In a Russian university room, I asked a group of girls which country they were from.  Some said Tatarstan and some said Russia.  To those who said Tatarstan, I asked why they were then speaking in Russian.  To a group of students in Melbourne, I asked which country they were from, Victoria or Australia.  I asked a Californian which country he was from and he had to think for one moment.

Which nation are you from?

What follows is primarily drawn, in great slabs, from D. Andrews, English researcher, with some of my own reading thrown in.  The attempt is to summarize Andrews and to present it at a more blog-acceptable length.

Perhaps one of the finest explanations for why the nation is important came from Herbert Hoover who said:

“We must realise the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word ‘nationalist’. But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness – as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement.”[1]

Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower, conveyed the attitude a nation should consider regarding its own national sovereignty:

“There is one and only one legitimate goal of…foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence.”[2]

Habeas Corpus and Corpus Juris

When one considers the most fundamental advances in preserving the rights of western man and woman, what springs to mind? Magna Carta [1215] of course and the succession of acts following that, the principle of Parliament [de Montfort and others], the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution and the principle of Habeas Corpus.

The latter is quite fundamental and together with the Judaeo-Christian traditions plus liberal arts schooling [liberal not as used pejoratively in the United States today but in a higher, earlier form before it was hijacked and debased], the whole series of concepts are what we value today in lesser and lesser numbers. It is the reason the Black Raven cannot call at your door at midnight [the Soviet cars which arrived at midnight to take citizens away forever].

It is the reason we are not the murderous regimes of Iran or North Korea of Burma. It is a set of traditions which underpin the very fabric of our families which, combined with individuals on this plot of earth we occupy, forms what we call our nation.

Habeas Corpus and Corpus Juris [Common Law and Civil Law] are two opposites.

They cannot be reconciled.

J. Reuben Clark, one of the foremost U.S. Constitutional lawyers and statesmen of the Twentieth Century, Under Secretary of State during President Calvin Coolidge’s presidency, and author of the masterful Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, had this to say about these opposing philosophies of government:

“During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law, and its fundamental concepts, being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions.”[3]

The idea for a single European state did not end with the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire around the turn of the Nineteenth Century. Many individuals set out plans or notions for a united Europe including Leon Trotsky who wrote in 1917:

“The Federated Republic of Europe – the United States of Europe – that is what must be. National autonomy no longer suffices. Economic evolution demands the abolition of national frontiers…Only a Federated Republic of Europe can give peace to the world.”[15]

Many European, especially Italian, socialists and communists were taken with the idea of European federalism. This was spear-headed by communist writer and political activist, Altiero Spinelli, who was the chief writer behind the Manifesto for a Free and United Europe written not long after the start of the Second World War – and after the War that paper became the basic document of the European Federalist Movement.

Spinelli was a powerful shaper of what today has become the EU, being the major force most recently (until his death in 1984) of the move to make the EU a state in and of itself to which Mrs. Thatcher, then Prime Minister of Britain, said “No! No! No!”. Spinelli was able to push forward his centralist ideas by promoting “subsidiarity” which turned out to be a meaningless concept and deception.

Subsidiarity breaks up nations into regions, in  federation with a central authority merely the coordinating committee which handles that which cannot be handled locally.  The menace in the EU usage of the term is shown when set against the usage of the concept by Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell.  The latter envisage more localized autonomy, e.g. in policing but the EU concept is that these local regions are subject to “directives” from CCHQ.

This is in no way a new concept and it has been condemned by many.  Winston Churchill wrote, in 1920:

“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter, went as far as to write:

“To say that the European Union was based on the Nazi version of Europe or that there are parallels would be an understatement. The entire ‘European’ enterprise since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 (and given an enormous boost by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union) is an exact replica of the Nazi’s ideas for Europe…”[4]

However, it should be noted that the idea of a single Europe pre-dates Hitler’s Nazism,[5] though this is not to say that the same hidden interests[6] were not supportive of both Nazism and the European movement, perhaps supporting the former to facilitate the latter. But it was Monnet, at least visibly, who was to found and develop the structural beginnings of the EU and to be accredited as “the Father of Europe”.

Waking up and smelling the coffee

There are two contending schools of thought on history. The first, and by far the most popular, is “The Accidental View of History” which holds that history is largely a series of unrelated events or events which are related only by accident or simple cause and effect.

