The Conspiracy Behind The European Union
The Conspiracy Behind The European Union: What Every Christian Should Know
A Lecture delivered at the Annual Autumn Conference of the United Protestant Council in London on Saturday, November 7, 1998
Professor Arthur Noble
Introduction
Fellow Protestants,
The actual title of my lecture is "The Conspiracy of the European Union: What every Christian should know". To deal comprehensively with such a vast topic in the space of one hour is, of course, quite impossible, so I am obliged to limit myself to the bare essentials. As with every conspiracy there are always several aspects which go to make up to the plot. They are always intertwined and interrelated, but not obvious in some immediate way. Nor do they do always run parallel to one another or even develop according to the original plan. Historically speaking, the European idea ostensibly began as a plan for economic co-operation, but it soon acquired a social dimension and very quickly thereafter developed into a full-blown scheme to unite the whole Continent politically. The underlying religious dimension has yet to be realised, as well as its full implications. What I want to try to show is that while these developments may reflect an apparent shifting of the original goalposts set for the new Europe, they were in fact carefully planned (or, rather, plotted) from the outset and pursued by stealth and with great determination. There is clear evidence, both in the successive European treaties themselves and in pronouncements by the would-be designers of Europe, that the European Union was intended from the outset as a gigantic confidence-trick which would eventually hurtle the nations of Europe into economic, social, political and religious union whether they liked it or not. The real nature of the final goal – a federal superstate – was deliberately concealed and distorted; it was to be released in small doses, to condition those who would never have accepted it, until it would be too late for the whole process to be reversed.
Background
In 1946 Sir Winston Churchill delivered his famous Zurich speech calling for the establishment of a United States of Europe. He envisaged a Western Europe of independent, free and sovereign States that would rise from the ashes of World War II and reach for a destiny of unprecedented harmony and democracy. Neutral Switzerland, with its centuries-old harmonious co-existence of four languages and cultures, was to be the blueprint for a multilingual and multicultural Europe which would never again see maniac dictators and supra-national demagogues bent on imposing their will on member nations.
Initially, Churchill's vision seemed to be advancing according to plan. Former fascist Germany and Italy decentralised power and became parliamentary democracies. Fascism became discredited throughout Europe.
Then, however, events took a different turn. The Schuman plan of 1950 proposed the supra-national pooling of the French and German coal and steel industries as a means of forging European economic unity. The two economies were interwoven to such an extent that war between these traditional enemies became virtually impossible.
The EEC, established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, brought Italy and the three Benelux countries into the union but represented a further step towards a pan-European economy by tying economic development to the city of Rome. Significantly, this Treaty also gave Europe a sense of supra-national religious unity and the Roman Catholic Church its protection against the then still existent threat of Communism.
The public was not told everything, but startling facts emerge from the great mass of papal encyclicals and pronouncements of those years.
At this stage in the Community's development Churchill's vision of a free Europe of sovereign States was in a sense hijacked by the Vatican. The public was not told everything, but startling facts emerge from the great mass of papal encyclicals and pronouncements of those years. I shall mention some of them later. The religious aspect of the European idea had at that time not yet emerged to the public view (nor is it yet overtly apparent). It was still to be concealed in the background while the emphasis remained on achieving political unity in economic disguise. Indeed, the Vatican's post-War diplomatic peace efforts were not particularly apparent to many: the eyes of the general public were too closely focused on space exploration, the rearmament contest, Berlin and the Viet Nam War to recognise the true significance of the Vatican's crusade.
1962 was the year of the Common Agricultural Policy resulting in a single European market with price fixing – a further step towards uniformity. In that year the Northwest Technocrat recognised the EEC as already much more than simply an economically united Europe and commented:
Fascism in Europe is about to be reborn in respectable business attire, and the Treaty of Rome will finally be implemented to its fullest extent. The dream of a Holy Roman Empire returning to power to dominate and direct the so-called forces of Christian mankind of the Western world is not dead, but still stalks through the antechambers of every national capital of continental Western Europe, in the determination of the leaders in the Common Market to restore the Holy Roman Empire with all that that means!
Pope John XXIII envisaged a European religio-political monster which he called "the Greatest [Roman] Catholic superstate the world has ever known".
Subsequent Vatican pronouncements and developments in the Community vindicate that view. Pope John XXIII envisaged a European religio-political monster which he called "the Greatest [Roman] Catholic superstate the world has ever known". (The Papal Nuncio in Brussels was later to describe the EU as "a [Roman] Catholic confederation of States".) United within the ancient boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire by the common spiritual bond of religion, in a burgeoning and booming industrial economy, situated geographically in the world's most productive industrial complex, it would march onto the scene of world history – so said John XXIII – as "the greatest single human force ever seen by man".
The Brussels bureaucrats danced to Rome's tune, admitting in 1973 the Vatican's lackey the Irish Republic and the first two Protestant nations earmarked by the Pope: Denmark and the United Kingdom. We know very well why the UK took so long to make up its mind: joining the Continental Europeans meant a dramatic withdrawal from a global tradition of independence and democracy; but did we recognise the plot to undermine the Protestant heritage of our Nation, whose Queen is the Defender of the Faith? Romanism and Irish Republicanism, the traditional enemies of our British way of life which is founded on the principles of Protestant freedom, could thus once again in our history – this time in the guise of economic expediency – join forces against us.
This time, however, the gravity of the situation was increased by the perfidy and treachery of an administration which fell for the ploy. Never in our Nation's history did a succession of British governments become so anti-British, so busily and blindly engaged in selling our birthright to foreigners, denying to the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland their right to a referendum on self-determination, content to sacrifice us against our will for some ill-conceived, naively misunderstood and politically fatal goal of European union.
After the first direct elections to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 1979, the word "economic" was ominously dropped in favour of the description "European Community" (EC). Greece joined in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, the year of the Single European Act which meant the gradual transfer of executive, legislative and judicial powers from member States to EC instrumentalities. Thus Europe could make ever-increasing political inroads into our national sovereignty and the London-Dublin conspiracy attempted to force the British people of Northern Ireland by stealth and terror towards a united Ireland under European rule, while arrogant and spineless politicians in Westminster continued politely to play the enemy's game, or, as Dr. Paisley once put it metaphorically, to "feed the brute instead of slaughtering it".
When the infamous Maastricht Treaty on European political Union was signed in 1992 with the aim of transforming the EC into a federal superstate – now significantly redesignated as the European Union (EU) – many of the politicians elected to Brussels, including those from Britain, fell for the confidence trick.
How Britain fell for a confidence trick
"Once in the Common Market we shall be a minority in an organisation in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years, but theoretically for all time."
Two decades earlier, in 1960, when Britain first sought entry into the (then EEC), the historian Sir Arthur Briant had issued an unheeded warning: "Once in the Common Market we shall be a minority in an organisation in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years, but theoretically for all time."
Sir Arthur could not have chosen a more apt word than 'bind'. Although Britain was twice saved from her own folly by President de Gaulle, in 1973 she not so much joined as bound herself to the Common Market, and agreed to be bound by the Treaty of Rome. Even at that time, the founders of the Common Market knew – but apparently Britain did not – that the Common Market was not a club to join or a free trade area with which to associate, but a superstate in the making. Its founders were in no doubt about this, even if British politicians were unaware of - or unwilling to face up to - the ultimate goal of the founders. Robert Schuman, while preparing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, had said: "These proposals will build the first concrete foundation of the European Federation. Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is quite clear about what was involved: "Regulations [...] shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable [...]." "Directives shall bind any Member State [...]." "Decisions shall be binding in every respect [...]."
Unfortunately no more people read the Treaty of Rome than had read Mein Kampf before the Second World War, and many who should have known better accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC. Looking back, we regret that they did not know better. After a quarter of a century , during which the EEC evolved into the EC and then the EU, experience ought to have taught us what the anti-Marketeers failed to teach.
The EU quickly adopted many symbols of nationhood – a passport, a flag, an anthem, a common currency.
When the EEC was transformed into a European Union, Britain loaded still more chains around her neck and became bound economically, politically and constitutionally to a Europe which is hostile to our traditions and way of life. In economic and foreign policy she became increasingly bound to institutions in Brussels. The EU quickly adopted many symbols of nationhood – a passport, a flag, an anthem, a common currency. What next? A common state religion – Roman Catholicism? Assuredly the EU as presently constituted is not in its final form.
Even after a quarter of a century it is still not easy to understand how any free people would consent to be bound, as the British people are bound, by membership of the EU. Wealth and power – if that is the goal of the EU – are not worth buying at the cost of independence. In any case it is not success but failure that has been purchased at so high a price and as the result of such extreme gullibility. Britain has progressively intricated herself into an organisation which has failed to fulfil and of the promises held out to her. In 1962 the Anti-Common Market League produced a booklet entitled Britain, not Europe, which argued that the hopes of economic gain were false and that the prospect was one of disadvantage and danger if we joined the EEC. Membership has not only failed to cure the ills it was supposed to cure: it has in fact added many new ills – food prices that soared at the beginning, the damaging Common Agricultural Policy, the ruin of our fishing and beef industries. Since then, the Single European Act has significantly reinforced the principle that the European Parliament should progressively take the place of our Parliament at Westminster or reduce it to the status of a county council.
