Much of the For The Record series deals with the Bormann Organization and the research done on that by the late Paul Manning. Holding the official title of Reichsleiter, and having officially succeeded Hitler as the head of the NSDAP (German Nazi Party), Martin Bormann remains relatively unknown. Feared by other, better-known Nazi leaders for his perseverance, cunning, industriousness and capacity for detail, Martin Bormann was the real “power behind the throne” in the Third Reich.
Captured documents in Manning’s possession reveal that on August 10, 1944 a conference of top representatives of German industry and finance enacted a flight capital program in which Germany’s economic wealth was to be legally, but clandestinely, moved to “Safehavens” in neutral countries. (FTR#305.)
Authorized by Bormann and executed by the SS, this conference paved the way for the tremendous economic power of Nazi Germany to power a postwar perpetuation of a Third Reich gone underground. As the captured documents reveal, an important provision of this conference was that German finance and industry would continue to sustain the Nazi party after the formal surrender of Germany. The Third Reich has been able to survive—underground—in deadly, Mafia-like fashion.
His death at the end of the war having been effectively faked by Gestapo chief (and later security director for the Bormann group) SS General Heinrich Muller, Martin Bormann proceeded to lead the economic and political affairs of the Underground Reich and (in effect) the Federal Republic of Germany. The Bormann group is the aggregate of five of the principal tides of capital flow in the 20th century (see FTR#99).
As a result, the deep political and para-political influence of the organization is enormous. This Underground Reich wields consummate economic power. Its intelligence links with the Cold War milieu of the Gehlen espionage outfit and powerful political forces in the West during the Cold War further extended its reach.
At the helm of the Bormann security outfit was General Muller. Former Gestapo chief Mueller controlled the security organization for Bormann for many years and institutionally shaped it until his retirement. Former Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller’s outfit embraced the operational arm of the SS/ODESSA network. That intelligence outfit was, in and of itself, a powerful political and military component as well.
The seminal work on the Bormann Organization was done by the late Paul Manning, who published a book which sourced captured Third Reich documents, the files of the OSS (America’s World War II civilian intelligence agency and predecessor of the CIA), FBI files and British Intelligence sources. Most importantly, Manning accesses Treasury Department files from “Operation Safehaven” (the code-name for the US intelligence operation designed to interdict the Bormann flight capital program). Supplementing the documentation was the field research that Paul Manning conducted using the journalistic contacts developed as a war correspondent. Manning has authored a remarkable and essential document.
Part of the CBS radio network team that covered the war in Europe under the stewardship of the late Edward R. Murrow, Manning trained as a gunner aboard B-17s and Liberators (B-24s) in order to cover the air war in Europe. (While on such a mission, he shot down a ME-109. See excerpt below from Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile recounting some of these missions.) When Germany surrendered, he broadcast the ceremony on the CBS radio network. Manning then trained as a gunner aboard a B-29, and flew missions over Japan to cover the closing phase of the air war there. Eventually, he broadcast the surrender of Japan from the deck of the USS Missouri for CBS. After the war, Manning wrote for (among other publications) The New York Times, and authored several books.
Much of his postwar career was devoted to researching the Nazi flight-capital program÷through this research he came to write Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile. Although his research on Bormann was partially funded by CBS News, the network never “went” with the story. Those who would denigrate his work on the Bormann Organization should carefully weigh their own journalistic credentials against Paul Manning’s, in addition to taking into account the research resources accessed in the book.
Manning paid dearly for his efforts. He was actively marginalized, his family suffered the resultant economic hardship. (FTR 145 contains a reading of some of Mr. Manning’s correspondence with professional colleagues, discussing the documentary sources utilized for his book, as well as some of the professional difficulties he encountered during his endeavor. Side 1 of FTR 152 is the story of the frustration of the publication of Manning’s Bormann book. When Manning was finally able to get Lyle Stuart, Inc. to publish the book, Lyle Stuart had both of his legs broken the week the book was published. FTR 125 is a spontaneous interview with Paul’s son Peter, conducted after Peter called Mr. Emory’s show. FTR 155 consists of the last published work that Paul did. Both FTR 283, and Side 1 of FTR 152 discuss Mr. Manning’s riveting professional dialogue with the Bormann group, through professional intermediaries.) Eventually, Paul’s son Gerry was murdered in retribution for the Bormann research, and as a warning against publishing a follow-up volume In Search of Martin Bormann. The “target selection” by the Bormann group for its retribution may well have been determined by the dedication of Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile. “To my wife, Peg, and to our four sons, Peter, Paul, Gerald and John, whose collective encouragement and belief in this book as a work of historic importance gave me the necessary persistence and determination to keep going.”
In Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning presents an account of the combat missions he flew (and covered) during the war.
“Early in 1943, a small group of American war correspondents volunteered to be trained for flying with the B-17’s in their missions over Germany. This was intended by the U.S. Eighth Air Force to communicate to Americans back in the States the eyewitness story of these air battles and the bravery of their sons. I was one of these trainees, representing CBS news. There were also Walter Cronkite, then of United Press, Gladwin Hill of Associated Press and later of the New York Times, Robert Post of the New York Times, Homer Bigart of the New York Herald Tribune, William Wade of International News Service, Sergeant Scott Denton of Yank, and Sergeant Andy Rooney of Stars and Stripes. As a jocular takeoff of World War I’s ‘Fighting 69th,’ we were referred to as ‘the writing 69th’ by Colonel Jock Whitney, a peacetime publisher and financier, and Colonel Mac Kriendler of 21 Club fame, who were among those of the Eighth Air Force who had sold the concept to General Ira Eaker. We were sent to gunnery school in England, where we learned to identify all German fighter planes and to strip down and reassemble within 40 seconds the Browning machine guns used in the B-17’s and Liberators. This was essential knowledge, for seconds saved in fixing the stoppage in a malfunctioning machine gun could be the difference between life and death. We were not flying as excess baggage but as gunners first, war reporters second.
“Over Wilhelmshaven, on our first mission, I shot down a Messerschmitt fighter that had come right at us from the front, where I was acting nose-gunner. On the same mission, Bob Post’s Liberator came apart in midair from the combined flak from the ground and cannon fire from attacking German fighters. In his plane, none survived.” (pp. 110–111.)
“There was a year of such missions. I didn’t fly them all, just those that had special news interest. I would remain in London between missions, interviewing people and gathering news for my CBS broadcasts on ‘The World Today’ each morning. But I still recall vividly today the bombing run that I made in the company of a crew on their 25th mission; come hell or high water, they were determined to make it home, back to the States.” (p. 111.)
“We lifted up, off the airfields of East Anglia, in the early morning, 200 B-17’s climbing and gathering into close formation over the North Sea. At 12,000 feet the crew clipped on oxygen masks, fired test bursts from their Brownings, and then headed for Germany and the target, which on that day was the harbor of Gdynia, Poland. Here the Gneisenau and the Stuttgart, two German battleships, 17 U-boats, destroyers, and several smaller vessels were at anchor. It was to be a 2,000-mile round-trip flight, right across Germany, and as we crossed the coastline at daybreak the German fighters began picking us up. It was a running battle all the way to Gdynia, then ‘bombs away,’ and the swing around for a return. Some of the B-17’s limped on to Switzerland with engine malfunctions; others crossed the Baltic for safe haven in Sweden. At 20,000 feet over Poland the sea seemed a toy pond, and Sweden beckoned invitingly. Leningrad was but 400 miles to the east, but the pilot had home on his mind. The formation closed for the self-protection of crossfire and we headed for England. Here is a quote from the story I wrote on my return, which I broadcast over CBS.” (Idem.)
“Across western Germany, you could feel the big ship wobbling badly. It had taken too much flak, too much cannon fire. The holes in the fuselage ripped larger. We couldn’t keep up with the other planes and our pilot dropped lower with each mile until we were hedge-hopping 30 feet off the ground, which kept the fighters from coming up from underneath. We passed so low over a German gun emplacement in Holland I could see the sweat on the backs of the German gunners on this sunny day, trying to bring us down. Bill laid one burst right down the middle of a pathway leading to a pillbox. His shells tore a gunner apart.” (Idem.)
“We prayed that the gas would hold out. Suddenly it became necessary to lighten the load as we began crossing the North Sea. The fighters had turned away and then we were skimming low over the water. Everything moveable went overboard: machine guns, radio, empty shell cases, oxygen tanks. We made it. The captain pulled the shattered craft up over English cliffland and skidded the length of an RAF runway to a halt. All of us were still for maybe four minutes, exhausted and drained. Bill the bombardier sank down to the floor of the plane with his head between his arms. The navigator fumbled abstractedly with his maps, folding and refolding them. I just sat, thinking: ‘I’m alive.’ Five of the crewmen would never again have that or any other feeling. They had died on the way back, one with his head shot off. Fourteen hours of hell on the air.” (p. 112.)
Having passed away in the 1990s, Paul Manning is no longer able to speak directly for himself. Were he able to do so, he might echo the words of the dying Captain Miller (played by Tom Hanks) addressing Private Ryan at the end of ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ “Earn This! Earn It!”
In late 2005, American popular culture paid homage to one of the greatest journalists of all time. In “Goodnight and Good Luck,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/ the life and work of CBS radio and television journalist Edward R. Murrow provided the material for a Hollywood feature film. Paul Manning was arguably the greatest of “Murrow’s Boys”—the group of skilled journalists Murrow ran in Europe during World War II. After training as a gunner and flying combat missions in both Europe and over Japan, Manning broadcast the surrenders of both Germany and Japan on the CBS radio network. After the war, Manning undertook an investigation of Hitler’s Deputy, Martin Bormann, and the postwar capital network he ran. Partially underwritten by CBS, the story of the Bormann organization proved too sensitive for the network to report.
