Post by Wayne Hall on Oct 3, 2022 9:07:40 GMT -5
Trial video for WFA Activist Group 1st October 2022.
odysee.com/@cecilitsa:a/video1779281292:0
Transcription
Wayne Hall: Well, Nikos, right. I'll start then. Good evening everyone. Yes, good evening. I'll introduce myself. My name is Wayne Hall. I live on the island of Aegina in Greece. We're here with Nikos Vakolidis, who is in the city of Ioannina in the north of Greece, with Catherine Collin who is in Athens, and with Preda Mihailescu, who is in Goettingen in Germany. I'll say a few words about us. Preda and Nikos and I met through the Democracy in Europe movement: DiEM25, some years ago. Catherine Collin, Nikos and I are all members of a Greek citizens' movement called SYNEPEIA. The present discussion is being carried out under the auspices of the World Freedom Alliance Activist Group, and Catherine has been invited. I would like to start by posing a question which is going to be the question which starts my presentation. The question is "Is it necessary to withdraw from the European Union?" Now, I will say "No". Others, I think, will say "Yes", or they will say "No comment". Or they will say something else. You know, I think there are some who would prefer not to say anything at all. But anyway, should we say anything more about this before I go on with my presentation? If not, I will start my presentation.
Preda: Maybe we can say each one in own words why we agree. I find that the present EU is not a European project but the idea of a European project is so important that we try to do something to not break it apart is an important hope.
W: Right. OK. Well I think I'll go on unless someone else wants to say something.
Nikos: Go on.
W: I'll start now. As an alternative to the popular movement proposal to "withdraw from the EU" what is advocated here is a democratic reform proposal which can start from a process of self-definition and self-assertion of citizens. The really existing European Union must be negotiated with once enough strength is acquired by citizens to oblige negotiation on citizens' terms. Now in this project a reformed European Parliament has a role to play. It has the advantage of being pan-European, not national. The other entity in negotiation must be “European civil society”, the collectivity of free citizens in the EU who wish to be “Europeans”. These identities must be consciously chosen, and they will NEVER be chosen by all of the population. Associations, groups, committees, political parties, trade unions: all of these have legitimate claims to be represented in the European political process but they are NOT free citizens. Their representation must be part of the representative-democratic component and the existing European Parliament will be their institution. Eurosceptics and other critics of European integration say that the EU violates the national sovereignty of member states and they are right. The solution is not to strengthen the national parliaments in the member states. Instead of that, European free citizens must be the defenders of the national sovereignty of the member states in which they live. And European member states that remain monarchies typically see their sovereignty embodied by them. And under the principle of subsidiarity they are entitled to do this. The democracy that involves “everybody” in decision making is representative democracy. Direct democracy cannot be a matter for “everybody” but only for active citizens who wish to involve themselves in decision-making and government. Of course “everybody” should have the right to decide whether they wish to be governed under representative democratic processes or by active citizens. They should be consulted periodically, say once every five years. Direct democracy and representative democracy should be in permanent competition. The monopoly of representative democracy should be broken. What is proposed is alternative policy, but with institutional force.
