-THE WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future government’s of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union.
(PUBLICATION TO BE AVAILABLE AROUND 2nd of MAY)

I am reprinting the final article sent last summer as a refresher for our loyal readers as well as an introduction to a new readership interested in the economic, political and sociological environmental structure taking shape throughout Europe from the eyes of an outsider. My credentials include more then 35 years in finance of which a respectable portion has been international in nature. Following the articles will be a listing of future topics all European citizens should find engaging and informative.

* * *

There is an old proverb that goes…Be careful what you wish for, it may come true. (Or as illustrated in this article… Be careful what you vote for, you may actually get it)

This past weekend throughout the continent, Europe’s citizens exercise their inalienable right to express anger and disapproval with the individual governments encompassing the entire 25 member states that now comprise the European Union. By casting, in a great proportion of states, protest votes for their representatives to the European Parliament, the citizens of this vast union have put their leadership on notice that come the national elections they will be held responsible for their administration actions. This is of course how democracy works, by being able to voice your opinion freely. The danger to such national election protest however lies in so much as ‘what is the alternative’? When one observes what transpired across the continent last weekend, there are signs of worry as to the amount of power the citizenry should be overjoyed if the two bullies of the Union, Chirac, and Schroeder, are at the least placed in a neutralized state if not voted out of office.
Through the smaller ‘splinter’ party’s herald optimistic change there must remain an element of concern when one objectively considers the roots of their philosophical platforms being espoused simply by the names they choose to call themselves
Socialist – by definition is a political party or group in which the government controls all goods and services that are then equally shared by the people. It is also a system in which the state plans and controls the economy.
Communist – by definition is a political party or group in which the government controls all goods and services that are then equally shared by the people. It is also a system in which the state plans and controls the economy.
There were 183 parties vying for the 732 seats in the European Parliament with the traditional Socialist and Communist names as well as the undefined such as Olive Tree Coalition, Citizens Platform, Northern Alliance (as well as dozens of national something-or-others) and even a Law and Justice party. As should be expected many of these same protest groups will have a say in the forthcoming national elections. The question should remain will they first organize and form coalition units that can one day vote out stable governments through out the Union, and what will replace the traditional authority?
Before I am sent dozens of E-mails stating you Yanks don’t understand our political system, I am only stating a fact….If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and wants to be called a duck, then its actions most likely will prove it to be a duck! So watch what you vote for because you might actually get it.

This second series of articles will appear each Wednesday and Saturday for the next few months. Due to the overwhelming response to last summers series it will be near impossible for us to respond except on occasion. Please invite friends to share in our discussions and feel free to converse and share opinions amongst other participants. We will, from time to time, offer our services as referee if necessary.
ENJOY….

2nd Series (more articles to follow)

• Germany and France – can they be trusted?

• Strong-arming – a combined economic bloc of 450 million strong, and over the next decade growing to possibly in excess of 600 million. How will the Union affect world trade as well as self governing, and shall it be beneficial to all member states or just the few?

• The unanimous/majority vote – how long can a union of 25 individual nations expect to govern under a system of complete or in some cases near complete agreement? Then who will, and under what conditions, shall a small minority rule for the entire Union?

• The European Constitution – the system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribe the nature, functions and limits of the 25 member state governments.

• Extremism and Isolationism – is it the future of a united Europe, and under who’s authority would such a united ‘States’ of Europe be cast?

• European Champions – What is Germany and France’s true motive in creating these mega corporations?

• Favoritism or ‘Segregationism’ – what is the true objective of the European Union leadership regarding the free world, the member ‘states’ as a whole, and a select anointed few?

• Racism, anti-Semitism and the Nazi symbol.

• Where have all the missiles gone?

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...417&highlight=

Been there, done that.

Yes, I remember your posts too Sporklord. I have some new material I want to post on this topic.

Chirac is a pig's a$$. I don't trust the EU anymore than a whore preaching moral values. I look foward to more articles.

