The truth about the European Union
5 May 2013
The European Union (EU) is one of the most
controversial supranational entities in modern history. While some have
hailed it as an instrument for “peace,” “prosperity” and “progress,” a
growing number of critics describe it as an “undemocratic,”
“illegal” and even “criminal” organisation, and as “a monster that
regulates everything” (Craig & Elliott).
The EU: its origins and history
To better understand the true nature and
purpose of the European Union, it is well to look at its origins and history
and, in particular, at who created it and why.
The idea of a United States of Europe
originated in liberal (i.e., left-wing) capitalist circles, notably those
around Richard Cobden (1804-1865). Cobden was a textile manufacturer who
held substantial railway interests in America, as well as a leader of the
so-called “Manchester School,” a Liberal movement advocating “free trade”
and “international peace.”
Cobden was also a founder of the
Anglo-American Peace Society which campaigned for a United States of Europe
(Richard & Burritt, p. 11) that was to be
merged with America. Thus, left-wing Anglo-American industrial interests
can be identified as the original driving force behind the European
Edwards, an adherent of the Manchester School and Cobden’s assistant in the
Peace Society, became a newspaper magnate and a financial supporter of the Fabian Society – which was in close touch with
Manchester School representatives like Cobden Club secretary Harold Cox.
The United States of Europe,
unsurprisingly, soon became official policy of the Independent Labour Party
(ILP), a front organisation of the Fabian
Society, and was actively promoted by leading Fabians during and after
World War I (see The
Fabian Society: the masters of subversion
Operating in parallel with the Fabian Society was the Milner Group, an association of
left-wing bankers, financiers and political leaders revolving around Rhodes-Rothschild
interests and represented by public figures like Lord Alfred Milner, an
employee of the Rothschilds.
The Milner Group was in turn allied with
associated interests on America’s East Coast, known as the Eastern
Establishment and revolving around Wall Street interests like J P Morgan
and the Rockefellers. This Milner-Eastern Establishment combine is what
historians like Carroll Quigley have called the “Anglo-American
Establishment” (Quigley, 1981).
The Anglo-American Establishment consisted
of leading international financiers and their political collaborators in
Britain, Europe and America, and aimed to re-organise the world’s financial
and economic structure, as evident, for example, from their call for an international economic conference
for that purpose (“Powers To Confer On World Finance,” NYT, 15 Jan. 1920).
More specifically, the designs of the
Anglo-American Establishment – which it shared with its collaborators in
the Fabian Society – entailed the division of the
world into four or five economic blocs dominated by an Anglo-American alliance
and controlled by international organisations run by economic “experts”
churned out by the academic institutions (the London School of Economics,
Harvard University, etc.) bankrolled by the same financial interests.
In particular, plans for a “Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe”
were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the
Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank of New York (“Vanderlip
Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” NYT,
13 Nov 1921). The Rockefellers were among the main financial supporters of
the Fabian Society and its various internationalist
The European Coal and Steel Community
The above plans were briefly interrupted by
World War II, only to be resuscitated by the same interests after the war
and imposed on Europe through the US Marshall Plan that set the economic and
political unification of Europe as a precondition for financial aid to
Britain and other European countries.
The US State Department – which
was responsible for foreign policy – had been dominated by the
Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since the early 1940s when
the State Department set up the Advisory Committee on Postwar
Foreign Policy whose vice-chairman was CFR member and leading new world
order advocate Sumner Welles (Smoot, p. 8).
The Marshall Plan was devised, promoted and
implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within
the US State Department in collaboration with Socialist regimes such as
that of British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. Attlee’s Fabian
Socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin chaired the 13 July 1947
conference that established the Committee for European Economic
Co-operation (CEEC), later called Organisation for European Economic
Marshall Aid funds were
funnelled through the CFR-controlled European Cooperation Administration
(ECA) and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) to various European
organisations, the vast majority of which were founded and/or run by Fabian Socialists and fellow left-wingers like Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak,
Joseph Retinger, Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and
others. (Aldrich, 1995; Dorril, 2001).
A leading element in the
Anglo-American campaign for a United Europe was the European Movement (EM),
an organisation founded by none other than former Prime Minister Winston
Churchill himself (Dorril, p. 460). A key figure
in the European project, Churchill had long advocated a United Europe, as
had his crony Arthur Salter, a former member of the Fabian
It is often forgotten that
Churchill had been a dedicated Liberal and a close collaborator of the Fabian leadership in the early 1900s (Webb, pp. 411,
416-7). Moreover, he was very close to the Milner Group, being related to
diamond tycoon and Milner Group financier Abe Bailey (whose son John Milner
was married to Churchill’s daughter Diana). Churchill was also related,
through his American mother, to Wall Street financier Leonard Walter Jerome, the “King of Wall
Street,” who was a close associate of Vanderbilt-Morgan interests – the
same interests that created the Council on Foreign Relations (Ratiu, pp. 132-4, 237).
It was pressure from the above financial
interests and their political collaborators which ensured that the European
project was launched with the 1950 Schuman
Declaration and took shape as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
through the 1951 Treaty of Paris.
Once the European plan had been made
official, it was the same interests that pushed for its implementation.
Here again, Churchill’s European Movement, in collaboration with the Bilderberg Group and the Action Committee for a United
States of Europe (ACUSE) played a leading role (Aldrich, p. 216).
The European Union, a “German creation”?
