Wednesday 21st of November 2018

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 17:51

The Liberal Party is racing to contain another internal row over its leadership after members on Sydney’s north shore voted for a motion to expel former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull from their party.

The Roseville Branch of the party backed the motion in a vote on Tuesday night to call on the Liberal Party's state headquarters to go ahead with expulsion, sparking a debate that could deepen the hostilities between conservatives and moderates.

Branch president George Szabo has taken calls from senior party officials to establish what happened in the meeting, while other party members refused to comment about the vote and why members wanted Mr Turnbull removed.

The vote came hours after reports emerged on Tuesday that Mr Turnbull and other members of his family, including wife Lucy and son Alex,  were following an instagram account that called for Tony Abbott to be replaced in his federal electorate of Warringah.


Read more:


Read from top... The one to take out is Turdy Abbott...

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 17:40

In Russian, Putin must have been doing all the character voices...

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 17:19

British Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly urged that the "national interest" is at stake over her Brexit plan. She is calling for businesses and politicians to rally around safeguarding ordinary people's jobs and livelihoods - and to back her draft divorce deal with the European Union. A parliamentary vote is due in the coming weeks.

However, the timing of a shocking report on British poverty by the United Nations makes May's appeals rather hollow, and it sounds an alarm about the dire direction the country is headed.

Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur, spent two weeks visiting diverse communities across Britain, and his report on growing poverty makes a damning case against the economic policies of present and past Conservative governments.


Read more:


Read from top.

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 17:04

Even at the height of recent American interventionism, one bit of realism prevailed: as bad as the government of Saudi Arabia is, whatever would replace it would likely be worse. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens and Riyadh has a proven track record of funding Wahhabism. Regime change in Iraq proceeded with far more tenuous connections to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, yet destabilizing, much less toppling, the House of Saud was almost universally regarded as a fool’s errand.

Such was the dilemma President Trump faced in weighing a response to the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a crime for which the Saudi regime itself bears culpability. That our options were limited, however, does not mean the president chose wisely. Trump on Tuesday pleaded with us to think of the defense contractors—“Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon”—before punishing the government of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in an exclamation point-laden statement that bizarrely juxtaposed “Standing with Saudi Arabia” with “America First.”

Trump has deservedly elicited widespread criticism for his treatment of the Khashoggi killing in a statement that appeared designed to preempt a U.S. intelligence assessment. He repeats the claim Khashoggi was part of the Muslim Brotherhood without really taking a position one way or the other and seemingly shrugs at the question of whether the crown prince had advance knowledge of the columnist’s torture and dismemberment. (“[M]aybe he did and maybe he didn’t!”)

But the apologia for the Saudi and United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, backed by our own government, should not escape reproach. Trump opens with some whataboutism and saber-rattling against Iran before lavishing praise on Saudi Arabia.

Read more:


Read also:

trump is killing beautiful babies...

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 08:26

Another portion of the president’s pro-Saudi talking points released earlier today contained some remarkable whoppers:

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave. They would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Trump may be gullible enough to believe this nonsense, but no one else should fall for it. Iran’s involvement in Yemen was minimal before the Saudi-led intervention began. It has increased somewhat as a result of that intervention, but it is difficult for “the Iranians” to “leave” a place that they barely have a presence in. The idea that Iran is “responsible” for a war that they didn’t start and have almost no role in is a bizarre stretch even by Trump’s standards. Iran’s small role in Yemen has always been used by the Saudi coalition to distract American and other Western policymakers from the purpose of the Saudi-Emirati war effort, which has been to attempt to batter and starve Yemen into submission and to carve out their own spheres of influences in the country. 

Nothing is forcing the Saudis and Emiratis to continue attacking Yemen, but they persist in their failed war because they don’t want to admit that they can’t win. If the Saudis would “gladly withdraw,” they could have done so at any point over the last three and a half years. They aren’t interested in providing humanitarian assistance, and we know this since they have spent the last three years impeding the delivery of aid and starving the population of basic necessities. Trump’s repetition of Saudi propaganda is embarrassing and appalling, and the conceit that Saudi Arabia is some sort of well-meaning, humanitarian government is one of the most insulting lies that this president could tell the public. Perhaps the most insulting lie of all is the idea that Trump’s abject subservience to Saudi interests has anything to do with putting America first.


