2. J'ACCUSE! EU Fake History, Fake Democracy! Fake News!

27, November, 2017

This year 2017 will go down in history as the year European leaders conspired in Fake News, Fake History and Fake Geography! With their slogan EU60 they will be ridiculed by future generations as fraudsters using Fake Maths too. Why do they lie about dates?
FAKE DEMOCRACY!
The Brussels leaders say this year is Europe’s 60th Birthday. That’s clearly untrue. In 2012 the Nobel Prize was awarded to the European Community/ EU for more than SIXTY years contribution to peace in Europe! Count it! Do some elementary arithmetic!

With the headline J’ACCUSE, Emile Zola wrote an open letter to President Faure of the French Republic covering the front page of the newspaper L’Aurore, 13 January 1898. It caused a sensation. It was meant to.
In this article Zola denounced the lies and establishment cover-up of the French government in the Dreyfus affair. The French army officer, who happened to be a Jew, was falsely accused to being the source of espionage for Germany and Austria-Hungary. The writing in the dossier sheet was used as evidence that the Germans had received French secrets. It had been fished out of a waste bin in the German embassy by a French cleaning lady. The handwriting was nothing like that of Dreyfus. That did not deter the experts. They asserted that “the lack of resemblance between Dreyfus’ writing and that of the bordereau (dossier cover list) was proof of a ‘self-forgery'”!
It was obviously a Fake but the Fake experts said it was so good a Fake, it must mean that Dreyfus was guilty! In truth it was the experts who were fake and the Establishment who were traitors! Note how Fakers use Fake logic! The entire world whose writing did not resemble the bordereau writing would be guilty by that reasoning! Only one person wrote that bordereau.
The bordereau writing actually matched a major who was working in the French General Military Staff. The guilty man had the suspicious Austro-Hungarian name of Esterhazy. But that made no difference for the anti-Semitic establishment who wanted to put on an anti-Jewish show trial.
Zola exposed the unpalatable truth. He named names in the high-level cover-up by the military staff and French Government. Result? He was accused of libel and had to flee to England!
But he was proved right. Two men were innocent, Zola and especially Dreyfus. They suffered most. Today there is no doubt about who is guilty. The truth always comes out.
The victim was all of Europe. The entire French military had to be cleaned up. It had dire consequences. France was left in a weakened state when it faced the Germans in World War One.
High-level fraud is not uncommon. That is the lesson that the present European leaders need to learn. Their guilt will affect all of Europe. Nor will the truth of history redound to their glory.
During the whole of 2017, European leaders have connived in propaganda fraud. They have spent millions of tax-payers money to hide Europe’s real democratic history.
Fraud hurts! Sometimes it costs lives, many lives. Take Stalin. Did the USSR survive his Fraud and Fakes? Photographs of the Stalinist regime in the USSR became notorious. The Politburo of the early days was republished from time to time. Each time the one or two of the original faces disappeared and the photo was made up as if they never existed. They were either in a Gulag camp or dead allegedly for treason. Stalin cost millions of other lives.
Today the European Union Politburo is interested in wiping out one face in particular, Robert Schuman. This is done not because that face is guilty of anything. Quite the reverse.
He is responsible for the miraculous rise of Europe as a super-power in the world today. The keys to war and peace in Europe — and elsewhere — are the greatest heritage of modern times. Why are the Brussels Politburo throwing those keys away? Personal aggrandizement? Ignorance? Petty jealousy? or what Schuman called the routines of power, the inability of politicians and bureaucracies to think in other terms than Europeans had for more than a thousand years?
The Brussels Politburo are especially keen to wipe out the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 18 April 1951 and the Great Charter of Rights of European Citizens (DECLARATION COMMUNE) that was also signed that day. That showed how West European States can demonstrate they are real democracies and expose the false democracies as they existed in East Germany and elsewhere behind the Iron Curtain.
The guilty neo-Gaullist Brussels Poltiburo wanted none of this. While the public expected the founding Paris treaty to be renewed in 2002, the Council Politburo failed to do so -- without any public debate, never mind any referendums.



Today the guilty are more attached to money and markets than democracy and openness. They want to say that Europe’s miraculous rise came from its common market. They want people to believe their future depends on globalization. False! The guilty try to cover-up their foul deeds and those of earlier betrayers of the past. Who are the guilty today?
EU photos and histories today only show the guilty. These are the people in Rome who celebrated Europe’s fake history by saying Europe began 60 years ago with the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the European Common Market. The same goes for their propaganda. Their histories mainly start when Schuman was no longer active or alive.
Why?
Why do they date EU history from Rome in 1957 and the signing of the treaties of Rome? Why chose an event where Robert Schuman, the Father of Europe, was absent? Could it be that that was the year the anti-democratic Charles de Gaulle seized power in France?
That certainly is true. Today’s leaders in France and Germany want to celebrate the Franco-German axis as if it was the start of Europe. That is utterly false history. De Gaulle wanted to rule and dominate Germany and all the other countries such as Italy and the Benelux.
Let’s see if there is any resemblance of EU60 to the truth.

