Tag Archive | Europe

Suspected Targeted Drone Attack Hits Family of Grand Mufti*

Suspected Targeted Drone Attack Hits Family of Grand Mufti*

By Gordon Duff

Why would anyone want to kill the family of the most beloved religious figure in Syria, a “multi-faith” Muslim, as we head into the Geneva Syrian peace talks?

[Editor’s Note: The Mufti was the real deal, and no he didn’t fool us. People at his level are not difficult to learn about when they are public and accessible…sort of, in his case. Because he was a “multi-faith” Muslim, he was hated by the Wahhabis and placed under a death sentence, so he had heavy security, the kind you need when you are a truck-bomb target.

He has huge support in Syria for his passionate advocacy for saving the Syrian people from the terror war inflicted on it by the West, Israel, the Gulf States, and even Turkey.

They are all in the game to get a piece a Balkanized Syria, or what was left of it. Turkey got a head start, by stripping Aleppo clean of all its industry and trucked over the border for sale at special prices, I am sure, to the Erdogan party faithful.

We have just bare bones news on the attack today, and will be updating as we learn more. Russia could be on the spot here, if it was a drone killing, and if they do not release the details of their radar and satellite tracking. Nothing flies over Syria that both Moscow and NATO don’t see and know where it took off from and returned. 

Being tired from doing this work is normal, because it is endless. If this were a retribution killing — a response to the progress of the Astana talks and with the Geneva ones around the corner, an attempt to poison the peace effort by killing the Mufti’s family — then that would be very disappointing.

Our condolences go out to the Mufti, but we cannot say to his immediate family also, because he doesn’t have one anymore. But Syria has always been his family. When the Takfiris started targeting the Christian churches, to show solidarity with them and to refute the fomenting of a religious war, he sent his imams out to hold prayer vigils in Christian churches.

This of course put them all on death lists, too. The Mufti is the kind of man who can ask people to do this, and they will. This conflicts 180-degrees with the propaganda image the Israelis have tried to tar him with. Many Syrians have lost families in this proxy war against Syria. The Mufti now shares their pain more than he ever expected to.

We will continue to work, as always, to find and spotlight those responsible, in the hope that some justice might be broughtJim W. Dean ]

Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Bader Hassoun, said Turkish warplanes killed 18 members of his family in, wives, children and the even his father.

Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch accused Ahmad Bader Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria and primary defending of Christian communities throughout the Middle East of personally ordering the hanging of 30,000 prisoners being held at a single prison outside Damascus.

[Note: I chose the video below for its quality, a PressTV shoot, and he covers a lot of ground on the issues that Western media stays away from. The Mufti was such a skilled ambassador for the Syrian people, all of them, that the terror sponsors line up against Syria refused him visas other than this trip to Ireland.]

Now it is revealed that the Human Rights Watch accusations were based on fake reports, and when this ploy failed, another one materialized, this one requiring White House approval for a targeted assassination attack on the family of a religious leader, a new all-time low, even for the United States.

Two weeks later, in what is a suspected U.S. drone attack, held during Turkish raids in the region, the family compound of the Hassoun clan was obliterated, with 18 dead, in what has to be characterized as a targeted terror attack on Syria’s most beloved cleric and a known enemy of Israel and Turkey for his criticism of their persecution of Christians.


Related Topics:

U.S. Admits Using Radioactive Weapons in Syria that Left Thousands of Iraqi Babies Deformed*

Aid Shipments Arrives in Lattakia from Armenia and Syrian Communities in Italy*

“E.U. has been supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning”*

Syrian Education Ministry Launches the Psychological and Social Support Guide*

USD 8 million is the Value of Syrian Fruit and Vegetable Exports to Belarus in Past 3 months*

Amnesty Int’l Admits Syria’s ‘torture prison’ Report Fabricated Entirely in U.K.*

Cloned Cattle Entering the E.U.*

Cloned Cattle Entering the E.U.*

CETA is putting transparency and consumer choice at risk

Research conducted by Testbiotech has shown that cows and their offspring stemming from cloned bulls are registered in a professional breeders database in the U.K. It is likely that a considerable number of animals stemming from clones have already entered the E.U. At present, the E.U. has no labelling or registration requirements for these kinds of imports, which makes it almost impossible to identify breeding material stemming from cloned bulls. The research was commissioned by the Greens/EFA Group in the E.U. Parliament.

The Testbiotech report shows that every year around 30 to 40 tons of bull sperm enter the E.U. from the US for the purpose of cattle breeding. Further imports originate from Canada. These imports might include breeding material from cloned bulls, particularly as the U.S. is known to be one of the countries actively engaged in cloning in the cattle breeding sector. The semen is frozen and traded globally. Only the breeders know if material from cloned bulls is used, and they choose not to make their breeding registers accessible to the public. Access to the U.K. data remains an exception.

The European Parliament, as well as the German Bundestag and the German government all advocate a ban on cloned animals for food production in the E.U. The reasons are mostly ethical concerns, since cloning involves a high degree of animal suffering due to interference in the gene regulation of the animals. For this reason, the E.U. Parliament is amongst those institutions demanding that systems are established to gain more transparency and to register the clones, their offspring, relevant products and breeding material. Without such measures, the animals and food derived thereof can enter the market unnoticed. As yet, there is a complete lack of transparency, and there is no information available to competent authorities, farmers, food producers or consumers.

