Britexit5 Democratic Disaster still awaits even if Britain votes Yes!

The ‘wrong man’ became EU Commission President. The wrong person is likely to be selected in 2018. You can be sure it will not be a Briton!
In 2014 UK Prime Minister was perfectly clear about Mr Jean-Claude Juncker as potential European Commission President. ‘He is the wrong man.’ The UK was forced by the Top Pol or Spitzenkandidat system to accept him. What will happen after the UK referendum on BREXIT? The reform package ignores a major injustice. There will never be a British Commission President while the Spitzenkandidat system exists!
Let’s move to 2018. In the BREXIT referendum of 2016 or 2017, Britain has voted overwhelmingly to stay inside the EU. Everyone is relieved. Great Britophilia subfuses the whole of Europe. British Union flags are waved everywhere. The French toast their island friends in prize-winning, home-grown British ‘sparkling wine’ which is called ‘champagne’ in other parts of the world.
At last Britain, ‘the mother of democracies‘ as some like to call her, is the darling of Europe. Britons are the heroes of Brussels. So what happens about the selection of the European Commission President?
Even if everyone in Europe is enthusiastic for British personalities, the ‘Top Pol” system of the Continentals would make it impossible to agree to a British president. The ‘Top Pol‘ system forbids it. The Europe’s biggest party political grouping can, and in fact, must, force its candidate on the willing or unwilling European public.
Only a card-carrying member of the Continental ‘Top Pol‘ EPP-Socialist Cartel is allowed.
Let’s say the largest grouping, the EPP, wanted to renew the candidature of the present incumbent, Mr Juncker, or has another candidate it has elected by its special 800 EPP electors, Mme Dupont. Then the European Union would force that candidate on the public.
Imagine that the opinion polls say Mr Jones, the British choice had 75 percent of the European public in favour of his becoming the new Commission President. Mme Dupont has the support of 20 percent and 5 percent are undecided.
According to the Spitzenkandidat system, the public would be told that Mme Dupont is the choice of the European Popular Party. If the Continentals again returned the EPP as the majority, the EPP politicians in governments would automatically demand that Mme Dupont become Commission President. The same goes for the Socialists.
We can assume that in 2018 the ballot papers for the European Parliamentary elections do not say anything that exposes this swindle to daylight. Murkiness covered the 2014 elections. Further fog is forecast for 2018.
Firstly, the politicians are likely to do everything to avoid the legal and moral embarrassment. They will try to keep Mr Juncker on. They will thus avoid any question being asked about his legitimacy.
Secondly they will use sleight of hand. Voters came to the polls in 2014 and voted for their MEPs. No ballot paper said that if you vote for an EPP politician, of whatever shade of EPP, the party cartel says you are supporting Mr Juncker. No ballot paper said that if you vote for the Socialists you will be demanding that Herr Martin Schulz become Commission President.
But the Political Pickpockets or manipulators tried to make out that was the case. The treaties say no such thing. They say the opposite. Politicians are banned. Nor does any European law or Regulation. The Commission and the European Parliament are independent institutions.
Thirdly, they will make lightning decisions on the top jobs. Mr Juncker was elected. Mr Schulz wasn’t. He got second prize. That is the presidency of the European Parliament. Nowhere do any regulations or treaties say there is any second prize! It is evident that the political manipulators cut an undemocratic deal.
Where did the second prize come from? Mathematics. The EPP has 221 members and Socialists 191 in the 751 member chamber. The two groups working together have more than 400 votes. They can dictate the programme of the Parliament. They can endorse the Commission President. They elect a Socialist Speaker of Parliament. All it takes is an undemocratic secret stitch-up.
This secret deal also depends getting away with pure chicanery. These political parties say they have the rights to elect a politician as Commission President. Why don’t all the Member State governments come clean? Why didn’t they print on the ballot paper the following:

Attention, Warning, Achtung! When you vote for any EPP candidate you are endorsing Mr Juncker to become the Commission President
When you vote for any Socialist candidate for MEP, you are endorsing Herr Schulz to become Commission President. etc ?

Wouldn’t that cause electors to think twice before casting their vote? It would poison any enthusiasm.
If politicians wished to have the same honesty as a cigarette packet they could go further. They could add:

Attention! Warning! Achtung! The runner-up may well get the Presidency of the European Parliament. The newly elected MEPs are not allowed to elect their Speaker. It is decided behind closed doors by Council politicians. In order to perform this political somersault the majority in the EP will arrange it so that they do not put up a candidate. As the majority would normally have the best chance, they will just manipulate the democratic vote in Parliament as their first act of Democracy.

