Saturday, 8 December 2018

The worst form of corruption is unjust prosecution, incarceration and trial. That is what the British State has imposed on a 74 year old disabled victim, Sabine McNeil. Her alleged crime: trying to protect children who made detailed allegations of severe abuse to themselves and others. This eye witness account needs to be heard by as many people as possible.
Telling the future?

Image result for telling the future images

Maybe these old articles are worth re-publishing given subsequent events?


Wednesday, 18 February 2015

When it comes to “terrorism” government deception is endemic. – Tim Veater

When it comes to “terrorism” government deception is endemic. – Tim Veater

The following Guardian report of a “Human Watch” document reveals the extent to which alleged domestic terrorism “plots” were actually the creation of the agencies set up to foil them!
It confirms what we have long believed was more than possible, corroborated by what we know of European “Gladio” terrorist events in the 1980’s, manufactured by the CIA to encourage anti-communist sentiment (see:, events of 9/11, Boston and London 7/7, to name but a few, of which the revelations regarding MH370 and MH17 are but the latest examples.
Somehow or other western democracies have allowed a situation to develop where it can no longer be confident that law enforcement, the judicial process and secret agencies have not been so corrupted, that they fail to fulfil their intended purpose and instead actually create the circumstances everyone thought they were there to prevent.
Significantly the report found the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway; the attempted Times Square car-bombing of 2010; and the 2002 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport’s El Al counter were free of government involvement.
Given some of the specific circumstances in at least one of those incidents it is difficult to see how they could draw that conclusion. They appear to avoid 9/11 completely and limit their attention to the FBI, leaving the even more questionable activities of the CIA out of the picture completely.
The CIA alone consumes in the order of 70 BILLION dollars annually, that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable. The day before 9/11 Rumsfeld famously announced 2.3 TRILLION dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon’s accounts, thereafter never explained or investigated. (see: Europe is not much better with no one prepared to sign off on 90 BILLION euros EC budget for the twentieth consecutive year because of irregularities. (see:
There is only one conclusion: western government is deeply corrupt and cannot be trusted. Its assertions and actions require constant and searching examination and challenge before they can be taken as true and genuine. In this context all attempts by western governments to either limit enshrined individual freedoms or protections, shackle free expression on the internet and the investigative power of the news media, engage in foreign adventures or pursue propaganda for whatever claimed necessity or benefit, needs to be resisted uncompromisingly.
A case in point was the story, presumably put out by the CIA itself, that it was sending a team of twenty to “interrogate” British MI5/6 officials regarding Muslim extremism and the relationship between Shias and Sunnis in this country.
“According to the Daily Mail, the Obama administration has become “increasingly anxious” about “strong links” between American and British radicals, and the potential for American Muslims to follow the lead of their UK counterparts in fighting alongside ISIS. The CIA feels British efforts to provide a reliable assessment of the threat posed by and identify the members of radicalized Western Muslims have been inadequate, sources from the American spy agency told the Daily Mail.” (see:
Apart from the unusual nature of a deeply secretive organisation like the CIA putting out an open news release, with highly embarrassing consequence for an important ally, the whole thing appeared highly contrived and implausible.
If it had concerns more likely the visit would be carried out in secret. The public nature of the announcement is significant and highly suspicious beside the other obvious aspects that ISIS, the claimed threat, is itself largely a product of collaboration between America, Israel and Saudi Arabia. (see:
Is it not possible that this highly public reason for the trip was just cover for the real (covert) one? There surely could not be any connection between the visit on or about the 1st July 2014 and the subsequent crash of MH17 over Ukraine and invasion of Gaza on the same day (with all its potential consequences) a little over two weeks later on the 17th July 2014, could there?
Like the mythical many-headed Hydra, we appear unwittingly to have created a monster that is now so embedded and ubiquitous, so pervasive and invasive, so threatening and dangerous, it is almost impossible to control or neutralise.
(As an aside, interestingly “Hydra” is the name adopted for a recent repository solution used by institutions on both sides of the North Atlantic to provide access to their digital content. (see: It may be the exception that proves the norm.)
The destruction of the Hydra was one of the 12 Labours of Heracles, eventually only accomplished when he and his side-kick Iolaus, burned out the roots with firebrands. (see: The moral in that story is not hard to see. END
Government agents ‘directly involved’ in most high-profile US terror plots
• Human Rights Watch documents ‘sting’ operations
• Report raises questions about post-9/11 civil rights
Spencer Ackerman in New York
The Guardian, Monday 21 July 2014 14.30 BST
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies attempt to stop terrorist plots before they occur. Photograph: Michael Sohn/AP
Nearly all of the highest-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States since 9/11 featured the “direct involvement” of government agents or informants, a new report says.
Some of the controversial “sting” operations “were proposed or led by informants”, bordering on entrapment by law enforcement. Yet the courtroom obstacles to proving entrapment are significant, one of the reasons the stings persist.
