The man 27 EU leaders nominated as their Leader - Herman Von Rompuy

The same man whom the 17 Euro Group Leaders are now being urged to accept to lead them against the other 10 of the EU 27!



Only nations acting as independent sovereign states can best survive the near- terminal, globalised, Western economic crisis, itself the product of the smashing of our democracies, an act essential to have made globalisation first possible!

"Too big to succeed" - a superior summary of our present plight!

The EU has clearly become too big to succeed. Many of our banks became to big to manage or properly regulate and consequently failed so spectacularly that they are now threatening the survival of once sovereign states.

Progressivism has become a code word for marxism. The civil society is a tool for the eradication of individual responsibility and even freedom of thought.

An ancestor of mine, in an introduction to a book on Borneo, wrote in 1910 as follows:

"One night I was at anchor with a Dyak crew on the Saribas River, waiting for the turn of the tide. About 3 a.m. I was awakened by a frightened cry from one of the crew : " Antu ! antu !" (A spirit, a spirit!). Thinking myself lucky at last in a chance of actually seeing one of those invisible beings whom Dyaks dread so much, I pushed my head from under the mosquito-curtain, and looked out, and beheld a comet brightly shining not far above the horizon. Presently I heard a school-lad say : " That's not a spirit ; it's only a star with a tail. I have learnt about it." There was the old superstition and the new knowledge struggling together, a symbol of what is going on in other departments of Dyak thought and belief — the working of that which, it is to be hoped, will issue in a higher and an improved life for the race. Our Author's book will evoke a lively interest in such an improvement in Dyakland, and will inspire a deeper sympathy with every progressive effort towards it."

In this example we can see the original use of the term 'progressive' intending the bringing of education and enlightenment on a continuing basis. Such is not the meaning intended when coming from the mouths of corporatists such as Cameron, Clegg or Miliband, nor indeed by any of the various corrupted automatoms serving the EU!

'Too big to fail' is a patent nonsense as is daily being demonstrated in the EU. If the unregulated banks truly became too big to fail, then so too are the nations which must rescue them, yet Ireland today neatly proves this to be as completely absurd as it always was.

Progressives, such as former Prime Ministers  Blair and Brown, wishing to install a self-perpetuating Platonic elite for the benefits of their cosy clique and later heirs, deliberately destroyed our democracy, parliamentary sovereignty and now the nation's very currency in pursuit of feeding their own personal greed and lust for power. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are intent on continuing this project.

Today's Progressives aim to destroy individual responsibility. An individual human, made afraid to trust his own judgement and stand on his own two feet to make his way in the world, may turn to socialism or worse and thus become dependent on evil elites solely serving their own ends. On a national basis the same disastrous errors are possible, making entire nations dependent on supra-national arrangements such as the EU, solely for the benefit of the power-crazed elites who control them. Naturally democracy has to be an early victim for such schemes to succeed.

It is our minds, however, that they must eventually neuter. The mainstream media of the West, particularly in Britain, gives daily evidence of how close they are now coming to achieving that end. Andrew Neil's Channel 4 TV programme last evening, where he was to be seen totally at sea in trying to grasp why a once decent education system had been totally destroyed in the UK gave proof of the Progressives progress towards that end!

Bond scalping begins. Is the EU nightmare soon to end?

