Wednesday, November 2, 2016

827 George Galloway and Boris Johnson for Brexit; EU a creation of CIA - Paul Craig Roberts

George Galloway and Boris Johnson for Brexit; EU a creation of CIA -
Paul Craig Roberts

Newsletter published on 13 May 2016

(1) CIA funded and directed the European federalist movement - Paul
Craig Roberts
(2) George Galloway for Brexit
(3) Boris Johnson for Brexit
(4) Some applaud George Galloway’s 'great speech' for Brexit; others
walk out
(5) Wsws Trots belittle Nationalism and "Brexit"

(1) CIA funded and directed the European federalist movement - Paul
Craig Roberts


From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@lorinna.net> Date: Sat, 7 May 2016
15:32:51 +1000

Somnolent Europe, Russia, and China

Can the world wake up?

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 06, 2016

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44593.htm

On September 19, 2000, going on 16 years ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of
the London Telegraph reported:

"Declassified American government documents show that the US
intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to
build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European
federalist movement.

"The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was
working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European
state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a
campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by
Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of
Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA."

The documents show that the European Union was a creature of the CIA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

As I have previously written, Washington believes that it is easier to
control one government, the EU, than to control many separate European
governments. As Washington has a long term investment in orchestrating
the European Union, Washington is totally opposed to any country exiting
the arrangement. That is why President Obama recently went to London to
tell his lapdog, the British Prime Minister, that there could be no
British exit.

Like other European nations, the British people were never allowed to
vote on whether they were in favor of their country ceasing to exist and
them becoming Europeans. British history would become the history of a
bygone people like the Romans and Babylonians.

The oppressive nature of unaccountable EU laws and regulations and the
EU requirement to accept massive numbers of third world immigrants have
created a popular demand for a British vote on whether to remain a
sovereign country or to dissolve and submit to Brussels and its
dictatorial edicts. The vote is scheduled for June 23.

Washington’s position is that the British people must not be permitted
to decide against the EU, because such a decision is not in Washington’s
interest.

The prime minister’s job is to scare the British people with alleged
dire consequences of "going it alone." The claim is that "little
England" cannot stand alone. The British people are being told that
isolation will spell their end, and their country will become a
backwater bypassed by progress. Everything great will happen elsewhere,
and they will be left out.

If the fear campaign does not succeed and the British vote to exit the
EU, the open question is whether Washington will permit the British
government to accept the democratic outcome.

Alternatively, the British government will deceive the British people,
as it routinely does, and declare that Britain has negotiated
concessions from Brussels that dispose of the problems that concern the
British people.

Washington’s position shows that Washington is a firm believer that only
Washington’s interests are important. If other peoples wish to retain
national sovereignty, they are simply being selfish. Moreover, they are
out of compliance with Washington, which means they can be declared a
"threat to American national security." The British people are not to be
permitted to make decisions that do not comply with Washington’s
interest. My prediction is that the British people will either be
deceived or overridden.

It is Washington’s self-centeredness, the self-absorption, the
extraordinary hubris and arrogance, that explains the orchestrated
"Russian threat." Russia has not presented herself to the West as a
military threat. Yet, Washington is confronting Russia with a US/NATO
naval buildup in the Black Sea
(http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/04/nato-form-allied-fleet-black-sea-plans-fraught-with-great-risks.html
), a naval, troop and tank buildup in the Baltics and Poland (
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/10/uk-to-contribute-five-extra-ships-to-baltic-as-nato-boosts-presence
), missile bases on Russia’s borders, and plans to incorporate the
former Russian provinces of Georgia and Ukraine in US defense pacts
against Russia.

When Washington, its generals and European vassals declare Russia to be
a threat, they mean that Russia has an independent foreign policy and
acts in her own interest rather than in Washington’s interest. Russia is
a threat, because Russia demonstrated the capability of blocking
Washington’s intended invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. Russia
blunted one purpose of Washington’s coup in the Ukraine by peacefully
and democratically reuniting with Crimera, the site of Russia’s Black
Sea naval base and a Russian province for several centuries.

Perhaps you have wondered how it was possible for small countries such
as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yeman, and Venezuela to be threats to the US
superpower. On its face Washington’s claim is absurd. Do US presidents,
Pentagon officials, national security advisors, and chairmen of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff really regard countries of so little capability as
military threats to the United States and NATO countries?

No, they do not. The countries were declared threats, because they have,
or had prior to their destruction, independent foreign and economic
policies. Their policy independence means that they do not or did not
accept US hegemony. They were attacked in order to bring them under US
hegemony.

