EU Federalization: The Pan-European Manifesto (Paneuropa)

paneuropean_SunCross_jpeg

Below is a translation of a document known as the Pan-European Manifesto, also known as Paneuropa.

This is the founding document of the Pan-European movement.

The original in German may be found here:

http://vv.varzil.de/II-01.PDF

NB: The translation is as close to literal as possible whilst remaining intelligible. Some passages may not read fluidly in English. The intention of the author is preserved. Minor changes have been made in order to ensure some passages are intelligible. The layout – paragraphing – is as per the German source. Typographic emphasis has not been preserved.


The Pan European Manifesto 

Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1923

Europeans! Europeans!

Europe’s fateful hour strikes!

In European factories weapons are daily forged to rend European men – in European laboratories daily are brewed poisons to exterminate European women and children.

Meanwhile, Europe is playing with inconceivable levity its fate; in incomprehensible blindness it does not see what is imminent; in incomprehensible inactivity it can is without will against driving the most terrible disaster that ever a continent met.

Europe’s policy is heading for a new war. Two dozen new Alsace-Lorraine have emerged. One crisis triggers another. This can be performed daily by an accident – for example, by an attack or a revolt – the European war of destruction break out, our continent turned into a cemetery.

This war of extermination, the prepared European politics, shall in the awfulness of World War leave far behind – like this the German – French. Its element will be the air – poison the weapon – its goal the eradication of enemy nation. The main fight will be against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The defeated Nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded from these mass murders emerge.

This threat of war means the thorough destruction of Europe, its culture and economy. Other parts of the world will take its place.

The second danger, the answer is a fragmented Europe, is: the conquest by Russia.

Russia is related to Europe, as once Macedonia to Greece.

In Philip’s throne no Greek believed in a Macedonian danger; because Macedonia was then in confusion and anarchy.

But Philip’s genius brought order out of chaos, and after 20 years, the number of peasant people of Macedonia was strong enough the fragmented civilizations of Greece prostrate.

Under the leadership of a red or white dictator could Russia, by good harvests, American and German capital
organization, again raise faster than Europe suspects. Then the fragmented and disunited small states of Europe would face some Russian world power whose area is five times as large as the entire European.

Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to repel the Russian rush. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would be Europe’s borders; until this limit falls and Europe is a Western Province of Russia.

Against this danger there is only one salvation: the European union. For a united Europe, there is no Russian threat. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So is the decision on Russian danger is not in Russia – but in Europe.

The next two decades will be the history of the spectacle of a race between the offer of unification of Europe and Russian re-construction: Russia recovering from its economic disaster before Europe agrees – as Europe must irretrievably for Russian hegemony to expire; agrees Europe before Russia is restored – as Europe is rescued from the Russian danger.

Thus the freedom of Europe is in the hands of the Europeans.

The third danger for Europe’s life is economic ruin.

Never can the shattered economy of the disunited States of Europe remain competitive against the closed economy of the United States of America. For the European interim duties impede the price of production. The parcels of European Economy are therefore condemned by the non-European economic empire in America, Britain, Russia to be crushed in the future, of East Asia as well – as shopkeepers of trusts.

Chronic crises undermined the European economy, increasing the distress, misery and inflation – until finally the bankrupt Europe economy is an American colony. This condition is the enslavement of Europe’s workforce lead by American capital, which will escape all control.

Against this danger there is only one salvation: merger of the European continent to a duty association, abolition of tariffs between European States and the creation of a pan-European economic area.

Any other path leads to ruin.

Thus, the fragmented Europe is a triple disaster contrary: the war of extermination; the subjugation by Russia; economic ruin.

The only salvation from these impending disasters: Pan Europa; the union of all democratic countries of continental Europe into an international group for a political administration union and economic purpose.

The danger of European war of extermination can only be averted by a pan-European agreement to arbitrate; the risk of Russian rule can only be averted by a pan-European defensive alliance; the risk of economic
ruin can only be averted by a pan-European Customs Union.

The arbitration agreement secures peace – the alliance secures the freedom – the Customs Union with the economy.

These three points comprise essentially the pan-European program.

Pan-Europa includes the peninsula between Russia, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea; to Iceland and the colonies the European states. The large European colony, halfway between Tripoli and Congo, Morocco and Angola Africa includes, could supply with raw materials at rational management of Europe.

Russia and England are Paneuropa neighbors. These two empires are viable even without Europe – while the remaining States of the Hemisphere are connected by their geographic location common destiny; condemned, either jointly basis to go – or resurrected together.

From many sides, the inclusion of England is required in the future Pan. This claim fails because of the construction of the British Federal Empire. Never the Dominions would tolerate that England swing to another state system into closer relationship as to them; so that is the connection of the English kingdom of Pan-Europa obsolete. The connection of the British Empire Federal Pan-Europa to lapses by the impossibility to transform Canada into a European state. The consequence of this challenge
in America would be the connection of Canada in the Pan American Union and the disintegration of the British Empire.

Thus, a merger between the Pan-Europa and Pan-British states the league is currently impossible. Good, but a global political cooperation between these two complexes possible and necessary, in the interests of peace and of progress. In no case may Pan-Europa be directed against England.

Also, the inclusion of Russia in the Pan-Europa is currently impossible. A merger between democratic states on the one hand and Soviet on the other hand is impractical. Through the rejection of democracy, Russia has voluntarily renounced the European states system.

Even against Russia Pan-Europa has no hostile attitude. The goal is to preserve the Russo – European peace,
joint disarmament, economic cooperation and respect for the mutual inner development.

Is Pan-Europa created, so it may be an equal global power with America, Britain, Russia and East Asia, a new close League of Nations, in which no part of the world need to be afraid of foreign interference. Only such a world alliance could the United States of America and the Soviet Union join.

As an independent group within the League of Nations Pan-Europa would have the ability to control its own destiny, rather than as this is happening today in Geneva to have to leave the most important European decisions Latin Americans and Asians. The American Monroe Doctrine is finally, after a hundred years, becoming a European comparable: “Europe for the Europeans!”

The pan-European program forms an indivisible whole. The path is divided – the target uniformly. Without a backup of European permanent peace is a European customs union impossible. As long as each state lives in constant fear of its neighbors, it must be prepared to produce all the necessary goods like a besieged fortress even in the event of war. This requires national industries and protective tariffs. Only a disappearance of the threat of war by compulsory arbitration requirement would open the way for European States to the reduction of customs barriers and the transition to the European Free Trade. Conversely the form of national industries and their protection by the state is a hotbed of European nationalism and a threat to the European Peace. Community of interest, however, is the surest path to political community. To support the political part of the Pan-European program of economic and vice versa.

The path to the realization of Pan-Europe is as follows:

First, grouping of European countries according to the Pan-American pattern ; this would be possible either within the League of Nations (after Germany’s accession) or by convening a pan-European conference on the pattern of the Pan-American.

Second, completion of mandatory arbitration agreements and mutual border guarantees between the states of Europe.

Third, defensive alliance for the protection of the common eastern border.

Fourth, initiation of a customs union by periodic conferences of the European states.

This program, which contains nothing impossible, should be taken without delay of any attack, Europe’s position is it wants to recognize and save the continent.

The first step to solving the European question is: whose reeling. The dangers that threaten our continent, not combated enough because they can not be detected sufficiently. The political education is the way to political rebirth.

Because ninety percent of all Europeans want from politics nothing more than the preservation of peace and freedom and the increase of prosperity. When they realize that the present policy of peace, freedom and prosperity is life-threatening and constantly threatened, they will leave this slippery slope and look for another political setting.

Since a reeling of the European question inevitably leads to their solution, it is not provided by the policy – but embezzled.

