Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

14 April, 2021

Open Letter to President von der Leyen on Europe's Democratic Future

 

Open Letter to President von der Leyen on Europe’s Democratic Future



Schuman Project

schuman.info

David H Price

Editor

9 April 2021

 

Dear President von der Leyen,

It is 70 years since the signature on 18 April 1951 of Europe’s founding document for peace, the Treaty of Paris. This created the European Community. It changed the destiny of Europeans who had gone to war every generation for more than two thousand years.

 

As the European Commission and the other institutions ponder the Future of post-‘Brexit’ Europe in the Conference to be opened on 9 May, I have one request to the leaders, the media and the public.

 

It is necessary to recall the founding principles of that peace and prosperity. This is not hidden. It is not something that can be changed by our generation. It was written in a document, signed by the plenipotentiary representatives of the Six founding States: France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

 

What seems shocking to me is that the European Commission and the other institutions have not published this document. Schuman, a life-long student of democracy, called this the ‘Charter of the Community’ (Pour l’Europe, p146). It describes the Community method and the democratic principles that Europe must build on, in the same way as the United States applied the same eternal laws of human nature and worldly politics.

 

Schuman’s use of the term ‘Charter’ reflects that of the Magna Carta as a foundational document for British democracy. It distinguishes democratic Europe from the fraudulent ‘People’s Democracies’ of the Soviet eastern bloc. It is the litmus test of true democracy.

 

About a decade ago I spoke to the French Minister for Europe about publishing this ‘Charter’. He kindly supplied me with a copy from the French Archives. It was published on my website, schuman.info in 2012.

 

Although I pointed out this remarkable and important document to the Commission President at the time, the full text of the Schuman Declaration and the Charter of the Community has still not been published on the Commission’s own website. The lack of full information about the beginnings of European democracy is a disservice both to the general public, academics, the press and political leaders.

 

Secondly, while the European Commission has published the ‘full text’ of the Schuman Proposal, a governmental instrument, it has not published the text of his oral Declaration. The Commission website confuses the two: the governmental Proposal is aimed at other governments. The Schuman Declaration includes the explanation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Declaration includes far-reaching clarification of the original proposal agreed by the French Cabinet and signalled simultaneously to other European States via French diplomats or Schuman’s meetings with ambassadors and parliament in Paris on 9 May 1950.

 

It would be fitting that the foundational documents should be fully published on official websites and recorded in the Official Journal.

 

Madame President, I am therefore requesting that these historic texts about the Future of Europe be published before the opening of the Conference on Europe on 9 May this year.

 

Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter, I remain,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Heilbron Price

 

 

 

Annexes

1.

On 18 April 1951 the great Charter of Europe, as Schuman called it, was signed by all the representatives of the six founding Member State Governments. It was then placed in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry at the Quai d’Orsay.

It is the pledge of European Governments that all European Community future Treaties founding new Community organizations, all Acts and Laws arising from them would follow certain principles. This included such things as supranational values, like honesty, justice and truth. It pledged that all citizens would have to give full democratic agreement to any developments.

After being hidden in the archives of the Quai d’Orsay for sixty years, ignored and kept secret from the public by politicians, this Foundational Declaration was released by the French Government, following a request by the Schuman Project.

 


 

Charter of the Community

Declaration of Inter-dependence Charter of the Community

Déclaration de l’Europe Paris le 18 avril 1951

CHARTE DE LA COMMUNAUTE

(Pour l’Europe, p146)

Statue Foundatrice de l’ Europe

basant sa construction sur les Principes Supranationaux et le libre choix de ses citoyens

 

 

 

 

Déclaration commune des Ministres représentant les Gouvernements signataires du Traité

Le gouvernement de la République fédérale d’Allemagne, le gouvernement belge, le gouvernement français, le gouvernement italien, le gouvernement luxembourgeois et le gouvernement des Pays-Bas :

Considérant que la paix mondiale ne peut être sauvegardée que par des efforts créateurs à la mesure des dangers qui la menacent;

Convaincus que la contribution qu’une Europe organisée et vivante peut apporter à la civilisation est indispensable au maintien de relations pacifiques;

Conscients que l’Europe ne se construira que par des réalisations concrètes créant d’abord une solidarité de fait et par l’établissement de bases communes de développement économique;

Soucieux de concourir par l’expansion de leurs productions fondamentales au relèvement du niveau de vie et au progrès des oeuvres de paix;

Résolus à substituer aux rivalités séculaires une fusion de leurs intérêts essentiels, à fonder par l’instauration d’une communauté économique les premières assises d’une communauté plus large et plus profonde entre des peuples longtemps opposés par des divisions sanglantes, et à jeter les bases d’institutions capables d’orienter un destin désormais partagé,

Ont décidé de créer une Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier.