A decisively powerful network of corporate entities run by hardened SS veterans, the Bormann group constitutes what one veteran banker termed “the greatest concentration of money power under a single control in history.” The foundation of the organization’s clout is money—lots and lots of money. Controlling German big business and, through investments, much of the rest of the world’s economy, the organization was a repository for the stolen wealth of Europe, estimated by British intelligence to have totaled more than $180 billion by the end of 1943 (not including the money taken from Greece and the former Soviet Union, nor that taken after 1943.) [For more on the global economic significance of the Bormann group, see—among other programs—FTR#99.] This organization literally constitutes a postwar “Underground Reich” with (as discussed in FTR#155) a governing hierarchy composed of the sons and daughters of SS men, holding military ranks and titles from the Third Reich.
In addition to the enormous power deriving from its consummate economic clout, the Bormann group has wielded tremendous global influence through its intelligence and enforcement network. Administered by SS general Heinrich Mueller, the wartime head of the Gestapo, the Bormann group’s intelligence and security network was composed of some of the toughest, most capable veterans of the SS. In addition, the Bormann organization and Mueller’s security outfit have commanded the loyalty of the political, intelligence and military elements requisitioned by the Allies after the war. In that regard, the Bormann/Mueller operation could draw on the loyalties of the Reinhard Gehlen spy outfit that handled the CIA’s intelligence on the former Soviet Union and which ultimately became the intelligence service of the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition, Bormann and Mueller were the political masters of the numerous scientists recruited by the U.S. and other nations for their expertise during the Cold War, as well as the numerous Nazis brought into the U.S. under the auspices of the Crusade For Freedom. Those latter ultimately coalesced into a major element of the Republican Party. (For more about the Crusade for Freedom, see—among other programs—FTR#465.)
With its economic, political and espionage capabilities, the Bormann group embodies the triumph of the forces of National Socialism in the postwar period. Whereas the United States was the dominant element within the international cartel system prior to, and during, World War II, the Bormann group is the primary entity in the postwar global corporate economy.
The organization’s clout has successfully obscured its existence in the face of journalistic investigation. Compare the “official” fate of Bormann (supposedly killed at the end of the war) with demonstrable historical fact, as researched by Manning. Relating information from the FBI’s file on Bormann, Manning writes: “ . . .The file revealed that he had been banking under his own name from his office in Germany in Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires since 1941; that he held one joint account with the Argentinian dictator Juan Peron, and on August 4, 5 and 14, 1967, had written checks on demand accounts in first National City Bank (Overseas Division) of New York, The Chase Manhattan Bank, and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., all cleared through Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires. . . .”
(Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile, p. 205.)
FTR#305 http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-305-the-bormann-organizatio n/ is a condensation of some of the key segments of text from Manning’s landmark book. The story of the active suppression of Manning’s work on Bormann is contained in FTR#152 (side A). The moving tale of Manning’s heroic, decades-long investigation into the Bormann group is contained in a professional biography of Paul Manning that accompanies the text. That professional biography also recounts the professional retribution to which Manning was subjected in retaliation for his work (including the 1993 murder of his son Gerry.)
Readers interested the Manning text on Bormann should also investigate Gold Warriors by the Seagraves—the story of Japan’s postwar capital network and its profound relationship with the global economy.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:13 pm Post subject:
EU Federal Economic Government Proposal Mirrors Nazi Plan For Fourth Reich
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com - Monday, March 1, 2010
A new proposal by France and Germany to create a federal European economic government in the name of mandating fiscal responsibility and avoiding a repeat of the turmoil in Greece chillingly mirrors similar plans put forward by top Nazis in the 1940’s as a means of preserving fascist power at the end of world war two – men who were responsible for founding the EU in the first place.
“With Greek finances dragging down the euro, calls for coordinated fiscal policy within the common currency zone have become more frequent. Now, Germany and France have presented a paper outlining what such a regime might look like,” reports Spiegel Online, outlining the move towards a centrally planned economy with Brussels exercising complete control over of the financial affairs of member states in a shocking lurch towards economic fascism.
Chair of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, who received the new proposal from German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, highlighted the need for a “European economic government” to solve the Greece debt crisis.
“An early idea for a common European economic policy, voiced by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in early February, called for forcing countries to institute structural reforms under pain of financial sanctions,” states the report.
The plan for a new “European economic government” is also endorsed by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, according to the report.
Using Berlin as his starting point, writer and presenter Jonathan Meades goes in search of the architectural relics of the genocidal Third Reich, which was steeped in mysticism and pagan death cults. These include a model village for SS Doctors, Himmler's Castle at a crossing of ley lines and a seaside utopia for 20,000 of the master race. He shows that far from Nazi Germany having existed in a void, it left a regrettable architectural legacy for the rest of post war Europe.
EU offices around the world 'left empty for months'
EU foreign policy chief Baroness Catherine Ashton Catherine Ashton has headed the EU's foreign policy department since its inception in 2010
EU diplomats around the world are facing calls to have their annual leave cut amid a claim that offices are left "empty for many months of the year".
MEP Ingeborg Graessle says in a working document that some officials can take 17-18 weeks off including overtime.
The EU's External Action Service (EEAS) says it is trying to change a system inherited before its creation in 2010.
But EU officials have described as "ridiculous" the idea that offices abroad are being left untended.
One source said that most of the people sent to work in EU delegations and embassies around the world were "thoroughly committed to their job".
Dr Graessle complains that MEPs have been calling for some time for a change to staff regulations that provide perks dating back to the 1960s.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
I think no-one will argue that if you are in a place which is clearly dangerous such as Afghanistan you deserve a few extra days off”
End Quote Michael Mann Spokesman for EU foreign affairs chief, Baroness Ashton
She says "substantial periods of absence from work are the norm" with staff able to earn two days' extra leave per month through overtime.
"Plenty of people tell me that staff are not available because they have too many days off," Dr Graessle told the BBC. "How will you be able to build up a real service if your staff are not available?"
As well as nine "office closing days", officials in many countries such as South Sudan, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are allowed special leave, she says, far more than diplomats working for national governments such as Germany.
The EEAS is headed by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, whose spokesman Michael Mann told BBC News website: "I think no-one will argue that if you are in a place which is clearly dangerous such as Afghanistan you deserve a few extra days off."
"It is wrong to count overtime compensation as annual 'holidays'," he added.
Dr Graessle, who is the Parliament's rapporteur on financial regulation, says the leave issue involves all postings: in Washington, an EU official's basic annual leave is 53-59 days, depending on an employee's age, compared with 33 for a diplomat working for the German government.
The European Parliament is currently considering a Commission proposal to cut staffing levels and halve the time allowed for travelling home from overseas postings to up to three days.
Several meetings had been held with the European Commission to consider the issue of annual leave and public holidays and Baroness Ashton's team would work with the Parliament in Brussels on revising the rules, Mr Mann said.
Dr Ingeborg Graessle MEP (Photo courtesy EU) Dr Graessle says the current system is unfair on European taxpayers
Heads of delegations abroad had themselves been "prime movers in highlighting the problems in the system and pressing for change".
But Dr Graessle argues that the plan falls "far short" of Parliament's call for a major overhaul off a system which she considers too expensive and unfair for taxpayers.
United States of Europe, Ten Nations, EU Empire, German Dominance, German Empire—all these terms have been used on more than one occasion by a multiplicity of media in past months to describe the European Union. All infer that the EU has become an imperial entity dominated by Germany.
That the world remains largely ignorant to the fact of one white-haired patriarch having prophesied this would be the case—even when Germany lay in abject defeat at the close of World War ii—is rather sad. Particularly when one considers that he even prophesied that the seventh resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire would be catalyzed by a great financial crisis, such as we see rampant in Europe today!
What is even sadder is that multiple thousands who were witness to Herbert Armstrong’s detailed prophecies of that which has become today’s reality in Europe—publicized by him to millions for over five decades—seem to be so blinded to that truth today, despite the massive amount of evidence that now exists to support the fulfillment of those prophecies!
“Partisans of the European project invariably argue that nationalism leads to war,” observes historian Thierry Baudet. He continues, “Nationalism does not lead to war. Attempts to build European empires lead to war. The urge to impose a straitjacket on the will of peoples will lead to war. In short, the European project will lead to war.
“Fascism and Nazism were both focused on the creation of Europe. As early as 1933, Mussolini declared that Europe could once again exert its power in the world if it succeeded in establishing a certain political unity” (Handelsblad, July 9; emphasis added throughout).
Baudet is not alone in his view of the reviving EU empire. This current revival is the latest of six previous attempts at resurrecting the old Holy Roman Empire.
“Seton-Watson, of the University of Oxford, concludes that Hitler’s intentions were not confined to what could be described as German nationalism.
“His goal was to conquer all of Europe as well as a vast territory further afield. For his part, Mussolini wanted to found a new Roman Empire centered on the Mediterranean” (ibid).
Two documents that came to light 10 years ago, courtesy of translation from the German into English by Euroskeptic activist Edward Spalton, shed a deal of light on the imperialist motives behind the EU vision. They detail the Nazis’ imperial plan of 70 years ago and show the uncanny parallels between that plan and today’s outcome of the growth of the European Community into an undoubted imperial power.
