THE PEDIGREE
OF THE IDEA:
REGIONALISATION Norman
Dodd
https://www.sweetliberty.org/ During
the many years the S.A. branch of the League had a bookshop in Waymouth Street,
Adelaide, one of the loyal volunteers who helped man the shop, Mr. David Bevan,
circulated a video which featured the testimony of an American, Mr. Norman Dodd,
to an official Committee investigating the pedigree of the idea of Regionalisation
as it related to the State of Illinois. Over the years the video got lost in the
system - although many the time David would ask around for its return. Imagine
our delight when we found the following reference to that testimony on the internet.
It was discovered on the website https://www.sweetliberty.org/. Now
go and take a good hard look at the Howard government's agenda. Do you still think
his policies are his own original ideas? And, of course, (tongue in cheek) you
believe him when he infers his agenda is 'all for our own good'.
My word, but
you are naïve. Go and study the former communist Soviet Union's structure
and you will note the structure was regionalisation controlled and policed from
a core centre by the ruling elite. But in order to impose just such a structure
on the English-speaking people's nations, the 'one-worlders' must first dismantle
the sovereign tripartite structures with their separation and division of powers. Sweetliberty.org
writes: In 1978 the legislature of Illinois created a committee to study Regionalism
in Illinois. The Committee held three hearings - the first in Springfield, Illinois,
April 11, 1978; the second in Chicago, July 10, 1978; and the third and final
hearing in Edwardsville, on September 26, 1978. The following is a transcript
- from the September 26th hearing - of the testimony of Mr. Norman Dodd, beginning
on page 51 and ending on page 61. Mr. Dodd was chief investigator in 1953 for
U.S. Congressman, B. Carroll Reece, whose committee (referred to as the Reece
Committee) investigated tax-exempt foundations.
The investigation was eventually
narrowed down to about 10 foundations, chiefly among them being Rockefeller, Ford
and Carnegie Foundations, their sub-foundations, and the Rhodes Scholarship Fund.
Mr. Rene Wormser, Council for the Reece Committee subsequently wrote a book -
titled "Foundations - Their Power and Influence," which relates information
uncovered during the hearings, as well as the difficulties and roadblocks encountered
throughout. Congressman Cox had begun this process in the previous Congressional
Session and died suddenly, bringing the hearings to a halt. Reece braved it out
and the results are staggering to the mind of an American who once believed in
a "free" America, under the Constitution. In
his book Wormser listed, among the major instruments of these foundations, the
CFR, United Nations Association, Foreign Policy Association and Institute of Pacific
Relations. From pg 200-201 of "Foundations..." Remember, this was 1953:
"It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization
of any substance which has not favoured the United Nations or similar global schemes;
fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling
in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over
the globe... The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached
far into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department".
Regionalism is a plan which emanates from
the United Nations, is taking place on a world scale, and its ultimate aim is
to organize populations into groups small enough that no people can challenge
a World Government. The 50 Sovereign States united in America have been unconstitutionally
divided into ten federal Regions with populations a little over 20 million in
each - comparable to the Regional population divisions in all other countries.
We, in America, are the last bastion of hope. Although the Regional Plan is
deeply entrenched, although we are indeed at the 11th Hour... we can, by the loving
Grace of God and our intelligent activity - stop and reverse the process. The
transcripts of the Illinois hearings are relevant to the further understanding
of the plan to eliminate the states and to transform America into a region of
the world government. Transcript of Public
Hearing - Joint Committee on Regional Government
- September 26, 1978, Edwardsville,
Illinois Norman Dodd - pgs 51-61 [pg 51] Mr.
Dodd: Mr. Chairman. After listening to the very able descriptions of how complex
the question that is before the Committee is, I have been thinking in terms of
drawing on my own experiences that relate to the development of the proposal called
"regional government", which might be helpful to the Committee. I think
the Committee deserves to understand and have a first-hand look at the origin
of the idea of regional government, and also to be made aware of the purpose for
which the idea has been introduced, so I would like to share with the Committee
two experiences.
One of them... and these experiences are traceable to a position
that I, at one time, held as the Executive Director of a Congressional Committee
that was called upon to investigate the relationship of the economy, really, and
wealth in this country to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United
States.
As a result of that investigation, experiences began to accrue, and
one of them stemmed from the entity - or the head of the entity - responsible
for the proposition which you all now face called regional government.