In Washington’s view, any country with an independent policy is outside
Washington’s umbrella and, therefore, is a threat.

Venezuela became, in the words of US President Obama, an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States," necessitating a "national emergency" to contain the
"Venezuelan threat" when the Venezuelan government put the interests of
the Venezuelan people above those of American corporations.

Russia became a threat when the Russian government demonstrated the
ability to block Washington’s intended military attacks on Syria and
Iran and when Washington’s coup in the Ukraine failed to deliver to
Washington the Russian Black Sea naval base.

Clearly Venezuela cannot possibly pose a military threat to the US, so
Venezuela cannot possibly pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national security of the US." Venezuela is a "threat" because the
Venezuelan government does not comply with Washington’s orders.

It is absolutely certain that Russia has made no threats whatsoever
against the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Europe, or the United States. It
is absolutely certain that Russia has not invaded the Ukraine. How do we
know? If Russia had invaded Ukraine, the Ukraine would no longer be
there. It would again be a Russian province where until about 20 years
ago Ukraine resided for centuries, for longer than the US has existed.
Indeed, the Ukraine belongs in Russia more than Hawaii and the
deracinated and conquered southern states belong in the US.

Yet, these fantastic lies from the highest ranks of the US government,
from NATO, from Washington’s British lackeys, from the
bought-and-paid-for Western media, and from the bought-and-paid-for EU
are repeated endlessly as if they are God’s revealed truth.

Syria still exists because it is under Russian protection. That is the
only reason Syria still exists, and it is also another reason that
Washington wants Russia out of the way.

Do Russia and China realize their extreme danger? I don’t think even
Iran realizes its ongoing danger despite its close call.

If Russia and China realize their danger, would the Russian government
permit one-fifth of its media to be foreign owned? Does Russia
understand that "foreign owned" means CIA owned? If not, why not? If so,
why does the Russian government permit its own destabilization at the
hands of Washington’s intelligence service acting through foreign owned
media?

China is even more careless. There are 7,000 US-funded NGOs
(non-governmental organizations) operating in China (
http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-preserving-sovereignty-or-sliding-into-western-sponsored-color-revolutions/5523019
). Only last month did the Chinese government finally move, very
belatedly, to put some restrictions on these foreign agents who are
working to destabilize China. The members of these treasonous
organizations have not been arrested. They have merely been put under
police watch, an almost useless restriction as Washington can provide
endless money with which to bribe the Chinese police.

Why do Russia and China think that their police are less susceptible to
bribes than Mexico’s or American police? Despite the multi-decade "war
on drugs," the drug flow from Mexico to the US is unimpeded. Indeed, the
police forces of both countries have a huge interest in the "war on
drugs" as the war brings them riches in the form of bribes. Indeed, as
the crucified reporter for the San Jose Mercury newspaper proved many
years ago, the CIA itself is in the drug-running business.

In the United States truth-tellers are persecuted and imprisoned, or
they are dismissed as "conspiracy theorists," "anti-semites," and
"domestic extremists." The entire Western World consists of a dystopia
far worse than the one described by George Orwell in his famous book, 1984.

That Russia and China permit Washington to operate in their media, in
their universities, in their financial systems, and in "do-good" NGOs
that infiltrate every aspect of their societies demonstrates that both
governments have no interest in their survival as independent states.
They are too scared of being called "authoritarian" by the Western
presstitute media to protect their own independence.

My prediction is that Russia and China will soon be confronted with an
unwelcome decision: accept American hegemony or go to war.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was
columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators
Syndicate. He has had many university appointments.

(2) George Galloway for Brexit

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:27:36 +0000 Subject: Great Speech-Britain Out
of EU Diktat!!! From: "penninecottage@hush.com" <penninecottage@hush.com>

http://www.georgegalloway.net/galloway-to-campaign-to-leave-the-eu/

GALLOWAY TO CAMPAIGN TO LEAVE THE EU

Posted by Admin on Monday, February 22, 2016 · Leave a Comment

George Galloway has announced that Respect will join the Grassroots Out
campaign to leave the European Union.

The Respect leader appeared as a ‘special guest’ alongside speakers from
a number of political parties on Friday at the Queen Elizabeth II
Conference Centre in Westminster to put forward the ‘Lexit’ case for
voting in favour of leaving in the June 23rd Referendum.