Introducing these items on his website, www.freenations.freeuk.com, British political economist Rodney Atkinson states: “Those who thought that the ‘building of Europe’ in the 1950s could in no way replicate the German-dominated Europe of the 1940s may now be reconsidering their optimism. The years since the Second World War have culminated in a rich German state, dominant German industry and a European Union run by Berlin while other EU countries seem politically powerless or approach bankruptcy—or both.”
In his own introduction to these translated documents, Edward Spalton writes: “With increasing stresses and strains in the EU, German dominance of Europe is emerging as an incontestable fact ….”
As to the history of the postwar revival of the imperialist Nazi vision, Spalton observes: “The Nazis did not invent any really new ideas. They continued a view of the world (Weltanschauung) which has predominated amongst the German political class since before Germany became a single nation and continues today. The methods change but the objectives remain remarkably constant. They saw their national destiny (Schicksal) as defined by natural resources and geography, plus the vitality of the Volk (people), and devised a combined academic discipline, geopolitics (Geopolitik) to give it a rationale. It was a common market, a customs union (Zollverein), which brought the many German states together into a single, large-area economy (Grossraumwirtschaft) in the 1840s.”
Concerning this vision taking on hegemonic overtones directly akin to the vision of today’s EU elites, Edward Spalton further observes: “Not only did German politicians aspire to such a single economic order amongst Germans; they believed that Germany needed the resources of the peoples of Central Europe (Mitteleuropa) and the Balkans under German control in a single living space (Lebensraum). This would provide a market for German manufactured goods and a source of raw materials. The similarity with the arguments put forward today for the advantages of the EU single market is inescapable.”
Those Anglo-Saxons who personally witnessed the revival of the imperialist Teutonic dream shortly after World War ii are, sadly, a dying breed. Those who published their objective assessment of that revival, aided and abetted by too many of their fellow countrymen, are even fewer. One who did pen his personal observations of the Adenauer years is Harry Beckough. In an e-mail to the Trumpet, Rodney Atkinson describes Harry as “a leading light in German universities in the postwar denazification period … responsible for denazifying the universities of Cologne and Bonn! He subsequently became a member of the British secret services.”
Harry Beckough, having personally witnessed Hitler’s grasp for power while visiting Germany in 1933, was, during the immediate period following the war, placed in a unique position where he was able to closely observe the actions of Germany’s first postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer.
As Mr. Beckough himself recalled in an e-mail exchange with Rodney Atkinson last week, “having witnessed Lance Corp. Hitler’s vault to total power (instead of von Papen, already chosen by the dying Hindenburg) … whence came the money and power drive, and again between 1933-35, it was obvious then that a hidden secret power was the manipulating driving force; the smell was there but the fog only began to lift after the Russian maneuver and the aftermath of World War ii; German brains and skills were ably supported to plot the aftermath long-term, as they were also ‘assisted’ to move their leaders and spoils (loot) across the world; the barefaced cheek of establishing headquarters in Madrid and persuading Adenauer to take back some 150 flagrant Nazis into his first cabinet and ministers shows the contempt they had for the poor fools of British and Americans ‘helping’ them back to normality.”
To the ignorant it is a challenging exercise to read the translated Nazi documents made available at www.freenations.freeuk.com that present the revival of this vision of imperial Europa way back in 1942, and to admit that vision has steadily evolved into a most current postwar reality. The historic facts are detailed on Rodney Atkinson’s video found here.
To the once-enlightened, it takes a degree of moral courage to admit the remarkable foresight that drove Herbert Armstrong to state that this whole Germanic vision would live on, underground, through the waning years of World War ii. To live on, only to be resurrected and brought to fruition by many of the perpetrators of the horrors of that war, with the approval of the very Allied nations that defeated the Nazis the last time an attempt was made to resurrect the old Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:01 pm Post subject:
Severe crossover here between two topics - the EU money plot and EU fascism
From: Justin Walker
Sent: 04 October 2012 10:53
To: REDWOOD, John
Subject: Concerns about your conference speech on Monday to the Bruges Group.
Dear Mr Redwood,
Thank you very much for your response to my query as to why a sovereign government cannot issue its own debt-free and interest-free money based upon the wealth of the nation. If I'm honest with you, I found your answer not easy to understand - if I'm not mistaken, I think you were referring to the current quantative easing programme being led by the Bank of England which is completely different to the concept of the 'Greenback' and what Abraham Lincoln did....and that is the issuing of debt-free money through a nation's treasury to meet the needs and well-being of its people. Nothing complex, just simple common sense set within a framework of common decency and common law.
Considering what the private bankers and their political lackeys are doing to our country and other poor countries like Greece, I will attempt to be as restrained and polite as is possible, especially given the appalling injustices which are occurring on a daily basis to ordinary decent people as they fall foul of the predatory and corrupt international banking system. I notice that you were once a very prominent member of N M Rothschild and Sons. Just a cursory look at the history of this elite banking family and it is clear that we are dealing with a ruthless and scheming mindset that is determined to enslave nations through the use of subterfuge and debt-creating banking. Their deliberate setting up of an international network of central banks, in order to get countries to lose their sovereignty by getting into enormous debt through the practicing of fractional reserve lending (that is, of course, the creation of money completely out of thin air and then charging interest on that 'nothingness'), is as much ingenious as it is immoral and criminal. And this network of central banks (led by the Rothschild controlled Bank for International Settlements) does include what you describe as the 'wholly owned' Bank of England, along with its cunningly contrived Bank of England Nominees Ltd which was set up to override the effects of the Bank's supposed nationalisation in 1946.
The ultimate goal for the House of Rothschild, along with the other elite banking families, is global governance on their terms. Before you tell me that this is the territory of wacky conspiracy theorists, I think you should know that my late uncle was The Lord Pilkington. Not only did he attend (as Sir Harry Pilkington) the first ever Bilderberg Conference back in 1954, one year before I was born, but he also became a Director of the Bank of England, providing me with very interesting 'behind the scenes' information. When the World Conservation Strategy was launched in 1980, my uncle sought to have me recruited to work for the global elite by asking his friend Aurelio Peccei to offer me a job at the prestigious Club of Rome as a political researcher and lobbyist. By a stroke of good fortune I politely declined this generous offer. However, after being a Green Party activist for fifteen years and knowing people like Professor David Bellamy, I now realise that the Club of Rome was simply set up with the aim to promote bogus environmental science, such as CO2 causing man-made global warming, as part of this step by step approach towards global governance. The more fear that can be created at a global level, the more possible world government can become - just look at how the United Nations Agenda 21 is being rolled out onto an unsuspecting world with all of its Orwellian ramifications of corporate servitude for all of us.
As people wake up to the dreadful truth about what is really going on, whistleblowers are approaching us on an ever increasing basis to give us more pieces to the jigsaw. A very reliable party source contacted me at the end of last week with two links and a simple message that the proposed 'In Out' EU Referendum now being talked about, is nothing but a deception and a scam being engineered by those who do not have our best interests at heart. Why? Because the British people can simply withdraw from the EU by using our supreme Common Law - there is absolutely no need for a referendum. It is now provable beyond all reasonable doubt that massive deception and treason were committed by the Government of Edward Heath when they openly and provably lied to the British people to persuade them to vote 'Yes' in 1975 to the EEC. As you know only too well, treason and deception have continued to be practiced by all subsequent governments as they seamlessly converted, without any further public consultation or approval, a simple trading agreement into a fully blown political union with all the necessary loss of sovereignty that that entails. Under Common Law, the results or outcome of any action taken by using criminal means (in this case the simple use of treason and deception) are declared, without hesitation, null and void. With one simple court case, in front of an ordinary jury that successfully confirms this criminality, we could lawfully withdraw from the European Union without hesitation or any penalties being incurred. So, I have to respectfully ask you, why are you going down this risky path of calling for an 'In Out' Referendum when we have seen over the years how the EU Commission is capable of fixing and ignoring the democratic procedures in Ireland, France and Denmark?
I now come back to the two links sent to me - here they are:
I read the above article by John Christian and its basic themes only confirm what I already know courtesy of my late uncle and my own and others research. Your name comes up as does your fellow speaker Gisela Stuart MP - a known Fabian activist. This is where my puzzlement grows. The Fabians were created by those who wish to see the collapse of the nation state and the loss of our sovereignty by gradual erosion - they broadly welcome the EU superstate project and will support it using stealth and, in my opinion, provable treason. The present banking crisis, overseen by the elite banking families, is all about a loss of national sovereignty in favour of global governance. They welcome the EU superstate as well and want to see the regionalisation and break up of our country in the shortest possible time. As a long term servant of the Rothschild family, how does this square with your supposed desire to see a restoration of Britain's sovereignty from the EU Commission? The question that is going through my mind with increasing volume (especially as I know that the use of Common Law is THE solution to regaining our independence from the EU) is, are you working to another agenda? The one thing we know about those who want to destroy our country is that they have 'their people' in positions 'on both sides' where they can steer and influence public opinion.
Please put my mind at rest and come back to me with reasons why what I've written above is factually incorrect. I only go where the irrefutable evidence takes me.
DailyMail: Today, NeoNazis on the rise across the EU:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2270368/A-continent-chaos-Hi tlers-evil-rising-again.html _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
A Mote in Brussels' Eye
By Ashley Mote
The diary of a Member of the European Parliament
A full, frank and controversial account of five years fighting the EU from within the castle walls. The first ever blow-by-blow memoirs of a British MEP.
Powerful hidden evidence wrung out of the EU revealing :
· Industrial-scale institutionalised looting of British taxpayers’ money.
· Indisputable evidence of endemic EU corruption and fraud.
· 'Diversity' the claim, 'regulation and standardisation' the reality.