One can not blame the governments that they respond to the European question wrong, but that they do not provide the same.

While the social question with law is discussed everywhere every day: in the press and Parliament, literature and family – is the second life question simply hushed up for 300 million Europeans.

The European question is:
“Is it possible that 25 states live on the small European peninsula in international anarchy next to each other without this state ending with a terrible political, economic and cultural disaster ? “

Anti-Europeans answer that question by saying that this previously was possible.

This response ignores the facts. For in the twentieth century, all the requirements for the previous particularism have changed Europe fundamentally.

The old Europe had world domination. Outwardly sure it could afford the luxury of internal wars without danger to life. In the twentieth century that European world domination collapsed. Asia awoke under Japanese leadership. America outperformed all European states, Russia has been solved by the introduction of the Sovietism of Europe, England has come from a major European power to head an intercontinental world power whose focus is in the Indian Ocean.

This growing organization of the non-European world into mighty empires is the growing disorganization of the European World over. Here the fragmentation has made further progress by the war. In Central Europe, two Great Powers fell to a number of smaller states to make room. So Europe is forced out of the center of the world, once the subject of world politics – it has become their object: weakened, wounded, destitute, torn.

A recovery of European world domination is impossible; but it is possible, by combining the European
States to unite this continent, as a fifth world power and save the peace, freedom and prosperity of Europeans.

The advances of technology have made a return of Europe of the last century impossible. The steel war of the past, the nations only weakened – the gas war of the future would destroy them. Also, car and Railroad, airship and radio, European distances have decreased so much that today’s Europe has become relatively smaller than the Italy of the Renaissance.

This coming together of all European countries, the community of interests, has also multiplied their opposites.

Thanks to the technology, the interests of neighboring European countries today are so entwined that they have only the choice between enmity and alliance; indifferent neighborhood has become impossible.

So the whole European question culminates in either – or:

War – or peace!
Anarchy – or organization!
Arms race – or teardown!
Competition – or cooperation!
Collapse – or merger!

No Europeans will be able to dodge this decision. Before making that decision neutrality is treason. Who is not Pan-European – is anti-European!

Who does not, sees the dangers to which the fragmented Europe politically opposed to, is blind; but who sees these dangers and still does not doing anything to avert them – is a traitor and criminal to Europe; he sacrifices his convenience or his profit, the future of his children, his nation, his culture; he is complicit in all the disasters that must befall Europe, if he holds on to its present course.

The answer to the question of Europe, the future of Europe depends. This answer is in the hands of the Europeans. We live in democratic countries and are responsible for the policies of our governments. They have no right to criticize us, to limit, but duty to participate, in shaping our political destiny.

If the peoples of Europe want – Pan-Europa will arise: you just need her voice, all candidates and parties to fail, the external program is anti-European. So every European can participate in the demise – or at the resurrection of Europe!

The majority of Europeans do not see the decision to which it revolves, and the responsibility that weighs on them. Demagogic phrases have made large masses of Europeans ​​blind: blind to today’s chaos – oblivious to the impending disaster – Blind to the blindness of their leader.

Others are falling back into hopeless inactivity; abandonment has done to the political initiative and left lunatics, the headless race against the abyss, and pull the mindless masses along with them into perdition.

These two groups of Europeans; the blind and the lame, it is important to shake. One wants to see the others learn. It is imperative political knowledge – to arouse political will here.

Over and over again the simple truth is to be repeated: A fragmented Europe leads to war, oppression,
Misery, a united Europe to peace, freedom, prosperity!

Once this either-or in its full meaning is clear to the Europeans – then everyone likes to choose which of these two paths they want to go: the path of European anarchy – or the way the European organization; the path of Death – or the way of life.

The struggle for Pan-Europe will be tough and bitter. It requires faith, perseverance, determination. It revolves around more than about the fate of a party, a government: It revolves around to be or not of European humanity!

The leaders of the anti-Europeans are tough and devious. You will always find new keywords to combat Europe.
They are the pan-European initiative to push their enemies – to prevent the merger; they are ancillary questions pushed to the fore – to bypass the main question; they will hide behind the idea of ​​a World Federation – to thwart Pan-Europa; they are finally trying to stamp Pan-Europa as utopia, then, with an expression heartfelt sympathy, refuse.

Let you, Europeans, not be deterred by such maneuvers! Answer them, that every people in with the Europeanization must begin, as none can begin at the other. And that it will one day be no higher honor for a European people, as: to have been first known to Pan-Europa.

Reply to those who reject Pan-Europa because of its limitations, that it can not wait for the collapse of the British or the Democratization of the Russian Empire. But that Pan-Europa is alive and organic as any political entity and that its future union with Russia or England is not impossible.

Reply to those who make a change in the current boundaries as a condition of a new Europe that a shift of these limits only by general war and ruin is possible – during their degradation in national, strategic and economic ways performs minority protection, arbitration agreement and Customs Union to peace and prosperity; that stable borders in Europe are possible – but reasonable limits impossible.

Reply to those who reject Pan-Europa on behalf of the Alliance, that only Pan-Europa is the way to replace the League of Nations and Russia and America to open the gate in the same. The fact that Europe is only a precursor, not unlike the world League and that what is desirable only to the extent possible ie policy.

Reply finally those who want to stamp Pan-Europa a utopia that no great historical event before its emergence escaped on charges of utopia. But Pan-Europa is not a utopia, because no natural law of its realization in the way: Only the will of Europeans can thwart it – only the will of the Europeans can do it!

Reply, then, those who ask you if Pan-Europa will arise – or not: “It is when you want! If you do badly,
want energetic and persevering! This is not to question whether it will be built – but, that it may arise – and so be built. Because we are not astrologers – but politicians; not prophets – but fighters “!

For this struggle for Europe, I call on all, in the possibility and the necessity of the United States of Europe, believe; but a program – for the Pan-Europa is no utopia; not a dream – but a demand!

Against this great goal disappear the contrasts of the nation, religion and party: first must be a house built before the dispute over the wallpaper begins!

So like parties, and denominations their opposites in domestic politics unsubscribe – in foreign policy they must be united in the struggle against the enemies of the European idea. Pan-Europa victory – so the web is free to solve all social and cultural issues; subject Pan-Europa – then do all the other questions of themselves, as in an old man, a mass grave, Europe will be a pile of rubble – a cemetery of a once thriving culture.

Only through unity can the Pan-Europeans of all tongues triumph over the discordant anti-Europeans in their chauvinism and fight each other.

The weapons in the struggle for Pan-Europa are: Enlightenment and Propaganda. A resolute and staunch Pan-European is considered more than a thousand weaklings and doubters. Because of the faith and advertising power of the first Pan-Europeans depends the victory of the idea.

Why throw, Europeans, the European question in all debates; at home and among friends, in clubs and assemblies, in the press and in the literature! Forcing your fellow human beings to decide for or against the European idea! Open their eyes, and tear them out of their indifference!

Make it clear to all that this is about everything. Are your opponents strong:You’re stronger! Are they smart:You’re smarter! Are they resolved: You’re more determined than them! – They refuted everywhere, shows where their path leads! Debunked, their leaders as deceiver, and blind!

Those who are anti-European from blindness – be clear eyed! They are from insanity – fight! The it for profit and ambition are – destroyed! For the sale and barter away your future and the future of your children: There are no worse Traitors and criminals more dangerous than them!

In this struggle against blindness, madness and crimes of the anti-European policy is your commitment: clarity of cognition and purity of will.

The “Pan-European Union” is the organ of the Pan-European movement. Admission is open to all, and save some of the Europe want: women and men, associations and organizations. She puts her fellow fighters on the duty to fight for Pan-Europa.