The construction of citizens’ Europe must start at the local level. Everywhere there is a municipal council there should be a council of active citizens functioning as a “shadow council”, a potential competitor for the mandate from voters. On this council of active citizens, political party affiliations should be as irrelevant as religious affiliations. Any active citizen violating this requirement should be required to withdraw and to continue his/her political activity if they wish as a would-be conventional party politician within the structures of representative democracy. Councils of active citizens are being proposed and in some places established, including by the SYNEPEIA movement in Greece. Councils of active citizens should avoid voting on policy issues and should operate on the basis of consensus. If consensus is not achievable, those disputing the predominant view within the citizens' movement should withdraw (and indeed be required to withdraw) so that they can promote their viewpoint within the existing representative-democratic institutions, which will be free to compete for the popular mandate. So if they want to continue they can, in that way. When there are enough councils of active citizens, a pan-European referendum should be held on transferring powers to a European Council of Active Citizens (for a fixed [perhaps five-year] term. The outcome of this referendum should be challengeable at every lower level (national, regional, local). As well as equating party political affiliation and religious affiliation, a free citizen would control communication with his/her political support group. No politician who relies for communicating with his constituency on media that are outside his control can be regarded as free. Proposals that Europe's head of state should be directly elected is a recipe for an American-style presidency and for election of political leadership by the corporate media. A more democratic alternative would be for the head of state of the European Union to be selected by a Sovereign Council comprised of heads of state (including monarchs if the relevant EU member states are monarchies) and heads of government. If the government of a member state is in the hands of a Council of Active Citizens rather than the parliament, then the “head of government” delegate to the Sovereign Council would be selected by the national Council of Active Citizens of that person's member state. Proposals to make the European Parliament the central democratic body of the European institutional framework do not address the most important factors that prevent the European Parliament from functioning properly. The problem is not just that it does not have enough power. It should acquire more power, but strengthening the institutions of representative democracy will not in itself solve the problem of the European Union. There have been proposals from within the World Freedom Alliance that the mass media should be boycotted. An alternative constitutional proposal could go further than mere boycotting and rule that mediated communication between different political representatives and between each political representative and his/her base should be direct, not mediated by journalists or other would-be intermediaries. Activists and would-be politicians relying on intermediaries should be required to practice their politics through the established representative-political system. The logical home for an alternative political system would be a second citizens' chamber of the European Parliament, a chamber not based on universal suffrage (universal suffrage implies a role for journalists and for the mass media). This alternative chamber, catering for all of the European Union, should be based in Eastern Europe. The proposal is that it should be in Romania, which has a record of independence even under Communism. (Ceaucescu was the only Communist head of state who "had to be killed", whatever the significance of that from the popular viewpoint.) And this has nothing to do with whether he was good or bad. Just about the degree of independence of Romania.
Preda: I can bring some additional data on that.
Nikos: Wayne, are you concluded?
W: That's it.
Nikos: I don't know if Preda wants to continue, or Cathy.....
Preda: I would just want to add some points to what Wayne opened, because data which is based on research in the archives up to 90 by an American specialist in information systems about - what you said - Ceaucescu. It goes much deeper. I was astonished myself. That is, Romanian communists, starting with people like Groza and Maurer but also Dej, before Ceaucescu, started a slow pass(age) of distancing from Moscow but most of all they had a program. First of all they got the KGB out of the country but in 1964 they wrote down - just like you now write a program for hopeful change. They had a program for all the Eastern European countries to commonly recover sovereignty from Moscow. So that's what they announced, and Dej was after that killed on the fifth attempt. You know, there had been four attempts to kill him but the fifth was, you know, cancer, and he died of cancer. And that's how Ceaucescu came. He was a continuator of an established program. And in fact he went on to search for supporters if there were any - this is not what I say but what Larry Watts found in the Russian archives - KGB. Dubcek was the most attracted by this program. And he made it into the Czech-specific way of asserting sovereignty, which led to Prague '68 and to Romania non-participating. So all these things are serious. The Russians were left out with no other way but defamation. They couldn't impose their order so what they chose was disinformation and economic boycotting. But who killed Romania was FMI.
W: What is FMI?
Preda: IMF. The International Monetary Fund.
W: The IMF, yes.
Preda: The IMF played a.... you know, they required Romania to repay the debts, which were a quarter of the debts of Poland. Otherwise they would take hold of all the natural resources. And Ceaucescu was a simple man. He was left without better advisors - so he chose this way which led to famine and cold, but he was forced. So that's about the spirit of independence, and this spirit of independence, certainly with respect to Russians, is unbent. Because it is just like oil and vinegar. Now for our project....
W: Can I say something else before we go on?
Preda: Certainly, certainly.
W: In this connection, you probably know that in Greece there are two branches of the Communist Party, the Moscow-line Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Interior, which was a smaller Communist Party mainly supported by intellectuals. Their orientation during the seventies, I think, and maybe even into the eighties, but anyway certainly during the seventies their orientation was towards Romania. They supported Ceaucescu. But you know, as usual they felt embarrassed about it afterwards and they don't associate themselves with.....