The Single European Act of course reduced in several respects the requirement of the Treaty of Rome that in the Council of Ministers certain things require unanimity of voting to a requirement of only qualified majority voting. Now we are faced with the prospect of full majority voting and of the loss of our veto.
The plot to destroy our Sovereignty
I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.
What is the real nature and purpose of this Europe into whose heart the British people are being dragged with increasing resistance? I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.
It should be remembered that, strategically, Europe's unification drive began at a time when the entire Atlantic Alliance was coming to grips with the relative decline of the United States both as a world economic power and as leader of the West. America's generosity to the world has reduced her riches and necessitated a serious reassessment of her global strategic commitment. Trade frictions between the US and Western Europe have long been a reality and have moved from the agricultural sector into advanced technological areas. Doubts also grew about the reliability of the US "nuclear umbrella" protecting Western Europe, and a subsequent reduction of American forces and the withdrawal of Russian forces on the Continent following the collapse of the Soviet Union has been paralleled by increasing calls for a solely European self-defence capability. A European army and a European police force already exist in more than embryonic form.
The Daily Mail headline of July 26, 1994, summed up Britain's blundering blindness to the danger of these events: "Hurd's amazing support for major rearmament. All power to the Germans." Meanwhile, the British Government's folly extended to the closure of naval and air bases; and President Clinton abandoned America's 'special relationship' with Britain, encouraged the Germans to play a more active role in world politics, and aided and abetted Britain's avowed enemy Sinn Féin/IRA. Today he stands disgraced but unrepentant for defiling the White House, and it has yet to be revealed to what extent his financial and propagandistic facilitation of Irish Republican terrorists is responsible for the slaughter of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland.
The dangers inherent in the 1986 Act were recognised by eminent author and journalist Paul Johnson, who tried hard in The Times of June 23, 1986, to shake Britons out of their lethargic view of Europe. He saw the Act as requiring "a fundamental alteration in Britain's relationship to the Common Market" and was amazed that it nevertheless "aroused no passion in the Cabinet, in the Commons or the media". It was, in effect, endorsement of "a completely new treaty, which ought properly to have been placed on a level of significance equivalent to that of the original treaty of Rome".
Yet the British people, whether misled or inadequately informed, had no say, and chose to ignore the serious implications of this so-called "European Communities (Amendment) Bill", which Johnson says should more correctly have been entitled "The European Political Union Treaty". Johnson asks why the proposed legislation was not presented to Parliament as "an act to create a European superstate" since, he said, it "will transform relations among the EEC states into a European union and it will invest the union with the necessary means of action." His explanation is significant:
To do so would have been to tell the truth, and the EEC establishment, and our own government, know that the truth would be much more difficult for the public to swallow.
The British Parliament was noticeably weakened: European institutions began to infringe on British sovereignty on a whole range of subjects from seatbelts to spanking children.
The essential point of the Act was to abolish the national veto over a whole range of social policies. The British Parliament was noticeably weakened: European institutions began to infringe on British sovereignty on a whole range of subjects from seatbelts to spanking children. British law started its retreat. Subsequent parliamentary legislation intensified and enhanced this process. Johnson predicted at that time: "Within the area of social legislation, Britain will no longer be able to impede further reductions of its sovereignty, however fundamental."
So much for the "democracy" promised as the goal of this Treaty. The political and economic system which it imposed is nothing short of rabid federalism, a technocratic confidence-trick, fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-liberal.
The British people have continued to ignore at their peril a most solemn warning issued by Dr Paisley in the DUP's policy document The Surrender of Maastricht. What it means for Ulster. At that time he wrote:
What European countries could not do by force through the centuries – destroy the sovereignty of the United Kingdom – they are now accomplishing with the government's help.
Only through the incorporation of the UK in a European superstate as opposed to Churchill's vision of a Europe of co-operating Sovereign States could such a policy succeed. Call it federalism or centralism: the principle is essentially contained in the Eurojargon term 'subsidiarity', a concept which, Dr Paisley reminds us, has its origins in Roman Catholic dogma and denotes the downward devolvement of certain powers for the practical outworking of the Supreme Power's objectives while pre-supposing that the latter has all power.
Defence Implications
The implications for Britain's defence are serious. European history decisively demonstrates that Britain is secure only as long as no Power or group of Powers on the Continent can obtain a supremacy that would enable them to attack her. Whenever practically the whole Continent was ruled by one Power, Great Britain lost her liberty. The earliest example was ancient Rome's supremacy on the mainland of Europe. This inevitably led to the invasion of this country on Caesar's plea that the Britons had assisted the Gauls against Rome. There followed centuries of national servitude.
The lesson of the Roman conquest was never forgotten by the British people. Therefore, when Spain, France and Russia in turn tried to obtain supremacy in Europe by land, and when Holland did so on the sea, each of those nations came into collision with this country, and each was prevented by Great Britain from attaining that supremacy which would undoubtedly have endangered our national existence.
The ganging up of all Europe in Napoleon's European System to crush Britain is another lesson. Socialist and pacifist elements had their way between the two World Wars, despite the unheeded warnings of Sir Winston Churchill, and we relied so well on the policy of collective security that we disarmed ourselves blindly, almost to the point of national suicide.
The fate of the Franco-British Alliance in the Second World War, when Britain was left alone in the world to face her "finest hour" (which could easily but for the grace of God been her last hour), is a further case in point.
Today the old players have reappeared in economic guise, perfectly illustrating the already quoted warning of Dr Paisley about how a change in tactics can obscure and achieve the real, concealed goal.
History has consistently taught Britain that her safety lies in supporting the weaker Powers in Europe against the stronger; but Britain today, through her European policies, is actively supporting the strong; and the threat posed by the Holy European Empire emerging on the Continent has largely gone unheeded. Not content with the progressive sellout of the United Kingdom's sovereignty to Brussels, the Major Government busily dismantled the United Kingdom's defences through substantial reductions in our air and naval bases. The Blair Government has continued this policy. A report published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies in October, 1994, severely criticised the Government for "defence cuts that it knows should not be made", describing the principle of contracting out to our NATO Allies as "a rather generous interpretation of national security". The report specifically warns of the folly of troop reductions in Northern Ireland and asks:
Will the IRA really surrender its arsenal of weapons, [...] its 650 semi-automatic rifles, its forty RPG grenade launchers, its millions of rounds of ammunition? [...] It would not want to compromise itself should the struggle start up again.
Events in Ulster are, indeed, a commentary on the growing crisis within the United Kingdom as a whole: the sneering contempt for patriotism, the scorn for the democratic will of the people, the progressive undermining of our Constitutional rights by what Michael Portillo famously described as "the rot from Brussels", above all the abandonment by the Churches of Biblically-based Christian doctrine – all these and other symptoms are facets of a spiritual malaise which would drag us irretrievably into the European snare if they are not halted.
Seen in this light, the role of the Sinn Féin/IRA campaign against Britain in the European context becomes glaringly obvious. They are not freedom fighters at all but advocates and facilitators of an "imperialist" Europe. As a letter to the editor of the Belfast News Letter put it some time ago:
Mr Adams should be repeatedly questioned on his statement that the Single European Act "will place all of Ireland under imperialist control" (especially with Eire having had the previous presidency of this "imperialist" movement). We never hear these words being exhumed as they do not suit the agenda being pursued.
The Vatican and the EU
Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that is the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, now numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.
Developments in Europe are not planned to end with merely economic and political union. The envisaged European superstate plans to go even further.
Developments in Europe are not planned to end with merely economic and political union. The envisaged European superstate plans to go even further. Although – as is characteristic of the planners' tactics – no formal mention of the next step has yet been made or foreshadowed in any treaty, it is clear that the stage has been set, and is already well constructed, for the greatest politico-religious revolution ever witnessed in the history of mankind. Tragically, widespread indifference on the part of our national leaders, and especially of the leaders of the established Churches, indicates that they are either totally ignorant of these developments or else willing accomplices in this evil design. The latter explanation quite clearly applies to Church leaders in particular – and it is here that the hidden significance of the Ecumenical Movement emerges in its relationship to the ideal of European unity.
For the past three quarters of a century the Popes have laid careful plans for this organisation which is aimed at reclaiming all those regions of Europe which were wrested from Rome through the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth, and, more recently, the communisation of Eastern Europe. Before his death in 1903, Pope Leo XIII had already encouraged political rulers of whatever allegiance to re-ally themselves with the Roman Church: "To princes and other rulers of the State," he said, "we have offered [i.e. historically] the protection of [the Roman Catholic] religion. Our present object is to make rulers understand that this protection, which is stronger than any, is again offered to them [...]." It is that same principle that the Vatican is offering to present-day governments if they will submit to the Vatican's jackboot and return to the Romanist fold.
