|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|Newtimes Survey||Podcast Archive||Video Archive||PDF Archive|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Archive|
On Target Britain
8th & 22nd February, 2003. Food for Thought: Thus governments
or politicians who opposed the bankers or called down their wrath
were held to be immoral, dishonest, and even unpatriotic or irreligious.
The power which Parliaments had taken from Kings was handed over to
bankers, and the representatives of the people were warned that in
no circumstances must they interfere with Money.
European Commission statisticians have decided that Britain is not
an island; we should invite them to walk over and discuss the matter.
Many people will have been pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure
the world that, after the war, Iraq will be run by the Iraqi people,
and no one else. Wouldn't it be marvellous if he were also to assure
us that, after the war, Britain would be run by the British people,
and no one else?
A FEDERAL EUROPE, AND THE MARCH OF MARX
Seeking, Lifting And Sifting The Truth
On any subject in a hugely complex world, in complex societies, not least our own, and a maze of complex issues, there will be tens, hundreds and even thousands of books alone on any one topic. How, in a single newsletter, can we hope adequately to cover any topic, such as Europe, honestly and with balance? What are we to adopt as our start point, what are the issues, the factors, and where does any median lie?
Let us take the case of drugs in society as one arbitrary example of the problem. Elements of the Media and certain groups and individuals pursue a campaign to liberalise and legalise the use of drugs. Is this a path to self-determination, self-destruction, promotion of a massively profitable market, stimulation of certain deprived, illicit drug-producing Third World economies, an excuse for banks to create "new" money to fill the vacuum caused when existing money has been sucked out of the global economy into the drugs traffic, or is it to provide a vehicle for clandestine operations by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.)?
The Christian Maranatha Community is one group that carries on a relentless campaign against the legalisation and use of drugs in society. In the Media we read tragic stories about the frequently fatal use of drugs by the young. The evidence is often horrendous. Aristocrats and leading "celebrities" have ruined their lives and often died through drug abuse. Draconian penalties, including the death penalty, no longer appear to apply. Powerful government and other vested interests remain immune from any law. The same complexities and contradictions confront any study of what seems undoubtedly to be a deliberate, inexorable process in creating an European "Superstate".
To begin with, this has been a case of stealth
and cover-up at the very highest levels. Early post war moves were made
towards a "United" Europe by the Design for Freedom Committee in their
booklet Design for Europe, published in 1947(2). This publication
reflected clearly the deception involved in concealing the issues from
ordinary people. The late Rt. Hon. Lord Thorneycroft was even pleased
to declare his chairmanship of the Design for Freedom Committee in a
letter dated 1st November, 1973, the point at which Sir Edward Heath
was taking the Nation into the nascent Superstate.
We face a significantly corrupt political system in the United Kingdom in which only a small fraction of Members of Parliament appears to be conversant with the history of the European (Economic) Community and the detail or implications of a succession of Treaties, much less with the constant flow of legislation from Brussels. Ipso facto, our elected representatives, voting largely with the party whip, betray those they represent by default. One only becomes aware of the extent of public opinion, often very well informed, by studying correspondence in the provincial press. In our case this is mainly the Shropshire Star. As a major provincial newspaper still under private ownership, this is free to be fairly representative. We may see the interest generated, again in our case, by a single determined correspondent who has achieved a loyal personal following, Bob Wydell, whose letters we have featured in On Target(3)(4).
Where lies the inspiration or impetus for an European Superstate? In Copenhagen in 1931, Professor Arnold Toynbee of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (R.I.I.A.), read his infamous paper, "The Trend Of International Affairs Since The War" to the Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations(5). In this Toynbee made quite clear that the Sovereignty of individual Nation States was to be eroded by stealth. German territorial and imperial ambitions have been cited in the quest for European domination. Reference is often made to German ambitions in the Middle East, and close links to Ottoman Turkey. To do so is to lift the role of Germany out of context. Bismark created Germany from individual Principalities in the late Nineteenth Century, thus Germany was a late comer to the imperial game. The British, French and Portugese empires were already well-established in the Middle East and Africa, so why single out Germany except as a spurious argument against the European Superstate?.
Reference is also made to a meeting in Nazi Germany in 1942, at which German aims for an European Superstate were tabled, but this was an obvious strategic objective when Germany then controlled most of Europe. Where was the continuity of this in the agreement between French President Charles de Gaulle and West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to a Europe united against all future internecine conflict?
The role of France in opposing the planned, illegal, United States-driven invasion of Iraq is currently and dishonestly being taken out of context as an argument against European integration. The late Hilaire du Berrier was a respected authority on Europe and the Far East, with experience dating from well before the 1939-45 War. He exposed the early role in the post-war European movement of the Atlantic Institute, the American Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S., forerunner of the C.I.A.), the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the R.I.I.A., John J. McCloy, Averil Harriman, Nelson and David Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge and other organisations and individuals(6).
As early as 1945 President Harry S. Truman spoke publicly of the American-Jewish factor in his election as United States President(7). There is no longer any serious question about the influence of the American-Jewish lobby behind United States foreign policies through the Media, business, and bodies such as the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (A.I.P.A.C.), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (J.I.N.S.A.). This has been written of quite openly by J.J. Goldberg with the approval of certain members of the American-Jewish community(8).
British and American economic interests are closely intertwined, as in the case of Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and B.P. Amoco in the context of the Middle East. Traditional Tory Party loyalties are too easily drawn into these alignments in defending "British interests", whatever these might be today. In the United Kingdom powerful Anglo-Jewish interests are behind both major political parties, and played a significant role in marginalising traditional Tory groups like the Monday Club and the Swinton Circle in modern Conservative circles. We see evidence of this in the frequent appearances at Jewish functions, reported in the Jewish Chronicle, by Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, not much known for his knowledge of the Middle East or his strategic acumen, when he has ritually condemned Palestinian "terrorism", and advocated war against Iraq. We believe that behind this lies a hidden agenda, not for a Britain truly Independent of Europe, but beyond this for a much closer alignment with United States interests, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or "Area" (N.A.F.T.A.), which is already in the process of expansion.
Ultimately, this suggests integration into the pivotal orbit of Zionist Power. We should therefore not be surprised to see the talk-up kicking off in The Daily Telegraph of 23rd March, 2003, from David Frum, one of the Zionist hawks in the United States Administration: "Blair must find the courage to turn his back on the E.U. Over the year, Britain has found its post-imperial role - as America's partner". So, whose cards are on the table, and what cards are they, in the struggle against integration in an European "Superstate"? Perhaps some-one should come clean?
Beware The Ides Of Marx - And Mugabe
We have taken and liberally adapted the well-known
line "Beware the Ides of March" from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar".
But what relevance does this, Karl Marx or Robert Gabriel Mugabe have
to any discussion on Europe?