Preda: Well, that's another moment. I think I'm going to give you a link to the book of Watts. Because that was another attempt that Ceaucescu started to compensate with a Balkan Union, which encompassed also Greece. And there were some meetings, you know, because he needed the union. The Czechs were occupied and the first meetings were very enthusiastic so I think this is where the Greeks you speak about participated. And then the Russians found again ways of infiltrating. There was Tito, there was Albania, there was Bulgaria, Greece and Romania. It didn't go very far because of the Russian infiltration. They were very uncomfortable, especially in the seventies. And then life became uncomfortable. And I think what we have to learn - that's something that we realized - Romania drifted outside the blocs. And you cannot be there. So it's what we saw with Venezuela, with Iraq, with Libya. Romania was the only country in the Eastern bloc who drifted between the lines. And they got smashed from both sides. Because the Americans supported it as long as they had an interest. They made a lot of contacts for them, with China. They mediated between Israel and Palestine and things like that. But eventually this became obsolete. And they became useless. And they came with the IMF to destroy them. It's hard to say who was worse, the Russians or then eventually the Americans. Strangely enough the Americans of the eighties had no idea of the secret police decisions of the presidents of the seventies, like Nixon and so forth, because the State Department just smashed it down. So this says that we have to be a little bit careful. And also now what games are being played at the different levels.
W: Well. another thing to point out here which is perhaps relevant as far as explaining the interest in Romania....one interest of course from the viewpoint of Greece is Rigas Ferraios who was one of the..... of course Romania wasn't called Romania in those days but...
Preda: Oh, it's the same culture.
W: The same culture, yes. But Rigas Ferraios of course was one of the first instigators of the Greek Revolution. Well, I don't know, should we talk about the SYNEPEIA issue now? Catherine is this something you would like to talk about or would you like to talk about something else?
Catherine: Hi everybody. Thank you Wayne. Thank you Preda. That was very interesting. I am very proud and very happy to be here tonight, for the World Freedom Alliance. I was very glad during the last two years to see that many grass-roots movements appear at different corners of the earth. I was already a member of Freedom Force International since the 90s, from Edward Griffin, so it was a little bit stagnated. We knew, since the 90s, since the 80s, that something was going to happen, but nobody was interested in what we had to say. So I was very very glad that some people reacted, and it was from the people, like World Freedom Alliance, Reignite Freedom - I saw also in 2020, 2021, I saw The Greater Reset, from John Bush. I saw other movements that were very strong. And I was very glad this week to meet Costas - Constantinos - Arvanitis, from SYNEPEIA, because he had an idea that was similar, a little bit, to John Bush. It starts from the people, and I make a note, that has nothing to do with criticism, but I just think that we should stay away from "divide and conquer", right-left, communist-fascist, because these are terms ....
Preda: Obsolete. Obsolete.
Catherine: It's not obsolete. They are being used by an elite just to divide people.
Preda: Yeah yeah yeah. They're the two entries to the slaughterhouse.
Catherine: Exactly. Exactly. So I think we should stay away from this and just not even mention it because we are people before we are left or right, or black or white.
Preda: We want to reform the understanding of policy and stay away from this.
Catherine: And the more we are separated the weaker we are. I had an opportunity here in Greece because I always wanted to participate because we were encouraged by Edward Griffin since the 90s: "If you are not happy with your government, be the government." (laughs) And I went into a party and I was very disappointed because when you are in a group of people you realize that not everybody thinks like you, that they are in that party for different reasons. And I think SYNEPEIA, what I've heard in the last 2-3 days, had some bad surprises also with some members, I see. Because people have different ideas. They have "Oh, I want this." The other one wants money. The other one wants fame. The other..... people come to groups with a baggage of luggage. So what I like in SYNEPEIA is not so much to be at the front and to do this, and to say we are going to do this. We are going to change the European Union. No. We're going to do small groups. We're going to start with small groups. We are going to be two persons. We are going to say we think the same. What we agree, what we don't agree. We can forget what we don't agree. Let's see what we agree. What we can do now. Because that's what Costas Arvanitis says: "If not you, who is going to do it?" Now we cannot change the European Union because we are four people here, four people there. But we can change something already. We can make small changes in our communities. I don't know how it is in Germany. I know how it is in France and how it is in Greece. We have small towns, even in Athens. We have like a small town in Athens, I mean Nea Smyrni and we have our mayor and already we can be in these small communities or in small towns or in small villages which are inside a village. We can participate and hook together with other people that think us, and we can speak about SYNEPEIA and say "Come, let's see what is their program" or "Let's do our own program" and propose to them "What can we change here that will make it better?" I was before talking to Nikos and he is in Ioannina and Ioannina, he said, is not so much pressing for the.....