Everyone struggles with the means at his disposal. Recruit new Pan-Europeans, compel your candidates to the European Agreement program to confess! Who can speak for the propaganda talking about! Who can pay for it, pay! Who write for them can write!

Because of the way to Pan-Europa says: Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda!

What Comenius and Nietzsche dreamed – Kant conceived – Bonaparte Mazzini and have wanted – the Pan-European movement should realize: the United States of Europe!

In the struggle for Pan-Europe, the roles are distributed so that the German Pan-Europeans only against the German anti-Europeans – the French Pan-Europeans against the French anti-Europeans, fight. Any other tactic does more harm than good and increase chauvinism rather than reduce it. Only when in a nation of European ideas against the chauvinism is enforced, it has the right to wear it on the outside.

The first Pan-Europeans should be aware that they are a million army outpost in the struggle for the future decision of their continent.

The Sign of the Sun Cross, which connects the sun of the Enlightenment with the Red Cross of international humanity – will the pan-European ideas triumph over all restrictions and inhumanity chauvinistic destruction policy.

In this sign the new Europe will grow, which already confess the best Europeans.

Help, Europeans prepare this great division between future and past, between humanity and inhumanity, Enlightenment and delusion, rebirth and destruction!

Given the choice between War and peace, freedom and oppression, prosperity and ruin, Europe will in its overwhelming majority in favor of Pan-Europa decide.

He who loves his nation, must Pan-Europa want!

He who loves his family, must Pan-Europa want!

Who loves himself, must Pan-Europa want!

Only a European permanent peace for the future of European nations, families, and people.

Close to you, Europeans, the Pan-European Movement in the masses, rescues Europe and your children!

 

Posted in Federal Europe, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EU Federalization: The Briand Plan

Ariste Briand devised the so called Briand plan in 1929. The plan concerned the creation of a federal union of European States within the framework of the League of Nations.

Who was Ariste Briand ?

Ariste Briand

Ariste Briand was a French Statesman. He served 11 times as Prime Minister for France during the time of the French Third Republic. He was born in Nantes, 28th March 1862, and died on 7th March 1932.

Whilst studying at the Nantes Lycée, Briand developed a close relationship with Jules Verne. Briand read Law, and moved into politics, writing articles for the anarchist journal Le Peuple, and became a politically active and prominent membere of the movement for the formation of trade unions. Briand became a leader of the French Socialist Party from 1894, and later declared himself a strong partisan of the union of the Left, aka the Bloc, in order to check reactionary Deputies on the Right.

Briand succeeded Clemenceau as Prime Minister in 1909, serving until 1911. Briand served briefly again as Prime Minister in 1913, and following French defeats in WWI, Briand became both Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in 1915, taking over from René Viviani and Théophile Delcassé respectively. He resigned in 1917 following dispute over the prospective Nivelle Offensive.

In 1921 Briand returned to power and supervised the French Role in the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-1922. Due to German intransigence which led to failure in reaching agreement over reparations, Briand was succeeded by Raymond Poincaré. Brand’s more conciliatory style made him more acceptable in the wake of the Ruhr Crisis, and in 1925 he returned to the Quai d’Orsay as Foreign Minister, a role he occupied until his death in 1932.

Briand notably negotiated the Briand-Ceretti Agreement with the Vatican, which gave the French government a role in the appointment of Catholic Bishops, and he shared the Nobel Peace Price with Gustav Stresemann in 1926 for his work on the Locarno Treaties. (The UK’s Austen Chamberlain had received a share of this prize a year earlier for his contribution to these Treaties: The Pact of Locarno – Rhine Pact – ended the dispute between France and Germany over war reparations.)

In 1927, Briand and US Secretary of state Frank B Kellogg settled a universal pact outlawing war which led in 1928 to the Pact of Paris: The Kellogg-Briand Pact (27th August 1928).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristide_Briand

The Briand Plan: Roots

Whilst working on the Locarno Treaties, Briand developed a plan for addressing what he saw as a fundamental problem in the structure of Europe for guaranteeing peace post WWI.

On 23rd February 1926, Briand expressed his concern thus:

« Il y aura un moment où l’Europe ne restera plus dans l’état de dispersion où elle est. Elle sera, comme l’Amérique, un État fédéral. Sinon, et cela pour régler une production anarchique, elle va à la catastrophe sociale. Il faudra à un moment donné une espèce d’association d’intérêts qui sera forcément dominée par les préoccupations d’associations politiques, il faudra trouver une formule d’Union fédérale d’Europe comme en Amérique. La France doit se tourner vers un tel avenir »

‘There will be a time when Europe can no longer remain a dispersion of states as it is. It will, like America, become a federal state. Otherwise, like an anarchic production, it will head towards social catastrophe. It will be at some point some kind of association of interests inevitably dominated political concerns and associations, we must find a formula for federal Union Europe like in America. France must turn to such a future.’

Briand did not revisit this concern publicly again until 1929 when he brought his idea into the public and political domain. This started with an address to the Council of the League of Nations in Madrid of that year, followed by Press releases on the 10th July 1929.

On 31st July 1929, Briand addressed the French parliament:

« il y a quatre ans que je réfléchis à ce vaste problème »

‘For four years I have reflected on this vast problem’

In the address he went on to present his plan to the government and discussed the possibility of permanent contact between European governments.

Why did Briand revisit his concerns ?

i) In December 1928 the Council of the League of Nations in Lugano saw confrontation between Stresemann and Zalewski. There was a problem with German minorities separated from Germany as a result of the treaty of Versailles, and German revisionism.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19281216&id=TPkjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Dg8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6922,2655823

ii) There was general disappointment with the Kellogg-Briand Pact as it became clear that the law was not working.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

iii) The conference of the Hague, 1929 and the Young Report. This caused the estrangement of Briand and Stresemann, a division between France and Germany.

http://weimar_republik.enacademic.com/303/THE_Hague_Conferences

The Briand Plan

Briand formally presented his plan for a European Federation at a speech on 5th September 1929 given to the 10th General Assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva.

« Je pense qu’entre les peuples qui sont géographiquement groupés, comme les peuples d’Europe, il doit exister une sorte de lien fédéral. Ces peuples doivent avoir à tout instant la possibilité d’entrer en contact, de discuter de leurs intérêts communs, de prendre des résolutions communes. Ils doivent, en un mot, établir entre eux un lien de solidarité qui leur permette de faire face, au moment voulu, à des circonstances graves si elles venaient à naître. »

‘I think between peoples who are geographically grouped, as the peoples of Europe, there must be some sort of federal link. These people must have the opportunity at any time to get in touch to discuss their common interests, to take joint resolutions. They must, in short, establish between them a bond of solidarity that enables them to cope, when required, with serious circumstances should they arise.’

« C’est ce lien, messieurs, que je voudrais m’efforcer de créer. »

‘It is this connection, gentlemen, that I would endeavor to create.’

« Évidemment, l’association agir a surtout dans le domaine économique: c’est la nécessité la plus pressante. Je crois qu’on peut en ce domaine, obtenir des succès. Mais je suis sûr aussi qu’au point de vue politique ou au point de vue social, le lien fédéral, sans toucher à la souveraineté d’aucune des nations qui pourraient faire partie d’une telle association, peut être bienfaisant »

‘Obviously, the association has to act especially in the economic field: the most pressing necessity. I think it is in this field, we obtain success. But I am also sure that politically or socially, the federal link, without affecting the sovereignty of any nation that could be part of such an association can be beneficial.’