Thus we have readers and pundits all over the sphere and through society who have been conditoned, a la Pavlov’s dog, to respond “conspiracy theory” or to patronisingly but in a kindly way, shake the head: “James, James, this sort of thing is right up your street, isn’t it?”

My response to that is a question: “What do you think of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 52), which allows the EU to limit rights “where necessary” in the “general interest” of the EU.  Is that a “theory” or is it a fact?  Further, which statements of fact within this article do you contend are false? Which conclusions based on those facts do you contend are false?”

The answer of course is: “James, James, you always believe so passionately in your own personal viewpoints.”

My answer to that is: “How are any of the views expressed on this page exclusively my own personal viewpoint or belief, particularly in the light of the bulk of the article coming from other sources?”

J. Andrew:

The second school of thought is “The Conspiratorial View of History” which holds that superintending forces have directed many of the important events of history.[7]

Is there any evidence for this? Churchill seemed to think so [quote above].  And what do you say to these:

President Woodrow Wilson, in “The New Freedom” [1913] wrote: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something.

They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

That was an opinion, not specifically a fact, in the same way that two doctors give their opinions. If you were lying on the operating table, you’d hope those opinions were at least learned and from someone on the inside.

Or Moses Mordecai Marx Levy who wrote in 1848:

“We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”

Or the masonic doyen, Albert Pike who issued instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world on July 14, 1889

“To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.”

Uncomfortable, yes and one which will have you clicking out of this article? But I ask you again; ‘Show me evidence that he did not write that or that he was in no way a doyen of the Masonic Lodge.”

Or Cecil Rhodes, supposedly a great British patriot who on Feb. 5, 1891 merged his group from Oxford with a similar group from Cambridge headed by social reformer William Stead. Rhodes and Stead became members of the inner “Circle of Initiates” of a secret society they now found. There is also an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers.”

You can do your own research on them and what they actually believed in, in terms of world progress. I’ll drop one hint. – Lord Alfred Milner, between 1909 and 1913, organized the “Association of Helpers” into various Round Table Groups in the British dependencies and the United States. Google Round Table Groups and see what you come up with.

Or in 1921, Colonel House reorganized the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). House had Wilson’s ear throughout the war and was also closely connected with Warburg and Kuhn Loeb – google them.

The CFR has always considered itself just a thinktank. As a thinktank, it does pretty well if it can organize a meeting of Canadian PM Martin, Mexican President Fox and American President Bush, on March 23rd, 2005, at which the NAAC document is discussed. Pretty powerful “thinktank”. What were the provisions?

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system

This CFR, on December 15, 1922, in its magazine “Foreign Affairs,” had author Philip Kerr stating:

“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”

And in case that was an aberration, a one-off due to the CFR’s liberal policy on who can write what in its publication, there is this:

On October 28, 1939, in an address by John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State], he proposed that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

Was he CFR?

One more from my sources:

1953 – Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, tells a Congressional commission investigating tax-exempt foundations: “We at the executive level here were active in either the OSS [forerunner of the CIA], the State Department, or the European Economic Administration.

During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives, the substance of which were to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.”

All right, all right, let’s not call it conspiracy. Let’s call it thinktank recommendations adopted by legislatures and executives in America and in Europe.

To return to J. Andrew:

Is there evidence to suggest that there are actually “powers behind the scenes” which have supported and financed the organizations and individuals that have promoted the move toward modern European union?

One small example at random:

In September 2000, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, EU reporter for The Telegraph, wrote a story reporting on recently declassified US government documents showing “that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.” [8]

The point of all this

The point is that this whole argument is not specifically about opposing a confederation of nations of Europe but of opposing the people who are at the helm of the organization.  These are the people referred to by Churchill above and by Wilson and by the other writers.  What is so evil about them?

Well, here are some examples, going back to Common Law again:

Under Common Law depriving people of their property can only be justified as a punishment for a criminal offence wherein the offender has been found guilty of seeking to illegally deprive, or actually depriving, another of his property, life (person) or liberty. The right to own and control property precedes and is superior to government.

Under the EU system of law, it is not this way. From the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union we read that:

“no one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest…”

And the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 52) allows the EU to limit rights “where necessary” in the “general interest” of the EU. It is the European Court that will decide what is both “necessary” and what exactly constitutes the “general interest”.