• Schuman’s Proposal saved Europe from catastrophic wars. The EEC Customs Union didn’t.
• Schuman said that the Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) made ‘war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.’ The EEC was about trade and customs.
• The first Community healed relations with post-Nazi Germany. Rome didn’t.
• Schuman created the bases for solidarity, democracy, justice and a means to define Europe’s destiny and service to the world.
• Schuman provided the means for Freedom-loving Democrats to deal with the inevitable forces of globalization.
• The first Community defined the FIVE democratic institutions. Rome didn’t.
• The first Community introduced supranational Democracy. Rome didn’t.
• The ECSC created Europe’s first Single Markets in 1953. Rome didn’t.

We could add a few other achievements like being co-author of the 1949 NATO treaty and initiating the Council of Europe, 1949 with its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.
Writing Fake History is like trying to make Dreyfus’s handwriting look like Esterhazy’s. Let’s add some other facts.

• De Gaulle attacked Schuman. He tried to destroy the Community system.
• De Gaulle invented the Franco-German axis as the motor of Europe because he could then control Germany.
• De Gaulle turned the EEC into a milch cow so that up to 70 percent of taxpayers money was spent on the CAP and farmers, usually French peasants.
• De Gaulle would not attend Schuman’s funeral and stopped Adenauer, who had already agreed, from attending.
• De Gaulle had nothing to do with European Reconciliation. Adenauer wrote that Schuman achieved this in 1950. De Gaulle wanted to expand French borders to the Rhine!
• De Gaulle was an autocrat. He hated political parties.
• De Gaulle refused to have elections to the European Parliament and persuaded Adenauer to stop these elections too. Because of de Gaulle, Europeans have never had a proper election to the European Parliament.
  

We could also add: De Gaulle kicked the Supreme European Headquarters of NATO out of Paris. French forces left NATO. He despised and ignored the Council of Europe and to gain power, was instrumental in the bloody Algerian war and fierce torture. De Gaulle couldn’t destroy the European Communities, no matter how hard he tried. The best damage he could do was to “chloroform” it for a while. He made sure the democracies of UK, Norway, Denmark and Ireland did not join. He vetoed the applications three times — without asking any advice of his ministers or asking parliament. He preferred Franco’s fascist Spain.
Why is Brussels celebrating 1957? De Gaulle took power in 1957! Politicians admire his style, exploiting the Common Market budget for his own purposes. De Gaulle pillaged European taxes for his own distorted version of the Common Agricultural Policy. It took European money to bribe French voters to keep him in power. Cunning! They would like to do the same. He made sure the Council had doors closed to the public so criticism was muted. Weaker Europeans could be exploited for Gaullist strong-arm policy. Democratic opposition was gagged. That’s why politicians still keep the doors closed today. It’s contrary to the Lisbon treaties that they like. Article 15 TFEU says the Council shall meet in public! Why is the press so passive? Decades to pro-Gaullist dog-training!
Many other politicians today like the idea of doing what they like behind closed doors with the people’s money. Maybe that’s why in 2013 the Council celebrated de Gaulle as if he was a hero of Europe, not its arrogant opponent.
Why don’t honest politicians object to this abuse? It takes both guts, honesty and education. One prime minister told a Davos meeting that the treaty that brought peace in Europe was the Treaty of Rome! Frankly this prime minister, who claimed to be a historian, was either (a) ignorant (b) deceived by EU propaganda or (c) a deceiver.
He wasn’t alone on the stage that day. The Commission first vice president agreed. He comes into the same category. He said: ‘No more paternalism. That was Schuman etc. Very paternalistic people.’
Wrong!
In fact it was de Gaulle who was paternalistic and autocratic. He bossed everyone around, including the Dutch. Schuman created the first stage of Europe’s democratic system, the opposite of paternalistic. Was Mr Timmermans making a slip of the tongue? That’s why I later asked him, in the presence of Europe’s religious leaders:
“Do you think this year’s emphasis on EU60 on the market has been overblown compared with the 1951 beginning of Europe with the Treaty of Paris and reconciliation, and a discussion about European democracy?”
Commission Vice-President Timmermans replied: “May I remind you that the EU started with defence and not internal market or currency. It started with an attempt at defence which was defeated in the French Parliament.”
The facts? In August 1954, after other Member States had ratified it, the French National Assembly voted to suspend the vote on the European Defence Community, CED. What about the Schuman Declaration of 1950 or the Treaty of Paris of April 1951 — which legally defined what the Commission was supposed to do?
Not sure whether this was another slip of the tongue, the next week I posed the same question to the Commission Spokesman. I asked whether the Commission, as supposed guardian of the original treaties, now refused to recognize that the European democratic project had begun with the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 and Europe’s first treaty, the Treaty of Paris signed on 18 April 1951.
The Commission spokesman refused to make any correction to this monumental error about the origin of the EU, the European Community, democracy and the Commission itself.
Lies upon lies and fraud upon fraud! How did this self-deception happen?
From the first, the Community Method and true European step-by-step, consensual democracy was attacked by politicians who wanted to create a pseudo-federal system. Others like the Gaullists just wanted to dominate the other States.
The Community is a system that has potential for the common and open search for truth and common interest for the present and the future.

• Instead of open democracy of the treaties, politicians preferred the Gaullist distortion of secretive power in the Council and Commission.
• Instead of the Community sectoral system (coal, steel, atomic energy, customs) that each required full democratic consent, politicians wanted to control all sectors of the European economy.
• Instead of an impartial, Jury-like Commission that excluded politicians brandishing party cards, the politicians wanted to exclude non-partisan, impartial citizens such as experienced diplomats, engineers, scientists, academics, trade unionists, inventors from becoming members of the Commission.