Preda: The vaccine.
Catherine: Exactly. Maybe it's better not to say it. The injection. So you talk between us and you say "Oh, I am against the injection." "Me too." So what can we do? We can inform other people. The same thing that is happening now in England that the cost of living and the cost of electricity grew so much. And they just got together in a grassroots movement and started burning the bills, so they don't pay. And you are going to say: "Oh, but the police has gone and this is....." Yes, but we do a small step. A small candle. And already we can start a fire maybe later on.
W: Right. Do you want to say anything Niko?
Nikos: I think as far as the centre of active citizens (is concerned) I think you said all the things we discussed also in our discussions. I don't know if we can make it in the European Union to create such a parliament. I don't know even if we go out of the European Union if it is possible. I agree with Cathy and what you said also in your presentation that we must begin to do it...
Preda: in small steps.
Nikos: And begin to spread this kind of decision making. Also it's important to decide through consensus and not through voting. The representative system tries to represent all....tries to solve its problems by representing minorities, putting people who have another definition of their sex, for example, tries to represent every different part of society. The problem is not how representative it is but it cannot be representative any more. I don't know if it is the technology now that makes it possible. I think it was always possible to set (up) a parliament of active citizens but now there is no excuse for not doing it, let's say.
W: I think the interesting thing that has developed in recent years is the idea of freedom that, you know, during the Cold War it was a kind of slogan. It didn't have any meaning other than the kind of meaning that was associated with what was called the Free World or something. This was a kind of propaganda meaning and I think it is now that one is beginning to understand, and particularly....
Preda: You know what it is when you miss it.
W: Yes, I guess so. That too. But the experience of missing freedom.... this is something that is relatively new, I think, at least in the intense form that was experienced in the last couple of years. But it means that what used to be just a propaganda slogan is now something which has very significant meaning and it is being taken up by people in quite a different way and a very good way also.
Preda: Two things I would like to add to this, to synthesize. You see the discussion was of what brings people together in a group and some have their baggage and so forth. You cannot avoid that. But I think there is a very positive factor there, which is this vanishing freedom which people feel in sympathy. It's a very radical evolution of society. You meet all over the world people who are in full sympathy with you because it cannot work like that, and that creates groups, so there is a wave, of necessity, which can carry such movements, with respect to which you can always, since the wave is....... you can better test if somebody brings a bigger load of ego than.... because this wish for freedom simply smashes ego. So this is our advantage. And it's an objective advantage. Now again for your idea of localisation, I think if you are starting to connect, these relationships between grass-roots Greek/grass-roots Romanian groups would be a great advantage to the region too, because I think it was the same two hundred years ago and it's the same now. Greece and Romania are maybe the most advanced consciousnesses of this area of Europe and we know it's a struggle everywhere in Europe but I think it's also an area of Europe which is more disposed to defend its identity and can have something useful to say in time. But these are just perspectives. I would like to see such relationships grow and I think there is fertile terrain in Romania to get contact. There is much activity there. They are kind of isolated but I saw you already start having some contact.
W: Yes.
Preda: So I think I love the small steps, you know. The avalanche....we can feel when the avalanche comes. Before the avalanche comes too....small steps.
W: Well, have we said enough for today. I think there is an advantage to having videos of limited length. I think we've said quite a lot today so, you know, thank you everyone for participating and we'll offer this to the World Freedom Alliance Activist Group and let's hope we get some appreciation.