Germany’s top banker Josef Ackermann has been asked to orchestrate a private sector contribution to the Greek bailout. So opens an article in this morning's The Times newspaper, read more here, appropriately enough perhaps on this May Day morning, reporting the beginning of the end of the corporatist/statist experiment that brought us the the disastrous "global civil society" experiment that is today's corrupt and non-democratic European Union. (My posting of 28th November 2003 on Ironies, covering the collapse of the Stability Pact, titled The EU's Problems from Greece to the Golden Gate, here, makes interesting reading, especially the link to khatimarini. "You have destroyed the country" effectively accused Jeremy Paxman to Prime Minister Gordon Brown on BBC One prime time TV last evening, although it will no doubt be many years before that fact sinks into to the clearly deadened brain of this despicable man and his slimy co-conspirator, Tony Blair. (Read Blair's Presidential Ambitions from Ironies Archives 15th December 2003. (UK readers may view the TV broadcast from this link). Even the Guardian newspaper has now abandoned the Labour Party, recommending its readers to vote LibDem in its editorial this morning. The Telegraph Group with the Murdoch stable will of course back Cameron's Corporatist Conservatives (New Labour by another name) yet the leading financial journalist of the Barclay Brothers organs and the Daily Telegraph's Business Editor, this morning suggest, backed by columnist Simon Heffer, presumably bearing in mind the obvious ineptitude, experience and charisma short Shadow Chancellor Osborne, that should their paper's certain editorial advice be followed and succeed the first act of Vapid Cameron as PM should be to call in the IMF. My posting of 5th February 2004is republished in full below as it is missing from the blog archives of Ironies Enemies of Democracy in the EU and Beyond It is now a year since I wrote ‘The Risk of Pan-European Totalitarianism’ for posting on the ‘Europa Discussion Forum’ run by the European Union. Publication was refused, but I subsequently managed to get the item posted on the blog of Samizdata.net, which is linked here, and on the Discussion Forums run by the ‘Financial Times.’ I consequently started my own blogspot, Ironies, where this warning on the dangers of the EU Constitution which ignored the democratic ideals of Karl Popper, was one of the earliest posts. It now seems time to revisit the topic, as substantial evidence has accumulated within the past twelve months, that far from being a co-incidental or inadvertent event, the destruction of European democracy now underway could be the real objective of those driving the EU project forward. Why and for what motivations can such a scheme have been undertaken? Democracy can be variously defined and interpreted, a fact of which its enemies make much use. I refer throughout this piece to “Democracy” in a Popperian sense as described here:- Popper asserts “ …a theory of democratic control can be developed that is free from the paradox of sovereignty. The theory I have in mind is one which does not proceed, as it were, from a doctrine of the intrinsic good or righteousness of a majority rule, but rather from the baseness of tyranny: or more precisely it rests upon the decision, or adoption of the proposal, to avoid and resist tyranny”. Continuing with this theme, Popper argues that there are two forms of government: those that can be got rid of without bloodshed (such as in general elections) and those that require a successful revolution to replace, or not at all. He labels the first sort ‘democracies’ and the second ‘tyrannies’. Clearly, the concluding document of the Convention, chaired by the disgraced ex-French President Vallery Giscard d’Estaing, would have imposed (and still very well may) a Popperian tyranny on the twenty-five once democratic, once nation states, who will soon make-up the enlarged European Union. The EU project has been largely driven forward by deception and lies, most notably in Britain have the true objectives been concealed, but in no country has the true scale of the project been openly disclosed to the citizens. Fifty years on, with the constitution framed and the convention which prepared it openly having refused to give either consideration or even discussion to the question of democratic structures, the truth is revealed. Some open attempts are being made to justify the nature of the project. The proponents of Trans-national Progressivism at least struggle to openly elaborate their aims, as we have discussed previously as can be re-read from this link to our post of 7th November 'Multilateralism, Transnational Progressivism, the Aqui Communitaire and Howard's Tories': here. On Christmas Eve we posted regarding the secretive nature of some of the organisations that seem strongly in favour of the kind of outcomes now envisioned, which can also be read from this link "The Eradication of the Nation State in the Cause of Peace" I have just finished reading one of the most open attempts at justifying what is now taking place, being a book titled, ‘Global Civil Society’ written by John Keane, Professor of Politics at the University of Westminster, and founder of the Centre for the Study of Democracy! Published by the Cambridge University Press, Cambrideg in 2003 ISBN 0-521-89462- X. Extraordinary reading it makes too! Much concerned with the effects of globalisation, Professor Keane advances some ideas on what he calls ’Cosmocracy’ in which he envisages the citizens of the world being ruled by something he defines as ’meso-governments’, which would ‘include territorially defined states and actual or proto-regional institutions, like the European Union, CARICOM and the ASEAN pact.’ (page 101). There seems no place for Popperian concepts of ‘democracy’ in the ‘Platonic’ future foreseen by Professor Keane. On page 126 he addresses this future with this startling certainty: ‘Whatever comes to pass, it is safe to say that the global polity of the future will defy the simplifications and confusions of prevailing theories of globalisation that think in old fashioned terms of (potentially) ‘sovereign’ territorial states, or of 'muti-level governance’ or ‘cosmopolitan democracy’. We will instead be left to the non-accountable elites emerging from the centres of indoctrination that even Professor Keane recognises institutes of higher education are now being allowed to become. These in turn staffing the mushrooming non-governmental or meso-governmental organisations that the Professor owns are mostly notable for their inefficiencies. The examples of a Global Civil Society at work that he cites would by most impartial observers be hardly considered as striking successes. On page 121 the enemy of Professors Keane’s utopian dream is clearly identified as multilateralists’ well-known bogeyman, the USA: ‘If…the American empire consistently behaves as if it is morally entitled to run the whole world, and to act on its behalf, then almost certainly that roguery would have the effect of stirring up geopolitical troubles. That roguery would in turn work against global civil society, perhaps even wrecking the chances of its survival’. If the enemy is unsurprisingly so defined as America, mainly by virtue of its undeniable power, while no evidence of what the author describes as roguery is, of course provided, a broad description of who the members of this ‘Global Civil Society’ is detailed. They are we are told ordinary people like you and me, going about their daily business such as dropping off the kids at school! But on page 205 the reality is revealed Global Civil Society is a militant ethic. It is unrelenting in its quest to secure freedom and equality and solidarity through non-governmental links that spread to all four corners of the planet. Peacefully? Earlier in that same paragraph we are informed 'Global Civil Society has no 'natural' tendency towards harmony....In the face of a challenge, it is not squeamish' On page 144 however, the enemies of all that is good in this supposed utopian dream world are stereotyped as free/market ideologues, racists and nationalists peddling a Kafkaesque idea ‘that it is safer to be in chains’ . The underlying anti-freemarket if not Marxist philosophy of the book’s author is clearly revealed in this passage quoted from page (139): ‘Global Civil Society enables individuals, groups and organisastions to organise and deploy their powers across borders, despite remaining barriers of time and distance. This society provides non-governmental structures and rules which enable individuals and groups to move and to decide things, to follow their inclinations, to bring governmental power holders to heel, to engage in many kinds of mutually beneficial exchanges, even to work for the socialisation of market economies so that production for social need, rather than for profit prevails’ . (my emphasis). Note here the lack of any consideration of democratic consultation and the complete absence of the concept of accountability. The totalitarian Marxist ideal WILL, it seems prevail!