What would happen to Mr Jones? Would the European public be demanding a British president? They might but it wouldn’t help.
Even if Mr Jones got all the British votes, it would be in vain. The British Conservatives are not members of the EPP and therefore, even with their allies, they would never gain a majority in the EP. The British Labour party did not endorse Mr Schulz. So that creates a double loss for a British candidate.
Let’s now turn to the opposite scenario. Following the secular trend, fewer people will vote. Now nearly three out of every five people refuses to vote at all. And of those that do, one third voted against SpitzenKandidat parties. Besides the British Conservatives and its allies, there are what Brussels calls ‘euro-sceptic’ parties: the French National Front, the British UK Independence Party, the German Alternative etc. Some of these are not anti-European but anti- the European scam and stitch-up that has been going on since the time of General de Gaulle blocked the democratic development of Europe. De Gaulle told his press secretary Alain Peyrefitte that his programme was to block all aspects of supranational democracy. It has never been unblocked. And the politicians since de Gaulle have used his system to provide jobs for themselves.
De Gaulle believed that only one election was required — to elect him. He made sure the public had no real choice by having a two-tier election process. He would then select a prime minister and his government. The Top Pols use the same system with modifications. That is how these politicians have succeeded in taking over, root, stock and branch, the key domain of the Commission presidency. They say that it belongs them. They have party membership cards. Yet they are just 2 percent of the European population. Being partisan means they have a political club and organization that can be used against the public, not for it. Talk about Apartheid!! The treaties say all members of the public have this right to office!
So if all the people, who are ‘turned off’ and in the past didn’t vote, now do start voting, and the anti-scam parties continue to increase in popularity, then It may well be that such parties could form a majority. They might, at least, have enough votes to block the mathematics of the EPP-Socialist cartel.
Let’s say they represented the biggest faction in the EP. Would you expect governments running the scam to form a Commission composed of anti-scam people?
Yet unless the 28 governments begin to act responsibly and as democrats who are against political corruption, they might well be faced with such a nightmare scenario.
It would be suicide. If in 2018 or later elections two thirds of the new Members of Parliament are ‘Euro-sceptical’ does that mean that the Commission should be chosen on the policy basis to destroy the institutions? That would make any future election meaningless. It would be the equivalent of an anarchistic revolution. Europe would be left without any governance system. With no single market and no protection, it could be picked off by powerful world forces whether in the energy field or elsewhere. They could destroy European human rights and open the countries to jihadis, religious warfare and terrorists. A disintegrated Europe would leave Europe the prey of North African terror cells and terror governments. Instead Europe would have thrown up its hands on its duty to help these States establish human rights and freedom across and around the Mediterranean.

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

The Europeans are about to have their democracy stolen. AGAIN. Who will do it? Let’s call them Pickpocket Politicians. The British who boast of their Magna Carta and their democracy might make matters a whole lot worse by their BREXIT referendum!
At the core of the problem lies the dominant Cartel of groupings in the European Parliament, aided by nearly all national politicians, it would seem. They are showing that 28 countries called Democracies cannot abide by simple democratic rules at the European level. They prefer fraud and democratic theft.
Stand by for another decade of crises in European affairs! It is looming. No one is talking about it yet. It will explode soon. I’ll give you an exact date: 2018. And a few years later, again and again and again.

• Whatever the outcome of discussions Mr Cameron has with the European Council,
• whatever the publicity that he tries to propagate afterwards,
• whatever the reaction of the British public,
• whatever the pleas of other European States for Britain to stay within the EU,
• whatever the arguments of anti-EU parties,
• whatever the support of pro-EU parties,

the UK Referendum will be a major failure.
Not just for the UK. It will be a major failure for all of Europe. It will be a major failure for all candidate States and Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. All Europeans will lose out from UK’s referendum.
Except the self-proclaimed ‘Top politicians’, the ‘TopPols‘.
Why?
Britain has been and will continue to be excluded from the top leadership of Europe. Not just now. Possibly for ever. It is not a member of the dominant Parliament grouping, the EPP. Even if Britain votes overwhelmingly to stay in, top jobs are excluded. Europeans had better not cheer like the Gaullists! Other countries might be in the same exclusion boat too.
When I spoke to a key member of the Prime Minister’s team about this at the June European Council last year, one thing was abundantly clear. The British government had no idea what was in store. I asked if the British government was going to deal with this vital question in their reform package.

My question was this: ‘Is the British government asking the European Council to remove the measures that exclude a Briton from ever becoming the President of the Commission? ‘

A reform referendum is the moment to make sure this error was corrected. Instead the British government has chosen to do nothing and say nothing about it. I was met with a blank look when I said that no Briton would ever become the Commission President in the future. Then when I explained, I could see the truth was sinking in.