Executive President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, has carried out a brutal, genocidal campaign to seize White Zimbabwean-owned farms, and against Black political opponents. The so-called "International Community" has made no genuinely effective moves to remove or destabilise him, in stark contrast to the case of Saddam Hussein in the oil-rich Middle East. An International One-Day Cricket Competition was sponsored by South Africa at the beginning of March this year. Conditions in Zimbabwe are such that Black Zimbabwean cricketer Henry Olonga defected and went into hiding at the end of the Competition. Faced by unstable conditions in Zimbabwe, the English players had been left by themselves to decide on withdrawal from matches scheduled to take place in Zimbabwe. Young cricketers cannot be expected to be politically astute.
Disgracefully, the English cricket authorities
equivocated, apparently more concerned with future loss of revenue,
and the International Fabian Socialist dominated Government of Prime
Minister Blair took absolutely no initiative. One connection? The South
African Judge who ruled against the English team's appeal against playing
in Zimbabwe was Albie Sachs. Along with the late Joe Slovo and Ronnie
Kasrils, Sachs is one of the Moscow-trained South African Communist
Party leaders who were behind the bloody Armed Struggle of the African
National Congress (A.N.C.), against the pacifist Inkatha Freedom Party
and the Apartheid Government of South Africa during the 1980s and early
1990s. Robert Mugabe is also a Moscow-trained Marxist.
Margaret Thatcher, when Prime Minister in 1987, condemned the A.N.C. as a terrorist organisation. In 1988, and again in 1990, Andrew Hunter, Conservative Member of Parliament for Basingstoke, revealed close links between the A.N.C. and the Marxist-led Sinn Fein-I.R.A. It was even known that meetings took place at the A.N.C. office in Penton Street, North London. This was virtually ignored by the Media at a time when the I.R.A. was murdering British servicemen and civilians. No official action appeared to be taken - or demanded, but determined efforts were made by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, M.I.5 and M.I.6 to obstruct Andrew Hunter's investigations(9).
In 1988, when papers were discovered that confirmed
these links, at the I.R.A.'s bomb factory in Clapham, instructions were
issued that Hunter was not to be informed(10). Hunter completed the
record of his findings in 1992, but was unable to find a publisher(11).
It has been said that Black African leaders only adopted Communism "cosmetically"
as a vehicle in their fight for independence. On the other hand, the
Marxist philosophy once induced tends to be irreversible and embodies
a belief in the violent destruction, not the gradual change, of the
Existing Order. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the actions
of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
In an interesting analysis of the Anglo-Irish power-sharing Hillsborough Agreement of 1985, Alex Greer exposes the high-sounding political rhetoric - waffle - which surrounds this so far intractable problem(12). He summarises the position thus (emphasis added):
Southern Irish nationalism traditionally involved a desire to incorporate Protestant Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. The I.R.A. movement, by contrast, has long been known to harbour strong Marxist sentiments and to be linked to international leftist terrorism. But a "new nationalism" has become dominant among non-I.R.A. Irish "nationalists". This "new nationalism" is actually socialist and internationalist in its goals, seeking to separate Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and to incorporate it into an Ireland which will abandon sovereignty to Brussels and a politically unified "European Community". It is their Northern Irish opponents who are the nationalists today, since a significant element among them not only wish to retain the link to Britain but also oppose the abandonment of British sovereignty in favour of a supranational government within the proposed "Single Europe."
We have repeatedly pointed out that a lamentable ignorance of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Soviet Politico-Military Doctrine - still the essence of the situation - prevails at the highest political, police and military levels. The only truth has been expressed by Sinn Fein-I.R.A. leader, Gerry Adams, who has always defined the conflict as that of War - the Armed Struggle. Adams has played the Ideological Struggle, for the mind, in this continuing World Revolution, brilliantly as he has capitalised on the ignorance of his opponents. He has cleverly inverted responsibility as British aggression and intransigence to wrong-foot successive British governments. What in reality has been guerrilla warfare cannot be countered by conventional military force, or a police-led initiative. There may have been internecine disputes between Military Intelligence, M.I.5, M.I.6 and the Ulster Constabulary, there may have been collusion with unsavoury Loyalist elements, but subversive tactics and the liquidation of leading opponents is perfectly legitimate in this type of conflict. Yet British Governments have allowed this to be defined as "Dirty Tricks", and been backed into a succession of one-sided, self-inflicted inquiries.
Whatever the long history of Irish Catholic oppression, and given wider political overtones and an insulting American intrusion, no Government has appeared to understand the true, Marxist issues at stake; therefore to stand its ground publicly. In a catalogue of attempted agreements, Sinn-Fein-I.R.A. has not once properly disarmed or unequivocally renounced the Armed Struggle. The Ideological Struggle, as a part of these tactics is never mentioned because it is almost certainly not recognised or understood. We see this in yet more attempts to establish power-sharing agreements and to restore devolved government on the part of Prime Minister Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. ("Sinn Fein urged to end links with paramilitary" (emphasis added), the Financial Times, 15th October, 2002; "I.R.A. rejects Blair's call to disband and ends links with weapons decommissioning body", the Financial Times, 31st October, 2002; "Blair delays Ulster blueprint as I.R.A. refuses to disarm", The Daily Telegraph, 11th April, 2003; "Progress on settlement placed in peril as Sinn Fein raises stakes ahead of elections", the Financial Times, 11th April, 2003; "Sinn Fein chief attacks call for more clarity on peace from I.R.A.", the Financial Times, 15th April, 2003; "I.R.A. statement falls 'far short' of Unionist expec-tation", the Financial Times, 17th April, 2003).
PATHS TO POWER
Peeling Away The Layers of The Onion
We may well paddle our individual canoes of Capitalism and State intervention, authoritarianism, the primacy of perceived British interests, the Environment, Race, Immigration, Human Rights, Third World exploitation and so on. But we should peel away the outer, peripheral layers of our conceptual onion. We must be conscious that we are dealing as much with philosophies as with traditional and clear-cut party-political divisions that too often act as a refuge from the greater realities of a globalising world. We have now come on a circuitous route through what may have seemed an unlikely scenario to arrive at the essential point; the confluence of Marxism and International Socialism. We should also remember that in the Soviet Communist system, U.S.S.R. stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The First International was formed in 1864 as a society of working men of all nations. The Second, Socialist International was constituted in 1889. Efforts to reconcile the achievement of justice for the working classes with the violence of the Marxist World Revolution saw a divergence between Marxism and International Socialism, or Social Democracy. The Third, Communist International (Comintern) was formed in Russia in 1919-20.
The International Working Union of Socialist Parties (Vienna Union or Two-and-a-half International) was founded separately in 1923(13)(14). We may therefore speak of International, Fabian Socialism or Democratic Socialism by which society may be moulded and changed by progressive, peaceful State regulation and control, whilst recognising that this had no place in the minds of Marxists.
The principles of war had been studied by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels following the disaster of the 1848 uprisings across Europe. Under the system of Soviet Communism developed during the Josef Stalin era the techniques of warfare were set down in meticulous, formal and rigid detail in Soviet Politico-Military Doctrine. We believe that unless we understand this, it is impossible to read the minds or understand the tactics of the Marxist Sinn Fein-I.R.A. leadership, or to negotiate with this movement in simple party-political terms. This applies no less to Socialist politicians than to Conservative politicians regardless of any confluence of long term Democratic Socialist and Marxist objectives on the part of the former.