Did Brown deliberately bankrupt Britain?

Yesterday's speech in Boston came over to me as a strong mea culpa to the accusation in this posting's headline. This blog has been chronicling the destruction of Britain's economy on an almost daily basis for some five years or so, as two posts quoted during the past week have made clear. We can also through the blog archives, trace the development of such a plan through the early terminology of the conspiracists to the arrival at yesterday's heavily coded and loaded references to a 'progressive' governance and the 'global civil society' The Laeken Declaration which set up the Convention on an EU Constitution for greater openness, then strayed far from its brief which was to democratise the European Community. The best analysis of this in my mind remains Anthony Coughlan's from Dublin, posted in full on Ironies in October 2004, linked here and here. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, having opted for elitist rule along strictly Platonic lines, had to disguise his intent and he first settled on the term "pluralism" which I also referenced here. I summed up the basic anti-democratic nature of the chosen EU path in a post in April 2004, linked here, which warned of the abandonment of democratic values by the influential Economist magazine, a conversion now completed! The constitutional document is fatally flawed, it reverses the whole concept of law and understandings between the ruled and their governors in this nation as established over centuries. Principally that what is not forbidden or declared as illegal is by definition permissable and allowed! No amount of redrafting of the present document can ever alter that fact! The constitutional document is supremely anti-democratic and sets in concrete a profound Tyranny almost exactly meeting the text book defintion described by Karl Popper in his book 'The Open Society and its Enemies' (Published by Routledge, London and New York ISBN 0-415-23731-9). Except for one 'motherhood' sentence at its opening there is no recognition of democracy anywhere within the proposed constitution. No amount of redrafting of the present document can ever alter that fact either! Some years back 'The Economist' published its own proposed constitution for the European Union, I did not agree with it all, but it might have formed a potential starting point for debate. I will try and retrieve my old copy and return to it later. Meantime beware! 'The Economist', is a hugely influential leader of opinion in the English speaking world. The fact that it is now adopting an openly anti-democratic line, rather than its long-term tendency towards Platonist elitism, is more than worrying - it's really rather scary! How the very nature of democracy has come to be blurred by such carefully crafted newspeak has been demonstrated by EU Commission President Barroso in Dublin this week when he stated: "When I was growing up in Portugal under dictatorship, what is now the European Union represented many of the things that the young aspire to: peace, freedom, economic and social progress, and the idea that working together across borders is possible." The EU delivered none of the first four items mentioned with the possible exception of "social progress" but the howling deception is " the idea that working together across borders" somehow negates dictatorship. Such was never a prerequisite for democracy, indeed it has nothing whatever to do with democracy, which requires the electorate to have the periodic right to bloodlessly remove their rulers at its heart! In destroying that basic concept, EU funding has been the tool for subversion. Thanks to years of devoted research by Brian Gerrish the facts about Common Purpose are now widely available on the internet and in a sign of that organisation's own triumphalism under Brown is that now it is even possible to access the list of that organisation's donors, linked here. I first addressed the implications for democracy of the Global Civil Society on 5th February,2004, linked here and returned to the topic in August 2004, this quote from my February post is key: Global Civil Society is a militant ethic. It is unrelenting in its quest to secure freedom and equality and solidarity through non-governmental links that spread to all four corners of the planet. So it is all there in the archives of my blogs. Brown knew what he was about, he imposed the removal of House Prices from the inflation indices on appointing Mervyn King, as the new Bank of England Governor, who not having the power of incumbency, could only mildly protest to the press at this "moving of the goal posts" (but with what intent?). Brown clearly knew the consequences as he apparently did not attempt to profit from the ensuing mad price escalation of property prices, unlike his more naive supposed boss next door. Global Civil Society requires the destruction of the nation state and parliamentary democracy, as detailed by Professor Keane in his book. Brown as PM, stating this as his aim in Boston yesterday, appears to accept that destruction of the economy might also have been a necessity to speed the process, we cannot judge his motives merely his actions. Certainly an amendment of the treason legislation must have been a necessary precondition or at least a sensible precaution in the event of failure, which today unhappily appears unlikely. Readers must make their own minds up, if they decide that Brown's actions have indeed been questionable they must then decide how to proceed! I suggest watching this video clip of the celebrations of the EU's leaders in triumphing their agreement on the unread and unreadable EU Reform Treaty, signed later in Lisbon, which if ratified will end the supremacy of 27 national parliaments and finish Popperian democracy across the EU. The objectives of fascists and tyrants down the centuries achieved at a stroke.

Celebrating the death of Democracy and the end of parliamentary supremacy.

Only the Irish, it seems, can save us now unless Brown is replaced!