As the research from Testbiotech shows, the upcoming free trade agreement CETA might obstruct greater levels of transparency in future. Mandatory labelling of relevant products might, according to CETA, simply be regarded an unjustified barrier to trade. Testbiotech recommends that the E.U. Parliament seeks legal certainty and clarity before a final vote on the free trade agreement is taken. Otherwise, adopting CETA might lead to the E.U. parliament being in conflict with its own resolutions, political goals and previous achievements.

“Our report shows that after all the discussions on CETA, farmers, food producers, and consumers will, in future, be left in a state of continuing uncertainty if transparency and freedom of choice cannot be ensured. Unless this crucial question is resolved, CETA remains a nightmare in the making for everyone who believes that free trade should never override the interests of consumers,” says Christoph Then for Testbiotech.

The new report from Testbiotech: www.testbiotech.org/node/1840


Related Topics:

European Parliament Demands Legal Scrutiny of CETA’s ‘Corporate Court’ System*

E.U. Council Decides to Sign CETA Trade Agreement and Celebrate with Canada*

CETA: Your Life, Their Choice

Study Finds Clear Differences between Organic and non-Organic Milk and Meat*

Investors Demand that McDonald’s Ban Antibiotics in its Meat*

Poisoned Meat Returned to Where it Comes from – the U.S!

Meat By Any Means


The War Between Competing Western Establishments*

The War Between Competing Western Establishments*

By Adam Garrie

In the west there is scarcely an establishment versus an opposition. Instead, there are two establishments each competing for legitimacy. There are historical precedents for such things.

The mainstream media and their deep state allies on both sides of the Atlantic are in full panic mode.

They are losing credibility, they are losing their grip with reality and they are losing their audience. However, they still wield a great deal of power due to their handsomely funded infrastructure and their historic alliances with the political elite.

All of that notwithstanding, people seem to forget that the President of the United States is a man who took on the old establishment and continues to take on what remains of the mainstream media and their political allies.

All of this leads one to conclude that far from there being an establishment fighting ‘moderate rebels’, there are now two establishments competing for legitimacy.

There are historical precedents for the concept of rival establishments. Between 1378 and 1417, there was a schism in the Roman Catholic Church where at times three different individuals claimed to be Pope. There was a Pope in Rome, a Pope in Avignon in France and for a time a Pope in Pisa, each claiming to be the leader of Roman Catholicism.

Between 1920 and 1923 there were two governments competing for legitimacy in late Ottoman Turkey. The old establishment in Constantinople led by Sultan Mehmed VI was rivalled by the Government of the Grand National Assembly in Ankara led by Ataturk.

More recently in the early 1990s, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was at in a three way rivalry for legitimacy between himself as President of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin as President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and for a while the leaders of the so-called August coup of 1991.

In 1993 there was yet another competition for legitimacy between Russian President Boris Yeltsin and leaders of the Russian Supreme Soviet and Congress of People’s Deputies of Russia. The conflict became violent as Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the Russian White House where his rival leaders where entrenched.

Today, a new western establishment led by Donald Trump, his supporters in alternative and social media, and other European groups ranging from Marine Le Pen’s Front National to Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, are competing for legitimacy against an old establishment led by elements of the American Deep State, members of the U.S. Congress,  British Intelligence Agencies, British civil service, the French Deep State, the European Union, and the old establishment media (New York Times, BBC, CNN etc).

This is why a recent reprimand of RT by OffCom, Britain’s so-called media watchdog, which in reality is something of a censorship board, needs to be seen in the content of the war between the competing establishments.

RT stands accused of airing a CrossTalk episode with guests who expressed scepticism towards NATO in the 21st century. RT was accused by an anonymous complainant of anti-American bias. OffCom took the complaint on board. No prizes for the person who suggests it was an ‘inside job’.

Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of scepticism against NATO and as President continues to argue for drastic reforms of the alliance. I’ve heard of being more Catholic than the Pope and more royal than the King.  Now we can add to that list, more American than the POTUS.

One is witnessing the odd spectre that those who used to be in the opposition, are still derided as dissenting voices, even though in great part, they are agreeing with the President of the United States. If agreeing with the President of the US makes one anti-western or un-American, then the mind really does boggle.

For years there has been talk of a Deep State or ‘shadow state’ tail wagging the dog of political figureheads in the West, but now there is something much more blatant. There is a war between establishments. The new establishment will not surrender or die but neither will the old guard will not give up without a fight.

Like Octavian versus Mark Antony, there is something quite epic about this battle. As they say, pass the popcorn.


Related Topics:

American Civil War: When Russia Blocked British-led Intervention against the Union

90yo Claimant to Head Romanov Family Dies in Denmark*

Brzezinski Decries Global Political Awakening’ During CFR Speech*

Keep it in the British Royal Family: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are Related*

Putin on the Declining Values of the West and Rising Practice of Satanism

Captured Israeli Officer Details Israeli-ISIS Plan to Wipe-out all Islamic and Muslim Culture and Prevent Religions Coming Together*

Should a Country Like France Be Indicting African Leaders?

Israel Preparing to Take on the World

17th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement Declare their Opposition to Unilateralism and Militarism*

Bill Quietly Introduced to Withdraw U.S. from the U.N.*


NGO Fleet Bussing Migrants into The E.U. Has Ties To George Soros, Hillary Clinton Donors*

NGO Fleet Bussing Migrants into The E.U. Has Ties To George Soros, Hillary Clinton Donors*

By William Craddick

In November 2016, a number of NGO’s were revealed by independent European news source GEFIRA to be smuggling migrants from the northern coast of Africa across the Mediterranean into the E.U. using a ramshackle fleet of ships. Research by Disobedient Media shows that a number of the organizations sponsoring ships in the armada are funded in part by Hillary Clinton donors and organizations run by billionaire George Soros. The actions taken by sponsors of ships in the fleet may be illegal under E.U. law and possibly run the risk of aiding ISIS operatives hiding among the migrant population.