Like many other nefarious activities of the
Anglo-American Establishment, the European project was shrouded in secrecy,
propaganda and disinformation, which is why the secret services were
heavily involved in funding, promoting and implementing the scheme
(Aldrich; Dorril; Evans-Pritchard).
A key element in this was the theory that
the new United Europe was a “Franco-German” or “German” creation. This
theory, incredibly, persists to this day – perpetuated by the likes of
James Goldsmith, the late founder of the (now defunct) Referendum Party.
With the contempt for historical fact
characteristic of his ilk, Goldsmith (a long-time Rothschild associate)
brazenly claimed that:
“As we know, the construction of
the European Union was designed by Germany assisted by the elite civil
servants of France. It draws its bulk from Germany’s constitutional
heritage … Hegel, the philosophical father of the German constitutional
tradition, believed in the State and despised the people …” (Goldsmith,
The truth is that Hegel’s State was a Christian monarchy, a form of
government rooted in centuries-old tradition and supported by biblical authority.
How Goldsmith came to see a connection with the anti-Christian European
Union is a mystery. But it shows what can happen when bankers dabble in
At any rate, Goldsmith’s anti-Hegelian (and
anti-German) rant is part of the mythological repertoire by which the
Establishment in this country keeps the masses ignorant, confused, divided
and easy to control.
The media, in particular, have played a
leading role in this. Papers like the Daily
Mail have a long history of spreading propaganda, disinformation and
lies on behalf of the Establishment. For example, in November 2011 the Mail chose to parrot the “prophetic”
words of Nicholas Ridley (Margaret Thatcher’s Trade Secretary) to the
effect that the proposed European Economic and Monetary Union was “a German racket designed to take over the whole of
Europe” (Moncrieff, 2011).
Typically, the Mail failed to produce any evidence to back up its claim.
Apparently, Ridley’s (and the Mail’s)
prophetic utterances must be accepted as fact. Unfortunately, the Mail had earlier told us that most Germans wanted their old currency, the
Deutschmark, back (30 June 2010). If the euro was a
“German racket to take over Europe,” why would the Germans want their
As there was neither rhyme nor reason to
the story, we did our own research only to find that according to the Mail itself, Germany had been “strong-armed by France into swapping the Deutschmark
for the euro”! (Hall,
2010). Indeed, as France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand himself
admitted in the Council of Ministers, he had bluntly told German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl that if he wanted the re-unification of Germany he had to “show
that he continued to believe in Europe” and back monetary union (Stirn, p. 184). So much for “German racket.”
Monetary union turns out to have been a French
agenda from the time of President Georges Pompidou and was backed by
leading Britons from Edward Heath to Roy Jenkins. Moreover, Pompidou had
been the manager of the French Rothschilds’
business empire. Heath appointed Victor Rothschild as head of the Cabinet
Office think-tank Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) and engineered
Britain’s entry to the Common Market with the assistance of Pompidou. And
Jenkins was a founding member of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission,
in which he was later joined by Heath.
It follows that blaming the Germans can
serve no other purpose than to cover up the truth about the interests
behind the European project. Further investigation shows this to be
something of a quasi-religious ritual with sections of the British press
going back to the early 1900s. Already in 1916-1917, the Mail and the Times along with fellow “Conservative” papers like the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Post denounced the proposed
League of Nations as a “cloak to conceal German designs” (Winkler, pp.
The League was, in fact, an Anglo-American design, the Milner
Group, the Fabian Society and their American
collaborators being the masterminds behind it. Churchill himself described
it as the “nucleus of an alliance against Germany” (Salter, p. 102) and the
press knew full well what the score was. As early as 1906, Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Harmsworth),
the owner of the Mail and the Times, and his friend Field Marshall
Lord Roberts, president of the Milner Group-associated Anglo-American Pilgrims
Society, had launched a systematic anti-German propaganda campaign by
publishing false stories of an imminent “German invasion” of Britain
(Ferguson, 2003, p. 292; Clarke, p. 47).
owners have maintained close links to the same interests ever since,
indeed, they are related to them: the 3rd Earl of Cromer
(Rowland Baring of the Baring banking family) was the husband of Esmé Harmsworth, sister of
Lord Rothermere (father of the present Lord Rothermere and Mail
proprietor). Cromer was an executive director of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC), as well
as governor of the Bank of England, governor of the Atlantic Institute for
International Affairs (AIIA), member of the Pilgrims Society executive
committee and member of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission.
In other words, Cromer was a leading member
of the same Anglo-American Establishment that was behind the European
project. It was Trilateral Commission member and leading Europeanist Roy
Jenkins who, as President of the European Commission in the late 1970s,
launched the European Monetary System (EMS) which was the first step
towards monetary union (Healey, p. 438).
There is no evidence whatsoever that
Germany was the initiator in any of the above projects. In contrast, the
central role of Anglo-American, Atlanticist
interests is confirmed by the fact that in 1981, Jenkins’ European
Commission proposed closer co-operation between EMS central banks and the
US Federal Reserve System. Clearly, the whole scheme points not to Bonn or
Berlin but to London, Washington and Wall Street.
A direct link between these interests and
the Mail is provided by Cromer
himself, who was a director of the Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT) –
the company that owns the Mail –
as well as a close friend of monetary union advocate and fellow Trilateralist Edward Heath. DMGT is also connected with
the Barings through DMGT deputy chairman Vivian Baring; Baring Brothers and
its successor, ING Barings, has been adviser to DMGT, etc.