Preda: OK, good. And I will give you a link to the book I was talking about.
drive.google.com/file/d/0B9B3-eoIQmAmdThRbDlGb2E1eDg/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-tzQj58Q5WWPER5B8uj5Wlw
OK, good. So, thanks for the meeting Nikos Cathy and Wayne
Cathy: Thank you.
odysee.com/@cecilitsa:a/video1779281292:0
Transcription
Wayne Hall: Well, Nikos, right. I'll start then. Good evening everyone. Yes, good evening. I'll introduce myself. My name is Wayne Hall. I live on the island of Aegina in Greece. We're here with Nikos Vakolidis, who is in the city of Ioannina in the north of Greece, with Catherine Collin who is in Athens, and with Preda Mihailescu, who is in Goettingen in Germany. I'll say a few words about us. Preda and Nikos and I met through the Democracy in Europe movement: DiEM25, some years ago. Catherine Collin, Nikos and I are all members of a Greek citizens' movement called SYNEPEIA. The present discussion is being carried out under the auspices of the World Freedom Alliance Activist Group, and Catherine has been invited. I would like to start by posing a question which is going to be the question which starts my presentation. The question is "Is it necessary to withdraw from the European Union?" Now, I will say "No". Others, I think, will say "Yes", or they will say "No comment". Or they will say something else. You know, I think there are some who would prefer not to say anything at all. But anyway, should we say anything more about this before I go on with my presentation? If not, I will start my presentation.
Preda: Maybe we can say each one in own words why we agree. I find that the present EU is not a European project but the idea of a European project is so important that we try to do something to not break it apart is an important hope.
W: Right. OK. Well I think I'll go on unless someone else wants to say something.
Nikos: Go on.
W: I'll start now. As an alternative to the popular movement proposal to "withdraw from the EU" what is advocated here is a democratic reform proposal which can start from a process of self-definition and self-assertion of citizens. The really existing European Union must be negotiated with once enough strength is acquired by citizens to oblige negotiation on citizens' terms. Now in this project a reformed European Parliament has a role to play. It has the advantage of being pan-European, not national. The other entity in negotiation must be “European civil society”, the collectivity of free citizens in the EU who wish to be “Europeans”. These identities must be consciously chosen, and they will NEVER be chosen by all of the population. Associations, groups, committees, political parties, trade unions: all of these have legitimate claims to be represented in the European political process but they are NOT free citizens. Their representation must be part of the representative-democratic component and the existing European Parliament will be their institution. Eurosceptics and other critics of European integration say that the EU violates the national sovereignty of member states and they are right. The solution is not to strengthen the national parliaments in the member states. Instead of that, European free citizens must be the defenders of the national sovereignty of the member states in which they live. And European member states that remain monarchies typically see their sovereignty embodied by them. And under the principle of subsidiarity they are entitled to do this. The democracy that involves “everybody” in decision making is representative democracy. Direct democracy cannot be a matter for “everybody” but only for active citizens who wish to involve themselves in decision-making and government. Of course “everybody” should have the right to decide whether they wish to be governed under representative democratic processes or by active citizens. They should be consulted periodically, say once every five years. Direct democracy and representative democracy should be in permanent competition. The monopoly of representative democracy should be broken. What is proposed is alternative policy, but with institutional force.