WILL IT BE WORTH SURRENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article 1)

Germany and France - can they be trusted?

I will start off this article with quotes from two former German leaders. One which at present should be questioned for its literal content, and one in which the world should have been forewarned of the ominous signs at the time of its declaration.

"Monetary union is the difference between war and peace. Political union that starts with a currency union would enshrine Germany's dominant role in Europe"
-Helmut Kolh-

"Germany needs peace and desires peace. We do not wish to Germanize the world."
-Adolf Hitler-

History has shown that the tyrannical dictator cleverly built his Third Reich on a false pretense of bringing prosperity back to the nation, and initially one in which the entire continent, in the eyes of his followers, would benefit. It however proved to be one in which a despotic barbarian intended to exert his will over all nations, and in his own infectious mind would be enshrined the Fatherland's dominant role through out Europe and beyond. Hitler, it should be noted, will prove to be the last of the earth's dictators whose creed maintains that "the power of the fist" alone is the sole means to world rule.
In this age of nuclear power and other forms of weapons of mass destruction, it would seem such a physical threat bye any one nation, be it America, China, Russia, North Korea, or even a small rogue terrorist nation, would be met by a coalition effort of others of other powers to stop the inevitable carnage that would ensue. As it is innate in the human species for some elements of society in their desire to dominate mankind, other forms of warfare must be developed as a means by which that dominant role can be affected.
The most powerful of resources at the disposal for any future effort in attaining such ambitions, be it for Europe or beyond, now lies in the ability to wage financial and economical warfare. Had Hitler not been engaged early on by the financial of America through the Lend/Lease Act, England and eventually all of Europe might have fallen permanent Nazi rule. By the 1980's it became evident that the utilization of the Allies financial commitment to a strong N.A.T.O. as well as the continuing development of weapons of mass destruction could not be matched by the Soviets. The downfall of Russia's economic system came in large part as a result of trying to procure the financial means necessary to counter a united American and European cooperative military presence.
Today it would seem Germany and France have decided the entire Union would be better served if their dictates as to who should adhere to the rules, and who can deliberately break them at will, be followed without a question. In concert both nations have, in the past, tried to reduce the size of the European Commission and allow for a "weighted" system of voting power which would advantage themselves over the majority. There have been published reports of secret military pacts, joint defense projects and now two bullies want a tax on what they call "financial speculation" under a veiled pretense of using the proceeds to fight poverty. Such a tax would hinder growth for much of the Union states, probably their intended purpose of such a proposal. One executive director of Germany's own banking association has publicly stated a tax on financial transactions would "inevitably have negative consequences for growth and employment in the world economy." So what is the bullies' true agenda for the Union? The lure of having a "dominant role", as Helmut Kohl stated, over the largest economic bloc the world has ever known is most alluring.
As a final thought...
During a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Germany's president of the lower house of parliament stated "German must never again be the language of murder". A challenge to that great nation should be, if in fact all of their leaders feel the same and truly seek a Union of equals and not one where Germany is to maintain a "dominant role", then start by demonstrating to the world that desire be removing "Deutschland Ueber Allies"... Germany Over All... from your national anthem.

-THE WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future government's of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union
(Available around 2nd of May)

WILL IT BE WORTH SURRENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article3)

The unanimous/majority vote-how long can a union of 25 individual nations expect to govern under a system of complete or in some cases near complete agreement? Then who will and under what conditions, shall a small minority rule for the entire union?

The European Union came into being as one of three communities established by the Treaties of Rome in March of 1957. When the organization consisted of six original signatories; Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany the voting process was one of cooperative accord. The main themes of creating a common market, phasing out internal trade barriers, abolishing obstacles to free movement of labor, finances and corporate enterprise became key objectives the six original signatories seemed in concert with. As the union grew to its fifteen member dimensions prior to the singing of the Maastricht requirements, “states” as the individual nations now were now being referred to, began to take on a more localized prospective. A strict policy of adhering to Maastricht requirements, the blueprint for European integration, necessities that each country meets a uniform criteria of inflation, debt, and deficit stability. Due to an acceleration of extended membership to include ten new “states” to the EU family, there is the propensity for a real stranglehold on the growth throughout Europe. Therefore the ability of governing such a comprehensive group of diverse societies and cultures intent on the sharing of one currency under unanimous or even majority agreement will prove inconceivable over time, meaning someone must lead.

Let us start with one of the most fundamental governing bodies with in the “family” and what shall eventually prove to be an obstacle to the unanimous/majority vote policy, the European Central Bank. Established in 1998 the bank is governed by three decision making branches. The six-member Executive Board is responsible for operational business and is considered senior in statue as well as the most influential of the three bodies. Next in line of importance is the seventeen-members of the Governing Council which formulates monetary policy and which consist of all six members of the Executive Board and the governors of the central banks of the so called “in countries”. Finally the twenty-one member General Council which also consist of the full six-member Executive board together with the governors of the central bank with its member states and is responsible for issues concerning the relationship between the Euro bloc and the rest of the Union states. Of the three bodies only Governing Counsil acts by majority. As such, keep in mind, the Executive Board consist of members of the largest of the pre-Maastricht states, OF THESE SEVERAL ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE STABILITY PACT. According their agenda as to what defines proper monetary actions for the entire Union will most likely become the norm. Therefore, certain states can expect to see consistent monetary policy that favors their economic well-being, while others may suffer under a system of less than democratic accountability?

Let us take a quick glance at the constitution (as this will be the subject of the next article) At first though it would seem an excellent concept that such a fundamental system of laws and principles be approved by majority vote of the people for each of the 25 Union states. But in truth, because of the necessity of unanimous state acceptance required by the Union bylaws governing bodies have decided not to chance a state wide referendum and rather mandate the parliamentary ratification process, thereby eliminating the democratic process evoking once again, the need for unanimity.

Tax parity- Germany and France have continually warned several of the ten new entrants into the Union family that “tax dumping”, in Gerhardt Schroeder’s words, would lead to “consequences”, meaning the possibility of a loss in economic subsidies. Here it should be noted that the unanimous voting has its place within the Union structure as a means of resistance against the bully states and their desire to redefine the voting powers. To create a system of empowerment based on population, financial prowess or land mass would rest control of a united democratic society in the hands of as few as three member states of the full 25 nation Union (provided the UK drops out for lack of ratification of the constitution). It should not be the German or French Governments who decide the Poles do not pay enough in taxes, but rather the fact that their own citizens may be paying too much.
In closing, unanimous voting on such landmark legislation as a constitution or an individual state’s ability to tax or not tax, must be, in a truly democratic system, held sacred by all. Only time will tell whether or not such a system can be maintained that allows all voices of the “united” European Union to be so freely heard.

-THE WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future government’s of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union
(Available around 2nd of May)

WILL IT BE WORTH SURRENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article3)

The unanimous/majority vote-how long can a union of 25 individual nations expect to govern under a system of complete or in some cases near complete agreement? Then who will and under what conditions, shall a small minority rule for the entire union?

The European Union came into being as one of three communities established by the Treaties of Rome in March of 1957. When the organization consisted of six original signatories; Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany the voting process was one of cooperative accord. The main themes of creating a common market, phasing out internal trade barriers, abolishing obstacles to free movement of labor, finances and corporate enterprise became key objectives the six original signatories seemed in concert with. As the union grew to its fifteen member dimensions prior to the singing of the Maastricht requirements, “states” as the individual nations now were now being referred to, began to take on a more localized prospective. A strict policy of adhering to Maastricht requirements, the blueprint for European integration, necessities that each country meets a uniform criteria of inflation, debt, and deficit stability. Due to an acceleration of extended membership to include ten new “states” to the EU family, there is the propensity for a real stranglehold on the growth throughout Europe. Therefore the ability of governing such a comprehensive group of diverse societies and cultures intent on the sharing of one currency under unanimous or even majority agreement will prove inconceivable over time, meaning someone must lead.

Let us start with one of the most fundamental governing bodies with in the “family” and what shall eventually prove to be an obstacle to the unanimous/majority vote policy, the European Central Bank. Established in 1998 the bank is governed by three decision making branches. The six-member Executive Board is responsible for operational business and is considered senior in statue as well as the most influential of the three bodies. Next in line of importance is the seventeen-members of the Governing Council which formulates monetary policy and which consist of all six members of the Executive Board and the governors of the central banks of the so called “in countries”. Finally the twenty-one member General Council which also consist of the full six-member Executive board together with the governors of the central bank with its member states and is responsible for issues concerning the relationship between the Euro bloc and the rest of the Union states. Of the three bodies only Governing Counsil acts by majority. As such, keep in mind, the Executive Board consist of members of the largest of the pre-Maastricht states, OF THESE SEVERAL ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE STABILITY PACT. According their agenda as to what defines proper monetary actions for the entire Union will most likely become the norm. Therefore, certain states can expect to see consistent monetary policy that favors their economic well-being, while others may suffer under a system of less than democratic accountability?

Let us take a quick glance at the constitution (as this will be the subject of the next article) At first though it would seem an excellent concept that such a fundamental system of laws and principles be approved by majority vote of the people for each of the 25 Union states. But in truth, because of the necessity of unanimous state acceptance required by the Union bylaws governing bodies have decided not to chance a state wide referendum and rather mandate the parliamentary ratification process, thereby eliminating the democratic process evoking once again, the need for unanimity.

Tax parity- Germany and France have continually warned several of the ten new entrants into the Union family that “tax dumping”, in Gerhardt Schroeder’s words, would lead to “consequences”, meaning the possibility of a loss in economic subsidies. Here it should be noted that the unanimous voting has its place within the Union structure as a means of resistance against the bully states and their desire to redefine the voting powers. To create a system of empowerment based on population, financial prowess or land mass would rest control of a united democratic society in the hands of as few as three member states of the full 25 nation Union (provided the UK drops out for lack of ratification of the constitution). It should not be the German or French Governments who decide the Poles do not pay enough in taxes, but rather the fact that their own citizens may be paying too much.
In closing, unanimous voting on such landmark legislation as a constitution or an individual state’s ability to tax or not tax, must be, in a truly democratic system, held sacred by all. Only time will tell whether or not such a system can be maintained that allows all voices of the “united” European Union to be so freely heard.

-THE WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future government’s of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union
(Available around 2nd of May)

WILLL IT BE WORTH SUURENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article 5)

Extremism and Isolationism – is it the future of a united Europe, and under who’s authority would such a united “States” of Europe be cast?

The Lisbon Agenda, proposed by the European Union five years ago, pledged to surpass the United States as the world’s most dynamic economy by 2010. Other, more sinister interpretations of ‘dynamic’ one might point to as the path certain elements within the Union truly mean to express would be; compelling, forceful, influential and vigorous. The fact is these plans, amounting to the Warning Winds of an economic Armageddon, in the true sense of any coordinated challenge, are overly ambitious and even the current leaders of the Union realize their underlying agenda could not be reached by 2010.

Without sounding snobbishly American, for what purpose would these lets call them, ‘economic extremist elements’, within the Union have need of surpassing any other industrialized system as the world’s most ‘dynamic’ (be it hypothetical or to any degree real) competitive-based economy? For one, lets take a closer look at the EU actions regarding their desire to ‘protect’ producers of salmon being farmed in the UK and Ireland. It has been decided by the exalted leaders representing the 450 million strong citizens of the Union that import quotas on the product alone aren’t enough. Therefore under the disguise of protecting Union states they will impose minimum prices on salmon coming from outside the Union ‘family’. Norway, a nation who has not joined the European Union, will be most affected. The price floors, along with extra tariffs were established as temporary ‘safeguard measures’, and will now be extended for THREE AND A HALF YEARS, which hardly seems temporary.

While all member nation citizens might rally around their ‘second national flag’ that of the EU’s pale blue and yellow stars, one should consider the ramifications behind such monopolistic dynamism. It is inherent in the souls of capitalistic enterprise that once their environment is devoid of competition the consumer is at the mercy of their lust for profit and the bottom line. The same may prove true with regard to a Union leadership who’s primary desire, over time, might be economic isolation by providing the Union ‘family’ with all life’s essentials being manufactured, produced or dug up (natural resources) from within its ever expanding borders. This may very well also prove to be the engine that drives the lust within the souls of leaders of various government parties who are intent on establishing one rule of law over the greatest combine of peoples to ever be collectively formed on the European continent.

Remember… the definition of a state is a territory with its own government who is combined under ONE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Care to guess what two states seem to have the monopoly on such desires?

-THE WARNING WINDS OF ARMAGEDDOM-
A novel depicting the path by which the future governments of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union.

WILL IT BE WORTH SURRENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article 6)

European Champions – what is Germany and France’s true motive in creating these mega corporations?

When Jose Barroso became President of the European Commission he vowed to boost European growth that has lagged behind the U.S. for 11 of the past 12 years. He warned Union nations as a whole they must heed market-opening rules in industries from energy to telecommunications. In a speech to the European Parliament he advised ‘we need to translate words into action as it is high time to release Europe’s enormous untapped potential’. Easier said than done as the president shall recognize once he meets straight up with the Germans and French who have the worst records of enacting most European agreements designed to open national markets to more competition. Wielding the power of being the two largest economies in the euro region the two bully states have been the main proponents seeking to relax if not minimize antitrust rules, limit tax competition within the Union, and construct the so-called European industrial champion corporations.

One such highly visible corporate colossus that remains on the horizon is the creation of a European champion shipbuilder to include Germany, France, and ‘other countries’ enterprises. On this union Chancellor Schroeder has so pompously stated ‘it is a good thing in principle if the preconditions are met and it doesn’t work to the detriment of German companies’, followed by an exhortation that any such merger would ‘then only be under German industrial leadership. We are so good in this area we believe we should take over the industrial leadership.’

On another note, the European Commission’s competition commissioner has vowed to reduce state subsidies to companies. ‘Things cannot continue as before, the mandate is clear, less state aid.’ Time will tell as the commission, trying to force some German banks to repay 4.3 billion euros in subsidies have found the negotiations, in the words of one commissioner, ‘difficult’. This simply being another way of saying the German Government has no intention of supporting the EC in any such endeavors.

The design of creating European champions is evident in that both the German and French Governments are eager to see the London Stock Exchange merged into the Frankfurt-based Deutsche Boerse or the Paris-based Euronext. The road to consolidation of any corporation into such mega-structures as the bully governments wish to create can best be served through acquiring shares on an economically efficient and friendly basis without the resistance afforded by competing exchanges.

Another factor that looms large in the desire to create these entities is two fold. First both governments realize the need to show a reasonable attempt at deficit restraint and plan continued disposition of assets to attain the fiscal parity required by Maastricht. The second reason is more sinister in thought. By consolidating corporate assets with related synergies such as telephone properties or energy producing utilities of possibly one or two additional states, the bullies would be able to form monopolies. Maintaining control of the corporate assets by simply spinning them off into these new mega-corporate structures the companies are still government owned, but no longer appear on their balance sheet. As such not only could supply and prices be controlled and manipulated, but those additional costs to the consumers of the EU would then be used to fund pension systems the governments may have maintained thus aiding in closing their budget deficits still further. Creating such European champions is a win-win situation for the bully governments while ending up a losing situation for the consumers.

When assessing the value of such mega ‘champion corporations’ one must only go as far as the petrol pump or food market. With oil in such abundant supply, regardless of what the governments wish to tell us, (I overlook Norfolk Harbor where loaded-down tankers sit daily in ample supply) or purchase a box of corn flake cereal at nearly four U.S. dollars, it seems fairly obvious when variety of product is placed in the hands of the few (eliminating competitive pricing) only the consumer stands to lose.

-WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future governments of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their quest for world supremacy through occupation of the European Union.

(Available around 2nd of May)

WILL IT BE WORTH SURRENDERING YOUR INDEPENDENCE FOR A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION?
(Series 2, Article

Racism, anti-Semitism and the Nazi symbol

For two years a proposal has stared the EU member justice ministers and foreign ministers square in the face that would implement specific measures in a fight against most forms of fanaticism and social injustice. Speaking before a recent meeting of said ministers Luxembourg Justice Minister Luc Frieden stated 'Racism is something that is incompatible with the fundamental values that are the basis of European construction.'
One must wonder why has it taken so long for the Union to address this rampant dilemma? Perhaps it is because many government officials fail to recognize or wish to ignore the fact bigotry worldwide is a growing problem. In America, once again our constitution has given rise to the outspokenness of many extremist parties and groups who can legally voice their malignant opinions. Europe must also take note as to how much freedom of speech will be afforded through the new constitution, and do remember regardless fo what your own officials say it will supercede national constitutions in due course. How can I make such a bold statement? As all documentation shows, including the new constitution, the 25 members who currently comprise the EU are hereby referred to as 'states'. In its subtility that may just seem like a term without much meaning... right now. As we are aware one of the definitions of state is a governing body which is subject to a higher authority. Another definition is... one of many who form a Federal Union.
Getting back to today's topic... more to the point. Perhaps a most ominous sign is when politicians and people of influence take a rather bourgeois stance with regard to acts of prejudice, and in fact actually incourage them. Most recently, of course, was the observance of Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform emblazed with the infamous swastika armband. The Royal Family has shown their total indifference to such an atrocity with only a mild rebuke. They still intend to send this troubled youth to Sandhurst one of the UK's most honored military institutions. As one who believes in 'putting his money where his mouth is' I can only state that my son who will be attending one of America's military institutes this year, would be bagging groceries instead had he ever disgraced his family, nation and other loved ones in such a despicable manner.
Perhaps young Harry took his lead from some of Europe's most outrageous political figures in the form of their previous statements. Giscard d'Estaing, the former French President and one of the FRAMERS of the European Constitution stated several years ago regarding the immigration process 'the law should be changed so that citizenship would be given to children of French parents and not to children born on French soil to foreign parents'. Or perhaps Harry was more in awe of current French President Chirac who once stated 'the outsiders look, talk and worship differently, they even have SMELLS of their own'.
Finally one must also question alliances being formed in the reunited Germany. For nearly half a century the East was the ideological enemy of the West.. An entire post war generation has been brought into existence with the belief there is no God and the only church was that of the communist state. Will we eventually see subtile ideological changes taking place within the Fatherland now that former Easterners are ascending to positions of importance not only on the local level, but within the Federal level of the government system as well? After all the German Government just outlawed rascist demonstrations around former Nazi sites such as the Brandenburg Gate. Why not all rascist and hatred borne demonstrations anywhere?
It would be comforting if states such as Germany and France who vigorously lobby for changes in voting rights, tax structural reform and the creation of European champions all to their advantage, be the first to completely outlaw the use of the Nazi swastika and ALL other symbols of racism and hatred within their borders. Don't hold your breath, Europe! And take example from us Yanks... the First Amendment to our constitution goes way too far!

-WARNING WINDS of ARMAGEDDON-
A novel depicting the path by which the future government's of Germany and France shall develop a grand plan in their qeust for world supremacy through the occupation of the European Union.
(Available around 2nd of May)