As it stands the Continental powers will make sure that there will NEVER be a British president of the European Commission. This is a fairly obvious outcome of the subversive scheme that the Continental parties have already activated. The Conservatives are not part of the EPP. As long as they remain independent, they will never have one of their own called to be Commission President.
It is called the ‘Top Politician’ scam. Or if you want it in German: SpitzenKandidatenBetrug‘ The present Commission president is M. Jean-Claude Juncker. Nobody in the United Kingdom voted for him. If you add up all the votes cast within the UK, the highest figure I have seen that had anything to do with Mr Juncker is less than 0.2 percent of all votes cast. Even that is wrong. The answer is ZERO votes.
That is hardly surprising because no ballot paper in all the European Union said that Mr Juncker was a candidate for the office of President of the European Commission. He simply ’emerged’ from the European Parliament elections of June 2014. All this is a bit bizarre for a post some (wrongly) compare to the President of the USA and which pays a higher salary.
Just reflect a second. If the European Parliament elections were really about the election of the President of the European Commission, then obviously the ballot papers for the electors would say so. Legally, no election of the President took place. Hence everyone can shout out loud: FRAUD! SCAM! THIEVES! The 28 national elections for the 2014 European Parliamentary elections elected national members to the European Parliament, nothing more.
The national politicians know it is a fraud. Public research revealed that hardly anyone inside the EU even recognized his name, Juncker. Even Frau Merkel objected that no one really knew his name. It took some behind-the-scenes arms-twisting before even the national politicians agreed they could get away with it. The Socialists wanted to control Parliament and name its president. Eventually they all agreed.
Mr Juncker was the ex-prime Minister of Luxembourg, a tiny country at the heart of Europe known for a controversy of being a tax haven. He was out of office but still active in partisan politics.
Why then was Mr Juncker elected? Well, he had support. Who exactly? He was given the office because he was chosen by 382 party politicians. Who were they? They were those out of 800 special members of the European People’s Party (EPP) who voted ‘yes’ that Mr Juncker should be a ‘Top Politician.’ In other words, a Spitzenkandidat.
So less than half of the 800 EPP voters wanted Mr Juncker.
Were any of the 382 voters British? No. In fact none of the 800 who cast their vote was British.
All that should smell a little fishy to any democrat. Smelly, rather like a fish that is a week old.
Why were there no British voting for Mr Juncker? That is because the mainstream British parties are not in coalition with such operations as the EPP. The EPP is considered centre-right in European politics. But the centre-right British Conservative party is in another coalition with smaller parties it considers more like-minded.
The EPP has been and still is the biggest trans-European coalition of governmental parties. It dominates politics in the European Parliament. It is the equivalent in politics of what, in economics, is called a Cartel. And it dominates as if it were a monopoly power. The consumer, Joe Public, becomes a victim of extortion.
The EPP has managed to bring into its ranks major government parties of most of the EU’s Member States. The first major problem for Democracy and Justice is that Britain is excluded from its internal machinations.
That’s not all. It gets worse. The second major problem is that the prominent political parties, together with other coalitions among the Liberals and the Socialists have all agreed on what is an open fraud to bamboozle European citizens out of their democratic rights. What’s in it for them? Jobs on the Commission too.
They are saying that only politicians, not ordinary citizens, can be members of the Commission and that only their parties have a right to put up candidates for the office. In that they are dead wrong! The treaties say exactly the opposite. They say that Commissioners must be totally non-partisan and independent, like a judge in a court case. They swear in the European Court with the oath of office to be independent.

“I solemnly undertake:

• to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
• to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
• in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity;
• to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.”