In addition to its close Baring
connections, the Harmsworths’ DMGT also
interlocks with pro-EU Rothschild-Milner Group institutions like Lazard and Sofina SA:
long-time Lazard chairman and Sofina
director David Verey is a non-executive director
Lazard connections are of particular interest in
light of Lazard’s long-standing pro-European
stance. In fact, Jean Monnet, one of the European
Union’s chief architects, appears to have been something of a Lazard front. Not only was he provided with a
substantial loan by the bank but Lazard Brothers
partners Lord Brand and Lord Kindersley (both leading Milner Group members)
were old friends of his.
Brand was also a director of The Times which was owned by the Astors to whom he was related and who were key players
behind the Pilgrims Society and the European Union movement. The Times and the Economist (whose editor Geoffrey Crowther was another old friend of Monnet)
were among the British papers that had already promoted European union in
the late 1940s.
In May 1950 Monnet
called on Brand, Kindersley and Crowther in
London to discuss his Schuman Plan before meeting
political leaders (Monnet, p. 306). Both the Times and the Economist backed Monnet’s Plan as
well as British membership, with the Times
calling for Britain’s “closest possible association with the project” (9
Jun. 1950). Anthony Eden, Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, and
Lord Layton (a leading Milnerite) on behalf of the
Liberals, all urged the Government to join. But it’s now all supposed to
have been a racket imposed on Britain by Germany!
And so, history repeats itself thanks to
the British establishment and its instruments of black propaganda,
manipulation and mass control. We have seen that far from being “designed
by Germany,” the United States of Europe had been the brainchild of
Anglo-American interests who, we may add, believed in the State (controlled
by themselves) and despised the people at least as much as Hegel did.
The fact is that the Benelux Customs Union
between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which formed the core of
the Coal and Steel Community (later Common Market), was created by the
London-based governments-in-exile of the respective countries through the
1944 London Customs Convention.
Likewise, Franco-German economic
co-operation can be traced back to London. In September 1946, Churchill
called for the creation of a “United States of Europe from the Atlantic to the
Black Sea,” adding that the first step to European union must be a
partnership between France and Germany:
“I am now going to say something that will astonish
you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a
partnership between France and Germany … “
In fact, Churchill’s idea of Franco-German co-operation
went back to the early 1930s if not earlier (Biddeleux
& Taylor, pp. 37-38).
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by
Arthur Salter later that year in the House of Commons, Churchill’s plan for
Franco-German co-operation as a basis for a United States of Europe
depended on the British Zone of Allied-occupied Germany which contained the
centre of German industry (House of
Commons Debates, “Debate on the Address,” 14 Nov. 1946, column 321).
In 1951, Foreign Secretary Eden openly admitted in the Commons
“… through these years gradually we have
drawn Germany – this greater part of Germany [West Germany] – into the
Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan [that established the European Coal and
Steel Community], and into every sort and kind of contact – political,
economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind.” (House of Commons
Debates, “Foreign Affairs,” 20 Nov. 1951, column 346).
Germany, of course, was under Allied military occupation until
1955 and in no position to create international entities like the Coal and
Steel Community that involved France, Italy and the Benelux countries. In
contrast, Britain still had its web of international connections and – as
revealed by Harry Hodson of the Ministry of
Information (and former editor of the Milner Group’s Round Table) – its ruling elites were busy building a new,
secret “Fourth British Empire” that was to be as grand as its predecessors,
only less visible to outsiders (Hodson, 160-1).
The Milner Group, the leading element in
Britain’s invisible government, saw the British Empire as assuming new
shapes while adapting to changing circumstances successively marked by the
American Revolution, self-government in the Colonies and the Second World
War. The Fourth British Empire
came into being with the post-war Anglo-American New World Order.
In line with this new order, German economy
was to be “geared to a world system” dominated by Anglo-American interests
(Ferguson, 2004, p. 77). Accordingly, West Germany’s constitution was
drafted in 1949 by US Military Governor General Lucius
D. Clay and contained a clause (Art. 24) providing for the transfer of
sovereign powers to international institutions (like the European Coal and
Steel Community and the Council of Europe) (RIIA, 1956). On the whole,
probably not something Hegel would have endorsed.
The West German government itself was
created by the same US military (Ferguson, 2004, p. 76) which had close
links to Anglo-American financial interests. For example, General Clay was
a close friend of Goldman Sachs boss Sidney Weinberg and, on retiring in
1950, became a leading member of the powerful US Business Advisory Council
(BAC), an organisation run by Weinberg and with close links to the
Rockefellers’ CFR of which Clay himself later became a director (Smoot,
Clay’s successor as Governor or
Commissioner for Occupied Germany until 1955 was John J. McCloy who was a partner at the Rockefellers’ New York
law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy;
member of the Rockefeller-dominated 1945 San Francisco Conference which
drafted the UN Charter; chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation; chairman of
the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank; chairman of the
Rockefeller-controlled CFR (from 1953); and former president of the
CFR-controlled World Bank (Ratiu, p. 231).
As to West German leaders, Chancellor
Conrad Adenauer had already been a puppet of the Anglo-American occupation
forces after World War I and was now hand-picked again by McCloy (Graham Jr., p. 421). Adenauer’s
successor Willy Brandt had been co-founder and leader of the International
Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the
International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau,
controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Fabian Society’s Independent Labour Party. Brandt’s
successor Helmut Schmidt was one of the thousands of German prisoners of
war (POWs) indoctrinated by Fabians and Milnerites
at Wilton Park (a creation of Churchill and Bevin)
after the war, etc.