The French Government issued a memorandum on the Briand Plan on 1st May 1930.

http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11583/

The memorandum raised the following key points:

a) Refuting allegations that the new institution could undermine the League of Nations, Briand believed that a Federal European Union could be created within the framework of the League:

« Il ne s’agit nullement de constituer un groupement européen en dehors de la SdN, mais au contraire d’harmoniser les intérêts européens sous le contrôle et dans l’esprit de la SdN (…)»

‘There is no way to establish a European grouping outside the League of Nations, but rather to harmonize European interests under the control and in the spirit of the League (…)’

b) Refuting possible hostility of the project to other states outside Europe

« L’abolition des douanes intérieures ne signifie pas l’instauration aux limites de la communauté d’une «barrière plus rigoureuse». »

‘The abolition of internal customs does not mean establishing the boundaries of the community to a “more rigorous barrier”.’

c) No loss of sovereignty on the part of Member States

« C’est sur le plan de la souveraineté absolue et de l’entière indépendance politique que doit être réalisée l’entente entre nations européennes. »

‘This is in terms of the absolute sovereignty and full political independence must be achieved agreement between the European nations.’

The memorandum presented some concrete proposals:

  • Development of a “pact of general political character”

« Assurer à l’Union européenne les organes indispensables à l’accomplissement de sa tâche. »

‘Ensuring the indispensible organs of the European Union for the accomplishment of its task.’

… and suggested some organs which would be required for the European Union:

  • European Conference
  • Political Committee
  • Secretariat

Key points on the philosophy and approach to Federalization were also stated:

« Subordination du problème économique au problème politique. »

  • « Fédération fondée sur l’idée d’union et non d’unité »
  • « Extension progressive à toute la communauté européenne de la politique de garanties internationales inaugurée à Locarno »

‘Subordination of the economic problem to political problems.’

  • ‘Federation based on the idea of union and not unity “
  • ‘Progressive extension to the entire European community of the international polical guaranties inaugurated at Locarno’

The prescription of « Fédération fondée sur l’idée d’union et non d’unité » : Federation of Union not Unity, is of fundamental importance to Briand’s idea, and indeed Federalization for Europe.

This builds on the model of Federation described by Proudhon in ‘Du Principe Fédératif’, 1863.

The full text is here in French:

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Proudhon_-_Du_Principe_f%C3%A9d%C3%A9ratif/Texte_complet

A translation of the core passages in English here: http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html

Proudhon considers government to derive from systems of organization driven by two diametrically opposed forces: Authority and Liberty. The dialectic which exists between these desires, reflected by a societies struggle between faith and reason, result in individual systems of government emerging which Proudhon considers to be ‘sketches’.

Proudhon isolates Federation in Chapter VII as a more certain system of government which can bind the sketches together through contract and alliance in order to ensure peace, mutual economic prosperity and stability.

An important point which Proudhon argues is that Federation should stabilize the balance of the forces of authority and liberty preventing polarization occurring within Federated members, and indeed the Federal entity itself. Briand’s plan was broadly disrupted in 1930’s Europe as European States polarized along these lines, leading to a break down in the international order and ultimately WWII: The social catastrophe of which Briand foresaw the possibility of in 1926 was then realized.

Federal authority requires the consent of member States in recognizing the sovereignty of the Federal entity. Proudhon points out that such consent does not necessitate the release of sovereignty by member states. The Federal authority should respect the sovereignty of member States as per the contract that has been entered into when the member States recognized the Federal authority.

In the United States of America, the respect of member State sovereignty by the Federal Sovereign is codified in the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In the aftermath of WWII, when speaking in Zurich 1946, Churchill modified Briand’s vision slightly when he stated:

‘The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.

The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might each take their individual place among the United States of Europe.’

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

There is a slight problem here as this increases the requirement for the Federal Authority to be authoritarian.

That was an understandable desire in the aftermath of WWII, but for modern liberal Europe after 70 years of peace, such an expression by a Federal Authority would likely result in reaction among prospective member States which would lead to their internal polarization to either meet or reject the demands of the Federal authority. That is being seen at this time of writing and may lead directly to the scenario which played out in 1930’s Europe that resulted in WWII.

The memorandum goes on to speak about how federation could be realized:

« rapprochement des économies européennes réalisé sous la responsabilité politique des gouvernements solidaires »

  • « pacte de solidarité économique »dont le but final serait l’ « établissement d’un marché commun pour l’élévation au maximum du niveau de bien-être humain sur l’ensemble des territoires de la Communauté européenne. »

‘Harmonization of European economies performed under the political responsibility of supporting governments’

  • ‘Economic solidarity pact’ whose ultimate goal is the ‘Establishment of a common market for the maximum elevation of the level of human well-being in all the territories of the European Community.’

« organisation rationnelle de la production et des échanges européens par voie de libération progressive et de simplification méthodique de la circulation des marchandises, des capitaux et des personnes»

‘rational organization of production and European trade through progressive liberalization and simplification of the methodical movement of goods, capital and persons’

The responses of the other 26 European Governments to the French Memorandum are documented here:

http://fondationsaintjohnperse.fr/en/la-programmation-culturelle/archives/europe_documentation/les-reponses/

At the Eleventh Assembly of the League of Nations, between 11-17 September 1930 the French plan was discussed.

On September 11th, A report was issued on the Briand Plan which led to the creation of the Commission of Enquiry for European Union (CEUE) on the 17th September 1930.

The first session fo the CEUE was held on September 3rd, and the CEUE operated until 1932, ending with the death of Briand in March of that year.

A report on the constitution, organization and procedure of the CEUE to the League of Nations:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/leagon12&div=72&id=&page=

A report by the CEUE to the League of Nations on a draft economic non-aggression pact is available here:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/leagon13&div=8&id=&page=

There is more information on the CEUE and ‘United States of Europe’ as proposed by Briand in the book:

Post-War German-Austrian Relations, The Anschluss Movement, 1918-1936, by M Margaret Ball

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VLSiAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

After the death of Briand the Federalization of Europe was put on hold. This was in part due to the loss of its key proponent, but also due to the events which led Europe to WWII.

Briand’s chief of staff, Alexis Leger, also known as Saint-John Perse, gave a speech in Hommage to Braind at the University of New York, on 28th March 1942:

http://fondationsaintjohnperse.fr/en/la-programmation-culturelle/archives/europe_documentation/new-york-samedi-28-mars-1942hommage-international/

Alexis had been exiled by the Vichy government in 1940 and moved to the US. He had served as a the French diplomat to China, and is more widely known as a poet.

Leger had come to prominence previously when the French press on the right (Le Figaro) and extreme right (L’Action française) had attempted to destablize him and Briand’s Memorandum in what is known as the ‘Case de Noblet-Briand-Leger’ This dated back to 1928, initiated when a confidential document was leaked in the Hearst press of the US leading to the derailing of the Franco-British negotiations by painting them as being against Germany. It should be understood that Hearst supported the Nazi regime at the time, and the French Right used such tactics against the Left.

The 3rd secretary of the Embassy, Jean de Noblet, was held responsible for the leak, working with a journalist acting on behalf of Hearst. This led to Hearst himself being turned away at the French border in 1930.

http://fondationsaintjohnperse.fr/en/la-programmation-culturelle/archives/europe_documentation/affaire-de-noblet/

The ideas within the Briand plan were revived in Europe after WWII and were expressed by Churchill and Monnet in particular.

The main proponent of an earlier and competing idea for European Union, the Paneuropean Union, Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, attempted to contact Leger in the US. Kalergi himself was in the US at that time.

The Paneuropean Union is described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union

Note: More background is provided in the ‘Post-War German-Austrian Relations, The Anschluss Movement, 1918-1936′ chapter cited above, including the detail that the Paneuropean model sought to explicitly exclude England and Russia from its vision for European Union.

Churchill’s speech in Zurich on 19th September 1946, speaking of the tragedy of Europe, asked essentially the same question after the fact that Briand had before in 1926:

‘What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.’