Schuman and the Founding Fathers realized that the European system cannot be placed in the hands of politicians alone. It must be open to impartial citizens of high moral character, exercising their God-given rights to freedom. Why? Because, as Schuman knew and said, politicians have the tendency not only not to resist the corruption of power but to obscure its very existence. They tend to follow party over public interest, individual interest over collective interest.
That is why two institutions should be politician-free by definition: the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, Europe’s Jury. The third, the Consultative Committees, is instructed to act as impartial representatives of European civil society. That is it should involve professional associations of all sorts, with democratic mandates. The consultative committees, such as the as-yet, non-elected Committee of Regions and the tripartite Economic and Social Committee, (workers, consumers and entrepreneurs’ associations) act as honest witnesses to the state of Europe and the requirements of Europe’s future.
How did politicians and governments set Europe on its downward path? Arrogance. All human beings have a tendency to corrupt. Putting known corrupters in charge of anti-corruption is likely to corrupt the system more rapidly.
Their path to infamy? Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the failed Constitutional treaties illustrate their process of political and psychological disorder. Is it a coincidence that the initials spell out MANiC?
Europe’s most severe problem of legitimacy arose with the Lisbon Treaty. It extended both their unlawful and unauthorized grasp for power. It reiterated their denial of Referendum NOs. “And Lisbon” turns their acronym to MANIACAL.
The Constitutional Treaty was roundly rejected in referendums. it was hugely unpopular especially in those countries that did not get to vote in a referendum.
This was a big disappointment for the prime ministers (plus the French President!). They wanted to have enhanced limelight. The European Council, known earlier as the European Summit of Heads of State and Government, was invented by de Gaulle in 1961. Its goal, to seduce European leaders with fancy food and allow de Gaulle to be Master of Europe! Today European leaders want to act like little Napoleons with helicopters and snazzy limousines to take them to discussions on global warming!
No sweat for thieves of democracy! They mobilized their plush phantom democracy, the Council of Ministers. That and the European Council (which was not then any form of European legislative institution, nor a real Intergovernmental Committee recognized by treaty) foisted Fake Democracy on the European people by FRAUD and FORCE.
How?
Europe’s Founding Fathers had good, democratic reasons not to create a European Council. It would try to centralize power in secret. When the Constitutional Treaty was rejected, top politicians worried that they may have lost this further lever of central power. The European Council, under the Nice Treaty, could not then even publish a press release. It had no executive power. Its sole responsibility was to meet twice a year and (as the Summit conference for heads of State and government) and submit a report after these two meetings to the European Parliament and a yearly report on progress.
The Community system is built on sectoral responsibilities. This is why the sectoral Councils of Ministers are one of the legal instruments for the European peoples’ legislation. Legislation Proposals by an impartial European Commission are to be transmitted to three institutions only: Council of Ministers (Industry, Fisheries, Agriculture, Science etc), the Parliament and the Consultative Committees. These institutions have to send their amendments if they find faults. Then the Commission decides on the most impartial formulation which it publishes in the Official Journal as Law. That’s how Europe should work. Simply, openly and democratically.
The European Council or the Summit is not involved in this. It cannot dictate.
How did the politicians get round this problem in 2007? They got the Council of Ministers to publish the Press Release or Decree of the European Council. It still had no legal force. Who did they publish it to? Not the public but the national delegations!


The Council press release to the Delegations announced two conspiratorial measures: Money and political Might. The politicians would spend a great deal of European tax-payers’ money on propaganda and press management. Secondly their political might would FORCE the articles of the failed Constitutional Treaty through the parliaments. They would use their national party-controlled majorities against virulent protest and righteous objections of the public. They did not call this a Conspiracy against the people. They called it “Consultations” with fellow politicians!
Thus a small clique of politicians could act totally against the people’s referendum NOs. To oil their way they would need money.

This logo became the official symbol for the “50th anniversary” events during 2007.

Even today it is surprising to read the brazenness of this political ploy. In the same paragraph that showed the strategy to override the referendums, the press release said that money would be necessary for PR enforcement. For that sleight of hand, the European Council proposed that finance be poured into a fraudulent 50th Birthday for Europe, the Treaty of Rome. (Not the European Atomic Energy Treaty, Euratom, mind you, only in practice the European Common Market, the EEC!).
This is what the Council Press Release said about the Constitutional Treaty that lay dead in the water after the French vote of 29 May 2005 and the Dutch vote of 1 June 2005.

Council press release 22 February 2007
“Pursuing reform: the Constitutional Treaty.
As agreed by the European Council at its meeting of June 2006, the Union has followed a two-track approach. It has focused on making best use of the possibilities offered by the existing treaties to deliver concrete results while preparing the ground for continuing the reform process. The presidency (of the Council of Ministers) provided the European Council with an assessment of the consultation with Member States regarding the Constitutional Treaty. The outcome of these consultations will be passed to the German Presidency as part of its preparation for the report to be presented during the first half of 2007. The European Council reaffirms the importance of commemorating the 50th anniversary of the treaties of Rome in order to confirm the importance of the European integration process.”