Read more:


"Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism."???? Radical Islamic Terrorism is synonym with Wahhabism which itself is synonym with Sunni Islam which  itself is synonym with Saudi Arabia. What planet do these guy live on?.

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 06:03

The Governor of Manus has slammed Australia over plans to redevelop a joint naval base on the island in Papua New Guinea, saying he has never been consulted on the deal.

Key points:

  • Governor Benjamin said the plan is in the interests of Australia and the US, not Manus locals
  • He said he does not trust Australia, claiming they would not pay locals fairly for the work
  • Head of PNG Defence said the improved base will help PNG protect trade routes


Manus Governor Charlie Benjamin told the ABC's Pacific Beat program that the deal to redevelop the Lombrum naval base was unnecessary and that he does not believe the base serves the interests of locals.

"To be honest PNG is not at war and we do not need any help right now, simply by coming to Lombrum is accommodating the interests of Australia and America," Mr Benjamin told Pacific Beat.

"Nobody has spoken to us."

He said he does not trust Australia to work on the base, claiming that they would pay their own workers high wages, while local PNG workers would only receive the minimum wage.

Mr Benjamin added that the Australia-run detention centre on Manus has given the island a bad reputation.

His comments echo those of others from Manus who are critical of the deal, including former MP Ronnie Knight, who told Pacific Beat earlier this month the plan was "bulldozed through" without local consultation.

The deal to redevelop the Lombrum naval base was first announced in November by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who said it would enhance the connection and cooperation between Australia and the Pacific nation.


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 05:56

in a comment above I wrote:


.... Images of bodies and porn fiddles have been with us since time "immemorial" (bugger the freemasons). Many cave (shelter) paintings of the Aboriginal people going back many millennia  show the female form in all its spreaded legs fashion, with genitals centre stage. These paintings of course would have been part of the initiation of the pubescent young males — unless the painters were already onto the value of porn — or both.

More recently, though, in the muddled past of our confused civilisation that is still trying to overcome our general ugliness and weirdo natural parts, some people explained their resentment at seeing the naked flesh:

"I find your house is full of indecent pictures" said Mrs Disraeli to a hostess in which she and her famous husband had been overnighting... "There is the most horrible picture in our bedroom... It is Venus and Adonis. I have been awake half the night trying to prevent his looking at it". 

Now we know. Disraeli could have been a "pervert". It is likely that Mrs Disraeli's bod could not compete with those shapes of the magnificent best female goddess in the universe. She was worried about the competition which could have aroused some senses in her husband who may not have shown the amorous desires she might have secretly craved for but overtly rejected due to Victorian Puritanism of the time. 

Sorry, you, I did not mean to offend anyone when talking about ugly bodies. I'm not the prettiest bod for advertising perfumes for men, myself.

Wordsworth, the poet, traitor of liberal thoughts in his later life, might have had a stutter... When catching a glimpse of a sculpture of Cupid and Psyche kissing in the nude, exclaimed "THE DEV-V-V-VILS"

The paintings by Titian of the Venus touching herself with discreet enjoy was even too much for someone like Mark Twain who thought "it was a trifle too strong"... The Divinyls song about touching myself comes to mind.

As I mentioned before on this site, the Louvre storage rooms are full of vases and artefacts from the Roman times, that depict homosexuality and other erections larger than life.

So the point of my article here is definitely not to praise two shows on the ABC — two shows that appear puerile and immature, without any style but bland moronism. I apologise. I could be wrong. I am too choosy. I need elevation.

"The nude, painted by vulgar men, is inevitably indecent" said Thoré... Presently, much of TV lacks indecency and is not much more than a low-meaning medium, with an unfortunate need to shock instead of stylise — all in order to survive the demand for ongoing crassness amongst us. We're sinking.

Style is what defines a civilisation. 

Porn can be elevated by style beyond wet T-shirt competition. 

Read from top.




I have mentioned Leda and the Swan somewhere on this site about something but can't find it... Google has given up... So I have repeated words I wrote (stolen from a few "reference" books) a while back (see above). But this is about the discovery of a new 2,000 year old painting in Pompei:



A "sensual" fresco depicting a woman having sex with a swan in a scene from classical mythology has been unearthed in a bedroom in Pompeii.

