Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

NewTimes Survey

<


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.


NEW BOOKS PROVING VERY POPULAR

Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-up During the 20th Century: Michael Collins Piper.
A compendium of the writings of Michael Collins Piper, interviews with the author & reviews of his works. High Praise for the Work of Michael Collins Piper: Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-up. Price: $39.95c posted - Softcover: 250 pp.

Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 by Barrie Zwicker:
"Towers of Deception" calls on all who cherish liberty to pressure the media to fulfil their watchdog role, and - until they do - to be the media themselves. Plus: DVD: "The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw" for the full price of $55.95c posted. Softcover: 400 pp.

THE MYSTERIES OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY FURTHER EXPLAINED - DVDS:
There are a few folk experiencing problems with the DVDs we send out playing in their DVD machines. It has been discovered the DVD players may require a particular type of DVD for their DVD player.
When ordering DVDs please indicate whether your DVD machine plays DVD - (minus symbol) or DVD+ (plus symbol).

PLANES OF ANALYSIS STRIKE TOWERS OF 9/11 MYTHOLOGY by Peter Ewer:
It has been observed in this weekly journal, as well as a number of other sites that the truth in 9/11 movement resembles the situation with Pearl Harbour. With Pearl Harbour Japanese messages had been intercepted and decoded by US intelligence giving clear evidence of a coming attack, but a dispatch by the Far Eastern Section of Naval Intelligence was cancelled by superior authority with no warning, of course to Pearl Harbour. This was, in short, a conspiracy for the US to enter the war. However the Japanese were obviously not part of the conspiracy : the attack was genuine but the US ruling elites used the opportunity to bring the US into the war, primarily to deal with Germany.

In the case of 9/11, the situation is similar, but even more conspiratorial. Again, 9/11 was an excuse for the US to conduct two wars, with interests closely tied to oil. There is thus a motive.
There are also numerous facts that do not fit a conventional theory that the twin towers collapsed because of a terrorist plot (which by the way is by definition a conspiracy).

Today, unlike with Pearl Harbour, leading US scholars - many of them philosophers and scientists - have presented numerous arguments exposing the 9/11 hoax. For example, a study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, involving analysis of black box data, indicates that the plane was flying too high to hit lamp posts and thus would have missed the Pentagon. See http://pilotsfor9/11truth.org.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://9/11scholars.org) agree, arguing that the impact point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner.
The engines which were almost indestructible were not recovered, which is very odd indeed.
Worse, the trajectory postulated in the official story of 500 mph barely above ground is aerodynamically impossible because a pocket of compressed air would have built up under the fuselage, forcing the plane to move up higher, missing the Pentagon.
Otherwise the engines would have made massive furrows in the ground - and the Pentagon lawns show no such furrows.
Then there is the collapse of the WTC building 7 which was not hit by a plane. The causes of its collapse was omitted from the US government's 9/11 Commission Report.

So many arguments against the official 9/11 story have been put that the US government is now in damage control. Rejection of the received 9/11 story is now "a mainstream political phenomenon".

Philosopher and theologian David Roy Griffin has responded with a new book, "Debunking 9/11" where he debunks the US government's attempts at debunking. Griffin shows that the official story is a lie. The remaining question is why?

This question is dealt with in a remarkable series of DVDs (and/or Videos) that the League has available for $10.00 each including postage.
The four titles are:
1. Confronting the Evidence ; 2. Painful Deceptions ; 3. Loose Change II ; 4. In Plane Sight - The Revolution Extends:

For these particular DVDs send for a copy or copies with your cheque/money order to: Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley 5159. Please indicate which title/s you wish to receive.

AUDIO TAPES : "DEMOCRACY OF THE SOUL"
The message was brilliant. Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Catholic Communion spoke on "The Democracy of the Soul" to an enraptured audience. Those who value and would fight for their freedoms need to listen to this message.
Father Dirk van Dissel also spoke on "What Are Australia's Roots?" Both messages appear on the AUDIO TAPE version.
Send to Mayo Tapes, P.O. Box 6, Hahndorf, South Australia 5245. Price: 3-tapes for $15.00 posted.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159