The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover

EU creator Jean Monnet was Roosevelt’s eyes and ears in Europe. Some called him a US agent

Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US.  The European Union always was an American project.

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

US President Barack Obama warned Britain to stay in the EU CREDIT: AFP/GETTY

While irritated at times, the US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO.

There has never been a divide-and-rule strategy.

The eurosceptic camp has been strangely blind to this, somehow supposing that powerful forces across the Atlantic are egging on British secession, and will hail them as liberators.

The anti-Brussels movement in France – and to a lesser extent in Italy and Germany, and among the Nordic Left – works from the opposite premise, that the EU is essentially an instrument of Anglo-Saxon power and ‘capitalisme sauvage’.

France’s Marine Le Pen is trenchantly anti-American. She rails against dollar supremacy. Her Front National relies on funding from Russian banks linked to Vladimir Putin.

Like it or not, this is at least is strategically coherent.

The Schuman Declaration that set the tone of Franco-German reconciliation – and would lead by stages to the European Community – was cooked up by the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson at a meeting in Foggy Bottom. „It all began in Washington,” said Robert Schuman’s chief of staff.

It was the Truman administration that browbeat the French to reach a modus vivendi with Germany in the early post-War years, even threatening to cut off US Marshall aid at a furious meeting with recalcitrant French leaders they resisted in September 1950.

Soviet tanks rumble into Prague

Truman’s motive was obvious. The Yalta settlement with the Soviet Union was breaking down. He wanted a united front to deter the Kremlin from further aggrandizement after Stalin gobbled up Czechoslovakia, doubly so after Communist North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded the South.

For British eurosceptics, Jean Monnet looms large in the federalist pantheon, the emminence grise of supranational villainy. Few are aware that he spent much of his life in America, and served as war-time eyes and ears of Franklin Roosevelt.

General Charles de Gaulle thought him an American agent,  as indeed he was in a loose sense. Eric Roussel’s biography of Monnet reveals how he worked hand in glove with successive administrations.

General Charles de Gaulle was always deeply suspicious of American motives CREDIT:ALAMY

It is odd that this magisterial 1000-page study has never been translated into English since it is the best work ever written about the origins of the EU.

Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.

As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency.

The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement’s funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA.

Bill Donovan, legendary head of the war-time OSS, was later in charge of orchestrating the EU project

Papers show that it treated some of the EU’s ‘founding fathers’ as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington.

There is nothing particularly wicked about this. The US acted astutely in the context of the Cold War. The political reconstruction of Europe was a roaring success.

There were horrible misjudgments along the way, of course. A memo dated June 11, 1965, instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the „adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”. This was too clever by half, as we can see today from debt-deflation traps and mass unemployment across southern Europe.

In a sense these papers are ancient history. What they show is that the American ‘deep state’ was in up to its neck. We can argue over whether Boris Johnson crossed a line last week by dredging up President Barack Obama’s „part-Kenyan ancestry”, but the cardinal error was to suppose that Mr Obama’s trade threat had anything to do with the ordeals of his grandfather in a Mau Mau prison camp. It was American foreign policy boilerplate.

As it happens, Mr Obama might understandably feel rancour after the abuses that have come to light lately from the Mau Mau repression.  It was a shameful breakdown of colonial police discipline, to the disgust of veteran officials who served in other parts of Africa.  But the message from his extraordinary book – ‘Dreams From My Father‘ – is that he strives to rise above historic grudges.

Brexiteers take comfort that Republican hopeful Ted Cruz wants a post-Brexit Britain to jump to the „front of the line for a free trade deal”, but he is merely making campaign hay. Mr Cruz will conform to Washington’s Palmerstonian imperatives – whatever they may be at that moment – if he ever enters the White House.

President Obama’s grandfather was a prisoner during the suppression of Kenya’s Mau Mau revolt, a shameful episode of British colonial history

It is true that America had second thoughts about the EU once the ideological fanatics gained ascendancy in the late 1980s, recasting the union as a rival superpower with ambitions to challenge and surpass the US.