Key points:

  • Fresco seen as exceptional because of direction Leda is looking
  • Leda and Swan myth inspired Renaissance Italy artists
  • Fresco was found in what is believed was a rich merchant's home


The figure of the legendary Spartan queen Leda being impregnated by the Roman god Jupiter — in the form of a swan — was a fairly common home decoration theme in Pompeii, which was destroyed in AD 79 by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius near present-day Naples.

But Pompeii archaeological park director Massimo Osanna praised this fresco as exceptional since it was painted to make it appear Leda was looking at whoever saw the fresco upon entering the bedroom.

"Leda watches the spectator with a sensuality that's absolutely pronounced," Mr Osanna told Italian news agency ANSA.


Read more:


Read from top.


See also:



by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2018-11-21 05:08


By Philip M. Giraldi

One of the things to look forward to in the upcoming holiday season is the special treats that one is allowed to sample. Fruitcake and nuts are Thanksgiving and Christmas favorites. They usually come in tins or special packages but it seems that this season some of the nuts have escaped and have fled to obtain sanctuary from the Trump Administration.

Currently, there is certainly a wide range of nuts available on display in the West Wing. There is the delicate but hairy Bolton, which has recently received the coveted “Defender of Israel” award, and also the robust Pompeo, courageously bucking the trend to overeat during the holidays by telling the Iranian people that they should either surrender or starve to death. And then there is the always popular Haley, voting audaciously to give part of Syria to Israel as a holiday treat.

But my vote for the most magnificent nut in an Administration that is overflowing with such talent would be the esteemed United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey. The accolade is in part due to the fact that Jeffrey started out relatively sane as a career diplomat with the State Department, holding ambassadorships in Iraq, Turkey, and Albania. He had to work hard to become as demented as he now is but was helped along the way by signing on as a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Jeffrey set the tone for his term of office shortly after being appointed back in August when he argued that the Syrian terrorists were “. . . not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, who must have somehow missed a lot of the head chopping and rape going on, subsequently traveled to the Middle East and stopped off in Israel to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been suggested that Jeffrey received his marching orders during the visit.

James Jeffrey has been particularly active during this past month.  On November 7th he declared that he would like to see Russia maintain a “permissive approach” to allowing the Israelis to attack Iranian targets inside Syria.  Regarding Iran’s possible future role in Syria, he observed that “Iranians are part of the problem not part of the solution.”

What Jeffrey meant was that because Israel had been “allowed” to carry out hundreds of air attacks in Syria ostensibly directed against Iran-linked targets, the practice should be permitted to continue. Israel had suspended nearly all of its airstrikes in the wake of the shoot-down of a Russian aircraft in September, an incident which Moscow has blamed on Israel even though the missile that brought down the plane was fired by Syria. Fifteen Russian servicemen were killed. Israel reportedly was deliberately using the Russian plane to mask the presence of its own aircraft.

Russia responded to the incident by deploying advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Syria, which can cover most of the more heavily developed areas of the country. Jeffrey was unhappy with that decision, saying “We are concerned very much about the S-300 system being deployed to Syria. The issue is at the detail level. Who will control it? what role will it play?” And he defended his own patently absurd urging that Russia, Syria’s ally, permit Israel to continue its air attacks by saying “We understand the existential interest and we support Israel” because the Israeli government has an “existential interest in blocking Iran from deploying long-range power projection systems such as surface-to-surface missiles.”

On November 15th James Jeffrey was at it again, declaring that U.S. troops will not leave Syria before guaranteeing the “enduring defeated” of ISIS, but he perversely put the onus on Syria and Iran, saying that “We also think that you cannot have an enduring defeat of ISIS until you have fundamental change in the Syrian regime and fundamental change in Iran’s role in Syria, which contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS in the first place in 2013, 2014.”

As virtually no one but Jeffrey and the Israeli government actually believes that Damascus and Tehran were responsible for creating ISIS, the ambassador elaborated, blaming President Bashar al-Assad for the cycle of violence in Syria that, he claimed, allowed the development of the terrorist group in both Syria and neighboring Iraq.