This
individual was the head of the Ford Foundation, and this experience took place
back in 1953. It took the form of an invitation from the President of the Ford
Foundation to me to visit the Foundation's offices, all of which I did, and on
arrival, was greeted by the President of the Ford Foundation with this statement:
"Mr. Dodd, we have invited you to come to New York and stop in and see
us in the hope that, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress of the
United States should be interested in an operation such as ours".
Before
I could think of just exactly how I would reply, Mr. Gaither volunteered the following
information, and these are practically in his exact words:
"Mr. Dodd,
we operate here under directives which emanate from the White House. Would you
like to know what the substance of these directives is?"
I said, "Indeed,
I would, Mr. Gaither".
Whereupon he then said the following:
"We,
here, operate and control our grant-making policies in harmony with the directives,
the substance of which is as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so to
alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet
Union".
This is a shocking, almost unbelievable attitude that you can
run across. Nevertheless, this is what clarified the nature of the grants of this
Foundation, which incidentally, of course, was the largest aggregation of privately-directed
wealth in the United States.
Now, the second experience that I would like
to share with you... oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation's grants
which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government,
and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and
accept and agree to a totally new Constitution which has already been drawn up,
as was mentioned just a few minutes ago. [previous testimony] The
next experience ran this way.
This followed an invitation from the head of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Also, it entailed visiting their
offices, all of which I did. The invitation itself came because of a letter which
I had written to the Carnegie Endowment, asking them certain questions which would
clarify the reasons for many of the grants which they had made over a period of
time. On arrival at the office of the President, I was greeted with this statement:
"Mr. Dodd, we have received your letter. We can answer all the questions,
but it will be great deal of trouble. The reason it will be a great deal of trouble
is because, with the ratification by the Senate of the United States of the United
Nations Treaty, our job was finished, so we bundled all our records up, spanning,
roughly speaking, fifty years, and put them in the warehouse. But we have a counter-suggestion,
and that counter-suggestion is that if you will send a member of your staff to
New York, we will give them a room in our library and the minuted books of this
organization since its inception in 1908".
My first reaction to that
suggestion was that these officers had more or less lost their minds. I had a
pretty good idea, by that time, of what those minute books might well have shown.
The executives who made this proposal to me were relatively recent, in terms of
their position, and I was satisfied that none of them had ever read the minutes.
The period of 1908:
To make a long story short - as short as possible -
a member of my staff was sent to New York and spent two weeks there, and did what
they call "spot reading" of the minutes of this organization.
Now,
we are back in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The
Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment bring up a single question; namely, if it is
desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient
than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question at a very high academic
and scholarly level for a year, and they come up with an answer-- there are no
known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life
of an entire people.
That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the
United States in a war?
This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question
more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that
time than war. There were certain of what we call "intermittent shows"
in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans
was, or their relation or possible effect on us.
We jump, then, to the time
when we are in a war, and these Trustees. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then
answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, "We must control
the diplomatic machinery of the United States"; and then that brings up the
question of how to secure that control, and the answer is we must control the
State Department.
Now, at that point, research discloses a relationship between
the effort to control the State Department and an entity which the Carnegie Endowment
set up - namely, the Council of Learned Societies. And through that entity are
cleared all of the appointments - high appointments in the State Department, and
they have continued to be cleared that way since then.
Now, finally, we are
in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention,
then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was
prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion,
they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly
tremendous, really stupendous and complex task - much too great for them alone.
So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task
be divided between the two of them.
The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect
of education which is a domestic in its relationship. These two run along in tandem
that way, disciplined by a decision - namely, that the answer lies entirely in
the changing of the teaching of the history of the United States. They then approached
the... five of the then most prominent historians in this country with the proposition
that they alter the manner of the teaching of the subject, and they get turned
down flatly; so they realized then they must build their own stable of historians,
so to speak.
American 'collectivism':
They approach the Guggenheim Foundation,
which specializes in Fellowships, and suggest to them that when they locate a
relatively young potential historian, will the Guggenheim Foundation give that
person a Fellowship, merely on their say-so... and the answer is, they will.
Ultimately,
a group of twenty are so assembled, and that becomes the nuclei of the policies
which emanate to the American Historical Association. Subsequently, around 1928,
the Carnegie Endowment granted to the American Historical Association $400,000
in order to make a study of what the future of this country will probably turn
out to be and should be. They came up with a seven-volume set of books, the last
volume being a summary and digest of the other six. In the last volume, the answer
is as follows:
"The future belongs to the United States..... the future
in the United States belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic
American efficiency".