A Fleet Of NGO Operated Ships In The Mediterranean Operate Around The Clock Delivering Migrants From North Africa To Italy

On November 15, 2016 GEFIRA published evidence they had gathered that various NGOs were utilizing a fleet of more than a dozen boats in the Mediterranean to illegally transport migrants from the North African coast to Italy. GEFIRA used AIS Marine Traffic (Ship-tracking software) signals, Twitter and the live reports of a Dutch journalist on board of the ship Golfo Azzurro to document alleged collaboration between NGOs, the Italian Coast Guard and smugglers coordinate their actions. The ships were caught on radar moving between the Italian and Libyan coast moving migrants into the EU.

The Italian coast guard directed ships in the fleet to Libyan territorial waters, where they would engage in “rescue operations” and take migrants on-board before delivering them to the Sicilian coast of Italy. This would allow migrants to bypass Malta, which is used as a major processing centre for immigrants and refugees entering the E.U. GEFIRA speculated that the Dutch, Maltese and German based NGOs’ facilitation of human smuggling made them, in effect, operations of international criminal organizations.

Source: GEFIRA

Source: GEFIRA


The NGOs tied to boats involved in the operation were Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS), Jugend Rettet, Stichting Bootvluchting, Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Proactiva Open Arms, Sea-Watch.org, Sea-Eye and Life Boat.

  1. Several Organizations Operating Ships in The Fleet Have Ties To George Soros, Hillary Clinton Donors

Information uncovered in an investigation by Disobedient Media has revealed that several of the NGO groups involved with the migrant fleet have received funds from George Soros aligned organizations or financial backers of Hillary Clinton.

The Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) was founded in 2014 by entrepreneurs Christopher and Regina Catrambone. MOAS operates the ships the Topaz Responder and the Phoenix in the migrant fleet. Mr. Catrambone was listed as a major donor to Hillary Clinton, giving over $416,000 to her presidential campaign bid in 2016. Another major supporter of MOAS is avaaz.org, who donated €500,000 to MOAS’ “search and rescue operations.” Avaaz.org was founded by Moveon.org, an American organization owned by George Soros. Avaaz.org acts as the European branch for Moveon.org.

NGO group Save the Children operates the Astral in the migrant fleet. Save the Children is supported in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Médicins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) also operates several ships in the migrant fleet – the Dignity 1, the Bourbon Argos and the  Aquarius. MSF has also received funding from the Open Society Foundation.

Other organizations running ships in the fleet, such as Sea Eye, have denied to news sources that they were delivering migrants to Italy, despite being caught by GEFIRA doing exactly that.

No matter what good intentions might be behind the decisions of these various NGO groups to operate ships in this fleet, they are likely illegal and are in effect subverting European law. The financial involvement of George Soros and other big name supporters raises questions about the true intentions of various sponsors operating ships within the fleet.

Many of the migrants seeking entry to the E.U. are not refugees and are attempting to enter for purely economic reasons. Even more concerning are recent reports that terror group ISIS has begun to dominate the trafficking networks in North Africa and is actively recruiting members from among the migrant population with promises of small amounts of cash and guaranteed safe passage into the E.U. The involvement of ISIS in human trafficking and recruitment indicates that there is a very real possibility that the NGO groups operating ships within this fleet may be (intentionally or not) aiding and abetting terror by transporting undercover operatives into the EU.


Related Topics:

On Western Terrorism*

E.U. Foreign Affairs Chief Says aging Europe Needs Migration*

Soros Partners with MasterCard to Profiteer from his Engineered Mass Migration*

Mass Migration as Weapons of War*

Israel is the Organ Harvesting and Human Trafficking Global Ringleader, with Help from U.S. and Turkey*

Israel Helps Refugee Pawns Migration as Weapons of War in Europe*

High Court Denies Trump Request to Immediately Restore Travel Ban*

LA Judge Issues Most Sweeping Order Yet against Trump Immigration Ban

Trump Blocked From Addressing U.K. Parliament for ‘Racism and Sexism’*

U.S. Cop Stops Innocent Woman for Walking, Demands to See her ‘Papers’*

Cop Stops Innocent Woman for Walking, Demands to See her ‘Papers’*

Jews give Muslims Key to their Synagogue after Town’s Mosque Burns Down*

Iran Finally Ditched the Dollar: Here’s Why It Matters*

Jewish Members of Trump Administration Might Explain a Few Things*

Argentina Trumps U.S. on New Immigration Laws*

On Western Terrorism*

On Western Terrorism*

Interview with Andre Vltchek



As an American investigative journalist, documentary filmmaker and novelist, André Vltchek has covered countless armed conflicts around the world. Among his most recent work we find “On Western Terrorism”, a discussion with Noam Chomsky, a renowned expert on propaganda. Together, they explore the legacy of colonialism that lasts to this day and denounce the hypocrisy of the West in regard to terrorism since it is largely responsible for its development. We have interviewed André Vltchek to get his thoughts on the book and much more.

All along your passionate discussion with Noam Chomsky, you expose facts about imperialist interventionism in recent history, in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. What was the purpose of switching the focus from the alleged enemies of the West and onto the West itself?

For several long centuries, the West has been plundering the world militarily and economically. In order to ‘legitimize’ its crimes, it also manufactured extremely complex and effective propaganda system, imposing its ‘logic’ and cultural dogmas on the rest of the world. It was done with such persistence and skill, that basically all other narratives disappeared.