Even worse, at the very time that Germany
is supposed to have plotted the European Union, its population was being subjected
to systematic starvation, resulting in the death of six million men, women
and children (de Zayas, p. 111; Bacque, pp. 119, 204; Dietrich, pp. 107-8, 140-1).
Although this was briefly discussed in Parliament at the time
(see House of Commons, 14 Nov 1946), there is not one word about it today.
That the above facts, among others, are
being denied to the public by politicians and their media collaborators is
a shameful blot on the face of British democracy. At any rate, it should be
absolutely clear that not only the European Union, but Germany itself – its
supposed creator – was a creation of Anglo-American interests.
US influence is evident even from the
original stars-and-stripes design of the European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC) flag. The stripes stand for coal (black) and steel (blue) and the
stars for the “United States of Europe”: Belgium, the Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Italy, France and West Germany.
A “German-dominated” Europe?
Establishment’s propaganda machine has been spreading another piece of
disinformation according to which the European Union was not only “created”
but is “dominated” by Germany.
Having seen whose creation the
European Union was, we must first treat the question of German domination
as a separate issue that is unconnected with the creation of the EU. We
must next remember the fact that Germany has Europe’s largest population
and strongest economy, in the light of which, expecting Germany not to dominate Europe is as absurd
as expecting England not to dominate the British Isles or any of their
component parts such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The fact is that Germany
dominates Europe not by design but by default, thanks to its central position
on the Continent, the size of its population (81 compared to UK’s 62
million) and the strength of its economy. As conceded by the notoriously
anti-German Daily Mail, the
Germans have worked hard to become Europe’s top dogs and “unlike their neighbours they have managed their
finances with scrupulous responsibility” (Sandbrook,
2013). This may be inconvenient to some, but fact it remains. So, what is
The truth of the matter, as
openly admitted by Churchill and many others, is that Britain’s financial
and political elites have always objected to any country’s domination of Europe other than Britain itself.
And this is for the simple reason that it would interfere with Britain’s
own secret designs to dominate the world. After all, it was Britain, not
Germany, who until not long ago had a world empire (recent studies show
there are only 22 countries in the world that the British
have not invaded) and who, as shown above, has since been building a new,
One of the most vocal critics
of Germany (and of the EU) is Nigel Farage,
leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). In one of his trade-mark
speeches in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Mr Farage
berates EU leaders Jose
Manuel Barroso (European Commission President),
Olli Rehn (Economic Affairs Commissioner), Herman
Van Rompuy (European Council President) and
Jean-Claude Juncker (chairman of the eurozone group of EU countries), for their lack of
leadership which has allegedly allowed German Chancellor Angela Merkel to
take charge and we are now “living in a German-dominated Europe, something this
European Union was supposed to stop.” (Huffington Post, 2011).
candid admission that the European Union was supposed to stop German
domination ought to draw the objective listener’s attention to the European
Union’s true origin and purpose. If the EU was created to suppress Germany,
then the idea that the EU is a German creation becomes preposterous.
But is there any truth in the
claim that the EU and its member states, including Britain, are dominated
by Merkel? Mr Farage tells us that the very same EU leaders he
accuses of “lack of leadership” had the Greek Prime Minister (Papandreou)
"removed and replaced by a puppet government" and Italian Prime
Minister Silvio Berlusconi replaced with Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and “fellow architect
of this disaster.”
Let’s have a closer look at the “EU
puppets” who replaced Papandreou and Berlusconi - Lucas Papademos
and Mario Monti. What is striking about them is
that they have nothing to do with Angela Merkel. In fact, a little research
reveals something the otherwise outspoken Mr Farage
is oddly silent about: Papademos and Monti are well-known members of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral
Moreover, as pointed out by James Delingpole of the Daily
Telegraph, Papademos, Monti
and European Central Bank president Mario Draghi
all have Goldman Sachs, the (Rothschild-Rockefeller-associated) US banking
giant, as a common denominator (Delingpole, 2011; cf. Foley, 2011). Goldman Sachs
International chairman Peter Sutherland is honorary chairman of the Trilateral’s European section. And the declared aim of
the Trilateral is to manage (i.e., control)
the world economy and shape government policy …
In addition, it was Papademos
(not Germany) who, as head of the
Greek Central Bank in the late 1990s devalued the Greek drachma by 14 per
cent and engineered Greece’s entry to the eurozone
on figures reportedly doctored by Goldman Sachs operatives.
& Co are indeed puppets, then they must be the
puppets of Rockefeller and his Goldman Sachs associates. And if that is the
case, then Europe is not
dominated by Germany but by the international financial interests
represented by the Trilateral Commission - the same interests that set up
the European Union in the first place.
While it may be conceivable, for argument’s
sake, for Angela Merkel to “dominate” or “control” individual EU members
(or even the EU as a whole) it would be absurd to believe that she controls
global giants like Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs. If anything, the reverse
is more likely to be the case.
Indeed, we find that Alexander Dibelius, head of Goldman Sachs’s German and Eastern
European operations, has been Angela Merkel’s adviser since the 1990s – before she became Chancellor. The
extent of Goldman influence or control over Merkel is evident from the fact
that Merkel, supposedly the world’s “most powerful woman,” consulted with
Goldman CEO Henry Paulson, Jr., before and after
visits to US President George W Bush (Cohan, p.
Finally, Merkel is a member of Atlantic-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge), an organisation set up after
the war by Rockefeller interests and their German puppets to remote-control
West Germany from across the Atlantic. German-born Rockefeller lieutenant
Henry Kissinger is a leading member.