In an address to the European Parliament in May, 1985, this carefully-chosen first Slavic Pope called for an intensification of the search for European unity and for work toward eliminating the East-West division. Speaking of the two Europes (East and West) he designated Methodius and Cyril - the two patron saints who brought Christianity to the Slavic world in the ninth century - as patron saints of Europe. On June 26, 1985, the Wall Street Journal spoke of the symbolic importance of the choice of these two missionaries to the Slavic peoples as highlighting the Pope's vision of a united Europe.
Thus Romanism can again be clearly seen rearing its ugly head as the one constant force that has bedevilled all European history and politics and conducted a vicious campaign against Protestant Britain for centuries.
MEP Otto von Habsburg, once heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, an ardent Papist and descendant of the family that ruled over the Holy Roman Empire in almost unbroken succession from 1273 till 1806, dreams of a return to the days of former Vatican-assisted ill-gotten influence over much of Europe. He advocates a modern European superstate as a means to this end, working towards the concept of Europe as one large supranational entity.
In the European Parliament in 1989 he claimed: "Europe is living largely by the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire, though the great majority [...] doesn't know it." He stressed how the "religious and Christian element" (for "Christian" read "Romanist") plays "an absolutely decisive role" in Europe's heritage". Like the Pope, he spoke of an "obligation [...] to rethink Europe on the cultural and spiritual levels" and added as a measure of his blatantly anti-democratic aims: "whether it pleases political leaders or not". In the Roman Catholic countries of the Continent, nostalgia is growing for the old systems, especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire of Central Europe – the major successor state to the Holy Roman Empire. Significantly, The Independent of January 11, 1987, observed: "The ghost of Central Europe has come back to haunt, or perhaps tempt us."
There are indeed significant structural parallels between the Roman religious system and the political subsidiarity principle. Just as no member of the Roman Church may question the doctrines of the hierarchy, so too the nations of Europe are being asked to accept the dictate of Brussels through the gradual erosion of their right to veto; and just as the Roman Church interprets, decides and does all, so too the planned European superstate desires autocratic control of the lives of those forced to be its citizens. This indicates very clearly a close relationship between religion and politics in the structure of the EU.
Rome's plan to unite Europe politically and the world religiously by ushering in a seventh revival of the Empire was announced by Pope Pius XII as early as 1952 in his Christmas broadcast, which envisaged "a Christian order which alone is able to guarantee peace. To this goal the resources of the Church are now directed." This arrogant and cunning fanatic, who helped Hitler to power, blessed Mussolini's troops and colluded with the Nazi Ustashi in Yugoslavia in slaughtering 240,000 Orthodox Serbs and forcibly converting over 750,000 to Roman Catholicism, exhorted the faithful of Rome in February, 1952: "The whole world must be rebuilt from its foundations." The plans for this gigantic task, about which the world knows little, were subsequently laid under cover by the Vatican's diplomats. The concept of a United, Roman Catholic European superstate, which is presently emerging in Europe, was to be the first step in world domination.
The plot is now far advanced. The late Enoch Powell alluded in the Evening Standard (December 2, 1987) to a "profound rearrangement now taking place" involving the "dissolution of the North Atlantic Alliance versus Warsaw Pact confrontation" and resulting in an arrangement which would "reappear like some submerged landscape revealed when the floodwaters fall, an older pattern, which previous generations would have no difficulty in recognising. [...] Its old name is Holy Roman Empire." Significantly, the metaphor is strongly reminiscent of the prophecy in Revelation 17:8 of a beast ascending out of a bottomless pit.
The Vatican recognises once again that its aims can be achieved only by an international organisation which has iron teeth to crush opposition. "This organisation," said Pius XII already in his Christmas message of 1944, "will be vested by common consent with supreme authority and with power to smother in its germinal stage any threat of isolated or collective aggression." Foreshadowing the militaristic nature of the organisation envisaged, he added in 1951: "[...] disarmament is an unstable guarantee of lasting peace."
There is nothing new in Rome's tactics: from the Gunpowder Plot to Semtex they have merely kept pace with advancing technology. There is nothing new in Rome's aims: from then till now they are the destruction of the British Parliament and the subjugation of Protestantism and all other opposition.
The iniquitous Ecumenical Movement and its offshoots, disguised as a genuine conciliatory process, is in reality a parallel front to Rome's secret battle strategy in the new Europe. In the early sixties Cardinal Bea, President of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Church Unity, made that abundantly clear by admitting:
The Church would be gravely misunderstood if it should be concluded that her present ecumenical adventuresomeness and opinions meant that she was prepared to re-examine her fixed dogmatic positions. No concessions in dogma can be made by the Church for the sake of Christian Unity.
In his book Catholic Terror Today, Avro Manhattan describes the ecumenical revolution as "though seemingly alluring, [...] nothing more than a Trojan Horse via which Catholic power, apparelled in contemporary garb, continues to assert itself as effectively as ever." The American evangelist Dr de Haan calls it "the most cleverly planned piece of religious deception ever foisted upon an unsuspecting world".
It is so closely bound up with the European goal that I am tempted to invent the word 'Eurocumenism' to describe the conspiracy. At the time of the first European elections, the ardent pro-European Roman Catholic politician Shirley Williams unambiguously associated the vision of Europe with her Church's goal of assuming political and religious authority over the lives of all and sundry:
We will be joined to Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be a major factor in everyday political and economic life.
Not long ago, The Times commented: "The soul of Britain is being reclaimed for Rome in a Catholic call to arms" and "by the next century Catholicism could be reorganised as the predominant faith in the land".
Not long ago, The Times commented: "The soul of Britain is being reclaimed for Rome in a Catholic call to arms" and "by the next century Catholicism could be reorganised as the predominant faith in the land". We now have a Prime Minister who actively promotes Romanism, and I read in the Catholic Herald Standard recently an article headed "Prime Minister 'very close' to Catholicism", in which he is reported as having confessed this closeness to Archbishop Bonicelli while on holiday in Siena. No wonder, after telling the country that Labour would "wait and see" about the single currency, his Government is now actively promoting monetary union in a federal superstate which will destroy the financial and therefore the political independence of the nation-state.
Historically, the concept of the nation-state has been anathema to the Vatican, whose tactics have been to rob sovereign nations of their nationhood and reduced to mere states or provinces of a single European nation-state controlled by her, even subdividing them internally where it suited her purposes.
Her present goal is unchanged – to recreate a re-mediaevalised Europe of small, ineffectual states which she can easily dominate. Already, the map of Europe is becoming strikingly reminiscent of the period before World War I. The dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy after the War had enabled the creation of independent sovereign nation-states on its former territory, such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary. As Czechoslovakia recently split into its two constituent states, as Yugoslavia violently disintegrates into a jigsaw puzzle of its provinces and Hungary may still threaten to fall apart into ethnic regions, the familiar and unmistakable tactics of Rome become increasingly discernible.
History is repeating itself in a particularly obvious way in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. In 1917 the Papal Nuncio in Munich, Pacelli, secretly negotiated with the Germans to accomplish the "Pope's Peace without Victory" in order to save both Germany and predominantly Papist Austria-Hungary from defeat and to strangle at birth two new nation-states: Yugoslavia, in which Roman Catholics would become a minority dominated by Orthodox Serbs, and Czechoslovakia, where they would be dominated by the Protestant Hussites and Liberals.
After the plan failed, Nazi-supporter Pope Pius XII resumed the plot to achieve his lifelong dream of destroying the Serbian Orthodox Church as a rival religion by overtly aiming at Yugoslav disintegration - the one prerequisite for attaining his goal. His plan was to detach Roman Catholic Croatia from the rule of Orthodox Serbia and make it an independent religious state, and eventually to set up a Roman Catholic Kingdom in the Balkans.
Ominously, the planned destruction of Yugoslavia has now actually been achieved. The Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zerenovski recently recognised and described Croatia's secession from the legally-constituted State of Yugoslavia as "a Vatican plot". On the other hand, the Romanist propaganda machine that has infiltrated the European media falsely portrays Serbia, our former ally, as the aggressor. Croatian atrocities are conveniently ignored, as are those of her Ustashi priests of the Nazi period.
The Vatican's dream of detaching Roman Catholic Slovakia and thus re-dividing Czechoslovakia has now also materialised.
Similar tactics are being employed in the case of Northern Ireland. Rome's clandestine aim is to detach it from the United Kingdom and turn its Protestant majority into a minority, at the same time destroying the United Kingdom as a nation-state and ethnic-cleansing the Protestants from the Island of Ireland.
Poland too has been thoroughly re-Romanised through the collusion of the Vatican with the Solidarnosc Movement, whose leader, Lec Walesa, an ardent Roman Catholic, subsequently became President. The significance of the election of a Polish Pope is almost too obvious to mention. Recent Polish history demonstrates that even countries where Roman Catholics are in the majority are jackbooted by Rome: the Vatican actively worked for centuries against Poland's independence from the Czars, a fact which inspired the great national Polish poet Julius Slowacki's famous warning: "Poland, thy doom cometh from Rome."