Conversations in China in the 1920s between Madame Chiang Kai-shek and Communist agent Mikhail Borodin revealed the importance of Liberal intellectuals to Communist strategy(15). Simply, Liberal intellectuals tend to see others in their own wishful, idealistic but impractical image. Thus they contribute to the destabilising objectives of the Communists in Western societies..In Bias, Bernard Goldberg wrote of the Media in the United States(16).
However, his views on double standards espoused by Liberals in this context are significant: They love affirmative action, as long as their own kids get into Ivy League schools. They love handing out jobs based on racial preferences, as long as they get to keep theirs. It's a great deal; it's always somebody else who has to make the sacrifice . . . . "What the liberal really wants is to bring about change which will not in any way endanger his own position," is how Stokely Carmichael once put it. Liberalism thus has a destabilising effect subliminally, or by the imposition of such values on Western societies culturally, morally and socially. This is plainly where Marxism and the International Socialism that rules much of Europe share a common objective.
The process was stimulated systematically from the 1920s by the Frankfurt School of Cultural Communism. This has evolved through the academic institutions such that its initiates now occupy key positions in contemporary society(17). A complementary role is being played by Political Correctness, a system of cultural slavery to which English-speaking societies in the West are particularly vulnerable. This has clear roots in Marxist-Leninist Doctrine(18).
Western society, in varying degrees in the United Kingdom and across Europe, is also being gradually and, probably, systematically changed - diluted - by the Racial factor, not least in terms of the scale of Immigration. Dr Frank Ellis accurately defines this, in our view, as "Race, Marxism and the 'Deconstruction' of the United Kingdom"(19).
The Global And Moral Scenario Of European Integration
McNair Wilson, whose words appear in "Food For Thought" on our cover page, was writing in 1934 about the Nineteenth Century. These words are applicable today. The mainspring of McNair's book was that of the relationship between Christianity, Monarchy and Money, but that this innate morality had been subsumed through the political system by the dictatorial Power of Money. This had been deified so that: "Consequently the business of usury, which in the Age of Faith had been viewed with horror and loathing, came to be honoured above all other businesses and to acquire a peculiar, almost sacred character."(20).
True enough today. So what kind of society are
we, and what kind of Europe is it, with which we could become politically
and economically integrated?
Growing population flows into Western societies are due at least in part to this. It is also a consequence of illegal, contrived wars as in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and against Iraq, that have disrupted domestic economies and destroyed domestic infrastructures. The global economy is already harnessed to the United States dollar. The United States, long disposed by terrorist means to destabilise Latin American regimes deemed hostile to American interests, has now demonstrated the supranational Power of its conventional military forces with the invasion of Iraq. McNair Wilson or no, it is impossible to conceive any major political leader, many another public figure, or financial or industrial leader as fit to enter a House of God as a Christian.
John Pilger, in The New Rulers Of The World, reflects the continuum of the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the United Kingdom leadership and its subservience to the United States(21): The historian Niall Ferguson, a politics professor at Oxford, often utters the unmentionable. Applauding Blair's speech to the 2001 Labour Party Conference, with its language of moral gunboats and Gladstonian conviction of superior beings, Ferguson said, "Imperialism may be a dirty word, but when Tony Blair is essentially calling for the imposition of western values, - democracy and so on - it is really the language of liberal imperialism. Political globalisation is just a fancy word for . . . imposing your views and practices on others."
Only America could lead this new imperial world, he said. We must recognise the importance of the so-called National Interest in the global and the European scenarios; if nothing else this reduces to a case of "dog-eat-dog". All Nations are forced into unjustified competition in the debt-driven configuration of the global economy.
Domestic Agriculture, logically to a large extent self-sufficient, continues to be cynically betrayed by British Labour Governments committed to big business. It is ruthlessly pressurised by powerful retailing chains, and faces huge American over-production determined on forcing Genetically Modified (G.M.) output on Europe and the Third and Developing Worlds.
With the cosmetic fraud of a Common Agricultural Policy (C.A.P.), like-for-like products are needlessly exchanged with European countries. Domestic output is being threatened by regions in Eastern Europe that are either European Community candidates or members, but where labour and production costs are lower. But National Interests lose definition in traditional terms of, for example, manufacturing industry, when ownership and control become increasingly consolidated, and scrambled across national borders. Power in its ultimate global, political and economic dimension is open-ended. In or out of Europe, we exist on the exponential curve of political and economic cataclysm.
Why is there no public dom-estic debate? Why is there no apparent debate or common collective conscience on a European scale? A small number of authors with the integrity and courage have exposed these issues; Professor Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Michael Rowbotham on domestic and Third World debt slavery(22)(23), David C. Korten on the centrifugally vulnerable global economy and American Corporate Power(24), Will Hutton, George Monbiot, Greg Pallast and others. We have to ask why so little publicity for their work? Why no major reviews, when hardly a week goes by without fulsome, half-page coverage, for example, on the latest work on the fifty-year-old Holocaust?
Rather than allow the uncomfortable truths to
be exposed, most of these authors are dishonestly marginalised as intemperate
or of the political Left. Perhaps those who dismiss their work would
care to identify the political connotation, or is it because, instead
of defining any form of National Interest, they simply tell the uncomfortable
truth as it is? Would any of their so-called "Christian" detractors
care to relate these truths to the basis of their own Christianity?
The attacks of September 11, 2001 [on The World Trade Centre, New York] did not "change everything, but accelerated the continuity of events, providing an extraordinary pretext for destroying social democracy. The undermining of the Bill of Rights in the United States and the further dismantling of trial by jury in Britain and a plethora of related civil liberties are part of the reduction of democracy to electoral ritual; that is, competition between indistinguishable parties for the management of a single-ideology state. Central to the growth of this "business state" are the media conglomerates, which have unprecedented power, owning press and television, book publishing, film production and databases. . . . The "global economy" is their most important media enterprise.
"Global economy" is a modern Orwellian term. On the surface, it is instant financial trading, mobile phones, McDonalds, Starbucks, holidays booked on the net. Beneath this gloss, it is the globalisation of poverty, a world where most human beings never make a phone call and live on less than two dollars a day, where 6,000 children die every day from diarrhoea because most have no access to clean water. In this world, unseen by most of us in the global north, a sophisticated system of plunder has forced more than ninety countries into "structural adjustment" programmes since the eighties, widening the divide between rich and poor as never before. This is known as "nation building" and "good governance" by the "quad" dominating the World Trade Organisation (the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan) and the Washington triumvirate (the World Bank, the I.M.F. [International Monetary Fund] and the United States Treasury) that controls even minute aspects of government policy in developing countries.