The construction of citizens’ Europe must start at the local level. Everywhere there is a municipal council there should be a council of active citizens functioning as a “shadow council”, a potential competitor for the mandate from voters. On this council of active citizens, political party affiliations should be as irrelevant as religious affiliations. Any active citizen violating this requirement should be required to withdraw and to continue his/her political activity if they wish as a would-be conventional party politician within the structures of representative democracy. Councils of active citizens are being proposed and in some places established, including by the SYNEPEIA movement in Greece. Councils of active citizens should avoid voting on policy issues and should operate on the basis of consensus. If consensus is not achievable, those disputing the predominant view within the citizens' movement should withdraw (and indeed be required to withdraw) so that they can promote their viewpoint within the existing representative-democratic institutions, which will be free to compete for the popular mandate. So if they want to continue they can, in that way. When there are enough councils of active citizens, a pan-European referendum should be held on transferring powers to a European Council of Active Citizens (for a fixed [perhaps five-year] term. The outcome of this referendum should be challengeable at every lower level (national, regional, local). As well as equating party political affiliation and religious affiliation, a free citizen would control communication with his/her political support group. No politician who relies for communicating with his constituency on media that are outside his control can be regarded as free. Proposals that Europe's head of state should be directly elected is a recipe for an American-style presidency and for election of political leadership by the corporate media. A more democratic alternative would be for the head of state of the European Union to be selected by a Sovereign Council comprised of heads of state (including monarchs if the relevant EU member states are monarchies) and heads of government. If the government of a member state is in the hands of a Council of Active Citizens rather than the parliament, then the “head of government” delegate to the Sovereign Council would be selected by the national Council of Active Citizens of that person's member state. Proposals to make the European Parliament the central democratic body of the European institutional framework do not address the most important factors that prevent the European Parliament from functioning properly. The problem is not just that it does not have enough power. It should acquire more power, but strengthening the institutions of representative democracy will not in itself solve the problem of the European Union. There have been proposals from within the World Freedom Alliance that the mass media should be boycotted. An alternative constitutional proposal could go further than mere boycotting and rule that mediated communication between different political representatives and between each political representative and his/her base should be direct, not mediated by journalists or other would-be intermediaries. Activists and would-be politicians relying on intermediaries should be required to practice their politics through the established representative-political system. The logical home for an alternative political system would be a second citizens' chamber of the European Parliament, a chamber not based on universal suffrage (universal suffrage implies a role for journalists and for the mass media). This alternative chamber, catering for all of the European Union, should be based in Eastern Europe. The proposal is that it should be in Romania, which has a record of independence even under Communism. (Ceaucescu was the only Communist head of state who "had to be killed", whatever the significance of that from the popular viewpoint.) And this has nothing to do with whether he was good or bad. Just about the degree of independence of Romania.
Preda: I can bring some additional data on that.
Nikos: Wayne, are you concluded?
W: That's it.
Nikos: I don't know if Preda wants to continue, or Cathy.....
Preda: I would just want to add some points to what Wayne opened, because data which is based on research in the archives up to 90 by an American specialist in information systems about - what you said - Ceaucescu. It goes much deeper. I was astonished myself. That is, Romanian communists, starting with people like Groza and Maurer but also Dej, before Ceaucescu, started a slow pass(age) of distancing from Moscow but most of all they had a program. First of all they got the KGB out of the country but in 1964 they wrote down - just like you now write a program for hopeful change. They had a program for all the Eastern European countries to commonly recover sovereignty from Moscow. So that's what they announced, and Dej was after that killed on the fifth attempt. You know, there had been four attempts to kill him but the fifth was, you know, cancer, and he died of cancer. And that's how Ceaucescu came. He was a continuator of an established program. And in fact he went on to search for supporters if there were any - this is not what I say but what Larry Watts found in the Russian archives - KGB. Dubcek was the most attracted by this program. And he made it into the Czech-specific way of asserting sovereignty, which led to Prague '68 and to Romania non-participating. So all these things are serious. The Russians were left out with no other way but defamation. They couldn't impose their order so what they chose was disinformation and economic boycotting. But who killed Romania was FMI.
W: What is FMI?
Preda: IMF. The International Monetary Fund.
W: The IMF, yes.
Preda: The IMF played a.... you know, they required Romania to repay the debts, which were a quarter of the debts of Poland. Otherwise they would take hold of all the natural resources. And Ceaucescu was a simple man. He was left without better advisors - so he chose this way which led to famine and cold, but he was forced. So that's about the spirit of independence, and this spirit of independence, certainly with respect to Russians, is unbent. Because it is just like oil and vinegar. Now for our project....
W: Can I say something else before we go on?
Preda: Certainly, certainly.
W: In this connection, you probably know that in Greece there are two branches of the Communist Party, the Moscow-line Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Interior, which was a smaller Communist Party mainly supported by intellectuals. Their orientation during the seventies, I think, and maybe even into the eighties, but anyway certainly during the seventies their orientation was towards Romania. They supported Ceaucescu. But you know, as usual they felt embarrassed about it afterwards and they don't associate themselves with.....