· Huge hidden cash piles as the EU demands ever more.
· Big companies lobby EU to squeeze out competition
· Uncontrolled migration across EU's eastern borders totally ignored.
· Illegal seizure of power and control from nation states.
· Dilution of national identities by mass migration and imported criminality.
· 3000 secret committees endlessly planning new EU 'law'.
· EU funds lobbyists to 'demand' new laws already in pipeline.
· Refusals by the Serious Fraud Office and Scotland Yard to examine unequivocal evidence of illegal payments to Brussels.
· EU officials deliberately misleading the House of Lords.
· Millions in soft loans to the BBC to buy editorial support.
· The European Central Bank authorising a flood of new 500-euro banknotes, used mainly by drug barons for money laundering.
· Nobody is responsible, everybody else is to blame, and who cares anyway? – EU bureaucrat.
ALSO: the full story of the UK/EU's connivance to throw Ashley Mote out of the European Parliament. It failed, but cost the British taxpayer over £1 million.
'Brussels was no gravy train. This was politics with a passion. This was kill or be killed – and I almost was', says author Ashley Mote.
Sun Tsu, the Chinese author of The Art of War, told warriors to 'study your enemy'. I not only studied the EU – I dug dangerously deep. I was also a known guerrilla inside the gates of the citadel. That's what truly frightened them.
A Mote in Brussels Eye in now available from eBook sources
for Kindle, ePub and all other eReaders
Only £5.98 (US$ 9.50)
First reviews:
A Mote in Brussels' Eye is a 'must'. It will also be an important source for all future writers and historians describing attempts to unite Europe as Charlemagne, Napoleon and Hitler all did before the EU. Very interesting and revealing, and he writes well.
Penetrating and hilarious at the same time. No wonder the bureaucrats hated him.
Fateful: Forty years ago today, Edward Heath took us into what was then called the 'Common Market'
Forty years ago today, in what was arguably the most fateful political move ever made by a British Prime Minister, Edward Heath took us into what was then called the ‘Common Market’.
Such a step had scarcely been mentioned at the previous General Election, and the British people had very little idea of what they were letting themselves in for, other than a trading arrangement that might make it easier for us to sell our goods to our Continental neighbours.
Four decades later, the picture could scarcely look more different. We have seen that supposedly cosy club we joined transformed, step by step, into a vast, bloated bureaucratic empire, imposing its suffocating rule over 27 nations.
We have also seen it plunged into the most destructive crisis in its history — one it has brought entirely on itself by its reckless dream of locking the countries of Europe together into the straitjacket of the euro.
During those 40 years the British have never been happy members of this club. Too often we have been out of step, and even bitterly at odds, with the rest — as in our refusal to join that single currency.
But today, as the EU’s inner core of countries drive towards ‘full political union’ in a desperate bid to save their doomed euro, the British now look at this swollen political monster with fearful bemusement.
Politicians of every party talk plaintively about the need for us to negotiate a ‘looser relationship’ with the EU, while opinion polls consistently show a growing majority wanting to leave it altogether — an option that even David Cameron no longer rules out.
Even on the Continent, influential voices are now recognising that something very significant is happening in Britain, as they suggest we should perhaps be allowed something never seen before — a mere ‘associate membership’ of the EU, allowing us to continue trading with it but without all its political superstructure.
How did we come to such a pass? Are we today looking at another historic crossroads, in its own way just as fateful as the one we faced back in 1973?
More...
EU could offer 'second class' membership to stop Britain leaving altogether
Universal credit plan 'is a disaster in the making', says minister just months ahead of launch
Staying in the EU is vital to Britain's trade around the globe, warns CBI
The real problem the British people have had with the ‘European project’, as its insiders call it, is that they have never really begun to understand its real nature, and what was always intended to be its ultimate goal.
The chief reason for this is that our politicians have never properly explained it to us.
What makes this so much worse is that those who were most enthused by it, such as Heath, knew full well what ‘the project’ was really about — the plan to weld all Europe together under an unprecedented form of super-government.
They deliberately decided to conceal it from us, for fear that our anxieties about our loss of sovereignty might prevent them from being allowed to join.
Movement: Opinion polls consistently show a growing majority wanting to leave the EU altogether - an option that even David Cameron no longer rules out
Ten years ago, with my co-author Richard North, I wrote a comprehensively researched history of the ‘European project’.
I had already been reporting for years on the incredible damage membership of the EU was doing to British life, through thousands of crazy directives and regulations, through the destruction of our proud fishing industry and the undermining of our agriculture, which was until 1973 the most efficient in Europe.
The real story, surprisingly, goes back to the 1920s, when a senior League of Nations official, Frenchman Jean Monnet, first began to dream of building a ‘United States of Europe’, very much on the lines that decades later would shape the European Union as it is today.
After World War II, Monnet, by then the second most powerful man in France, finally set the project on its way. He knew there was no chance of bringing such an astonishingly ambitious vision into being all at once. So his plan was that it should gradually be constructed, piece by stealthy piece, without ever declaring too openly what was intended to be its ultimate goal.
At first it should be presented as just a trading arrangement, the ‘Common Market’ set up in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. But the essence of that treaty was to create the core institutions of what Monnet always intended should one day be the ‘Government of Europe’.
Frenchman Jean Monnet first began to dream of building a 'United States of Europe'
The idea was to work for ‘ever closer union’.
Treaty by treaty, it would take over more powers from national governments, based on the sacred principle that once power to make laws was handed over to Brussels it could never be given back.
Ever more countries would be brought into the net, until the project reached its ultimate goal as a super-government, with its own president and parliament, its own currency and armed forces, its own flag and anthem — all the attributes of a fully-fledged nation state.
Thus, stealthily assembled over decades, would this new ‘country called Europe’ finally take its place on the world stage. What we found most shocking in researching this story was that, when Britain’s leaders first considered joining the project, they were made fully aware of this hidden agenda.
As we see from Cabinet papers and other documents of the early Sixties, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and his ‘Europe Minister’ Edward Heath were put completely in the picture about the secret ‘grand plan’. But in June 1961 the Cabinet formally agreed that it must not be revealed to the British people.
In Macmillan’s words, to admit ‘the political objectives’ of the Rome Treaty would raise ‘problems of public relations’ so ‘considerable’ that they should be kept under wraps. It was vital to emphasise only the economic advantages of British entry.
Thus did Macmillan and Heath become drawn into complicity with that same web of deceit which was driving the ‘project’ itself (which is why we called our book The Great Deception).
Twice in the Sixties Britain made failed attempts to join the project — but within weeks of Heath entering Downing Street in 1970, he applied to Brussels a third time. Scarcely had negotiations begun than he learned that his future partners were already discussing the next steps along their path to full integration: a single currency, European defence forces, a common foreign policy.
Heath immediately sent word to Brussels pleading for all this to be kept quiet, because it might blow the gaffe with British voters.
For two years the negotiations continued, with Heath handing over all he was asked for, from giving away Britain’s fishing waters, the richest in the world, to become ‘a common European resource’, to the betrayal of our Commonwealth partners by excluding their goods from what had been for many their main export market.
Finally, Heath got what he was after: entry to the club — although he still pretended that the Common Market was little more than a trading arrangement.
On the day we entered, he told the British people on television that any fears that ‘we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty’ were ‘completely unjustified’.
Deliberate lie: On the day we entered the club, Heath told the British people on television that any fears that 'we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty' were 'completely unjustified'
This was a deliberate lie, as no one knew better than him and the senior Foreign Office official who two years earlier had written a secret paper on ‘Sovereignty’.
The paper chillingly spelled out how it would be the end of the century before the British people woke up to how much of their power to govern themselves and make their own laws had been given away — by which time it would be too late.
So began the dismal story which has been unfolding ever since. Already by the late Seventies, as the Common Market morphed into ‘the European Community’, we were becoming known in Brussels as ‘the awkward partner’.
Then came Mrs Thatcher’s five-year battle to win that rebate on our payments into the EU budget which, thanks to the ludicrously lop-sided conditions accepted by Heath, would have made us the largest single contributor by 1985.
In 1986 came the treaty called the Single European Act, which not only set up the Single Market but handed over to Brussels all sorts of other powers, including environmental laws which were to lead to everything from the shambles of our rubbish collections to building thousands of hated and useless wind turbines.
Mrs Thatcher had a five-year battle to win the rebate on our payments into the EU budget which would have made us the largest single contributor by 1985
In 1990, nothing did more to inspire hostility to Mrs Thatcher among her European colleagues, led by Jacques Delors, than her defiant opposition to the Maastricht Treaty, designed to create the European Union, introduce the ‘social chapter’ and, above all, to launch the single currency.
As soon as he replaced her, John Major proclaimed his wish for Britain to be ‘at the heart of Europe’ and signed the Maastricht Treaty (admittedly with those vital opt-outs for Britain on the single currency and the social chapter).
But seven years later he ended up more at odds with his partners than ever, as they imposed their worldwide ban on the export of all British beef products over ‘mad cow disease’, tried to sneak us into the social chapter under ‘health and safety’ rules and laid their plans for yet another integrationist treaty in Amsterdam.
Tony Blair, too, wanted to be ‘at the heart of Europe’, as the single currency approached (which he would love to have joined), signing us up to the social chapter with its damaging working-time rules, and two more treaties, at Amsterdam and Nice.
But he too found it hard to keep up with that relentless drive for ever closer union, as it led to seven years of tortuous negotiation to create ‘A Constitution for Europe’, eventually sabotaged by the voters of France and Holland, so that it had to be smuggled in by deceit as the Lisbon Treaty (which, among much else, incorporated the Court of Human Rights into the EU). Scarcely was the ink dry on Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s signature on that treaty than the EU was plunged into its worst-ever crisis over the euro, which today is spreading misery across southern Europe.