Their power derives largely from an unrepayable debt that forces the poorest countries to pay $100,000,000 to western creditors every day. The result is a world where an elite of fewer than a billion people controls 80 per cent of humanity's wealth. In Bolivia's third city, Cochabamba, ordinary people took back their water from a corporate conglomerate, after the World Bank had pressurised the Bolivian government into privatising the public water supply. Having refused credit to the public water company, the bank demanded that a monopoly be given to Aguas del Tunari, part of International Water Limited, a British-based company half-owned by the American engineering giant Bechtel. Granted a forty-year concession, the company immediately raised the price of water. In a country where the minimum wage is less than $100 a month, people faced increases in their water bills of $20 a month - more than water users pay each month in the wealthy suburbs of Washington, home to many World Bank economists. In Cochabamba, even collecting rainwater without a permit was now illegal.
The Machinery And Instruments Of Power
In his H du B Report, in 1989 the late Hilaire du Berrier recorded the warning words of Walter Rathenau in 1912: "There are three hundred men who know each other and constantly select those who will succeed them [and] direct the economic destinies of the world". Hilaire du Berrier then continued as follows (we have added the emphasis)(26):
The one-worlders were already working to control the economies of nations that they might impose a single government and a single money on the world. The 1914-18 war enabled them to break up Europe's empires and establish communism. Out of the war's debacle Chatham House [Royal Institute of International Affairs] was formed in 1920 and founded the Council on Foreign Relations as an American subsidiary a year later. Nicholas Murray Butler of the Fabian Society, explained at a London banquet on November 19, 1937; "Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and a world money."
While the Council on Foreign Relations recruited, trained and installed its men in government, the organisation that would carry Chatham House's conspiracy a step further was being planned. In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was formed "in order to combat anti-Americanism in Europe," Mr Joseph Retinger told President Eisenhower. But at the same time Retinger was setting up the Common Market, with Marshall Plan counterpart funds, and telling Europeans that only by grouping together would they be strong enough to defy America. The Bilderberg Group was international, composed of men drawn from the national policy-making bodies Chatham House had created. Its members had no mandate, but at secret meetings their hand-picked editors, bankers, politicians, and leaders of pressure groups agreed on policies they would go home and sell.
Here, we have the evidence of the Fabian, International Socialist Nicholas Murray as early as 1937 that the Communist system was the perfect foil for International Finance-Capitalism. From the outset the Bolsheviks were financed by Western Banks(27). The economic, material and technical collaboration continued, without a word to the general public, throughout the so-called "Cold War"(28)(29). Agreements to this treasonous deception were signed by British Government Ministers of both major political parties. A typical example was Command Paper 5659 of 1974. This was headed "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Development of Economic, Scientific, Technological and Industrial Co-operation". It was quite clear that there were those in high places who knew perfectly well what was going on, many of them International Socialists or "Democratic" Socialists - for what the difference is worth. Was the ground being prepared for a "Union of European Socialist Republics"?
UNION OF EUROPEAN SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (U.E.S.R.)
"The Ultimate Betrayal, No Questions Asked"
"The Ultimate Betrayal, No Questions Asked" was the heading of an extremely significant leading article in The Times of 2nd April, 2003, by Lord Rees-Mogg. The theme was Prime Minister Blair's evident intention to take the United Kingdom further into the European Union, on the basis of the draft new constitution, with no referendum. The occasion was a little publicised speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Cardiff. Under this proposal, important British constitutional powers are scheduled to be surrendered to the E.U. Rees-Mogg also wrote:
"Tony Blair has his own description of this new Europe. He says that it 'can be a superpower, if not a super-state.' That is the kind of glib, false distinction that from time to time makes the Prime Minister's rhetoric uniquely repulsive." We agree. In our view "boy" Prime Minister Blair is not only uniquely ambitious, he is uniquely dangerous. His many pronouncements, from his personal "initiatives" on Foot and Mouth Disease, Health and teenage pregnancy for example, to his vehement references to (so far elusive) Weapons of Mass Destruction and "executed" British prisoners alongside President George W. Bush, ought to be studied carefully in retrospect. There is one blunt term for the substance - "bullshit".
The impression of driving, messianic personal ambition remains, if necessary on the backs of the British Armed Forces. Another obvious danger is an intellectually barren Conservative Opposition that to all appearances is dead in the water.
In his pamphlet The Conservative Ethic, of 1994, James Gibb Stuart reflected the lost principles of Conservatism when he wrote (emphasis added): The enemy in this context, the surreptitious eroder of national values and nation-based conservatism, is an international consortium of financiers and multinational corporations whose ultimate goal is world government, which they hope to bring about through the elimination of nation states and political frontiers, the progressive centralisation of power, and the establishment of a global market place. . . . Money is at the root of this particular evil. Money and the massive power and patronage which it so readily commands! It is essentially a capitalist power, and since conservatives have instinctively looked to capitalism in all its forms as their natural friend and ally, they have been betrayed from both within and behind by those with whom they thought they shared a set of common values.
McNair Wilson wrote of a balance between Democracy and Dictatorship, between which might lie a Christian Monarchy(30). Whilst he may have long been overtaken by events, "Democracy" is fast becoming a meaningless term for British electorates. It has been largely nullified by financial dictatorship and the debt-usury system of private money "creation", political corruption, the party-political whip and an unmanageable burden of legislation beyond the wit of individual politicians; much of it from the European Union.
The true Conservative ethic embodied for many a natural hierarchy underpinned by a blend of individual responsibility, moral commitment, privilege, heredity and merit organic to any society other than the smallest commune. This creed may have been seen as often in its abuse as in its adherence, but in human nature there is no such thing as total Liberal egalitarianism; the natural hierarchical pyramid invariably springs back into its natural shape. We are therefore now witnessing the alternative of cosmetic egalitarianism, oppressive bureaucratic legislation, the control of thought and free speech vested in Political Correctness, the elimination of personal judgement and responsibility, and affirmative allocation.
The "Tony's cronies" syndrome of a privileged, self-serving, self-sustaining and self-promoting elite is little different to the Soviet Communist Nomenklatura. The close association between Capitalism and Democratic Socialism is found in examples like Gavyn Davies, Goldman Sachs and Chairman of the B.B.C. Governors, Lord David Sainsbury, Lord Levy and Lord Simon, Bank of England, B.P., Unilever, European Round Table and Prodi Group advising on Enlargement Implications, European Union.
On 28th February, 2002, The Anti-Common Market League sponsored a remarkable address in the House of Commons by Vladimir Bukovsky(31). A survivor of the Soviet gulags, Bukovsky's subject was "Is the European Union the New Soviet Union?" The unelected Politburo was the most powerful organ in the Soviet Union, as are the European Commissioners. The Soviet Council of Ministers, and 241 members of the Central Committee elected by the Party Congress were largely cosmetic and have their counterparts in the European Union. The relationship of the Mensheviks of the February, 1917 Revolution, and the Bolsheviks of the October, 1917 Revolution is comparable to that between Democratic Socialists who hold Power in much of Western Europe, and the Soviet Communists.
Communists in the former Soviet satellite States
of Eastern Europe are making a planned return to office in the guise
of Democratic Socialism, thus maintaining the Communist influence, but
inside the European Union as Member States. The ideological knock-on
to Prime Minister Blair and International Fabian Socialists is obvious.