He said “The Syrian regime produced ISIS. The elements of ISIS in the hundreds, probably, saw an opportunity in the total breakdown of civil society and of the upsurge of violence as the population rose up against the Assad regime, and the Assad regime, rather than try to negotiate or try to find any kind of solution, unleashed massive violence against its own population.”

Jeffrey’s formula is just another recycling of the myth that the Syrian opposition consisted of good folks who wanted to establish democracy in the country. In reality, it incorporated terrorist elements right from the beginning and groups like ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates rapidly assumed control of the violence. That Jeffrey should be so ignorant or blinded by his own presumptions to be unaware of that is astonishing. It is also interesting to note that he makes no mention of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, knee-jerk support for Israel and the unrelenting pressure on Syria starting with the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 and continuing with the embrace of the so-called Arab Spring. Most observers believe that those actions were major contributors to the rise of ISIS.

Jeffrey’s unflinching embrace of the Israeli and hardline Washington assessment of the Syrian crisis comes as no surprise given his pedigree, but in the same interview where he pounded Iran and Syria, he asserted oddly that “We’re not about regime change. We’re about a change in the behavior of a government and of a state.”

Actually, the only regime change that is needed is in Washington and it would include Jeffrey, Bolton, Haley, Pompeo, and Miller. And while we’re at it, get rid of son-in-law Jared Kushner and his claque of Orthodox Jews, Jason Greenblatt the “peace negotiator” and David Friedman the U.S. Ambassador in Israel. None of them are capable of acting to advance any American national interest, which they wouldn’t recognize even if it hit them in the butt. Once they are gone the U.S. can bid the Middle East goodbye and leave its constituent nations to sort out their own problems. Jeffrey’s ridiculous prescriptions for the Syrians and Russians are symptomatic of what one gets from a team of yes-men who have latched onto some dystopic ideas and pursued them relentlessly, blinded by what they believe to be American power. Someone should tell them that their antics have made that power a commodity that is dramatically depreciating in value, but it is clear that they are not listening.


Read more:

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-11-20 20:49


Fake news about Muos « maxi-radar »

by Manlio Dinucci

Contrary to articles in the Atlantist Press, Muos is not a defensive radar, but a new satellite communications system which enables the Pentagon to supervise offensive actions anywhere in the world. One of its four land bases is situated in Europe, specifically in Niscemi (Italy).

« The M5S (5 Star Movement) divided about the Sicilian maxi-radar », headlined the Corriere della Sera, thereby spreading a maxi fake news – not about the directorate of the 5 Star Movement, which, after having won an electoral consensus with the « No Muos » in Sicily, is now backing off - but about the very object of the dispute.

By defining the Muos station in Niscemi as a « maxi-radar », they are fooling public opinion into believing that it is an Earth-bound electronic scanning device, and therefore defensive. But on the contrary, the Muos (Mobile User Objective System) is a new satellite communications system which extends the offensive capacity of the United States to the whole planet.

The system, developed by Lockheed Martin for the US Navy, is composed of an initial configuration of four satellites (plus one in reserve) in a geo-stationary orbit, and linked to four terrestrial stations – two in the United States (Hawaï and Virginia), one in Sicily and one in Australia. The four stations are linked by a network of terrestrial and submarine fibre-optic cables (the station in Niscemi is connected directly to the station in Virginia).

The Muos, which is already in function, will become fully operational in the summer of 2019, attaining a capacity 16 times superior to that of the preceding systems. It will simultaneously transmit ultra-high frequency coded messages of vocal, video and data material. So submarines and warships, fighter-bombers and drones, military vehicles and on-the-ground units of the US and their allies, will thus be linked to a single command network of control and communications under the orders of the Pentagon, while they are operating anywhere in the world, including the polar regions.

So the Muos station in Niscemi is not a « Sicilian maxi-radar » which guards the island, but an essential element of the planetary war machine of the United States.

The same role is being played by the other main US and NATO bases in Italy. The Naval Air Station Sigonella, a few kilometres from Niscemi, is the base for the launching of military operations mainly in the Middle East and Africa, carried out by special forces and drones.