It is actually a tremendous tragedy, because several conquered cultures were clearly superior and much more humanistic than the West. The result is: natural, logical development of the world has been derailed, even crushed. Only Western dogmas prevailed, bringing imbalance, confusion, anger and frustration to the world.

Like Noam Chomsky, you are also a very prolific author. How would you describe your work and Chomsky’s work? And how was the experience of preparing this book?

Noam and I are using different ‘tactics’ to fight against this despicable situation. Noam is a linguist, great theoretical thinker and an activist. He is analyzing the situation in his non-fiction books, which are actually his great philosophical works. He is also speaking publicly, on virtually all continents.

I go directly to the sources, as I don’t essentially believe anything that I don’t see or touch, anymore. I try to recycle as little as possible. I travel to warzones and to the deadliest slums, speaking to top intellectuals but also to the poorest of the poor.

I count on extremely complex web of sources, in many countries. Then I write my essays, which are later changed into chapters of my non-fiction books. Or I write my novels, which are always at least to some extent political, or mainly political. Or I make documentary films, for TV stations like Telesur or Al-Mayadeen.

My latest book, which actually unmasks Western propaganda worldwide has over 800 pages and is called, tellingly, “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. My recent novel on Western cultural imperialism is “Aurora”.

Noam and I compliment each other. And we really enjoy each other’s company. When we work together, there is nothing forced. We don’t always agree 100% on everything, but we very rarely strongly disagree about essential political issues.


What do you think about the evolution of the terrorism context and the revival of the “war on terror” speeches by western leaders?

Terrorism is essentially what the Western empires and now the American Empire have been using against the rest of the world.

Look at the Muslim world: historically, Islam has been very progressive and socially oriented, even ‘socialist’ religion. The first public university, the first public hospitals – everything was in the Muslim world.

Even after the WWII, Muslim countries were leaning towards socialism. Therefore, they had to be derailed, ruined and ‘radicalized’ by the West!

The West basically wrecked the three most important Muslim socialist states: Iran, Egypt and Indonesia. Then it used Afghanistan and Pakistan as proxies in its war with the Soviet Union, basically shattering these two countries as well.

So you definitely want your readers to look back on colonial past in order to understand the neocolonial present…

Absolutely. I am arguing in several of my essays, as well as in “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”, that the West, for understandable reasons, has been directly manufacturing ‘Muslim terrorism’. Therefore, we shouldn’t even use the term “Muslim terrorism”.

I witnessed the process in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia and elsewhere. It is shameful what is happening, but it is logical (given the Machiavellian essence of Western imperialism): the West managed to destroy the Soviet Union, it debased the anti-colonialist struggle/process (by killing or overthrowing people like Lumumba, Mosaddegh, Sukarno or Allende), and then it ran out of ‘big enemies’.

The West cannot exist without ‘big enemies’, as we all know. And so it created one really mighty one out of nothing, and royally screwed all Muslim countries in the process. Recently, in Tehran, two top philosophers there told me, that the West actually created, in many places, a totally new religion, which doesn’t have anything in common with Islam.

“Exposing Lies of the Empire (…) is a book of philosophy, a collection of exceptional investigative journalist reports, and a manifesto.”

“Exposing Lies of the Empire (…) is a book of philosophy, a collection of exceptional investigative journalist reports, and a manifesto.”


Third world views on the north-south relations has been under attack and de-legitimation on a regular basis by neo-conservative thinkers, who consider economic-centered political analysis as “obsolete and old fashioned”. Could we say that the promoters of the so-called “clash of civilizations” have reached their goal? Which real interests are behind their way of thinking?


Yes, it is happening, but the guilty are not only the neo-conservatives, but also so-called liberals. I just left the city of Bandung (in Indonesia), which was hosting, in 1955, that famous “Asia-Africa Conference” (cradle of non-aligned movement). When you see the old photos there, you’d want to cry… Or scream!

The desire of the non-Western world for independence, for true freedom was so strong in those days, but the brutality of the West broke all courage and determination of all, except a handful of the nations. For decades, the spine of the resistance against Western imperialism had been cracked. Only now we see great resurrection of those old ideologies, goals and dreams.

Of course there is and will be huge clash of civilizations, but it will occur under different banners and with different logic than what is being promoted by the Western idéologues.

Truer ‘clash of civilizations’ will be very simple and positive: it will have form of a resistance struggle of the oppressed world, against the Western terror, which has been brutalizing our planet for hundreds of years.

You have frequently visited and lived in Latin American, Arabic and Asian countries for many years. In your opinion, how should progressive forces deal with issues concerning cultural identity and ethnic-entered conflicts in the XXIst century? Is the Eurocentric view a big trap for those who try to understand and change the world?

Yes it is, and it is essential to understand this point!  Progressive forces in the West should, I believe, step back and be more humble. Instead of constantly preaching and showing their hatred against every left wing government in Latin America or Asia, they should learn some respect and the Chinese or South American cultures, and try to understand how things have been done there, historically.

The Western left lost squarely and patently. The hope is now in Latin America and Asia, and some very few countries of Africa. The Western left, I think, should stop being ‘purist’ and support what we still have in this world, instead of defining ‘who is a true Marxist and who is not’, etc.

The main struggle now should be the struggle against Western imperialism. I know the world, and I am convinced that if Western imperialism were defeated, the rest of the world would find a way to coexist peacefully, and to build a humane, much gentler and compassionate world. Then, and only then, we could start paying attention to details. Until then, rescuing our planet from what has been for centuries ruining it should be our sole goal.