The general interest

Critical issue, “the general interest”. Who defines it?    Look, for example, at the provisions of the RIP Act.  Section 22 says:

It is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection to obtain communications data if it is necessary-

(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health; or
(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

The discretion for determining what is in the national interest or the interests of the nation, for their protection and well-being, is vested in the government.

But who exactly is the government?

If you accept that, at least in part, the European Union has powers within the UK and is increasing them even as we speak, with a raft of over 1000 new laws about to be unleashed, then it would be as well to examine the body and see how democratically it considers the views of the populations within its sphere of influence:

Treaty of Rome, 1957.  This treaty’s purpose was…

“to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of the people, the reduction of differences in wealth between regions…”

That is to say, it espoused both socialism and the concept of an ever-increasing union among the nations of Europe. In fact this document was actually a constitution disguised as a treaty because, unlike a treaty, it did not leave the several parties’ national sovereignties intact.

Common Market, 1973 – Section 2 of the European Communities Act (the enabling legislation to enter into the Common Market) set down the principle that British Law would always from then on be subordinate to European Law; that, when the two conflicted, it would be the European and not the British Law that would prevail.

Single European Act, 1986 – this provided the means by which Britain entered the Single Market of 1992. It eroded Britain’s already-diminished decision-making powers by extending QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) to more areas.

Maastricht Treaty, 1992 – This was the treaty that established the idea of European citizenship and the Euro currency. It also surrendered the Queen’s power in Parliament to an unelected body in Europe.

Amsterdam Treaty, 1998 – the European Union gained a “legal personality” giving it such powers as the ability to sign treaties that bind all its member states; it also gave greater scope to the European Court of Justice, and the Council of Ministers was given powers to punish any member state that persistently breached the treaty.

The Schengen Agreement, 1990 – signatories gave up their right to police their own borders. Borders are an integral part of liberty, both nationally and locally.

Treaty of Nice, 2000 – Further centralised Europe. Britain here gave up its veto in thirty more areas of policy setting.

That therefore is the body whom we never voted into power, except via the Referendum of 1975 and what people voted for was in a form greatly at odds with what it has now become, particularly in the light of the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that it may lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and leading figures; that dissent can be restricted to “protect the rights of others” and punish those who “damaged the institution’s image and reputation”.[9]

The Advocate-General of the ECJ gave a legal opinion (ref. case C-274/99) that criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy. Punishing someone for allegedly criticising the EU, whether such allegations were proven or not, were (said he) not an infringement of free speech.[10]

Another example of the EU’s attitude toward freedom of speech is their Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 which will make it a criminal offence to even so much as mention imperial measurements at work or in any official capacity.[11]

The EU is also creating “new crimes” whereby it can make illegal expressions it deems to be “xenophobic” or “racist”. Terms it will define of course.

The Right to be Left Alone

The right to be left alone, emanating from if not synonymous with the right to liberty, is one of the most crucial freedoms in a free society. Again, the EU has little respect for this right and the privacy of its citizens.

“The European constitution…shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.” (Article 10.1, proposed EU Constitution)

Romano Prodi, President of the EU Commission, in an address to members of the European Parliament said:

“Europe must assume responsibility for peace and development in the world…With a single voice we can wield real influence. Only united can we put our own humanist stamp on globalisation and infuse it with Europe’s social values…I am convinced that we need a constitution to mark the birth of Europe as a political entity…[The Union] is not an alliance between States or a federation. It is an advanced supranational democracy that needs to be strengthened.”  [12]

The treachery of the UK politicians

The Prime Minister, Edward Heath, in the House of Commons on 25th February, 1970, in the build up to EEC entrance, said:

“There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe.”

Pretty unequivocal, eh?

Yet in 1991 he was asked: “the single currency; a United States of Europe; was that in your mind when you took Britain in?”. Edward Heath replied:

“Of course, yes.” [13]

And in a White Paper published in July 1971 concerning Britain’s entrance into the supposedly for-trade-only Common Market:

“There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty…There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified.”

