Is it necessary to withdraw from the European Union?

[Wayne Hall]

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.

[Wayne Hall]

I sent this message to U.S. presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard:

Dear candidate Tulsi Gabbard,

I would like to draw your attention to this post halva.proboards.com/post/1976 and in particular the comment addressed to Professor Aris Christidis on the subject of Hawaii. Your comment would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Wayne Hall.

Aegina, Greece

[Wayne Hall]

The World Freedom Alliance - which is programmed to be conducting a conference next month (November) in Athens, Greece (to be precise, in Piraeus) - supports freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is indeed being trampled underfoot at this time. But is it not also important, possibly more important, to emphasize the duty of authorities to listen and understand. This is supposed to be expected of the head of state, whether a politician (and politicians often find it easier to speak than to listen), a dignitary, or a hereditary constitutional monarch.

[Wayne Hall]

European Movement activists in discussion with Costas Arvanitis

odysee.com/@cecilitsa:a/My-Video-2:d

Wayne Hall: We will start now. I will say who we are, for a start. My name is Wayne Hall. I live in Aegina. I am here with Nikos Vakolidis in Ioannina, with Aris Christidis - where are you at this moment Aris, are you in Germany? In Germany - Vivianne Sergianidis who is in Piraeus, Constantinos Arvanitis, leader of the SYNEPEIA movement and cardiologist, and Catherine Collin, who is also in Athens.

What we will do now is essentially a repetition of the video we made ten days ago, two weeks ago, in English, but we have to have it in Greek. So we will do it again. Preda Mihailescu isn't here, the Romanian mathematician, resident of Germany, who had very important things to say, but because he doesn't speak Greek Nikos Vakolidis will read what Preda said last time. Afterwards I hope that there will be time for us to have a discussion. Aris Christidis has made some critique of my positions. I have put the English text in the chat which has his critique and we have it in Greek, the original, and will send it to anyone interested.

So, I will start. Nikos, would you like to say what Preda said before I start the presentation? What the Romanian mathematician said at this point. You see it in the text.

Catherine: We can't hear you. You have to turn on.....

Nikos: Yes. I've turned it on. Preda said at the beginning of our discussion that he thinks the European Union is not a European project, that it is not moving towards European integration but he notes that the idea of a European project is very important and we should try to do something to ensure that it doesn't disintegrate because it is an important hope. That's what he said at the beginning.

W.H.: OK. That's what he said. Yes. Fine. The title is: "Is it necessary to leave the European Union?" and I started with the observation that the answer I give is No. Of course there are other views and I don't say that the other views are absurd. But my stance would start as follows:

As an alternative to the popular movement proposal to "withdraw from the EU" what is advocated here today is a democratic reform proposal which can start from a process of self-definition and self-assertion of citizens. (Here what we propose coincides with SYNEPEIA because precisely that is the starting point for the SYNEPEIA movement and I hope that Mr. Arvanitis, who is the founder, one of the founders, of the SYNEPEIA movement, will have comments on that when we have finished the presentation.) So. Negotiation with the existing European Union begins once citizens acquire enough strength to oblige negotiation on citizens' terms. That is the prerequisite. A reformed European Parliament has some role to play. It has the advantage of being pan-European, not national. (Along with the various other disadvantages. And around Mr. Terhes from Romania - our concern with Romania predates the appearance of Mr. Terhes. He is in a way leader of the resistance in the European Parliament at this moment. A very nice coincidence that he is a Romanian.) Well, the other entity with negotiating credentials is “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. That is for sure. 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 is their institution. By its nature. Eurosceptics and other critics of European integration say that the EU violates the national sovereignty of member states and they are right when they say that. 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. (That is to say the citizens, the individuals, and as a collectivity, to the extent that they are a collectivity.) (Here we coincide completely with what SYNEPEIA proposes). The European member states that remain monarchies typically see their sovereignty embodied by them. (This is a point of discussion with Aris, who commented on all this.) And under the principle of subsidiarity they are entitled to do that. 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. (This is an important assertion. I observe that Aris Christidis has agreed with it.) What is proposed is an alternative policy, but with institutional force. The construction of citizens’ Europe must start at the local level. (Once again something that is emphasized by SYNEPEIA). 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 (i.e. for political party and religious affiliations to be irrelevant) should be required to withdraw and to continue his/her political activity (insofar as they wish to remain in politics) as a would-be conventional party politician within the structures of representative democracy. (So this exclusion is not an exclusion from politics. It is exclusion from a specific proposal that we are making. When I say "we", we are the "we".) Councils of active citizens are being proposed and in some places established, including by the SYNEPEIA movement in Greece. (I emphasise that again.) 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. (There will be this option, in a number of ways.) 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. (That is important. If you are dependent for communication on journalists or other middlemen you are not a free citizen). 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. (Of course it also means presidents. If there isn't a monarchy, the head of state is the president.) 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. (That is to say, not by parliamentarians. If that is the choice, parliamentarians will have no role when that is what people want.) There have been proposals from within the World Freedom Alliance (they will be having a conference in Piraeus in a few days and Vivianne is one of the organizers and is here with us at this moment) 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 practise 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. We say. The proposal is that it should be in Romania, which has a record of independence even under Communism. (Ceausescu 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. (And I think that Mr. Arvanitis has made various comments in relation to how political change was effected in Romania, with the fall of Ceausescu. But this isn't necessarily the main subject at this moment. It is not the main subject at this moment.)