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

Jean Monnet re-formulated the idea in his work of 1949. Parts of Monnet’s work have themselves come under strange focus recently:

https://eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/european-union-what-did-monnet-say-about-europes-nations-and-the-superstate/

 

 

Posted in Federal Europe, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Google Translate: Gist Based Translations and Political Risk

Today this abstract found an interesting claim that was doing the rounds on Twitter relating to an El Pais article published 8th April 2014 and a claim that it reported that UK Prime Minister David Cameron had stated that he would not respect a Yes referendum vote.

Whilst there are some ongoing credibility problems for officialdom on this issue, and despite appearances this abstract is not completely partisan, this seemed worth investigating further.

The article which was making the claim is a blog post on the Boiling Frog site:

http://thefrogsalittlehot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/cameron-admits-he-wont-honour-out-vote.html

This article has been duplicated here:

http://www.th-eu-nit.com/index.php/articles/2382-cameron-admits-he-wont-honour-an-out-vote-in-a-referendum

To quote:

Cameron has no intention of honouring an out vote in the unlikely event one would occur. In an interview with the Spanish El Pais with the headline quote from Cameron; “The best solution for the UK is to stay in a reformed EU”, he was asked the following (via Google translate):

In case of a Yes victory in the referendum that will organize onleaving the EU, would you be willing to withdraw from the Union?

And Cameron’s response:

I would not. (No me gustaría)

That Cameron makes such an admission – of willfully ignoring a referendum vote – in a foreign newspaper is revealing. Truly he’s the child of Europe, his hero evidently instead is Barroso (EU Commission President):

“They must go on voting until they get it right.”

Slightly amazingly “cast-iron” has managed to sink even lower.

Pretty damning Op Ed, potentially devastating if backed up by the source.

Now the source is here:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/04/08/actualidad/1365419719_656809.html

Running this through Google translate, the offending response this abstract got on the first attempt is:

I would hate. (No me gustaría)

The clue to the error in the blog post, and proof that the Op Ed is seriously flawed, is actually quoted in the blog article:

I would not. (No me gustaría)

Some Spanish theory:

The verb ‘to like’ is: gustar

Conditional tense structure for first person (me = I) is: gustaría

http://www.123teachme.com/spanish_verb_conjugation/gustar

A correct, and literal, translation is:

I would not like. (No me gustaría)

Whatever the reporter recorded of Cameron’s words indicated that he was emotionally neutral in expressing a political fact that he would not like a Yes vote. There is no indication in the El Pais report that he stated he would not honour a Yes vote – as the erroneous Boiling Frog translation suggests.

Where could the error have come from ?

Applying Hanlon’s Razor, malicious intent on the part of the Boiling Frog translator can be discounted, and the error can be accounted for through a form of ‘supidity': In this case a lack of experience using the Google Translate tool.

Google Translate is not a 100% perfect translator: No electronic translation tools are, simply because machines still do not understand ‘context’ and are limited by however good the individuals who built them built them to be.

With Spanish one has to be careful with Google Translate.

The tool will offer alternative translations – these are not necessarily correct either, but are offered  because the tool designers know it is not perfect. When used properly it is effective, but that requires a little understanding of the language.

The alternative translation of: ‘I would hate’ demonstrates this limitation of Google Translate quite nicely.

In Spanish, the verb to hate is: odiar

Conditional tense structure for first person (me = I) is: odiaría

http://www.123teachme.com/spanish_verb_conjugation/odiar

So:

Yo me odiaría (I would hate)

Now, in discussion with a third party they raised the point that the intention was roughly the same: I would hate = I would not like.

This abstract disagrees as the emotional content of ‘hate’ is much more obvious – it is a very much stronger expression of intent, and clearly by the verb used in the report not reflective of the expression of dislike.

That Google Translate offers the ‘hateful’ expression as a synonym for dislike should now be as curious to you the reader, as it is to this abstract.

This abstract will finally point out that the construction of Babel ended when language was confounded.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Twitter: Information Warfare, Propaganda and the ‘Troll’

This abstract came across an interesting blog post today, which is recommended reading for anyone using the Twitter platform:

http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/05/how-to-spot-russian-twitter-troll.html

The author provides some examples of accounts and strategies which are claimed to source from Russian Intelligence.

The cases and arguments made are broadly correct, however, there are some important details and concepts missing which targets – that is anyone who is not sourcing this way – should be aware of.

i) Accounts which send gibberish, hostile links and/or offensive / inappropriate media.

These are attempted direct attacks through the Twitter platform targetting individuals, with the aim of compromising the remote machine, or producing a negative reaction.

With certain media content this may be sent with a view to discredit or bring unwarranted criminal action against the target. To the latter point, the following could constitute a credible example:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/04/shock-in-downing-street-after-no-10-adviser-arrested-on-chil

ii) China et al.

This abstract has directly observed accounts purporting to source from China attempting to engage in exactly the same activities as the Russian accounts: In some instances, in tandem. 

Consider carefully:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/china-reacts-furiously-us-cyber-espionage-charges

This should not distract from Russian activity, but in focusing on Russian ‘Trolls’ it would leave a target more susceptible to an attack from another source. On this point, this abstract raises an eye-brow towards the remote blog author.

iii) The ‘Troll’ Label

This humble abstract would like to point out that labelling information warfare operatives as ‘Trolls’ simplifies matters a bit. As ‘Troll’ has become a label distorted to apply to folk on Twitter who express a differing opinion – most notably abused by those on the political Left and/or Liberals – one needs to be again cautious.

Trolls are easy to spot and filter. Information warfare agents are not so easy.

Stifling discussion on the Twitter platform through abuse of the ‘Troll’ label constitutes a direct attack on the individual of the nature of which the article is warning about.

iv) Dezinformatsiya: The art of disinformation.

Disinformation is very simple: It is false information.

The principal aim of projecting false information is to spread false knowledge among the target population with a view to discrediting individuals, corporations or governments, or seeding dissent.

In the UK, ‘Bedroom Tax’ is a good example of a dezinformatziya campaign: The tax in question was no such thing, but a reform to the benefits system where a spare room subsidy for people in state provided accommodation  was withdrawn.

False projections of the intentions of the EU, or outright hostile ‘rumour’ also qualify as good examples, as do false or ‘erroneous’ stories about politicians which are released in ‘smear’ campaigns aimed at discrediting.

More information on the advanced methods which were developed in the Soviet Union here:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/dinform.html

The reader should be aware that individuals are generally biased towards accepting negative propaganda with a higher probability than positive, a phenomena well understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

v) Maskirovka: The art of deception

Accounts which purport to be what they are not fall into this category directly.

Hostile ‘Parody’ accounts which are not clearly identifiable as such are somewhat blatant.

Those accounts which appear to be regular people, as identified in the above article, fall into this category also. The strategy of information warfare is not all immediate. In order for accounts to build credibility, hence making them more effective ‘weapons’ for dissemination of propaganda takes time.

The aim is to provide a mechanism which carries ‘authority’ or is otherwise trusted in the eyes of the target from which dezinformatsiya and propaganda can be injected.

More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maskirovka

vi) Provokatsiya: The art of provocation

This is perhaps the most dangerous and insidious of the techniques as it essentially relies on manipulating your targets to do your work for you.

Whilst this includes techniques such as false flagging and ‘agent-provocateur’, there is a more subtle aspect which is less obvious.