As always, the response of the EU’s leaders has been to call for yet ‘more Europe’, and a new treaty to force the eurozone members into ‘full political union’.
This is now leaving Britain more obviously marginalised than ever, condemned to remain in the outer ring of a club, many members of which would now be only too pleased to see the back of us.
This humiliating prospect has seen our politicians running around like bewildered sheep, bleating about the need for Britain to negotiate a ‘looser relationship’ with the EU, to get back to that trading arrangement we thought we were entering 40 years ago.
Enlarge
Marginalised: Our politicians have been running around like bewildered sheep, bleating about the need for Britain to negotiate a 'looser relationship' with the EU
Astonishingly, this is now even being echoed as a possibility by those influential voices in Europe itself — even though the most fundamental rule of the club we joined back then was that, once powers are passed to Brussels, they can never be given back.
As David Cameron prepares to give that ‘very important speech on Europe’ he has promised us very soon, he could not do better than to meditate on the shrewdest words ever uttered by a Prime Minister about Britain and Europe. In 1973, as a junior member of Heath’s Cabinet, Margaret Thatcher made all the approved noises about how wonderful it was for Britain to join this club.
Once in office, however, she went on a painful learning curve, as she saw from the inside just what the real game was and how ruthlessly it was played. She was brought down in 1990 by an alliance of Europhiles in her party and their Brussels allies, because she was the last real obstacle to their Maastricht Treaty.
What really riled them was that she had seen through their true agenda and the disastrous course on which they were set.
With even Jacques Delors, the chief architect of Maastricht, suggesting it might be best for Britain to leave the EU, Mr Cameron should dwell on a passage from her last book, Statecraft.
‘That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on,’ wrote Lady Thatcher, ‘will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain . . . should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude.’
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:33 am Post subject:
......The Flight Capital Program that fueled the swift post-war resurrection of the West German economy - probably with the covert support of the United States, and to its benefit, off course - therefore, appears to have had a profound impact on the European and world economies in their turn. Bormann's plan for continued German dominance after the war apparently was so well structured, so deeply entrenched in the fabric of the many operations and national economies co-opted, and so rich in those assets, that its permutations easily can be seen up to today.
The plan can even be seen in the European Economic Community that was recently confederated around the "Euro," with Germany at the heart of the initiative. According to author Peter Hayes' book Industry and Technology: I.G. Farben in the Nazi Era, that confederation was planned for by Bormann in 1943.[dcciii] Hayes wrote: Their was much written of a postwar 'foreign trade offensive' and of a 'European Economic Community' in which Germany would act merely as the 'flag bearer' and predominate by 'elastic political methods...not with brutal force. [dcciv]
The survival of and economic power generated by such multi-billion-dollar titans as Bayer, Hoescht, Volkswagen, AGFA-ANSCO and a long list of others, can all be traced to Bormann's Flight Capital Program. And their cumulative influence can be felt throughout the world economy, effecting each of us intimately, though imperceptibly, as we live our lives day to day....
There has been a digging away at the core principles of Britain’s system of Law and Justice over the last decade which threatens to undermine it entirely. Today, we look at key changes in pre war Nazi Germany which saw the Nazification of Germany’s nation of Laws, and corresponding changes in the British justice system today.
We need to acknowledge the warning signs and uproot this resurgent fascism while it’s still a sapling, or we’ll be hacking away impotently at a mighty oak before we know it.
Godwin’s Law? Oh Give it Up
No doubt someone is already preparing a comment accusing me of Godwin’s Law for making this comparison. So I’ll take a moment to set out why I am making it, and why it does not conform to the term.
Godwin’s Law was intended to highlight the sort of ‘Little Hitler’ comparisons to the Third Reich.
“Train conductor just gave me a fine for not having a ticket… Nazi!”
“Health and Safety laws mean I can’t smoke in my office anymore…it’s like Nazi Germany in here!”
“The government is telling me I can’t smack my kids anymore…Fascists!”
This is the sort of thing that Godwin’s Law pertains to. This is not what I am doing today. I am laying out some genuine similarities in the functioning of the state and private institutions of Germany between 1933-7 as it moved from a nation of laws to a nation of Nazis, with recent developments in British institutions. These similarities should raise real concerns about the direction in which successive governments are driving our nation. The reason I have chosen Germany is that it is the closest, most recent and most readily acknowledged example of such a transition.
Despite this, I accept that nevertheless many people are determinedly unwilling to consider the awful prospect that our government might not be acting on our best interests and will use Godwin’s Law as a tool of cognitive dissonance. In essence, Godwin’s Law itself can become a tool of censorship, used to close down important debate about the authoritarian impulse of the state and corporate power.
Law and Justice
Prior to the commencement of Nazi Germany in 1933, Germany had operated under the Weimar Constitution in a Republican democracy since the end of World War I in 1918. Judges were independent, bound only by law, protected from arbitrary removal and duty bound (at least in theory) by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
Protective Custody
With the reinterpretation of “protective custody” (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest–without judicial review–of real and potential opponents of the regime. “Protective custody” prisoners were not confined within the normal prison system but in concentration camps under the exclusive authority of the SS (Schutzstaffel; the elite guard of the Nazi state).
The End of Open Justice
The Nazi’s set fire to the German parliament building (the Reichstag) in February 1933 and pinned the blame on the Communists in a cunning move which was pivotal in bringing Hitler to power. The point was to provoke such fear that Communists were mounting a coup, that a strong National Socialist was required to quell the rebellion and restore stability. It succeeded.
However, when the suspects were brought before the court, all but one of the suspects (a mentally incapacitated Dutchman who had confessed) were found not guilty. The ruling so incensed Hitler and the Nazi’s that within a month they had passed legislation which removed the right to try cases of treason at the Supreme Court (Shirer, p269). Henceforth, this responsibility would be carried out by the new People’s Court which was no court at all.
Now, one might ask, how on earth is this in anyway similar to the British justice system? The Nazi’s are not the only government exploiting misplaced fears to curtail civil liberties.
In 2009, the former head of MI5 Stella Rimmington accused the British government of exploiting the fear of terrorism to pass laws intended to restrict our civil liberties. She was right. In recent years, an astonishing amount of legislation has been passed curtailing civil liberties, the right to protest and the right to fair and open justice in Britain. The Labour government passed 25 Acts of Parliament and 50 individual measures to restrict civil liberties for UK citizens in the name of ‘national security’ in its thirteen year term.
Protective Custody
The US opened Guantanamo Bay and began kidnapping citizens from around the world, detaining them illegally for years without charge or trial and committing torture against them and the British government was complicit in it.
Control Orders were passed in 2005 and gave police the right to place citizens under permanent house arrest with an electronic tag without any judicial intervention, that is, outside of the court system. Between 2005 and 2011 fifty people were made subject to these control orders.
After promising to remove the powers on election, the Coalition government simply replaced them with TPIMS, which amount to the same thing but restricted the orders to a review after two years.
The Terrorism Prevention Act and other legislation give the State the power to detain citizens indefinitely by identifying them as a terror threat, without reference to a judge or a court. This amounts to protective custody.
The End of Open Justice
On piece of legislation you might not be aware of is The Coroners and Justice Bill of 2005 which removed the independence of Coroners, and gave the Executive (state) the power to suspend inquests or hold them in secret, even in cases of homicide.
Recently, when British citizens started to be released from Guantanamo Bay and seek justice for their treatment, the UK government first appealed to the courts to block the cases, then to redact information that would show their complicity in torture and rendition, and finally sought to pay people off.
As the compensation bills mounted, they changed tack and drafted The Justice and Security Bill, which stipulates that in future, all such civil cases will be tried in secret courts. These courts would be blocked to the media and the state would be able to present its argument and evidence to the judge in the absence of the plaintiff in the case.
This decision ends a 700 year old tradition in the UK of open justice, in the name of national security but in reality, for the sake of state control of information and justice.
The Rev Nicholas Mercer, a lieutenant colonel who was the army’s most senior lawyer during the last Iraq war, told the Daily Mail:
“The justice and security bill has one principal aim and that is to cover up UK complicity in rendition and torture. The bill is an affront to the open justice on which this country rightly prides itself and, above all, it is an affront to human dignity.”
These two pieces of legislation have made it legal for the state to intervene in and end the investigation of suspicious deaths, and lawfully kidnap and imprison its citizens without ever being challenged in an open court. Open justice is no longer guaranteed.
Propaganda and the Demonization of Groups
The Nazi’s used propaganda to such a degree and with such horrific results that the practise was widely condemned and the Ministries for Propaganda across the world changed their names….in itself an act of propaganda.
I would like to compare and contrast two specific pieces of propaganda, one by the Nazi Regime and one by the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.
Theresienstadt
The Nazi’s made puff pieces about one concentration camp called Theresienstadt which made it look like a holiday camp. The following is a film made about the camp.
The reality was that Theresienstadt was a transitory base to transport Jews from the East, to the death camps. Of the 140,000 Jews taken to Theresienstadt nearly 90,000 were deported to death camps where they died. 30,000 Jews died at Theresienstadt itself.
However, the propaganda sold the lie to the German public that the Jews were taken elsewhere but treated well. This allowed the holocaust to go on far longer than it might have if people had been forced to face the reality of it.
Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay is a detention camp which has imprisoned nearly a thousand (officially acknowledged) of detainees of the US (and British) government for years on end, without judicial intervention and under conditions of torture.