Well, Preda Mihailescu at this point made some comments, but he isn't here. Nikos! Will you read what Preda said?

Nikos: Yes. Preda wanted to comment here on some of points mentioned by Wayne in relation to Ceausescu and research in the archives in 1990 by an American specialist in information systems which goes much deeper into the question. Preda came across information that astonished him. He mentions that Romanian communists, starting with people like Groza and Maurer but also Dej, before Ceausescu, started a slow pass(age) of distancing from Moscow but most of all had a program. As a first step they got the KGB out of the country but in 1964 they wrote down, just as Wayne has done, a program of hoped-for change. They had a plan for all the Eastern European countries in common to recover sovereignty from Moscow. That's what they announced. Dej was subsequently killed, on the fifth attempt. There had been four attempts to kill him. The fifth, as Preda mentions from the data he found, was cancer, and he died of cancer. And Ceausescu's turn came then. Ceausescu continued looking for support. Preda doesn't say this. It is what Larry Watts found in the KGB archives. And Dubcek, the Czech, was most impressed by this program, which he consciously adapted for Czechoslovakia as a means of claiming sovereignty, leading to Prague '68 and to Romania non-participation. All of this, Preda says, is serious. So all these things are serious. The Russians were left out and had no other way out but defamation. They couldn't impose their order so what they chose was disinformation and economic boycotting. But essentially, Preda says, it was the IMF that killed, that disintegrated, Romania. They demanded that Romania repay its debts, which were a quarter of the debts of Poland. Otherwise they would take hold of all the natural resources. Ceausescu, Preda says, was a simple man, not highly educated. He was left without the best advisors - so he chose this way which led to famine and cold. But he was pushed into that. That's what Preda had to say about the spirit of independence of Romania. He says that this spirit of independence with respect to Russians, is unbent. He compares it to oil and vinegar.

W: After that observation by Preda I said: 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 Ceausescu. But you know, as usual they felt embarrassed about it afterwards and they don't like talking about this reality.... And Preda made another comment at this point.

Nikos: Yes. He commented on it and provided some more information. He gave a link to Watts' book for us to share with whoever wants to see it. And he mentioned that this was another attempt initiated by Ceausescu to project as a counterweight a Balkan Union that would include Greece. Some meetings were held because the union was needed. The Czechs were under occupation and the first meetings were very enthusiastic. He says that this was where the Greeks participated that Wayne spoke of. And again the Russians found ways of infiltrating. There was Tito, there was Albania, there was Bulgaria, Greece and Romania. The plan didn't go very far because of the Russian infiltration, he says. They were very uncomfortable, especially in the seventies. And then life became uncomfortable. Preda says that he thinks we have to learn - what we realized - is that Romania was dragged out of the blocs and you cannot be there. That's what we saw with Venezuela, with Iraq, with Libya. Romania was the only country in the Eastern bloc that found itself between the lines. And they got smashed from both sides. 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 it became useless for them. 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 Preda wonders what games are being played at the different levels.

W: After that I made the comment: Another thing to point out here which is perhaps related to the interest in Romania....an interest of course from the viewpoint of Greece, is Rigas Ferraios, Rigas Velestinlis, which was his name in reality, who was one of the instigators of the Greek Revolution. In those days Romania wasn't called Romania but Preda doesn't think that is very important. It was the same civilization, the same people, as it were.

Well, at this point Cathy came into the discussion. Perhaps Cathy can speak in a little while because I had also said an interesting phenomenon had developed in recent years: the idea of freedom. During the Cold War it was just a slogan. It didn't have any meaning other than the kind of meaning that was associated with what was called the Free World. It was propagandistic. But it's not like that now. It isn't propaganda now. Freedom is an important idea. And I think now people are beginning to understand it in another way. And at the end Preda made a comment.

Nikos: Yes, as regards the idea for a site. He thinks that if we begin to make contacts these relations between Greek and Romanian rank-and-file groups will be a big advantage for the region. He thinks that the same is true of two hundred years ago and the same is true of now. Greece and Romania have perhaps the most advanced consciousness of this part of Europe. And we know that a struggle is being waged everywhere in Europe at this time. But Preda thinks that it is a region of Europe that is most inclined to defend its identity and might have something useful to say. Of course these are simply prospects. He would like to see these theses being developed and he thinks that there is promising terrain in Romania for us to come into contact. There is a lot of activity there. It is just that it is a little isolated but we have already begun to make some contacts with groups and activities there.