Evoking the memory of Tony Benn, Galloway pressed home the need for
Britain to regain its democratic power. A full version of the speech can
be found below,as well as Monday’s appearance on the Daily Politics:

Defying Cameron, London's mayor to campaign for British exit from EU

(3) Boris Johnson for Brexit

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-idUSKCN0VU0DC

Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:11am EST

Defying Cameron, London's mayor to campaign for British exit from EU

LONDON | By William James and Guy Faulconbridge

London Mayor Boris Johnson threw his weight on Sunday behind the
campaign to leave the European Union, dealing a blow to David Cameron by
increasing the chance British voters will ditch membership in a June
referendum.

In a move that electrified the referendum campaign by pitting one of
Britain's most charismatic politicians against the prime minister,
Johnson said Cameron had failed to deliver fundamental reform with an EU
deal struck on Friday.

Johnson, a political showman whose buffoonish and eccentric exterior is
thought to mask a fierce ambition to succeed Cameron, said he loved
European culture, civilization and food but that the European project
was in danger of getting out of democratic control.

"The last thing I wanted was to go against David Cameron or the
government, but after a great deal of heartache I don’t think there’s
anything else I can do. I will be advocating Vote Leave," Johnson told
reporters outside his north London home 20 minutes after texting the
prime minister his decision.

"I want a better deal for the people of this country to save them money
and to take back control," said Johnson, mayor since 2008 and a member
of parliament for Cameron's Conservative Party.

Sterling fell in Asia as concern grew that Britain would quit the EU.
The pound fell around 1 percent against the dollar, euro and yen.

Johnson, 51, said he would not take part in debates against members of
his own party. But his decision gives the "out" campaign a de facto
leader who is one of Britain's most high-profile politicians.

Betting odds of a British exit rose to a 33 percent chance from about 29
percent, according to bookmakers.

Johnson dismissed questions from reporters about whether joining the
campaign to leave the EU was the first step toward a bid to succeed
Cameron. On the contrary, he said with a smile, Cameron should stay no
matter who won the June 23 referendum.

PARTY DIVIDE

By challenging Cameron less than 48 hours after the prime minister
hailed a deal struck with other EU leaders as giving Britain a special
status, Johnson deepened a divide in the ruling Conservative Party,
split over Europe for three decades.

Cast as Britain's biggest strategic decision in at least a generation,
voters will be asked on June 23: "Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

A British exit from the EU would rock the Union - already shaken by
differences over migration and the future of the euro zone - by ripping
away its second-largest economy, one of its top two military powers and
by far its richest financial center.

Pro-Europeans, including former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John
Major, have warned that an exit could also trigger the break-up of the
United Kingdom by prompting another Scottish independence vote.

A poll published before Johnson's move showed the "in" campaign with a
lead of 15 percentage points. Polls suggest about a fifth of voters are
undecided.

BIG BATTALIONS

Johnson, instantly recognizable by his thatch of platinum-blond hair,
had repeatedly avoided staking out a clear position on Britain's EU
membership.

But on Sunday, he said the EU was "in real danger of getting out of
proper democratic control" and national sovereignty had been eroded.

"There’s too much judicial activism, there’s too much legislation coming
from the EU," said Johnson.

Cameron's backing for EU membership has the support of the City of
London, major companies, much of the Labour Party, major trade unions,
international allies and Scottish nationalists. Opposed are several
bickering "out" campaign groups.

Cameron's most senior Cabinet colleagues have stuck with him, although
one close ally, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, did rebel with five
other Cabinet colleagues.

"The big battalions of the argument are unquestionably ranged against
people like me: We are portrayed as crazy cranks and all the rest of it.
I don't mind, I happen to think that I'm right," Johnson said.

By throwing his influence behind the out campaign, Boris has shifted the
balance of the campaign and thus made a British exit more likely, said
some analysts.

"Boris Johnson’s decision to campaign for 'out' is a huge boost for the
Leave campaign," said Hugo Dixon, a Reuters columnist and author of "The
In/Out Question", a book in support of Britain's membership.

"He is a popular figure who crosses traditional political lines. The
chance of Brexit has risen," said Dixon, who is also editor of the
pro-EU InFacts group.

A third of voters said Johnson would be important in helping them decide
which way to vote, an Ipsos MORI poll showed.

Cameron has said he will step down as prime minister before 2020. If
Britain remains in the EU, Johnson's chances of getting the top job
could be tarnished by having openly opposed him.

But if Britain opts to leave, Johnson would be a leading candidate to
succeed Cameron.