John Kornblum,  the State Department’s chief of European affairs in the 1990s, says it was a nightmare trying deal with Brussels. „I ended up totally frustrated. In the  areas of military, security and defence, it is totally dysfunctional.”

Mr Kornblum argues that the EU „left NATO psychologically” when it tried to set up its own military command structure, and did so with its usual posturing and incompetence. „Both Britain and the West would be in much better shape if Britain was not in the EU,” he said.

This is interesting but it is a minority view in US policy circles. The frustration passed when Poland and the first wave of East European states joined the EU in 2004, bringing in a troupe of Atlanticist governments.

We know it is hardly a love-affair. A top US official was caught two years ago on a telephone intercept dismissing Brussels during the Ukraine crisis with the lapidary words, „fuck the EU”.

Yet the all-pervading view is that the Western liberal order is under triple assault, and the EU must be propped, much as Britain and France propped up the tottering Ottoman Empire in the 19th – and wisely so given that its slow collapse led directly to the First World War.

Today’s combined threats comes from Jihadi terror and a string of failed states across the Maghreb and the Levant; from a highly-militarized pariah regime in Moscow that will soon run out of money but has a window of opportunity before Europe rearms; and from an extremely dangerous crisis in the South China Sea that is escalating by the day as Beijing tests the US alliance structure.

The dangers from Russia and China are of course interlinked. It is likely – pessimists say certain – that Vladimir Putin would seize on a serious blow-up on Pacific rim to try his luck in Europe. In the eyes of Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, and those capitals around the world that broadly view Pax Americana as a plus, this is not the time for Britain to lob a stick of dynamite into Europe’s rickety edifice.

The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem. Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.

In my view, the Brexit camp should be laying out plans to increase UK defence spending by half to 3pc of GDP, pledging to propel Britain into the lead as the undisputed military power of Europe. They should aim to bind this country closer to France in an even more intimate security alliance. These sorts of moves would at least spike one of Project Fear’s biggest guns.

The Brexiteers should squelch any suggestion that EU withdrawal means resiling from global responsibility, or tearing up the European Convention (that British-drafted, non-EU, Magna Carta of freedom), or turning our backs on the COP21 climate accords, or any other of the febrile flirtations of the movement.

It is perhaps too much to expect a coherent plan from a disparate group, thrown together artificially by events. Yet many of us who are sympathetic to the Brexit camp, who also want to take back our sovereign self-government and escape the bogus and usurped supremacy of the European Court of Justice, have yet to hear how Brexiteers think this extraction can occur without colossal collateral damage and in a manner consistent with the honour of this country.

You can quarrel with Europe, or you can quarrel with the US, but it is courting fate to quarrel with the whole democratic world at the same time.

Sursa: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts : Vote Brexit – End the EU, a CIA Covert Operation

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts : Vote Brexit – End the EU, a CIA Covert Operation

Published on Monday, 13 June 2016 07:00

„Remain” or „Leave”? What does the UK’s EU Referendum—scheduled 23rd June—really amount to? Is it simply the opportunity for UK citizens to decide if Britain should stay in the European Union? Or is it something of greater significance, with broader and more serious implications? And just what is this thing called the EU anyway?

Joining us, once again, to discuss these questions is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Secretary to the Treasury for Ecomonic Policy, who explains the EU’s beginnings as a project of the CIA, and assesses its current role as as an anti-democratic tool of corporate control. Whether or not a majority „leave” vote will actually lead to Brexit, Dr. Roberts argues that a decisive rejection of EU membership by UK citizens could embolden other EU member states to follow suit, thus precipitating the break-up of NATO, and in turn, bringing an end to Washington’s crazy designs for a New World Order.

 The CIA created the EU

PCR:  Washington is committed to the EU project because it’s in its own interests. Cameron’s job is to scare people to remain.

Basically, the EU is a creation of the CIA, discovered some years ago by an American professor who came upon archived public documents that had been declassified. It was reported on by the Telegraph in 2000 by Ambrose Pritchard-Evans. The documents show that the CIA did this – organised and lobbied for the creation of the EU first to be a bloc against the Soviets, and second to enable Washington’s control. Controlling all the separate European governments – there are now 28 of them – is too difficult. It’s easier to deal with one bloc.

