Dialogue with Terry Boardman (starting from consideration of the events in North Africa)
Doesn't the timing of these "people's liberations" in Egypt and Libya seem oddly right? Mubarak in Egypt in office 30 years (one generation), Gaddafi in place for "four Saudi kings, three Syrian and three Egyptian presidents, and five Arab League secretary generals...eight US presidents, several of whom served for two terms, and five French ones."
Is this just a NWO change of the guard disguised as a people's revolution? I keep thinking about the V2K technology used with the Iraqis in 1991 when they all heard the voice of God telling them to lay down their arms. Is the V2K god now telling them to rebel so one huge trade bloc from North Africa to the Middle East can be established in the name of the people? Is this just more Mackinder-Brzyzinski? I still maintain that nothing mass political is accidental.
Last Edit: Mar 21, 2011 22:20:44 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall
As I see it, there is far more to the developing Middle East situation than what the BBC for example and the rest of the MSM media here in Britain would have us believe. Just as in 1989, they are telling us that "no-one could have foreseen the events that have unfolded so dramatically" and that "the West has been caught unawares" by these events etc. All of a sudden, they were talking about men such as Mubarak and the ex-President of Tunisia as awful dictators and tyrants who suppressed their own people for decades, talking about them as if they were Saddam Hussein. Yet our governments had supported these 'tyrants' for 30+ years, and the British mainstream media were largely silent about them all that time. They were installed during the Cold War as part of the bulwarks against communism and the USSR, and now, it seems to me, that certain forces in the West are moving to dismantle this last remnant of the Cold War (except, of course, for N.Korea, and arguably, China itself). I have seen wikileaks documents (via the Norwegian Aftenposten site) that detail how the US government, for example, was working for the overthrow of Mubarak since at least 2003, and using all kinds of "civil society NGO" covers and the like (as in the other 'colour revolutions') for the purpose. The British got up to similar tricks under Lord Palmerston in the 19th century when they sought to stimulate or back so-called 'populist' revolts against monarchic or aristocratic regimes in order to facilitate British economic ties and trade with those countries. This kind of manoeuvre is astutely shown, for example, in the old movie "Burn", starring Marlon Brando, made in the mid-60s. Rudolf Steiner pointed out how the Russians were doing the same thing in the Balkans from the 1870s to 1914, using so-called 'Slav Welfare Committees' (the NGOs of those days) to run guns and other weapons to Balkan pro-Russian forces.
What concerns me is whether we are going to see some kind of repetition of the events of 1917, the year of the *two* revolutions. After all, as in Russia in spring 1917, it is not as if the new 'governments' in the Middle East have any new ideas about how to cope with their socio-economic and demographic problems. The West made sure that Trotsky - the man who organised the Civil war victory for the Bolsheviks - got to Russia in 1917 from America and then made equally sure that the Whites received insufficient support and were blocked at every turn so that the Reds would win. And why? because the capitalist-communist dialectical world divide was intended to take place. C.G.Harrison was describing in London already back in 1893 how precisely such a 'managed' socialist revolution would emerge in Russia as "an experiment", managed from the West, that is. The totalitarian experiment lasted for exactly 72 years and was then terminated in accordance with the termination programme devised by "the 1980s Project" of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR (the CFR and RIIA having themselves emerged as twins c.1919-1921 from the very same western circles that devised the experiment).
Back in 1992, certain elite circles in the West (e.g. as described in The Economist in December that year) were already pointing to this year 2011, as the year in which the pan-Islamic world would undergo a revolution which would be the harbinger of even more dramatic events -namely a pan-Islamic 'Caliphate' would emerge that would eventually ally with China and make war on.....Russia and seize all its territories east of the Urals! Russia could then be drawn into the embrace of the transatlantic entity that would be created between North America and the then emerging EU. Recall also that 100 years ago, in late 1911, not only did the Chinese revolution begin that overthrew the Ching Empire, but also in that year Italy declared war on Turkey to seize the Turkish North African possessions in Tripolitania (Libya). This Italian war weakened the Ottoman Empire to the point where the small Balkan states (Serbia et al) saw their chance and formed a league to declare war on Turkey themselves in 1912. Two Balkan wars followed in 1912-1914, and these were the curtain-raiser for what then took place in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 which was followed just over a month later by World War One.
