Merkel: No Plans Exist For German Nuclear Weapons

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 16, 2017

This particular article was right at the top of the list this past week of articles that people sent in. And it’s worth having a few “record corrections” here. Frau Merkel, it seems, has been rather busy. In short, spokesmen for the Chancellorin have been forced to deny that there are no plans for Germany to acquire nuclear weapons as a component of the “all European army” it has been pushing for. Here’s two versions of the story, one from our friends at Zero Hedge, and the other from the London Times:

Merkel Forced To Deny Plans For European Nuclear Superpower

Merkel forced to deny Germany planning to lead a European nuclear superpower

I scarcely know where to begin on this one, for the disingenuousness of the story – not from the media reporting it, but rather from the track record of Germany since the end of the Second World War – is there for all to see if one knows where to look. William Manchester, in his well-known book, The Arms of Krupp, records that the famous German armaments firm and cannon-maker had completed a functioning reactor in a secret installation in Julich, near the Dutch border, by the end of the 1950s. In that book he records an interview with one of the scientists working at the installation, who rather sheepishly admitted that Germany was closing the entire nuclear fuel cycle. By the 1960s, it had. Then, in 1978, The New York Times Books published an important but regrettably overlooked book by Barbara Rogers and Zdenek Cervenka, titled The Nuclear Axis: The Secret Collaboration Between West Germany and South Africa, a book which I reviewed in my book The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union, and Corporate Fascism. Rogers and Cervenka make a convincing case that the secret power behind South Africa’s and even Israel’s bomb was West Germany.

As I also noted in my book, Germany played a crucial role during the 1970s and 80s, in Iran’s acquisition of nuclear technologies, including those of isotope enrichment, forming the foundations for Iran’s present nuclear capabilities. It need not be mentioned, of course, that Frau Merkel’s government was instrumental in brokering the controversial deal between Iran and the Obama Administration. Well, of course they were! Iran is a major German trading partner, and some of that trade historically includes… well, you know.

I noted something else in The Third Way, namely, that the pro-Russian website, Global Research, ran an article by Canadian professor Michael Chossudovsky titled “Belgium of Iran, where’s the Nuclear Threat? Europe’s Five Undeclared Nuclear Weapons states” (see http://www.globalresearch.ca/europe-s-five-undeclared-nuclear-weapons-states/17550. See also my The Third Way, pp. 109-111) In that article, Professor Chossudovsky points out an uncomfortable truth:

While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads (made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. Moreover, The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS, a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying France’s M51 nuclear missile.

Germany imports and deploys nuclear warheads from the U.S. It also produced nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet it is classified as a non-nuclear state. (The Third Way, p. 110, citing the Global Research website article.)

Now, in case all this technicality is a little too obscure, I also pointed out in the Third Way that France’s M51 missile, which is produced by a Franco-German-Spanish company, which in turn is controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the Daimler Group, is a submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missile with mirved warheads (which are also produced by Germany) in the 200-300 kiloton range(so we’re told), which means those warheads are strategic warheads, and probably either boosted fission devices or full-up (but small) hydrogen bombs. In short, not only has the infrastructure of a trans-European nuclear deterrent long been in place, organized around the French force de frappe, that organization conveniently allows Germany to dodge the classification as a thermonuclear power (“See? We’re selling all this to the French… we’re not buying it ourselves”), it also conveniently makes France the target of opportunity should things ever actually go “hot.” But any way one slices it, if Mr. Chossudovsky’s revelations are anywhere close to the truth, then the reality is, like it or not, Germany already is a de facto thermonuclear power. This explains a lot, geopolitically, and in point of fact, when one considers Professor Chossudovsky’s article in the context of the Rogers-Cervenka research from the late 1970s, it’s clear that infrastructure has been in place for a very long time. In short, their research corroborates Chossodovsy’s allegations.