Preda: Well, that's another moment. I think I'm going to give you a link to the book of Watts. Because that was another attempt that Ceaucescu started to compensate with a Balkan Union, which encompassed also Greece. And there were some meetings, you know, because he needed the union. The Czechs were occupied and the first meetings were very enthusiastic so I think this is where the Greeks you speak about participated. And then the Russians found again ways of infiltrating. There was Tito, there was Albania, there was Bulgaria, Greece and Romania. It didn't go very far because of the Russian infiltration. They were very uncomfortable, especially in the seventies. And then life became uncomfortable. And I think what we have to learn - that's something that we realized - Romania drifted outside the blocs. And you cannot be there. So it's what we saw with Venezuela, with Iraq, with Libya. Romania was the only country in the Eastern bloc who drifted between the lines. And they got smashed from both sides. Because the Americans supported it as long as they had an interest. They made a lot of contacts for them, with China. They mediated between Israel and Palestine and things like that. But eventually this became obsolete. And they became useless. And they came with the IMF to destroy them. It's hard to say who was worse, the Russians or then eventually the Americans. Strangely enough the Americans of the eighties had no idea of the secret police decisions of the presidents of the seventies, like Nixon and so forth, because the State Department just smashed it down. So this says that we have to be a little bit careful. And also now what games are being played at the different levels.
W: Well. another thing to point out here which is perhaps relevant as far as explaining the interest in Romania....one interest of course from the viewpoint of Greece is Rigas Ferraios who was one of the..... of course Romania wasn't called Romania in those days but...
Preda: Oh, it's the same culture.
W: The same culture, yes. But Rigas Ferraios of course was one of the first instigators of the Greek Revolution. Well, I don't know, should we talk about the SYNEPEIA issue now? Catherine is this something you would like to talk about or would you like to talk about something else?
Catherine: Hi everybody. Thank you Wayne. Thank you Preda. That was very interesting. I am very proud and very happy to be here tonight, for the World Freedom Alliance. I was very glad during the last two years to see that many grass-roots movements appear at different corners of the earth. I was already a member of Freedom Force International since the 90s, from Edward Griffin, so it was a little bit stagnated. We knew, since the 90s, since the 80s, that something was going to happen, but nobody was interested in what we had to say. So I was very very glad that some people reacted, and it was from the people, like World Freedom Alliance, Reignite Freedom - I saw also in 2020, 2021, I saw The Greater Reset, from John Bush. I saw other movements that were very strong. And I was very glad this week to meet Costas - Constantinos - Arvanitis, from SYNEPEIA, because he had an idea that was similar, a little bit, to John Bush. It starts from the people, and I make a note, that has nothing to do with criticism, but I just think that we should stay away from "divide and conquer", right-left, communist-fascist, because these are terms ....
Preda: Obsolete. Obsolete.
Catherine: It's not obsolete. They are being used by an elite just to divide people.
Preda: Yeah yeah yeah. They're the two entries to the slaughterhouse.
Catherine: Exactly. Exactly. So I think we should stay away from this and just not even mention it because we are people before we are left or right, or black or white.
Preda: We want to reform the understanding of policy and stay away from this.
Catherine: And the more we are separated the weaker we are. I had an opportunity here in Greece because I always wanted to participate because we were encouraged by Edward Griffin since the 90s: "If you are not happy with your government, be the government." (laughs) And I went into a party and I was very disappointed because when you are in a group of people you realize that not everybody thinks like you, that they are in that party for different reasons. And I think SYNEPEIA, what I've heard in the last 2-3 days, had some bad surprises also with some members, I see. Because people have different ideas. They have "Oh, I want this." The other one wants money. The other one wants fame. The other..... people come to groups with a baggage of luggage. So what I like in SYNEPEIA is not so much to be at the front and to do this, and to say we are going to do this. We are going to change the European Union. No. We're going to do small groups. We're going to start with small groups. We are going to be two persons. We are going to say we think the same. What we agree, what we don't agree. We can forget what we don't agree. Let's see what we agree. What we can do now. Because that's what Costas Arvanitis says: "If not you, who is going to do it?" Now we cannot change the European Union because we are four people here, four people there. But we can change something already. We can make small changes in our communities. I don't know how it is in Germany. I know how it is in France and how it is in Greece. We have small towns, even in Athens. We have like a small town in Athens, I mean Nea Smyrni and we have our mayor and already we can be in these small communities or in small towns or in small villages which are inside a village. We can participate and hook together with other people that think us, and we can speak about SYNEPEIA and say "Come, let's see what is their program" or "Let's do our own program" and propose to them "What can we change here that will make it better?" I was before talking to Nikos and he is in Ioannina and Ioannina, he said, is not so much pressing for the.....
Preda: The vaccine.
Catherine: Exactly. Maybe it's better not to say it. The injection. So you talk between us and you say "Oh, I am against the injection." "Me too." So what can we do? We can inform other people. The same thing that is happening now in England that the cost of living and the cost of electricity grew so much. And they just got together in a grassroots movement and started burning the bills, so they don't pay. And you are going to say: "Oh, but the police has gone and this is....." Yes, but we do a small step. A small candle. And already we can start a fire maybe later on.
W: Right. Do you want to say anything Niko?
Nikos: I think as far as the centre of active citizens (is concerned) I think you said all the things we discussed also in our discussions. I don't know if we can make it in the European Union to create such a parliament. I don't know even if we go out of the European Union if it is possible. I agree with Cathy and what you said also in your presentation that we must begin to do it...
Preda: in small steps.
Nikos: And begin to spread this kind of decision making. Also it's important to decide through consensus and not through voting. The representative system tries to represent all....tries to solve its problems by representing minorities, putting people who have another definition of their sex, for example, tries to represent every different part of society. The problem is not how representative it is but it cannot be representative any more. I don't know if it is the technology now that makes it possible. I think it was always possible to set (up) a parliament of active citizens but now there is no excuse for not doing it, let's say.
W: I think the interesting thing that has developed in recent years is the idea of freedom that, you know, during the Cold War it was a kind of slogan. It didn't have any meaning other than the kind of meaning that was associated with what was called the Free World or something. This was a kind of propaganda meaning and I think it is now that one is beginning to understand, and particularly....
Preda: You know what it is when you miss it.
W: Yes, I guess so. That too. But the experience of missing freedom.... this is something that is relatively new, I think, at least in the intense form that was experienced in the last couple of years. But it means that what used to be just a propaganda slogan is now something which has very significant meaning and it is being taken up by people in quite a different way and a very good way also.
Preda: Two things I would like to add to this, to synthesize. You see the discussion was of what brings people together in a group and some have their baggage and so forth. You cannot avoid that. But I think there is a very positive factor there, which is this vanishing freedom which people feel in sympathy. It's a very radical evolution of society. You meet all over the world people who are in full sympathy with you because it cannot work like that, and that creates groups, so there is a wave, of necessity, which can carry such movements, with respect to which you can always, since the wave is....... you can better test if somebody brings a bigger load of ego than.... because this wish for freedom simply smashes ego. So this is our advantage. And it's an objective advantage. Now again for your idea of localisation, I think if you are starting to connect, these relationships between grass-roots Greek/grass-roots Romanian groups would be a great advantage to the region too, because I think it was the same two hundred years ago and it's the same now. Greece and Romania are maybe the most advanced consciousnesses of this area of Europe and we know it's a struggle everywhere in Europe but I think it's also an area of Europe which is more disposed to defend its identity and can have something useful to say in time. But these are just perspectives. I would like to see such relationships grow and I think there is fertile terrain in Romania to get contact. There is much activity there. They are kind of isolated but I saw you already start having some contact.
W: Yes.
Preda: So I think I love the small steps, you know. The avalanche....we can feel when the avalanche comes. Before the avalanche comes too....small steps.
W: Well, have we said enough for today. I think there is an advantage to having videos of limited length. I think we've said quite a lot today so, you know, thank you everyone for participating and we'll offer this to the World Freedom Alliance Activist Group and let's hope we get some appreciation.
Preda: OK, good. And I will give you a link to the book I was talking about.
drive.google.com/file/d/0B9B3-eoIQmAmdThRbDlGb2E1eDg/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-tzQj58Q5WWPER5B8uj5Wlw
OK, good. So, thanks for the meeting Nikos Cathy and Wayne
Cathy: Thank you.