Related Topics:

Amnesty Int’l Admits Syria’s ‘torture prison’ Report Fabricated Entirely in U.K.*

As Netanyahu and May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed*

A Field View of Reality to Explain Human Interconnectedness*

Putin on the Declining Values of the West and Rising Practice of Satanism

Canadian Activist Exposes Western Media Lies on the Genocide in Aleppo*

Syrian Catholics Denounce Western Media Biased Reporting on Aleppo*

The West’s Engineered Buddhist-Muslim Conflict in Thailand*

Top Illuminati Grand Wizard: “We Control Islam and We’ll Use It to Destroy the West.” (WW3)*

Slavs and Oriental are “niggers, brutes and beasts”, in the eyes of Western Empire*

Did the West Fake an Entire Attack on their al-Qaeda for an Oil Pipeline?

The West Negotiates with former ‘Al Qaeda’ Leader to Empower Libya’s Unity Government*

Aleppo Doctor Attacks Western Media for Bias, Censorship and Lies*

To be an Arab Jew in the West is to Say you don’t Exist*

Islamic Culture before Western Meddling*

Western Governments Are Enslaving Humanity through Vaccines*


Myanmar’s New Western-backed Dictator, Aung San Suu Kyi*

Why the West is Terrified of Muslims Reading History…*

The Western Migrants Fleeing to the South and Destroying It*

Solzhenitsyn on Western Decadence and Its Remedy*

Religious Fanaticism is a Western Tradition*

E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

By David Ellis

A briefing by Strategic Defence Initiatives on the E.U.’s subversion of the British military.

Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [E.U.] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent. – Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle on 20 January 2017

Comment: The last time I looked the continent is Asia…..

This short briefing sheet (available as a downloadable pdf) has been produced to highlight some of the key areas and perceived risks of the integration of the U.K. into a single integrated E.U. defence structure. The content has been compiled by those with military experience, including submarine operations — this experience is considered important in relation to comments made not only in relation to the Royal Navy, but particularly the nuclear deterrent.

In focusing in greater detail on some significant Royal Navy issues regarding size of the fleet, specific units and the nuclear deterrent, the joint risks of E.U. integration to both the Army and Royal Air Force are by no means belittled. On the contrary, there is much more to be said on behalf of these two services than can be covered in this summary paper.


The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon (a strong E.U. advocate and former E.U. Movement supporter) are continuing the path to E.U. military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of U.K. military forces into the E.U. structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media forums, which is testimony to the usual E.U. policy of implementation by stealth where possible.

Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the E.U. commercial military procurement and supply chain, operating under an E.U. treasury already being declared and implemented. Once locked together under E.U. procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-E.U. military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the E.U. political tactic of creating ‘interdependence’ between E.U. member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the ability to act as an independent nation state.

Understanding E.U. Military Integration Policy

The E.U. has consistently and publicly stated that the goal of the E.U. is to form a single integrated supranational state, with law, internal security, defence and foreign policy controlled from Brussels. The E.U. Organisation for External Action (Foreign Policy vehicle of the E.U.) recently quoted Frederica Mogherini’s policy as follows:

Security is a priority for the E.U. … We have hard and soft power. We have done more on defence in the last seven months than in decades. Building on the ideas in her Global Strategy for EU Foreign and Security Policy, Mogherini has illustrated the European Union’s three-pronged set of measures to strengthen the EU’s security and defence capability … In a reshaping world the only way for the Europeans to be global players is through the E.U.

The implication is clear — E.U. security and defence capability is to be strengthened as a centralised Brussels-led objective. This is not simply an invitation for member states to contribute more to E.U. security and defence at will. Many further official E.U. policy quotes emphasise the integrated E.U. defence objective.

Forming an E.U. military required a number of significant hurdles to be overcome. These included:

  1. integration of E.U. member states’ armed forces with a wide spread of operational performance, equipment types and levels, experience and historic theatres of operation.
  2. imbalance between Britain as a top-tier NATO partner and many other E.U. nation states.
  3. significant strategic imbalance between the maritime strength of the Royal Navy and that of other E.U. navies, whilst acknowledging the size and capability of French maritime forces.
  4. the strong U.S.-U.K. ‘special relationship’, at both military and military intelligence levels, which produces a tiered military structure favouring the U.S. and U.K. over E.U. member states other than the U.K.
  5. negating the perceived threat to NATO strength and operations by the creation of an integrated E.U. military.
  6. achieving a unified defence procurement and build environment across the E.U. member states, particularly one which could replace and equal the power and impact of U.S.-procured weapons and equipment entering the E.U. supply chain, especially via the U.K. on the back of its special U.S. relationship.
  7. integrating the U.K. and French strategic nuclear deterrents to bring them under centralised E.U. political control.
  8. common agreement on defence levels, budgetary contribution and policy amongst E.U. member states — this includes a single E.U. treasury.
  9. establishment of an E.U. command, control and communications structure.

E.U. policy has always been to secure its political objects step by step, salami slicing, using the so- called ‘ratchet mechanism’ and the doctrine of never relinquishing any aspect of the acquis communautaire to ensure that member states cannot easily retract from progress made towards a political goal. This can also be described as a soft power approach, where the change and political agenda is drifted in under distracting labels and language.

In considering the drive to E.U. military union, we must recognise that alongside the call for military union arising externally to the U.K., i.e. by the E.U. itself, this key E.U. political has been driven in parallel from within the U.K. by our own pro-E.U. governments, be they Labour, Conservative or Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition. (N.B.: An important comment is made on Brexit at the end of this briefing.)