Washington set the EU up to have a firm hold on its empire. It goes back to the ‘50s – the EU was a creation of the CIA to enhance its empire. If one government holds out when making a deal over something, nothing can happen as a group. But Washington only has to deal with one entity if the countries are all dissolved. That’s why it has pushed strongly to put Eastern Europe in the EU and NATO, too.

JC:  Patrick Wood in his book Technocracy Rising talks about the work of the Trilaterial Commission. In this book he quotes a private conversation with David Rockefeller who said, ‘Back in the early 70s, the hope for a united Europe was already full blown thanks in many ways to the individual energies previously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliest members’.

PCR:  The EU is an American creation orchestrated through European individuals under certain pretexts which gave them cover. It was all done in stages but it’s all the work of the CIA essentially. And we have to remember that it’s what the CIA documents have said themselves, not the people bringing them to light.

JC:  A CIA memo of June 11, 1965 to the vice-president president of the EEC, Robert Marjolin, said to pursue monetary union by stealth and to suppress all debate until the adoption of all such proposals would become virtually inescapable.

PCR:  These CIA documents are publicly available and can be checked through the National Archives.

JC:  The American Committee for a United Europe created in 1948 was full of intelligence people – it was headed by William J. Donovan who had been head of the forerunner of the CIA, the Vice-Chairman was Allen Dulles and the board included the CIA’s first director and a roster of other CIA members.

PCR:  It succeeded because America is firmly in control of Europe – its foreign policy, its economic policy, whatever the various elected presidents say or don’t say, or any forced retractions. Cameron has been told by Obama to deep-six the British exit from the EU. Cameron is a puppet of Washington like all British PMs. You can’t put British interests ahead of American ones – it’s not allowed.

UK government propaganda on Washington’s behalf

So the leaders go to the people and tell them that the UK will lose its influence if it leaves the EU – they’ll become Little England.

JC:  The UK government has spent 9 million pounds on a glossy leaflet to persuade people to vote for staying in. It claims the UK has special status in the EU, that we can control our borders and keep the pound, that there will be tough new restrictions on access to welfare, and there’s a commitment to reduce EU red tape. Do you believe that ?

PCR:  No. When the issue of the EU comes up, the UK government always says we’re negotiating special conditions in order to stay in. They mix reassurance of a special deal with fear, that we’ll be ruined if we leave.

British currency

In a certain respect, the UK isn’t in the EU because it’s still got its own currency, the pound, unlike countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy. So that means you have your own central bank, that you can simply print pounds to get out of financial trouble and you don’t need to rely on private banks. But countries that rely on the Euro can’t do this because they can’t print euros. They don’t have their own money-creating central bank. Only the ECB can print euros and it’s controlled by Germany more or less, but not by other member countries. And this is run by former Goldman Sachs’ executives, the same people who run the Federal Reserve and US Treasury. They also run the ECB!

JC:  So is the UK ok then? Could we stay in and not need the Brexit? And they tell us there won’t be more political integration with Europe.

PCR:  No. You’re ok for NOW if you get into financial trouble. They can’t walk in and decimate public services, the NHS, cut pensions and sell off public assets to private investors abroad. But of course you can’t really be in the EU and not be in it. So over time you gradually become more and more in it.

British justice is unique

Already, the legal system is being compromised. British justice is different to European justice – evidence is different, the rights of the accused are different. The historical achievements that the British people fought for for centuries are being lost. The achievements come from the Magna Carta and even earlier from Alfred the Great’s codification of the common law. The English approach to justice is unique and was copied by the US. It’s not present on the continent – people don’t have the same rights. So we’re already losing historical aspects of British legal accomplishments by staying in. And that process of loss will continue.

Britain is more in the EU now than it was say 5 years ago. I suspect that Washington will urge the process along much quicker. Staying in the EU makes no sense for the UK because it destroys national sovereignty.

JC:  But they say it’s better for trade.

PCR:  But that’s a lie. You don’t need to have political integration to have open markets.