What does all this mean? Well, in terms of Frau Merkel’s “denials” and “reassurances”, it means simply that she’s lying. But I suspect most people already suspected that. More importantly, it means that should the EU break apart, then that whole infrastructure will have to come out into the open, and that the pressures on Germany to openly rearm to ensure the security of Eastern Europe – as the Times article suggests – will be enormous. Germany and France will continue to collaborate militarily, and announce “changes” to that collaboration to reflect “new European realities.” One might even go so far as to say that the French will allow the Germans to test their own thermonuclear warheads in the French test sites in the Pacific just to make it all “official”.

Then again, why bother with any tests? After all, the French have already tested those German SLBMs and warheads… OTRAG, anyone?

…and then there’s Japan…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

To The People Of Europe Who Still Believe In Freedom

individuality
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 8, 2017

You can say all you want to about the history of Europe, but you also have to say that Europe was the cradle of liberty for the whole world.

The main struggle was held there. And finally, the clear idea of individual freedom emerged.

Then, gradually, in the wake of two World Wars, a new theme took hold. You could call it comfort, or security, peace for all, share and care, the good life.

Under a dominating tax rate, citizens had “services” provided by their governments. Many pleasant services.

Why not? All was well.

Even when these governments were placed under the umbrella of the European Union, most citizens of member countries perceived no real problems—as long as the services continued to flow.

But there was an addendum to the basic contract. The national governments, and their superiors at the EU…they were the Providers, and they could, at their whim, turn the screw and apply new oppressive rules to the citizenry. And they could, if resistance appeared, drop their pose of benevolence and take on the role of Enforcer.

And if they did, where would liberty and individual freedom go?

It would go away.

Escalating floods of migrants entered Europe. This was a turning of the screw. Brought about by “upper management” of the Providers. The crimes and disruptions of these migrants have been well documented in independent media. The people of Europe had no say about the invasion. In fact, it soon became a prosecutable offense to write about it or speak about it in a public forum.

The lords of government would brook no opposition.

The basic liberty—speaking freely—was on the line and under the boot heel.

In fact, for years, a campaign of political correctness in speech had been waged all over Europe. It covered many areas. The EU had been aiding and abetting it.

The “good life” was cracking at the seams. It wasn’t all good anymore.

The Provider was becoming the Enforcer.

Looking back on the change, it was always obvious that it was waiting in the wings. The Providers weren’t messiahs of a socialist utopia. That pretense was merely an intermediate phase in a much larger operation.

Mollify the citizenry for a time, “give them services,” and then when they were lulled into complacency, when they felt safe and secure, when they’d traded liberty for something that looks like liberty, start the chaos.

And clamp down. Assert overt control.

The EU structure was never extreme enough for the overlords. After all, it was a confederation of separate nations. The covert operation was One Nation of Europe, drained of separate traditions, with all former, distinguishing, national characteristics removed. The goal was one continental entity, seeded with enough migrants to eliminate visible differences, and roiled in conflicts.

To make a stew, heat and stir.

Eventually, eliminate the memory that, at one time, individual freedom was birthed in those countries. And one step further: eliminate the knowledge of what individual freedom is.

Bring in immigrants from cultures where authentic freedom, with its attendant responsibilities, means nothing.

The operation is well underway.

The lords of government never wanted utopia. They wanted, and want, submission. They achieved the soft version. Now they’re aiming for the hard.

This is modern European history not taught in schools. Schools would ban even a hint of it.

So the struggle begins again.

It has many faces—some of them ideological, which is to say, embedded in groups for whom national and ethnic identity is the foremost concern.

How long will it take before The Individual, defined by HIS OWN choice and vision, APART FROM SUCH IDENTITY, reemerges?

That was the original battle of the ages: the liberation of each individual.

It wasn’t easy then, and it won’t be easy now.

But it begins in the mind.

And not the group mind.

Not in any group.

In 1859, John Stuart Mill wrote:

“If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.”