And then do the opposite! An active partisan of a political party is member of a body with a dogma. By being national party politicians they are apt to take instructions from governments. By speaking to lobbyists in private, they are doing the wrong thing. Such matters should be discussed in public in legislative Consultative Committees or not at all. Being a party politician is the exact opposite of non-partisan. It is being highly partisan.
So this Continental fraud not only deprives the average citizen of his or her rights to become a Commissioner. It restricts the right to certain Continental politicians.
Furthermore, and most striking for the British Government’s ‘reform’, it completely eliminates all British politicians from  the latest, corrupt Commission game. So it discriminates against the average citizen by stopping independent citizens from becoming Commissioners and acting fairly. And, while committing this fraud, it discriminates against British politicians and excludes them from the top politicians’ ‘closed shop’!
If you need to have an analogy it is equivalent to the Soviet Politburo system. Only those who were Communist party members could be considered to take leading roles in Soviet society. The same applies to the way the top politicians have rigged the EU governance system.
Robert Schuman designed the Community system to have three levels of democracy and only the EP level was supposed to be party political. The Commission was defined as being the non-governmental, non-lobbyist, non-party political Honest Broker among these institutions.
How do the Top Pols get away with it? The Commission is supposed to be — and so it often boasts — the ‘guardian of the treaties’. So that once the Commission was full of politicians, they simply passed declaration saying: 'Only ex-politicians are welcome here.' They then said: 'We can be active in politics too.' The treaties say the opposite but the Commission declaration has not yet be tested in the European Court of Justice. Once it is raised there, there will be more than sparks flying.
If the treaties say that politicians cannot become Members of the Commission unless they renounce their allegiance to party dogma, doctrine and ideology, government representation and lobbyist activity, what is to be done about it?
If the UK refuses to raise the alarm against this flagrant discrimination both against the British nation and against all British citizens, then matters will go from bad to worse. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, it will be highly unlikely that Britain will seek a further reform referendum of the EU scam for another decade. Whether inside or outside the EU the corrupting of Schuman’s democracy will make the whole of European affairs more unmanageable.
The worst aspect of Britain’s refusal to apply Magna Carta principles of democracy is that the next referendum on reforming the EU is likely to be pushed back for years as politicians do not like referendums. Europeans will have to live with the Cartel’s distortion of democracy on immigration policy and the euro debacle for the near future.

Mein Kampf2: Nazism versus Democracy

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

Let’s look at the authorship of the Mein Kampf fraud itself.

1. Who wrote it? Hitler supposedly wrote it when in a comfy prison in 1924. He writes in the introduction:

‘On April 1st, 1924, I began to serve my sentence of detention in the Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of the Munich People's Court of that time.

‘After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first time to begin a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes to a description not only of the aims of our Movement but also of its development.’

 What landed him in clink?  An attempted putsch or coup d’Etat in Munich organized by Hitler and Ludendorff.

Let’s first go back to 1920, when the pair visited the politically active Strasser brothers, Georg and Otto. We find that the tall and imposing General Erich Ludendorff arrived in his car with the pale-faced, former Sergeant Hitler in his tow at a respectful distance ‘like his orderly’. Ludendorff told the Strassers: ‘We must unite all nationalistic groups.’ He said he was in charge of all military operations and Hitler was responsible for political training. 

By 1922 American diplomats report that Hitler as a firebrand orator addressed his 1200 ‘roughnecks.’ They shouted ‘Death to the Jews’ accompanied with frantic cheering. (When asked point-blank about this anti-Semitism by the American, he replied that he merely favored disenfranchising Jews and excluding them from public affairs.)

The US diplomat Robbins reported that ‘Hitler, the young Austrian Sergeant, leading the Fascist movement known as the ‘Grey Shirts’ is working very .. efficiently along the same lines as Mussolini. … He is obtaining a great deal of money from manufacturers just as Mussolini did. He told {us} that he is collecting funds and equipment and that all was going well.’ (Toland’s Hitler).

The Munich Beer Hall Putsch took place in November 1923. What is often not recalled was the putsch was attempted with the WW1 military supremo, General Erich Ludendorff. Secondly, Hitler was already drawing funds from industrialists, although Ludendorff was of much higher prestige as a nationalist leader and war hero. In the latter part of the war, the country was virtually controlled by General Hindenburg and General Ludendorff. Hindenburg was chief of the General Staff, but Ludendorff, who was designated Quartermaster General, overshadowed the civil government of the time.

Who was the chancellor of Germany at this time? It was, unusually for Protestant-dominated Germany, a Bavarian Catholic. The aristocratic academic Georg von Hertling was then in his mid-seventies. He was a political philosopher, writing on law and the State, medieval thinkers, as well as metaphysics and ‘Darwinism as an epidemic’. At the start of the war, he had become Minister-president of Bavaria. He was well aware through Count Lerchenfeld, his envoy in Berlin, that the military clique had started the war.

Hertling was also a significant figure in another area. He was the politics professor of Robert Schuman who later created the European Community. Von Hertling, a Catholic, created the very influential, international academic association called the Görres Society. It published a wide range of erudite and scientific publications including the multi-volume Staatslexicon encyclopedia. Hertling wrote several articles including that on Democracy. (He remarked that democratic ideas can be active outside of the framework of a Democracy and that Americans themselves related how industrialization and the mega corporations corrupted the voting system. The Presidency could be bought for two million dollars. ‘To the victors, the booty!’)

Schuman later provided a definition of democracy that surpassed that of Lincoln’s. It was firmly based on Judeo-Christian conclusions. ‘Democracy owes its existence to Christianity.’

‘What characterizes a democratic State are the objectives it proposes and the means by which it attempts to attain them. It is at the service of the people and acts in accordance with it.’

Both the objectives and their limitation and the means to attain them have to be understood by the common good of all peoples and their consent to them. He reached the same conclusion as the French Jewish philosopher Henri Bergson: ‘Democracy is by essence evangelical because it has love as its motor.’

The nationalistic Ludendorff was a promoter of the Stab in the Back theory that Germany had been defeated because left-wing politicians had betrayed it. His biographer defines him as a social Darwinist who considered war was the natural condition of mankind. War was the foundation of society. Military dictatorship was the normal form of government. He considered Judaism and Christianity a weakening force within society and worshipped pagan gods such as Wotan. All that sounds very similar to what is found in Mein Kampf.

It is ironic that when Graf von Hertling became Chancellor for the last year of war, the country was virtually in the hands of a military dictatorship.

In 1920 Ludendorff had taken part in an earlier Coup d’Etat, the Kapp Putsch against the Weimar central  government. So when Ludendorff worked with Hitler in Bavaria in the provincial south, his reputation would have been even greater.

But at the Munich trial following the failed Putsch, Ludendorff bawled out the judge as if he was speaking in the parade ground. He was freed. He dissociated himself from Hitler.

Ludendorff was not therefore in prison with Hitler, although some of his ideas may have been included in the book. Among those who were in prison there was Rudolf Hess who was Hitler’s secretary. According to historians he typed many parts of the script and made substantial revisions. Others in prison with Hitler may have made major contributions. Or they may have even ghost-written it. Who were they and how did such a mixed bag of bad ideas get published in the millions?

That we will explore next time.

1. Mein Kampf and other 'holy book' frauds

This is the first of a series on the impact of Mein Kampf, why it was a fraud, and the lessons to be learned.

At the start of 2016 the copyright of Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle), lapsed. In Germany the book has been forbidden from public sale until now. That is not true elsewhere. Copies and translations of the book are widely available and have had had substantial continuous sales, legally or surreptitiously, over the past 70 or more years. The electronic version has brought remarkable boost to the book, placing it on the world best seller list of the century. This may have arisen following anti-Semitism with the growing immigrant population in the West.
In Arabic countries from Egypt and North Africa and in many Islamic States such as Indonesia the book has been placed in the long-term best seller category. In Pakistan and in India (which has a higher number of Muslims) sales are huge. The title translates as My Jihad.
In the West the sales have been more modest? Why?
The West with its more open society has been able to analyze and criticize its errors and ridicule its falsehoods, its juvenile race hate and its anti-Semitism/ jealousy of the Jews. One sociological fact is apparent.
Where the Bible is absent or banned from circulation the book Mein Kampf and also those like the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion flourish. Germany was already enfeebled from living Christianity and vibrant Judaism by the illogical deceit of nineteenth century ‘theological rationalists’ using Hegelian philosophy and unsound conjectural suppositions of the texts. Centered in a number of German universities such as the influential Tübingen school, they tried to show that the books of the Bible were not written by the authors attributed to them, that the New Testament books were written perhaps a century after the Christ and some of the Hebrew books were edited and written by a number of authors at a very late date.
They succeeded in raising doubts and disbelief among many people. Synagogue and church attendance plummeted and seminaries were riven with controversy and confusion. Only after WW2 were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered with often multiple copies of almost all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead of medieval manuscripts some of these finds dated centuries before Christ. Copies of New Testament books have also been found dating from within a few decades of the events of Christ’s life and his followers.
Hitler aimed to demolish the edifice of the synagogue and the church. In spite of the earlier work of the rationalists and materialists, Hitler’s book did not succeed that well. Originally the book sold only when Hitler seized power by violence and force. The major motive was to understand the real Weltanschauung of the Nazi party as it went into action.

Hitler planned to destroy Christianity because he saw its moral framework) as unfitting for his Reich. He first sent Bible Students, who refused call-up and military service, to the concentration camp at Dachau. He criminalized both Catholics and Protestants. A war already burned against the Jews.
Hitler had bamboozled the Roman Catholic church with a Concordat but then launched an attack on any dissident clergy. In 1937 the pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mit brennender Sorge denounced the ‘myth of blood and race,’ and Hitler’s ‘aggressive paganism,’ and the consequent ‘war of extermination’ against the church.
Hitler set up a Reich Church, where pastors were banned. Only Nazi orators spoke there. With monstrous disinformation, he called it officially the German Evangelical Church. It was a German church for the worship of the German State and a new savior, Adolf Hitler. Some 700 Protestant pastors were arrested. The Jews fared much worse. Synagogues were burnt and Torah scrolls destroyed.
‘Priests say Jesus is a Jew,’ Dr Hanns Kerrl, Hitler’s Reich Minister for Church Affairs, told the Reich’s religious leaders in February 1937. ‘They say salvation comes from the Jews. That won’t do!’ He screamed: ‘A new authority has arisen as to what Christ and Christianity is. That authority is Adolf Hitler. … We must not tolerate Jews any more.’

Hitler’s book became the new Bible. It was presented at weddings to the couple instead of the Bible and at other ‘religious’ occasions. In 1938 Minister Kerrl ordered the Hebrew name of God, YHWH, be suppressed from display in all churches.
With that Germany’s fate was sealed. As the British historian Richard Williams Morgan put it long ago: ‘It is impossible for a Bible-reading nation to be a nation of slaves; for this reason the enemies of mental and spiritual Liberty have always been hostile to its free circulation.’ Cambrian History, p13.
Hitler’s program calling for a National Church under his ideologue Rosenberg was an attempt at thought dictatorship against the true Book. It would have ‘the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.’ He decreed: ‘The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.’ On the altars there must be nothing but ‘Mein Kampf’ [to the German nation and therefore to God, the most sacred book] and to the left of the altar a sword.
Next time we will look at the fraud itself.

Was NATO or the European Community responsible for Europe's long Peace? Fourteen UK Telegraph historians are wrong!

In the UK Referendum debate, fourteen UK historians wrote a letter to the Telegraph newspaper of London about peace in Europe. They should be ashamed. They are plain wrong in their 'facts'.

The Telegraph, London, 17 Jan 2016
SIR – The claim that the EU is the source of peace within Europe, repeated yet again on last Thursday’s Question Time, cannot go unchallenged.
Nato includes non-EU states, such as the United States and Turkey. It was founded in 1949, well before the Treaty of Rome, and continues to guarantee the peace of Europe even after the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact. Meanwhile, Germany has transformed itself from a warmongering state into a model democracy determined to atone for the horrors of the Third Reich.
These are welcome developments, but only myth-makers can claim that they were generated by the EU.
Prof David Abulafia, University of Cambridge
Dr Irina Somerton, University of London
Prof John Charmley, University of East Anglia
Dr Robert Crowcroft, University of Edinburgh
Prof Tom Gallagher, University of Bradford
Prof Gwythian Prins, London School of Economics
Prof A W Purdue
Doctor Richard Rex, University of Cambridge
Dr Andrew Roberts
Dr Lee Rotherham
Prof Guy Rowlands, University of St Andrews
Prof Nigel Saul, Royal Holloway, University of London
Oliver Lewis
Innes Jones
……………………………………………………………………….
My letter to the Telegraph
Sir,
Fourteen historians wrote that the EU was not responsible for Europe’s longest peace. They are wrong. They are creating their own mythology. The EU was not created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 but by the Treaty of Paris in April 1951. It created the European Coal and Steel Community and a new form of supranational democracy. Its stated aim was to ensure peace in Europe.
In March 1950 the fear of perpetual war in Europe was common everywhere. One US think tank, FPA (Foreign Policy Association), after interviewing foreign ministries around Europe wrote in a report: ‘Whatever we do, Europe will … have to face the fact that the singularly favourable position it enjoyed during the five centuries following the discovery of the New World and the conquest of the colonies is now drawing to a close. While the Russians and the Communists have capitalised on the predicament of western Europe, they did not bring it about.’ Teenage Germans are ‘strongly imbued with Nazi ideas.’
The same conclusion was reached by the annual conference of US ambassadors in Europe in 1949. They considered European solutions as ‘pipe dreams’ and their ‘golden goose’ of the Marshall Plan was being sacrificed as it exacerbated various forms of nationalistic competition and trade barriers. They were keenly aware of Soviet designs on Germany especially the industrial Ruhr.
General Lucius Clay, US Military Governor of Germany in March 1949 concluded: ‘I repeat what I said in a cable a few days ago. We have lost Germany politically and therefore it really does not matter except that history will prove why there was World War III. No gesture can we make to draw Germany westward so why do we spend money on Germany. Thank God I will be out of it soon…’ Papers of General Lucius Clay, p.1063.
The Community system was created by the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 “World peace cannot be safeguarded without creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that face it.” That Proposal presented the beginning of “a political entity called Europe” and the means and method to govern aspects of it.
Robert Schuman was convinced as French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that Europe must use this last chance for peace. Others said it was impossible. He was not only the designer of the peace, but a shrewd political technician and an impartial visionary for a positive future. He was co-author of NATO and the Council of Europe. He never ascribed Europe’s internal peace to NATO.
Just before his Schuman Proposal he told the US Secretary of State Acheson that the supranational Community system would produce the greatest period of prosperity since the Middle Ages.
And so it has happened. Europe is living in its longest peace in its two-millennium recorded history. Britain needs to debate those ‘democratic principles’ that Brussels has since tried to bury.
Yours etc,
David Price
Schuman Project
Brussels 18 Jan 2016

Petro-Jihad! Saudi Aramco half-century war on the West

Would you like to have a piece of the largest, richest, most powerful company on this planet? Your chance may come soon. The Saudis are considering making shares available in Aramco.
Be warned! Get the facts first! For half a century the planet’s most powerful company has been dedicated to converting the world to worship its god and to obey Sharia law. Saudi Aramco, dwarfs other multinationals like an elephant before ants. Its value surpasses Germany’s annual output. It rivals the entire Gross Domestic Product of the whole European Union.
Saudi Aramco should be worth modestly around $2.4 trillion, according to the Lex column of the Financial Times on 9 January (Saudi Aramco: family jewels). That values its estimated 300 billion barrels of oil and gas at $8 a barrel. That’s just a little part of it. Sale of oil magnifies assets into huge profits on top of that. Last year oil sold for around $50 a barrel or so.
Free market US shale oil punctured the murky OPEC cartel. By its price-ratcheting operations, oil reached astronomical prices nearly touching $150. Now prices have plummeted. Present low prices are Saudi policy too. Prices are controlled by their dominant supplies. The Saudis have now opened wide the spigots to flood the market in order to annihilate the more costly shale oil. Low prices also destroy alternative energy systems which require expensive investment. Prices fell to below $30 a barrel at the start of 2016. The key priority of a cartel is to retain market share, not prices. They can later crank up the price by long-tested cartel techniques. Europe has long been the victim. It will gain no respite from energy blackmail.
Low oil prices have a devastating effect on Russia, its main rival. In the mid-1980s the engineered collapse of prices destroyed the Soviet economy.





Saudi Arabia is now living off cash reserves in order to continue its luxuriating lifestyle. Hence it is considering putting up for sale its ‘family jewels’, Saudi Aramco for sale. They need just enough cash to get them through the period while legitimate competitors are driven into bankruptcy.
Just a little bit of the jewels, mind. Saudi Aramco could be worth 7 or perhaps 10 trillion dollars. To put that in perspective, the GDP of the entire European Union, the world’s largest economy, is 18 trillion dollars. Such an estimate would put Aramco well ahead of the leading Chinese banks which sometimes rate at 3 or four trillion. The leading US oil ‘giant,’ ExxonMobil, clocks in at around a third of a trillion. Russia’s Rosneft and Mexico's Pemex, faced with higher extraction costs are way behind.
The Saudis and the Gulf states also need to create a sure way to deliver high price oil to effete Europeans and eliminate Russia and other competitors. If the Persian Gulf is blocked by an antagonistic Shia Iran, then a pipeline to the Mediterranean would be essential to sell Europeans high-price energy. Unfortunately the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean is occupied by Russophile Syria/Lebanon, or Israel. What is the core issue of the Syria conflict? Lucrative Arab gas and oil commerce from the Gulf to Europe would be so much easier if the Syrian regime of Assad with its pro-Shia tendencies were eliminated. Meanwhile Europe, not Saudi Arabia or the Gulf, is obliged to take in millions of the refugees, victims and belligerents.
In its energy imports the EU pays out enough to cover the entire EU budget two or three times over, a billion euros worth per day. That’s the cost of energy blackmail and oil jihad. Europeans apparently are not intelligent enough to produce alternative energy sources or save on consumption. They buy overpriced oil.
In Saudi Arabia it seems that oil just seeps out of the sand almost for free. But it wasn’t always like that. American companies like Standard Oil of California (SoCal). Exxon and Texaco dug round for a few years before they struck oil. When they did, Saudi King Abdulaziz demanded half the profits or else he would take it over completely by nationalization. The US government crumpled under the threat. It created the ‘golden gimmick’, a curious tax-deal, to say the least, where half the US company’s profits were just not taxed.
The Saudis then began to use the company as an overt instrument of Saudi foreign policy. It was deployed against its western Judeo-Christian customers. The oil weapon was used in the 1967 Six-Day war against Britain and USA. Following Yom Kippur 1973 and the alleged US support for Israel when Egyptian and other Islamic forces attacked it without warning, the Saudi government took a 25% stake in US Aramco. The next year they increased their slice to 60%. Finally they nationalized the whole thing in 1980.
What a steal! Nowadays Aramco produces 12.5 million barrels a day. The world’s top oil producer. That’s worth at recent prices a billion dollars every 24 hours!
In 1973 when Muslim forces attacked Israel at Yom Kippur, Saudi Arabia also deployed its ‘Oil Weapon’ against all of Europe. Using Aramco as a battering ram and the Arab States in OPEC (Arab Organization of Petroleum Countries, AOPEC) as the sword of Islam, they attacked all European States in their vitals, their foreign policy. Unless these States changed their policy towards Israel they would get no oil.
Absolute embargo. Zilch. Not a drop. The motorways were bare of traffic. On Sundays drivers required special permission to travel.