The Dail Mail however recently ran an article entitled “Inside Guantanamo Bay‘ which sold the place as some sort of recreation centre for the world’s scariest muslims. Alongside random pictures of fresh fruit, books written in Arabic and (gasp) halal meat, were quotes like this:
“Far from languishing in a dank and desolate dungeon as many in the outside world imagine, inmates are in fact able to rent Harry Potter movies, borrow car magazines and even get strawberries for their tea.”
“To relax, prisoners can visit the camp’s in-house library, which contains a host of books, in Arabic and English, Hollywood blockbuster DVDs and magazines.”
“To relax, prisoners can visit the camp’s in-house library, which contains a host of books, in Arabic and English, Hollywood blockbuster DVDs and magazines.”
This article is one of many staged in cahoots with the US military. President Obama signed an Executive Order in 2009 to close Guantanamo Bay. These articles have been released as the majority of the 166 men still detained without trial there have mounted a hunger strike in a bid to regain their freedom. More than half of these men have been cleared for release for months, yet remain behind bars regardless. Yemeni prisoner Bashir al-Marwalah wrote to his lawyer:
One cannot help but note the similar playbook adopted by the holocaust and Guantanamo bay apologists.
Outside of this isolated issue, the government has launched a propaganda war on the poor which has seen the unemployed, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups suffering escalated hate crimes as a result.
We Need to Start Rolling This Back, Now
You don’t prepare your system of law and justice for the best possible government; you prepare them for the worst possible government. If this government hasn’t taken full use of its overwhelming powers, then another might. Only a person with no understanding of history, or grasp of social behaviour would ignore the dangers of a state engaging in protective custody, closed courts, poverty and propaganda on a people. When these forces are combined, they almost inevitably lead to an unstable, embittered and violent society. Britain is facing such circumstances today.
We have the choice to wish it away, ignore it, become complicit in it or actively resist it. Only the last option offers our and subsequent generations the hope of a better world, where the founding principles of our post World War II social contract are not only restored, but extended. Let us be clear, we need to win some huge battles simply to restore what we have lost, let alone credit ourselves with having created a higher order of justice, freedom and access to information than we inherited. So we need to start now.
It starts with learning, rolling up our sleeves and joining with others. It means both coordinated and organised and completely uncoordinated and disorganised methods of resistance yes, but invention too. We must resist what is and what is intended, and invent something new and inspiring in its place. It’s time to get involved.
Take Action
Convention on Modern Liberty – get acquainted with the facts. Know the nature of your rights.
William L Shirer: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – the ultimate tome charting how Nazism grew in Germany from the 1920’s through to the fall and the Nuremberg trials. I read this as I wanted to understand how a country could descend into fascism. It makes terrifying but sobering reading. I do warn you that Shirer is a rampant homophobe, so be warned for the odd breath taking remark.
Reprieve – a great organisation working on open justice, an end to capital punishment and supporting Guantanamo and other unlawful detainees across the world.
Defend the Right to Protest – excellent information, together with direct action to defend the right to protest.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:23 pm Post subject:
Huge protests in Brussels as Public Tension escalates
Protest are escalating all over Europe, in this report we cover the demonstrations outside the EU Parliament in Brussels where over 10,000 workers gathered to protest outside the EU Leaders Summit.
I really want to press the point home here, these problems are not going to go away. We interviewed Dr Eric Edmond last year and talked about these issues which he predicted at the time these things would happen. He predicted more besides, and I'm saddened to see that the Cleptocrats have indeed managed to enact a wholesale bank Robbery in Cyprus.
I encourage you, infact urge you to do too things today.
1. Go an listen to the interview with Dr Eric Edmond in our Audio Section, so you can get ahead of the game.
2. Go to our website, signup for the newsletter and get involved, help us lift our voices and put an end to this nonsense before it really gets out of hand.Main body contents for the story, simply repeat the styling paterns from above, and follow with a link.
Read More -->>
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php/articles/2038-workers-protest-to-ge t-eu-leaders-to-end-austerityhttp://www.th-eu-nit.com/images/stories/I mages/icons/nightlynews-icon.png
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:17 pm Post subject:
The Lisbon Treaty will come into full effect in November 2014 which is why Cameron offered a 2015 Referendum
Lisbon Treaty summary
The 294 page Treaty of Lisbon sets up a three tier politburo dictatorship, and came into force on 1st January 2009. It gives the EU more powers than the 465 page EU Constitution by amending and adding the missing clauses to the existing five treaties. So you need to read all six treaties together, thousands of unreadable pages which includes Maastricht; and then see through its concealment and deception to get the full picture. There will be no more treaties: the six complete the EU.
Article 1-1a Unlike Britain, the EU nation is atheist; its laws are not based on Christianity.
1-4 New article 2. It is the EU's values that count, not the wishes of the people. The state comes first, soviet style.
1a and Article 2.1-6 make it very clear our new nation will be the European Union, not Britain.
2-2 and 2.3 Our former borders will mean nothing.
2-4 Gives the EU the power to force Britain into the Euro.
3a Puts the EU's former nations into the same position Soviet satellite states enjoyed.
3a-3 Compels former nations to obey the EU. They shall carry out the EU's tasks, and may not oppose it.
3b-1 Conferral - the EU will not exceed the powers it has taken in the Treaties. Negated by 3b.3:
3b-3 If local powers can better be used by the EU, the EU will use them.
3b-4. Proportionality: The EU will not use more force than is necessary to compel us to comply with the Treaties.
Article 6 The EU recognises its own Charter of the EU's Rights of 2007.
6-2 The EU accedes to the EU Convention on Human Rights, but not where it affects the EU's power.
6-3.c Paves the way for The European Council to become independent of Heads of State, and become a politburo.
Article 8. Equality. In glorious Soviet style. And we are forced to accept EU citizenship.
Article 8A-1 to 4 Prepares the way for the abolition of Westminster:
8A-2 Heads of state can be bypassed in favour of "government;" National Parliaments bypassed direct to citizens.
8A-3. Decisions to be taken as close as possible to the citizen. Eurospeak for Regions, not Parliaments.
8A-4. Will be used to abolish our Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem Parties. It's the old EU constitution I-46-4 word for word: Political parties to be at the European level. The Madrid conference defined this in 1999 as parties with voters in 10 or more former nations. Our parties count voters in just one nation. Goodbye to the Lib-Lab-Con.
8B-3. The Commission may use consultation. Ballots, elections, referendums or democracy are not to be its way.
8B-4 One million citizens may petition the Commission to implement the glorious EU Treaties. We can only agree, Soviet style. Old EU constitution clause I-47-4.
9 and 9A Implement EU constitution clauses I-19 to I-27 List of Institutions. Confirms their interest in the Regions.
There are three governing bodies which are unelected politburos, soviet style, each with up to 27 members:
9B The European Council is made up of heads of state, or "government" which could be any politician of their choosing. It meets 4 times a year, and chooses (and can fire) its President for 2.5 years, two terms maximum. He can be anyone from anywhere but not a head of state; he can fire a Commissioner.
9C The Council of Ministers, now The Council, is senior bureaucrat level; controls laws, the budget and policy.
9D The third level is the Commissioners, 20 people, anyone, from each country, provided (clause 3) he is not anti-EU. The Commission is the executive, the government or bureaucracy.
These three are politburos where EU politicians choose politicians; there are no elections to positions of power. Unlike Westminster, the EU Parliament in Brussels, the only elected body, has no executive power; it is a sham.
9E An EU foreign minister shall be appointed, and will be a Vice President of the Commission.
9F EU courts and EU judges shall enforce the six EU Treaties and former nations shall comply.
Article 10 Enhanced Cooperation: Former nations may wish to reinforce the EU's integration using any powers remaining outside the EU's absolute power. If they don't, the Council can enforce enhanced cooperation if former nations won't cooperate. Clause 3: Only cooperating nations may vote in the council.
10-4 We must obey the acquis communautaire, 170,000 pages of active EU law. (EU regulations millions of pages)
10A c-3 Scores of clauses like this one confirm the EU is a military union. A military dictatorship.
To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution - but giving us
no ideas about their plans for the future - the Frankfurt School recommended
(among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships
between men and women. To further their aims they would:
. attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and
mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of
their children.
. abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
. abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
. declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School's long-term operation thus: 'We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
The School believed there were two types of revolution:
(a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. 'Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness'. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.
All Europa is ruled by EU Government. All Europa? - Not quite: a small Celtic people on an island is standing up the empire. The Irish don't wage crusades on other continents; they don't want to provide legionaries for the empire. And for sure they will surprise us again on October 2nd 2009.
And if the Celts resist, then the Romans, Hellenes, the Vikings, the Gauls and and even the weak-kneed Teutons should get off their backsides, too. Becuase it is our duty to live in peace together.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:58 pm Post subject:
Nazi little cell operating in plain sight here
- He Skull & Bones and
- She Merkel's unelected fascist gofer
Doing their evil best to get their witches war
Rather than create a European army all at once, Germany should focus on building it bit by bit, according to a paper published this month by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (kaf). Germany should develop “islands of cooperation”—small groups of countries whose militaries work together—that can be used as “building blocks” of a pan-European military power, it wrote.
To dedicated Trumpet readers, this should sound very familiar. It is exactly what we described Germany doing in the August print edition of the Trumpet. Now you can read it in black and white, from a think tank that describes itself as “closely associated with the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (cdu)”—the party of Angela Merkel.
As noted in the August article, persuading all 28 nations of the EU to sign over their sovereignty and merge their armies into one force has been taking far too long. Germany wants results now.