The former Soviet Union has disintegrated into small states, some of which, including Ukraine, have large Roman Catholic populations; and the Vatican is now aiming at other targets – the Protestant Scandinavian countries in particular. Democratic Switzerland, the land of Zwingli and Calvin, has been left till the last. By then it will have been literally surrounded.
Are our leaders blind to what is going on in Europe, or are they naively stupid, or knowing collaborators?
Are our leaders blind to what is going on in Europe, or are they naively stupid, or knowing collaborators?
In his book Power Beyond the Market – Europe 1992 – the title itself is significant – Otto von Habsburg lets the cat, or rather the Vatican beast, out of the bag:
One of these days the Middle and East Europeans are going to belong to us. The call for self-determination from Lithuania [in the Soviet Union] to Croatia [in Yugoslavia] and beyond is heard today so that even the adversaries of a greater Europe can no longer ignore it.
Significantly, these two regions, with Poland and Hungary, are strongly Roman Catholic. The deception, however, lies in the phrase "self-determination", a principle totally hostile to Romanism, as evidenced by its attempt to remove the same inalienable right from the British people of Northern Ireland. Croatia, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary are merely passing from the dictatorship of communism to the dictatorship of Romanism.
Pope John Paul II symptomatically called Eastern Europe "that other lung of our common European homeland". He told the European Parliament in 1988 of his wish that Europe might "one day expand to the dimensions bestowed on it by geography and above all by history" (cunningly avoiding the word "religion").
It has taken years of undercover plotting to advance the goal of unifying Europe under the Romish doctrine. Preparations for the religious unity of the new Europe were made by the Vatican even before the end of the War. Because they were not recognised before much of the damage has been done, they could result in the absorption of millions of nominal Protestants into the Roman Catholic fold before they even realise what is happening. Many nominally Protestant Churches have already defected from their Reformation faith.
Adrian Hilton has published a brilliant study The Principality and Power of Europe, subtitled Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire. Every British patriot and every Christian should read it. It was published by Dorchester House in1997. Hilton exposes the emerging Europe as a Vatican plot and links it with the role of the Ecumenical Movement. He mentions how Roman Catholicism has as strong tendency towards centralism and views it as wholly necessary for individual nations and churches to merge their individual identities into a larger body, beneath the guise of avoiding future wars and uniting Christian witness. The spiritual values of the Church of Rome, however, as well as its perceived right to rule in the temporal affairs of the world and its role in global politics, constitute an ethos which is alien to the Biblical Protestant traditions of Britain, which are more than 400 years old. Today's climate of compromising ecumenism would have us believe it is possible for the two to co-exist, yet the laws and the constitution of the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed by European laws. One has to submit to the other.
In 1953 the Queen swore an oath at her Coronation 'to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law'. Both these are negated by the process of deeper European integration. In a continent in which 61 million claim a Protestant heritage and 199 million profess to be Roman Catholics, it is simply not possible to maintain Protestantism by democratic law. The Protestant constitution of the United Kingdom has long been a strong defence against Rome's desires for the 'evangelisation' of Britain, which the Pope refers to as 'Mary's Dowry - hers by right. The Vatican recognises that the defeat of Protestantism here would weaken it throughout all Europe, and this has been its aim since the Reformation. All of the direct military assaults on Britain from the Spanish Armada to World War II were manifest failures, but the modern tactics of encirclement and erosion and bearing fruit.
The Catholic Herald recently stated: 'The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant mediaeval forebears.' It is almost a symbolic fulfilment of that prophecy that the 20-pence coin of the British colony Gibraltar, issued by Parliament and approved by the Queen, bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Queen of Heaven' and titles 'Our Lady of Europa'. The head of the Queen on the other side is simply titled 'Elizabeth II - Gibraltar', without her usual titles of D.G., REG., F.D. - Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith. As portentous as such Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a whore riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation which a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing Papal Rome.
Roman Catholic imagery is endemic in Europe, and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the European government. The design of the European flag was inspired by the halo of 12 stars around pictures of the Madonna, and appears prominently on the Council of Europe stained-glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral. The window was unveiled to the world on 11th December 1955, co-inciding with the Roman Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception.
[...] Strasbourg is a city which symbolises the dream of Franco-German integration - the heart of the Empire of Charlemagne. [...] It is also concerning, though some may dismiss it as trivially amusing, that a Roman Catholic Englishman sent a letter to Jacques Delors, with the suggestion of dedicating the European Union to the 'Blessed Virgin Mary'. He had presumably noted that Delors has been responsible for promoting the European flag, with its unmistakable Marian symbolism showing a circle of 12 stars on a blue background. The member of Delors' private office responsible for the Commission President's relations with the Catholic Church replied that the suggestion was gratefully received, but that the President didn't feel that it was within his authority to respond affirmatively. Was this because such a decision has to be placed before the European Council, or the Parliament or even before the peoples of Europe in a referendum? Sadly, no. Elucidation came as the President stated that he would make the suggestion known to the Holy Father. If, 'after prayerful consideration', the Holy Father considered it appropriate, Delors would do everything he could to implement it. Is this an indication of the real spiritual bodies ruling Europe? Thankfully, since nothing more was heard, presumably the Pope didn't like the idea.
The Role of the European Institutions
I had intended to talk about the European institutions, but time has beaten me. I must conclude very briefly.
...the Vatican is the prime mover behind the EU conspiracy.
If I seem to have digressed into religion, that is because, as I hope to have shown, the Vatican is the prime mover behind the EU conspiracy. Let me repeat that the British people were deceived about Europe from the start. The Europe proclaimed as a free-trade area consisting of sovereign nation states and requiring a negligible membership cost was a cover-up for a planned politico-religious superstate. The various institutions and bodies of this superstate in embryo have already steadily encroached on our sovereignty to such an extent that they are reducing our Parliament to the status of a glorified county council. The Daily Mail of May 9, 1996, put it succinctly:
Our laws are now worthless. Fifteen judges in Luxembourg – only one a Briton – are now the supreme arbiters of British law; and they base their decisions on Roman law, unknown in this country since the Roman withdrawal.
The European Court of Justice has made itself an ever more intrusive agent for ensuring that the British Parliament is no longer sovereign, even when Britain's national interest and security are involved.
EU directives are crippling Britain's businesses. British industry is finally waking up to the true price of the EU's single market, as it struggles to comply with 20,000 directives and regulations which have made Brussels the biggest law-factory in the world.
The move towards monetary union and a single currency must be stopped.
The move towards monetary union and a single currency must be stopped. In a recent debate with Mr Lammers about the single currency, Normal Lamont said he was opposed to it because he believed it would "lead to the political unification of Europe". Mr Lammers then said that there was no point in any debate taking place, because he entirely agreed that that was the purpose of the single currency: "It is part of political unification as we have said all the time." The Chief Executive of the Bundesbank, Dr Issing, said recently: "There is no example in history of lasting monetary union not linked to one single state." Dr Tietmayer, the President of the Bundesbank, said: "A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies." Bill Cash has warned that monetary union even threatens the rule of law in Europe.
One single currency would be managed by one Central Bank empowered to implement EU monetary policy. If the United Kingdom abandons the Pound Sterling and signs up to monetary union, this would be an irreversible step towards the complete destruction of our national sovereignty.
What is equally unacceptable is to use majority voting for European governmental policy. Majority voting causes unaccountability because ministers can be outvoted in the Council: they are then not accountable for their decisions to their national parliaments, and the Council itself is not accountable to any electorate or parliament. Majority voting cuts the link between voter in a member state and law-maker, which is the bedrock of all democracy. At the time when he voted for the Single European Act, Bill Cash tabled an amendment which said: "Nothing is this act shall undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament." That amendment was not passed. National parliaments, as expressions or national sovereignty, are the very cornerstone of democracy.