In the 1990s Samuel Huntington and his friend Brian Beedham of The Economist envisioned the 21st century world divided according to culture and religion rather than economic theory and politics as in the 20th century. They did this because they were in touch with esoteric knowledge of the structure of time and history, the kind of knowledge that C. G. Harrison had 100 years ago. They thus divided the world into cultural blocs. In the very week that George Bush 1 declared the New World Order in the US Congress on 9.11.1991, The Economist came out with this new world imagination or mental map for the 21st century. The 16 page special feature (complete with a new transatlantic flag that showed Europe inside the USA) was innocuously titled "Defence and the Democracies". The cover of that issue featured an Arab prince with his falcon and the headline "End of the Old Order". It identified the Islamic and the Confucian (i.e. Chinese) cultural regions as the two main remaining challenges to western 'democracy' (i.e. elite-dominated consumerist materialist 'culture'). Starting with Saddam Hussein, the Islamic world was promptly taken on. 3 x 7 or 21 years later, the final phase of the remodelling of the Islamic world is upon us, and out of it will either come consumerist pseudo-democracies that tow the western line and do as they're told, such as Turkey, or else a new global dialectic, a new enemy, a Green force to replace the Red, indeed to replace the non-existent illusion that was Osama bin Laden and his so-called 'global threat' of Al-Qaeda. The pseudo-democracies will most likely emerge in the short term, if at all, but in the longer-term, the pan-Islamic Sunni movement is all too possible; keep October 1917 in mind.
Think also of the situation in the Middle East some 700 years before, c.1250. Who was there? The European Crusaders, the Muslim forces and......the Mongols. For the first time in recorded history - all three Eurasian cultures clashed. The Muslims were squashed between the invading Crusaders and Mongols, but somehow managed to survive. Now think of Russia some 7 centuries years later, in 1917-1920. Who was there, after the exit of the defeated Germans? The Russians, fighting each other, Reds vs Whites (Sunnis and Shi'ites anyone?), the western Allies, the leading Freemasonic nations (Brits, Americans and French, oh and the Czech Legion on the Trans-Siberian Railway playing a not insignificant role) and....the Japanese, in Siberia.
Russia is the bridge of Eurasia and Israel is the centre of the world. Brzezinski understands all this very well. It is the goal of the forces opposed to healthy human development (though paradoxically they provide us with resistance for the development of our own freedom) that the middle term is always attacked by the poles on either side of it - the attempt to attack the heart and squash it between the head and the guts. The elite forces of the west will seek to use the East (Islam and China) as a hammer and themselves as an anvil, and between them crush the Russians and remake both Russia and Israel in their own image.
In 1992 The Economist forecast that by 2050 'the West' (aka 'the international community' aka Anglo-America, or the English-speaking world + its satellites) would have seen off the eastern challenge of the Muslim-Chinese alliance (rah rah Crusaders!!) but that in the meantime, unfortunately, Russia would have been radically truncated. "Truth" magazine of London in 1890, edited by a man with close ties to the highest echelons of the British elite, also forecast a coming European war, the result of which would be that all the monarchies of Europe - except that of Britain (well, well!) would be abolished and republics created everywhere, and that Russia would become.....a desert.
As for Wayne's 'two minds', I think that if one is in two minds then at least there is the possibility, if one hangs in there suspended for a while listening to them both, and avoids being pulled in either direction, that a third mind can emerge between them, and this will be the one to go with.
I've just checked out Terry Boardman's website and seen a You-Tube speech of his about 2012, the first fifteen minutes of what looks like quite a lengthy lecture. I think I am possibly more of an activist than Terry, though by no means anywhere near as learned.
I would like to invite Terry on board an initiative. Elana (and her New Zealand friends campaigning against cell phones) were invited yesterday.
Comments certainly invited from Terry Boardman.