And that becomes the policy which is finally picked
up and manifests itself in the expression of collectivism all along the line,
of which the dividing of this country into regions, using all of the logic which
supports the ultimate idea that in order that regional government, in turn, be
effective, there must be a new Constitution of the United States.
That is
the background, gentlemen, of this very serious question with which you all are
now wrestling. I felt that, possibly, that might tend to help a little bit as
you take on this high responsibility, which is tremendous. You must have been
thoroughly impressed with the complexities which arrive and confront you if you
do not go at this problem in terms of the origin of the idea and the real purpose
behind that idea; and skipping all the way over to try to distil a system, or
a working plan, whereby our society can cope with these complexities, such as
they exist today. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be with you. I
wanted to make these points as brief as possible...
Rep. Lucco: Pardon me,
Mr. Chairman. Will you please speak into the mike? I am not able to hear you.
Mr. Dodd: Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I was saying that I appreciate very
much the privilege of being with you. I wanted to give you these two bits of experience
which tend to focus on the difficulty of discharging the responsibility which
has been presented to you.
Rep. Hudson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dodd, for
your testimony, and coming such a distance -- as I believe you must have -- to
do so. Now, are there questions from the Committee membership?
Rep. Lucco:
Yes, Mr. Dodd... Mr. Chairman, first.
Rep Hudson: Yes.
Rep. Lucco: Mr.
Dodd, I shouldn't use the word "amaze", but I am thoroughly amazed at
your ability to recall and take us through history, which you have done, and I
congratulate you on that. If you could, very briefly, for my edification -- I'm
just a little coal miner's son, and I haven't been around, except to two County
Fairs and a Rodeo -- but I would like to know a little bit about you, sir. Could
you, in a brief capsule, tell me -- what have you done since, let's say the age
of 25?
Mr. Dodd: Yes, indeed, I can, sir. My life has been spent in pretty
nearly every phase of the world of finance that you can think of; that is, commercial
banking, what they know as fiduciary banking, investment advisory work, membership
in a firm that was a member of a Stock Exchange...
Rep. Lucco: Let me interrupt
you, please, sir, if I might. As that type of background, how do you feel about
holding companies and cartels and consolidation, branch banking, etc?
Mr.
Dodd: Good gracious, you don't want me to start in on anything such as that....
Rep. Lucco: Well, to me it's relative because we are talking about regionalism,
and to me, if regionalism is bad, then these other things could be bad.
Mr.
Dodd: They not only could be, sir, but in my opinion, they are detrimental to
the objectives of the founding fathers of this country.
Rep. Lucco: Fine.
You've answered my question. Now, another thing. You took us back to 1908, and
I came on the scene in 1912, about the time of the Balkan Wars, which you alluded
to, and World War I. Now, today, and you said that we actually created -- or "they",
whoever "they" are - actually created the situation of a war. Now that
we have the...
Mr. Dodd: Wait, now. You deserve to know who the "they"
are.
Rep. Lucco: I was going to ask you that.
Mr. Dodd: The "they"
in this instance are the Trustees. . . were the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. They were men who were prominent lawyers in New York;
men like Nicholas Murray Butler, the head of Columbia University; also, and subsequently,
Allen and Foster Dulles, as attorneys -- that calibre of gentlemen. [CDR
Note: "Global Tyranny ...Step by Step", by William Jasper, quotes Allen
W. Dulles from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 - New York: The Foreign Policy
Association, Sept-Oct, 1946- page 46...
(The League Book Services might still
have an odd copy or two of "Global Tyranny ...Step by Step", by William
Jasper… ed)
"There is no indication that American public opinion,
for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American
membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world
government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened
so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this
country..."] Rep. Lucco: Then I'm trying
to collate what you are talking about -- 1912 -- with 1978, the meeting at Camp
David, the problems in the Middle East, the Sino-, or Chinese-Russian situation--are
they now getting us ready for a third world war?
Mr. Dodd: My answer to that,
sir, is that they have set forces in motion, and these forces cannot help but
culminate in World War III. I happen to personally believe that it is possible
to prevent it from working out that way, but I'm alone in my beliefs.
Rep.
Hudson: Apparently you're not alone, Mr. Dodd.
Rep Lucco: No. I was in public
education for 39 years. I basically am a history teacher. When I walk into a classroom
today, I don't see American History taught -- as you alluded to -- as we used
to teach it. American History, in fact, is not a course any more. We have a general
smattering of human relations, or what not, but not American History. That's what
I was saying, and I agree with you on that.
Now, what I was going to ask.