What becomes clear is that Germany, along
with its government and constitution, was not only created by Goldman
Sachs-Rockefeller interests, but continues to be dominated by them to this
The same applies to the European Union
itself – as evident from the Goldman Sachs operatives (past or present)
holding leading positions from Washington and New York to London, Frankfurt
USA – Henry Paulson, CEO, Goldman Sachs (New
York): US Treasury Secretary
UK – Peter
Sutherland, partner and chairman, Goldman Sachs International (London);
honorary chairman, Trilateral Commission: head of the UN Forum for
Migration and Development; chairman, London School of Economics
UK – Gavyn Davies,
chief economist and senior partner, Goldman Sachs International (London): former
economic policy adviser to Labour PM James Callaghan and husband of Gordon
Brown’s adviser Sue Nye
UK – Martin
Taylor, international adviser, Goldman Sachs International (London);
general secretary, Bilderberg Group:
chairman, Institute for Public Policy Research Commission on Public Private
Partnerships; member, UK Government Independent Commission on Banking
Germany – Alexander Dibelius, head, Goldman Sachs
Germany and Eastern Europe (Frankfurt): adviser to Angela Merkel since
Germany – Otmar Issing, senior international adviser,
Goldman Sachs: board member, German Bundesbank,
European Central Bank; co-architect of the euro; adviser to Angela Merkel
France – Antonio Borges, vice-chairman, Goldman Sachs International:
head of the International Monetary Fund (Europe)
Italy – Mario Draghi, managing director, Goldman
Sachs International: chairman, Financial Stability Forum; president, European Central Bank
Italy – Mario Monti, senior international
adviser, Goldman Sachs; chairman, Trilateral Commission (Europe): Prime
Minister of Italy; member, Attali Commission of
French economic growth; member, European Council’s Europe 2020-2030
reflection group; founder and honorary chairman, Bruegel
– the European economic think-tank whose members include EU governments,
corporations like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS and institutions
like the Rothschild-associated European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Spain – Guillermo de la Dehesa, vice-chairman,
Goldman Sachs International: Secretary of State for Economy; chairman,
Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
Belgium – Karel van Miert, adviser, Goldman Sachs;
non-executive director, Anglo American (De Beers’ twin company): Vice-Chairman of the European Commission
Greece – Lucas Papademos, assistant to Professor
Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, under whose
supervision Mario Draghi obtained his economics
degree; member, Trilateral Commission; involved in Goldman attempts to
doctor the country’s books: Prime Minister of Greece
Greece – Petros Christodoulou, stock exchange trader, Goldman Sachs (London): head
of Greece’s Debt Management Agency
Tellingly, although the above
list shows heavy involvement by Goldman Sachs International (Goldman’s London-based European HQ), it was
not the British press but Marc Roche, London correspondent of French Le Monde,
who first blew the whistle on the Goldman racket - which he describes as “the European Sachs Government”
In the US, too, “Government
Sachs” has long been a familiar phrase and not without reason, as the Huffington Post explains (Baram,
2009). Not so in Britain where the concept of government by financial
interests is anathema to the Establishment’s media stooges. It is not
difficult to see why.
In any case, as Goldman Sachs
and fellow global giants (J P Morgan, Citi,
Barclays, HSBC, etc.) are constantly expanding and drawing closer to each
other, and their collective power and influence steadily increase, it ought
to be obvious that it is they and not any one politician or government who
call the tune.
Who runs the European Union?
To understand who the real power-holders in the European Union are, we must leave all
establishment rhetoric and propaganda aside and have a closer look at the facts.
We have already seen that a key architect
of the European project was Winston Churchill who had founded the European
Movement (originally called United Europe Movement) in 1946. The European
Movement’s first presidents were Churchill’s son-in-law Duncan Sandys, followed by the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak.
Like his father Lord Randolph, Churchill
was a close friend and collaborator of the Rothschilds
and had a bank account with N M Rothschild & Sons (which indicates a
special relationship). As the Churchills were
long-standing friends of the London Rothschilds,
so the Spaaks were long-standing friends of the
Co-architect of the European project Jean Monnet,
was an old friend of Lord Kindersley – a Lazard
partner and director of the Rothschilds’ Sun
Alliance – and had close links to the French-Swiss banking group Edmond de
Rothschild whose head Edmond was a member of the Bilderberg
steering committee (de Villemarest, vol. 2, pp.
31, 79). Monnet was the founder of the Action
Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) which, together with
Churchill’s European Movement, was at the forefront of the unionist effort.
Monnet became a top-level unofficial
adviser and policy maker for the US Marshall Plan that bankrolled the
European project (which was negotiated with the help of Monnet’s
friend Lord Brand and launched after consultations with Sandys,
Spaak and associates) and was appointed first
president of the European Coal and Steel Community’s High Authority.
Similarly, Rene Mayer, a cousin of the
French Rothschilds and manager of their business
empire, was involved in the writing of the Schuman
Plan (Monnet, p. 300) which formed the foundation
for the European Coal and Steel Community and was based on blueprints Mayer
and Monnet had discussed in the early 1940s (Monnet, pp. 293, 300). Moreover, Mayer was a
shareholder in Monnet’s J. G. Monnet
& Co. (Duchene, p. 339) and succeeded Monnet
as president of the ECSC High Authority.
The Belgian Robert de Rothschild, Spaak’s head of private office, was likewise involved
in the European Movement and, together with Mayer and others, in the 1957
Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC)
a.k.a. Common Market.