JC:  Leon Brittan said we would be penalized with tariffs if we didn’t join with the EU.

PCR:  He’s lying through his teeth! You don’t need political union to do free trade! A trade block is not a political union. This was part of the deceit practiced on the people. Originally the EU was said to be a trading zone. Then the CIA sprang upon everybody that it would be a political union.

Creation of the EU based on deceit

First, the EU was about a steel and coal union with tariff reductions, then it was about free trade, then it was about a common currency – the need for this was manufactured, and then it became about a political union. It was sprung on Europeans in stages. And there were many spokesmen for this. And these are European politicians who live well on their CIA pensions. It’s all deceit. The EU is based in deceit and British people are being told more of the deceit. The British people will disappear as a people when they are absorbed in the EU.

EU, US are not democratic

The EU is not democratic. You can elect people to the Parliament, but it’s the Commission that has power and it’s not elected. So it’s like a form of monarchy. It’s a reversal of European history: not only do the individual nationalities disappear but the achievement of making government accountable to the people has gone along with that.   The EU has recreated rule by a single ruler or by aristocrats who aren’t accountable. It’s set up as a dictatorship and will get more so.

The US doesn’t have an EU Commission but if we look at the current balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in the US government, the legislative branch has lost all its power. The government is run by the executive branch. For example, the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, but both the executive branch and Congress ignore that. They also say that all tax matters originate from a committee in the House of Representatives, but that is compromised.

Every function of the legislature has been compromised. The executive branch has gained more and more power such that it’s even become independent of the judiciary. Bush violated the constitutional right of habaeus corpus when he declared he would detain American citizens indefinitely without due process. The judiciary didn’t enforce this right of h.c. but should have. And Obama just continued that. He even added to it by killing Americans based on suspicion alone without due process, and the courts did nothing about that. The executive branch we know also practiced torture but it’s illegal under US federal law as well as international law. It’s also illegal under US federal law to spy on people without warrants – and it goes against the Constitution – but nothing has been done.

In the US, the separation of powers has been ignored and the judiciary does nothing to enforce the powers of Congress against the power of the executive. So the US is moving toward dictatorship and that’s WITHOUT the dictatorial structure the EU has, so the British should save the whole world by exiting the EU. Everybody will exit after that and the EU will no longer exist. It’s a pain for the domestic politicians being in the EU – they would like to get out and Britain would give them the case to do that.

And that’s why Obama came over and told everybody it was in everybody’s interests to stay in Europe, that Britain has a ‘special relationship’ with the UK. But Washington doesn’t care about Europe. Europe is vassal territory – it’s part of the empire.

If the EU is threatened, so is NATO

Leaving Europe also means nations will leave NATO. And then Washington can’t carry on its wars and can’t risk a nuclear war with Russia. It can’t use the idiot Europeans to threaten Russia anymore. So Washington’s drive for world hegemony falls apart.

Europeans have even LESS interest being in NATO than in the EU. European nations don’t want confrontation with Russia that they’ve so far been forced into by Washington. They’ve already been forced to bust up their diplomatic and economic relationship with Russia. Now they’re being forced into a conflict situation with Russia. If war happens, Europe will disappear permanently. It’s in nobody’s interests to have problems with Russia.

And why did this come about? Because Washington overthrew the elected government in Ukraine believing nothing would happen as a consequence. But Russia reacted and wanted the Russian population to remain Russian. So NATO reacted with sanctions and forced EU countries to do the same with sanctions. Now it’s come down to warmongering and inventing stories about Russia’s threat of war and moving missile systems to the Russian border.

Russians saw all this [the German Luftwaffe attacked Russia] with Germany in 1941. They won’t accept this and have said as much. We need to start listening to what the Russians are saying. You can’t go around picking a fight with the world’s most powerful military – which is Russia’s, not the United States’.

The Rand Corporation (Rand is essentially a CIA outpost) did a study analyzing war games [external PDF], and said that a war between Russia and the US/Europe would take merely 60 HOURS to be over, not 60 days. Russia has a much more sophisticated army and would overrun Europe very quickly. The US is so outclassed militarily.