I came from a small community of about 700 people. I graduated from a High School
of 110. When I graduated, in 1929 -- of course, you know, in those days we graduated
real young; I was only 7, being only 39 now -- but there were 7 of us in my graduating
class, and I was the only [pg 60] boy. The 6 girls elected me President, and I
have been trying to make up for that ever since. But the idea is that today we
are doing away with these small, community schools. The problem, as I see it,
is not only of regional government, but of consolidation of schools.
[Consolidation
of schools IS Regional Governance in action.]
I was Principal of a High School
here that had 1,900 students. When I came here, there were 550 students in this
High School, and we had a lovely school, I thought. Then we got 1,000 and I thought
we'd reached our peak; and from then on -- and I'm not trying to be critical of
anyone in the school administration -- but I'm just saying that I think we've
gotten too big; and with 1,950 students in our present High School in this community,
we have problems that did not exist, and I don't think individuals have changed
that much.
It is a matter of groupings and numbers of people; and you get
too many people here. o I think you and I would be in agreement that possibly
regionalism might lead, and is leading, and has led to consolidation of schools
doing away with the small schools on the idea that they can't get a good education
there. As I say, in my background (and I don't claim to be successful, by any
means) but, coming from a coal-mining town, from a coal-mining family, from an
ethnic background of Italian immigrants, I think we've done real well through
the Depression, and all that, in the small school.
And so, I agree whole-heartedly
with you with the idea that regionalism may -- I mean, I'm talking about regional
government -- may lead to the wiping out of such things, and we have so much bussing,
so much transportation, so much taxation, so big, so much budget, that I don't
know whether we can continue living with it. Thank you very much.
Rep Hudson:
Mr. Dodd, I have one question. You mentioned a proposed new Constitution, or federal
charter, for this country, sort of waiting in the wings, you might say.
Mr.
Dodd: Yes.
Rep Hudson: Is that the one... I have heard tell of a Tugwell type.
Is that the one you refer to?
Mr. Dodd: That's it, sir.
Rep. Hudson: Thank
you. All right, well, thank you very much, Mr. Dodd. We are grateful for your
being here.
End of Dodd Testimony.
"Because of evidence presented
in the hearings which convinced the Illinois Committee members of the dangers
of Regionalism, the Committee proposed, and the Illinois General Assembly passed,
legislation which would create a standing committee. The duties of the standing
Committee were to STOP any further encroachment of Regional Governance in Illinois
and to begin repealing legislation which had already been passed by the General
Assembly implementing the Regional Plan. The legislation was vetoed by the Governor,
and there were evidently insufficient votes (2/3) to over- ride the veto. The
rest is history," wrote Jackie Patru, https://www.sweetliberty.org/ CDR P.O.
Box 190 Millerton, Pennsylvania 16936. A
MESSAGE FROM SOUTHERN AFRICA The following
is an especially insightful interview with a famous Soviet Dissident Vladimir
Bukovksy who warns of the dangers of the EU. Implicit in this warning is a similar
warning regarding the ugly siblings, the North American Union, and the African
Union. Note that the important thing is that these groups must integrate into
the financial institutions of the world, such as GATT, the IMF and the World Bank.
Note too how the privitisation initiative
introduced by Thatcher provided the impetus to the left wing and the Soviet, to
go into the EU. In SA and Africa generally, privitisation is resulting in the
rapacious plundering of national assets by the Oppenheimers and other multinational
corporations, especially those controlled by the Rothschilds. However, note also,
that these same corporations along with the UN and international financial organisations
are the major impetus behind the AU. Significant too, is the warning that "the
European Commission looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except
for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually
had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable
to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all." However,
we know of course that they must be accountable to someone, and appointed by someone,
and experience will tell us that that "someone" ultimately will be a
Rothschild and his cohorts. Bukovksy further predicts an economic collapse, and
because of the Third World immigration, so actively promoted by the European Commission
"We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic
strife that the mind boggles."
We
notice too, that Europol which Bukovksy has pegged as a KGB-on-steriods will "police
us on 32 kinds of crimes - two of which are particularly worrying, one is called
racism, another is called xenophobia.... Someone from the British government told
us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will
be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be
regarded as xenophobes." Bukovsky fears "a fully fledged Europol staffed
by former Stasi or Securitate officers". Similarly, the US Department of
Homeland Security, which is headed by Israeli citizen, and son of Mossad agents,
Cherthof; and his assistants former KGB agent General Yevgeni Primakov, and Markus
Wolfe, the ex-boss of the equally feared East German ''STASI'', who are part of
the team creating the National ID and the control of all the USA's citizens. From
our South African correspondent.