The lengthy report, released on Monday by Human Rights Watch, raises questions about the US criminal justice system’s ability to respect civil rights and due process in post-9/11 terrorism cases. It portrays a system that features not just the sting operations but secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pretrial detentions and convictions significantly removed from actual plots.
“In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act,” the report alleges.
Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for “material support” charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.
In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided “military gear” to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage.
Several cases featured years-long solitary confinement for accused terrorists before their trials. Some defendants displayed signs of mental incapacity. Jurors for the 2007 plot to attack the Fort Dix army base, itself influenced by government informants, were anonymous, limiting defense counsel’s ability to screen out bias.
Human Rights Watch’s findings call into question the post-9/11 shift taken by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies toward stopping terrorist plots before they occur. While the vast majority of counterterrorism tactics involved are legally authorized, particularly after Congress and successive administrations relaxed restrictions on law enforcement and intelligence agencies for counterterrorism, they suggest that the government’s zeal to protect Americans has in some cases morphed into manufacturing threats.
The report focuses primarily on 27 cases and accordingly stops short of drawing systemic conclusions. It also finds several trials and convictions for “deliberate attempts at terrorism or terrorism financing” that it does not challenge.
The four high-profile domestic plots it found free of government involvement were the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway; the attempted Times Square carbombing of 2010; and the 2002 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport’s El Al counter.
But the report is a rare attempt at a critical overview of a system often touted by the Obama administration and civil libertarian groups as a rigorous, capable and just alternative to the military tribunals and indefinite detention advocated by conservative critics. It comes as new pressure mounts on a variety of counterterrorism practices, from the courtroom use of warrantless surveillance to the no-fly list and law enforcement’s “suspicious activity reports” database.
In particular, Human Rights Watch examines the extent and impact of law enforcement’s use of terrorism informants, who can both steer people into attempted acts of violence and chill religious or civic behaviour in the communities they penetrate.
Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, a social services agency, told the Guardian she almost has a “radar for informants” sent to infiltrate her Brooklyn community.
While the FBI has long relied on confidential informants to alert them to criminal activity, for terrorism cases informants insert themselves into Muslim mosques, businesses and community gatherings and can cajole people toward a plot “who perhaps would never have participated in a terrorist act on their own initiative”, the study found.
Many trade information for cash. The FBI in 2008 estimated it had 15,000 paid informants. About 30% of post-9/11 terrorism cases are considered sting operations in which informants played an “active role” in incubating plots leading to arrest, according to studies cited in the Human Rights Watch report. Among those roles are making comments “that appeared designed to inflame the targets” on “politically sensitive” subjects, and pushing operations forward if a target’s “opinions were deemed sufficiently troubling”.
Entrapment, the subject of much FBI criticism over the years, is difficult to prove in court. The burden is on a defendant to show he or she was not “predisposed” to commit a violent act, even if induced by a government agent. Human Rights Watch observes that standard focuses attention “not on the crime, but on the nature of the subject”, often against a backdrop where “inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail”.
Among the informants themselves there is less ambiguity. “It is all about entrapment,” Craig Monteilh, one such former FBI informant tasked with mosque infiltration, told the Guardian in 2012.
Informants, the study found, sometimes overcome their targets’ stated objections to engage in terrorism. A man convicted in 2006 of attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan told an informant who concocted the plot he would have to check with his mother and was uncomfortable planting the bombs himself. One member of the “Newburgh Four” plot to attack synagogues and military planes – whose case is the subject of an HBO documentary airing on Monday – told his informant “maybe my mission hasn’t come yet”.
Once in court, terrorism cases receive evidentiary and pre-trial leeway rarely afforded to non-terrorism cases. A federal judge in Virginia permitted into evidence statements made by a defendant while in a Saudi jail in which the defendant, Amed Omar Abu Ali, alleged torture, a longstanding practice in Saudi Arabia. The evidence formed the basis for a conviction, and eventually a life sentence, for conspiracy to assassinate George W Bush. Mohammed Warsame, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, was held in solitary confinement for five years before his trial.
Another implication of the law-enforcement tactics cited the report is a deepening alienation of American Muslims from a government that publicly insists it needs their support to head off extremism but secretly deploys informants to infiltrate mosques and community centers.
“The best way to prevent violent extremism inspired by violent jihadists is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family,” Obama said in a high-profile 2013 speech.
Yet the Obama administration has needed to purge Islamophobic training materials from FBI counterterrorism, which sparked deep suspicion in US Muslim communities. It is now conducting a review of similar material in the intelligence community after a document leaked by Edward Snowden used the slur “Mohammed Raghead” as a placeholder for Muslims.