W: There are other Romanians who have approached us apart from Preda. At this point Cathy joined the discussion but with Cathy we went out together with Costas Arvanitis and we discussed SYNEPEIA and its prospects and I'd like Costas Arvanitis to speak in a little while but before that perhaps Cathy has some comment on what we have done so far and what we perhaps want to do.

Cathy: I want to say that I would like to hear Mr. Christidis, Vivianne and Mr. Arvanitis because they weren't at the other meeting and we have only twenty minutes, because Vivianne has to leave at twelve. Let's be intelligent with our time. Thank you.

W: Yes I agree, I agree. And let Vivianne comment too, of course.

Cathy: Vivianne did you want to comment up to now on what we said?

Vivianne: Up to now no. Up to now no. Excuse me. Afterwards. Thanks.

Nikos: Let's go on to Aris.

Aris: I made my comments in writing. In general I would like to say that a lot of what has been written and said, and has been read now by Wayne, gives me the impression that - OK, I left Greece in 1981 at the age of 18. My political socialization was from people in the Communist Party of the Interior, mainly. Their logic was that what happens in the East - from Prague, say, and later Poland and so on - the same thing is happening in the West. I miss that in what has just been said now. To talk about the barbarities being perpetrated by the Soviets and not to talk about Vietnam and not to talk about Greece, where they tested the napalm that they dropped in Vietnam, something is being left out. That's doesn't mean that what we said is invalid. But I see as it were a "camouflage". We look at something and we don't observe something else. That is in general terms, and the second comment, which also comes out in what I wrote, I hope, is that I always find something problematic about parallel structures. We have a parliament, we'll make a para-parliament. We have an army, we'll have a para-army. We have one, we'll have the other. For me that doesn't mean that it is bad to have parallel structures. But to the extent that it is allowed, that we are able, to make use of the structures, I find it almost suicidal to say that we give up on that up - I mentioned Sinn Fein for example. We give up on that and I do my own thing and we will reach the point where we are so great and so powerful - that's what you could do in the Ottoman Empire, where you don't have any right - I suppose - I don't know about the Ottoman Empire. You can do it where you don't have any possibilities. Where you do have some possibility you can take advantage of it and so: we can get as far as that. There can be at least some communication. And a final thing I would like to say is that what was said, read and said, is not wrong. It is just that, for example to say that there is fragmentation with the parties - I accept that - that doesn't mean that if one starts a - I referred to Sinn Fein - that doesn't mean that if one starts a new party it can't have grass roots democracy, it can't have a - if I remember rightly it is called in Greek "epitaktiki entoli", i.e. imperative mandate, which would say "you are a representative and don't dare to take a decision without asking your base" etc. etc. It doesn't mean if you start a new party, not necessarily a party, but I don't exclude the party, it seems to me that we discover that we haven't succeeded and now we start something new and - to finish - to some extent it seems suspect to me to say we are starting something, a parallel structure and we'll go with it, we'll go with it, it reminds me a little of The Second Coming. The rest you can understand. I don't want to say anything more because I don't have much time. OK.

W: OK. Cathy is co-ordinating.

Cathy: Wayne. have you finished with the reading? All of the text?

W: Yes, yes. We've finished.

Cathy: You've finished?

W: The comments I had on what Aris wrote I put in a text. In both Greek and English.

Nikos: Cathy could repeat what she said in English. Her comments on her experience in Greece and how she sees the situation developing. She could refer to it.

Cathy: All right. In the other video I said first of all that to talk about right and left, Communist, Fascist, is simply divide and conquer. We divide people and separate them and they start fighting between themselves. I try not to say Right and Left. Of course that doesn't mean that those who want to control the population don't use it very successfully. But when they tell me what happened in history, of Romania and so on. It doesn't interest me what happened because we can't change the past. Let's look to the future. It's a very good idea of Wayne's but we must admit that it is a bit utopian. It's a utopia now. This is why I like SYNEPEIA. Sorry about the noise behind me. This is why I like SYNEPEIA's proposal to have groups, to have lectures, to have groups of citizens working together. It is more feasible to do it now. To tell you the truth I don't remember exactly what we said (in the English first recording). I am not in a fixed position and without the flexibility to change my mind. What did the Communists do? What did the Soviet Union do? The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more. It is something else now. Now we are with the war on our doorstep. We have a government that put Greece on the wrong side of the war. What we will be doing in three years, in two years.....we have to say what we are going to do now. This is why I'd like to hear Mr. Arvanitis. Thank you.

W: Certainly.

Nikos: Can he hear us?

Cathy: Mr. Arvanitis, are you still there? He may have left.

W: Left? Don't tell me.

Nikos: Obviously something.....

Cathy: Isn't Vivianne there?

Nikos: Anyway, you had said something about us coming from different organizations, and everyone having his own luggage, his own views, his own ambitions. You said something like that.