The chosen path was to avoid any more referendums at all costs. The second decision was to act as if the No referendum results had never happened! Thirdly the rejected treaty would be broken into individual amendments. They would be reassembled and added to articles that could modify the EEC, Treaty of Rome and make it exactly like the Constitutional Treaty.
Huzzah! Hokus Pokus! The Constitutional Treaty lives again in spite of the people!
Thus the politicians made sure their two dozen votes were more important than millions of voters in referendums nixing the Constitutional Treaty. They could make a dead treaty live again, even if the public had stuck a dagger in its heart!
They ordered the civil servants to prepare a book of amendments modifying the Nice treaty (itself a modification of the Amsterdam treaty, itself a modification of the Maastricht treaty, itself a modification of the European Economy Community treaty of Rome.) For the record, not all Member States were ‘allowed’ by politicians to hold referendums on these earlier treaties.
None of these treaties were really legal. The Maastricht treaty had been rejected by the Danes. The Nice treaty was rejected by the Irish. The Constitutional Treaty was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. UK had no referendums on any. Then, when the civil servants had finished their dirty work, the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Other countries had no chance to have a referendum. Why? The Irish European Commissioner, Charlie MacCreevy, said 95 percent of the European governments would lose a referendum vote on the Lisbon Treaty. The Economist called him “Teller of painful truths.”
The original treaty of Rome , EEC, had a clause which basically said, this treaty does not permit Member States to leave, because all member States agree that the only sure solution for peace and prosperity is to make Europe more democratic. Only a foolish government, if it claimed to be a democracy, would want to leave. That Article 224 of the EEC treaty had become Article 312 of the Nice Treaty.
It was yanked out and replaced by an exit article in the Constitutional Treaty. Referendums in France and the Netherlands rejected this Article 59 and all the Constitutional Treaty. It then became Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The British had no chance to reject either Article 59 of the Constitutional Treaty or Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The various UK political parties that in election manifestos promised referendums on European treaties betrayed their promises when in power. They told the public: “No referendum! We know best!”
Why are the British finding it so difficult to leave the EU? Actually it is not too difficult. The European Union was the illegal superstructure added to the European Economic Community. Most of its MANiC changes reduce democracy, or try to. They empower politicians against the people.
The Community system is, however, a different matter. The British in the 1975 referendum agreed to the Community method with an overwhelming majority of 67 percent. It was seen as democratic, and a means to improve the democratic climate of Europe.

• The Community method requires one European election (not 28 national ones) to the European Parliament. That is still in the treaties.
• It requires elections to the Consultative Committees. (That is also still in the treaties.)
• It requires card-carrying politicians to be banned from the European Commission. (That is still in the treaties.)
• It requires the Council of Ministers to be open to the public, just like the parliament, when they ‘consider, discuss and vote’ on any draft legislation. (That is still in the treaties.)

Schuman designed the Community system during the war, when he escaped from Nazi Germany as a prisoner. He told his friends during the war that the future European system would enable postwar Germany to reinforce its democratic tendencies. It would also reduce their proclivity to autocracy as they had experienced under Hitler and others.
He compared it to chaining European States together, so that they would be obliged by their own self-interest to become more democratic. Following the scandals of the Gaullist era with its wine lake, and beef mountains, its corruption in high places and its election bribery, Brussels has succumbed to some pretty low politics.
But it has not failed to deliver positive benefits to its citizens.
The European Community won’t go away. It won’t fail to continue.
Today it is not Germany who wants to leave the European institutions. It is the island that says it has the Mother of Parliaments. Why? Britons smell something rotten wafting over the Channel from Brussels.
Today the Manifest Crisis of democracy is apparent both sides of the Channel and in east, west, central and southern Europe. The solution is simple. Follow the instructions in the original treaties.

• Have elections as required under a single Statute to the European Parliament.
• Ban active politicians from the Commission.
• Open up the Council of Ministers to the public and the press.
• Make the Judges in the Court of Justice democratically responsible.
• Hold elections of properly constituted European professional associations to the Consultative Committees. Stop lobbyists altogether.
• Replace the secretive COREPER and thousands of closed ‘expert’ committees with elected expert members of these democratic organizations.

The outcome of Brexit would be the same as if Germany wished to leave. Schuman said the new favorable climate the Community created would make it totally unpalatable for any country to leave.
In this contest, my bet would be on Schuman, not Brexit.
The conclusion: the only way forward is to make Brussels more democratic and to follow the democratic rules. That too would help the UK where some 30 or so MPs dictate the hard Brexit policy of what was supposed to be an advisory referendum.
Secondly, truth is the best policy.

1. Did PM May's Florence Speech shock more than the Pigeons?

Why did Prime Minister Theresa May fly all the way to Italy to shoo the pigeons? Why did she speak briefly in what was a few days earlier an empty and dusty, abandoned room? It was indistinguishable from any other. It was allegedly inhabited only by pigeons.

Did she come only to ask for a two-year transition, an idea, she said, that was already written in the treaty? Was there an unspoken message in the place, not the speech? The British taxpayer might also ask:

‘Why on earth did the Prime Minister and Members of her Cabinet fly all the way to Italy to give a speech? And then getting back in the plane and winging it back to London?’

Isn’t this a huge waste of money? Prime Minister Theresa May had returned to London from the United Nations on Thursday, 21 September, accompanied by her Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. They had plenty of time to talk.