L’œuvre que nous venons de consacrer par notre signature est due à l’intelligence et à la ténacité de nos délégations et de nos experts; nous leur disons notre très grande gratitude.

Avant même d’être entrée en action, cette oeuvre a déjà, par la vertu de l’idée qui l’inspire, créé dans nos pays et au-delà de leurs frontières des espérances et une confiance tout-à-fait exceptionnelles.

En signant le traité qui institue la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier, communauté de cent soixante millions d’habitants européens, les parties contractantes ont marqué leur résolution de créer la première institution supranationale et de fonder ainsi les assises réelles d’une Europe organisée.

Cette Europe est ouverte à tous les pays européens libres de leur choix. Nous espérons fermement que d’autres pays s’associeront à notre effort.

Pleinement conscients de la nécessité de donner tout son sens à ce premier pas par une action continue et du même ordre dans d’autres domaines, nous avons l’espoir et la volonté de mener à bien, dans l’esprit qui a présidé à l’élaboration de ce traité, les projets qui sont actuellement en préparation. Les travaux se poursuivront en liaison avec les organismes européens existants.

Ces initiatives, dont chacune est limitée dans son objet, devront rapidement s’inscrire dans le cadre d’une communauté politique, dont l’idée s’élabore au Conseil de l’Europe. II devra en résulter une coordination et une simplification de l’ensemble des institutions européennes.

Tous ces efforts sont guidés par la conviction croissante que les pays de l’Europe libre sont solidaires les uns des autres, participent à une destinée commune. Nous consoliderons ce sentiment en associant nos énergies et nos volontés, en harmonisant notre action par des consultations fréquentes et des contacts toujours plus confiants.

Telle est la signification de cette journée. Elle sera comprise, nous n’en doutions pas, par nos opinions publiques et par les Parlements qui seront appelés à se prononcer sur le traité. Les gouvernements ici représentés seront auprès d’eux les interprètes de notre volonté commune de construire et de servir ensemble une Europe pacifique et prospère. »

 

 

2.

 

Schuman Declaration – What Schuman declared


 

This is followed by the Schuman Proposal agreed by the French Government of Georges Bidault.

It starts “World peace cannot be safeguarded if constructive efforts are not made commensurate with the dangers that threaten it. …”

Full text at https://schuman.info/9May1950.htm

 

NOTE: What distinguishes Democracies — Free Choice (nations libres de leur choix)

The articulation of the ‘Free Choice’ of the Member States distinguishes them from fraudulent ‘People’s Democracies’ and dictatorships. Free societies decide their Community governance according to the most democratic procedures. A Community is created by the will of free people. It is not imposed like the constitutions of the Communist bloc by a party or parties. The Community, as manager of common resources and guardian against war between members, must be more democratic, fairer and more honest than its Member States. It should be a model of democracy for Europe and the world.

The Charter of the Community declares that all Member States

  • must safeguard the rights of their citizens before the Council of Europe according to the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
  • No national State that does not adhere to these Fundamental Rights may be admitted to ‘Europe’ whose very definition depends on this Convention of Freedom of Speech, Assembly etc
  • The voice of the nation must be respected. For example, Lisbon Treaty and its earlier redaction as the Constitutional Treaty were rejected in national referendums.
  • The free will of the people has not been given to the designation of the Commission President or the Commissioners who by law should be independent of political parties, lobbies and outside interests. The original fair system has been replaced by a closed-door horse-trading meeting of politicians.
  • Elections have not been held for the Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions) as assemblies of organised civil society,
  • Europe-wide election to the European Parliament (not 27 national elections) under a single statute as repeatedly included in all treaties since 1951 must be held,
  • The Court system should be fully independent of governments and outside interests.

 

How the Founding Fathers designed European democracy,

see https://schuman.info/supra5.htm

Why Brexit? and why do the other, oldest and strongest of Europe’s democracies like Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, not wish to join the ‘EU’? see

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

Schuman speaks on Europe’s democratic principles for political union at the signing of the Treaty of Paris 18 April 1951.





Signatories of Europe’s founding treaty, 18 April 1951



 


11 August, 2020

EU must act! How Google fiddles with your search results and mine!

Are you being manipulated by Google? Are they playing tricks on you so you become their commercial and political puppet? How can you tell?
One analyst found that:
‘Google maintains nine different blacklists to suppress information worldwide. We are all aware that Google deletes or blocks access to videos on YouTube, which it owns, but few people are aware that Google blocks access to millions of websites. On January 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet for 40 minutes.’
You can test whether Google and Twitter are impartial. Here’s how using a simple technique below.

Global manipulation (c) Bron


Question: When you make a search, does Google really show which articles most accurately reflect the search question? Or do some human manipulators fiddle the results?
Remember that Google and Twitter have every motive to cheat. They sell advertising. They want you to buy things.
For example the Pharmaceutical sector spends hundreds and millions of dollars lobbying the US Congress. They oppose efforts to reduce prices. Critics of their products, pills and vaccines get stifled. What are you prevented from learning about the ‘Covid-19 pandemic‘? President Trump says that Big Pharma are ‘getting away with murder‘. How do they use Google to their advantage?
And Google may want you to vote for certain parties, and discourage others. Political parties get huge contributions from industries, trade unions and NGOs. All are active on the Net. Does Google load the dice so the results you get are altered in their favour of parties?
Worse, the big Info Tech companies sell your personal data — they know your intimate secrets. They can often predict what you can do — sometimes more than you can.
That means you are manipulated.
Public frauded
Google, compared to other search engines, does not give the public what is the true result. In the run-up to the US elections, conservatives complain of a bias.
You want impartial searches? Don’t go to Google. In the run-up to the US elections in November, search for these supporters online and you will often find the results are biased in favour of critics rather than the original source.
The result? The main Info-Tech companies make citizens who want to read the original source feel like they are someone with a minority viewpoint.
Is this a gripe or a fact? A senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Psychology and Technology studied the phenomenon in detail. Dr Robert Epstein testified to the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s what he said:
In 2016, biased search results generated by Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported). I know this because I preserved more than 13,000 election-related searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election, and Google search results – which dominate search in the U.S. and worldwide – were significantly biased in favor of Secretary Clinton in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states.
Dr Epstein says that this Search Engine Manipulation Effect of the Google algorithm is used not only in USA but in other countries as well to manipulate elections.
Both the US and EU authorities should ask Dr Epstein for access to his database of searches over the last four years. They will show the dirty underworkings of western politics. If they are made public then all citizens can judge for themselves.
Dr Epstein outlined the results of his investigation:
I know the number of votes that shifted because I have conducted dozens of controlled experiments in the U.S. and other countries that measure precisely how opinions and votes shift when search results favor one candidate, cause, or company. I call this shift “SEME” – the Search Engine Manipulation Effect. My first scientific paper on SEME was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2015 (https://is.gd/p0li8V) (Epstein & Robertson, 2015a) and has since been accessed or downloaded from PNAS’s website more than 200,000 times. SEME has also been replicated by a research team at one of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany.
Dr Epstein calls this manipulation one of the most powerful means to control subliminally the democratic essentials of society.
SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and it is especially dangerous because it is invisible to people – “subliminal,” in effect. It leaves people thinking they have made up their own minds, which is very much an illusion. It also leaves no paper trail for authorities to trace. Worse still, the very few people who can detect bias in search results shift even farther in the direction of the bias, so merely being able to see the bias doesn’t protect you from it. Bottom line: biased search results can easily produce shifts in the opinions and voting preference of undecided voters by 20 percent or more – up to 80 percent in some demographic groups.

Democracy is at stake. The EU needs to act immediately. This type of manipulation is an entirely different and more dangerous dimension from the present line of EU investigation at StratCom, disinformation and advertising.
Robert Schuman and the co-signatories of the European Community system provided a system where impartial information could be presented to the public for use in their decision-making. This requires that the Consultative Committees be elected on a Europe-wide scale by European associations representing all elements of organised civil society. Whether in the European Coal and Steel Community or the European Health Community access to valid information was to be guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe.
In the Gaullist period into the 1960s the Council blocked this. Access to impartial information was feared both by ultra-nationalists and euroCommunist federalists like Spinelli, who knew it would destroy their malign ideology.
It is now more urgent than ever that European peoples and its leaders implement this measure.


