergovernmental approach think short term, companies think about balance sheets. Inadequate interaction occurs on global issues which can seriously affect the EU, eg North Africa revolts, wars, energy embargoes, price hikes of oil/gas (greater than the EU budget!) China, US debt, climate change, population and food problems. All five original EU institutions should be the coordiantion agencies for dealing with certain aspects of such problems and challenges. This provides for the management of complexity. The Community provides a sectoral approach which provides clearer answers to vital questions. The Lisbon treaty's one-size-fits-all has proven inadequacy.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy making and forward looking activities?   The JRC has huge potential but is not always able to deploy it. I say this as one who has worked there. In short it should act as a research arm for the five institutions as judged necessary and as agreed democratically.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society?   Public involvement will come from democratizing the institutions as the Founding Fathers declared was necessary in their Charter declaration of 18 April 1951 (www.schuman.info/europedeclaration.htm ) and in developing the five outline structues they defined to improve supranational democracy of the Community system. Example, the European Parliament has not had a single election conforming to the articles in the treaties of Paris or Rome that say a single electoral statute should be passed valid for all States. www.schuman.info/election1.htm Elections of the EP and the EESC and CoR should be on a Europe-wide basis, according to the treaties we already have. www.schuman.info/schoolreport.htm The Economic and Social Committee has statutory powers of legal assent to legislation. Its legitimacy would come if it was elected on a European basis as the Founding Fathers said. It would provide a consensus decision combining viewpoints of 1 Enterprises, 2 Workers, 3 Consumers. Each grouping has a third of the votes.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

Strengthening competitiveness

 

14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non technological innovation, eco-innovation, and social innovation?   By taking into account democratically formulated policy in all areas of human activities falling within Community treaties, the risk of technocratic decision-making can be minimized. The five institutions need to be fully working for this.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of "public private partnership" be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms?   Refer to my answer to 13. Inventing further committees without legitimacy of democracy is counter-productive and makes public support more difficult.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

16. How and what type of Small and Medium-sized Entreprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes?   Support is a loaded word as it implies directing the goals of SMEs to something other than they would have chosen. The best motiviation is self motivation. The best goals are those where the SMEs feel they are making a positive contribution to a common useful, human, strategic goal of planetary importance. Recycling tax payers money via bureaucrats is sometimes the least efficient way for a society to achieve important goals. Helping SMEs to use their own profits wisely helps the whole of society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

17. How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs?   See my answer to 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

18. How should EU level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively?   Financial solvency should not be compromised by offering credit where it would undermine the economy as we see not only in Ireland. it would be a healthier step to initiate sound financial practice rather than for the EU to be unthinking instruments of banks either directly or indirectly. See 16.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes?   All these schemes involve goals with little democratic basis and furthermore open to corrupt practice and lobbying. Public procurement for example requires tax money be used after interactive democratic discussions not the whim of a party politician. This also begs the question as to why ever increasing emphasis on R&D is made when little discussion is had on the goals and outcomes of an ever acquisitive, ever-competitive society. Research for what? Prizes for what? A more humane society, a more spiritual society or a more selfish society?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

 

20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of scientific results?   Patent monopolies and abuse was a major factor in World Wars eg IG Farben and Exxon. China is aiming to corner some intellectual property rights of major industries. As yet a full discussion of such issues has not been had. Discussion of patent cartels and monopolies must be opened up. This is a very specialized topic and a complex one. That is why the Founding Fathers created a Consultative Committee that would bring three sections: enterprises, workers and consumers together to take decisions on such matters. The outcome depends on my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area

 

21. How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in supporting world class excellence?   See my answer at 13.

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

22. How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?   See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers?

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

 

24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?   Gender issues as well as many others are part of my answer in 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-Infrastructures) be supported at EU level?   See answer to 13. This involves as it has for the last decades since Euronet in the 1980s the laying of fast telecom lines and data structures but the ultimate need is for democratic interactions.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

26. How should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States?   Policy issues need to be formulated using the Community method. Some international interactions are downright dangerous for Europeans. For example exports of fissile material and dual use technologies to Iran and other countries should be assured through the controls of the Euratom treaty which have never really been implemented (see www.schuman.info/euratom.htm ) The same is true of other sectors and areas that should be coordinated and policy defined via active European institutions such as the Commission, EECS, CoR, EP and the Council. Companies and consumers working with non-EU countries bring a huge amount of intelligence about ways to cooperate with them and their cultures. That is why institutions like the EESC were created so that this knowledge can be shared.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

27. Which key issues and obstacles concerning ERA should EU funding instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures?   All issues and goals should be subject to proper democratic debate BEFORE there is talk of taxpayers' funding of projects and Legislation. It is for ddemocratic instances to declare the direction. At present there is a great risk that these choices are made by over-active lobby groups without adequate debate taking place in the Council and that behind closed doors. National parliaments have to pass block legislation and there are still no adequate debates and simplifications procedures. Rather politicians are subject to legislative and funding gluttony in attempts to show they are active and have worthwhile careers. Then the legislation or the projects are found to be wrong-headed, the laws indigestible and incomprehensible. Democracy is lacking in the conception of goals, in the process of initiating funding and the writing of laws.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

Closing question

 

Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?   Actual research of the supranational system, its origin and purpose as well as the means to redress against corrupt practice have not been part of the EU research, mainly it would seem it would collide with political goals. This is a sad commentary on the present politics of Europe. After 50 years where nationalists such as de Gaulle tried their best to destroy the Community, and milk the system (CAP meat mountains and milk lakes, secret funding of nuclear projects etc), it is now time to realise that the Community system will not turn over and die. Corruption in all its forms still needs to be addressed. The Community systems still survives because it has a moral base. Supranational democracy represents the major chance and benefit for Europe and for the planet.