The JTAGS (Joint Tactical Ground Station), a US satellite station of the « antimissile shield » deployed at Sigonella – one of the five with global reach (the others are situated in the United States, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan) – serves not only for anti-missile defence, but also for attack operations commanded from advance positions.

The Joint Allied Force Command in Lago Patria (Naples), is under the orders of a US admiral who simultaneously commands the US Naval Forces in Europe (with the Sixth Fleet based at Gaeta in the Lazio) and the US Naval Forces for Africa, whose headquarters are at Naples-Capodichino.

Camp Darby, the largest US arsenal outside of the homeland, supplies the US and allied forces for their wars in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

The US 173rd Airborne Brigade based in Vicence, operates in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and other countries in Eastern Europe.

The bases at Aviano and Ghedi – sites of the deployment of US and Italian fighters under US command, and equipped with B61 nuclear bombs, which, as from 2020 will be replaced by B61-12’s – are an integral part of the Pentagon’s nuclear strategy.

Incidentally, do Luigi Di Maio and the other leaders of M5S remember that they took a solemn engagement with the ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) to ensure that Italy adheres to the UN Treaty, thus liberating Italy from US nuclear weapons?

Manlio Dinucci


Pete Kimberley


Il Manifesto (Italy)


Read more:



Read from top. See also:


Please note: the point of having US nuclear weapons in Europe is to strike enemies (read Russia) from such locations which would then become targets of retaliation — leaving the USA "safer" for a longer time frame. The EU would bear the brunt of WW3... This is the calculation of the generals in charge of the pentagon...

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2018-11-20 20:05

Secession from the European Union

by Thierry Meyssan

For Thierry Meyssan, the way in which Germany and France are refusing the right of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union demonstrates the fact that the EU is not simply a straight-jacket - it also goes to show that the Europeans still care as little about their neighbours as they did during the two World Wars. Manifestly, they have forgotten that governing a country means more than simply defending its interests in the short term, but also thinking in the long term and avoiding conflicts with its neighbours.

The member states of the European Union seem unaware of the clouds that are gathering above their heads. They have identified the most serious problems of the EU, but are treating them with nonchalance, and fail to understand what the British secession (Brexit) implies. They are slowly sinking into a crisis which may only be resolved by violence.

The origin of the problem

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the members of the European Community accepted to bow to the decisions of the United States and to integrate the states of Central Europe, even though these states did not correspond in any way to the logical criteria of adhesion. With this momentum, they adopted the Maastricht Treaty, which transformed the European project of economic coordination between European States into that of a supra-national State. The idea was to create a vast political bloc which, under the military protection of the United States, was intended to engage with the USA on the road to prosperity.

This super-State has nothing democratic about it. It is administered by a collegiate of senior civil servants, the Commission, whose members are designated one at a time by the heads of state and government. Never before in History has an Empire functioned in this way. Very quickly, the paritarian model of the Commission spawned a gigantic paritarian bureaucracy in which some states are « more equal than others ».

This supra-national project turned out to be inadaptable to a unipolar world. The European Community sprang from the the civil chapter of the Marshall plan - NATO being the military chapter. The Western European bourgeoisies, frightened by the Soviet model, had been supporting the European Community since the Congress convened by Winston Churchill in The Hague in 1948. However, after the disappearance of the USSR, they no longer had any interest in continuing along this road.

The ex-States of the Warsaw Pact could not decide whether to engage in the Union or form a direct alliance with the United States. For example, Poland bought US war planes which it used in Iraq with the money granted by the Union for the modernisation of its agriculture.

Apart from the development of police and legal cooperation, the Maastricht Treaty created a single currency and foreign policy. All the member states were obliged to adopt the Euro as soon as their national economy would allow it. Only Denmark and the United Kingdom, catching the scent of impending problems, stayed out of it. As for the foreign policy, it seemed to make sense in a unipolar world dominated by the United States.

Taking into account the differences within the Euro zone, the small fry were destined to become the prey of the biggest of the sharks, Germany. The single currency which, at the moment it was put into circulation, had been adjusted to the dollar, transformed itself progressively into an internationalised version of the German Mark. Incapable of competing, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were symbolically qualified as PIGS by the financiers. While Berlin pillaged their economies, it offered Athens a restoration of its wealth - if Greece would hand over a part of its territory.