Conclusion
If we do not pray and if we do not act, Rome will once again succeed in establishing her evil system in this country. When William Tyndale, captured and burned in 1535 by Belgian Papists for having dared to translate the New Testament, uttered his dying cry: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" God's eventual mighty answer came in the form of the King James (or "Authorised") Version of the Bible (1611). It fell to Protestant Britain to spread the Gospel worldwide and check the power of Rome. I am convinced that that is our divinely-appointed task once again. We can no longer rely on our political leaders or even our Royal Family to carry the torch of Biblical Truth. Let us therefore pray: "Lord, open the eyes of the British nation!"
http://tinyurl.com/32kp5h
A Lecture delivered at the Annual Autumn Conference of the United Protestant Council in London on Saturday, November 7, 1998
Professor Arthur Noble
Introduction
Fellow Protestants,
The actual title of my lecture is "The Conspiracy of the European Union: What every Christian should know". To deal comprehensively with such a vast topic in the space of one hour is, of course, quite impossible, so I am obliged to limit myself to the bare essentials. As with every conspiracy there are always several aspects which go to make up to the plot. They are always intertwined and interrelated, but not obvious in some immediate way. Nor do they do always run parallel to one another or even develop according to the original plan. Historically speaking, the European idea ostensibly began as a plan for economic co-operation, but it soon acquired a social dimension and very quickly thereafter developed into a full-blown scheme to unite the whole Continent politically. The underlying religious dimension has yet to be realised, as well as its full implications. What I want to try to show is that while these developments may reflect an apparent shifting of the original goalposts set for the new Europe, they were in fact carefully planned (or, rather, plotted) from the outset and pursued by stealth and with great determination. There is clear evidence, both in the successive European treaties themselves and in pronouncements by the would-be designers of Europe, that the European Union was intended from the outset as a gigantic confidence-trick which would eventually hurtle the nations of Europe into economic, social, political and religious union whether they liked it or not. The real nature of the final goal – a federal superstate – was deliberately concealed and distorted; it was to be released in small doses, to condition those who would never have accepted it, until it would be too late for the whole process to be reversed.
Background
In 1946 Sir Winston Churchill delivered his famous Zurich speech calling for the establishment of a United States of Europe. He envisaged a Western Europe of independent, free and sovereign States that would rise from the ashes of World War II and reach for a destiny of unprecedented harmony and democracy. Neutral Switzerland, with its centuries-old harmonious co-existence of four languages and cultures, was to be the blueprint for a multilingual and multicultural Europe which would never again see maniac dictators and supra-national demagogues bent on imposing their will on member nations.
Initially, Churchill's vision seemed to be advancing according to plan. Former fascist Germany and Italy decentralised power and became parliamentary democracies. Fascism became discredited throughout Europe.
Then, however, events took a different turn. The Schuman plan of 1950 proposed the supra-national pooling of the French and German coal and steel industries as a means of forging European economic unity. The two economies were interwoven to such an extent that war between these traditional enemies became virtually impossible.
The EEC, established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, brought Italy and the three Benelux countries into the union but represented a further step towards a pan-European economy by tying economic development to the city of Rome. Significantly, this Treaty also gave Europe a sense of supra-national religious unity and the Roman Catholic Church its protection against the then still existent threat of Communism.
The public was not told everything, but startling facts emerge from the great mass of papal encyclicals and pronouncements of those years.
At this stage in the Community's development Churchill's vision of a free Europe of sovereign States was in a sense hijacked by the Vatican. The public was not told everything, but startling facts emerge from the great mass of papal encyclicals and pronouncements of those years. I shall mention some of them later. The religious aspect of the European idea had at that time not yet emerged to the public view (nor is it yet overtly apparent). It was still to be concealed in the background while the emphasis remained on achieving political unity in economic disguise. Indeed, the Vatican's post-War diplomatic peace efforts were not particularly apparent to many: the eyes of the general public were too closely focused on space exploration, the rearmament contest, Berlin and the Viet Nam War to recognise the true significance of the Vatican's crusade.
1962 was the year of the Common Agricultural Policy resulting in a single European market with price fixing – a further step towards uniformity. In that year the Northwest Technocrat recognised the EEC as already much more than simply an economically united Europe and commented:
Fascism in Europe is about to be reborn in respectable business attire, and the Treaty of Rome will finally be implemented to its fullest extent. The dream of a Holy Roman Empire returning to power to dominate and direct the so-called forces of Christian mankind of the Western world is not dead, but still stalks through the antechambers of every national capital of continental Western Europe, in the determination of the leaders in the Common Market to restore the Holy Roman Empire with all that that means!
Pope John XXIII envisaged a European religio-political monster which he called "the Greatest [Roman] Catholic superstate the world has ever known".
Subsequent Vatican pronouncements and developments in the Community vindicate that view. Pope John XXIII envisaged a European religio-political monster which he called "the Greatest [Roman] Catholic superstate the world has ever known". (The Papal Nuncio in Brussels was later to describe the EU as "a [Roman] Catholic confederation of States".) United within the ancient boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire by the common spiritual bond of religion, in a burgeoning and booming industrial economy, situated geographically in the world's most productive industrial complex, it would march onto the scene of world history – so said John XXIII – as "the greatest single human force ever seen by man".
The Brussels bureaucrats danced to Rome's tune, admitting in 1973 the Vatican's lackey the Irish Republic and the first two Protestant nations earmarked by the Pope: Denmark and the United Kingdom. We know very well why the UK took so long to make up its mind: joining the Continental Europeans meant a dramatic withdrawal from a global tradition of independence and democracy; but did we recognise the plot to undermine the Protestant heritage of our Nation, whose Queen is the Defender of the Faith? Romanism and Irish Republicanism, the traditional enemies of our British way of life which is founded on the principles of Protestant freedom, could thus once again in our history – this time in the guise of economic expediency – join forces against us.
This time, however, the gravity of the situation was increased by the perfidy and treachery of an administration which fell for the ploy. Never in our Nation's history did a succession of British governments become so anti-British, so busily and blindly engaged in selling our birthright to foreigners, denying to the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland their right to a referendum on self-determination, content to sacrifice us against our will for some ill-conceived, naively misunderstood and politically fatal goal of European union.
After the first direct elections to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 1979, the word "economic" was ominously dropped in favour of the description "European Community" (EC). Greece joined in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, the year of the Single European Act which meant the gradual transfer of executive, legislative and judicial powers from member States to EC instrumentalities. Thus Europe could make ever-increasing political inroads into our national sovereignty and the London-Dublin conspiracy attempted to force the British people of Northern Ireland by stealth and terror towards a united Ireland under European rule, while arrogant and spineless politicians in Westminster continued politely to play the enemy's game, or, as Dr. Paisley once put it metaphorically, to "feed the brute instead of slaughtering it".
When the infamous Maastricht Treaty on European political Union was signed in 1992 with the aim of transforming the EC into a federal superstate – now significantly redesignated as the European Union (EU) – many of the politicians elected to Brussels, including those from Britain, fell for the confidence trick.
How Britain fell for a confidence trick
"Once in the Common Market we shall be a minority in an organisation in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years, but theoretically for all time."
Two decades earlier, in 1960, when Britain first sought entry into the (then EEC), the historian Sir Arthur Briant had issued an unheeded warning: "Once in the Common Market we shall be a minority in an organisation in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years, but theoretically for all time."
Sir Arthur could not have chosen a more apt word than 'bind'. Although Britain was twice saved from her own folly by President de Gaulle, in 1973 she not so much joined as bound herself to the Common Market, and agreed to be bound by the Treaty of Rome. Even at that time, the founders of the Common Market knew – but apparently Britain did not – that the Common Market was not a club to join or a free trade area with which to associate, but a superstate in the making. Its founders were in no doubt about this, even if British politicians were unaware of - or unwilling to face up to - the ultimate goal of the founders. Robert Schuman, while preparing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, had said: "These proposals will build the first concrete foundation of the European Federation. Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is quite clear about what was involved: "Regulations [...] shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable [...]." "Directives shall bind any Member State [...]." "Decisions shall be binding in every respect [...]."
Unfortunately no more people read the Treaty of Rome than had read Mein Kampf before the Second World War, and many who should have known better accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC. Looking back, we regret that they did not know better. After a quarter of a century , during which the EEC evolved into the EC and then the EU, experience ought to have taught us what the anti-Marketeers failed to teach.
The EU quickly adopted many symbols of nationhood – a passport, a flag, an anthem, a common currency.
When the EEC was transformed into a European Union, Britain loaded still more chains around her neck and became bound economically, politically and constitutionally to a Europe which is hostile to our traditions and way of life. In economic and foreign policy she became increasingly bound to institutions in Brussels. The EU quickly adopted many symbols of nationhood – a passport, a flag, an anthem, a common currency. What next? A common state religion – Roman Catholicism? Assuredly the EU as presently constituted is not in its final form.
Even after a quarter of a century it is still not easy to understand how any free people would consent to be bound, as the British people are bound, by membership of the EU. Wealth and power – if that is the goal of the EU – are not worth buying at the cost of independence. In any case it is not success but failure that has been purchased at so high a price and as the result of such extreme gullibility. Britain has progressively intricated herself into an organisation which has failed to fulfil and of the promises held out to her. In 1962 the Anti-Common Market League produced a booklet entitled Britain, not Europe, which argued that the hopes of economic gain were false and that the prospect was one of disadvantage and danger if we joined the EEC. Membership has not only failed to cure the ills it was supposed to cure: it has in fact added many new ills – food prices that soared at the beginning, the damaging Common Agricultural Policy, the ruin of our fishing and beef industries. Since then, the Single European Act has significantly reinforced the principle that the European Parliament should progressively take the place of our Parliament at Westminster or reduce it to the status of a county council.
The Single European Act of course reduced in several respects the requirement of the Treaty of Rome that in the Council of Ministers certain things require unanimity of voting to a requirement of only qualified majority voting. Now we are faced with the prospect of full majority voting and of the loss of our veto.