Bukovsky drew parallels with oppressive legislation emanating from a
central authority in Brussels. The evolution of an European Police Force,
with diplomatic immunity and powers of arrest across national borders
corresponds in practice to the Soviet Committee of State Security, the
Outrage in the European Community that Austria
should have elected a Right-Wing Government, race-hate legislation,
the curtailment of free speech and criticism of the existing political
order, are yet more examples of a nascent International Socialist federation.
Bob Wydell is a prolific and well informed letter writer to the Shropshire Star. Here are two of his letter, the first published on 2nd April, 2003 with the heading "Federalist Europe too similar to red state"; the second letter appeared on 14th April, 2003, with the title "Russian ethos lives today":
Anti Poolamets, board member of the Estonian
No to the E.U. campaign warned at the Bruges Group international conference
in London of the similarities between the old Union structure and the
European Union. Both have supremacy of community law, supremacy of the
union's courts, supremacy of the central bank on the union, a single
currency, a common economic zone, common external borders, free movement
of goods, persons, service and capital, common citizenship, a common
defence policy in the future, a common foreign policy in the future.
He told the conference "The European Union is - as the Soviet Union
was - a dictatorial power system, which avoids any kind of democratic
control". All real decision making happens behind closed doors. Communism,
just like the euro federalism, is based on an anti-democratic understanding
that adult citizens are not mature enough for making decisions. This
communist guardianship for people fits Eurocrats well.
Did you ever wonder why an organisation like federal Europe, which promises peace, prosperity and freedom for us all would require that its lawmakers and law enforcers have immunity from prosecution? Where did it get the idea from? The Soviet Union had such an arrangement and a protest march in that Union was a very rare sight. I very much doubt that any Moscow daily paper included a readers' letter page either. The Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, its centrally planned command economy led to inefficient use of resources and it failed to provide incentives for the innovators. The Soviet Union may have gone but its concept just moved south and a little bit left and lives on - preparing for the great day. Deride this view if you must but I believe that there are too many similarities between the two to be coincidence. The danger to Britain is not in the [Persian] Gulf - it is in federal Europe, it is in the European constitution and the European Arrest warrant, an instrument designed to fight terrorism but which includes crimes that have no relevance to terrorism - rape, computer crime, and illicit trade in human organs and tissue. It is backdoor legislation on a breath - takingly arrogant scale and we are standing, watching it happen.
The Portents Were There For Those Who Would Listen
The late The Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell was a former Government Minister; he was highly intellectual, a classical scholar and strongly opposed European Union. His assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom were published in an article; "What we give up if we go in", The Sunday Express, 16th June, 1977.
If Britain goes into the Common Market, warned
Mr Enoch Powell yesterday our national sovereignty on such crucial matters
as defence and financial policy will cease to exist. The European Economic
Community, said Mr Powell, despite its name, is political. "Opinion
has been right to fasten upon sovereignty as the central issue." he
declared. "Either British entry is a declaration of intent to surrender
this country's sovereignty stage by stage, in all that matters to a
nation, or it is an empty gesture, disgraceful in its hollowness alike
to those who proffer and to those who accept it. The superior people
laugh at those who talk about losing our Queen and our monarchy. But
the reality is not in the trappings; the reality is in the sovereign
national independence. If there is no intent to part with that, then
there is no intent at all. . . ."
"The British Parliament is just in the course of passing a new Immigration Bill to control entry in the United Kingdom. As a member of the Community, Britain would be obliged to make major changes in those rules. When I say 'obliged,' I mean 'obliged'; Parliament would be told: 'This is what you must approve; you may discuss it if you like; but you cannot decide otherwise.' . . . What a hole there would be in politics here if we could not discuss prices and inflation or hold the Government responsible for them. This is what would happen as soon as the currencies were aligned; no political debates about devaluation or revaluation. . . . All that would be settled, elsewhere for the community as a whole. It would have to be - that is what monetary unification means. There is no exaggeration in saying that practically the whole of economic decision would have been removed from Westminster - and from the United Kingdom."
The battle was already being joined! Only two years after Enoch Powell had spoken, we read this in The Daily Telegraph of 27th July, 1979, under the heading "New E.E.C. attack on chip shops": Fish and chips seem to be a favourite target for Common Market bureaucrats - who, after trying unsuccessfully to make traditional vinegar illegal, are now proposing legislation stopping the use of newspapers for wrapping. Fryers would have to use specially prepared wrapping paper and are preparing to fight the move. "It is another freedom of choice being removed," said David Toulson, national spokesman for the Confederation of Fish Fryers yesterday. "Newspapers are used only as an outside wrapping for insulation and never touch the food. I support the Common Market but some of the things they do show very little understanding of our country's traditions. I suppose they are influenced by the fly-ridden shops and market stores one sees on the Continent. They forget that our environmental health officers are quite capable of protecting the hygiene laws of Britain. If special wrapping paper has to be used it will only put up the price of fish and chips to the housewife - and we intend to fight it all the way."
The Bureaucratic Screws Are Turning - Who Will Oppose Them?
We are grateful to Miss Marie Endean, former Chairman of the Berkshire Branch of the Campaign for an Independent Britain (C.I.B.), for bringing the next three letters to our attention:
The first letter came from the Newbury Weekly
News, of 20th March, 2003, from Philip J. Duly, Campaign Manager
for The Freedom Association. It was titled "Britain's status under threat":
The second letter was written by Miss Marie Endean herself. This appeared in the Newbury Weekly News of 27th March, 2003, and was headed; "The United States of Europe will suppress public and political life":
Your crisp headline over the warning letter
by Philip Duly of the Freedom Association, - "Britain's status under
threat" - will alert many of your readers now focussed as they are on
the escalating war with Iraq. Guns, bombs, tanks, pre-emptive strikes
- we can follow the postures of war with comparative ease and intense
interest. But, faced with words, phrases and clauses about the ongoing
threat to our parliamentary and legal independence, our very freedom,
we switch off, are bored stiff and leave it all to the experts or "experts".
The draft constitution of the proposed European superstate is published
on the Website of the European Commission - www.europe.eu.int - The
United States of Europe to be set up will be totalitarian, run by unelected
bureaucrats in Brussels and will invade and suppress all areas of our
political and public life; our foreign and defence policy, taxation,
economic and social justice, movement of persons, goods, services, capital,
competition rules, public health, free speech - virtually all areas
The third letter, on the "New European order", was addressed to The Times of 27th March, 2003, from Ivor R. Johns.
Sir George Earle does well to remind us that
the new E.U. constitution presents an opportunity to end our involvement
with the E.U. and establish a different relationship. The chairman of
the constitutional convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has said that
countries that do not wish to sign up with the new constitution can
maintain an economic role, but can no longer remain in the political
system; that, presumably, means a trading agreement. Does it mean too,
the end of our budget contributions? If so (on both counts) then this
seems the obvious option to go for. One thing seems certain; we cannot
remain as we are. If our Government agrees to the constitution, it will
be involving us in a new federal political order. As M. Giscard has
made clear, the old treaties must be abrogated; thus countries outside
the new constitutional treaty will no longer have the old treaties to
cling to. Does the Government therefore want a new relationship with
our European neighbours, or to have us merged in the new order?