This article from the BBC explains how provokatsiya is applied in the media:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Russian-media-and-the-art-of-provokatsiya-

This blog post provides further details:

http://20committee.com/2014/03/29/understanding-provocation/

In summary: The technique aims to discredit either individuals or institutions, usually targeting political ideas of specific policies, through subversion of the perception and belief systems of the target. That is: Changing the targets opinions and beliefs in a specific way in order to satisfy the objectives of the attacker.

vii) A coherent strategy: Active Measures

In the information space which Twitter and the internet inhabit, provokatsiya works best when combined carefully with maskirovka and dezinformatsiya. This is not exclusively an immediate attack strategy or a single one. Some strategies will have been running for a while.

For more information on this overarching strategy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

The following is also recommended:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/39024/john-c-campbell/dezinformatsia-active-measures-in-soviet-strategy-new-lies-for-o

It should be understood that many ‘Conspiracy Theories’ are Active Measure campaigns, and these are run against targets by both sides. The rational is the same though: To subvert the belief system and rational judgement of the targets for a predetermined end.

The following blog post raises an interesting question also:

http://20committee.com/2012/07/10/is-it-still-a-conspiracy-theory-when-they-admit-it/

Defence

The best line of defence in information warfare is: Awareness.

Being aware of the strategies which are being used against you, and understanding how to detect them and if necessary, help counter and reduce their probability of success.

This process of detection can also be described as: Counter Intelligence.

Critical reading and filtering of information is the primary defence.

a) Be aware of the basic principals of propaganda:

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

In particular, the following principal is worth keeping in mind at all times:

‘Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false’

In order for propaganda to work it needs to be accepted and internalized by the target. A target is unlikely to accept propaganda if it is incredible.

It is also important to be aware that comments or opinions which match personal prejudice or beliefs will more likely be agreed with by a target, and will resonate in the target.

b) Before forming an opinion or belief, try to check the source.

If the source is from an authoritative one which is trusted it should be safer. Note that the Russian RT network has proven itself to be a hostile source, despite it’s appearance.

Sources are important: Before entrusting they should be checked.

Anonymous sources – like this one – should be judged carefully.

Transparency on sourcing for information / opinion given is paramount. (ie. If you have read this far, check the links and decide if this source is hostile or not)

Hostile intent should also be weighed carefully.

c) As a final check, ask: Cui Bono ?

‘Who benefits from me adopting this belief, or acting – or indeed reacting – to this information in a certain way ?’

There are no hard and fast rules as the nature of the game is ultimately one of manipulation and coercion, and both sides are playing by the same rules, and sometimes with similar objectives.

Being unaware of what is happening does leave a target completely unprotected.

 

Posted in Twitter, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A dialog between libertarian left and right: Some positive consensus…

Your humble abstract recently found itself engaged in a series of Twitter exchanges with an account that described itself as being a European ‘radical anti-capitalist anarchist’. There was evidence of a Green agenda also. The discourse initiated from a discussion about the subject of European Federalization, but digressed onto more fundamental topics fairly swiftly.

Note: That is not an attack on that account (or the actual person controlling it), and neither is this article. Those words the remote account uses describe itself may evoke a negative reaction in the mind of the reader irrespective of if the reader is sympathetic to the concepts or not: Such reaction is best suspended for now, and questioned later.

After some initial rocky interaction it became very clear that the account was not as prejudice would suggest. After reading through blog posts published by the account that intuition was confirmed.

Contact had been made with a justifiably irritated but intelligent and rational member of the libertarian left.

Disclosure: This abstract considers itself to be of the rational libertarian right.

The dialog agenda was broadly driven by the remote account as this abstract was interested in hearing the arguments and views of the other. Rather than being overtly political, most of the issues raised – including those relating to environmental concerns – were economic, and, political-economic.

This abstract asked some questions of the remote account:

Q. Do you perceive the markets as being immoral? If so, does that bother you ?
A. Market outcomes are a disaster for the society, so yes and yes.

Q. Ok – Irrespective of outcomes – do you consider markets immoral or amoral ?
A. The outcomes make them moral or immoral.

Q. The way the ‘market’ works now – do you see that as bad or absent morality ?
A. As it works now, well it’s basically criminal.

Q. So absent any morality in the way it [the market] operates ?
A. Markets structurally lead to great economic disparity if wage labour and/or loans are allowed.

Q. Do you see people as unique individuals or a collective common unit ?
A. You cannot separate ppl being individuals and parts of their communities. We are both. The word “individual” is broken in some sense, because it implies separation from the community and environment. eparation from the community (banishment) used to mean death to the individual for a long long time.

NB: This initial response highlighted a subtle problem in semantics: The remote account is fluent in English but not a native speaker. This initial response is important as it reflects a deep cultural belief independent of politics that frames an important part of the remote accounts belief structures. This abstract reframed the original question to find a common ground:

Q. When you think of a person do you see that person or their community first ?
A. I strive to see the individual, but I make a few select exceptions there when it comes to the 1% and those who support them.

[ On companies and organization of labor and ownership of means of production ]

Q. [ Means of production ] Owned by the individuals through a collective, share in a private enterprise, or indirectly through the state ?
A. I think that the ownership of the means of production must go to the workers for as long as they work in a given company.

Q. Is it perceived harm against people or nature that motivates you more ?
A. Both. And ppl cannot live if nature is destroyed.

The generalized conclusion that market outcomes always lead to disaster is understandable at present. Across Europe the austerity policies imposed on Eurozone member States have had direct impact on many people. Most will perceive the economic hardship as being the result of the markets, and due to severity will perceive disaster.

In part the observations will be fact, as experienced by declining living standards and high youth unemployment for example, but the view will have also been shaped by the very negative media reporting which reinforces this negative perception.

Market outcomes determining morality is an obvious transitive fallacy but is reasoning that will be common among people generally. Moral market decisions can result in harm being inflicted on individuals / society, which underlines arguments libertarians have for minimal government intervention in the market place. Whilst those on the right would place moral faith in individuals control and ownership of productive capital, the left have a different position which, as emerged below, carries more weight at present.

The perception that the current neo-liberal status quo is criminal is a strong one. It is not well understood that capitalism has undergone a cosmetic surgery procedure that would stun even Shelly’s infamous Doctor. The criminal perception implies that the current status quo is seen not only as amoral but also immoral. This abstract agrees with the remote account 100% on this perception.

From a libertarian point of view this is a raised flag.

The question of morality was asked after it became clear that the remote account had a deep concern that the markets could be responsible for ecological destruction. The following captures this aspect of the concern from earlier discourse:

I believe what I see, i.e., concentration of wealth leading to concentration of power and ecocide.

This is a very powerful perception. This abstract believes it has been slightly distorted from reality.

All people have an instinct for preservation of their habitat: That is evolved into us and is partly responsible for the survival of mankind. The Biophilia hypothesis attempts to classify this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis

Psychologists have studied this also, and its realization in political motivations is also understood well. The paper of Fox 1985 ( http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/commons.html ) which looks at the link between ideology and Utopian values as a reaction to ‘the tragedy of the commons’ ( http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hardin%201968.pdf ) is a good example. The conflicts that political reaction can lead to in this context has been studied well in California ( http://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/29.pdf )

The following article, ‘The Moral Imperative of the Market’, published on the von Mises site codifies the concern about destructive market behaviour in a libertarian economic frame:

http://mises.org/daily/5193

The absence of, or corruption of, morality within the market place causes fundamental damage to the way the markets operate, and as the above dialog suggests, is in fact causing people to be alienated from the market.

This is not a reaction against capitalism per se, but a reaction against the market itself: For most people that distinction is not apparent, and understandably so as it is not generally noticed in day to day life.

The remote account indicates very clearly that harm against both people and nature are motivation for its reaction, and states accurately that people cannot survive without a healthy habitat. Whilst generally focused on the individual, there is a valid case here for applying the no harm principal to nature but only when that principal reduces harm more for people.