The plot to destroy our Sovereignty
I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.
What is the real nature and purpose of this Europe into whose heart the British people are being dragged with increasing resistance? I contend that behind the respectable European mask is a plot to destroy our sovereignty and to re-align the whole balance of power world-wide.
It should be remembered that, strategically, Europe's unification drive began at a time when the entire Atlantic Alliance was coming to grips with the relative decline of the United States both as a world economic power and as leader of the West. America's generosity to the world has reduced her riches and necessitated a serious reassessment of her global strategic commitment. Trade frictions between the US and Western Europe have long been a reality and have moved from the agricultural sector into advanced technological areas. Doubts also grew about the reliability of the US "nuclear umbrella" protecting Western Europe, and a subsequent reduction of American forces and the withdrawal of Russian forces on the Continent following the collapse of the Soviet Union has been paralleled by increasing calls for a solely European self-defence capability. A European army and a European police force already exist in more than embryonic form.
The Daily Mail headline of July 26, 1994, summed up Britain's blundering blindness to the danger of these events: "Hurd's amazing support for major rearmament. All power to the Germans." Meanwhile, the British Government's folly extended to the closure of naval and air bases; and President Clinton abandoned America's 'special relationship' with Britain, encouraged the Germans to play a more active role in world politics, and aided and abetted Britain's avowed enemy Sinn Féin/IRA. Today he stands disgraced but unrepentant for defiling the White House, and it has yet to be revealed to what extent his financial and propagandistic facilitation of Irish Republican terrorists is responsible for the slaughter of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland.
The dangers inherent in the 1986 Act were recognised by eminent author and journalist Paul Johnson, who tried hard in The Times of June 23, 1986, to shake Britons out of their lethargic view of Europe. He saw the Act as requiring "a fundamental alteration in Britain's relationship to the Common Market" and was amazed that it nevertheless "aroused no passion in the Cabinet, in the Commons or the media". It was, in effect, endorsement of "a completely new treaty, which ought properly to have been placed on a level of significance equivalent to that of the original treaty of Rome".
Yet the British people, whether misled or inadequately informed, had no say, and chose to ignore the serious implications of this so-called "European Communities (Amendment) Bill", which Johnson says should more correctly have been entitled "The European Political Union Treaty". Johnson asks why the proposed legislation was not presented to Parliament as "an act to create a European superstate" since, he said, it "will transform relations among the EEC states into a European union and it will invest the union with the necessary means of action." His explanation is significant:
To do so would have been to tell the truth, and the EEC establishment, and our own government, know that the truth would be much more difficult for the public to swallow.
The British Parliament was noticeably weakened: European institutions began to infringe on British sovereignty on a whole range of subjects from seatbelts to spanking children.
The essential point of the Act was to abolish the national veto over a whole range of social policies. The British Parliament was noticeably weakened: European institutions began to infringe on British sovereignty on a whole range of subjects from seatbelts to spanking children. British law started its retreat. Subsequent parliamentary legislation intensified and enhanced this process. Johnson predicted at that time: "Within the area of social legislation, Britain will no longer be able to impede further reductions of its sovereignty, however fundamental."
So much for the "democracy" promised as the goal of this Treaty. The political and economic system which it imposed is nothing short of rabid federalism, a technocratic confidence-trick, fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-liberal.
The British people have continued to ignore at their peril a most solemn warning issued by Dr Paisley in the DUP's policy document The Surrender of Maastricht. What it means for Ulster. At that time he wrote:
What European countries could not do by force through the centuries – destroy the sovereignty of the United Kingdom – they are now accomplishing with the government's help.
Only through the incorporation of the UK in a European superstate as opposed to Churchill's vision of a Europe of co-operating Sovereign States could such a policy succeed. Call it federalism or centralism: the principle is essentially contained in the Eurojargon term 'subsidiarity', a concept which, Dr Paisley reminds us, has its origins in Roman Catholic dogma and denotes the downward devolvement of certain powers for the practical outworking of the Supreme Power's objectives while pre-supposing that the latter has all power.
Defence Implications
The implications for Britain's defence are serious. European history decisively demonstrates that Britain is secure only as long as no Power or group of Powers on the Continent can obtain a supremacy that would enable them to attack her. Whenever practically the whole Continent was ruled by one Power, Great Britain lost her liberty. The earliest example was ancient Rome's supremacy on the mainland of Europe. This inevitably led to the invasion of this country on Caesar's plea that the Britons had assisted the Gauls against Rome. There followed centuries of national servitude.
The lesson of the Roman conquest was never forgotten by the British people. Therefore, when Spain, France and Russia in turn tried to obtain supremacy in Europe by land, and when Holland did so on the sea, each of those nations came into collision with this country, and each was prevented by Great Britain from attaining that supremacy which would undoubtedly have endangered our national existence.
The ganging up of all Europe in Napoleon's European System to crush Britain is another lesson. Socialist and pacifist elements had their way between the two World Wars, despite the unheeded warnings of Sir Winston Churchill, and we relied so well on the policy of collective security that we disarmed ourselves blindly, almost to the point of national suicide.
The fate of the Franco-British Alliance in the Second World War, when Britain was left alone in the world to face her "finest hour" (which could easily but for the grace of God been her last hour), is a further case in point.
Today the old players have reappeared in economic guise, perfectly illustrating the already quoted warning of Dr Paisley about how a change in tactics can obscure and achieve the real, concealed goal.
History has consistently taught Britain that her safety lies in supporting the weaker Powers in Europe against the stronger; but Britain today, through her European policies, is actively supporting the strong; and the threat posed by the Holy European Empire emerging on the Continent has largely gone unheeded. Not content with the progressive sellout of the United Kingdom's sovereignty to Brussels, the Major Government busily dismantled the United Kingdom's defences through substantial reductions in our air and naval bases. The Blair Government has continued this policy. A report published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies in October, 1994, severely criticised the Government for "defence cuts that it knows should not be made", describing the principle of contracting out to our NATO Allies as "a rather generous interpretation of national security". The report specifically warns of the folly of troop reductions in Northern Ireland and asks:
Will the IRA really surrender its arsenal of weapons, [...] its 650 semi-automatic rifles, its forty RPG grenade launchers, its millions of rounds of ammunition? [...] It would not want to compromise itself should the struggle start up again.
Events in Ulster are, indeed, a commentary on the growing crisis within the United Kingdom as a whole: the sneering contempt for patriotism, the scorn for the democratic will of the people, the progressive undermining of our Constitutional rights by what Michael Portillo famously described as "the rot from Brussels", above all the abandonment by the Churches of Biblically-based Christian doctrine – all these and other symptoms are facets of a spiritual malaise which would drag us irretrievably into the European snare if they are not halted.
Seen in this light, the role of the Sinn Féin/IRA campaign against Britain in the European context becomes glaringly obvious. They are not freedom fighters at all but advocates and facilitators of an "imperialist" Europe. As a letter to the editor of the Belfast News Letter put it some time ago:
Mr Adams should be repeatedly questioned on his statement that the Single European Act "will place all of Ireland under imperialist control" (especially with Eire having had the previous presidency of this "imperialist" movement). We never hear these words being exhumed as they do not suit the agenda being pursued.
The Vatican and the EU
Which brings me to the subject of religion. What further aspects of our national sovereignty are envisaged for the sellout in later treaty amendments? Will an attempt at religious unity follow in the wake of monetary and political unity in this "imperialist" Europe? After all, that is the confessed vision of Pope John Paul II when he speaks about European unity on his numerous propaganda jaunts, now numbering about sixty. His message has consistently been that European identity is "incomprehensible without Christianity" (for "Christianity", of course, read "Romanism"). In other words, his vision of European unity is based on the principle of strong Vatican influence on political governments, reminiscent of the situation in the Middle Ages.
Developments in Europe are not planned to end with merely economic and political union. The envisaged European superstate plans to go even further.
Developments in Europe are not planned to end with merely economic and political union. The envisaged European superstate plans to go even further. Although – as is characteristic of the planners' tactics – no formal mention of the next step has yet been made or foreshadowed in any treaty, it is clear that the stage has been set, and is already well constructed, for the greatest politico-religious revolution ever witnessed in the history of mankind. Tragically, widespread indifference on the part of our national leaders, and especially of the leaders of the established Churches, indicates that they are either totally ignorant of these developments or else willing accomplices in this evil design. The latter explanation quite clearly applies to Church leaders in particular – and it is here that the hidden significance of the Ecumenical Movement emerges in its relationship to the ideal of European unity.
For the past three quarters of a century the Popes have laid careful plans for this organisation which is aimed at reclaiming all those regions of Europe which were wrested from Rome through the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth, and, more recently, the communisation of Eastern Europe. Before his death in 1903, Pope Leo XIII had already encouraged political rulers of whatever allegiance to re-ally themselves with the Roman Church: "To princes and other rulers of the State," he said, "we have offered [i.e. historically] the protection of [the Roman Catholic] religion. Our present object is to make rulers understand that this protection, which is stronger than any, is again offered to them [...]." It is that same principle that the Vatican is offering to present-day governments if they will submit to the Vatican's jackboot and return to the Romanist fold.