He was one of the eight M.P.s who rebelled against the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, in 1992, during the Government of John Major. Under his chairmanship The Freedom Association has advocated traditional moderate, non-party-political conservative values, as opposed to those linked to Finance-Capitalism. His letter to the Shropshire Star of 6th March, 2003, was published with the heading "Arresting result of M.Ps.' poll"; the identical text was published earlier, on 27th February, with the heading "M.P.s' slow to reply on E.U. query":
Last November I wrote to 473 members of parliament for their own personal view on the proposed European Arrest Warrant [E.A.W.]. This will expose British citizens to the criminal justice systems of 13 other E.U. countries where the law of habeas corpus, which prevents imprisonment without charge, the right to trial by jury and adequate safeguards for the presumption of innocence, simply do not exist. The roll call as far as Shropshire M.Ps. are concerned is that Owen Patterson (Shropshire North) voted against the measure; David Wright (Telford) replied saying that he voted in favour; Peter Bradley (The Wrekin) ignored my letter altogether but voted for the measure; Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury & Atcham) sent me a copy of the response he has had from the Home Office but declines to give me his own view; my own M.P., Matthew Green, who possibly thinks that having responded to an earlier letter is not obliged to reply to my more recent one. Messrs. Green and Marsden call themselves Liberals but when the E.A.W., which is a blatant assault upon our historic defences against arbitrary arrest and wrongful punishment, came before parliament they both abstained. I wonder why?
Satellite States - "Regions" - of the U.E.S.R.
In 1975 Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Roberts, United States Army retd., wrote The Republic: Decline and Future Promise. In his newsletter, Bulletin - Committee To Restore The Constitution for June, 2002, he published an extract on "Regional Governance - Silent Revolution Transfers Free Americans to Socialist Control under United Nations New World Order". We have selected the following lines.
Whilst there is no exact match with a Europe of the Regions, there are disturbing parallels. It is also very signficant that we have a specific reference to Socialism Americans today witness the concluding acts of a seventy year conspiracy by a semi-secret organisation of monetary power whose agents have infiltrated all departments of the federal government for the purpose of destroying it. . . . The national emergency is confirmed by the insidious and largely silent thrust for regional governance, made operational by "regionalism" directives masked as local legislation. Regional governance, meaning control by regulation in place of law, is rapidly erasing state, county, and school district boundaries, and is dissolving representative government by transferring the authority of elective office to appointed agents. These surrogates are controlled by a network of private, but public service appearing associations. Goal of the conspirators is absolute command, through federal regional councils and their sub-divisions, of all land, water and resources, production facilities, farms and businesses; and the apparatuses of public administration, education and religious orders.
We examined deliberately clandestine measures, with particular reference to the dismemberment of England as part of the United Kingdom, towards establishing a system of Regional Government answerable to Brussels: On Target, August, 2001; "The Planned Break-Up Of The United Kingdom"(32). It was evident then, as it has been through 2002 to the present, that John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, when also Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, was, and remains behind these moves. Every effort has been made to exclude those opposed to Regional Government from involvement, and the matter has received scant attention except in The Sunday Telegraph. On 7th July, 2002, The Sunday Telegraph reported that, after Prescott's conversion to the concept when he had been a delegate to the Council of Europe, he had "all but completed the replacement of Britain's local government system with a network of regional governments", and that unless there is a popular vote for corresponding elected Regional Assemblies, democratic control will be lost ("Prescott breaks up Britain").
In December, 2002, Prescott's office isued a
paper; "Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Sounding exercise
on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum
about establishing an elected assembly". We are informed by those closely
involved in opposing Prescott's plans that the process has not only
been, but is being rigged; not just by exclusion of opponents and minimum
publicity, but by misrepresentation of public responses and concetration
on the North East Region where it is claimed there is a significant
degree of support. However, The Sunday Telegraph of 16th February,
2003 wrote of "A very unpopular form of democracy". The key paragraph,
which followed a report of improper use of ratepayers' funds in the
North East for promoting the regional concept, and report of a signficant
negative response generally to the concept, was:
This letter was written to the Shropshire Star of 26th June, 2002, from Philip J. Duly, Campaign Manager for The Freedom Association. It was published with the title "Fighting for right to govern".
This government's attitude to referenda should alarm us all. It cannot be trusted to run a fair euro referendum campaign any more than it can be trusted on its proposals for regional assemblies. This is a government that uses taxpayers' money to promote its policies and has politicised the once independent civil service to a far greater extent than any other previous administration. John Prescott's proposals for regional assemblies are intended to break up the United Kingdom and abolish the nation state. This additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy is nothing more than a European blueprint for a federal Europe based on regions and should be opposed tooth and nail. Our nation has celebrated the Queen's Golden Jubilee and shown that we wish to remain a sovereign people with the right to govern our own affairs. The Freedom Association is campaigning against regional assemblies and against British membership of the euro.
The tenacious Bob Wydell wrote to the Shropshire Star of 26th July, 2002 with heading "It's all part of the E.C. big plan":
Is Councillor Willis revealing the new, federal brand of local government which we can expect in the future when she states: "People should not ignore the move towards creating powerful regional assemblies across England"? When Mr Prescott introduced this concept, only weeks ago, the distinct impression given was that the choice would be ours via a referendum, with the opportunity to elect our chosen candidates to serve on these assemblies. The reality is that these plans are thirty years old and that these assemblies (the official conduits through which we will be ruled by Brussels), are already in place, each with a leader and two deputies appointed by federal Europe. These assemblies waft in silence (like the Vichy government wafted in France), for the moment when Brussels takes command.
Denis Brookes, County Press Officer for the United Kingdom Independence Party, wrote to the Shropshire Star of 14th September. 2002, as follows under the heading "How does regional rule work?":
Councillor Davis claims that there is growing support for regionalisation. I am not sure of his sources but, based on the recent B.B.C. poll, 72 per cent of respondents said in response to a highly loaded question that they wanted regional government. However, the same poll shows that 84 per cent of these respondents were unaware of what regionalisation involves. Hardly a ringing endorsement there! What was of great interest was that only 9 per cent of those respondents related to a region, with 76 per cent relating to their country or county. So what the people of the West Midlands should be asking initially is whether they want to belong to a region and, only when they support the concept, whether they want regional government. What we should also be aware of is that, should we vote against an elected Regional Assembly, we will still be left with an unelected regional Chamber and the associated unelected quangoes and institutions that support it. Be warned, once the West Midland regional government is in place, then effective control will come from Brussels through the West Midlands European Office - you may like to note, in support of this claim, that Advantage West Midlands is on record as saying that they "consider the West Midlands to be a region of the European Union" and the North East R.D.A. [Regional Development Agency] talks of European Government and how its purpose is "to realise the potential for the Region of being a part of the E.U."!
