Thursday, October 19, 2006

EU Constitution: dead or alive?

The medical profession are finding death increasingly hard to define. With the revelation that people in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ have the capacity to think and react, and that ‘brain death’ may no longer justify inducing corporeal death, the scientific community is having to urgently reassess its ethical approach to the issue.

The same ought to be demanded of our EU leaders.

On the one hand, the British Foreign Secretary declares the EU Constitution to be ‘a grandiose project that failed’ – i.e., it is dead. On the other, the Chancellor of Germany insists there will be a constitution by 2009 – ie, it is very much alive, albeit in suspended animation. In this she is joined by the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who believes that the provisions of the constitution, and in particular the creation of an EU foreign minister, need to be revived. The German presidency is to be the mechanism by which this is achieved.

Konrad Adenauer once stated: ‘Germany has a divine mission to save Western Europe.’ Since the era of Charlemagne, the notion of a German destiny or fate has been deeply engrained in the German psyche; it is an instinct which has driven Germany in the past, and one to which Hitler frequently referred in his speeches. Helmut Kohl also had dominance and destiny at the forefront of his thinking when he said: ‘The future will belong to the Germans...when we build the house of Europe... In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight.’

This salvation for Europe would entail Germany overturning of the expressed will of the French and Dutch peoples. They have, of course, marched over them before. But they have never vanquished the British, and quite what the United Kingdom will make of this is dependent on whether anyone bothers to ask them. While Mrs Beckett is sounding a little sceptical, she did observe the need for a codified document, because the EU ‘is a very different beast at 25 or 27 members than it was at 12 or 15’.

Did she say ‘beast’?

12 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

How can you Cranmer put the figure of Britannia on display when it has been removed from 50-pence coins no doubt to make way for Robert Schumann

19 October 2006 at 11:14  
Blogger istanbultory said...

The EU governments only decided to have a year-long 'period of reflection' after the French and Dutch referendums. Presented with an abstract constitution, people will vote No. Cherry picking will be the order of the day- a new treaty is inevitable.

19 October 2006 at 12:35  
Blogger Serf said...

I tend to refer to the constitution as the Lazarus Treaty, with a myriad of European politicians lining up to play Jesus.

19 October 2006 at 12:55  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Serf,

A prescient theological metaphor, and the possibility of a female Jesus will delight those obsessed by feminine Christology.

His Grace feels sure, as the majority doubtless senses, that the Constitution will return as a mere treaty, and in true neofunctional style, will be implemented slowly and imperceptibly, small step by small step. Today an EU foreign minister, tomorrow a President of Europe.

19 October 2006 at 13:09  
Blogger CityUnslicker said...

Sadly I agree with you on this one your grace. EU integration will move ever forward, as this is what the bureaucracy needs to grow and reward its own; the only ways out is to jump off the wagon altogether. The other idea is a take-over, which is more abmbitious, but I find more appealing.

19 October 2006 at 15:36  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace, I beg to differ. May I hope to be permitted to add my humble views to your undoubtedly superior insights?

Konrad Adenauer once stated: ‘Germany has a divine mission to save Western Europe.’

That's correct but he was talking about Germany's role defending the free countries of Western Europe against the communist armees of the Soviet Empire at a time when the Socialdemocratic Party of Germany wanted a neutralized and united Germany as in Austria. How could France and GB have survived if Adenauer wouldn't have convinced the German people to fight communism?

Since the era of Charlemagne, the notion of a German destiny or fate has been deeply engrained in the German psyche;

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong. In the centuries following Charlemange, the German speaking people lived in hundreds of small states including the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. The German people identified themselves with their regional state but not with a non-existent Germany. They felt as Bavarians, Saxons, Prussians, Hamburgers etc. This phenomenon can still be observed in Austria or Switzerland. The Austrian and Swiss people do not identify themselves with Germany. In the past, the German people were described by other Europeans as a model of peacefulness. Swedes and others ("Britannia rules the world") were seen as aggressive. German nationalism was the reaction to Napoleon's aggression.

the notion of a German destiny or fate..; it is an instinct which has driven Germany in the past,

The German state was founded by Bismark in 1871. He was well aware that a state in the middle of Europe surrounded by a large number of other states might not survive an attack from all sides. That's why he always talked about „Le cauchemar des coalitions“ and Germany being saturated to avoid its destruction by its rivales, i.e. France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia and Great Britain.

and one to which Hitler frequently referred in his speeches.

That's correct. At the same time, it is misleading in regard to the history of his ideas. Hitler wasn’t the originator of the ideas he proclaimed. He just repeated the received wisdom of the 19th and 20th century, i.e. the supposedly superiority of the Nordic race. Where did Hitler get his ideas from?