In an address to the European Parliament in May, 1985, this carefully-chosen first Slavic Pope called for an intensification of the search for European unity and for work toward eliminating the East-West division. Speaking of the two Europes (East and West) he designated Methodius and Cyril - the two patron saints who brought Christianity to the Slavic world in the ninth century - as patron saints of Europe. On June 26, 1985, the Wall Street Journal spoke of the symbolic importance of the choice of these two missionaries to the Slavic peoples as highlighting the Pope's vision of a united Europe.
Thus Romanism can again be clearly seen rearing its ugly head as the one constant force that has bedevilled all European history and politics and conducted a vicious campaign against Protestant Britain for centuries.
MEP Otto von Habsburg, once heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, an ardent Papist and descendant of the family that ruled over the Holy Roman Empire in almost unbroken succession from 1273 till 1806, dreams of a return to the days of former Vatican-assisted ill-gotten influence over much of Europe. He advocates a modern European superstate as a means to this end, working towards the concept of Europe as one large supranational entity.
In the European Parliament in 1989 he claimed: "Europe is living largely by the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire, though the great majority [...] doesn't know it." He stressed how the "religious and Christian element" (for "Christian" read "Romanist") plays "an absolutely decisive role" in Europe's heritage". Like the Pope, he spoke of an "obligation [...] to rethink Europe on the cultural and spiritual levels" and added as a measure of his blatantly anti-democratic aims: "whether it pleases political leaders or not". In the Roman Catholic countries of the Continent, nostalgia is growing for the old systems, especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire of Central Europe – the major successor state to the Holy Roman Empire. Significantly, The Independent of January 11, 1987, observed: "The ghost of Central Europe has come back to haunt, or perhaps tempt us."
There are indeed significant structural parallels between the Roman religious system and the political subsidiarity principle. Just as no member of the Roman Church may question the doctrines of the hierarchy, so too the nations of Europe are being asked to accept the dictate of Brussels through the gradual erosion of their right to veto; and just as the Roman Church interprets, decides and does all, so too the planned European superstate desires autocratic control of the lives of those forced to be its citizens. This indicates very clearly a close relationship between religion and politics in the structure of the EU.
Rome's plan to unite Europe politically and the world religiously by ushering in a seventh revival of the Empire was announced by Pope Pius XII as early as 1952 in his Christmas broadcast, which envisaged "a Christian order which alone is able to guarantee peace. To this goal the resources of the Church are now directed." This arrogant and cunning fanatic, who helped Hitler to power, blessed Mussolini's troops and colluded with the Nazi Ustashi in Yugoslavia in slaughtering 240,000 Orthodox Serbs and forcibly converting over 750,000 to Roman Catholicism, exhorted the faithful of Rome in February, 1952: "The whole world must be rebuilt from its foundations." The plans for this gigantic task, about which the world knows little, were subsequently laid under cover by the Vatican's diplomats. The concept of a United, Roman Catholic European superstate, which is presently emerging in Europe, was to be the first step in world domination.
The plot is now far advanced. The late Enoch Powell alluded in the Evening Standard (December 2, 1987) to a "profound rearrangement now taking place" involving the "dissolution of the North Atlantic Alliance versus Warsaw Pact confrontation" and resulting in an arrangement which would "reappear like some submerged landscape revealed when the floodwaters fall, an older pattern, which previous generations would have no difficulty in recognising. [...] Its old name is Holy Roman Empire." Significantly, the metaphor is strongly reminiscent of the prophecy in Revelation 17:8 of a beast ascending out of a bottomless pit.
The Vatican recognises once again that its aims can be achieved only by an international organisation which has iron teeth to crush opposition. "This organisation," said Pius XII already in his Christmas message of 1944, "will be vested by common consent with supreme authority and with power to smother in its germinal stage any threat of isolated or collective aggression." Foreshadowing the militaristic nature of the organisation envisaged, he added in 1951: "[...] disarmament is an unstable guarantee of lasting peace."
There is nothing new in Rome's tactics: from the Gunpowder Plot to Semtex they have merely kept pace with advancing technology. There is nothing new in Rome's aims: from then till now they are the destruction of the British Parliament and the subjugation of Protestantism and all other opposition.
The iniquitous Ecumenical Movement and its offshoots, disguised as a genuine conciliatory process, is in reality a parallel front to Rome's secret battle strategy in the new Europe. In the early sixties Cardinal Bea, President of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Church Unity, made that abundantly clear by admitting:
The Church would be gravely misunderstood if it should be concluded that her present ecumenical adventuresomeness and opinions meant that she was prepared to re-examine her fixed dogmatic positions. No concessions in dogma can be made by the Church for the sake of Christian Unity.
In his book Catholic Terror Today, Avro Manhattan describes the ecumenical revolution as "though seemingly alluring, [...] nothing more than a Trojan Horse via which Catholic power, apparelled in contemporary garb, continues to assert itself as effectively as ever." The American evangelist Dr de Haan calls it "the most cleverly planned piece of religious deception ever foisted upon an unsuspecting world".
It is so closely bound up with the European goal that I am tempted to invent the word 'Eurocumenism' to describe the conspiracy. At the time of the first European elections, the ardent pro-European Roman Catholic politician Shirley Williams unambiguously associated the vision of Europe with her Church's goal of assuming political and religious authority over the lives of all and sundry:
We will be joined to Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be a major factor in everyday political and economic life.
Not long ago, The Times commented: "The soul of Britain is being reclaimed for Rome in a Catholic call to arms" and "by the next century Catholicism could be reorganised as the predominant faith in the land".
Not long ago, The Times commented: "The soul of Britain is being reclaimed for Rome in a Catholic call to arms" and "by the next century Catholicism could be reorganised as the predominant faith in the land". We now have a Prime Minister who actively promotes Romanism, and I read in the Catholic Herald Standard recently an article headed "Prime Minister 'very close' to Catholicism", in which he is reported as having confessed this closeness to Archbishop Bonicelli while on holiday in Siena. No wonder, after telling the country that Labour would "wait and see" about the single currency, his Government is now actively promoting monetary union in a federal superstate which will destroy the financial and therefore the political independence of the nation-state.
Historically, the concept of the nation-state has been anathema to the Vatican, whose tactics have been to rob sovereign nations of their nationhood and reduced to mere states or provinces of a single European nation-state controlled by her, even subdividing them internally where it suited her purposes.
Her present goal is unchanged – to recreate a re-mediaevalised Europe of small, ineffectual states which she can easily dominate. Already, the map of Europe is becoming strikingly reminiscent of the period before World War I. The dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy after the War had enabled the creation of independent sovereign nation-states on its former territory, such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary. As Czechoslovakia recently split into its two constituent states, as Yugoslavia violently disintegrates into a jigsaw puzzle of its provinces and Hungary may still threaten to fall apart into ethnic regions, the familiar and unmistakable tactics of Rome become increasingly discernible.
History is repeating itself in a particularly obvious way in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. In 1917 the Papal Nuncio in Munich, Pacelli, secretly negotiated with the Germans to accomplish the "Pope's Peace without Victory" in order to save both Germany and predominantly Papist Austria-Hungary from defeat and to strangle at birth two new nation-states: Yugoslavia, in which Roman Catholics would become a minority dominated by Orthodox Serbs, and Czechoslovakia, where they would be dominated by the Protestant Hussites and Liberals.
After the plan failed, Nazi-supporter Pope Pius XII resumed the plot to achieve his lifelong dream of destroying the Serbian Orthodox Church as a rival religion by overtly aiming at Yugoslav disintegration - the one prerequisite for attaining his goal. His plan was to detach Roman Catholic Croatia from the rule of Orthodox Serbia and make it an independent religious state, and eventually to set up a Roman Catholic Kingdom in the Balkans.
Ominously, the planned destruction of Yugoslavia has now actually been achieved. The Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zerenovski recently recognised and described Croatia's secession from the legally-constituted State of Yugoslavia as "a Vatican plot". On the other hand, the Romanist propaganda machine that has infiltrated the European media falsely portrays Serbia, our former ally, as the aggressor. Croatian atrocities are conveniently ignored, as are those of her Ustashi priests of the Nazi period.
The Vatican's dream of detaching Roman Catholic Slovakia and thus re-dividing Czechoslovakia has now also materialised.
Similar tactics are being employed in the case of Northern Ireland. Rome's clandestine aim is to detach it from the United Kingdom and turn its Protestant majority into a minority, at the same time destroying the United Kingdom as a nation-state and ethnic-cleansing the Protestants from the Island of Ireland.