Cathy: No, I was saying to Wayne, because I saw that in Greece.... I am in organizations supporting animals. I work with animals in Athens. And I see that they fight between themselves. When I went to the party called Free Greeks I was in the movement of Edward Griffin, the Freedom Force International. I was there for many years and he said to us: "if you are not satisfied with the government, you be the government." Great! I'll go into a party. I went into the Free Greeks (right-wing junior coalition partner in the Leftist SYRIZA government). A few years ago when they first appeared. And I saw that in a party everyone disagreed with everyone else. I don't know if they had anything in common between themselves. I wondered. What they had in common was that they all wanted to exploit something. They had more interest (symferon[) than interest (endiaferon) (The Greek language distinguishes between intellectual interest and vested interest). And I see that today in the movements. (looks down) Aris Christidis, one moment. I see in the movements that are being started today against what has been happening to us since 2020 not only that they don't have ideas in common but they are starting to argue with each other. I thought it was only in Greece but I see that it is not. It is everywhere. It is in the WFA with this person and that person. Wayne tells me "You know about that". I don't know. I know people who began to talk in the 1990s, and I'll tell you something else, about Donda. In the 90s nobody wanted to know. Everything was perfect. But it wasn't perfect. People are blind. They look after number one. Now we have to find common points and try to work together with the common points. Not with what divides us. Well, Mr. Christidis, raise hand. Tell us.

Aris: I was talking about my socialization, my politicization. The concept of the party - I'll talk to you informally. The concept of the party, the way you use it, the way everyone used it, particularly in the text (just read) - truly there is in Greece, from what I see, and in Germany it is 100% the same, and particularly in the Greens I encountered in my studies, and later with Die Linke, the Left, is as you describe. Yes. But the concept of the party as I learned it was of people who wish to communicate a line, a policy, an idea, that was the way I saw the Communist, the Socialist, even the fascist.....parties. The idea is to communicate something that one thinks is right, and starting from that come together so as to be able to co-operate around that. This shifted later with the emergence of centrists, socialists and so on, more or less all the same, and on that basis the concept of the party as it was understood, in Germany very intensely, particularly in the Greens at this time when they are in government, the concept of the party came to mean "we create a group that wants to get the government in our hands". And the question is who will be a minister, who will be deputy minister, who will be general secretary. And from that point on it is personal ambitions and nothing more. That isn't decided in advance. We can change it. I am not recommending establishment of parties or taking control of parties I don't speak in favour of parties in general. I am speaking in favour of distinguishing concepts. And the concept of the party as I see it - I might be wrong but correct me if I am - the concept of the party means a group of people who want to communicate an impression, a thought, an idea. Whether we are on the right or wrong side of the war should in some way be said and there must be the person who will say what strategy, what tactics, what actions, will be needed, who will represent the group, in which language, with which ideas, who know where to say it and so on. A lot of people are needed to do that. One question is: do we see the people who want to take over posts, or the people who want to represent an idea. For the moment we are talking about posts. I don't think this is a necessity.

W: Because we have only ten minutes, have we heard the view of Mr. Arvanitis?

Costas Arvanitis: Certainly. I have been listening carefully. We agree in many of our conclusions. The point is what do we do now? But I want to underline one view with which I disagree, that it doesn't interest us what happened some years ago in Romania or in Poland or elsewhere. It does interest us. There mightn't be much point in discussing it but we should have in mind what happened, because it is in the destruction of the Eastern countries that the present day situation we are experiencing is based. The political change that occurred in those countries wasn't the purpose, it was the means. The purpose was their destruction. All those countries had to be destroyed so that there could not be the model of the social welfare state that existed in them. When they were destroyed it was the turn of all the West. It was the turn for political rights, the welfare state, everything that we gradually lost, in Greece and all of the West. We lost them because the competing adversary was no longer there. For many years all of the West saw certain things that were positive, in the Soviet Union, in Romania, in Poland and everywhere. And they tried to do the same in their own countries. Capitalism does not have a welfare state. It was an injection from socialism that was achieved by the movements and imposed on the West, seeing what had happened in the eastern countries. It had to be rolled back. And how could it be rolled back if the competing adversary was there? The competing adversary had to be destroyed. So, all the eastern countries were destroyed. They too became an abomination like the West. From that point on there was no opponent. Now, one after the other all our liberties and rights are being taken away from us. All of that has its roots in what happened in 1990 and the years preceding 1990. What I said about Romania, mentioned by Mr. Wayne, was that I simply said that Ceausescu did not have a fair trial. There wasn't a real trial. In reality there was a murder. Not exactly like Gaddafi in the street, but they had a fake trial. They put him in a room and within minutes they said "We think you are a traitor. What do you have to say?" He said "I am innocent" and they said: "Well, we think you are guilty. Execute him." That was that. " It wasn't a trial. It was lynch law, ku klux clan law. It was the work of the West, and the CIA. We should never forget that. We are paying for the way that we were cheering them on like sports fans in a stadium. "Yes, sock it to them. Let them have it. It serves serves them right." This all comes back on our head. This is what the West is paying for now. But there is no turning back. There is no changing the past. What has happened has happened. What matters is what we do now.What we do in our country. What others do in their country. And if there is collaboration between the movements in different countries that is very desirable. What we in SYNEPEIA see is that we must first and foremost work out how we are to organize the people in our country for the days that are coming. SYNEPEIA isn't a party that is asking for a vote so that it can save the world. It is seeking to arouse the people, to organize in local groups in every town, in every city, not only so that all of these together can form a movement to bring about a change in Greece and a reorganization of the public sector on issues of democracy, economy, immigration policy and all the axes they imply but we are interested in forming nuclei for confronting the attacks post-COVID, because COVID was not the main attack. It was a dress rehearsal. What is coming now is worse. An attack on the population is coming, with energy crisis on the first plane, food crisis on the second plane, so-called climate change on the third plane and more generally, following many years of preparation of public opinion. And in brief we can expect a multitude of attacks of various kinds which will leave people reeling under the blows from left and right, above and below it will be sustaining. In this context an unorganized population, panic-ridden and dumbed down, will take the beating with resignation and submit to it. We are endeavouring to prepare people to be organized for confronting the blows that can be predicted. We don't tell them to vote for some party. We don't believe in any of the existing parties. If this movement acquires numerical force and is strengthened, certainly something significant will come out of this. I don't know what it will be called. I don't know which persons will become visible. This is something that will be shown by life in the future. But for the moment it is too early to be talking about formation of a party. Popular organization has priority, in nuclei, in groups, active, which will wage a struggle as much as possible to arouse our fellow citizens so as to be able to be further strengthened and have greater resistance to what is going to happen. What is going to happen is much harsher than what we have experienced for two years now, during which the state attempted to alienate citizens from their bodies and puncture them through diktat. Something which is unheard of.