Outline of initative
This is the first posting in a discussion started with Bob Rigg in New Zealand and which will hopefully contribute to our finding a way out of the present political impasse of three different groups: the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-geoengineering "conspiracy theorists", and the European federalists.
This report is of potential relevance to the three abovementioned groups, to the anti-nuclear movement because its subject is largely nuclear disarmament, to the anti-geoengineering group because it touches on a key theme for them: HAARP; to the European federalists because the way the report was handled by the European Commission highlights the problem of the European Union's lack of sovereignty.
The proposal put forward for discussion (as a working proposal) is organization of an international conference, possibly in Brussels, along similar lines to the conference on geoengineering organized in May 2010 by the Belfort Group in Ghent.
To start discussion I have included some recent postings from the anti-nuclear forum abolition-caucus. Some of the people receiving this e-mail will have been participants in the original 1999 discussions in the European Parliament around the A4-0005/99 report.
Your comments are invited. They will have to forwarded to me, because the e-mail addresses are all bcc.
Wayne Hall Aigina, Greece
--- In email@example.com, Bob Rigg <bobrigg@...> wrote: > > Dear Wayne, > > I made a heartfelt contribution to a debate which you have been actively > involved in, partly because it does confront us all with the following > questions: > > Have we collectively been making the best possible use of our limited > resources of staff, money, and time in the struggle towards nuclear > disarmament? If not, what can we do differently? >
***I have made a concrete suggestion. The nuclear disarmament movement can regain some of its lost political base by proposing a joint initiative with the numerically large present-day constituency of so-called "conspiracy theorists", ideally around something that involves elements of both side's agendas, such as A4-0005/99 "On the environment, security and foreign policy"***
> Are some of the key assumptions on which our work has been based in need of > review?
***I have suggested that the anti-nuclear movement should have been doing as a whole what some of us were trying to do anyway, in 1991, i.e. help Yeltsin get rid of the Russian nuclear arsenal, as he evidently wanted to do, because he proposed 95% unilateral abolition. I favour an inquiry into the extent to which the Russian government in fact today is in independent control of the Russian nuclear arsenal and the extent to which the Russian nuclear arsenal is something more than a second American nuclear arsenal. Moreover, we should stop helping the US government to hype up the threat of nuclear terrorism. We should start working together with writers such as Robin Frost and John Mueller who show the ways in which nuclear terrorism is NOT a threat. However, neither of these perspectives have such high priority for me as a return to the eighties project of European Nuclear Disarmament***
> > Do we need to consider a possible new strategy or strategies for our > interaction with governments?
***We should try to reactivate ourselves by helping the European federalist movement to reactivate itself. Once again that can be done through focus on A4-0005-99 and a critique of the European Commission's response to it, which amounted to an abnegation of sovereignty. ***
> > Do we need to prioritise work that will get our message across to a broad > international public?
> > Do we need to review the nature of our our participation in key multilateral > disarmament meetings organised by governments, especially the NPT revcons?
***I have never participated in such meetings and my attitude is that the nuclear disarmament of the United States is a problem for Americans to solve. Others should just leave them to it, because to try to become involved merely gives ammunition to those who jump at every opportunity to make demagogic politics about threats to American sovereignty. American nuclear weapons should be like American gun laws, a problem for Americans.***
> > Do we need, amongst other things, to meet before international meetings with > governments, such as the upcoming one in Paris this year, to try to hammer > out a common strategy, common priorities, and so on? This NGO position paper > could be shared with governments at the beginning of the meeting, and could > help us to avoid being played off against one another at the meeting, > something which governments excel at.
***I have never seen us being played off against one another so I have no attitude on this. ***
> > It would, it seems to me, also be good if we could get together during such > meetings to prepare shared responses to emerging issues. These shared > responses could then be announced in the meeting by a spokesperson. In this > way we would show governments that we are united on certain key issues, with > a clear definition of the positions that we want them to adopt if they want > to engage with us in a meaningful way. > > This is all brainstorming stuff, but I think that we need more of it. And > such brainstorming will in the end only lead somewhere if we all get > together in the same space to work our way through to a hopefully common > position. We must somehow transcend the anomie of cyberspace. Maybe the days > before the Paris meeting would provide an opportunity for this? If not > Paris, then somewhere else, but fairly soon.
***I am not part of these discussions and I don't want to be involved in such discussions of the anti-nuclear movement. I want to be involved in discussions that can link the anti-nuclear movement to the movements in which I am more actively involved. My only attempts at negotiating with government at this moment centre on trying to secure implementation of the moratorium on geoengineering passed last October in Nagoya. ***
> > I did not say that I want to initiate a new activist phase. These are your > words. All that I want is to contribute to ensuring that the split in our > ranks over our disarmament priorities and strategies is openly addressed.
***Is this split really "in our ranks"?? The last anti-nuclear conference I participated in was the one at Saintes in France organized by ACDN. But ACDN went to New York and participated in the discussions around the NPT. I am not aware of any differences in perspective between what Jean Marie Matagne said there and what other delegates said. ***
We > can not afford to bury our heads in the sand and to continue as through it > does not exist. This split is not new. The time has perhaps come for us all > to try to address and resolve this, with the aim of making us more united > and our work more effective. The festering frustration that permeates some > of what you write is not good for you, and is also counterproductive for the > disarmament movement. >
***Well, as I said, what I want is European Nuclear Disarmament. That is what I signed up for when I joined END. I did not have the money to go to the meeting where END was dissolved after the INF agreement, and I still don't know what the arguments were that could justify such dissolution. And like Mikael Book I want to see END's project of a nuclear-free Europe achieved, and Spinelli's vision realized of a federal Europe that would be a force for peace. ***
> My hope is that we can all get together to discuss and agree on a new more > effective way forward for our work. We are already divided enough as it is. > We should initiate real dialogue that will help to bridge existing splits > and differences, that will make us stronger and our work more effective. The > last thing that we need is a new breakaway splinter group.
***If the vision of a nuclear-free Europe can be agreed upon as an objective to be achieved by the existing anti-nuclear movement without the establishment of breakaway splinter groups, so much the better. ***
> > I must now stand on a high wobbly ladder to clean the salt-stains off my > windows, to give me a clear view right out across Wellington harbour. > > Greetings > > Bob > > > > _____ > > From: firstname.lastname@example.org > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of halva > Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2011 6:01 p.m. > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: A Few Thoughts about avoiding the Abyss - > Making History Possible > > > > > It seems clear enough that there are two alternative conceptions involved > here and two competing strategies, at least for people in Europe and anyone > else who wants to make Europe the focus of anti-nuclear struggle. > > I agree with the "so eighties" remark that John says people have made to > him, but my proposal is for "a return to the eighties" also, of a different > kind. > > It would be good to hear from Bob Rigg which of the two he would like to > prioritize in the new activist phase from Wellington that he says he plans > to initiate, and why he will prefer this strategy. > > --- In email@example.com > <mailto:abolition-caucus%40yahoogroups.com> , John Hallam Nuclear > Flashpoints foesyd4@ wrote: > > > In fact we have been 'soft pedalling' the dangers to the human > > species for far too long and its high time that we stopped doing so > > and prioritised them. Over the years I have had feedback after > > feedback urging me to go slow on the dangers of nuclear weapons to > > the human species because that kind of talk is 'so eighties'. > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Mitsuo Okamoto <okamoto@...> wrote: > > Hello! I am Mitsuo Okamoto of Hiroshima City! > > Let's concentrate on consciousness-raising of the American citizens. > After all, Americans invented nuclear weapons and dropped them on > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of civilians. > Moreover, it is Americans who invented so-called "nuclear power > plant", a dangerous monster as proven by horendous nuclear disaster > at Chernobyle in Ukrain. > > We must abolish not only nuclear weapons but also nuclear power > plants before they abolish us! Let us determine our mind and work > for that until they will disappear from on earth! > > Mitsuo Okamoto, Ph.D., Hiroshima City, Japan Posted by: "halva" email@example.com halva_gr Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:14 pm (PST)
Full agreement with the second paragraph.