Obama Sends the CIA to give us a Reality Check! – Tim Veater

 Obama Sends the CIA to give us a Reality Check! – Tim Veater

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the activities of the American Central
Intelligence Agency – the CIA – since its formation in 1947, knows it to be a
deeply flawed and disreputable organisation, up to its eyes in all forms of
criminal activity and political disruption around the globe, leading to untold
millions of deaths, culminating in the events of 9/11, unsurpassed in the annals
of human turpitude.
We also know in that time it has worked hand in glove with British Intelligence,
namely MI5 and MI6 on the basis of shared interests and outlook, despite
concurrent and paradoxical distrust and competition, perhaps best illustrated by
the co-operation between the NSA and GCHQ, recently subject to much controversy.
What also indicates the closeness of the relationship is the fact that Cameron
and Obama, appear to share the same script writer, so similar and synchronous
have been their public statements, particularly as they relate to Syria and the
apparent new threat from “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” (you choose!)
returning from that war-torn country.
The following two quotes should be sufficient to illustrate the point:
“Obama said in a taped interview aired Sunday on the “ABC”: “Some Europeans
sympathize with the issue of (Sunni insurgents) and go to Syria, others heading
to Iraq, where they gain experience of combat before returning to their home
countries.” He continued, explaining that these fighters carrying European
passports and they are not needed for visas if they decide to go to the United
States. ” (Source:
“David Cameron has warned of the threat to the UK if an “extreme Islamist
regime” is created in central Iraq. He said Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIS) fighters threatening the government in Baghdad were also plotting terror
attacks on the UK. And Britain could not ignore the security threat the UK now
faced from Jihadists in Iraq and Syria.” (Source:
The public is left wondering to what extent it should take this story and threat
seriously, given all past propaganda and misinformation coming from that source,
particularly as we know both organisations have had a long history of using,
encouraging, arming and controlling the very groups that they later declare we
have to be protected against. Of course Syria is a prime but not exclusive
example of this.
This is clearly a co-ordinated agreed approach between the US and Britain and
extending to others including France and Australia. Rather pointedly and not
unsurprisingly, the heightened danger appears to be alleged to those very
countries that were actively engaged or supported military action or armed
resistance. In respect of Syria – we will ignore the many other countries for
the moment – less than two years ago the same political leaders and states were
actively supporting armed insurrection as the two following excerpts illustrate.
AMERICA: “The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than
150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed rebel and
terrorist groups intensify the crisis in the Muslim country. The task force,
which has been led by a senior American officer, is based at a Jordanian
military training center built into an old rock quarry North of Amman, The New
York Times reported.” (Source:
BRITAIN: “In a similar revelation on Tuesday, media outlets disclosed that
British secret services have sent tens of troops to Syria to help rebel and
terrorist groups in their fight against the Damascus government. A former HSBC
bank clerk is among as many as 50 British men fighting in Syria alongside rebels
and terrorist groups. The men, predominantly of South Asian and North African
backgrounds, are understood to have joined the Syrian terrorist groups since the
battle began last year, according to security sources.In June, Daily Start
reported that the British defense chiefs had drawn up secret plans to start
covert military operations in Syria. The report said SAS troops and MI6 agents
were in Syria ready to help armed rebels and terrorist groups if civil war
breaks out as – expected this weekend. They also had hi-tech satellite computers
and radios that could instantly send back photos and details of Assad’s forces
as the situation develops. Whitehall sources said
it was vital they could see what was happening on the ground for themselves.
“And if civil war breaks out the crack troops are on hand to help with fighting,
said the insider,” the report said.” (Same source)
So tell me, what is OUR government playing at? It is estimated about four or