W: Yes.

Costas Arvanitis: No political right and no individual freedom are taboo for those who are governing. They want to overturn everything. They want eliminate everything. You won't have any right. You will be property of the state, to do with you whatever they like. And as someone said recently, when they are through with you, they won't need you even as slaves.

W: Yes yes.

Costas Arvanitis: All right? These are things we must confront, and we believe that the best way to resist what is coming is not to start a party and say "Trust us. We will save you." What must be done is to organize people for self-defence. This is what SYNEPEIA is doing, with the SPORA that we have announced.

W: Bravo.

Costas Arvanitis: That, in brief, is what I have to say. I will answer any questions anyone might have.

W: Yes. Yes. OK. Can I speak a little now? We have only three minutes and time will be up. Of course I agree. That is why some of us are now joining SYNEPEIA, because we agree. Of course for me the idea of the competing adversary - I didn't adopt the idea of the competing adversary. I was in the movement that generated opposition.....I can't say that I have no responsibility for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc. I was with the leftist opposition which participated in and helped the movement that achieved precisely that. So I can't say that I have no responsibility. I have responsibility to the extent that the activist who identified with the opposition has responsibility...... in Greece perhaps the KKE can say that it doesn't. Right to the end it tried to prevent what was happening but it didn't succeed. (My relevant analysis: againstthecurrent.org/wayne-hall/ ) I wasn't part of that attempt.

Costas Arvanitis: Not only the KKE (the Greek Communist Party). A very great part of the Greek people: PASOK, I guess.

W: Yes.

Costas Arvanitis: Understood that the destruction of the eastern countries would be followed by the destruction of the western countries. That's why it happened. So that there would not be anyone in the West who would raise their voice afterwards, to say "Why are they doing that? And why are you doing it to us?" So that this would not exist.

W: Yes, OK. I agree with that but I see that the new competing adversary is under development.

Costas Arvanitis: Look, Mr. Wayne. After the destruction of the eastern countries new words came into their vocabulary which they had not known. After the Soviet Union and now Russia, and whatever other country came after the former Soviet Union, they learned the word "homeless". This had been known only in the West. They learned the word "unemployed".

W: True.

Costas Arvanitis: The right to employment ceased to be something sacred and underwritten constitutionally. If you find work, work. If you don't, cut your throat. Whereas in the past the state had been obliged to find you work once you finished and took your degree or some qualification. Walking at dusk in Moscow you didn't see young people lifting up the manhole covers and crawling underneath so as to get through the night in the drains. You didn't see that. People were poor, but not destitute. They had to lose the right to housing so that they could take away our houses from us. They had to lose the right to work so that we couldn't protest about unemployment. Do you see? All the achievements of the former eastern countries had to be destroyed methodically so that the westerners could lose them too, without protest. They can say "That doesn't exist anywhere!" They don't have it now. Don't shout about it.

W: Yes, because we, or at least most of us, will go into SYNEPEIA, all of that is taken for granted. But now time is up and perhaps Aris wants to say something. I am not co-ordinating at this moment but I propose that Aris should make some comments and we should finish.

Aris: A very brief observation. I wrote it in the chat. I agree completely with what Costas Arvanitis said. What I see as some disagreement, or some variant, is: I was not among those who cheered in 1989 and 1990 with the falling of the wall. I expected what we see now as things get worse. The only question is, what prevents us, together with the movement, which I thoroughly approve should go ahead, from creating some kind of party. I bring to mind Sinn Fein, or anything similar. There is a German party, but it doesn't make any political demand. It can start at the same time and structures be included in such a party so that we don't reach the same point as we have seen with the others. That is the only question I have.