Former
Soviet Dissident Warns Of EU Dictatorship Source:
The Brussels Journal Vladimir Bukovksy,
the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its
way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels Mr
Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner
the better, before it develops into a fully fledged totalitarian state. Mr Bukovsky
paid a visit to the European Parliament at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian
Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited
the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion
of this year's 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning
meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish
restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke
at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential
documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These
documents confirm the existence of a "conspiracy" to turn the European
Union into a socialist organization. The interview about the European Union had
to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back
some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago,
in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought,
was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th
century.
As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against
political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991)
and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year,
in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets
expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to
serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the
Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution.
To prepare for his
testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet
secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents
because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop
computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security
clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government. An
interview with Vladimir Bukovsky
Paul Belien: You were a very famous
Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union
and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referring
to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction,
the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of
the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but
we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet
ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union
was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe.
The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They
call this people "Europeans", whatever that means.
According to
Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state,
the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite
happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state,
but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse
came, these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they
nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.
PB: Do you think
the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?
VB: Absolutely,
you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient
you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don't forget it is still accumulating
a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.
PB:
But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.
VB:
No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice.
Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries,
they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced
to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but
who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the
same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until
the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop?
Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun
marriage.
PB: What do you think young people should do about the European
Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish
it?
VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be
democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures
cannot be democratized.
PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen
by the people.
VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional
representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The
percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given
the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year
in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.
Transcript
of Mr Bukovsky's Brussels speech
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to
Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and
still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole
idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between
the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader
Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our "common European home."
The
idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists
visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained
that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret]
Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening
to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and
Social-Democrats - threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way
to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try
to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once.
[In South
Africa privitisation is rampant, with people like the Oppenheimers benefiting
hugely, just as the Russian Jewish Oligarchs benefited from privitisation in the
former Soviet - DF] Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union
had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means
to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their
view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing
parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project
and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal
state.
According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning
point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the
internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first
time you understand that there is a conspiracy - quite understandable for them,
as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed
a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and
very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of
being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy,
quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out. Trilateral
Commission:
In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral
Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister
Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d'Estaing,
[American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger.
They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that
Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such
as GATT, the IMF and the World Bank.
In the middle of it Giscard d'Estaing
suddenly takes the floor and says: "Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly
when it will happen - probably within 15 years - but Europe is going to be a federal
state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us,
and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the
other East-European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it,
you have to be prepared." This was January
1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How
the hell did Giscard d'Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time?
And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution
[in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn't it?
Luckily
for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach
the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original
idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would
mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would
become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures
have to fit each other. [This is why we see the North American Union and the African
Union developing the same structures. - DF] This is why the structures of the
European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet
structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.
It
is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme
Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly,
when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it
does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and
the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the
same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. Two
'crimes' are particularly worrying:
When you look into all this bizarre
activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like
Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the
economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing
is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly
the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from
bottom to top.
If you go through all the structures and features of this
emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the
Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do
not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB - not
yet - but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example.
That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers
bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine
a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes
- two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called
xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this
is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so - pb]. So it is a new crime,
and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that
those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded
as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as
xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.
Hence, we have
now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet
Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today's ideology of the European Union
is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness.
I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive
ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now.
Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted
for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality.
France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing
hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on
and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction
of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures.
Apparently
that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol
looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what
is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags
spring up. It looks like we are living in
a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy.
Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators
who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My
immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the
war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were
told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing
this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberties and
introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship
out of your country in no time.
Today's situation is really grim. Major
political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of
them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend
our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some
kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse
in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and
taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the over-regulation
of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse.
Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed
to be political.
I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the
European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget
that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation
to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The
recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the
huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This
was promoted by the European Union. What will
happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like
in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In
no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except
probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have
to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse
on our heads.
This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish
with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done
to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are
moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them.
Today it is still simple.
If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the
Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes,
nothing will happen and no one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But
I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol
staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen. We
are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a
strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it
will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far,
despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country,
it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time. Note:
For the serious student: "Tragedy and Hope," by Professor Carrol Quigley
is a must read. Professor Quigley claimed he had access to the papers of the One-Worlders.
He agreed with what they were doing, he just didn't agree with them keeping their
plans and agenda a secret. |