In 1853, Comte de Gobineau , a French aristocrat, novelist and man of letters published his famous book “An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races“ in which he developed the racialist theory of the Aryan master race and advocated White Supremacy.

In 1859, Charles Darwin’s famous book “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” appeared in print.

His cousin, Francis Galton, wrote that “an enthusiasm to improve the race is so noble in its aims that it might well give rise to the sense of a religious obligation.”. For this purpose, he invented and promoted eugenics to improve the human race through “good breeding” and to prevent the supposed degeneration of mankind.

In 1899, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an Englishman, published his bestselling book “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century“. ”The work focuses on the controversial notion that Western civilization is deeply marked by the influence of the Germanic peoples. Chamberlain grouped all European peoples—Celts, Germans, Slavs, Greeks, and Latins—into the "Aryan race", a race built on the ancient Proto-Indo-European culture. At the helm of the Aryan race was the Nordic or Germanic breed. Chamberlain's goal was to create a movement that would revive the recognition of Germanic blood. To do this, he incorporated not just the Teutonic peoples but all tribes with northern origins into a Germanic race. This included the Celts, Germans, and Slavs, all of whom Chamberlain considered to be of Germanic stock. Chamberlain's works focused on the claim that the Germanic peoples were the heirs to the empires of Greece and Rome. He argued that when the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire, Jews and other non-Europeans already dominated it. The Germans, therefore, saved Western civilization from Semitic domination.“

Even Winston Churchill had similar ideas: "My heart was filled with admiration of the patient genius which had added these social bulwarks to the many glories of the German race."

In 1901, Francis Galton founded the Eugenics Education Society in London to promote his genetic utopia. His idea spread like wildfire. In 1917, fifteen US states had passed eugenic laws for compulsory sterilization. Other countries followed: 1928 Switzerland and Canada, 1929 Denmark, 1933 Germany, 1934 Argentina, Brazil and Norway, 1935 Finland and Sweden, 1936 Estonia, 1938 Iceland, and finally Mexico, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, and Turkey.

In 1916, Madison Grant, chairman of the New York Zoological Society, proposed in his best-selling book “The Passing of the Great Race” a radical therapy for the much feared degeneration of mankind: “This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types”. Nearly all the reviews of Grant´s book published in scientific journals or in leading newspapers were at least moderately favourable. Adolf Hitler is reported to have sent a letter to the author thanking him for writing the book and stating that the book is his Bible. Hitler’s goal was the creation of the Promised Land, the eugenic utopia everybody, including the socialists, was talking about. He declared that his National Socialism is the determination to create the new man and that “politics is applied biology”. Hitler tried to apply the ideas of “salvation” developed in France, Great Britain and the USA.

Helmut Kohl also had dominance and destiny at the forefront of his thinking when he said: ‘The future will belong to the Germans...when we build the house of Europe... In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight.’

This quote is from the Free Republic , the self-acclaimed “premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web” and without any reference. The corresponding German quote is from The Living Church of God whose aim is to preach to all nations the Gospel of God’s coming Empire that will be founded by Jesus Christ on occasion of his return to this earth. (That’s good news. So why do we worry about the EU or Islam?). The American website of The Living Church of God is called Tomorrow's World. Here the address of the Living Church of God in GB in case someone want to become a member: P.O. Box 9092, Motherwell, ML1 2YD, Scotland, Tel. 0044-1698-263-977. Anyhow, the Living Church of God is referring to page 39 of Adrian Hilton’s book The Principality and Power of Europe . Maybe someone can track the original source of this quote in Hilton’s book. Until then it is difficult to know if the quote is correct and what he had in mind, political dominance or better export opportunities for German business? The latter is his aim, Helmut Kohl often declared on German TV. BTW, his son is married to a Turkish lady.

This salvation for Europe would entail Germany overturning of the expressed will of the French and Dutch peoples.

How could German politicians possibly achieve that since the French people are even disobedient of their French government?

They [the Germans] have, of course, marched over them [the Dutch and French] before.

Well the French took away Southern Netherlands and formed a new French dominated state, i.e. Belgium. Moreover, the French kings and Napoleon invaded Germany several times. France was invaded three times by Germany. The first time was during the French-German war of 1870/71 which was declared by France. The second time was WW-I. Let’s hear what historians have to say about the origins of WW-I.

Tooley traces the roots of the world-historical catastrophe of 1914–1918 to the Franco-Prussian war, which, while achieving German unification in 1871, understandably fostered an enduring resentment in France, "a country that was accustomed to humiliating others during 400 years of warmaking and aggression" (p. 5).” And the Great War destroyed European culture and the commitment to truths. In their place, generations embraced relativism, nihilism and socialism, and from the ashes arose Lenin, Stalin and Hitler and their evil doctrines that infect contemporary culture. In the words of the British historian, Niall Ferguson, the First World War "was nothing less than the greatest error in modern history."