Since the U.K.’s internal pro-E.U. military agenda has been largely driven by stealth, or at least by obfuscation of the real political agenda — a smoke-screen of half-truths, spin and outright denial of the ultimate Westminster goal of a fully integrated E.U. military — we must look to the broader evidence for this political goal.

A simple Internet search on the subject of an E.U. army reveals entry after entry for mainstream media articles reporting the plan for this key step towards an E.U. military. These include: Juncker calls for E.U. army, Juncker proposes E.U. military HQ, European Parliament backs plans to create a defence union, Europe forges ahead with plans for an E.U. army — the overall press and media coverage is too numerous to list, and has spanned many years. The plan for an E.U. army has thus been ‘hidden in plain sight’ whilst largely publicly denied by the U.K. government. See particularly the European Commission’s European Defence Action Plan of 30 November 2016, COM(2016) 950 final.

Behind the scenes, the Westminster political strategy towards the E.U. military has proceeded apace with a number of key defence-related policies which now, seen together, and with the advantage of hindsight, give a strong pointer to the undeclared pro-E.U. military line.

E.U.-driven policy for the formation of an Integrated E.U. military

At this point, we return to the potential obstacles to E.U. military union, and add the measures taken by the E.U. and its agents in Westminster to overcome the difficulties:

  1. integration of E.U. member states’ armed forces with a wide spread of operational performance, equipment types and levels, experience and historic theatres of operation.

Action taken: Drive a programme of E.U. exercises and operational co-operation. This objective has accelerated in recent years with, for example, Operation ATALANTA (the joint E.U. maritime anti- piracy force — significantly commanded by the Commandant General Royal Marines), large-scale British and French Army exercises on Salisbury Plain together with the signing of an MOU for those operations and future Franco-British operations, and large scale joint paratroop training. French C3 forces have been integrated into a new joint French military operations centre at the former St Mawgan military airfield in Cornwall. Lately, the E.U. has been particularly active in driving for E.U. forces to operate in Eastern Europe, leading to increasing public confusion as to whether these were NATO or E.U. military exercises.

In recent months, the E.U. has also achieved integration of German and Dutch army units, and several E.U. member states have swapped command posts, a policy which has allowed a senior French officer to command British troops.

  1. imbalance between Britain as a top-tier NATO partner and many other EU nation states.

Action taken: Repeated and substantial cuts to British army capability in men and equipment has now reduced the army to some 82,000 men, and equipment levels which have been openly described as insufficient to fight a major military campaign in Europe, and a complete inability to operate on more than one front. The power and influence of the German army has thus been increased to help restore its position as the traditional European military power, and this effect is being enhanced by integration of Dutch and French units under German command and control.

  1. significant strategic imbalance between the maritime strength of the Royal Navy and that of other E.U. navies, whilst acknowledging the size and capability French maritime forces.

Action taken: Repeated cuts to the size of the Royal Navy by scrapping frigates, destroyers, submarines and serviceable aircraft carriers and operational Maritime Patrol Aircraft so as to bring the RN to greater parity with the French, and particularly to weaken traditional RN operations of scale with the US. Cuts have been exacerbated by delays and increasing chaos in new class orders. It should be noted that such was the rush to destroy the Nimrod MPA fleet that Britain’s nuclear deterrent has been exposed to a level described by many senior military officers as dangerous.

At the same time, evidence of unprecedented Anglo-French maritime co-operation has been revealed by the collision between the French nuclear deterrent submarine Le Triomphant and HMS Vanguard — a collision never explained to the British public, but which placed the U.K. deterrent at grave risk and which can only have occurred due to the deliberate tasking of both units in close geographic proximity. The clear inference is a further layer of undeclared joint Franco-British military co-operation. It is highly significant that the new U.K. aircraft carriers have been jointly designed with the French, and such has been the damage to continuity in British aircraft carrier operations that there are now grave concerns as to the retraining and work-up time required for flight deck and aviation specialists to be reinstated with historic levels of skills and experience. Royal Navy personnel have had to be sent to the French carrier to be trained, and it should be noted that in 2008 Westminster dropped plans for the Queen Elizabeth class to be joint British-French manned. Significantly, a recent article by the Daily Mail on the new carriers ended with the statement:

“As a result the U.S. are expected to make use of the carrier with their aircraft — as may other [E.U.] countries such as Italy who eventually buy the jets.”

  1. the strong U.S.-U.K. ‘special relationship’, at both military and military intelligence levels, which produces a tiered military structure favouring the U.S. and U.K. over E.U. member states other than the U.K.

Action taken: U.S.-U.K. military relations have been successfully undermined by the substantial cuts in U.K. military force levels (driven by pro-E.U.. political policy in the U.K.) which have significantly reduced the ability of the U.K. to support the U.S. in large-scale military operations, as was the case in the Gulf. British anti-submarine capability, highly valued and praised by the U.S., has also been greatly weakened by U.K. defence cuts, particularly in submarines, frigates, the decommissioning of our three anti-submarine-focused aircraft carriers and the loss of the Nimrod fleet. Increasing U.K. involvement with integrated E.U. military operations, including the installation of a London-based E.U. military HQ and command-and-control centre at Northwood, sends confusing messages to the U.S. regarding Britain’s commitment to the U.S. and NATO, and has raised questions as to the security of U.S.-U.K. operations and the protection of high-level intelligence.

  1. negating the perceived threat to NATO strength and operations by the creation of an integrated E.U. military.