THE POUNDS, SHILLINGS AND PENCE OF EUROPE
The Institute Of Directors
In February, 2002, the Policy Unit of the Institute of Directors issued a leaflet, "The Euro: A Political Project With Profound Economic Implications". The following is an extract from the introduction, headed "The euro is a political project":
The euro, European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), is a political project and, moreover, the most integrationist development in the history of the European Union. Continental politicians and other senior opinion formers are quite unequivocal about this - in sharp contrast to the dissembling dishonesty surrounding the debate in the U.K. The euro is but a step, albeit a hugely signficant step, towards the unification of Europe. The following quotes should dispel any doubts on this matter:
* "The fusion (of economic functions) would
compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European
State". (Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement, 3rd April, 1952.)
Extracts From The Financial Times
"Euro adds to price fears in Germany - A recent poll showed that 54 per cent of the country's consumers wanted to ditch the new European currency and bring back the D-Mark" (30th May 2002) Tomatoes, milk, bread, a haircut or a trip to the local swimming pool - you name it, its price in Germany has probably gone up since the introduction of euro cash in January. . . . "Before the euro, I used to draw out DM400 (£205) a week for spending on food and household things," says Richelle Coffin, an American archaeologist who lives Oberursel, near Frankfurt. "Now I draw out £400. But my cupboards aren't any fuller. . . Like many residents, she can cite items, such as kebabs sold at street kiosks, that have virtually doubled in price because vendors brazenly replaced a D-Mark sign with a euro sign in front of the price. In Germany's old currency, one euro was worth DM1.95583. Such examples remain the exception. But certain data support the view that the cost of many goods in daily use has soared, not just since January, but since retailers started pricing goods in euros from early 2001 onwards.
"Greece leads the chorus of discontent over euro prices" (4th Sep-tember, 2002) Anger at rising prices has grown so strong in Greece that consumer groups decided to exercise the ultimate sanction: a shoppers' strike. . . . At first glance, the protesters have a point. According to the Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, a coffee in a Greek café cost the equivalent of £2.05 in December, but £3 in March. Some bus fares have risen 50 per cent this year and tickets to the Acropolis, which were Dr2,000 at full price last year, are now £12; more than Dr4,000 at Greece's entry rate of Dr340.75 to the euro.
From The Daily Telegraph
What a wonderful moment it was on television; a politician giving a brief, straightforward answer to a simple question (B.B.C.1 News). Asked about the prime purpose of the new euro currency, the European Commission's President, Romano Prodi, responded: "This is not economic . . . this is a pure political process." No nonsense about Treasury economic assessments, five economic tests or any other meaningless waffle designed to conceal the truth. Just a simple acknowledgement that the real purpose of the euro is to bring about political integration of member states. Perhaps on his next visit to Britain, the Prime Minister might care to tell us why he wants us to destroy our perfectly sound currency in order to integrate politically with Europe. ("Honest Prodi", Letters, 4th April, 2002)
From The Shropshire Star
"Mint bags are not so sweet now", Jane Brooks
(26th December, 2002).
"A warning on impact of the euro", from Robin
and Jan Nicholls. (19th December 2002).
"January, 2002, saw the introduction of the euro with a massive hike in prices for basic goods. The trouble is that the guilder was about half the value of the euro. Things like food produce for which you paid, say 3 guilders now costs about 3 euros. Because the individual amounts were relatively small, you didn't notice at first until you suddenly realized that your weekly shop was costing twice as much in real terms. The supermarkets and stallholders have been slammed, but the fact remains that they got away with it and made a huge killing." You have been warned!
"Prices up with the euro", Bob Wydell. (13th
"Facts and figures in the E.U. debate", Mark
Norwood. (25th January, 2003).
LIGHT ALONG THE TUNNEL, OR MIRROR IMAGES?
The draft of the preceding paragraphs has been carefully screened. The Deputy Editor has completed his regular ritual of exercises to strengthen his bionic hip joint. He is now able to bear breakfast aloft to his wife (lady subscribers please note; angry male subscribers run for cover!). But there is a quid pro quo; that of going through the four Sunday broadsheets with a highlighting pen. The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Jewish Chronicle, Morning Star, Guardian Weekly, and a rare issue each of Tunisia News and The Wall Street Journal Europe had been sifted the previous day. Out from The Observer dropped a special supplement; EU Enlargement - Cyprus & Romania. What do we read on page seven? "The British business community is targeting the [Romanian] public services. They also have an interest in aeronautics and former companies from military industry". A familiar ring here? But the thought occurs that if we don't, somebody else will; just as a moralising Labour Cabinet allowed the supply of arms to Indonesia. We do not wish to moralise ourselves, however, in pondering the question of European Union. But we do wonder at the political, economic and social positions from which we should judge the issues involved.
It should be evident that in a just society such matters are not those of social classes or distinctions whilst Ruling Elites remain outside these parameters. We read of alignments like neo-Liberal, neo-Conservative, neo-Fascist. We never hear mention of neo-Communist, neo-Socialist or neo-Labour, which should tell us something. Are these terms invoked to order as a meaningless smokescreen of obfuscation to condition or confuse the role of International Socialism?
We have just spoken with Jose MacDonald, B.Sc, founder of Farming And Livestock Concern, an expert on Biotechnology and on Agriculture generally. She deals regularly at ministerial level in Europe, but rarely in the United Kingdom where, sadly, too few politicians are to be trusted. Jose had just returned from a conference on Biotechnology in Agriculture in Brussels. The major corporations maintain a permanent presence there, dispensing largesse, and it was these that staged the bulk of the conference presentations. During the proceedings the Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, one of the unelected members of the European "Politburo", announced that the growing of Genetically Modified (G.M.) crops was to be authorised in the European Union in a way that would inevitably place organic producers on the defensive. This was a clear victory for big business, behind which also lies massive pressure from the United States. The Labour Government - of the people! - in United Kingdom has already sold out to big business, to such as the Monsanto Corporation in the case of Biotechnology. Jose MacDonald is a lone campaigner, at her own considerable expense.
The long train back to Wales was almost empty - until Cardiff, when it filled with apparently affluent and mature people who were returning home from a popular music concert. One wonders if the mass of those faced with British entry to an European Union feel a need to know the arguments, or even have any sense of responsibility? An historic town centre is ripped out to make way for yet another supermarket. The bait is invariably that this will create more jobs for ordinary people, but does it occur that the goods to be sold may come from cheaper sources in Eastern Europe, or that other jobs may be lost as domestic manufacture leaches away to these regions? Who consumes European produce at the expense of British sources; or even cares?
Governments in thrall to the City of London and its "running mates" in the Treasury, lack the political will to create their own money to finance public services at low interest. Instead, they borrow their own money from the private banking system. It is from this same network that unelected bankers are drawn to control the European Central Bank, and so determine our economic futures in an European "Superstate". The structure and laws of this regime already affect us all, thus we must be regulated and anaesthetized.