In 1911, Churchill “became First Lord of the Admiralty, and, during the crises that followed, used every opportunity to fan the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in 1914, Churchill was all smiles and was the only cabinet member who backed war from the start. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization . . . has got all his war paint on." .. Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany . The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.”

They [the Germans] have, of course, marched over them [the French] before.

As a matter of fact, the EU was planned by French politicians after the defeat of Germany in WW-II.

But they [the Germans] have never vanquished the British,

That’s correct. Great Britain has vanquished many people around the world. According to Albert J. Nock , an American, ”as for the British State's talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them "birds of prey and passage." Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that "the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country." Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that "most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach"; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man.”

It correct that Great Britain has also vanquished Germany. Some American historians claim that the aim of GB’s strategy leading to WW-I was to protect the British Empire: ”The over-ambitious Wilhelm’s extensive naval program was perceived by the British as a mortal threat; starting in 1904 they developed an Entente cordiale (cordial understanding) with France, enlarged in 1907 to include Russia. Now the Germans had good reason to fear a massive Einkreisung (encirclement).”

and quite what the United Kingdom will make of this is dependent on whether anyone bothers to ask them.

I totally agree that the Britons and all the people of the other countries should have a referendum on the EU.

Independently of His Grace’s assumption that the EU is the plan of evil Germans to vanquish the British, it is certain that an Empire has considerable more resources, power and possibilities for repressing the freedom of its citizens and for military expansion.

An EU Empire is dangerous for its citizens and the neighbouring countries. An EU Empire should be avoided because, as Albert J. Nock wrote in The Criminal State: ” The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler's record or Stalin's. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness--which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe--its criminality may be safely got on with.”

20 October 2006 at 01:07  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Colin, I've also heard that Kohl quote, and recall reading it in publications like Eurofacts or the Freedom Association - much was made of it in the media in the late 90s. I've got Hilton's book and it's a really useful compendium of the Catholic/German/EU plan. I've never heard of the Living Church of God (even in Ulster, where every denomination exists!), but they're probably on the weird fringe of acceptability in the US, and believe it's all prophesied and leading to the Antichrist. I'd ignore them, and stick to the political realities.

21 October 2006 at 12:57  
Anonymous Colin said...

Thank you, Ulster Man, for your feedback and comment!

Since you have Hilton's book, could you please check the reference given by Hilton for the Kohl quote on page 39. I would be most interested in verifying it.

Naturally, it is possible that Kohl had a plan but it probably was not a plan to dominate the rest of Europe by force. Many countries have tried this before in the history of Europe and it never worked. I believe what he had in mind was a cartel of the political class from all or at least the major European countries. And if we look at the EU, that's precisely what they are doing, a cartel for those in power neglecting the interests of the peoples. In my view, there is no need to assume a plot only by evil Germans, although I wouldn't bet on it. However, if we "stick to the political realities" as suggested by you, we are able to see that history provides sufficient evidence for the evilness of power in general independently from any nation, religion or ethnicity.

If you could provide me with the reference given by Hilton for the Kohl quote on page 39, I would be most grateful. Thank you!

21 October 2006 at 14:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Colin....that is an excellent piece of research well-expressed !

I do not for one minute believe that quotation in that form from Kohl...............trying to distort his views is ridiculous, he certainly does not have any other concept of Germany save one embedded within Europe.

http://www.cosmopolis.ch/cosmo1/kohl.htm

Interesting book review on Kohl

21 October 2006 at 16:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why not ask Hilton directly ?

http://www.adrianhilton.com

21 October 2006 at 16:22  
Blogger ScurvyOaks said...

The EU Constitution is pining for the fjords.

25 October 2006 at 20:09  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"I do not for one minute believe that quotation in that form from Kohl...............trying to distort his views is ridiculous, he certainly does not have any other concept of Germany save one embedded within Europe.

http://www.cosmopolis.ch/cosmo1/kohl.htm

Interesting book review on Kohl"


Thank you for your more positive view and the interesting link.

While I am sceptical of the assertion that Mr. Kohl wanted intentionally to subdue the other European countries, I am also sceptical about the unintented consequences of his "peace project", the EU. Empires tend to develop a life of their own, which often is harmful to its citizens.

EU law demands that smokers be given health warnings on labels such as "Smoking inflicts damages to you and people surrounding you"

Similarily, the EU should be mandated to carry a warning on labels of all EU regulations: "The EU regulations inflict damages to you and people surrounding you"

26 October 2006 at 19:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older