The next day, Mrs May could have given the speech in any city of the United Kingdom. Why, then, did she take to the skies again? What justifies the cost (and inconvenience for journalists and the public)? Her office confirmed that the British taxpayer will have to pay for this foreign excursion.

Would people hear what she said more clearly from afar? Her television audience did not even see the historical backdrop. The British brought their own back panels so there was no telling what was behind the slogan: Shared History, Shared Challenges, Shared Future.

Both Theresa May and her pro-European husband Philip are savvy. Theresa studied Geography at Oxford, Philip studied Modern History. He was president of its renowned debating association, the Oxford Union. Both are practicing Christians.

Why not go to Rome and attack the false propaganda of the Brussels elite? Four Brussels Top Politicians on the morning after UK’s non-binding, advisory EU referendum of 23 June 2016 said UK had better leave soon, “as quickly as possible however much it may hurt.”

 

They were the people who had previously excluded the UK from ever having a candidate as President of the European Commission. They called it the SpitzenKandidat system. It was unveiled in the so-called Constitutional Treaty. But the Constitutional Treaty failed miserably, rejected by the French and Dutch referendums. The referendums in UK and five others were cancelled. They would give further Noes. So, without further referendums and scorning public rejection, politicians added the entire treaty to the Common Market Treaty of Rome, lock, stock and barrel. It was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. To do this they spent millions of tax-euros to create a big lie. They said European integration began in 1957 with the Common Market and the Treaty of Rome.

Mrs May could have said;

“What nonsense and waste! European unity began with the Schuman Declaration of 1950 and the European Community of Coal and Steel. We British should know. We were Associate Members of the Community in 1952. We passed an Act of Parliament to do so.”

Why pick a small room in Florence in the Santa Maria Novella? Why not, for example, the European University Institute? Prime Ministers often address universities.

The EUI was founded by an article in the Euratom Treaty , also signed in Rome1957. This year is its 60th anniversary. It could have been a special occasion to celebrate this. The EU has made a huge fuss about celebrating one of the two 1957 Treaties of Rome. It quite falsely spent huge amounts of taxpayers money saying that the Common Market or the Economic Community was the origin of the European Union. They wiped out all the years from the end of WW2 until 1957 as irrelevant. Just like the Stalin wiped out the image of personalities he had sent to the Gulag or worse.

A big speech at the EUI would have made a good opportunity to rectify Brussels propaganda and its atrocious Fake News on democracy.

The EUI, situated at a famous Medici Fiesole Abbey, had previously held a series of lectures on Brexit. Besides being the legal depository of EU archives, it has highly regarded departments in European Law (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) global governance and European civilization.

But NO, it was not to be a university lecture. What was it then? Clearly Florence has some huge significance that justifies the travel cost. British insistence offsets the lack of an invitation from either the Italian Government or the city. Why breach normal diplomatic practice?

Did Mrs May want to make a particularly British statement? She could have chosen the British Institute in Florence on the river Arno. Earlier this year, Prince Charles helped celebrate its 100th anniversary. Its Acton library contains one of the largest collections of English books on the Continent. Founded during the First World War, the Institute has provided an open British window on the world.

What did PM May say to explain and justify this expense and rupture of custom? She began her speech — without anyone welcoming or introducing her — by saying:

“It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began –

• a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.
• A period of history whose example shaped the modern world.
• A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.”

“To do great things” together sounds like a forecast. Yet it was not uttered on the hills of Fiesole where in Roman times the College of the Augures, pagan experts in divination, foretold the reactions of their gods. Mrs May’s message was about Renaissance.

So, which building did Mrs May choose from Florence’s rich history? Not the Uffizi Art Gallery. No, Prime Minister May and her ministers chose the former police academy! It had to be spruced up to accommodate the British speechifying. Why, this building?

The Scuola Sottufficale Carabinieri is no ordinary building. It belongs to the Great Cloister of Santa Maria Novella convent. It dates from around 1200s as a basilica. It forms a central position in the history of both western and eastern Europe and the rise of for technology of the last five centuries.

What then was the historic and geographic message that Prime Minister Theresa May was communicating by her extraordinary flight to Florence?

Why did she visit this building?
What has this man to do with it?

Trump’s anti-Islamist Policy and the Manchester Murders

 On US President Donald Trump’s eight-day visit abroad this week he touches down in four countries, discussing global politics and three global religions. The key visit in Saudi Arabia sets the theme: the fight against global Islamist terrorists. 

At a pop concert in Manchester, UK a terrorist killed 22 people, mainly youngsters, and injured scores of others. This follows attacks in other unprepared European cities and in front line Israel. 
In Saudi Arabia on Sunday President Trump met with King Salman and Crown Prince Muhammed to inaugurate the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. History’s great test, he said, was to conquer the forces of extremism and vanquish terrorism. He issued a challenge against “radicalization,” ” Islamic extremism,” Islamists,” and “Islamist terror of all kinds”.
Such extremism was a "battle between good and evil." He urged Arab leaders to "drive out the terrorists from your places of worship. Drive them out of your countries and drive them out of the earth!"
Saudi Arabia has disbursed trillions of oil dollars since 1973 on promoting worldwide its immoderate Wahabism, a potent theocratic mixture of politics and religion. The $110 billion arms deal aimed at securing the Arabian Peninsula against Iran was part of a 380 billion longer term deal. But it is small change for USA compared with the accumulation of over-priced cartel oil that the world has had to pay for since the 1973 price hike.
President Trump flew directly from the theocratic monarchy to Israel, a small democracy in a war zone. His met with President Rivlin and PM Netanyahu, and laid a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. On Tuesday he visited Bethlehem, the historic home of the ancient Israelite monarchy. Reacting to the Manchester killings, he said: "this wicked ideology must be obliterated."
"King David’s star flies proudly on Israel’s white and blue flag," he said later in a speech at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum.

“This city, like no other place in the world, reveals the longing of the human heart – to know and worship God. Jerusalem stands as a reminder that life can flourish against any odds. When we look around this city, and we see people of all faiths engaged in reverent worship, and school children learning side-by-side, and men and women lifting up the needy and forgotten, we see that God’s promise of healing has brought goodness to so many lives. We see that the people of this land had the courage to overcome the oppression and injustice of the past – and to live in the freedom God intends for every person on this earth,” he said.

US policy with Israel is in a ferment of change. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, in her first press conference denounced the inordinate bias of the UN in being blind to almost every violation of human rights around the world except real or imagined events in Israel. She said the USA believes that the Western Wall is firmly part of Israel and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem. The US State Department is still following a pro-oil and anti-Israel policy. It insists that no Israeli officials should accompany Mr Trump to the Wall as “it is disputed territory”. Really? Who built it?  Trump has spoken optimistically about a bigger and better plan for peace than generally understood.
President Trump’s next stop is to see Pope Francis in Rome and meet with Italian government officials. The Catholic Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians recently sent a report to the US State Department on the “Genocide against Christians in the Middle East.”
The Islamic State, it warned, says:

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” It is a strategic threat. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”  

 In Belgium President Trump has meetings with the Belgian King, NATO and a stop at the European Council.

What is Europe’s attitude to these global challenges? Robert Schuman’s actions, both in creating NATO, and Europe’s amazing peace through the Community system, seem forgotten by EU leaders. Schuman considered peace in Jerusalem more important than even the miracle of Europe’s longest peace through the supranational method and its Judeo-Christian experience.
At NATO Mr Trump will try to convince Europeans they should take their own defense and security seriously. They should spend at least two percent of their money on this type of insurance. But Europe, which is richer and more populous than the USA, wastes its present meager military resources by non- standardization of its systems.
Islamic extremism is foisted by false ideologies. They seek to destroy western culture and its history. What of the terrorism and aggressive ideologies aimed at Europe’s downfall? The European External Action Service takes a secretive and passive attitude to the Islamic assault on the roots of its Judeo-Christian civilization. It seems incapable even of defending itself, even with Trumpian words.
The UNESCO Decision on Jerusalem in October last year attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. It was a warning of an ideological assault. The EEAS was silent. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City. Nothing was relevant except the Arabic/ Muslim history.
On the 1^st of May 2017 UNESCO’s Executive Board voted on the Decision under agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”. Bizarre turn of history! Before 1947 the Jews were known as Palestinians. Arabs refused to be called by this name. That changed only in the 1960s when the USSR helped place Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat as head of the “revolutionary movement”, the PLO. He called the “Two State Solution” a “truce”.
Sweden changed its position and voted in favor of this Islamic-biased Resolution. So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution in October. Why did countries like France and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter? What on earth possessed Sweden to vote for it, after a violent terrorist attack in central Stockholm? A truck was aimed especially at children. It left five people dead and many injured. 
The Resolution was drafted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said: 

“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.” 

UNESCO, however, prefers to mention a fabulous Muslim winged animal Barak, ‘smaller than a mule’ allegedly seen in a dream. It omits all mention of real Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years. 
 Factual history and culture is Europeans’ most precious heritage. So is the Rule of Law. 

International journalist and author David Price edits schuman.info. He is author of Jesus, James, Joseph, and the Temple.

Trump visits Islamic, Jewish and Christian centers

On US President Donald Trump’s eight-day visit abroad this week he will touch down in four countries, discussing global politics and religion. Will he be met in Brussels with confusion on defense, security, culture and religion?

In Saudi Arabia on Sunday he met with King Salman and Crown Prince Muhammed to inaugurate the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. He issued a challenge against “radicalization", "Islamic extremism", "Islamists", and "Islamist terror of all kinds”.  (And media worldwide, like a conspiracy chorus, simultaneously criticized him for not using the words "radical Islamic terrorism"!) Such extremism, he said, was a "battle between good and evil." He urged Arab leaders to "drive out the terrorists from your places of worship! Drive them out your countries! Drive them out out of the earth!"

Saudi Arabia has disbursed trillions of oil dollars since 1973 on promoting worldwide its immoderate Wahabism, a potent mixture of politics and religion.Trump's 110 billion arms deal is less than small change.

President Trump flew direct to Israel a small democracy in a war zone, surrounded by many hostile forces. His agenda had meetings with President Rivlin and PM Netanyahu, a visit the Yad Vashem exhibition of the Holocaust and a speech at the Israel Museum.

US policy with Israel is in a ferment of change. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, in her first press conference denounced the inordinate bias of the UN in being blind to almost every violation of human rights around the world except real or imagined events in Israel. She said the USA believes that the Western Wall is firmly part of Israel and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem. The US State Department is still following a pro-oil and anti-Israel policy. It insists that no Israeli officials should accompany Mr Trump to the Wall as “it is disputed territory”.   Really? Who built it?

Trump has spoken optimistically about a bigger and better plan for peace than generally understood.

President Trump’s next stop is to see pope Francis in Rome and meet with Italian government officials. The Catholic Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians recently sent a report to the US State Department on the “Genocide against Christians in the Middle East.” The Islamic State, it warned, says:

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” It is a strategic threat. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”  

In Belgium President Trump has meetings with the Belgian King, NATO and a stop at the European Council.

What is Europe’s attitude to these global challenges? At NATO Mr Trump will try to convince Europeans they should take their own defense and security seriously. They should spend at least two percent of their money on this type of insurance. But Europe, which is richer and more populous than the USA, wastes its present meager military resources by non- standardization of its systems.

What of the terrorism and aggressive ideologies aimed at Europe’s downfall? The European External Action Service takes a secretive and passive attitude to the Islamic assault on the roots of its Judeo-Christian civilization. It seems incapable even of defending itself, even with Trumpian words.

The UNESCO Decision on Jerusalem in October last year attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. It was a warning of an ideological assault. The EEAS was silent. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City. Nothing was relevant except the Arabic/ Muslim history. 

This undermines not only culture, civilization but the bases of law and jurisprudence. The League of Nations and the UN recognized this area as Jewish Homeland. The site had been temporarily conquered by Greek, Roman, Arab, then Turkish and the British in WW1. Have the British better rights because their conquest was more recent? The only lasting solution is on the basis of the rule of law and property or other rights. 

On the 1^st of May 2017 UNESCO’s Executive Board voted on the Decision under agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”. Bizarre turn of history! Before 1947 the Jews were known as Palestinians. Arabs refused to be called by this name. That changed only in the 1960s when the USSR helped place Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat as head of the “revolutionary movement”, the PLO.  He called the “Two State Solution” a “truce”.

Italy changed its previous UNESCO abstention to a vote against. On the other hand, Sweden voted in favour of this Islamic-biased Resolution. So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution in October. Why did countries like France and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter? What on earth possessed Sweden to vote for it, after a violent terrorist attack in central Stockholm? A truck was aimed especially at children. It  left five people dead and many injured.

Europeans should ask: Who came up with this Resolution, an attempt to obliterate Europe’s science and history? It was drafted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said:

“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.”

She added: “The protection and better understanding of the Heritage of Jerusalem is part of a broader vision for peace. It is part of a wider vision to fight against all forms of denial of Jewish history, de-legitimization of Israel, and anti-Semitism.  This work is essential, as European know too well the ravages of war and anti-Semitism.” 

Both Europeans and Israelis should be made well aware at this affront to their history and culture. Especially omitted from last year’s resolution were any place names evoking the ancient Israelite and continuous Jewish heritage of the City. These should be well-known to all educators, scientists and all cultures familiar with the People of the Book.

UNESCO prefers to mention a fabulous Muslim winged animal Barak, ‘smaller than a mule’ allegedly seen in a dream. It omits all mention of real Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years.

On the same day as the UNESCO resolution, the Israeli Antiquities Department announced the identity of a Hebrew language document dating from the seventh century BCE. It mentions ‘Jerusalem’ as the place of shipment for wine from a female merchant. 

Factual history and culture is Europeans’ most precious heritage.  So is the Rule of Law.

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

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

Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Map!

The leaders received this message: 

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

Signature of Treaty of Paris and Great Charter April 1951

It created the democratic institutions of a European Community. Democratic principles were that day defined in the great Charter of the Community. By rendering “unthinkable and materially impossible” a seemingly inevitable world war exploding for a third time from European soil, this compact saved, not only Europe but the world from ruin. Instead of war, Europeans planted the seeds of an unprecedented peace. It stimulated decades of growth and prosperity.
Today Leaders of the EU need to review and renew those high principles of a supranational Community. They should agree on applying them for the 21st Century.
This renewed compact is necessary to confront current crises and future challenges. It acknowledges the wisdom of our ancestors. It recognizes our responsibilities to future generations.
To help citizens regain full confidence in those institutions so that they rightfully represent and reliably serve Europe’s citizens, Europe’s leaders must re-focus on that original compact. They should then ensure they are fulfilling the letter and spirit of existing articles of the treaties.
These all stipulate:

• a single pan-European election for Parliament under a single statute.
• Doors in the Councils and Committees should be wide open to the public and the press.
• The European Commission should be reduced to around a dozen members so that it acts, not for lobbies, but impartially as an Honest Broker for all European individuals, nations and interests.

Confidence and trust are the reward free citizens give to open and honest government.”

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

EU Leaders praise Machiavelli ahead of UK Brexit Referendum

1, June, 2016

On the eve of UK’s referendum, why are European leaders praising Machavelli? Why are people so increasingly fed up with the European Union? Why has the credibility of Brussels plummeted to rock bottom?
New anti-Brussels political parties are springing up across Europe like mushrooms in a dark place. Why can’t Brussels re-light its democratic torch for EU’s 28 democratic Member States?
Europe’s BIG question is not the UK referendum, but

“”When Will Brussels obey the TREATY Rules Schuman provided to make Europe perfectly Democratic? “”

The impartial European Commission, independent of governments, parties and lobbyists, was the key institution that brought a lasting peace to Europe. It was designed to epitomize Fairness and Honesty.
No more! Under the latest Machiavellian system, no Briton will ever be allowed to become the President of the European Commission. Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) witnessed the brutal methods of Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, known for his nepotism, immorality, killing the innocent and funding his many mistresses and adulterous children. The Borgias tried to bring Central Italy under their possession, using as pretext the defending of Church interests. ”Machiavellism” is widely used today to describe unscrupulous politicians. Robert Schuman was a keen student of history. The last thing that he thought was needed for peace in Europe was the skulduggery of Medieval politics and strife.
In Rome a few days ago, this anti-democratic poison was highly commended by a trinity of EU presidents! This Politburo is now the Machiavellian fixer of Europe. It is composed of the EPP (allegedly the European Peoples Party or the Christian Democrats) and Socialists. The Politiburo has proved itself neither Christian, nor democratic and not interested in European solidarity! It is focused on political nepotism to control the levers of power.

Mysteriously the Commission President is said to be ”elected” without a single ballot slip saying he is a candidate! No one in the UK voted for Mr Juncker or the so-called runner-up. Mr Schulz, with equal illegitimacy and political nepotism, got the second prize of the European Parliament!
The Politburo calls the system the Spitzenkandidat system. It is hardly attuned to attract the voter on the street in Liverpool! It combines Machiavellism, party nepotism for the Politburo, and Apartheid for the British Bantustan.
And the timing is perfect!! In just a few days time the citizens of the United Kingdom will cast their ballots about whether to STAY or LEAVE the European Union! Would any sane democrat vote in favour of a system that discriminates not only against all non-party citizens (98 percent of the population) but the land of the Magna Carta and laws of Hywel Dda?
The treaties say all citizens have equal rights to be considered for the Commission but the EPP-Socialist Politburo says their parties’ nepotism trumps the rule of law!

Originally the Commission was composed 100 percent of non-politicians. For a good reason. The aim of the Commission was to be as impartial, as non-partisan as possible. Politicians always come with an agenda. (Fat cat jobs come after leaving by the revolving door!) All the present Commission are active party members and government nominees — two things the treaties expressly forbid!
The original Commissioners had to be impartial as a judge in Court to create an atmosphere of trust. That way they could help solve Europe’s burning problems. They were very experienced people but they owed no allegiance to party, enterprise, workers’ unions or to a national governmental interest.
No more! Because Machiavelli rules at the Commission! Machiavelli rules at the European Council and Machiavelli rules in the European Parliament. They are all in cahoots against the European people. A secretive political elite acts against the European interest. Instead of becoming a fully independent moral and ethical Authority, as it was designed to be, it has now been captured by a few political parties.
You don’t have to believe me. Believe Mr Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council who represents the Heads of Governments of the Member States. After lauding Pope Francis for the Charlemagne Prize, he spoke on the Future of Europe at a meeting chaired by Europe University Institute President Joseph Weiler.

”I was not a fan of this idea of Spitzenkandidaten {at first}. For the simple reason I was not one of the {candidates}! But the result is really impressive. I mean the two gentlemen around our table. Machavelli said, I think, that the end justifies the means.’‘

That is his assessment of the nepotistic system that excludes all European citizens from participating in the democratic institutions. It combines this affront to democracy and human rights with a further exclusion: The decision on who should be the President of the European Commission is also made behind closed doors. Thus no European citizen can see or hear what sort of deal is being cut between these members of Europe’s Politburo.

And Mr Tusk made no bones about it. He loves this system. He made his pronouncement in public before the cameras of the European Council and the great European public. That is like robbing the public and then sticking them in the eye!
We can be sure all the others in the European Politburo agree. They were sitting there right beside him.


That is the official pronouncement of the three top European leaders. Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission agrees. He was sitting there with the European Parliament President Martin Schulz. They all smiled and congratulated Tusk at his wit for recognizing their gross theft and high-level larceny.
The European Commission has continuously lost its impartiality, political neutrality and its credibility among Europe’s citizens.. Under the Community Method it was to be the conscience of Europe.

Mr Juncker loves the Politburo Nepotism system too. He said that ”Parties put forward their candidates and [the people] can vote either for a socialist or for a Christian Democrat and conservative.”
But people may not want to vote for either. Why? Because this division is old hat. New parties have in common one thing: opposition to the present Brussels system. Secondly and more importantly the treaties say that the people cannot vote for politicians, for other sorts of lobbyists, for government representatives or for anyone who is not independent and impartial. The Commission must be independent. Non-Partisan means no party political guys allowed.

Mr Schulz loves the Politburo nepotism too. He made clear in an interview with Politico that he believes that the text and spirit of the laws of the treaties is not important. Nepotism trumps the treaties. He said: We achieved a change of the treaty without a treaty change. — Martin Schulz at Politico at 10 minutes.
 http://www.politico.eu/video/video-interview-schulz-at-politico-launch-event/

Is this the ultimate goal of Politburo nepotism:
NO TREATY OR COMPACT WITH THE PEOPLE IS NECESSARY FOR OUR SEIZURE OF POWER?