In the early 1950s Rothschild lieutenant
Rene Mayer advocated a Channel tunnel to link the Continent with the UK,
and the Rothschilds were involved in raising
finances for the ECSC, as well as in the Common Market Banking Syndicate
and other Europeanist projects like the European Composite Unit (EURCO, a
forerunner of the euro) and the 1981 European Channel Tunnel Project.
The European drive towards monetary union
itself was started by French President Georges Pompidou – another
Rothschild lieutenant and former manager of the French Rothschilds’
business empire – through the 1969 European Summit of The Hague and was
implemented through the 1992 Maastricht Treaty engineered by François
Mitterrand whose special economic adviser was Rothschild associate Jacques Attali, described by the Financial Times as “the philosopher-king of Mitterrand’s court”
(7 Jun. 1982).
Attali is also the founder of the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) which co-founded
the Rothschilds’ TriGranit
Development Corporation, one of Europe’s largest property developers.
Needless to say, the Rothschilds
were in close touch with the Rockefellers and allied financial interests
both directly and through semi-secret organisations like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission of which
the Rothschilds and their representatives are
Moreover, key EU figures from EU President
Roy Jenkins (former Fabian Society chairman) to
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson (long-time Fabian activist and close friend of the Rothschilds) have been members of the Trilateral
Commission as have many others, e.g., Giscard
It follows that Rothschild, Rockefeller, Goldman
Sachs and associated interests represented by organisations like the
Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Fabian Society, etc., are the real power-holders in the
The Trilateral, Bilderberg
and similar outfits ensure policy co-ordination between the above money
interests and the political classes. In addition, there are other groups
that enable bankers and industrialists to actively co-operate with EU
politicians in joint projects, in effect making EU policy without the knowledge of the public.
A leading role among these groups has been
played by the European Enterprise Group (EEG) and the European Round Table
of Industrialists (ERT). The EEG was founded in 1980 by the Confederation
of British Industry (CBI), itself a creation of industrial giants like
British Petroleum (BP), (Rothschild co-owned) Shell, Fiat and
(Rockefeller-controlled) Ford. The CBI’s first director-general was John
Davies, vice-chairman and managing director of Shell-Mex
and BP (the Shell-BP marketing venture) and a supporter of Britain’s entry
to the Common Market. EEG’s express aim was to place individual firms on
the policy committees and working groups of the influential Union of
Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE) (Cowles, M. G.,
p. 68), thereby becoming directly (and quite undemocratically) involved in
EU policy making.
On its part, the European Round Table of
Industrialists (ERT) was founded by Etienne Davignon,
a long-time disciple of Rothschild associate Paul-Henri Spaak
(see above), successor to Robert de Rothschild as Spaak’s
head of private office, Vice-President of the EEC Commission and later
Single Market, Industry and Trade Commissioner, and early advocate of
European foreign policy co-operation (see Davignon
Report 1970). Apart from ensuring policy co-ordination between the
international money power and EEC politicians, ERT was designed to function
as a “nerve centre for European integration policy” (Gillingham, p. 238).
As evidence of its closeness to the EU
hierarchy, the ERT moved its secretariat to Brussels in 1988 and, from
1990, prominent ERT members have served within UNICE (van Apeldoorn, pp. 199, 202). The ERT continues to be
dominated by the Trilateral Commission and associates. For example, the
vice-chairman of the ERT from 2006 to 2009 was Trilateral European chairman
Peter Sutherland, chairman (and partner) of Goldman Sachs International.
In turn, Goldman Sachs International
interlocks with Paris Orléans (the holding
company of the Rothschild banking group) whose chairman Sylvain Hefes is a
director of Goldman; and the Rothschilds
interlock with the Rockefellers, being major shareholders in the latter’s
Rockefeller Financial Services.
In the last few decades, the Rothschilds and associated interests like Goldman Sachs
and George Soros have been able to considerably
expand their power and influence in Europe (and elsewhere) thanks to their
role as providers of capital and advisers to governments, particularly in
nationalisation and privatisation programmes. A case in point is Germany,
where Goldman opened in 1990 to soon become the country’s largest foreign
investment bank as well as top government adviser, not least thanks to its
involvement in the privatisation of thousands of formerly state-owned
enterprises. Goldman’s relationship with Angela Merkel stems from that
Leaving nothing to chance, the above
interests have constructed an ever-expanding network of organisations
aiming to influence EU policy, in particular, in regard to foreign
relations, which has always been one of their key concerns – as evident
from their creation of outfits like Chatham House (Royal Institute of
International Affairs) and its sister organisation, the US Council on
Foreign Relations (Hodson, pp. 161, 166; Quigley,
pp. 182 ff.).
New additions to this undemocratic web of
conspiracy and deception include the Foundation for International Relations
and Foreign Dialogue (FRIDE) – which has Goldman vice-chairman de la Dehesa on its research team – and, in particular, the
ominously named European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
As suggested by its very name, the ECFR is
a clone of the Rockefellers’ CFR, while the interests it represents are
quickly exposed by even a cursory overview of its membership which
includes: Andrew Duff, president of the Union of
European Federalists (UEF), Liberal Member of the European Parliament
(MEP), leading figure in the drive for merging the presidencies of the
European Council and European Commission and CEO of the
Rothschild-associated investment bank Piper Jaffray;
Rothschild lieutenant George Soros, founder and
chairman of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and CFR member; Soros associates Minna Järvenpää, international advocacy director, OSF and
Heather Grabbe, executive director, Open Society
Institute (OSI), etc.