Time has shown this to be false. What is more, documents released later showed this statement to have been an outright lie.[14]

Have Ministers been deceiving the British public? As early as 1962 Ministers were formally instructed regarding Common-Market membership:

“Ministers should in public speeches avoid accepting specific commitments or giving explanations of the Government’s general commitments which might prove embarrassing when the final terms (of membership) become known in detail.”[15]

And what about those who want to reform the EU from within? It is simply not possible. The way the EU is structured, our increasing minority status, and a host of other factors spelled out in this essay, stop this from being in any way achievable. The Hansard Society has said:

“Any attempts by any government to try to amend Community legislation to its own wishes are doomed to failure…Parliament has little, if any, input upon the process of European law-making…” [16]

The mantra now espoused by the leaders of the Tories, Labour, the LibDems and LPUK, is that to give the people a say in their own affairs at a time when the noose is tightening and the EU, whose bona fides you can judge for yourself in the above, is asserting control at a rate not seen earlier – the mantra states that we must make no move to give people a voice but trust the leaders [as we trusted Heath] to act in our interests.

The justification they trot out for denying our right to a say is that we would probably lose a referendum at this time, [when the minimum vote – in polls - to get out shows 53% and the maximum so far 83%]. Hardly a lost vote, one would have thought.

They all wish to deny us a vote and other organizations within the former UK are, at the same time, trying to convince people that the EU is a relatively minor matter or that it is “important but not the only matter”.

When a woman in a hut in a forest is alone with her children and a wolf comes to the door, she says: “The wolf is an issue, yes but there are other matters, such as sweeping the floor to be taken care of.”

When Germany is about to launch an air assault against Britain, the leaders say, “There are other important matters such as a percentage increase in the trading figures.”

Yes?

Try this article.

Notes to the above

1 As quoted by Eugene W. Castle in Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259 (as referenced by Ezra Taft Benson in his address, United States Foreign Policy given at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho, June 21st 1968 – see “Suggestions for Further Study” below).

2 Ezra Taft Benson, United States Foreign Policy given at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho, June 21st 1968 (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below).

3 Stand Fast By Our Constitution, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, pp. 139.

4 # For more information on the authors’ views on the subject of Nazi origins of the EU see their work Treason at Maastricht, page 123 and also chapter 18. (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below)

5 # See The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North, p. 18-30, Chapter 2, “The Nazi Cul-de-Sac: 1933-1945″ (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below). See also the on-line article, The Fascist Inheritance in the European and Blair Projects by Edward Spalton. (see “Suggestions for Further Study” below).

6 # It seems well documented that certain figures and interests involved with building up the Nazis also financed and supported the movement to build a united Europe. The connection between these conspiring parties and the EU is addressed elsewhere in this essay. For their connections to Nazism readers may wish to study Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton; the text of this book is freely available on-line at http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/.

7 # For an introduction to the conspiratorial view of history the author recommends A. Ralph Epperson’s The Unseen Hand published by Publius Press. Once you’ve read this you will never view history the same way again. Available for purchase from Amazon UK at http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0961413506/.

8 Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote:

“Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The chairman was [William] Donovan [head of the American wartime "Office of Strategic Services", which was later to become the CIA], ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington…”

See Global Tyranny…Bloc by Bloc by William F. Jasper, “The New American” magazine, Vol. 17, No. 8, April 9th, 2001. Available on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TenIjbnqO0&feature=channel.

9 # See “Watch What You Say” by John Hilliker, Philadelphia Trumpeter, July 2001, available on-line at: http://www.olusa.com/politics/free-speech-dying.htm.

10 # “Now It’s Blasphemy to Mock Europe” by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Spectator, 18th November, 2000. This article can be read for free on-line but you will need to subscribe first: http://www.spectator.co.uk.

11 # S.I. 2001, No. 85. The exact areas where this infringement of free speech occurs is in public health, public safety, administration and trade. Read the House of Lords debate of March 20th, 2001 at http://www.bwmaonline.com/Political%20-%20Motion%20on%20March%2020th.htm

12 Shaping Tomorrow’s EU, Brussels, 4 April 2002.

13 # Question Time, BBC, speaking to Peter Sissons, 1st November 1991. Heath also said: “There is no danger of a single currency.” (EEC membership information leaflet, 1975).

14 # These quotations on Europe, and many others (all referenced and checked) have been compiled on-line at: http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Europe/00-Intro.html.

15 # Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting of 23rd October 1962 (released under 30 Year Rule, 1st January 1993).

16 # The 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference: The Agenda, Democracy and Efficiency and the Role of National Parliaments, House of Commons Select Committee on European Law, 1996.

Filed under: Politics & economics