Action taken: This concern has been addressed in the first instance by the EU simply and repeatedly denying the formation even of an ‘E.U. army’ — which term is itself a crafted understatement of the goal of full E.U. military integration. This E.U. political lie has then been reinforced by the E.U.’s continual failure to recognise, or more accurately to admit, that an E.U. military must of necessity undermine NATO. To add insult to injury, the E.U. has simply turned a blind eye to the fact that any E.U. military must inevitably be substantially weaker than a U.S.-led NATO. Overall, the E.U. has failed to carry the E.U.-versus-NATO argument which has been re-ignited following the election of President Trump.

  1. achieving a unified defence procurement and build environment across the E.U. member states, particularly one which could replace and equal the power and impact of U.S.-procured weapons and equipment entering the E.U. supply chain, especially via the U.K. on the back of its special U.S. relationship.

Action taken: The E.U. strategy here has been simple and visible. Pan-European projects were created to introduce both the public and military to the idea of joint European development and production. The development of Concorde was an early lead here, and was followed by both other civilian and military aviation projects such as Tornado and Airbus. We might also consider the scrapping of the U.K.’s Sea Eagle missile for the French Exocet — the very missile which was used to sink British ships in the Falklands. The joint U.K.-French design and build of the Queen Elizabeth- class carriers has now taken the building of major warships out of British national control, has shared our shipbuilding and military specifications with the French, and has helped undermine the maintenance of U.K.-based shipbuilding and the associated expertise.

  1. integrating the U.K. and French strategic nuclear deterrents to bring them under centralised E.U. political control.

Action taken: Operating under the E.U.’s established political salami slicing and smokescreen strategy, the clue to the path towards centralised E.U. control of the strategic nuclear deterrent comes from an inspection of the 2010 Lancaster House Treaties signed by Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy after no tangible Westminster debate and no full and open consultation with the higher levels of the U.K. military. Published objectives included:

  • Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty: The purpose of this is to develop co-operation between British and French Armed Forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment including through mutual interdependence [emphasis not original], the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation.
  • Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship: Collaboration on the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of both countries’ independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, including a new joint facility at Valduc in France that will model performance of nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety – this will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the U.K.
  • Operational Matters: It was also decided to sign a Letter of Intent, creating a new framework for exchanges between U.K. and French Armed Forces on operational matters.
  • Industry and Armaments: It was decided to direct the U.K.-France High Level Working Group to strengthen its work on industrial and armament cooperation.

The key statement is Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship. Why in 2010 did the U.K. suddenly need to collaborate with the French in order to be able to develop and operate the technology associated with (in practice, this revolves around the fissile material expertise in) ‘nuclear stockpile stewardship?’ Had the U.K. become incompetent or inept in this field after years of independent operation of a maritime nuclear deterrent? The answer to this statement can only be no, especially when we consider that the focus of British ability in this strategic area had largely swung to U.K.-U.S. shared expertise, in view of the U.S. origin of Trident and its predecessor Polaris.

Why, in 2010, did the U.K. need not only to share highly sensitive nuclear deterrent secrets with the French, but additionally need to build new joint nuclear weapon warhead facilities? Never openly discussed by Westminster, these highly questionable Franco-British plans were simply announced as happening, with no public or political debate as to the need, the security implications or the risks to the independence of the British nuclear weapon stockpile.

Hindsight now affords us the opportunity to join the pieces of the jigsaw, as seen against the other E.U. political moves for E.U. military integration. The step of ‘Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship’ was but a first step towards the integration of the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent into E.U. control, via the stepping- stone of Anglo-French co-operation — a cover for E.U.-driven policy. Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle revealed something of this on 20 January 2017:

‘Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [E.U.] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent.’

As mentioned earlier, the collision between the French nuclear submarine Le Triomphant and HMS Vanguard is a critical event in analysing Westminster’s undeclared French-U.K. nuclear deterrent integration policy. Submarine safety demands that all submarines co-operating in real and exercise conditions are separated by both depth and or geographical area. Collision is a critical danger to all submarines but carries additional risks in the case of nuclear submarines in respect of nuclear hazards, and exceptional and obvious risks for ballistic missile submarines. Since ballistic missile submarines ‘hide’ in the expanse of the oceans, for HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant to collide they must have been jointly tasked in immediately adjacent operating areas.

This is highly unusual for nuclear deterrent operations, and the fact that the boats collided strongly suggests that they were placed in very close or even dangerous proximity for unknown joint operations. No proper public reports were ever made of the reason for the joint Franco-British operation or the reasons for the collision. That the collision happened indicates both professional incompetence in the structuring and execution of the joint French-U.K. mission and the severe and proven risks to the operational nuclear deterrent which such a policy represents. It can be no coincidence that just as the U.K. signs up to joint nuclear weapons stewardship with the French, a botched joint nuclear deterrent operation is exposed. The key question remains — at what level was the move to integrate the U.K.’s nuclear and weapons, and it seems also the operational nuclear deterrent, discussed with senior military officers and indeed in Parliament?

  1. common agreement on defence levels, budgetary contribution and policy amongst E.U. member states — this includes an E.U. treasury.

Action taken: These matters have been rising in visibility and intensity over recent months. Alongside calls for greater NATO spending, the E.U. has also called for greater defence contributions by member states. These E.U. monetary calls have also been reinforced by the initial, and significantly now public, calls for the creation of an E.U. treasury. The establishment of an E.U. treasury with E.U. military integration and pan-E.U. military procurement, together with an E.U.-generated foreign and security policy, creates the E.U. superstate, one with total power and control over its individual member states. It is inconceivable that the political mind working from Brussels (and by means of the pro-E.U. politicians in Westminster) to create a full E.U. superstate could allow nuclear weapons, and a strategic nuclear deterrent, to remain in the hands of an independent sovereign state.