While the recent drive to
regulate the activities of banking operations has made life harder for some
banks, regulation has tended to compel the industry’s top players to
expand, in effect encouraging them to stretch their power and influence
even further. At the same time, an area where there is little prospect of
seeing regulation any time soon is the activities of banking interests via
front organisations like the Trilateral Commission, the ERT and the ECFR.
The above factors (among
others) combine to ensure that the power and influence – as well as mutual
collaboration – of the likes of Rothschild, Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs
will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, making rule by financial
interests stark reality.
Moreover, with leading
Socialists like Lord Mandelson, Tony Blair and
Gerhard Schröder acting as advisers to Lazard, J P Morgan and Rothschild, we can see a
convergence of Socialist ideology and concentration of finance that can
only lead to a Socialist Europe and, eventually, a Socialist World State.
The European Union and the UK
There is absolutely no doubt
that the European Union was intended to function as a superstate;
that it is behaving more and more like a dictatorship; and that the UK must
distance itself from this diabolical entity. However, what must be equally
clear is that the EU’s power over this country is
often exaggerated by people who either are
ignorant of the true power relations in this country (and this applies to
most of us) or have their own agenda.
Let us recall what James
Goldsmith, a man with ample experience and knowledge of power – and leading
anti-EU activist – said. He said that Britain is stifled by “lack of clear
law, magic circles, self-perpetuating oligarchies, interest groups and
institutions both inside and outside the City” (Dodsworth,
In that case, the EU, malignant
though it may be, cannot be the root cause of all evil. A more accurate
analysis would be that Britain is stifled by magic circles, self-perpetuating
oligarchies, etc., from within,
and by interest groups, etc., from outside Britain, among which the EU,
powerful and influential as it is, is only one element – and not even the
most important one.
Take immigration and
multiculturalism, two issues that are of particular concern to the British
public. Opinion polls show that 71 per cent of Britons believe that there are too many immigrants in the
country (Ipsos MORI, 4 Aug. 2011).
As we know, mass immigration to
Britain was made possible by British law, in particular, the British Nationality Act 1948
passed by Clement Attlee’s Fabian Socialist
administration and subsequently facilitated by further legislation and
immigration policies from Fabian Labour
governments, especially during the Blair-Brown regime of 1997-2010
The same applies to multiculturalism, or
the deliberate and systematic destruction of British culture by British authorities. As we know, its
chief architect was Roy Jenkins – like Attlee, Blair and Brown – a leading
member of Britain’s very own Fabian Society.
The fact is that both mass immigration and
multiculturalism started in the 1950s and 60s, long before Britain’s entry
to the European Union in 1973. These developments were not the handiwork of
Europe but of the British establishment whose policy of inverted
colonialism saw millions of immigrants from the former Colonies now
colonising the UK.
If British governments find it difficult to
curb immigration, this is not because of British membership of the EU but
because of pressure from interest groups: business associations like CBI looking to hire cheap labour,
universities like the LSE depending on foreign students for income, a
useless legal system, subversive think-tanks like the Fabian
Society and the IPPR and pro-immigration government advisory bodies like
the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the UK Border Agency (UKBA).
These are the “magic circles and interest
groups” stifling Britain from within. The last two (MAC and UKBA) were set
up by the last Labour regime and from the elements running them (LSE
Professor David Metcalf, Dr Martin Ruhs of the
Oxford University Migration Observatory, former Independent editor Diane Coyle, etc.) they appear to have been
intended as booby traps for the incoming Conservative government and its
immigration policies (for MAC and UKBA’s Fabian origins see The Fabian Society).
A case in point is Jordanian “hate
preacher” Abu Qatada, whom British authorities
have been unable to deport to his country of origin. Not, as it turns out,
due to any EU laws but entirely because of our own legal system. As pointed out by several commentators,
the French authorities appear to have no problems whatsoever in deporting
unwanted foreign nationals from French soil (Johnston, 2013). And this
clearly shows where the root problem lies: it is in the British system
itself. Nor must we forget the media, secret services and police forces,
all of which conspire to keep the establishment in power and the public
Conclusion: let’s fight the demons at home
While withdrawing from the EU is without
doubt desirable, it is imperative not to ignore the plethora of systemic
defects that are entirely home-grown and very British. Blaming everything
on the EU would be as counter-productive as blaming everything on “the
Germans.” It could only serve to deflect attention from the true sources of
our predicament and push us further into the quagmire.
Indeed, there are good reasons to believe
that criticism of the EU may be used as a smokescreen for other things. For
example, only 30 per cent of immigrants coming to Britain are from the EU.
Leaving the EU would only stop EU immigrants and even that only if and when
our own immigration controls work as intended.
The remaining 70 per cent would not be
reduced by a British exit. On the contrary, this percentage might actually
increase if, as planned by interest groups like Global Britain – the
think-tank behind UKIP – we enter into trade and other agreements with
America, South Asia, Africa and other areas of international migration.
Goldman Sachs International chairman Peter
Sutherland for one, who doubles as head of the UN Migration Forum, expects millions of immigrants from Africa
to look for work in Europe, including Britain (Sutherland, 2012). The
development of Africa (a continent rich in natural resources from gold and
diamonds to oil and gas) is, of course, a key policy of the Fourth British Empire and its
associates – which is precisely why it was inserted into the Schuman Plan by Rothschild relative and lieutenant Rene
Mayer (Monnet, p. 300).