Poland too has been thoroughly re-Romanised through the collusion of the Vatican with the Solidarnosc Movement, whose leader, Lec Walesa, an ardent Roman Catholic, subsequently became President. The significance of the election of a Polish Pope is almost too obvious to mention. Recent Polish history demonstrates that even countries where Roman Catholics are in the majority are jackbooted by Rome: the Vatican actively worked for centuries against Poland's independence from the Czars, a fact which inspired the great national Polish poet Julius Slowacki's famous warning: "Poland, thy doom cometh from Rome."
The former Soviet Union has disintegrated into small states, some of which, including Ukraine, have large Roman Catholic populations; and the Vatican is now aiming at other targets – the Protestant Scandinavian countries in particular. Democratic Switzerland, the land of Zwingli and Calvin, has been left till the last. By then it will have been literally surrounded.
Are our leaders blind to what is going on in Europe, or are they naively stupid, or knowing collaborators?
Are our leaders blind to what is going on in Europe, or are they naively stupid, or knowing collaborators?
In his book Power Beyond the Market – Europe 1992 – the title itself is significant – Otto von Habsburg lets the cat, or rather the Vatican beast, out of the bag:
One of these days the Middle and East Europeans are going to belong to us. The call for self-determination from Lithuania [in the Soviet Union] to Croatia [in Yugoslavia] and beyond is heard today so that even the adversaries of a greater Europe can no longer ignore it.
Significantly, these two regions, with Poland and Hungary, are strongly Roman Catholic. The deception, however, lies in the phrase "self-determination", a principle totally hostile to Romanism, as evidenced by its attempt to remove the same inalienable right from the British people of Northern Ireland. Croatia, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary are merely passing from the dictatorship of communism to the dictatorship of Romanism.
Pope John Paul II symptomatically called Eastern Europe "that other lung of our common European homeland". He told the European Parliament in 1988 of his wish that Europe might "one day expand to the dimensions bestowed on it by geography and above all by history" (cunningly avoiding the word "religion").
It has taken years of undercover plotting to advance the goal of unifying Europe under the Romish doctrine. Preparations for the religious unity of the new Europe were made by the Vatican even before the end of the War. Because they were not recognised before much of the damage has been done, they could result in the absorption of millions of nominal Protestants into the Roman Catholic fold before they even realise what is happening. Many nominally Protestant Churches have already defected from their Reformation faith.
Adrian Hilton has published a brilliant study The Principality and Power of Europe, subtitled Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire. Every British patriot and every Christian should read it. It was published by Dorchester House in1997. Hilton exposes the emerging Europe as a Vatican plot and links it with the role of the Ecumenical Movement. He mentions how Roman Catholicism has as strong tendency towards centralism and views it as wholly necessary for individual nations and churches to merge their individual identities into a larger body, beneath the guise of avoiding future wars and uniting Christian witness. The spiritual values of the Church of Rome, however, as well as its perceived right to rule in the temporal affairs of the world and its role in global politics, constitute an ethos which is alien to the Biblical Protestant traditions of Britain, which are more than 400 years old. Today's climate of compromising ecumenism would have us believe it is possible for the two to co-exist, yet the laws and the constitution of the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed by European laws. One has to submit to the other.
In 1953 the Queen swore an oath at her Coronation 'to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs' and 'to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law'. Both these are negated by the process of deeper European integration. In a continent in which 61 million claim a Protestant heritage and 199 million profess to be Roman Catholics, it is simply not possible to maintain Protestantism by democratic law. The Protestant constitution of the United Kingdom has long been a strong defence against Rome's desires for the 'evangelisation' of Britain, which the Pope refers to as 'Mary's Dowry - hers by right. The Vatican recognises that the defeat of Protestantism here would weaken it throughout all Europe, and this has been its aim since the Reformation. All of the direct military assaults on Britain from the Spanish Armada to World War II were manifest failures, but the modern tactics of encirclement and erosion and bearing fruit.
The Catholic Herald recently stated: 'The days of the Anglican Church are numbered, and most of its worshippers will return to the true faith of their distant mediaeval forebears.' It is almost a symbolic fulfilment of that prophecy that the 20-pence coin of the British colony Gibraltar, issued by Parliament and approved by the Queen, bears an engraving of Mary crowned 'Queen of Heaven' and titles 'Our Lady of Europa'. The head of the Queen on the other side is simply titled 'Elizabeth II - Gibraltar', without her usual titles of D.G., REG., F.D. - Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith. As portentous as such Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a whore riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation which a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing Papal Rome.
Roman Catholic imagery is endemic in Europe, and has been wholeheartedly embraced by the European government. The design of the European flag was inspired by the halo of 12 stars around pictures of the Madonna, and appears prominently on the Council of Europe stained-glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral. The window was unveiled to the world on 11th December 1955, co-inciding with the Roman Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception.
[...] Strasbourg is a city which symbolises the dream of Franco-German integration - the heart of the Empire of Charlemagne. [...] It is also concerning, though some may dismiss it as trivially amusing, that a Roman Catholic Englishman sent a letter to Jacques Delors, with the suggestion of dedicating the European Union to the 'Blessed Virgin Mary'. He had presumably noted that Delors has been responsible for promoting the European flag, with its unmistakable Marian symbolism showing a circle of 12 stars on a blue background. The member of Delors' private office responsible for the Commission President's relations with the Catholic Church replied that the suggestion was gratefully received, but that the President didn't feel that it was within his authority to respond affirmatively. Was this because such a decision has to be placed before the European Council, or the Parliament or even before the peoples of Europe in a referendum? Sadly, no. Elucidation came as the President stated that he would make the suggestion known to the Holy Father. If, 'after prayerful consideration', the Holy Father considered it appropriate, Delors would do everything he could to implement it. Is this an indication of the real spiritual bodies ruling Europe? Thankfully, since nothing more was heard, presumably the Pope didn't like the idea.
The Role of the European Institutions
I had intended to talk about the European institutions, but time has beaten me. I must conclude very briefly.
...the Vatican is the prime mover behind the EU conspiracy.
If I seem to have digressed into religion, that is because, as I hope to have shown, the Vatican is the prime mover behind the EU conspiracy. Let me repeat that the British people were deceived about Europe from the start. The Europe proclaimed as a free-trade area consisting of sovereign nation states and requiring a negligible membership cost was a cover-up for a planned politico-religious superstate. The various institutions and bodies of this superstate in embryo have already steadily encroached on our sovereignty to such an extent that they are reducing our Parliament to the status of a glorified county council. The Daily Mail of May 9, 1996, put it succinctly:
Our laws are now worthless. Fifteen judges in Luxembourg – only one a Briton – are now the supreme arbiters of British law; and they base their decisions on Roman law, unknown in this country since the Roman withdrawal.
The European Court of Justice has made itself an ever more intrusive agent for ensuring that the British Parliament is no longer sovereign, even when Britain's national interest and security are involved.
EU directives are crippling Britain's businesses. British industry is finally waking up to the true price of the EU's single market, as it struggles to comply with 20,000 directives and regulations which have made Brussels the biggest law-factory in the world.
The move towards monetary union and a single currency must be stopped.
The move towards monetary union and a single currency must be stopped. In a recent debate with Mr Lammers about the single currency, Normal Lamont said he was opposed to it because he believed it would "lead to the political unification of Europe". Mr Lammers then said that there was no point in any debate taking place, because he entirely agreed that that was the purpose of the single currency: "It is part of political unification as we have said all the time." The Chief Executive of the Bundesbank, Dr Issing, said recently: "There is no example in history of lasting monetary union not linked to one single state." Dr Tietmayer, the President of the Bundesbank, said: "A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies." Bill Cash has warned that monetary union even threatens the rule of law in Europe.
One single currency would be managed by one Central Bank empowered to implement EU monetary policy. If the United Kingdom abandons the Pound Sterling and signs up to monetary union, this would be an irreversible step towards the complete destruction of our national sovereignty.
What is equally unacceptable is to use majority voting for European governmental policy. Majority voting causes unaccountability because ministers can be outvoted in the Council: they are then not accountable for their decisions to their national parliaments, and the Council itself is not accountable to any electorate or parliament. Majority voting cuts the link between voter in a member state and law-maker, which is the bedrock of all democracy. At the time when he voted for the Single European Act, Bill Cash tabled an amendment which said: "Nothing is this act shall undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament." That amendment was not passed. National parliaments, as expressions or national sovereignty, are the very cornerstone of democracy.
Conclusion
If we do not pray and if we do not act, Rome will once again succeed in establishing her evil system in this country. When William Tyndale, captured and burned in 1535 by Belgian Papists for having dared to translate the New Testament, uttered his dying cry: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" God's eventual mighty answer came in the form of the King James (or "Authorised") Version of the Bible (1611). It fell to Protestant Britain to spread the Gospel worldwide and check the power of Rome. I am convinced that that is our divinely-appointed task once again. We can no longer rely on our political leaders or even our Royal Family to carry the torch of Biblical Truth. Let us therefore pray: "Lord, open the eyes of the British nation!"
http://tinyurl.com/32kp5h
bin66 - 13. Feb, 00:04