Human intervention
We are a pawn in the Google version of Big Brother — unless we take precautions. That trap includes not only a biased algorithm. It includes some human being fiddling with the results for partisan purpose.
The Info Tech giants are making a financial, economic or political gain out of this.
The Info Tech giants are already the biggest companies in the world with combined $5 Trillion turnover. They are not manipulating the results for small time users. Their main customers are global giants too.
The results may be fiddled to provide an ideological bias so the public will eventually be ‘educated’ according to the manipulator.
Arabs, Jews, Oil, Russians, EU, Blackmail
How would Google and Twitter react to an article covering all the above terms, all somewhat controversial to some sections of the public? On 6 July I published an article dealing with disinformation, Fake News, covering these topics.

Palestine-Israel: Now the Blackmail is over, can Europe bring a Schuman Plan for Peace?


I also tweeted about the topic and left a link at eurdemocracy.com
On the morning after I checked public reaction by asking Google for search results of the article. On Google I used a three word search <> the most prominent in the title of the article.
Google put my article in first position on the first page on the morning after. But when I checked that evening it was nowhere to be seen on the first six pages. It had disappeared from sight! What I got was a long list of articles about how Israel is blackmailing Palestinians!
The search result was the same with or without the hyphen. Zero links.

The Alternatives search engines
I checked:
Duckduckgo,com.
It came up first on the first page. (even with the hyphen)
Bing.com
It came first on first page (with the hyphen)

Dogpile.com (which uses Google and other search engines) With the hyphen there was not even a reply. I dropped the hyphen and it came up first on first page.
Yahoo search. It said nothing of this description available please check your spelling etc. So I dropped the hyphen and the article came up on first page second article.

Google’s political dealings
Google and Yahoo both use human modified search engines algorithms to give a particular bias. This seems to involve exclusions as well as skewed results. The Google COE billionaire Eric Schmidt contributed to and worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign. He was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House and known as ‘Obama’s chief corporate ally.‘ Google and associates had at least 427 meetings‘ with the Obama White House.
Schmidt resigned from Google in 2017 when Mrs Clinton did not get elected. That failure happened in spite of what the Epstein study of search engine manipulation concluded that Google skewed search results delivering around 2.6 million extra votes among ‘undecideds’ in the Clinton Democrat direction at the election. Dr Epstein testified that to Congress and he said he was a Democrat voter.

Continuing Google Saga
At this time by the next Friday my article was confirmed on Bing and other search engines as still top of their first pages with the 3 terms.
On Google its was nowhere to be seen.
On Saturday evening 11 July, I found that my article was still rated 1st or second on the main search engines. Then, surprise surprise, I found my article suddenly appeared first on page one of Google search.
Does the weekend imply change of staff supervisors at Google?
But by Sunday it had disappeared from Google‘s first 7 pages. How do they explain this on-off censorship of what is supposedly an impartial search engine?
I was then running second on Duckduckgo and Yahoo and first on Bing.
Nothing on Google except pages about how Israel blackmails the PLO /Palestinians.

Twitter block
When I first published my post, I also sent out a Tweet. But when I checked the link to eurdomocracy.com it did not work. So I had to change the link to another site at blogactiv.eu .
I asked my online hosting service why, when I included a link to eurdemocracy.com in a Twitter message, it did not work. It was refused. I had to delete the tweet and use the blogactiv.eu backup copy of the article as the link source.
The help desk suggested it was the usual censorship by the hi tech industry.
Here’s what they wrote:
Thank you for contacting our support department. When I insert ‘eurdemocracy.com‘ in a browser, it does redirect to destination url
https://eurdemocracy.blogspot.com/ every time, so I am not able to replicate any issues with the redirect itself.
However, this isn’t to say that private platforms such as Facebook can decide to block any website they wish to, in which there are many examples of them doing so, as well as updating their terms of service several times over the years without warning. We are not sure why Facebook would block a redirect, but they use so many unknown factors on what they allow, that we don’t have any way to know exactly what the issue is.
Solution to cartel Information control
The public deserves a better service. After all, it is the public not the big cartel companies that is paying for the service.
Dr Epstein provides one solution against information cartel control:
The solution to The Google Problem is to declare Google’s massive search index – the database the company uses to generate search results – to be a public commons, accessible by all, just as a 1956 consent decree forced AT&T to share all its patents. There is precedent in both law and in Google’s own business practices to justify taking this step.
He says that declaring Google’s index a commons will quickly give to real competition in the information market place and the means to understand what is manipulated and what is not.
A key aspect of Schuman’s design was to provide Europe with a democratic defence of the powerless against the powerful. The Community was provided with anti-cartel machinery. It should use them on the most vital sectors against Info Tech control of information.