This also explains the British
establishment’s bizarre obsession with Africa – from Oxfam to Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative
– and why the immigration debate tends to focus on the EU while ignoring
Africa and other non-EU areas making up the bulk of the problem.
To be sure, the EU is a parasitic body that
cruelly enslaves its victims and draws the lifeblood out of them. It would
be suicidal for any nation to linger in its embrace – and this applies to
Germany as much as it applies to the UK.
But it is important not to forget that the
EU is a Socialist organisation,
created and controlled by Socialists and their collaborators from
inception, and that it has remained dominated by Socialists ever since,
from Paul-Henri Spaak to Roy Jenkins and from
Javier Solana to Peter Mandelson and Catherine
Ashton. Member states like Britain themselves have long been on a course to
becoming Socialist dictatorships. Leaving the Socialist EU will not solve
the problem as long as Socialism remains the dominant element at home.
This is demonstrated by Norway who, though
not an EU member, is as much plagued by mass immigration, multiculturalism
and Islamisation as any country in the EU. What
Britain and Norway have in common is not membership of the EU but a
political system dominated by Socialism (and associated money interests).
The real problem then, is not the EU but
the Socialised British establishment itself which holds the nation in a
deadly stranglehold. So long as we are not prepared to confront our own
home-grown demons very little, if anything, will change. What is alarming
is that no political party so far has shown a willingness to take up the
struggle and set Britain free.
(This article was last
updated on 3 June 2013)
Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United
Europe, 1948-60,” International
History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995; also in Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8,
No. 1, London, March 1997, pp. 184-227.
Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies:
The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950, London,
Baram, Marcus, “Government Sachs: Goldman’s Close Ties to Washington
Arouse Envy and Raise Questions,” Huffington Post,
3 Jul. 2009.
Robert & Taylor, Richard, eds., European
Integration and Disintegration: East and West, London, 1996.
Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War 1763-1984,
Cohan, William D., Money and Power:
How Goldman Sachs came to rule the world, London and New York, 2012.
Cowles, Maria Green,
“Large Firms and the Transformation of EU Business Associations: a
Historical Perspective,” in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke,
Hampshire, 2002, pp. 64-78.
Craig, David & Elliott,
Matthew, The Great European Rip-Off,
“Goldman Sachs rules the world,” Daily
Telegraph, 16 Nov. 2011.
De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2,
2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.
Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge:
The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950, New York,
Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau
Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy,
New York, NY, 2002.
Dodsworth, Terry, “The
Goldsmith Empire: Terry Dodsworth in New York
reports on the investment strategy of the British businessman who has just
launched a bid for the large Continental Group,” Financial Times, 13 Jun. 1984.
Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations,
François, Monnet: The First Statesman of Interdependence,
New York, 1996.
Ambrose, “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs,” Daily Telegraph, 23 Jul. 2011.
Ferguson, Niall, Empire: How Britain made the modern world,
Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the
American Empire, London, 2004.
Foley, Stephen, “What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers
18 Nov. 2011.
Gillingham, John, European Integration 1950-2003: Superstate or New Market Economy?, Cambridge, 2003.
Goldsmith, James, Euro Referendum
Party Conference, Brighton, 1996.
Graham, Otis L. Jr., ed., Perspectives
on 20th Century America: Readings and Commentary, New York,
Hall, Allan, “Germany was
strong-armed by France into swapping the Deutschmark for the euro,” Daily Mail, 28 Sept. 2010.
Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life, London, 2006.
Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire,
Johnston, Philip, “France
shows us how to deal with jihadis,” Daily Telegraph, 29 Apr. 2013.
Moncrieff, Chris, “The
EU: ‘A German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe’,” Daily Mail, 21 Nov. 2011.
Jean, Memoirs, London, 1978.
Crisis Has Created ‘German Dominated’ Europe,” Huffington Post, 16 Nov. 2011.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking
over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
& Burritt, Elihu, Report of the Proceedings of the Second
General Peace Congress, held in Paris, on the 22nd, 23rd
and 24th of August, 1849, Paris, 1849 books.google.co.uk
Roche, Marc, “Goldman Sachs,
le trait d’union entre Mario Draghi, Mario Monti
et Lucas Papademos,” Le Monde, 14 Nov. 2011.
Royal Institute of
International Affairs (RIIA), Britain
in Western Europe: WEU and the Atlantic Alliance, London and New York,
1956, p. 14.
Salter, Arthur, Personality in Politics, London,
“Angela Merkel has made Germany master of Europe in a way Hitler and Kaiser
Wilhelm only dreamt of. The implications are frightening” Daily Mail, 20 Apr. 2013.
Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston,
Stirn, Olivier, Mes Presidents. 50 ans au service de la Ve Republique (My Presidents: 50 Years in the Service of the 5th
Republic), Paris, 2004.
Sutherland, Peter, “A constructive attitude towards migration is a
moral issue,” address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15
Bastiaan, “The European Round Table of
Industrialists: Still a Unique Player?” in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business
Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 194-205.
Beatrice, Our Partnership, Drake,
B. and Cole, M. eds., London, 1948.
Tom, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says
former adviser,” Daily Telegraph,
23 Oct. 2009.
Winkler, Henry R., The League of Nations Movement in Great
Britain 1914-1919, Metuchen, NJ, 1952.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian Socialist
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian
about the Labour Party
truth about the Fabian Society
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy
Socialism’s prescient critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of Commons,
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking
over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Carroll, The Anglo-American
Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG
& Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Eric D., The Fabian
Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros,
Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party,
Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Kevin, The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The
Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden
History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.