five hundred have travelled from Britain to fight. In reality the government
cannot be sure how many have gone but can there be any doubt this was not
prevented? Indeed from the above quotes, of course not officially acknowledged,
that it was not actively encouraged? Now we are told the self-same individuals
are posing a serious threat to our safety, requiring ever more strenuous,
obvious and militaristic precautions, undermining one of the greatest features
of our country – a sense of peace and security.
Those of a sceptical disposition (not me of course!) may think, in concert with
the United States as demonstrated post Boston Bombing, this is all part of a
“subtle plan” to transform our societies, making us the people more amenable to
the presence of armed police patrolling our public spaces, for which acts of
terror, or the threat of them, are necessary to persuade the public they are
necessary. This without ever a debate in Parliament over the necessity or
desirability of arming the police!
If you think my proposition fanciful, I refer you to this article with
accompanying photograph in the New York Times about three months ago:
“WASHINGTON — The Transportation Security Administration is recommending that
armed personnel be present at airport checkpoints during peak hours of passenger
traffic, though airports would be able to tailor the security to their specific
needs, according to a report released on Wednesday.” (
Low and behold (as if by magic) we now have this in the Telegraph:
“Security at British airports is being increased after the United States called
for heightened precautions amid reports two terror networks are working together
on a bomb that could evade existing measures.” (
Or this one in the Mail:
“A U.S. counter-terrorism official says American intelligence has seen
indications that certain terrorist groups in Yemen and Syria have joined forces
and are working on a bomb that could make it through airport security
The BBC has this (note visual): “The US homeland security department has said it
will put into place “enhanced security measures” in certain overseas airports
with direct flights to the US.
The UK transport department said the country would be among those to step up
security procedures.The move comes amid US media reports that al-Qaeda
affiliates in Syria and Yemen are developing bombs to smuggle on planes.The US
security agency said the changes would be made in the “upcoming days”.It did not
specify which countries would be affected nor did it say what triggered the
move. It is unclear if the move would be permanent or for a limited period, or
would affect airports in the US.” (
Strangely I cannot now find the original picture of two heavily armed British
policemen patrolling Heathrow concourse. Perhaps it has been withdrawn in case
it gives the wrong (or right?) impression.
So in the light of all this, how should we view the news that Obama has actually
sent a detachment of about twenty CIA people to effectively give us a “safety
check”. Is this final confirmation that we have now officially become the
Fifty-Third State or just that Blair’s poodle has come back from the pet shop?
This report comes from the Mail: “Obama sends CIA to UK to probe terrorist
‘breeding ground’ –President in pointed snub to MI5 over ‘lone wolf’ mission to
interrogate British security experts 28 Jun 2014 President Obama has sent a
special unit of CIA officers to the UK to investigate British Muslim extremists
amid growing fears in Washington that we are becoming a ‘breeding ground’ for
terrorism. In a pointed snub to MI5, the agents arrived on a ‘lone wolf’ mission
to interrogate senior security experts about the radicalisation of UK Muslims.
The mission has been revealed as our security services have been forced to admit
they are struggling to keep track of the estimated 500 Britons who have
travelled to the Middle East to fight alongside the Islamic Isis forces in Syria
and Iraq. (
rts.html ) Of course there is always the chance this is not the real reason and
that “something totally different” is going on requiring high-level direct
consultation between the two secret agencies. (Watch this or some other space!)
Clearly having heavily armed British police on British territory is an extension
of CIA inspired American policy, on the back of threats that may be no more
reliable than that of Saddam’s 45 minute WMD, from the very people we have sent
and supported in Syria – if such they are. Of course we will put up with this
nonsense, whilst compliantly witnessing yet another step down the very road we
all oppose – an ugly, authoritarian, quasi militaristic, police state.END

Sunday, 26 June 2016

The EU Project a CIA Plot?