Costas Arvanitis: Mr. Christidis, allow me to say: in 1989 and 1990 when so many were cheering that the Berlin wall was falling what I didn't understand was: why this passion that Germany should be strengthened? After the Second World War the Allies cut it in three, and they had reasons for cutting it in three. Were we bending over backwards to strengthen it again? Fine. Germany was strengthened again. We cheered that it was strengthened again. And what did it do? It started raping all of Europe!

Aris: As expected.

Costas Arvanitis: Did people work for decades to strengthen Germany so that it could rape Europe again, this time economically? The people who cheered as the wall came down were idiots. It wasn't freedom. They were tools of the CIA, the people who were cheering and organizing the mob. That was the aim.

Aris: I agree completely.

Costas Arvanitis: To strengthen Germany so that it could devastate Europe again with another method. Was that what we were yearning for? How Germany could be strengthened again and we were shouting for it to be strengthened again and unite? Everyone was hell bent on Germany being strengthened! Wasn't that absurd?

Aris: We said then that we love Germany so much that we want to have two of them.

Costas Arvanitis: It should have been four. Not one. Four.

W: OK. Nikos?

Nikos: Yes.

W: Aren't we finishing here?

Nikos: Yes. We can finish.

[Wayne Hall]

Dialogue with Dr. Aris Christidis

Quote: The really existing European Union must be negotiated with once enough strength is acquired by citizens to oblige negotiation on citizens' terms.

The "negotiation" can also start from an initiative of Europarliamentarians with proposals for another mode of operation of the European Union. These parliamentarians can be either from existing parliamentary groups (which we must win over) or from formations we must establish. I cite the example of the creation of Sinn Fein. There is also the German party Die Partei www.die-partei.de which is based in the European Parliament and its only role is to make proposals which go beyond existing decisions (e.g. determination of a minimum child income) which even von der Leyen realizes are farcical.

These are strategies of the existing system of representative democracy.

Quote: The solution is not to strengthen the national parliaments in the member states.

I disagree. I as a European am not inclined to strengthen monarchies. If other countries want to do it internally (e.g. through a veto from the monarch), that is their business - and naturally they have the right.

The fact that the process of European integration ignores the European monarchies shows how the European Union is a construction of American republican imperialism.

It is not as a European but as a Greek that you are disinclined to strengthen monarchies. It may indeed be emancipatory to overthrow one's own monarchy. But to overthrow someone else's monarchy is more like an act of imperialism or aggressiveness. Was the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by the US emancipatory? I experienced the 'international community" campaign to overthrow the Australian monarchy in 1999 as an attack and an insult, not as emancipation (and so did the majority of Australians). This is apart from the fact that the republicans in Australia were divided and confused.

Sovereignty in European states is not exercised by the parliaments.

Quote: The monopoly of representative democracy should be broken.

I agree. At minimum the commitment of parliamentarians to party discipline would have to be banned (by law) (it violates the prescriptions of every constitution) and be replaced by commitment to the party's rank and file. Any parliamentarian does anything other than what is declared pre-electorally or decided by his party should be obliged to resign, or at least not be allowed to renew his candidature.

A law could be passed that would make it obligatory for all political power centres to consult the people in the case of decisions where the commitment goes beyond their term of office (NATO, EU, EU-Canada Trade Agreement, etc.) Naturally there should be discussion of how far that measure should go, i.e. whether the attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Ukraine or every sentence to life imprisonment requires a referendum (or re-examination after a three-year waiting period, or........)

These are ideas for the reform of representative democracy. They don't break the monopoly. A referendum does not solve the problem of representative democracy, which is caused by universal suffrage and the power of the mass media.

Quote: Political party convictions should be as irrelevant as religious convictions.

I don't know if there are "party convictions". But if we are speaking of policy convictions I regard the demand as suspect. On what basis, other than convictions could one argue for the restoration of a monarchy or participation in wars - imposition of taxes, - relations between church and state, etc.

The argumentation will take the form of rational debate, not the proclamation of belief or ideological identity.

Quote: (...) a pan-European referendum should be held on transferring powers

Yes. But how is the conduct of a referendum and the enforcement of its result (no=yes) to be imposed if not by Parliament? And how could such an initiative be taken in the absence not only of influence but also of all contact (albeit through a parliamentarian).

There would have to be a special court.

Quote: (...) 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.

This is a proposal I regard as suspect for it is in diametric opposition to the principles of (direct) democracy. I want to appoint my representative myself, not have my representative appointed by someone who will do the appointing without asking me. Comparison with the presidential elections in the US is misleading. The problem can be overcome if the post is filled through rotation and citizens are able to elect not persons but programs. But there are also other solutions. .

If you don't like the proposed arrangement you will have the option of choosing representative democracy.

Quote: The alternative chamber, catering for all of the European Union, should be based in Eastern Europe.

The basic doubt is, of course, over how many alternatives can be put forward without "upsetting" Brussels. We leave our rulers in peace and go with our little bucket to paddle on another beach.

No. Those who want to fight in the way e.g. Cristian Terhes is fighting today will be able to continue doing it.

Quote: (...) the Communist Party of the Interior, which was a smaller Communist Party mainly supported by intellectuals.

Footnote. It was the comrades of the Greek Communist Party who were not able to leave for abroad when the dictatorship came (21.04.1967). They had more ideas and fewer means of implementing them.

I think that Kazakis has made more or less the same point (this is one reason he didn't like e.g. Spinelli).

Quote: Romania was the only country in the Eastern bloc which drifted between the lines.

Footnote. In my book Yugoslavia was on the same page.

Romania still exists. Yugoslavia does not. .

I regard this question as much more basic: how do we want "the other EU" to function? e.g.:
• Annual elections, alternating between parliament (legislative), Commission (executive), European Court (judiciary)?
• The operation of select legal officers, ministries without a minister (one each) but with a council including all elected parties (through proportional representation)?
• The establishment of a European economy: industries, services, the development of software, banks (for shared interstate lending)?
• Citizens as proprietors of the public economy, with non-marketable shares ("shareholder ID")?
• Pan-European employment guarantee with a European tariff (in the event of change of country)?
• etc. etc.

These are reforms of representative democracy.

Postscript on Australia: In the case of Australia, those who are so attached to the "national profile" of that country that they want to expel the monarchy don't think enough about China. China is an ancient culture with a strong identity. Its penetration of the Australian reality is intense. Australian nationalism is shallow, sentimental, dependent on a rather adolescent sarcasm about the British and a backward-looking Irish Catholic element. This applies for Australia specifically and not for the more general considerations mentioned in what I wrote in response to Aris Christidis' critique.

[Wayne Hall]

The press conference that terminated the World Freedom Alliance symposium of 4th-6th November 2022 in Athens is not online yet and I quote my own contribution not because it deserves to be singled out but because it is the only documentation available to me at this moment.

"This proposal is a possible way for beginning to deal with today's global medical dictatorship. It is a blueprint for reform of the European Parliament through establishment of a second chamber of active citizens based in Eastern Europe. The strongest candidate country in our opinion would be Romania. The second chamber would cover all of the European Union and would compete for a mandate with the existing European Parliament through a regular, perhaps five-yearly, referendum. The campaign for establishment of this chamber would start from the basis, from rank and file groups active around issues where voting is unnecessary because consensus exists. The effect of establishing the second chamber would be to break the present monopoly of representative democracy and mediated communication. Political figures who are dependent on mediators such as journalists and conventional politicians cannot be regarded as free citizens. Political party and religious loyalties would be equated in the second chamber and behavior that could be interpreted as promoting them would be a reason for requiring withdrawal from the second chamber and continuing if necessary as a conventional politician. The proposal is elaborated in full at the Enouranois English Language Forum in Greek and English in the section entitled "Is it necessary to withdraw from the European Union?" (Enouranois would be pronounced differently in French from how it is pronounced in Greek, but it is Greek, not French.)"

At the World Freedom Alliance Activist Group Telegram group there is now a new input with a rather different stance to the stance outlined in the extract just quoted.

It is being posted by Marco Inaros from Portugal and it makes its appearance immediately after the long contribution from Costas Arvanitis that concludes this particular post (translated video transcript).

Marco Inaros publicizes the Canadian activist Kevin Annett: ("Who is Kevin Annett? - A personal and close-up look at the man behind the global movement to stop child torture and trafficking, and dis-establish genocidal churches and governments. Filmed on June 24, 2013")

More documentation from "The Guardian": halva.proboards.com/thread/721/canada-crimes-indigenous-peoples?page=1&scrollTo=1988

Marco Inaros would clearly like to draw attention to Kevin Annett's project for a "Republic of Kanata"

republicofkanata.org/

Kevin Annett will acquire credibility with World Freedom Alliance activists because of the stance he is adopting towards lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, digital currencies, 5G towers, etc.

His credibility for believers will be further strengthened by the stance of activists such as Dan Oke, (Dan FudoShin), who advocates citizens' arrests of mayors.

Both Dan Oke and Kevin Annett attribute significance to the common law/natural law system. The role played in each person's life by the transformation that follows submission one's birth certificate to the state is a central element in their political outlook. Catherine Collin submits this video for the edification of French speakers on this subject:

The following views on citizens' arrests, natural law and common law are made by the Canadian law professor Bruce Pardy and disputed by Dan Oke.

(From minute 33.37) "There is a version of Common Law - Common Law is of course the system that the English system is based upon - the one in the UK and the Commonwealth countries - Canada, the U.S. (sic), Australia, New Zealand and so on, and that is very real. It still exists. But there has been a theory floating around in the resistance movement about there being a different version of Common Law that will allow you to be a sovereign person on your own, not subject to the laws of the country. That is basically bunk (i.e. nonsense)."

At the WFA Activists Telegram group Marco Inaros strengthens his initiative's credibility even further with anti-globalist and anti-jab activists by exposing what the COVID "vaccines" actually contain.

He then reveals that he has "contacted Mr. Kevin Annett from Republic of Kanata", who "is willing to do a Zoom meeting."

Nikos Vakolidis says: "Invite him to our regular monthly meeting, on Wednesday 16/11, 10.00 am CET. I will put the link again here Next week. Thank you!"

Robert Burrowes joins the discussion: "Hi Everyone, With our sincere thanks to another fine ally, Marco Inaros, here is the updated Portuguese translation of the 'We Are Human, We Are Free' (https://wearehumanwearefree.org/) one-page flyer (as a pdf & jpg) outlining strategic nonviolent actions anyone can take to defeat the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' and related agendas.

Marco Inaros then says: "Mr Kevin Annett agreed to meet with us."

Some research reveals this.

"No Indigenous organization supports Annett." (quote from above link)

One of Annett's proud achievements is to have contributed to having Pope Benedict removed (his successor is Pope Francis.) But it appears that Annett has also initiated litigation against Pope Francis: pacificmountain.ca/wordpress2017/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Annett-Statement-18-11.pdf

Catholics with medical qualifications who are sympathetic to the World Freedom Alliance viewpoint (I don't think it would be wrong to say that Dr. Peter Breggin is an appropriate example) if called upon to "choose their pope", tend to favor Pope Benedict over Pope Francis. Here is a characteristic expression of the anti-Pope-Francis viewpoint:

If one may judge from Annett's 2013 interview with Stephen Shellen (see above), both Annett and Shellen are, or were, very much preoccupied with religion. Preoccupied, but not knowledgeable:
1. Shellen does not know what a "Huguenot" is (minute 4.45).
2. Kevin Annett thinks that "All Christian churches come out of the Catholic Church" (minute 9.43).

Moreover, Kevin Annett thinks that "original sin is bullshit".

The "Pacific Mountain" source cited above, presumably sympathetic to the United Church leadership, says: "Annett is able to attract attention because he hides behind a single truth: that the Canadian Indian residential school system was abusive, unjust and destructive of indigenous culture. The church has confessed its complicity in that system in many different ways over the past decades. The federal government has as well. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has deeply investigated that system and has called on society to make amends and take steps to build a better relationship. Annett holds himself out to be the sole, heroic person truthfully exposing this history, tells fantastical stories about his “discoveries” at school sites, and wildly exaggerates..."

In his interview with Shellen, Annett reveals that he was a Trotskyist in his youth. I was also a Trotskyist in my youth so I am not in a position to "condemn him for that". Trotskyists are often slandered by far-right spokespersons, who seem to think that Trotskyist globalism and anti-nationalism qualify Trotskyists to be seen as among the architects of "The Great Reset". The reality, in my opinion, is that Trotskyists and ex-Trotskyists are at most powerless dupes of "The Great Reset". I made the point in my article "Defeat from the Jaws of Victory" in relation to Western reaction to the August 1989 Soviet coup against Gorbachev: "Even a theorist of the stature of (Trotkyist theoretician) Ernest Mandel was out of his depth. While recognizing the significance of the August events for his own world-view (was this counter-revolution or the anticipated Trotskyist "political revolution?"), he had no slogans to raise and nothing to propose."

Annett ignores the important World Freedom Alliance subject of bankers and specifically the role of the Rothschild family since the Napoleonic wars and from the late nineteenth century the Rockefellers. Focusing on the papacy and the British royal family he leaves out of account the factor of their financial dependence on the big global banking families. Pope Francis is evidently no more financially independent than any other church leader.

There have been two very recent deaths of key players in today's global scenario: Queen Elizabeth and her banker Evelyn De Rothschild.

Does this portend anything?

A final question, what kind of state would be appropriate to supervise Catherine Austin Fitts', Ellen Brown's, Mads Palsvig's etc. etc. desired socialized banking?

As a postscript, this interview with Dan Oke and Rebecca Sheppard from Canada serves, I would say, to strengthen even further the credibility of the common law approach, particularly if taken in conjunction with an important gain from the World Freedom Alliance Athens symposium, namely the meeting and projected co-ordination between parents' and active citizens' groups from Greece and Cyprus with the same orientation as Dan and Rebecca.

Post-postscript: stand4thee.com/our-mandate

Dan Oke: www.facebook.com/watch/?v=288860139310999 (There has evidently been a similar split in Stand4thee to the split in Reiner Fuellmich's Corona Committee.)

Dan Oke is nowadays with the True North Guardians' Alliance: tngalliance.com/the-evidence-thus-far

This is the way he speaks as a militant: blackbeltmag.com/karate-instructor-anti-mask (He says "If we don't win this, we are Australia. We are China." And he mentioned Kevin Annett.)

Leigh Dundas gives the crowning shot: www.bitchute.com/video/XNFYUHM0qUmU/