It so happened that the European Union, while pursuing its global economic growth, was overtaken by other states whose economic growth was several times faster. While adhesion to the European Union was an advantage for the ex-members of the Warsaw Pact, it had become a millstone for the Western Europeans.

Drawing lessons from this failure, the United Kingdom decided to retire from the super-State (Brexit) in order to reconnect with its historic allies from the Commonwealth and, if possible, with China. The Commission panicked, fearing that the British example would open the door for other departures, for the maintenance of the Common Market but the end of the Union. It therefore decided to set conditions which would be dissuasive for leavers.

The internal problems of the United Kingdom

Since the European Union serves the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, the British workers and rural citizens voted to leave, while the tertiary sector voted to stay.

Although British society, like other European countries, has an upper middle class which owes its enrichment to the European Union, unlike the other great European countries, it also has a powerful aristocracy. Before the Second World War, this class enjoyed all the advantages offered by the European Union, but also a prosperity that it can no longer expect from Brussels. The aristocracy therefore decided to vote for the Brexit against the upper middle class, which sparked a crisis within the ruling class.

Finally, the choice of Theresa May as Prime Minister was intended to preserve the interests of people from all walks of life (« Global Britain »). But things did not go as intended. 
- First of all, Mrs. May was unable to conclude a preferential agreement with China, and experienced difficulties with the Commonwealth, with whom the bonds had been loosened over time. 
- Next, she encountered problems with the Scottish and Irish minorities, particularly since her majority includes Irish Protestants who cling to their privileges. 
- Besides that, she ran into the blind intransigence of Berlin and Brussels. 
- Finally, she will have to face up to challenges and questions about the « special relationship » which links her country to the United States.

The problem revealed by the application of the Brexit

After having tried in vain several readjustments of the treaties, the United Kingdom democratically voted for the Brexit on 23 June 2016. The upper middle class, who did not believe this could happen, immediately attempted to invalidate their choice. There was talk about organising a second referendum, as had been done in Denmark for the Maastricht Treaty. This did not seem possible, so a distinction was made between a « hard Brexit » (without new agreements with the EU) and a « soft Brexit » (with the maintenance of various pre-existing agreements). The Press claimed that the Brexit would be an economic catastrophe for the British people. In reality, studies carried out before the referendum, and therefore before this debate, all attest that the first two years after the British exit from the Union would be recessive, but that the United Kingdom would quickly recover and overtake the Union. The opposition to the result of the referendum – and therefore opposition to the popular vote – managed to hinder its application. The notification of the British exit was delivered by the government to the Commission with a delay of nine months, on 29 March 2017.

On 14 November 2018 – two years and four months after the referendum - Theresa May capitulated and accepted an unfavourable agreement with the European Commission. However, when she presented this deal to her government, seven of her ministers resigned, including the minister in charge of the Brexit. Clearly he had overlooked the elements of the text that the Prime Minister had assigned to him.

This document includes a disposition which is absolutely unacceptable for a sovereign state, whatever it may be. It institutes an unstated period of transition, during which the United Kingdom will no longer be considered as a member of the Union, but will nonetheless be obliged to follow its rules, including those which are still to be adopted.

Behind this devious plot hide Germany and France.

As soon as the result of the British referendum was known, Germany realised that the Brexit would provoke the loss of several tens of billions of Euros from its own GDP. Merkel’s government therefore got busy – not at adapting its own economy, but at sabotaging the United Kingdom’s departure from the Union.

As for French President Emmanuel Macron, he represents the European upper middle class, and is therefore by nature opposed to the Brexit.

The men behind the politicians

Chancellor Merkel knew she could count on the President of the Union, Polish Donald Tusk. In fact this man is not at his current post because he is the ex-Prime Minister of his country, but for two different reasons – during the Cold War, his family, members of the Cachoube minority, chose the United States over the Soviet Union, and besides that, Tusk is a childhood friend of Angela Merkel.

Tusk began by questioning British engagement in the multi-annual programmes adopted by the Union. If London were to pay the sums to which it had agreed, it would not be able to leave the Union without paying an exit tax of between 55 and 60 billion pounds.