As for the first paragraph, the only way that Japanese people could "raise the consciousness of American citizens" would be by immediately abolishing all commemoration ceremonies of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings and ceasing all discussion of nuclear questions with Americans, except Americans who accept this new policy.
The Nagasaki and Hiroshima commemoration ceremonies are an appeasement ritual and a way of diverting attention from the salient fact, i.e. that the bombings were utilized as a means of forcing the Japanese emperor to abolish his country's constitution, exceed his powers and dictatorially surrender. These yearly repetitions of the surrender ritual merely confirm the way that the Japanese have transferred allegiance from the emperor to American nuclear bombs.
The contradictions entailed in the Japanese surrender at the end of the Second World War are just one variant on a general pattern, for American global power is exercised through the imposition of such contradictions.
Gorbachev at Reykjavik was offered the deal of total abolition of the American and Soviet nuclear arsenals if he would agree to the American Star Wars scheme for shooting down the Soviet missiles whose abolition was being negotiated and which therefore, if agreement were reached, would not exist. The architect of this mind-destroying proposal was Edward Teller.
The "end of the Cold War" did not put Teller out of business. Russian nuclear weapons (and the alleged potential for "nuclear terrorism" from theft of allegedly poorly-managed Soviet nuclear materials) retained their propaganda potential. And in 1997 Teller proposed a geoengineering (or "solar radiation management") scheme that involved permanent filling of the entire atmosphere of the earth with light-reflecting (and toxic) aerosols to reduce levels of incoming sunlight and in this way "solve" the problem of global warming, whose existence Teller at the same time disputed, (in this way helping to form a robust "climate change sceptic" lobby):
The Japanese are in a privileged position to subvert it. Just stop commemorating the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Do not engage in anti-nuclear discussions with Americans (or others) unless they accept this change of policy on your part. If you have to work with Japanese nationalists to generate the necessary political support to bring about such a change in policy, then do so.
It is in the power of the Japanese government to decide on such a change, i.e. assert its sovereignty, and surely in the power of Japanese citizens to oblige it to if you, like the rest of us, can break from the reflexes that you have become accustomed to, and start thinking.
2011/2/25 Terry Boardman
Elana, As I see it, there is far more to the developing Middle East situation than what the BBC for example and the rest of the MSM media here in Britain
As for Wayne's 'two minds', I think that if one is in two minds then at least there is the possibility, if one hangs in there suspended for a while listening to them both, and avoids being pulled in either direction, that a third mind can emerge between them, and this will be the one to go with.
Here's another try with Terry, a theoretician I have only just discovered and certainly intend to get to know better. But Terry is not making proposals, as far as I can see. Was the proposal I made something to "go with"?? To me it seems to be on the same wavelength as such of Terry's writing as I have so far managed to read.
Thanks for your openness and invitation, but it seems to me that we two are clearly not yet quite sure where the other is coming from. That's OK; human relationships usually take time. I would have a problem basing anything on that report you indicate, which I have seen at the link you posted, because I don't recognise the legitimacy of the "sovereignty" or even relevance of the EU at all. For me, the EU is a complete delusion. It's not an illusion, because in some formal way it does actually exist, and people do things in its name. But it's a delusion in the same sense that the Third Reich and the USSR and the Napoleonic Empire were delusions. Phantasmagorical crimes, we might say, spiritually and ethically 'illegitimate' acts against the evolution of humanity. Historical study of the origins of the EU reveals it to be a project designed not with the interests of the peoples of Europe in mind and certainly not by them. The EU is a train we have unfortunately been sheep herded onto by our sheep herders, the would-be oligarchs of the West, when we were mostly asleep, a train whose communication cord we need to pull so as to stop the train before it hits the buffers down the track in one almighty train wreck, and having stopped the train, we can then all get off. It is a project out of sync with the needs of the times and is fundamentally anti-democratic. Nor is there any point in trying to make it democratic by the creation of farcical organisations such as the European Parliament for non-existent citizenries and by technological pseudo-democratic fixes such as computer-based direct democracy, online petitions etc.
So, if I were to "make a proposal", it would be to hold conferences and events to the end of convincing the peoples of Europe of the above situation. The way forward for Europe is neither back to the old nation states of the 1920s nor forward to the steadily emerging United States of Federal Europe that is due to be combined in some kind of transatlantic Tweedledee-Tweedledumbness with a North American Union within the next 20 years or so that can take on the challenge of China. That is what they have lined up for us.
This 'neither....nor' is what, for example, I was alluding to by my admittedly somewhat vague comment about a 'third mind' between the other two. The way forward for Europe can only be *healthily* based on an acceptance of what Europe is in its essence, which is a threefold spiritual, political and economic culture that during the course of its history has intuitively in its best cultural manifestations sensed and indicated the balance needed for the human condition. It's not an accident that most European flags are tricolours, after all. Europe must be dominated neither by ONE pattern (the Roman Imperial/Napoleonic Imperial/EU standardised model) nor by tribal, mutally antagonistic nation states; neither ONE political ego nor nearly 30 viciously competing egos. It is a lie when representatives of the EU say they are not seeking to create a one-pattern Europe; those who say that are the ones who are either devious liars or else who are not in on the ultimate plan of the project. The European train is heading for a totalitarian destination and always has been; it is a monolithic entity directed by, and in the best interests of, self-appointed oligarchs and 'aristocrats' (in the Platonic sense: the so-called 'best' people). Think of the abomination of the EU flag - the ONE circle of identical stars and the ONE colour of blue freemasonry. "One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them..." Think of the masonry on all the Euro notes. These symbols show where we are heading and who's stoking the engine's boiler. The peoples of Europe ought not to cooperate with this mechanical beast; they need to wake up to its real nature and the delusions of the so-called founders of this 'Europe' (Coudenhove-Kalergi, Salter, Monnet, Spinelli, Schumann, Spaak and the rest).
So when I wrote that the third mind will be "the one to go with" I meant, among other things, this third, Middle Way - an associative confederation of Europe - one that would promote free and open intercourse in the spiritual and cultural spheres of the European lands but which would strictly respect the political traditions, laws and rights of the many European peoples; a Europe which would maintain a balance between freedom for the individual to operate economically across the Continent while denying to transnational corporations and other such economic entities the right to impose their will on local and national conditions. Such a Europe would have no common military, police force, judiciary, Supreme Court, Parliament, Commission, Presidency, single currency, Central Bank or any such oligarchically imposed paraphernalia - all of which in any case are based on the models of the era of the nation state.
In my view, the peoples of Europe will have to come to see how the aims and methods of these Eurocratic elitists (Monnet et al) were associated with, and ultimately steered by, those of the Anglo-American elite reaching back *at least* a century. Above all, they need to see through to the basis upon which the worldview of that elite and of the Roman Church stands, namely, rank materialism. They need to understand how this materialism, this intellectual cancer poisoned first the spiritual and religious culture of Europe in the Middle Ages and then, from the 17th century onwards, spread through the whole intellectual and scientific culture, even the arts. Then and only then will they understand what the debates about nuclear power, chemtrails, geoengineering, the Co2 global warming scam, "the war on terror", HAARP etc are really about. All these things are only symptoms of the underlying sickness - our fear of death and our ignorance of what comes after death and before this life. Just as, if our sleep life is unhealthy then our waking life will also be unhealthy, so, if we are to take a holistic lifestyle seriously, we shall need to integrate an understanding of the existence before and after this physical existence into our understanding of human existence as a whole. Even in the decadent European Middle Ages, there was still a remnant of this holistic worldview, but since the 17th century it has disappeared, swept aside by rampant materialism and philosophical meaninglessness. Many Greens and New Agers profess to be committed to holism, organic this and holistic that, but like the Protestants of the Reformation era, they often simply substitute another form of materialism for (the materialism of) the worldview they say they are opposing. The dogmatism of the Protestants ended up being almost as bad as the dogmatism of the Catholics, and we are already beginning to see how the dogmatism of the Greens can be as strident as that of the Blues (egocentric capitalists) and the Reds (Leftists of various denominations): "To save Gaia, Mother Earth, a radical cull of the human population will be necessary!!!" and other such delusions.
I sense that on the whole, this reply may not satisy you, Wayne, but I thought it best to try and clarify my views a bit, especially on the European issue. I am someone who cares deeply about the past, present and future of Europe. I know of the terrible errors committed in the years after the First World War by those elitists ignorant of Europe's past and present. By that I refer as much to the delusional idealists such as Woodrow Wilson and Lord Robert Cecil as to the unreconstructed chauvinists like Clemenceau and Poincare. I see similar errors being committed today by similar delusional 'idealists' seeking to put into operation a long-running, long-term plan. On the other hand, I know of one man especially, Rudolf Steiner, who saw through to the reality of what Europe needed in that desperate crisis of 1918-1919, and put forward profound and incisive ideas for addressing it. He was completely ignored, and as a result, Europe got what it got in 1929-45 and since.
Many many thanks for this extremely thoughtful, considerate and intelligent answer. Your views on the European Union seem identical (though more fully elaborated) to those of at least one of the groups to whom I direct the proposal I made, namely the Flemish nationalist Belfort Group which organized the symposium on chemtrails/geoengineering last May in Ghent.
My attitude is that it is necessary to initiate a process of discussion and whatever comes out of it will be the product of that discussion. My starting point in the discussion is the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe initiative cse.european-citizens-network.eu/spip.php?rubrique5
However, the declaration was drafted basically by a Greek member of the European Left party with a pre-history in the anti-nuclear movement and his formulations on what was desirable at the institutional level were left in the declaration as a political compromise to secure his collaboration. In the meantime his party has degenerated even further, he has become inactive as a supporter of the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe initiative and his collaboration would in any case no longer be desired by me because of the intellectual poverty of the overall proposal (in concrete terms).
He would not agree with the proposal I make to the Belfort Group, which would be over his head anyway, not least because he does not have a clue about the chemtrails issue.
The stance of Pier-Virgilio Dastoli, European federalist and formerly Spinelli's secretary, has not yet been clarified but in my opinion it will be worthwhile exposing all the input, including yours, to him, and seeing where this leads.
I assume that we would agree that we do not want to see these American and European proposals seeking to become merged in some kind of common polity.
The "Capodistrias" element in the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe initiative deserves discussion, but given that I am not trying to recruit you to the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe initiative but rather develop a common proposal together with you and other interested parties, I will defer this for the time being.
On the subject of the EU flag, it is of course a Christian Democrat flag, the twelve stars being taken from the halo above the head of the Virgin Mary on the Council of Europe stained glass window from the Strasbourg Cathedral, and the initial inspiration for the design coming from the Book of Revelation . It is typical of the EU bureaucracy that having chosen such a flag they should then proceed to characterize as a "conspiracy theorist" anybody who points out that the EU flag is a Christian flag.
The few remarks you made (with their point of departure the developments in North Africa) about the idea of revival of the Caliphate are something I would be interested in hearing elaborated, though perhaps not in the context of discussion about proposed joint political action.
The chemtrails/geoengineering/HAARP/nuclear disarmament component in any proposed joint action is central for me and here I think it is worth pointing out that the exception to disgraceful surrender of the world's Green parties to the dominant agenda around these issues are the Green party of Cyprus, whose parliamentary representative is actively involved in campaigning against chemtrails and HAARP, with sympathetic though low-key assistance from Cyprus' environmental commissioner. Given that Cyprus will have the presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year, this could be a relevant consideration in any proposal for a conference that we might succeed in elaborating.
Post by Wayne Hall on May 14, 2012 17:05:04 GMT -5
My website www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk has been discontinued as of 14 May, although the articles can still be found in their original format via Google cache (to access them, point your cursor at the double arrows to the right of the google entry and you will see the cache link further to the right).
but it is still very much under construction, and articles, essays etc. from the old website will take some time to transfer over. Both they and new items to be added from now on will all eventually be accessible by pointing your cursor at the section titles on the blue banner near the top of the page: Articles and Essays, Events, Blog.