09 May, 2019

Fake News, Stealth Coups in US and Europe


A stealth Coup d’Etat may be defined as one that undermines democratic government “of the people, by the people, for the people.
Robert Schuman, the initiator of Europe’s democratic system, took Lincoln’s definition further. In a Democracy, he said, the people must be able to define the proposed objectives and the means to attain them. They must be at the service of the people and be agreed with the people.
The system of democracy he proposed involving the active participation of
    • national government ministers,
    • Europe-wide economic associations and
    • individuals.
It is far from being properly applied today.
Why?
Both Europe and USA are at risk of stealth coups. Democracy, that is open, honest politics, needs constant defence against the tendency of all humans to subtle frauds and major treacherous fakes leading to tyranny. The West is facing the dire consequences of apathy.
Democracy needs defence, as the body needs blood.
Nothing is easier for political counterfeiters to exploit the illusion of good principles, and nothing is more disastrous than good principles (such as open democracy and freedom of expression) being badly applied.’ Schuman wrote quoting philosopher Jacques Maritain.
The most dangerous of these threats, Schuman said, was that unaccountable and rigid bureaucracies would replace the voice of the people.
The Western society today is unsettled by more violence and division. Censorship is subtly being imposed by global information cartels. We should therefore be reminded about what Schuman added. He warned that any democracy that failed to defend Christian values of open, honest politics is likely to fall into tyranny and anarchy. The supposed liberating, democratic leaders of the Russian people became the Soviet ‘Dictators of the Proletariat.’
All founding States of the European Community agreed the basis of European democracy. Their Great Charter said that basis was the Freedom to Choose. This Declaration opposed Soviet dictatorship or Gaullist autocracy that wished to end political parties. In the same year, European Statesmen confirmed that signatory States of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms thus defined the borders of the New Europe.
Subsequent politicians tried to bury Europe’s Magna Carta.
In USA, the Mueller Report concluded that there was no Russian collusion with the Trump presidential campaign. No collusion, even less a conspiracy. Only conspiracy is illegal. But is that all we can conclude?
Mueller’s team of 17 lawyers had 13 registered Democrats, the rest being unaffiliated or unknown. Six had donated to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. It is unlikely therefore that any suspicious stone was left unturned.
Yet before the report, half a million articles on internet concluded that Trump was guilty. A majority of television and the press were convinced.
Television commentariat and funny guys were tireless in pressing the Trump-Russia collusion theme. A quarter of a billion interactions on FaceBook discussed and debated Trump’s guilt for allegedly colluding with the Russians. Many Democrat Congress leaders spoke vehemently about Trump’s guilt. Some still do!
Pulitzer prizes were given to New York Times and Washington Post for their investigations into Russian Collusion. But now we know: No Collusion!
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
So funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia – And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!
What evidence would stand up in Court? None. That is the conclusion of more than two years of forensic investigation about lawyers, some of them lawyers who have acted for Hillary Clinton and many of Trump’s most vicious opponents.
It was all Fake News! Massive-scale Fake News. They were shown to be deluded. At best it was a fishing expedition. But nothing fishy! There was nothing to hook. Or was whole campaign a pro-Clinton conspiracy?

Sooner or later, the public eye discerns the real truth. The most deceived or prejudiced take longer for the logic to click. Open discussion of evidence is the principle of natural justice of law courts. Under interrogation and deep analysis, rumours can be torn apart. Analysis is the only answer to Fake News, not censorship.
The careful analysis of facts is the opposite to the mob rule of the social media.
Fake News information campaigns need to be dissected, their deceitful techniques surgically examined. If mob rule on the internet brings a great section of the public to one conclusion, then the other side which says the opposite must be able to examine their assumptions.
Fact one: The conclusion of Mueller’s investigation is that they found no evidence of Russia colluding.
Fact two: A false story was hyped around the media very heavily for three years. Who was behind it? Was it Mrs Clinton? Mr Obama? or a misguided media? Who owns this media? Or are other disinformation agencies acting in the shadows? Are the Obama-nominated chiefs of intelligence agencies acting crookedly anti-Trump?
Trump includes them in the Washington ‘swamp‘. It is illegal for agencies to spy on US citizens. Spying on a presidential candidate is treasonous. The US Attorney General William Barr thinks so and is preparing cases. Were European agencies complicit in this electronic Stasi plot?
Fact three: a score of people at the top of the intelligence services (FBI, CIA, plus more than a dozen other agencies and the Department of Justice) have resigned or been sacked as more of the core material of the Russia collusion fake was exposed as false. Guilt is evident. They were involved in declaring Mrs Clinton innocent of extremely serious security violations and corruption and fabricating a case to stop Mr Trump taking office. Documents have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.  Court cases are being prepared.
One key bit of “evidence” was the “Dirty Dossier” also known as the Steele Dossier. (An anti-Trump British former spy was hired to write it.) This report aimed to show that Donald Trump was involved in scurrilous behaviour with prostitutes in Moscow and that this was a means to blackmail Trump. It does not stand up to any sort of veracity test.
The false dossier was then used as ‘evidence‘ for warrants from the FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Once one target for surveillance is agreed, the intelligence services could then track all communications he had with his contacts, and, even further, follow the contacts. Thus the entire Trump campaign could be penetrated by the Clinton Clan. Very KGB.