(Editing by Andrew Roche and Peter Cooney)

(4) Some applaud George Galloway’s 'great speech' for Brexit; others
walk out


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12166080/George-Galloways-appearance-at-Brexit-campaign-rally-sparks-furore.html

George Galloway’s appearance at Brexit campaign rally sparks furore

Supporters of Grassroots Out campaign walk out as Respect Party leader
hailed by Nigel Farage

By David Millward, video source Grassroots Out

12:02PM GMT 20 Feb 2016 Follow

The appearance of George Galloway as a "surprise guest" at a "Brexit"
rally provoked an angry walkout by supporters of Grassroots Out, one of
the main groups campaigning against Britain’s EU membership.

George Galloway and Nigel Farage join forces at an anti-EU membership
campaign event in London (Rex)

Mr Galloway, the former Respect MP for Bradford West and previously
Poplar and Limehouse, was hailed by Nigel Farage as "without doubt one
of the greatest orators in this country, he is a towering figure on the
left of British politics."

     "Mr Farage and me ... Kate Hoey and Mr Davis" says Galloway. And
herein lies the problem for Grassroots Out.     — Kate McCann
(@KateEMcCann) February 19, 2016

While some supporters of the Grassroots Out campaign gave Mr Galloway a
"warm welcome" as requested by the UKIP leader, others were incensed by
his appearance on the stage.

Some attendees described Mr Galloway’s presence at the Westminster
Conference Centre as a disgrace.

Mr Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour party in 2003, earned
notoriety for meeting Saddam Hussein and saying "Sir I salute your
courage, your strength, your indefatigability".

As emotions ran high security guards were reportedly told to close the
doors to prevent people leaving the hall.

"This has ruined this evening, as far as I am concerned, it’s
disgusting," one angry attendee said.

Mr Galloway told his audience that he was speaking in memory of Tony
Benn, an icon of the Labour left who campaigned for Britain to withdraw
from the EEC in 1975.

     And yes, that is @Tim_Aker walking out as Galloway starts ...
pic.twitter.com/GYa8n8VwqY     — Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) February 19,
2016

He said it was essential that Britain cut its ties with Brussels for the
sake of the audience’s children.

His presence was intended to demonstrate the breadth of the coalition
backing Brexit.

While some of the audience booed, Peter Bone, a Tory MP, hailed Mr
Galloway’s "great speech".

(5) Wsws Trots belittle Nationalism and "Brexit"

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/23/pers-f23.html

Nationalism and "Brexit"

23 February 2016

George Galloway’s appearance at the Grassroots Out campaign in support
of Britain leaving the European Union does not merely muddy the class
line. It obliterates it.

Galloway, a former Labour Party and Respect MP, was introduced as the
surprise guest speaker at the QE II Centre in Westminster, London on
Friday by Nigel Farage, the leader of the right-wing xenophobic UK
Independence Party. He took the stage alongside representatives of the
arch-Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party such as Bill Cash MP, Peter Bone
MP and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davies.

Farage introduced Galloway as a "towering figure on the left of British
politics." His presence was held up as proof that differences between
the "left" and "right" were inconsequential when matched against the
common goal of preserving the "sovereignty" of parliament from the
dictatorship of Brussels.

Galloway’s speech was a shameless endorsement of the political bona
fides of Farage and the Tory right. "But for Nigel Farage we would not
be having a referendum on this question," he declared.

Worse still, his remarks centred throughout on the claim that divisions
between left and right and between the working class and the British
ruling class counted for little when compared with the shared necessity
to defend British sovereignty.

Though he stated that he had little in common with Farage’s programme
for Britain, Galloway in fact wholly embraced the right’s central
argument that the "leave" camp is seeking to prevent unelected EU
bureaucrats from holding sway over the British parliament.

At several points, Galloway’s more overt nationalist statements won him
wild applause from an overwhelmingly Tory and UKIP audience—such as when
he asserted that "the right to decide who can come and live and work in
Britain, who we can deport from Britain, what level of deficit we can
run in Britain, or what our Foreign Policy in Britain should be" had
been "subcontracted to the Romanian government."

He described opposition to the EU as "internationalist," a term he then
defined in explicitly capitalist terms as the UK being free to trade
"with the Commonwealth" and "with Brazil, with Russia, with India, with
China, with South Africa, with Iran where the sun is rising, not
setting, and where most of the customers in the world actually live. …
Now that is internationalism." [...]

No comments:

Post a Comment