Escaping from, and dissolving the trap that is…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

War On Cash: Europe Proposes “Restrictions On Payments In Cash”

Source: ZeroHedge.com
January 27, 2017

Having discontinued its production of EUR500 banknotes, it appears Europe is charging towards the utopian dream of a cashless society. Just days after Davos’ elites discussed why the world needs to “get rid of currency,” the European Commission has introduced a proposal enforcing “restrictions on payments in cash.”

With Rogoff, Stiglitz, Summers et al. all calling for the end of cash – because only terrorists and drug-dealers need cash (nothing at all to do with totalitarian control over a nation’s wealth) – we are not surprised that this proposal from the European Commission (sanctuary of statism) would appear…

The Commission published on 2 February 2016 a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Action Plan to further step up the fight against the financing of terrorism (COM (2016) 50). The Action Plan builds on existing EU rules to adapt to new threats and aims at updating EU policies in line with international standards. In the context of the Commission’s action to extent the scope of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, reference is made to the appropriateness to explore the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments.

The Action Plan states that “Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities… In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold.”

Cash has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such anonymity may be desired for legitimate reason (e.g. protection of privacy). But, such anonymity can also be misused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. The possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering and terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control cash payment transactions.

 

 

Potential restrictions to cash payments would be a mean to fight criminal activities entailing large payment transactions in cash by organised criminal networks. Restricting large payments in cash, in addition to cash declarations and other AML obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other criminal activities, i.e. have a preventive effect. It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in the course of terrorist activities. Effective investigations are hindered as cash payments transactions are anonymous. Thus restrictions on cash payments would facilitate investigations. However, as cash transactions are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial institutions have adequate controls and procedures in place that enable them to know the person with whom they are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls in, line with the AMLD.

 

Terrorists use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal transactions (e.g. the acquisition of explosives) but also for payments which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or transport). While a restriction on payments in cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any case already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to the conduct of transactions that are ancillary to terrorist activities.

 

 

Organised crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out their illegal activities and benefitting from them. By restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would contribute to disrupt the financing of terrorism, as the need to use non anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or contribute to its easier detection and investigation. Any such proposal would also aim at harmonising restrictions across the Union, thus creating a level playing field for businesses and removing distortions of competition in the internal market. It would additionally foster the fight against money laundering, tax fraud and organised crime.

And then right at the end, they mention “fundamental rights”…

While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.

Full Proposal below…

Continue Reading At: ZeroHedge.com

 

The Transhumanist Scrapbook: (Hideous) Method In The EU…

THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: (HIDEOUS) METHOD IN THE EU PARLIAMENT'S MADNESS
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 27, 2017

This story was another one that seemed to have attracted a lot of people’s attention this past week: an EU parliament committee – a completely powerless “legislative” body – has voted to give robots “rights”, along with a kill switch:

EU Parliament Committee Votes To Give Robots Rights (And A Kill Switch)

I’ve blogged previously about the sneaky jurisprudence implied in such efforts, but this one spells it all out plainly; none of my usual high octane speculation is needed:

Foreseeing a rapidly approaching age of autonomous artificial intelligence, a European Parliament committee has voted to legally bestow electronic personhood to robots. The status includes a detailed list of rights, responsibilities, regulations, and a “kill switch.”

The committee voted by 17 votes to two, with two abstentions, to approve a draft report written by Luxembourg MEP Mady Delvaux, who believes “robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence” will spawn a new industrial revolution. She wants to establish a European Agency to develop rules for how to govern AI behavior. Specifically, Delvaux writes about how increased levels of autonomy in robot entities will make usual manufacturing liability laws insufficient. It will become necessary, the report states, to be able to hold robots and their manufacturers legally responsible for their acts.

Sounding at times like a governmental whisper of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, the report states, A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”

The rules will also affect AI developers, who, according to the report, will have to engineer robots in such a way that they can be controlled. This includes a “kill switch,” a mechanism by which rogue robots can be terminated or shut down remotely. (Emphases in the original)

Now, if you’re like me, you’re seeing or sensing a huge danger here, and it makes me wonder if the water supply in Europe is being doped with anti-sanity and anti-reason drugs, for observe the implicit and explicit logical argument here:

(1) humans are persons;

(2) persons have special rights, and with them come special responsibilities (one shudders to think what “rights” mean to a Eurocrat, but we’ll assume the best and move on);

(3) human consciousness and “personhood” can be produced by machines, and artificial intelligence should constitute “electronic personhood” just like corporations are “corporate persons”

(Of course, this is now all getting to be a little fuzzy, and as I’ve said many times, all this corporate personhood stuff is based in a theological confusion of massive proportions. But, hey, relax, because we’re modern trendy predominantly secularized Europeans and we needn’t bother with the niceties of mediaeval metaphysics, even if those niceties have issued in a horribly screwed up notion like “corporations are persons” while “unborn babies are not” but robots are For my part, the silliness of corporate personhood resides in the old adage “I’ll believe corporations are persons when the State of Texas executes one of them.” Heck, forget about murder, I’d settle for manslaughter and a long prison sentence for a few of them, but I digress.

(4) But we need to protect humanity from the possibility that robots might go rogue and do something like found a corporation (a corporate electronic person, presumably) whose corporate charter says that its corporate electronic personhood function is to kill other persons (presumably of either the human biological sort, or the robotic electronic sort). Thus, we need a

(5) “kill switch” to “terminate the program/robot/electronic person”.

Well, in today’s wonderful transhumanist “cashless” world, why not a “kill switch” in your friendly implant when you start having “unacceptable thoughts” like using cash, or questioning the latest “narrative from Brussels.” If it’s good enough for “electronic persons” then one be quite certain that some insane Eurocrat, somewhere, will propose the same thing for human persons by parity of reasoning…

…a parity of reasoning that will not, of course, extend to corporations.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
____________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Did Bayer AG Do A Sly Deal On Glyphosate With The European Union Commission?

Did Bayer AG do a Sly Deal on Glyphosate with EU Commission?

Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
January 24, 2017

There is growing evidence that the EU Commission’s extraordinary ruling of June 29, 2016 granting the toxic weed-killing agent Glyphosate a reprieve of 18 months until December, 2017 was made in order to allow sufficient time for Bayer AG, the new owner of Monsanto since December time to bring its substitute weed-killer on the market once the merger is complete. The issue is highly controversial not the least owing to a determination from an agency of the Geneva WHO that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” The EU Commission ignored that WHO determination, relied on a fraudullent German government safety assessment and ignored the will of a majority of EU Governments to give glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s world-leading weed-killer, Roundup, an artificial life extension.

Early in 2016, the EU Commission recommended re-approval for another 15-years of the license for the controversial glyphosate toxin, the most widely used weed-killer in the world, the main ingredient in Roundup of Monsanto. The Commission, a decidedly anti-democratic, non-elected body of faceless bureaucrats, declared then that their “yes” decision was based on the determination by the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That all was before the decision by Germany’s Bayer AG to takeover Monsanto.

The snag in that early EU Commission decision to renew for another 15 years glyphosate lies in the fact that the EFSA refused to make open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on. Most alarming in that initial EU decision to renew was the fact that EFSA’s decision went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, was a “probable human carcinogen.” In lay terms that means odds greater than 50% are that it causes human cancers on exposure. Glyphosate presence has been tested in ordinary drinking water or in food crops sprayed with Roundup of other glyphosate-based weed-killers.

German Government Corrupt Science

EFSA based its initial early 2016 glyphosate renewal approval solely on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn took its decision from a clearly biased report by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups. Using the Monsanto-linked assessment for glyphosate, the German BfR went against the professional and highly-respected WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, stating, again using Monsanto’s self-interested claim, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies by Monsanto and other agrichemical firms that it refused to release to IARC or to the public

Public pressure, the objections of several EU states and an EU-wide petition signed by more than one million EU citizens demanding an end to glyphosate use as well as a letter of protest signed by almost one hundred leading scientists to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner (also known as DG SANTE) Vytenis Andriukaitis, were ignored.

The fact that the member states of the EU were unable to reach a required Qualified Majority vote in favor of renewing glyphosate, allowed the decision, through an EU Commission technical loophole, to fall to the clearly biased Vytenis Andriukaitis.

To little surprise, Andriukaitis ruled to extend. Until now however, the bizarre aspect was that he stated a renewal for only 18 months and not the 15 years requested by Monsanto and approved by him only a few months before.

Bayer Swallows Monsanto

The EU Commission extrordinary ruling flew in the face of the widely-accepted and even EU law that requires decisions based on the “precautionary principle,” namely that when there is the slightest doubt about health risks of a crop or chemocal, err on the side of precaution and ban.

Notably, Andriukaitis’ ruling for limited renewal of glyphosate was made on June 29 just as the boards of the German pesticide giant, Bayer AG and Monsanto were finalizing weeks of discussion of a friendly $66 billion takeover of Monsanto to create the largest agribusiness leviathan on the planet, with an alarming 29 percent of the world’s seeds, most of the market share of GMO patented seeds, and 24 percent of its pesticides and agrichemicals.

To make the situation more alarming for those of us seeking a healthy diet, in 2016 a huge cartelization of world agrichemicals and GMO seed makers took place. In addition to the Bayer swallow of Monsanto, ChemChina, a China state chemical company bought the large Swiss GMO and pesticide company, Syngenta. And the two other US GMO and agrichemical giants, Dow Chemical and DuPont, have also merged in the past twelve months. The Swiss company fended off that offer only to agree later to a takeover by China’s state-owned ChemChina. The effect is that these now three giant behemoth companies control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, most all the latter GMO seed.

Bayer Takes Liberty

At this point, since the WHO determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” glyphosate’s days were clearly numbered. Now once the technical corporate takeover by Bayer of Monsanto is completed, expected towards the end of this year, 2017, just as the renewal for glyphosate expires, Bayer AG plans to push its fast-growing substitute for glyphosate known by the trade name, Liberty and Basta, a so-called systemic Glufosinate weed-killer similar to glyphosate but without (so far) the WHO stigma of carcinogenic.

Moreover, since the Monsanto patent on glyphosate-based Roundup expired, other companies have been flooding the market globally with cheap substitutes. Three Chinese companies — Jiangsu Sevencontinent, Hebei Veyong, and Sichuan Lier — have been aggressively exporting glufosinate since 2015. Production of glufosinate on the other hand is far more limited allowing Bayer AG, minus Roundup, to emerge as the dominant weed-killer giant. Moreover, by offering to sell off its Roundup busiess, the new Bayer AG appears to be making a noble sacrifice in the interest of reducing anti-trust concerns.

There is no aspect of the Bayer AG takeover of Monsanto that is positive for the world. To mention “anti-trust” violations is putting it mildly. Government anti-trust, certainly in the agribusiness sector is a dead letter. True protection of consumer health and safety is a dead letter, certainly in Brussels. How the Trump Presidency and his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, weigh in on this will be more than interesting to see. After all, Bayer-Monsanto is not “America First,” but a German company.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel: EU Breakup No Longer Unfeasible

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 15, 2016

Ms. K.M. shared this interesting article from Paul Carrel which appeared on Reuters’ news service, and it piqued my interest for one particular reason, the subject of todays “high octane speculation.” See if you can spot what it was:

Germany’s Gabriel says EU break-up no longer unthinkable

Did you spot it?

Before I answer that question and point out what caught my eye, let’s recall that yesterday I blogged about the Czech President’s statements about Muslim refugees, about the deeper cultural-political decisions facing Europeans, and about some high octane speculation about what that refugee crisis might have been created for. In that high octane speculation I advanced the idea that there will be an inevitable “change of course” from the Eurocrats.

But there’s a financial and economic side to this “cultural politics” wrangle as well, and in this regard, it’s important to note that Herr Gabriel is a member of Frau Merkel’s coalition government, as as such, can be conceived as a “europhile” and fully in favor of the Europaprojekt (one that, I hasten to remind readers has peculiar resemblances to that 1942 Nazi-I.G. Farben-Reichsbank plan and some very peculiar connections to Nazi jurist Dr. Walter Hallstein). Indeed, the Reuters article attributes such thoughts and sentiments to Herr Gabriel:

Gabriel, whose Social Democrats (SPD) are junior partner to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives in her ruling grand coalition, said strenuous efforts by countries like France and Italy to reduce their fiscal deficits came with political risks.

“I once asked the chancellor, what would be more costly for Germany: for France to be allowed to have half a percentage point more deficit, or for Marine Le Pen to become president?” he said, referring to the leader of the far-right National Front.

“Until today, she still owes me an answer,” added Gabriel, whose SPD favors a greater focus on investment while Merkel’s conservatives put more emphasis on fiscal discipline as a foundation for economic prosperity.

The problem for Frau Merkel is that the German Social Democratic Party will probably run Gabriel against her in this year’s upcoming German federal elections:

The SPD is expected to choose Gabriel, their long-standing chairman who is also economy minister, to run against Merkel for chancellor in September’s federal election, senior party sources said on Thursday.

Then Herr Gabriel said something at the end of the article, something which everyone already knew to be true, and something that, for readers of my book The Third Way, was obvious all along:

“But I also know about the state of the EU. It is no longer unthinkable that it breaks apart,” he said in the interview, published on Saturday.

“Should that happen, our children and grandchildren would curse us,” he added. “Because Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the European community – economically and politically.”
(Emphasis added.)

Aw shucks, Herr Gabriel! Really? We had no idea who was really running things! Unless of course one takes the time to look at those wartime Nazi plans for a European federation, dominated by Germany, the pre-war “thinking” of Dr. Hallsten and the current structure of the EU, and notes the “coincidental” resemblances.

Nonetheless, it was not any of these statements that gave me pause and made me sit up and take notice. It was in fact the final paragraph of…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

What’s The Bill For Brexit? A Modest Proposal And Memo For Prime…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 22, 2016

Just when you thought it was safe to venture out of the European Union box, you get presented a bill for 50 Billion pounds, according to this story shared by Mr. R.M.:

UK faces Brexit settlement bill of up to £50 billion, sources say

There’s something here that grabbed my eye, and it presages a looming fight between London and Brussels. Consider these statements carefully:

The calculation is believed to include the obligation for the UK to pay into the EU Budget until the end of 2020, having signed up to the Multiannual financial framework already, as well as the UK’s share of outstanding pensions liabilities and other payments associated with loan guarantees.

The Czech Republic’s Europe minister, Tomas Prouza, reportedly said the huge sums were “only things the UK has already committed itself to paying”.

When asked if British people should expect a bill worth tens of billions of pounds, Mr Prouza responded: “Definitely.

“This is what the UK has already committed to pay, and we would expect that the UK would honour its commitments. It will be one of the first issues coming up on the table.”

Downing Street said the UK would meet its obligations while it remained a member of the EU – but any financial settlement after that would be a matter for negotiation.

“Decisions on how UK taxpayers’ money is spent will be decisions for the UK to take moving forward,” a No.10 source said. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the Brussels bureaucrats are dictating that London has to fully honor all its EU commitments to 2020, even if it leaves the EU before then, and that includes Brussels telling the UK how it is going to spend that money.  And London, of course, is saying, in effect, that the idea that Britain would have to continue to pay full membership obligations are that it is no longer fully a member after leaving the EU is  “just plain barmy!” Of course, London has a point: if the U.K. leaves the EU say, in 2018,  why should it have to continue paying its full “membership dues” to a club it is no longer a member of, and doesn’t want to be a member of?

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.