The intelligence services could thus track the communications of all the Trump team and make sure he was never elected. The same agents were supposed to investigate Mrs Clinton. They didn’t. Incendiary evidence of Mrs Clinton’s guilt in selling State secrets to foreign powers was brushed aside.
However, crooked warrants allowing the Clinton-biased spy chiefs to tap into communications of the entire Trump campaign provide an electronic paper trail. When the relevant documents are declassified in the next few weeks, the public will be able to judge on the horrendous proportions of this criminal spying conspiracy against the present president and more.
The fake dossier was knowingly introduced as a legal base for this political surveillance. The high officials signing these documents have now been sacked or resigned. Mr Barr is collating information prior to charges.
Much of the media showed their bias against Donald J Trump in the campaign and after. It is willing to slant their articles.Yet the facts have slipped out. Were journalists in the major newspapers and internet media, television and social being used? That should not surprise us. Fake News is a common thread of history. It takes an unusual journalist to buck many layers of editorial and publishing control.
Now European institutions and governments are on the hunt for ‘Fake News‘. They are simply aping the US media. 
The big danger about Fake News is not about click bait but world politics and information domination.
The only sure way to have unbiased journalism is to have independent journalists. The big $5 Trillion InfoTech companies (Google/Alphabet, FaceBook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple) now declare that censorship is their policy. They stop ‘hate speech‘ or ‘dangerous‘ journalists, but they do not define these terms. They ban other journalists from mentioning the names favourably. Thus they define the ‘enemies of the people.‘ No appeal. Banks close down their accounts and credit cards. Thus some veteran journalists are losing the means to survive.
These new media giants have destroyed years of previous archive postings of independent journalists. (Too often they expose fakes!) For others who do not expose them it is different. FaceBook vice president says ‘we do not remove lies or content that is inaccurate — whether it’s denying the Holocaust, the Armenian massacre, or the fact that the Syrian government has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people.’
Who guards the guardians? Who defines these ‘enemies‘? Are the InfoTech companies public service companies or an information cartel? Some politicians in US and Europe love this censorship. It silences their legitimate critics who point out their corruption. ‘Nationalists!‘ ‘Populists!
Dictatorship of the InfoTech giants.
Control of the media is equivalent to control by a dictatorship. Violence and smears were used to stop the truth appearing publicly to counter ideologies.
The USSR had Kominform. It used AgitProp: agitation (violent demonstrations) and propaganda (smears) to seize control of eastern Europe.
That’s when the western agencies developed their own means to spy on people. In early 1950s, US Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, set up its programme to manipulate information for propaganda and political control of media. Called ‘Operation Mockingbird’, it funded students and cultural organisations and magazines as ‘front organisations.
CIA and Marxists both targeted main stream media (MSM). This still threatens independent journalism. But the West had laws against the intelligence agencies spying on their own people. It is scarcely surprising that many journalists today are sympathetic (knowingly or unknowingly) to Marxist and Trotskyist ideologies.
The CIA wanted to keep track of suspects. The US Defence Department research agency, DARPA created LifeLog to collect personal data and compile a massive electronic database of every activity and relationship a person engages in. This was to include credit card purchases, web sites visited, the content of telephone calls and e-mails, preferences in books and magazines, television and radio, and physical location via wearable GPS sensors, biomedical data.
Criticised for privacy law violation, it was closed in early 2004. Simultaneously, in Feb 2004 Facebook was founded with multi-million investments. Coincidence? It was part of the trend for privatising the spying services.
Since then, mega info-tech corporations control global information access systems. How did Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft start up? The technology is derived from defence and intelligence industries.
Contemporary issues in US and Europe
How did the recent public fuss about 'Fake News' arise? The real origin was exposed by a journalist who did real investigative work.
Yes, there is fake news about the origin of fake news! The key is to check the first usages, the chronology and how it was spread. That’s what historians and journalists should normally do.
Fake News‘ was first used to create a smoke screen to hide bureaucratic ‘oversights‘ and corruption. Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson showed today’s explosive use of the term ‘Fake News,’ and the call to manage it, originated with President Obama, NOT Donald Trump.
Attacking Freedom of Expression is no public service. It is acting contrary to the people’s rights as it provides political weapons to close down debates.
After the Obama administration launched the campaign, Europeans did the same. Then Google executives helped Hillary Clinton weaponize it as an anti-Trump political device by 'shadow-banning' and manipulating the algorithms. They wanted to deter Trump from pursuing the case of Clinton treason. Calling anything ‘fake news‘ and ‘conspiracy theory‘ was supposed to embarrass Trump. The media would take it off the news agenda.
Instead Donald Trump made it doubly clear that Hillary Clinton should be in jail for selling US classified secrets of State to donors to the Clinton Foundation. People agreed that something stank in Washington. It was too late to hide the initial evidence. Trump was elected. Clinton and many Democrats and Republicans who had played the system lost.
Trump called the bluff of Obama. He exposed the corruption of Clinton and some earlier leaders. He did not stop because of this bad press. Instead he accused the media who took up the Obama slogan of ‘fake news‘ as being purveyors of fake news. These politically active journalists who refused to investigate the ‘cover-up‘, he said, were ‘enemies of the people.’ These were the same people who predicted the Clinton victory as 95 percent certain.
Truth will out. He said any attempt to hide the facts was itself fake news and a failure of journalism. Clinton and the Democrat establishment and some Republicans were trying to hide Clinton emails, destroying evidence, implicating her in the Uranium One, the anti-Trump Steele ‘Dirty Dossier’ and FISA spygate frauds. But copies of many emails exist and will be used in Court.
Real undercover journalism have exposed major InfoTech execs with their anti-Trump activities. They were caught on video saying how they invoke shadow-banning, censorship algorithms and demonetizing popular outlets.
Media is slow to change its prejudices. US President Donald Trump is forced to use Twitter as most of US media plays the news against him. Twitter has banned his supporters as ‘dangerous‘. To whom? The outcome of the 2020 elections? To corrupt business and the trillions that are freely spent in the Department of Defense?
An ex-CIA officer working at the highest levels, Kevin Shipp, exposed shadow government ‘black operations’ and showed that the CIA is just one of 19 US agencies that work outside legal and democratic control. So does much of the defence industries that also lack budgetary control. The Federal Reserve System is able to ‘print’ money now at the touch of a computer button. It ‘created‘ two trillions after the 2008 crash, magically tripling its balance sheet.
The Congressional-military-industrial complex (Eisenhower’s term) has now multi-trillion interests in ‘Fake News’ and censorship.
So are the American people in charge of their own destiny? Are Europeans?
Europe has developed a similar bureaucratic seizure of control and democratic paralysis. Real news has been taken hostage.


Fake News should not be confused with bad reporting. It involves global forces. Robert Schuman, the initiator of the European Community and Europe’s longest peace, warned about such forces. Americans are relative new comers to fake news and disinformation.
For thousands of years ‘Information warfare’ (disinformation) has been more effective than ‘hot war’ or was preliminary to it. Fake news deceives the enemy.
It was used three times in one century in wars between Germany and France.
The German Chancellor Bismarck edited a telegram (the Ems telegram) and then published it on Bastille Day 1870 to make it seem insulting to the French. The French media could magnified the affront to French dignity. The French impetuously declared war, which they lost. With the same fake news, Bismarck also forced German States to unify under Prussian Kaiser Wilhelm.
Today the main danger of truth to power is not just cities or nation states but global cartels.
Last century, before the First World War (WW1), the arms race was ignited by steel and armaments firms who emphasized their patriotism. In reality, international cartels, like Harvey United Steel, were formed which exchanged patents information. ‘Enemies‘ sat on the same board. The Arms Ring fooled War Departments and governments constantly into upgrading their weapon systems.
UK’s Armstrong Vickers, Germany’s Krupp Thyssen, France’s Schneider Creusot, US, Russian and Japanese companies became among the richest companies in a world cartel conspiracy. They owned not only the steel firms and coal mines for blast furnaces but newspapers, banks and controlled central bank policy. Journalists were more or less openly paid by foreign governments to write columns in the main newspapers of their foes. Extraordinarily this continued throughout the war! Well-placed articles by cartels manipulated governments. Governments and people were the victims of this Fake News in two world wars.
In USA Fake News is designed to subvert the freedoms of the Constitution. In Europe Fake News is used to block democracy ever being fully launched.

Robert Schuman created an anti-cartel, peace system called the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ (ECSC). It also laid down rules for impartial information in the sector. The treaty all people and States agreed to described how elections should take place in this sector to deal with
  • individual rights (by an elected open assembly),
  • associations of industries, workers and consumers (through an open tripartite Consultative Committee) and
  • national rights (through a open Council of Ministers).
Did this stop cartel trying to control of the press? Obviously not! When Charles de Gaulle seized power in 1957, he placed his loyal followers in key positions in radio and television and also in the press.
Then he planned to control all the Community institutions by blocking elections to the European Parliament and Consultative Committees dead in their tracks. He made out that all European decisions should be made in the Council of Ministers where his minister browbeat the smaller and less politically powerful countries to agree to his ‘package deals‘. He wanted to turn the European Commission into a political secretariat.
When de Gaulle left the scene in 1969, what did the politicians do? Did they restore democratic elections? Did they open up the Councils to the press, like good democrats? Not at all. They created a system where multiple little Napoleons ruled the roost to the detriment of the people. The people expressed their growing disgust at the democratic deficit.
The politicians have never allowed a legal European Parliament election YET. From 1950 to 1979 there were no elections. European Parliamentarians were delegated by governments and national parliaments.
In his book Pour l’Europe, published in 1963 Schuman wrote:
It is necessary in the near future to facilitate, according to the Charter of the Community, the election by direct universal suffrage of the members of the Assembly exercising the powers of deliberation and control. Article 138 (of the EEC treaty) moreover gave a mandate to that Assembly to draft such an electoral law. This must be uniform for all Member States. It is certain that the public’s consciousness of a unified Europe would be accentuated and take concrete form if it could affirm its existence regularly by a vote on a European scale. The elector would be integrated in a single electoral body and be able to pronounce their views on goals that attract the whole of the territories joined in unity. This idea needs to be welcomed and put into action without delay.‘ p147.
From 1979 to today politicians have refused to observe the second part of the treaty article that says elections should be Europe-wide. Instead they cut the sentence in half and implemented 28 national elections! They have a system that is biased in favour of governmental parties.
Today they still refuse to act.
Article 223 TFEU (Lisbon)
The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for elections of its members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

This month’s election continues the politician’s fraud for nearly 70 years! Brexitis the latest red warning light!
When dealing with disinformation we are dealing not just with lax ethics or immoral journalists or even just disinformation by secret services, e.g. KGB /FSB. We are dealing with global forces who work in trillions not billions of dollars: armaments, technocracies, banksters (bankers who make taxpayers responsible for their corrupt practice like the 2008 crash).
Democratic Deficit
Not having proper elections created a Democratic Deficit. Europe has never had its proper elections. The public started complaining about these little Napoleons acting against the public will win in the 1980s. Of course the leaders said they were working for the public good. But that did not include asking the public whether they agreed with them. They have still not held elections that had been in the treaties for decades before de Gaulle.
They also censored European history. Instead of recalling the principles of 9 May 1950, the 1957 Treaty of Rome’s Common Market became the start of Europe. Peace obviously came from people trading with each other, they said. Not true! What was really the democratic foundation of postwar peace was buried.
In 2018 Brussels bureaucracy failed to mark the 70th anniversary of democratic principles and freedoms that rescued the Continent from World War III. They forgot why a customs union was created and Brexiteers still have not been told.
Europe’s main Fake News comes by omission. Its media continuously fails to expose how European leaders have long failed to hold these basic elections and hold open Councils. They failed to expose the neo-Gaullist take-over of the supposedly impartial Commission by the fraudulent Spitzenkandidat system. What happens to citizens who declared they are candidates but are not attached to lobbyist-ridden political parties?
Europe’s media fail to reveal today’s Fake History!
But crunch time is coming. The experience of Europe’s corrupt elites is shaping up to be similar to that of America’s democratic frauds.