The kaf’s paper laments the fact that progress toward substantial military cooperation had stalled “mainly due to the lack of political and various different reservations of the European countries.” To get around this obstacle, it suggested encouraging smaller groups of nations to make their own agreements “as a gradual approach to the long-term goal of complete defense integration.” Rather than give up control of their military to the EU, nations could instead share aspects of the military with two or three neighboring nations, gradually getting accustomed to the loss of sovereignty until they later give it over to a larger European entity.
The kaf sees the “islands of cooperation” approach as “only the second-best solution” compared with a combined European military. Germany still wants build a combined military if it can; the “islands” approach is simply more practical right now.
The report made several specific recommendations, the most striking being that Germany should act as the “lead nation of a common air force with the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.” It also suggested working with France and Poland to buy two joint support ships, as well as working with the Netherlands and Denmark to upgrade some frigates.
The report clearly demonstrates the enthusiasm for a combined European army from some of Germany’s most influential strategic thinkers. But there is also much enthusiasm for the idea within the United States.
The kaf listed three reasons why Europe should work together to improve its military. One of them is, “The upheavals in the Middle East, North Africa and the developments in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Caucasus.” The other two revolve around America.
The paper noted the “decreasing willingness of the United States … to resolve military conflicts … in the European environment, forcing the Europeans to take on more responsibility … for the stabilization of their neighborhood.” It also warned of America’s “discontent” that Europe is not doing more within nato.
America is pushing Europe to develop this common military.
nato’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is constantly demanding that Europe do more. Just last month, in a speech in Brussels, he said, “I believe that European nations can, and should, do more, to match America’s commitment.”
The kaf produced this paper ahead of a European Council Summit in 2013 that will focus on Common Security and Defense Policies (csdp) for the first time since 2003. It could be a very important summit. Think tanks, governments and multinational institutions have all been producing papers and statements in anticipation of the meeting. Several EU nations want fast progress on defense cooperation. Events in North Africa and the Middle East, along with the retreat of America, have given this summit an urgency that all previous meetings lacked.
Of course several nations, most notably Britain, are dead-set against a European army. But even Britain’s opposition is softening. Courcy’s Intelligence Service recently drew attention to a speech by a government spokesman for Britain’s Foreign Office, William Wallace, given at Kings College London, September 19.
“Today there is in London a genuine desire and commitment to making csdp as effective as possible in supporting international security and protecting Britain’s and Europe’s borders from potential threats,” said Wallace. “We are now increasingly aware of the helpful role the EU can play in bringing to bear the common will of 28 of the world’s most advanced economies.”
What Britain wants still falls far short of the ambitions of Germany. But it signals that the UK may be more willing to compromise.
Nonetheless, the EU has a long track record of fruitless meetings, and the December summit could still follow in this pattern. But what the kaf’s paper demonstrates is that even if the summit is a waste of time, Germany is determined to move on toward a European army regardless.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:30 pm Post subject:
Now looks as if this was smoke and mirrors
Bell was being strung along
Quite an operation clearly to make sure the Nazis could carry on after the war
TonyGosling wrote:
We were told Hitler's personal assistant Martin Bormann died in the ruins of Berlin. News stories were circulate throughout Western Europe that hsi remains had been found. Those news stories were fabricated to cover his escape to South America.
British Army General and NAZI hunter IAN BELL was an Eyewitness to Martin Bormann's Escape from Europe to South America.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:26 am Post subject:
Germany takes the lead, Outlines New Strategy for a European Army http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/15918
Source: The Trumpet
Rather than create a European army all at once, Germany should focus on building it bit by bit, according to a paper published this month by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (kaf). Germany should develop “islands of cooperation”—small groups of countries whose militaries work together—that can be used as “building blocks” of a pan-European military power, it wrote.
To dedicated Trumpet readers, this should sound very familiar. It is exactly what we described Germany doing in the August print edition of the Trumpet. Now you can read it in black and white, from a think tank that describes itself as “closely associated with the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (cdu)”—the party of Angela Merkel.
As noted in the August article, persuading all 28 nations of the EU to sign over their sovereignty and merge their armies into one force has been taking far too long. Germany wants results now.
The kaf’s paper laments the fact that progress toward substantial military cooperation had stalled “mainly due to the lack of political and various different reservations of the European countries.” To get around this obstacle, it suggested encouraging smaller groups of nations to make their own agreements “as a gradual approach to the long-term goal of complete defense integration.” Rather than give up control of their military to the EU, nations could instead share aspects of the military with two or three neighboring nations, gradually getting accustomed to the loss of sovereignty until they later give it over to a larger European entity.
The kaf sees the “islands of cooperation” approach as “only the second-best solution” compared with a combined European military. Germany still wants build a combined military if it can; the “islands” approach is simply more practical right now.
The report made several specific recommendations, the most striking being that Germany should act as the “lead nation of a common air force with the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.” It also suggested working with France and Poland to buy two joint support ships, as well as working with the Netherlands and Denmark to upgrade some frigates.
The report clearly demonstrates the enthusiasm for a combined European army from some of Germany’s most influential strategic thinkers. But there is also much enthusiasm for the idea within the United States.
The kaf listed three reasons why Europe should work together to improve its military. One of them is, “The upheavals in the Middle East, North Africa and the developments in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Caucasus.” The other two revolve around America.
The paper noted the “decreasing willingness of the United States … to resolve military conflicts … in the European environment, forcing the Europeans to take on more responsibility … for the stabilization of their neighborhood.” It also warned of America’s “discontent” that Europe is not doing more within nato.
America is pushing Europe to develop this common military.
nato’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is constantly demanding that Europe do more. Just last month, in a speech in Brussels, he said, “I believe that European nations can, and should, do more, to match America’s commitment.”
The kaf produced this paper ahead of a European Council Summit in 2013 that will focus on Common Security and Defense Policies (csdp) for the first time since 2003. It could be a very important summit. Think tanks, governments and multinational institutions have all been producing papers and statements in anticipation of the meeting. Several EU nations want fast progress on defense cooperation. Events in North Africa and the Middle East, along with the retreat of America, have given this summit an urgency that all previous meetings lacked.
Of course several nations, most notably Britain, are dead-set against a European army. But even Britain’s opposition is softening. Courcy’s Intelligence Service recently drew attention to a speech by a government spokesman for Britain’s Foreign Office, William Wallace, given at Kings College London, September 19.
“Today there is in London a genuine desire and commitment to making csdp as effective as possible in supporting international security and protecting Britain’s and Europe’s borders from potential threats,” said Wallace. “We are now increasingly aware of the helpful role the EU can play in bringing to bear the common will of 28 of the world’s most advanced economies.”
What Britain wants still falls far short of the ambitions of Germany. But it signals that the UK may be more willing to compromise.
Nonetheless, the EU has a long track record of fruitless meetings, and the December summit could still follow in this pattern. But what the kaf’s paper demonstrates is that even if the summit is a waste of time, Germany is determined to move on toward a European army regardless.
For more information on Germany’s efforts to build this army and the progress it has made so far, read our August article “Under Construction.” ?
_________________ _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
In the picture in above article, No. 1 in the picture is:
1.EU Commission President Walter Hallstein – the boss of the “Brussels EU”
'..Following is a more complete description of the men in this picture, who met in April 1964 at the EU Commission in Brussels. It reads like a “who is who” of characters from the Nazi/IG Farben-coalition:
1.Walter Hallstein, a German lawyer, had been appointed the founding president of the so-called EU Commission, the highest body within the “Brussels EU.” In 1964, the time above meeting took place, he had already been the chief architect of the “Brussels EU” construct for seven years. Hallstein, not legitimized by any democratic vote anywhere in Europe, ruled like a “tsar” – imposed by the successors of the IG Farben oil and drug cartel – over an army of 3,000 administrative servants in Brussels and a budget of billions of Euros (in today’s currency).
Before and during WWII Hallstein had served the Nazi regime as a fervent advocate of Nazi law, including at the University of Rostock, Germany. In January 23, 1939, three years after his Nazi law colleagues had issued the Nuremberg racial laws – and only months before the Nazi/IG Farben coalition launched WWII by attacking Poland Europe – Hallstein talked about future European law under German leadership (“Rechtseinheit Großdeutschlands”). He left no doubt to whom his loyalty belonged, saying that: “One of the most important laws (in Nazi occupied European countries) is the protection Law for German blood and honour.”
2.Ludwig Erhard had been an economic consultant to the Nazi/IG Farben-coalition. He was founder and head of the Nazi-financed “Institut für Industrieforschung” (“Institute for Industry Research”) from 1942. He was married to the sister of Dr. Guth, the head of the infamous “Reichsguppe Industrie” – the Nazi’s official association of the German Reich’s industrialists. In 1944, Erhard wrote “War Finances and Debt Consolidation” (“Kriegsfinanzierung und Schuldenkonsolidierung”), a study about the reconstruction of the economy in a post-war Germany.
After World War II, Erhard became an economic consultant to the Allied forces and later Minister of Economic Affairs and Chancellor in post-war Germany. He was then a member of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU). In his functions, he was responsible for the reintegration of the IG Farben managers sentenced in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity into leading corporate positions in post-war Germany.
One of those to be “reintegrated” was BAYER's WWII director Fritz Ter Mer. This executive of the world’s largest pharmaceutical (!) company was convicted in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal No. VI for genocide in connection with the deadly human experiments with patented Bayer drugs in the KZ Auschwitz (www.profit-over-life.org). With the help of Erhard – then Germany's Minister of Economic Affairs – Ter Mer was released from prison and reinstated as the chairman of the board of BAYER by 1956.