Some would say that Rand claimed this in order to get more military funding, but there are too many independent military analysts out there who can verify this. And nobody has criticized the Rand studies.

The EU enables American war crimes

What the US is doing with NATO is forcing Europe into a conflict situation with Russia. But the US also uses NATO to cover up for its war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Without NATO cover, it would be called naked aggression and the US would be put on trial for war crimes. But the cover of NATO makes it look like their activities are an exercise in democracy because other countries are deemed to support it all.

So Europe enables Washington’s war strategies and geopolitical military moves, which are creating vast numbers of refugees coming into Europe. That’s how stupid the Europeans are and the British.

JC:  So the consequences of the Brexit vote go far beyond UK national borders although we’re always told to think about this in terms of the British perspective only. The EU and NATO would unravel, and many of these problems would be overcome.

PCR:  The US is threatening the entire world by picking a nuclear fight with Russia and China (conventional war is impossible against these countries, especially as they have a strategic military alliance). We’re pushing the whole world in this direction. And Europe is enabling this! If European countries had independent foreign policies, they would refuse this involvement in American world hegemony and foster good relations with Russia. Real leaders in Europe would say this, but they are all bought and paid for.
JC:  So a Brexit vote is a vote against Washington’s attempt at a New World Order.

PCR:  Yes. An absence of a Brexit vote loses everyone an opportunity to stop Washington’s aggression, and the chance of nuclear war is greatly increased.

Democracy is dead in the West

JC:  But a situation with Ireland could play itself out again where Ireland had TWO opportunities to vote over the Maastricht Treaty [Nice and Lisbon Treaties *] and their initial rejection of these treaties was not recognized. The Brexit vote might not have any effect.

[* Note: A listener has kindly pointed out that JC misspoke at this point. Ireland initially rejected the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, not the Maastricht Treaty.]

PCR:  Or the government could simply not accept the vote. We already see this happening. Not long ago, one of your top generals said that if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime Minister, they’re not going to let him take office.

Democracy in the West is gone, it’s dead. Look at Greece. There is no respect for democracy. Look at France. They’re supposed to be left-wing socialist governments. Governments are doing the opposite of what people want despite people’s protests in the street.

Our view of the EU is false

JC:  So often we are given the view of the EU that it’s gently left-leaning and socially democratic. A documentary I saw The Brussels Business : Who Runs the European Union? gives evidence that the institutions of the EU are massively influenced by thousands of corporate lobbyists based in Brussels. So it gives the lie to the idea that it’s left-leaning.

PCR:  There’s nothing left about it. There is no left-wing in the west – it’s gone. Tony Blair passed for a Labour government. Really?? He is more right-wing than Ronald Reagan. Look at the so-called socialists in France – Francois Hollande. And Sarkozy. These people are essentially facists. There is no respect anywhere in Europe for democracy. The whole ideology is to accept rule from above.

The US is completely ruled by private oligarchy interests. We have Wall St, the military-security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness – Monsanto, extracted industries – energy, mining, timber. These are the people who make the laws, make the regulations, who staff up the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency – they rule. So Europe is no surprise.

JC:  And in this documentary, I hadn’t heard of the European Round Table of Industrialists. It’s made up of corporate CEOs which have privileged secret access to the very European Commission we were talking about earlier. It’s just stacked with names people would recognize – BASF, Heineken, Total, Erikssons, Fiat, Phillips, Rio Tinto, Nokia, Royal Dutch Shell, Siemens, Volvo, etc. – they have secret access to the European Commission, which puts forward the legislation to be voted on.

‘Yes’ to Brexit would finish the TTIP

PCR:  So the companies put forward the legislation just like in the US. The politicians are a front – they provide a cover. The private interests run it. Notice the treatment and acceptance that Monsanto, GMOs and glyphosate get from the EU, but not from the member countries like France. The minister responsible in France said that glyphosate will continue to be banned in France despite the EU giving more time for trials of this stuff – so there is a conflict between France and EU law. These kinds of conflicts will only get worse.

But because the CIA is running the show, ultimately the individual governments will lose.