Within the doctrines advocated by the Green movement that balance is shifted too far towards nature and away from man which leads to policy ideas which harm man in order to reduce harm of nature: http://environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu/node/336

Rigorous analysis of the implications of seeking CO2 emission reductions as policy is a classic example.

Some of the Green eco-policies that have done measurable damage to industrialized economies fall into that category. They have also paradoxically caused harm to nature also.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-wind-power.html

http://www.nber.org/reporter/spring00/goulder.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10644983/UK-floods-Former-Environment-Agency-head-attacks-harrumphing-Ministers.html

The way arguments are presented by the Green lobby do resonate on many several levels, but conceal fundamental flaws which libertarians can expose by a straight forward application of the ‘no harm principal’, and in some cases, observation of policy outcomes.

This abstract made the following statement which was ‘favorited’ by the remote account. That is interpreted as consensus agreement:

I ask clarity about immoral vs. amoral as I think you link market action to apparent social injustice.

Actual social injustice is very clear across Europe at present and people have associated most of it with the economic austerity policies, and it would appear that way the markets operate.

A central political question here is ownership of means of production. Troika imposed policies on Eurozone countries have had the effect of widening and deepening socio-economic gaps, and in disenfranchising many people from the economy itself.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/14/youth-unemployment-wreck-europe-economic-recovery

The remote account, as above, explicitly stated that it was in favour of the co-operative model for capital formation.

The Spanish Mondragon model was offered as example by the remote account:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon

Consensus on concept was found on the following two examples additionally:

John Lewis Partnership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
UK Co-Op Group (minus the broken bank): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_co-operative_movement

The following exchange between this abstract (LA) and the remote account (RA) revealed an important point:

LA: The trust which used to exist between worker and private owner has been damaged.
RA: “damaged” is the understatement of the century
RA: The little trust there ever was has been obliterated.

This point of view is politically neutral, but significant from a libertarian perspective.

The issue of trust is intertwined with perceived moral actions and personal judgement made by the individual. Once lost it is generally very hard to regain. As austerity policies were advanced and implemented by governmental organizations, not by private enterprise, it is clear that targets of the policies have been the owners of private enterprise.

Given that major the heads of large European Businesses actually demanded more austerity in 2013, this is a paradoxical statement: http://blogs.euobserver.com/cronin/2013/11/15/business-chiefs-demand-more-austerity/

To resolve the paradox it is worth noting that the austerity policies had a profoundly negative effect on small to medium sized enterprises acrosss the Eurozone, as well as on individual workers through downward pressure on wages and entitlement expectations. This has affected both private and public enterprises as well as the individual:

http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-broadcaster-ert-to-shut-down-2013-6

http://www.insol-europe.org/news-highlights/?itemid=8468008

Giving the option to lobby the European Commission directly to big business, it was logical that big business would lobby for austerity. This is provides an indirect mechanism for targeting competition, and also applies indirect pressure on their own work forces.

This is course is not a moral mode of operating within the market, and big business has undermined its imputed responsibilities. It is however Government at both the national and European level that has failed in its duty of care to ensure that dominant players do not disrupt the market. The transnational aspect of this lobby and complicity of Government has led to disproportionate impacts in some member States, as evidenced graphically in Greece.

http://www.intereconomics.eu/archive/year/2013/1/842/

Politically, a reaction whereby people seek to take back control of means of production through the co-operative model is not anti-capitalist, and in context is wholly justifiable. A functioning economy composed of firms which organize labor differently would present less structural risk, and for workers provides a more approachable market place in which to sell their labor. Moreover it would help the market to restore it moral imperative through free competition, and subsequently recover properly and restore trust: That assumes co-operatives would behave in a more moral fashion and the regulators of the market enforce the rules fairly and promptly.

Relaxing legislation designed to block such entities from forming perhaps could be a viable policy move, however, moves to provide advantage through taxation would not be.

The remote account revealed that in the past it had worked in a large corporation for 2 years. In the accounts words: ‘I still get angry when I remember.. it was like the Soviet Union.’

Anyone who has worked in a large enterprise will be aware that somewhat heavy political indoctrination is handed down now upon joining, and continually pushed and enforced while employed. The UK is currently seeing an interesting and long overdue reaction against this in the public sector: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/29/ukip-councillor-refuses-equality-training

It should be understood that firms are compelled to impose this indoctrination on employees under various EU laws (passed onto member State statutes), and indirectly through changes to employee and employer liabilities again through statutory law and insurance terms. Vicarious liability has been used quite efficiently to force business to implement this in the UK for example: http://www.uktrainingworldwide.com/BB/VicariousLiability.htm

The additional costs to enterprise are not insignificant, and the ostensible reasoning, perhaps to help ensure that the rights enshrined in the ECHR ( http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ) are upheld reflects good intention.

From a libertarian point of view there are very obvious objections to this otherwise unproductive additional burden being placed on capital, and the de-facto coercion of employees to conform to a specific political value system also. As the remote account states, the strategy is very similar to the party membership requirement for employment in the defunct Soviet system. The consequences for not following this more modern line are similar also. This approach likely breeds resentment rather than belief towards the values enshrined in the ECHR also: an unintended consequence of profound importance.

The discourse ended on a positive note with reference being made to the positive case for anarchism.

As mentioned in the opening, certain terms have been tarnished with a broad and negative brush over the years. The positive case for anarchism is best understood in terms of Tolkien and the way he portrayed The Shire, particularly in his book ‘The Hobbit’.

The following article captures some of a letter sent from Tolkien to his son:

http://libertarianchristians.com/2009/01/26/tolkien-libertarian/#sthash.IzuWaUME.dpbs

I quote some of Tolkien’s words here:

‘My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ monarchy . . . Anyway, the proper study of man is anything but man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men.’

It is well known that The Shire was inspired by Tolkien’s direct experiences of English Villages: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1727

Another fine example of the positive concept was offered by the remote account: ‘The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopiam by Ursula K.Le Guin’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed

The negative associations which have been ingrained, and the negative actions of the extreme left and right which are portrayed in the media have muddied this perspective. The shift towards libertarian parties globally is reflecting that there is a broad paradigm shift ongoing at a grass roots level. Authoritarian resistance to that would result in conflict. The tension can be dissipated without conflict once elites realize that they are not the targets of dissent.

The reactionary and hostile approach of the left generally in social media, particularly on Twitter, is well known and recognized. This abstract extends gratitude to the remote account for not following that tradition, and disproving a stereotype.

As the above dialog reveals, the libertarian right and left should be talking right now: That is where consensus is most likely to be found, and the only way it can be found.

This abstract believes that the libertarian left are being subverted by their more active non-libertarian brethren on the left, and those non-libertarian agents are deliberately attempting to subvert dialog with the right, ostensibly to monopolize debate.

The positive power of Twitter is clearly revealed in this case.

Two way rational dialog is needed in order to tackle the fundamental questions relating to European Federalization, and in particular the designing and enshrining of a European Constitution.

 

Posted in Dialogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

European Union: What did Monnet say about Europe’s nations and the superstate ?

There is a popular belief at present that the entire European Union project is occult.

Most would immediately associate occult with supernatural influences or even the Satanic outright, but occult should be read in its literal dictionary meaning: ‘hidden’, ‘concealed’.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occult

The current belief is derived from a popular quote attributed to Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, in which Monnet is claimed to have written the following in a letter to a friend on 30th April, 1952:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Using Google, the above quote and attribution seems to have the following as the most reliable source:

http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm

For those not familiar, Rense is a famous ‘conspiracy theory’ site run by Jeff Rense: More a clearing house than source. This is not case closed on discrediting as conspiracy theories do sometimes turn out to be conspiracy fact.