Erhard publicly defended such an unspeakable act by stating that the selection of Germany’s post-war industry captains was necessary because of their “expertise in the field of economics and chemical technology.” Obviously, it did not bother Erhard that Ter Mer and the other pharmaceutical drug lords had been tried in Nuremberg for war crimes. As part of the “give and take”, Erhard was rewarded with the appointment of vice-chancellor of Germany only one year later.
3.Ludger Westrick was chairman of the board, president, and later central trustee of the state-owned “Vereinigte Industrie-Unternehmen AG” (VIAG) during the Nazi era. In post-war Germany, Westrick joined the Christian Democratic Party (CDU).
By 1964 – at the time of the above meeting – he had been appointed head of the German Chancellery, one of the most powerful positions in the German political system. In that function he controlled all key decisions of German politics, including economics, foreign policy, secret service, political funds, public relations and propaganda of the post-WWII German government.
Westrick's predecessor as head of the German chancellery – and the man who had coordinated the political and financial support for Hallstein and the construction of the “Brussels EU” from the German chancellery for the first 6 years of the new European politburo of the cartel in Brussels – was Hans Globke. Globke was a key figure in Hitler’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was the lawyer who was responsible for implementing the Nazi laws and regulations, subjecting the occupied countries in Europe under the rule of the IG Farben/Nazi coalition. Moreover, Globke was co-author of the legal codex that made the Nuremberg racial laws binding law in Nazi Germany. This codex formed the legal basis for the annihilation of Jewish, Slavic and other people in Nazi occupied Europe. The second author of this codex, Wilhelm Stuckart was a State secretary in the German Interior Ministry and was one of the selected few participants of the infamous “Wannsee Conference” that decided the extermination of more than 10 million Jewish people.
Westrick, the man on the above picture, was the immediate successor of Globke and had been introduced into his office by this man.
4. Karl Carstens was an enthusiastic Nazi follower, joining the SA in 1934. He was a registered member of the Nazi party, the NSDAP from 1940 on. In 1955 he became member of the German Christian Democratic Union.
In 1954 Carstens joined the German Foreign Service and from 1955 he was the official standing representative of the German Federal Republic at the European Council in Strasbourg!
Concurrently, he advanced to the position of Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs with the defined field of responsibility: “European Questions.”
In 1958 he advanced the Head of the Division “Europe West” within the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
5. Karl-Günther von Hase joined the Wehrmacht, the German army in 1936. He participated in the Nazi-German Invasion of Poland in 1939, the Battle of France in 1940 and the Invasion of Russia from 1941 to 1945 and married the daughter of a Nazi-General.
After the war, von Hase joined a diplomatic school in the Federal Republic of Germany and started a blitz-career in German politics. From 1962 to 1967 – including the time of the above meeting in Brussels – von Hase was head of the press office of the German government and responsible for its public relations and propaganda.
Only 19 years after the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition had caused the death of 60 million people and destroyed half of Europe during WWII, they were already at it again. Their third attempt to conquer Europe would not take place in military uniforms but in the grey suits of corporate and political stakeholders of the cartel.
Everyone who looks at the background of Hallstein and the cast of characters posing here as key architects of the “Brussels EU” asks:
•How was it possible that Hallstein, a promotor of the Nuremberg racial laws, could become the “founding father” of the “Brussels EU”?
•Why did the politicians of Europe then not inform their people about those relicts from the Nazi past? Why did they not boycott the “Brussels EU” then?
• How much money did the successors of IG Farben have to channel through the bank accounts of the “Brussels EU” to buy the silence of the rest of Europe for more than half a century?
•And, how can the politicians of Europe today try to sell this “Brussels EU” construct to the people of Europe as the basis for a future Europe?'
and from the video in the first link, it seems Hallstein had gone to negotiate with Mussolini in 1938 to work out how they were going to run Europe's
'New Order'; and the video also exposes how important the chemical companies (who later joined in a cartel, I.G. Farben) were, just as Monsanto & Co., Big Pharma, Banksters and other mega Corporations are today.
And I've just come across some info which shows the power of Big Pharma recently:
In ' The Truth About the Drug Companies', by Marcia Angell, M.D. she says:
"The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion) [in 2002]. Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself." _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Source: Andrej Hunko
EU prepares the ground for military use against the citizens
See also: EU prepares the ground for military use against the citizens
The EU creates a legal framework for Europe-wide deployment of police and military units . At the same time, the EU Commission is working intensively on the creation of a single EU police unit as well as an EU public prosecutor (more here ).
The use of the “European Gendarmerie Force” (EUROGENDFOR) is made possible by the “solidarity clause” as Heise reported. At the unit, headquartered in Vicenza, Italy, all EU Member States are involved, the Gendarmerien, so police forces with military status are used. One of the founding countries of the EUROGENDFOR include Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands. We provide our services to the police unit of the EU, NATO or the UN.
“The ‘solidarity clause’ is redundant, since the EU already has mechanisms for mutual assistance in case of disasters. Secondly, the clause amplifies the course to a militarization of domestic politics, since upon request military can be used in another Member State.
“On Tuesday, the representatives of the EU Member States in the Council adopted a decision on the so-called ‘solidarity clause’. Were a disaster or a loosely defined crisis to occur, the organs of the European Union would be obliged to assist using all the instruments at their disposal. This includes military resources”, warned Member of the Bundestag Andrej Hunko.
The proposal on ‘arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the Solidarity Clause’ was jointly presented by the Commission and the EU High Representative in 2012. A country can invoke the “solidarity clause” if a crisis “overwhelms its response capacities”. Mention is made of operational, policy and financial instruments and structures.
Andrej Hunko continued:
“The adoption at the General Affairs Council took place in secret: the point was not mentioned on the agenda of the meeting. The press was not informed. Yet this is one of the most controversial clauses contained in the EU treaties. That is precisely the reason why agreement on the details of the solidarity clause was postponed to a later point at the time of the signature of the Lisbon Treaty.
The ‘solidarity clause’ boosts the role of the two intelligence-service-style EU situation centres. But it also creates the legal framework for deployment of the special police units of the ‘ATLAS network’ being developed by the Commission. From Germany, the GSG 9 is involved; last year this Federal Police Special Forces unit was able to head a large-scale ATLAS exercise encompassing several countries for the first time.
The ‘solidarity clause’ is superfluous, since the EU already has mechanisms for mutual assistance in disaster situations. At the same time, however, the clause strengthens the course towards militarisation of home-affairs policy, since military personnel can be sent to another Member State on request. I am concerned that this is about the home-affairs version of the Article 5 clause on mutual defence: it would apply in situations which ‘may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property’. Even politically motivated blockades in the areas of energy and transport and general strikes are covered.
The text explicitly refers to crises which originate outside the territory of the Member States. The Left Party parliamentary group rejects this blurring of the lines between internal and external security. Instead of militarisation of home-affairs policy through the deployment of military forces inside other Member States, we need reinforcement of the civilian mechanisms of solidarity within the EU.”
Press release of 24 June 2014 by the General Affairs Council:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/ EN/genaff/143353.pdf
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:04 pm Post subject:
How did Germany get such a huge surplus and England such a huge deficit?
5 years ago I was in one of Britain's leading export companies when it was transferred as a 'loss maker' to the Germans and this was described as 'foreign investment'.
Oxford Magnet Technology was making this country a small fortune, but the Germans did a little trick to temporarily lower the profits and bought it for about the price of the building. Now it is their most profitable business sector.
So now it is theirs. They hire German engineering personnel and leave ours to rot. They moved the research section to Germany and most of the prototyping is now done there now too. When it is financially advisable they can just pull the British factory over to Germany or Poland or where ever they like.
For now the factory is still here, but all the parts and services are now bought from Germany instead of England; most of the damage to the British economy, and it is lots and lots, is not easily apparent. Whereas the whole price of the magnet came in to the country, now only the assembly cost comes in; about 10% as much as before. This is all in David Cameron's own constituency but I wonder if he understands what has happened.
Another example is our MRI Magnet transport contract was handed from a British company to the German run company Simon Hegle, and we started buying all of our components from German suppliers. Sure we had quality problems but that is just one of the costs of being German.
Germans buy from Germans. So once they get into our economy the British part withers. Both the British and Germans will buy from Germans so within weeks of any British company being transferred to German ownership the sales and profits suddenly improve. And the more of the economy is German run the bigger the disadvantage of being British.
You fought them off in two wars, why are you letting them take over your country without a fight?
regards, XXXXX
The picture for 2010 isn't very different - Germany and it's best buddies sucking the life out of the rest
Many of you will know that these magnets were used in MRI scanners another home made invention that saves may lives around the world today. What my American friend did not write for obvious reasons, the reason for the quality problems He told me that Germany (Siemens, I think) were buying magnets (not a simple magnet but a state of the art cooled complex toroidal product) in some quantity, so much so that they insisted on having a piece of the action if they were to continue as a customer. They asked for and got a sub-contract supplying the wire for the toroid.
Unfortunately, by accident or design, the wire was poor quality and led to failures, so much so that the reputation and profitability of the company dropped like a stone.
In the end things got so bad that Siemens were able to buy them out at a knock down price. I don't know whether there was any mal-intent but the net result was another nail in British manufacturing.
dave
BTW:
On 1st November 2014 the following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only (see who gets the lions share). This will make it virtually impossible for us to leave the EU by legal means.
Chart: The changes in vote weights for the 28 EU countries under QMV (qualified majority voting)
On 1st November 2014 the following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only:
Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