JC:  So is the CIA is behind the push for things like TTIP? If TTIP goes through, people won’t know that these things are in their food supplies because there will be no labelling.

PCR:  If the TTIP partnership goes through, Monsanto will be able to sue France for loss of revenues it would have earned because of French national laws. And the suit would take place in a private corporate tribunal, not public courts, where only the corporations make the decisions. And so all of these laws can be overturned by the corporations. And so can any kind of health or safety regulation because it prevents profits from being made. I think it can even be used to get rid of taxation.

In the UK, private American health corporations will be able to come in and do away with the National Health Service (NHS) because it interferes with their profits.

JC:  So a vote for Brexit is the end of the TTIP, too, because the end of the EU means there is no bloc to negotiate with.

We need to remove the threat of WWIII

PCR:  That’s right. The British people could do the whole world and themselves a massive favor – it would block the corporate takeover of Europe, it would block the American use of Europe to create hostility with Russia and would greatly remove the threat of war. But what we seen now in Russia and the US is a massive increase in nuclear forces.

Everything Reagan and Gorbachev accomplished has been overturned by Washington. Their two big goals were that they ended the risk of nuclear armageddon and the end of the Cold War – they believed that nuclear weapons should be gone. It’s now a far worse situation. It’s worse in every respect. The war doctrines of the countries used to be retaliatory force only, that nuclear weapons can be used to retaliate only. Now both sides have nuclear first-strike doctrines. So the situation is far worse than at the height of the Cold War.

During the Cold War, American administrations used to make every kind of effort to be on good terms with Russia. But now our government and presidential candidates are demonizing Russia and telling lies at every opportunity against Russia and about Russian ‘invasions’. Reagan wanted to end the state of risk that existed. But now the risks are all back. Washington will simply be encouraged if the Brexit vote fails.

JC:  But none of this is made clear to the British people. It’s always presented in terms of what’s good for the country and whether or not it’s good for the pound, jobs and trade with EU markets, etc. None of this is spelled out to us at all. We’re sheltered from the reality.

The press and government are complicit in the propaganda

The propaganda we’re bombarded with is having an effect. In 2013, polls showed that more people were wanting to leave, but then there were more stay votes in 2015.   Now the situation is worryingly close, and I think people will lose their nerve at the last minute. We’re told it’s all uncertain if we pull out of the EU. That fear of the unknown is being played on. People like the feeling of things being familiar and certain.

PCR:  So the consequence is that the British and their justice system will disappear, and the conflicts with Russia will intensify. And neither Europe nor the US will exist in any form if war happens.

Everything is being done to warp our judgement, to make us mistrust what’s going on by the press and by the government. It’s a mystery to me why anybody trusts anything the press says. It’s nothing but propaganda and lies.

Look, a couple of years ago, we had a big German editor (JC: Dr. Udo Ulfkotte) who said that he and the other press outlets were told what to publish and were essentially CIA agents. It’s true for all major news sources throughout Europe. It’s true in England – there is no independent press.

JC:  But people don’t know this, and still trust familiar-sounding institutions that they believe can be relied on. So the economic case for staying in is supported by the Bank of England and IMF. So we trust these famous names to tell us what to do. But Tory MP Daniel Hannan says we’ve shackled ourselves to a corpse. We should follow Norway and Switzerland who have association agreements, which make them independent and still have freedom to trade with the EU. Why are we shackled in this old-fashioned 1970s way of thinking when the UK was the sick man of Europe? We should be able to trade with whom we like in this globalist age. But the big institutions tell us what to think. People haven’t learned to distrust these big institutions and think for themselves.

The British pound is a strength and weakness

 PCR:  Washington will say no to a Brexit vote most probably. It won’t permit an exit. Or if the UK does leave, then there will likely be a massive attack on the British pound. On order by Goldman Sachs, all the central banks along with the Federal Reserve will gang up on Britain – they’re all puppets (the central banks) – to drive the pound down to nothing, and turn around and point to the departure from the EU as the cause. And then they’ll make a case for going back in to the EU because no-one has confidence in the pound.