Vladimir Bukovsky was specific about the Mensheviks' use of such questions as Immigration, as tools to exploit selected or factional issues to destroy the Nation State and its culture (33). We see this taking shape today as draconian legislation is gradually put in place, and young men who join the Police as a career become instruments in what is slowly resembling the Geheime Staatspolizei of pre-war Germany. We had early glimpses of the erosion of individual judgement and responsibility in the arbitrary removal of children from parental care on spurious medical evidence. Parental authority is being undermined by pressure against corporal punishment and the provision of contraceptives. Parents may be detained and teachers removed on the evidence of children, much as in Nazi Germany. We see evidence in the rights of the criminal over the victim, and the compulsory redesignation of traditional foods. We saw it in the arrest and detention of journalist Robin Page for allegedly offensive remarks at a country fair. A Racism and Xenophobia Monitoring Unit has been established in Vienna ("Hate the euro and risk gaol", The Sunday Telegraph, 7th July, 2002). This is the coming "New European Order".
BOOK REVIEW by "Kitz"Whose Promised Land by Colin Chapman. Lion Publishing plc, 2002. (First edition, 1983, revised 1985, 1989, 1992). The heavyweight use of sources in this book leads to the unintended result of giving more emphasis to the Jewish, rather than to the Palestinian claim to the Promised Land, referred to in the title. Clearly, the author's systematic and skilful exploitation of his sources and their arrangement (numbered within chapters), enables the reader to use the book, which is being constantly revised and updated, as a valuable reference source.
The book, the work of a scholar with a profound knowledge of the Middle East, represents a significant contribution to those seeking an understanding of the thorny problem of Palestine - a well-nigh intractable problem which has the capacity not only to endanger peace in the Middle East, but to the world itself. Chapman takes the reader through Jewish history from the time when Abraham conveys a promise from God in the shape of a covenant, to the Jews, that they possessed land from the rivers of Egypt to the Euphrates. Jews have since held to this promise with great tenacity, so much so, that it has sustained their belief in their Promised Land from inauspicious beginnings to the 1880s when the first mass immigration of Jews took place - coincidentally with the first flood of funding from such patrons as Sir Moses Montefiore. Also in the 1880s, as Chapman lucidly describes, Jewish Zionism is provided with an aggressive cutting edge by the writings of Theodor Herzl and Leon Pinsker. Thereafter, Chapman asserts, the Zionist cry "Next Year Jerusalem" takes on real meaning.
The story then takes on the struggle for statehood, the creation of the Israeli state to be achieved by intelligence, good fortune, American financial clout and the Jewish ability, within and without Israel, to seek out and manipulate first Britain and then America. Chapman clearly states how this was done in his Chapter "The Seeds of Conflict", whereby Chaim Weizmann's close association with Lord Balfour resulted in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917 which he regarded as providing the Jewish people with "the golden key which unlocks the doors of Palestine. . . ." whilst providing the Palestinian Arabs with the assurance that this would not hinder the creation of their own state! From then on Chapman reveals how the Palestinians found themselves repeatedly on the back foot and always responding ineffectively to growing Jewish power. Chapman then goes on to explain how, with the end of the British Mandate over Palestine, the Arab-Jewish problem was handed over to the United Nations. In exasperation, the United Nations decided to impose a partition plan upon them in which the Jews had 55 per cent of Palestine and the Arabs 45 per cent. The Jews accepted readily, recognising that acceptance would legitimise the state of Israel. The Palestinians rejected it on the grounds that they were the land's lawful owners, having settled on it for over 1,300 years. It proved to be a defining moment for whereas the Jews had their state of Israel, the Palestinians were left in limbo.
A succession of wars followed which only served to stress the disunity of the Arab world and the growing strength of Israel funded by America, pressured and sometimes dominated by its Jewish lobby if not at the heart of successive American administrations, often probably near to them. Part III addressees the realities of the Palestine-Israeli dispute and brings the entire problem into the 21st Century.
Even amongst Jews, there are still constant differences of opinion and attitudes towards Palestinians, according to Chapman, ranging from Golda Meir's assertion that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people to Martin Buber's assertion that in their relations with the Palestinians, the entire Jewish enterprise was a feat of Jewish humanity and morality. Shades of the Holocaust thinking here, but in reality the Israeli state would never have been born, without massive Zionist deception about its mailed fist approach which became increasingly evident after the 1880s. During much of this time, except for a few Arab voices, referred to by Chapman, the Palestinians seemed to have been lulled into complacency and when true Zionist intentions were revealed, the Palestinians reached for religious and political support throughout Islam culminating in the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (P.L.O.), under Yasser Arafat and thereby bringing the entire Palestine-Israeli question back to Chapman's Chapter II of Part 1, "The Seeds of Conflict".
Then having examined how Christian Zionism and dispensationalism became popular concepts notably in America, Chapman then explains how that country adopted its all-important role in the creation of Israel and its expansionist aims (Eretz-Israel). Chapman wearily points out that there are six million Jews in America exercising enormous financial and political influence upon successive American administrations. Indeed Chapman pointed this out earlier in the book when President Truman voiced this very point in public as early as 1945. Chapman's conclusion is, I fear and not unexpectedly, hardly reassuring. Obviously, he states that in the end reconciliation is the only way forward. He lists the efforts already made, without success. He refers to the ideas inherent in the single state and the two state theories but argues that nothing can be done as long as Israel appears intent on illegal occupation of the West Bank and probably further expansion and when the Palestinians remain committed to driving the Israelis out of Palestine altogether - the declared objectives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad over which Arafat appears to have little control. So [Ariel] Sharon blasts Palestinian areas with American built helicopter gun ships and the Palestinians reply with suicide bombing.
Note: Prices are shown where available
from Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the
theme of this edition of On Target. A wide range of reading may be found
in the Stock Price List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on
request from the address on the last page. Out of print, or older works,
may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand
Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which
details are available as for the S.P.L.
Further material may be found in the Bloomfield
Books Stock Price List (S.P.L.). This is available from the address
below. Prices for all material include postage in the United Kingdom.
Overseas orders add 20% for surface mail (Europe add 20% for automatic
air mail) or 55% for airmail. (U.S. readers should add 65% after adding
postage to the U.K. prices, and send payment in U.S. dollars with a
cheque drawn on a bank in the U.S.A. made payable to "Donald A. Martin").
All from Donald A. Martin, Bloomfield Books at: 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury,
Suffolk, England, CO10 2TD.
ON TARGET INDEXESThese are available from Bloomfield Books, currently for Volumes 22-31. The price is 50 pence per copy, per volume (all 10 volumes - £4.00). See address below. On Target is printed and published by Intelligence Publications (U.K.) 26 Meadow Lane, SUDBURY, Suffolk, ENGLAND CO10 2TD. By private subscription only at the following rates: U.K. - £20 per annum U.S.A. - Surface Mail U.S.$45 per annum- Air Mail U.S.$50 per annum Elsewhere overseas - Surface Mail £25 per annum - Air Mail £30 per annum
Reproduction, without prior agreement, of the contents of this publication is subject to the acknowledgment of the source, together with the address and subscription rates, and provided a copy of any reproduction is sent immediately to the publisher. Editor and Publisher: Donald A. Martin Copyright © D.A. Martin Deputy Editor and Research Department: Barry S. Turner
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|