The EU’s Five Unelected Presidents And Their Connection To The CIA

Alex Christoforou


As the UK votes today on its place in or out of the European Union, we thought it would be helpful for all EU “citizens” and UK voters to take a few minutes and reflect upon who exactly are the people that rule over the European continent.
The EU is governed by the “Five Presidents”. Who are these people? The EU itself answers this question in an official report aptly named, “The Five President’s Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union” (
The reports focuses on the EU’s key policies and what it plans to achieve in the near future, which is essentially a United States of Europe, with the guiding hand of the United States….more on that point later.
For now, let me introduce European citizens to the rulers of the continent.
  1. Mario Draghi: The unelected President of the European Central Bank and a Goldman Sachs alumnus
  2. Jean-Claude Juncker: The unelected president of the European Commission, and former Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
  3. Jeroen Dijsselbloem: The unelected Brussels Commissar and “President of the Eurogroup”, and former Minister of Finance of the Netherlands.
  4. Donald Tusk: The unelected “President of the Euro Summit”, and former Prime Minister of Poland.
  5. Martin Schulz: The unelected President of the European Parliament, and former Mayor of W├╝rselen.
Now to fully understand what the EU is, and what it plans to become after today’s vote, consider this piece byProfessor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)
The report starts with the frank admission that “with 18 million unemployed in the euro area, a lot more needs to be done to improve economic policies” in the EU. Well said. But what exactly needs to be done?
“Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) today is like a house that was built over
decades but only partially finished. When the storm hit, its walls and roof had to be stabilised quickly. It is now high time to reinforce its foundations and turn it into what EMU was meant to be…”
“we will need to take further steps to complete EMU.”
The central planners in Brussels and at the ECB in Frankfurt are not unaware that under their command, a historically unprecedented economic dislocation has taken place in the EU during the past ten years, including massive asset and property bubbles, banking crises and large-scale unemployment in all the periphery countries – with over 50% youth unemployment in Greece, Spain and Portugal, as well as the lack of any serious controls of the EU external borders to prevent an influx of unparalleled numbers of illegal immigrants and economic migrants.
However, the EU central planners are in denial about the fact that these problems have been caused entirely by their own misguided and disastrous policies. As a result, they argue that the solution to such problems can only be further concentration of powers into their hands: “We need more Europe”, as Mrs Merkel put it (source: please read these Merkel claims about the EU This is what they propose to implement in the coming years, by turning all EU members into one single country.
So the Five Presidents‘ Report makes clear that the EU is not simply a free trade area. That project had been left behind with the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and a very different kind of Europe has become enshrined with the 2007 European Constitution (called ‘Lisbon Treaty’, since the people of Europe in several referenda rejected it. Source: please read what the author of the rejected European Constitution says: ). Instead, the EU is the project to abandon all national sovereignty and borders within and melt away all European nations that don’t succeed in exiting in time, into a merged, joint new single country, with one central European government, centralised European monetary policy, centralised European fiscal policy, centralised European foreign policy, and centralised European regulation, including of financial markets and banking. This United States of Europe, an undemocratic leviathan that the European peoples never wanted, is the culmination of the much repeated mantra of “ever closer union”.
This project has been implemented steadily and stealthily over several decades, despite major and consistent policy blunders and scandals involving the central planners (e.g. in 1999 the entire European Commission – the unelected government and cabinet of the European superstate – resigned in disgrace, as it was found to have taken bribes and engaged in fraud, while the EU’s own Court of Auditors has repeatedly refused to sign off the EU’s official books).
The economics is clear: there is no need to be a member of the EU to thrive economically, and exiting does not have to impact UK economic growth at all. The UK can remain in the European Economic Area, as Norway has done, or simply agree on a trade deal, as Switzerland did, and enjoy free trade – the main intention of European agreements in the eyes of the public. The politics is also clear: the European superstate that has already been formed is not democratic. The so-called ‚European Parliament‘, unique among parliaments, cannot propose any legislation at all – laws are all formulated and proposed by the unelected European Commission! As a Russian observer has commented, the European Parliament is a rubber-stamping sham, just like the Soviet parliament during the days of the Soviet Union, while the unelected government is the European Commission – the Politibureau replete with its Commissars.
Big business and big banks, as well as central bankers and the IMF, constitute the financial elite that is behind this purposeful concentration of power – giving ever more power into the hands of ever fewer people. The undemocratic nature of EU institutions has reached such an extent that I have heard a recently retired member of the ECB governing council in private confessing that his biggest worry is the undemocratic nature and extent of the ECB’s powers, which have increasingly been abused for political ends. These facts have been drowned out by the constant drip of propaganda emanating from the powerful elites behind the creation of the United States of Europe.
During these years and decades of steady transfers of powers and sovereignty from nation states and their democratically elected assemblies to the unelected Brussels bureaucracy, I had always been puzzled by the apparent strong US support for all this. Whenever the ‘process’ of ‚ever closer union‘ seemed to have hit an obstacle, a US president – no matter the post holder’s name or party affiliation – would intervene and in no uncertain terms tell the troublesome Europeans to get their act together and speed up unification of Europe into one state. In the naivety of my youth this had struck me as surprising. Likewise, the British public has recently been told by US president Obama that dropping out of the EU was not a good idea and they had better vote to stay in.
While it is not surprising that the global elite that has benefitted from the trend towards concentration of power is getting increasingly hysterical in their attempts to cajole the British public into voting to stay inside the EU, it is less clear why the US president and his government should be so keen on the EU project. We had been told in the past by the European media that the concentration of economic and political decision-making in Europe was being engineered in order to create a counter-weight against the US dominance. This seemed to motivate some pro-EU voices. Surely the US president must have heard about that?
There is another mystery. Only yesterday, an impressive-looking leaflet was dropped into the letterbox of my Winchester home, entitled “EU Basics – Your Guide to the Referendum”. It was issued by an organisation called the “European Movement”. The 16-page colour and high gloss booklet argues for Britain to stay in the EU. Who is this “European Movement”, and who is funding it? This little-known organisation seems financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK.
The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:
“The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas…. It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]. Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ‘special relationship’ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support.”
There is much more to read in this explosive piece of scholarly research (Richard J. Aldrich (1997), OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60, Diplomacy & Statecraft,8(1), pp. 184-227, online at )
UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:
“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….
“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. France’s Jean Monnet, the EU’s mastermind, was viewed as an American agent – as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelt’s fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.
“One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. … Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.
“The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
“The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.
“It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which „adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.
“Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, the architects of post-war US policy would be quite pleased, I think, if they were alive today. …
(excerpted from: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (2000), Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs, The Daily Telegraph, 19 September 2000; and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (2007), The scare of a superstate has passed, but do we want to lose the EU altogether? The Daily Telegraph, 7 April 2007)
No wonder Mr Evans-Pritchard has now concluded that he will vote for Brexit:
The revelation that the EU is the result of a major US secret service operation – effectively just yet another secret creature of deception launched by the CIA (taking seat of honour in the hall of infamy that includes false flag operations, invasions, coup-detats, and the establishment of organisations such as Al Qaida and ISIS) solves the third mystery, namely how on earth the allegedly democratic European nations could design such an undemocratic, virtually dictatorial structure. With the EU/United States of Europe the US not only achieves its geo-strategic goals in Europe, but it has also eliminated the role of pesky national parliaments that could on occasion get in the way of US or CIA foreign policy. And another puzzle is solved, namely why the EU had so readily agreed to a US request a few years back that US spy agencies get access to all European emails and telephone calls….
A vote to stay in the EU thus is a vote to abolish the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and merge it into the undemocratic United States of Europe which the European elites are building under US tutelage. That the European public – and, it seems, even European politicians – have little or no input in key European decisions can be seen from the increasingly aggressive NATO stance against Russia (Brussels-based NATO being the military arm of the EU, which is overtly under direct US control), and the one-sided sanctions against Russia that the US could simply order the Europeans to implement (causing significant losses in incomes and jobs in Europe, while boosting US business interests). Immigration policies are another case in point. If the US had in the past considered the largely homogeneous European populations a source of potential European resistance against its plans for Europe, then the policy to replace them with balkanised failed ‘melting pots’ also makes sense.
Norway voted in 1995 on EU membership. Leading parties were all in favour. Big business and central banks, major media outlets and the talking heads on TV were frantically bullying and cajoling the Norwegian public to vote ‚in‘. The people remained steadfast and voted ‚out‘. Norway did splendidly. And so much more will the UK.