 Fortunately in the 1970s, although the pro-Arab and anti-Israel policy of de Gaulle, the autocratic French president, had lead to the weakening of the Community system, enough solidarity existed to help. Counties like the Netherlands and Denmark which had no alternative sources were able to use the single market to swap oil supplies from elsewhere. From the start after WW2, European Statesmen like Robert Schuman had warned that Europe needed to have energy independence from blackmail if it were to survive honorably. That was a key purpose of the Coal and Steel Community, the Euratom Community and the Economic Community. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the closure of Egypt’s canal led to the loss of two thirds of Europe’s oil supplies. Did Europe’s lackadaisical politicians influenced by de Gaulle take this warning serious?
In 1970s the politicians in the ‘democracies,’ who were faced with the threat of changing foreign policy under duress, showed little intestinal fortitude. Less fortunately they reached a compromise with the Islamic blackmailers who had unplugged Europe’s economy. They agreed to allow the massive immigration of unemployed from North Africa to their devastated economies. Across Europe on certain days the motorways were emptied of all vehicles. Factories closed or went bankrupt.
This economic devastation has as its main origin the cartel operation that controls oil and gas. Even so called democratic oil-producers do not offer supplies at cost plus a modest profit of ten percent. They follow the prices set by OPEC. In practice that means the price dictated by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States who have both a monopolistic and religious motivation.
Is Saudi Arabia now coming to a crunch? Will its estimated 700 billion dollar reserves be wiped out by its high-living style in  five years or so? Or has Saudi Arabia other vast reserves of investments whose liquidation would threaten the foundations of Western society? That requires a separate analysis.

2016: Will the Mediterranean become a Lake of Fire or a Lake of Peace?

Best wishes for peace in the New Year of 2016!
May the Mediterranean Sea become a lake of peace, as Robert Schuman planned and worked for!
Today, the Mediterranean is becoming a Lake of Fire! Syria is engulfed in a war funded and encouraged by Islamists from Turkey to the rapacious Oil States. Libya is is torn into statelets, with the possibility to become an in-your-face, terror headquarters of the bloody, head-chopping, self-named Islamic State or Daesh. Other North African States are troubled and subverted. In Egypt President al-Sisi has at least wrested power from the Muslim Brotherhood whose aim is the eradication of western civilization. Will the Coptic Christians there ever be free to build and repair their churches and to distribute freely the Bible? How many Jews live in the whole of North Africa, once the home of the most powerful and prosperous, educated Jewish and Christian populations, before the mafia-style sword of Allah?
Europe’s leaders need to act before all of North Africa becomes a Jew-free and Christian-free zone.
From the fiery cauldron of the Nazi destruction of ‘non-Aryan’ populations and forced feeding of Master-race education, Europe found a way to re-assert its ancient Judeo-Christian roots. The Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was the mandatory document that signatories of the Council of Europe had to agree to before they could join. It recognized and guaranteed under law freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom from discrimination and guarantees of equality in justice, freedom of conscience and the recognition of many other essential human rights. The first session of the Council of Europe took place in August 1949. The Convention was signed on 4 November 1950 by 12 founder States.
Robert Schuman made sure that countries as diverse as Iceland and Turkey could become founder Member States. The Court of Justice at Strasbourg provides the criteria for judging on Member’s adherence. Member States who violate the European law of the Convention are liable to be suspended or even expelled.
The need for a Mediterranean Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is even greater today. The Mediterranean should be a place where all governments acknowledge the freedom to assemble, the right of all individuals to express themselves openly and to worship in accordance to their own conscience and education.
A short Monograph on Schuman’s work on the origin of aspects of the Council of Europe and the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms can be found for free at
http://www.academia.edu/19891096