 JC:  So you mean an economic false flag that they won’t admit to. Are you saying there’s no point in voting in the Brexit? It would flag up the issues, surely, that there is a dissatisfaction with the EU.

The powerful knock-on effect of Brexit

 PCR:  Such a vote would encourage other countries without their own currency – they don’t face an attack on their currency in order to be brought in line because they don’t have their own currency to be attacked.

So take the Greeks. If they saw such a situation, a Brexit could embolden them to get out because they couldn’t experience such an attack. And there is no sense in attacking the euro. This applies to the Portuguese, Italians and Spanish. Even the French. In that sense, it would be good as a way of starting people to vote to leave.

And these countries actually have every reason to leave.

JC:  So that sounds like the poorer countries would be the ones leaving. Would it be a redefinition of the EU, leaving the richer countries in?

 PCR:  That would mean that Germany would have to turn to France to make them pay instead of Greece and loot France instead. Look, Greece is being looted – they’re being forced to turn over their public assets to private foreign investors. That’s why the German and Dutch banks don’t want any debt relief because they’re using the debt as a reason to loot Greece, as they did with Ireland, Latvia and Portugal. It’s what the US did in many countries in Latin America.

They use debt to loot countries and it’s really severe in Greece. So Greece has no reason to stay in and they feel intimidated. But they might take heart from the example of the British.

So Britain can’t be looted because of their own currency, but it makes their own currency vulnerable to attack and destruction. So a strength becomes a weakness. But it’s a strength for the weak countries to simply get out because they don’t have their own currency. It’s easy for them to get out.

 JC:  Going back to Daniel Hannan’s comment, that the EU is stagnant. Was it always the intention of Washington to make Europe weak in economic terms so that it wouldn’t be an effective competitor against the US? Europe could be economically stronger under different circumstances where they could trade freely.

PCR:  I don’t know about that – it’s speculative, I have no way of knowing. But I do know Washington always wanted Europe for control reasons against the Soviets initially. So for that reason, they would have wanted Europe to be economically strong against Russia.

That’s why Washington invented Operation Gladio whereby the CIA and other groups went around Europe bombing places such as train stations and blaming other groups such as Baader-Meinhof, etc.

JC:  Yet the CIA was also funding mild left groups. It’s a very weird situation indeed.

PCR:  So they would have wanted a strong Europe at that time. When Russia collapsed, that’s when the goal or demon of American hegemony came to the fore. Russia was the only obstacle to world domination. So if NATO were broken up, the threat to human life would be taken away.   Now we see reckless, irresponsible attacks on Russia. If they WERE being aggressive, we would know it because those countries wouldn’t be there anymore!

Why would Russia invade the Baltics? Russia gave them their independence. There’s simply no sign of Russian aggression there or planning or buildup, but the press makes it all an indisputable fact.

PCR:  They always pull out this argument of having a ‘place at the table’ argument in favour of Britain remaining in Europe. It’s been going on for decades from the British side. The logic is, if we’re at somebody else’s table, we COUNT. What has happened to this great nation?

Britain’s greatest achievement being threatened

Liberty is a human achievement mainly achieved by the British over many centuries to get accountable government, and people protected by the rule of law. Law was taken out of the hands of government as a WEAPON and turned into a SHIELD to protect the people. The creation of liberty by turning law into a shield and not a weapon – that was the great British achievement. Now it’s all being thrown away.

JC:  So now the British people have an opportunity NOW to do the ‘right thing’ as Cameron would call it. A Brexit vote, even symbolic, could embolden people in other countries. So we do have a serious opportunity here, to vote for a much wider view and really change things.

PCR:  It’s a vote for humanity, for life on earth. What’s at stake is life on earth. It can change everybody’s mentality and convince others to disbelieve the propaganda mechanism of our governments. It says that people can see through the lies and propaganda – that’s the message, the important thing. It would influence people in other countries across the world as well as US and the EU. The propaganda basis of all western governments would disappear. It’s the only way people can get control back over their lives. Right now they have zilch, especially in the United States.

Sursa: http://themindrenewed.com/transcripts/894-int-109t