  1. establishment of an E.U. command, control and communication structure.

Action taken: Little needs to be said on this subject, as the E.U. has already set up its military command-and-control structure in the U.K. with its HQ at Northwood, supported by St Mawgan and other cells. This fact is evidenced by the testimony of those officers that were originally tasked to set up this E.U. C3 structure. It can be activated within 24 hours. Other E.U. C3 structures (OHQs) exist in Paris, Potsdam and Larissa (Greece), with the C3 in Germany possibly stood up in December 2016.

The Franco-British Council

Further significant clues to the clandestine nature by which Franco-British, nay E.U., military integration has been progressed, come from the activities of the Franco-British Council. Working with the Royal United Services Institute, another unaccountable ‘change agent’, the FBC has held three high-level invitation-only summits to map out the integration of British and French forces. No minutes were produced, and senior members of all three Armed Forces conspired at these meetings behind closed doors, and in civilian dress, to help frame this highly political E.U. military integration agenda.

The 9 March 2010 FBC meeting was clearly timed to pre-empt and direct the Strategic Defence Review, as well as other British domestic policy. As the FBC itself stated:

The purpose of this meeting was twofold, firstly, to extend the FBC British French Defence Initiative of October 2009 … particularly on the basis of [specific] industrial considerations linked to competitive military capabilities … and secondly, ahead of a decisive period in British politics ahead of the General Election in May 2010, and the Strategic Defence Review in the fourth quarter of the same year … it seemed important to resume discussions before the formation of a new government and a reassessment of British strategic priorities.

Hosted by British Ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott at his Paris residence, a more recent meeting on 6 October 2010 continued the theme in the format of a RUSI-organised Franco-British Defence Cooperation Roundtable held behind closed doors, co-chaired by Rt Hon Baroness Taylor, former UK Minister for Defence Equipment; Senator Xavier Pintat of the Defence Committee of the French Senate; and Dr Jonathan Eyal, director of International Security Studies at RUSI. Speakers included Gisela Stuart MP, Contre Amiral Pascal Ausser, Edward Leigh MP, Amiral Alain Coldefy, French MP Françoise Hostalier, Kevin Taylor of BAE Systems, and Vice Admiral Paul Lambert RN.

Just what was Admiral Paul Lambert of the Royal Navy doing in a political meeting, à huis clos, in France, sitting alongside commercial interests, with no minutes taken?

Looking elsewhere, we find that other evidence of collaboration has broken surface. Navy News casually reported that the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, had “fought hard for his service, as details of the [recent] Strategic Defence Review were thrashed out.” It was therefore surprising to discover — on the same page — that following the Treaty, Mr Stanhope had been collaborating in a meeting with French naval counterparts to develop joint British-French military doctrine, shared training, equipment and technology, and a common supply chain. It was also accurately reported that Stanhope’s collaboration was conducted wearing civilian lounge suits rather than in uniform.


Related Topics:

E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*

Global Power and the History of Trusts

Eurocrats Making Record Number of Laws in Secret*

E.U. Picks Up Speed in the War on Cash*

E.U. Desperate to Raises Taxes Starts Cashless Society Project November 2017*

World Leaders Agree to Merge NATO and E.U.*

Professors and Politicians Gather to Warn Us about the NWO*

The United States of Europe!

E.U. Votes for Citizens to Fund their Own Brainwashing*

E.U. to Ratify Paris Accords*

Soros: Western Society Must Fall Before One World Govt Can Be Established*

War Criminal Blair to Eradicate European Culture to Create a United States of Europe*

If the Noose is Still Tightening and, you Still Think It’s Austerity, the Former Governor of the Bank of England Will Tell You*

If the Noose is Still Tightening and, you Still Think It’s Austerity, the Former Governor of the Bank of England Will Tell You*

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

“When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

“These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.

“It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers’ Association, NYC 1924

NB: This quotation was reprinted in the Idaho Leader, USA, on 26th August 1924.

Governor of the bank of England, Montagu Norman talks to Ramsay Macdonald who has chosen, appropriately, to dress as an undertaker for the occasion

Governor of the bank of England, Montagu Norman/1st Baron Norman on your right talks to Ramsay Macdonald who has chosen, appropriately, to dress as an undertaker for the occasion

The biggest “question of importance” referred to in the most revealing quote above is:






The Montagu Norman quote is a CONFESSION OF TRUTH.




*“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Thomas Jefferson: This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or “later published in The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809).”



Related Topics:

The History of Your Enslavement

Protesting has Gone Flamenco, in Spain at Least*

Beyond anti- Austerity, from Paris with Love*

Politics as Therapy: They want us to be just Sick Enough not to Fight Back*

The Secretive Bank of England — Controlling the World’s Money Supply*

Hitler Was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England*

Criminal Syndicate with Links to Terrorism Infiltrated Bank of England*

Bank of England Top-Secret E-mails Forwarded to Journalist on Financial Fallout while MP’s are Kept in the Dark*

London Sees Mass post-Brexit anti-Tory, anti-Austerity, anti-Racism Protest*

Bank Bail-outs Behind U.K.’s Collapsing Public Services*

Debt-ocracy: Enslaving Entire Nations and Peoples*

E.U. Picks Up Speed in the War on Cash*

Ten Reasons Why I Don’t Have a Credit Card*

Six Seconds to Hack a Credit Card*

Biometric Identification Control: What Will You Do?

Being Profiled for Economic Slavery*

Starvation Is an Imperial Resource for Britain*

The Indoctrinated West*