The Rense article itself was written by Philip Jones, 12th September 2009 and published here:

http://righteousalliance.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/end-of-nation-states-of-europe-irish.html

The article was written around the time of the Irish Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon: Infamously run twice following initial defeat on 12th June 2008, yet finding acceptance on 2nd October 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum

Checking through the sources quoted in the article it has not been possible to track down a copy of the letter which is referred.

This image purporting to be from a book which is otherwise unidentified has been circulating also:

monnet_superstate_book

Absent being able to determine its source it is not clear if it is genuine or not.

Other sources, such as this …

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/standing-up-against-the-european-superstate/

… have noted that a shorter quote attributed to Monnet was referenced by Vaclav Klaus in the book ‘Europe: The Shattering of Illusions':

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening.”

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KcdLAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Vaclav+Klaus+Europe%E2%80%99s+nations+should+be+led&source=bl&ots=3MOSOyCxhG&sig=m1Btnp6vn3Bb_65E4jLz_QFoE4c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nj6GU9vdPKuy7AbJrIDoBw&ved=0CHQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Vaclav%20Klaus%20Europe%E2%80%99s%20nations%20should%20be%20led&f=false

It is true that Vaclav Klaus quotes Monnet in the book, but Klaus attributes the quote not to a letter to a friend, but in a speech Monnet delivered to the UN on the 30th April 1952.

The following is the original text of a speech which Monnet issued to the National Press Club in Washington DC on 30th April 1952 as captured in the Archive Of European Integration (AEI) at Pittsburgh University:

http://aei.pitt.edu/14364/1/S4.pdf

The US National Press Club is not the UN: Which appears to contradict Klaus’s sourcing. It should be noted that in Klaus’s text there does not appear to be any footnote indicating source for his quote, only the claim of the author.

Monnet’s address in Washington was speaking of the Plevan plan: That was a plan proposed in October 1950 by French Premier René Plevan to create a supranational European Army as part of a European Defence community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleven_plan

The plan’s main architect was Jean Monnet.

Counter to the claims, some quotes from the speech:

‘Ce traité, grâce au large soutien de l’opinion publique, a déjá été ratifié par les Parlements de la France, de l’Allemagne, des Pays-Bas, par le Sénat belge et le Sénat italien.’

‘This treaty, thanks to broad support from the public, has already been ratified by the Parliaments of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Senate’s of Belgium and Italy.’

Monnet has stated that the people of Europe broadly supported the plan, and the key European powers at the time ratified the plan.

‘L’établissement de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier jettera les bases d’une communauté de structure fédérale, gouvernée par des institutions communes, appliquant des règles communes, assurant á tous les mémes droits et imposant à tous les mêmes obligations.’

‘The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community lay the foundation for a community of federal structure, governed by common institutions, applying common rules, ensuring all the same rights and impose the same obligations at all.’

This is basic political science. Montesquieu originally derived the reasoning for federal structures back in the 18th Century. More can be read on the reasoning for Federation, and an EU equivalent of the US Federalist papers here:

http://www.europeanfederalistpapers.eu/index.php/en/papers

‘Finalement les Européens restent divisés entre eux. Dans de cadre, la coopération s’arrête quand les intérêts nationaux divergent et la guerre demeure leur ultime recours.’

‘Finally Europeans remain divided among themselves. In context, cooperation stops when the divergent national interests and war remains their ultimate use.’

This is recognizing the fundamental problem with European cooperation and integration towards a federal structure, following a summary of the history of how European sovereignty has evolved along nationalist lines over the past 1000 years.

‘Le Plan SCHUMAN et le Plan PLEVEN marquerent le début d’une révolution dans la vie politique, militaire, économique et institutionnelle de l’Europe’

‘The Schuman and Pleven plans mark the start of a revolution in the political, military and economic and institutional life of Europe.’

‘Une Europe fédérée est indispensable à la sécurité et à la paix du monde libre.’

‘A federated Europe is essential to the security and peace of the free world.’

This is just statement of common sense in the aftermath of WWII, which is still true to this day.

No where in the address does Monnet say what is attributed to him by Vaclav Klaus or Philip Jones.

However, Monnet does say this, which is somewhat interesting:

‘Mais les récentes proposition soviétiques vont à l’encontre des enseignements de l’Histoire. Au moment même où les Européens de l’Ouest se rassemblent et fusionnent leurs souverainetés afin de répondre aux problèmes d’aujourd’hui, l’Union Soviétique se révèle comme le champion en Europe du maintien des souverainetés nationales qui entraînerait le maintien des divisions entre les Européens.

La reconstitution d’un Etat allemand souverain et d’une armée nationale allemande, proposée par l’Union soviétique, tendrait à réveiller le vieil esprit nationaliste chez les Allemands et ranimerait les sentiment nationalistes des Français et des autres Européens contre les Allemands. Les vieilles blessures seraient rouvertes et les vieux ressentiments s’exerceraient á nouveau.’

‘But recent Soviet proposal goes against the teachings of history. At the same time that Western Europeans come together and merge their sovereignty to meet the challenges of today, the Soviet Union reveals himself as the champion of Europe in maintaining national sovereignty resulting maintaining divisions between Europeans.

Reconstitution of a sovereign German state and a German national army, proposed by the Soviet Union, would tend to awaken the old nationalist spirit among Germans and revive nationalist sentiment French and other Europeans against the Germans. Old wounds are reopened and old resentments exert again.’

This abstract leaves the reader to interpret these words from 1952 as they wish.

To understand why there appears to be a conspiracy against Monnet, and this particular speech, one should understand carefully how the art of provokatsiya works, particularly when applied to for the aim of undermining political authority and subversion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Russian-media-and-the-art-of-provokatsiya-

The technique relies on remaining occult in order to work.

 

Posted in Federal Europe, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Twitter Gulag: Released ! And the curious case of @PortsmouthUKIP

Today, the abstracts Twitter account was released from ‘Twitter Gulag’ following a four day suspension:

freed

Following this, and having dealt with the sundry details neglected during the incarceration, a very strange sequence of events took place.

i) @PortsmouthUKIP followed back : Always welcomed by the abstract : Free speech and debate is important.

ii) A short exchange of DM’s took place:

portsmouthUKIP_dm_full

The nature of the DM’s, having built up a reasonable following of several hundred tweeps so far, is unique. They are also the only ones received from a UKIP advertised account, and reflect a slightly different approach by the location.

The @PortsmouthUKIP account appeared to become suspended after the second message was sent: A reply to the final DM, congratulating the recent election result, was not deliverable. The abstract, assuming it had been unfollowed, checked and found the dreaded screen for @PortsmouthUKIP:

portsmouthUKIP_suspended

This abstract was concerned by the timing: Coincidences do not usually happen and something here is not right.

The abstract can see no reason why @PortsmouthUKIP should have vanished, and looks forward to conversing with them when they are back on line.

This abstract is very aware that Portsmouth in general has some significant ‘issues’ ongoing at present.

eg. http://order-order.com/2014/05/02/mike-hancocks-lawyers-claim-he-lacks-mental-capacity-libdems-back-his-independent-campaign-to-hold-council-seat/

 UPDATE:

@PortsmouthUKIP was back online by about 16:20:

portsmouthUKIP_backonline

Twitter informs users for reason for account suspension – they distinguish very clearly the Aggressive Following reason from Spam Reporting in the mail sent when suspension is lifted.

The ‘aggressive following’ is a relatively new feature which does limit accounts to following a maximum of between 150 to 250 accounts per day: The feature has caused headaches for both users and developers, and the exact logic is not well documented.

Good to see @PortsmouthUKIP back online.

This abstract recommends giving them a follow.

Posted in Twitter, Uncategorized | Leave a comment