French ex- minister and commissioner Michel Barnier was nominated as head negotiator for dealings with the United Kingdom. Barnier had already stirred up a number of solid enmities in the City, which he treated badly during the crisis of 2008. Furthermore, British financiers dream of handling the convertibility of the Chinese yuan into Euros.

Barnier accepted to take the German Sabine Wey as his assistant. It is in reality Ms. Wey who is leading the negotiations, tasked with the mission of guaranteeing their failure.

At the same time, the man who « made » the career of Emmanuel Macron, ex-head of the Inspectorate General of Finances, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, was named as the French ambassador in London. He is a friend of Barnier, with whom he handled the financial crisis of 2008. To kill the Brexit, Jouyet is relying on the Conservative leader of the opposition to Theresa May, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee to the House of Commons, Colonel Tom Tugendhat.

Jouyet chose Tugendshat’s wife Anissia Tugendhat as his assistant at the French embassy in London. She is a graduate of the elite École Nationale d’Administration.

The crisis came to a head during the the summit of the European Council in Salzbourg, in September 2018. Theresa May presented the consensus that she had managed to establish in her country, and that many others would be well advised to use as an example – the Chequers plan (to maintain only the Common Market ties between the two entities, but not the free circulation of citizens, services and capital, and no longer to be ruled by Luxembourg’s European administrative and legal system). Donald Tusk brutally rejected this plan.

At this point, we have to take a step back. The agreements that put an end to the revolt of the IRA against English colonialism did not resolve the causes of the conflict. Peace was only found because the European Union allowed the abrogation of the frontier between the two Irelands. Tusk demanded that in order to prevent the resurgence of this war of national liberation, Northern Ireland be maintained in the Union’s Customs sector. This implies the creation of a frontier controlled by the Union, cutting the United Kingdom in two, and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the country.

During the second session of the Council, before the heads of state and government, Tusk slammed the door in Mrs. May’s face, leaving her alone. A public humiliation which could not remain without consequence.

Reflections on secession from the European Union

All this fiddling attests to the skill of the European leaders at political sleight of hand. They appear to respect the rules of impartiality, and to take their decisions collectively with the sole aim of serving the general interest (even though this declared motive is refuted only by the British). In reality, certain of these leaders defend the interests of their country to the detriment of their partners, while others defend the interests of their social class to the detriment of everybody else. The worst is obviously the threat brought to bear on the United Kingdom – it must submit to the economic conditions of Brussels, or there will be another instalment of the war of Independence in Northern Ireland.

Such behaviour can only lead to the re-awakening of the intra-European conflicts which triggered two World Wars - conflicts that the Union has masked within its own territory, but which remain unresolved and persist outside of the Union.

Conscious that they are playing with fire, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel suddenly evoked the creation of a common army which would include the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that if the three major European powers should agree to form a military alliance, the problem would be resolved. But this alliance is impossible, because it is unfeasible to build an army without first deciding who will command it.

The authoritarianism of the supra-national State has swelled to the point where, during the negotiations on the Brexit, it created three other fronts. The Commission opened two procedures for sanctions to be instituted against Poland and Hungary, (at the request of the European Parliament), accused of systemic violations of the values of the Union - procedures whose objective is to place these two states in the same situation as the United Kingdom during the period of transition – being constrained to respect the rules of the Union without having any say in their determination. Besides which, hampered by the reforms currently under way in Italy which are working against its ideology, the supra-national State refuses to allow Rome the right to build a budget in order to implement its own politics.

The Common Market of the European Community enabled the establishment of peace in Western Europe. Its successor, the European Union, is destroying this inheritance, and is setting its own members one against the other.

Pete Kimberley


Read more:



Read from top.


The main ingredient in this discord is not the EU/UK break up, but the USA that have been playing various secret games into making sure that the EU does not rise above the status of vassal —subservience to the USA. Even Donald is playing the game with Nato one day, Nato the next. The entry of the UK into the EU was a mistake, which General de Gaulle fought against till about 1969 (CdG saw Great Britain as America's "Trojan Horse"). The General understood the weight of history and the deceptions that came with it.


See also: