I still don’t see any evidence for the involvement of the BND in Thatcher’s ousting. I accept that the reunification of Germany (and the disintegration of the Soviet Empire of course) was very important, and that record of Thatcher’s talk with Gorbachev (which I didn’t know about either) is most interesting (not least her assurance that the Russians should disregard NATO’s statements – this must happen all the time), but it does not convince me.

The role of irrationality seems to be most important throughout. I mentioned before that Britain followed Ireland’s lead (what on earth were they thinking?) when the EU was expanded and allowed unrestricted access by workers from the new E. European member states. At the Time (as reported by Booker and North) the British govt predicted that 6-13,000 would come! That is just one small example. The Euro project as a whole is a fine example of the irrational and the utopian. Of course, one still has to concentrate on rational causes in interpreting what has happened as there is no alternative if nothing else.

Similarly, why did Spinelli and (of all things) the Euro Parliament play a role at that crucial time? (Booker and North cover this in detail also. They also cover Churchill’s vision of a Europe of national co-operation and De Gaulle’s similar enough vision for France, by the way. Even as a nine-year-old doing a project at school about the EEC (the teacher had driven a tank in France in 1940 and was a committed supporter of European integration) I knew about the ‘ever closer integration’ ideal. B&N’s point is that govts played this down to win electoral acceptance.)

As for looking at history the way you say I do what alternative approach do you propose? Those driving the Euro dream (a word I use advisedly) had always sought to introduce the supranational executive. Inevitably this revolves mainly around Monnet, with his practical experience of economic coordination in WW1. Surely the historian has to examine the reasons for this and why the alternative views did not prosper.

As for Jung I wouldn’t be a ‘believer’ myself. For starters I don’t know half enough about him to know what I was expected to believe in the first case. What little I have read and seen of him shows he was an extremely perceptive and intelligent observer and did not change his results to fit in with conventional wisdom. The non-ownership thing you mention is interesting. Not something I share of course but it throws light on the issue. The Wittgenstein quote in that amusing review of John Allen’s book (“Almost everything in that hypothesis is wrong” ! – readers of this blog could have told you that years ago) is interesting too. It reminds me of the bit in Sheldrake’s Science Delusion where he reports experiments showing that (if I remember correctly) actions actually happened a split second before the mental decision was taken. This is probably a different thing than Wittgenstein was thinking about but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

Back to Jung for a second before closing. There is a good video (or two) of him on YT discussing introvert intuitive types which is really intruiging. Pressed for time now so perhaps another time.

I must read over your posts here again. Something in them about Churchill being in the pay of some govt (Czech?) and other things that caught my eye.

This is a very sketchy article about it, which doesn’t even say 1/3 of what I said and it doesn’t mention Thatcher and the Peace Treaty – but it gives you a flavour nonetheless.

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/112006

Jung. You won’t convince me to Jung, I am afraid :-). Jung is a version of Freudism same as Trotskyism is a version of Marxism (so what that Trotsky opposed Stalin and Jung opposed Freud).

Generally, Jung embarked on the idea of the German ethnographic researcher Adolf Bastian. The philosophy of Jung and Bastian is a version of the non-ownership theory of mind, about which I wrote in my review of John Allen’s book (which theory is in opposition to Christianity, but in keeping with most Muslim and some Jewish religious thinkers):

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Muckross-House-Mucca-Roose/dp/1911345125

“Their argument (and I think it is persuasive) is that the ‘project’ was always political and supranation rather than economic.”

I think that the mistake that you are making is that you look at the orientation that won in EC and you reverse engineer it back to the origins of the EU, assuming that this was always the plan.
In fact, in the beginning there a few different schools of thought of what the EU is supposed to be like. The fact that you only know about the Monnet/Schumann orientation is because this is the one that had won (in the mid-1980s, which resulted in the Single European Act).
Churchill’s vision was slightly different, and Hayek’s vision was completely different. De Gaulle’s vision was different yet.

I should be in bed for a long time, Coldblow. These are topic for my lecture rather than for comment on DMW blog.
Like I said at the beginning, I can only offer you indicators:
current EU = Ventotene Manifesto = 1986: Spinelli Group becomes the main driver in the EU Parliament, with the biggest influence on legislation. Communist ideology of Spinelli becomes the EU ideology. 1999 – Amsterdam Treaty – the official cultural doctrine of the EU becomes gender mainstreaming, with instructions written in an institute on Koeln (Germany is at the forefront of genderism and they also have the biggest influence on UNESCO sexual education programs).

Thatcher’s downfall, you say, immediately followed the her intervention on German unification and her desire to get a Germany treaty signed with Poland. I know very little about this and will have to take your word for it.

Brooker and North, working from the documentation throughout, show in detail the split between her and her cabinet colleagues from month to month, if not week to week. They make the point that the British knew little about how Europe worked, including the Europhiles. When Thatcher became PM she saw at first hand how these Euro meetings worked. Delors’s Social Chapter appears to have been one of the final straws.

Their argument (and I think it is persuasive) is that the ‘project’ was always political and supranation rather than economic. Monnet was particularly influential (they say that Schumann was just his ventriloquist’s dummy in 1950 and that all the Euro mythology about Schumann is indeed just mythology). The aim was always a supranational body rather than intergovernmentalism, which is why Britain was originally refused entry. You are right about the need for Britain to be there later, be it to mask German dominance or just for her large contribution. British goverments were also practising deceit on their electorates (Heath for example) and stressing that it was a purely economic institution and not political. (I remember this well at the time when I was a schoolboy – it was solely economic and ‘to keep the peace’ after WW2.) Of course its legal position changed after the EU was formed but this had always been the intention among those driving it.

They also say that every milestone of the EU turns out to have been quite different, when you examine what happened in detail, from what people thought happened.

Your remark about French bureaucratism is interesting. They describe Brussels as the legislation factory but do make the point that the one country which easily best used the Euro machinery to her own national advantage was France, starting with her success in introducing CAP at the very start, which was enormously to her benefit.

I am going to have to read their book again (note the title: The Great Deception) some time because it is dense in detail and I couldn’t take most of it in first time round. (This is often the case with me I find.) Hitchens recommends reading it together with the pro-EU book by Toby Young, but frankly life is too short.

But just to clarify, are you arguing that Germany, via BND spies in the British government or state, engineered Thatcher’s fall? What are your sources?

You are right that I didn’t read your link first time. I remember opening it and thinking that it looked demanding. I will have to print it out and look at it some time. My extra-introvert angle is not original but taken from Dorothy Rowe. I don’t know where she got it from but it seems to have just been part of the world of psychology, although I get the impression that materialist scientist zealots are keen to get rid of it, and Jung. It is Jung I think of rather than Freud. I haven’t studied Freud except a few articles about his fraudulent research (if that is not too strong a word, which it probably isn’t). Richard Webster has written a long book about Freud, which I would like to read some day. This draft chapter is on his Sceptical Essays website and is interesting (though I don’t agree with him on the whole. For one thing he was an atheist, but he wrote what must be the classic study of a modern witch hunt, the Secret of Bryn Estyn, about the North Wales ‘Children’s’ Home hysteria).

http://www.richardwebster.net/godphysicsanddarwin.html

And most of this material didn’t even end up in the published book. Michel Onfray, a French leftist, is another who has written a sharply critical work about Freud.

I am interested in Jung, however, as he seems to have been rigorously objective in reporting his observations, even if they fly in the face of conventional science. Again I have read little of him, although I have studied some bits at length and repeatedly, ditto some of his televised interviews. This introvert-extravert thing is extraordinary, even more than realizing the breadth and depth of mass fantasy, and is something I am more sure of than most things. Of course, that doesn’t mean I am right. If it is me and Dorothy Rowe against the world then, in the words of Homer Simpson, what could possible go wrong?

Henry Makow [ of http://www.henrymakow.com ] is NOT “my favorite” ;
Rather, Henry Makow is :

just 1 of a number of “favorites of mine”

a source for articles penned by him personally, & guests — even when Henry prefaces that he does not agree with their argument or political / religious leanings but nonetheless is hosting said article because it is still worthy of consideration in its whole or part — that I am sometimes not persuaded by

a source for some great tweets ;
But, here Makow will often tweet links from the “contraire” sources for purposes of revealing how perverse they are & / or the current state of play.

………………………………

Do not forget that the folks who control USA [ especially proven with Federal Reserve Bank ] also organised :

Communist Revolution in Russia

Communist Revolution in China

8-)

Yet Timmermans spoke about the breach of human rights in Poland but in Spain, according to him, the police protected the rule of law.

But I am diverging.

Yes, my phrasing was unfortunate as it does look I was suggesting that you attribute Thatcher’s downfall to the Poll Tax while you clearly said it was because of the EC.

However

My point was that, of course, she made some enemies with the Bruges speech (that Mr McWilliams was present at if my memory serves me correctly) but that didn’t trigger any machinations aimed at toppling her (the timeframe is obvious – Bruges: 1988 – two years of growing international recognition); opposition to reunification + pressing on Peace Treaty with Poland = immediate downfall.

Why is that? How do we explain it?

“she was removed from No 10 because she had turned against Europe (be that the EEC or the EU, it is still basically the same project)” – nein, nein, nein.

I would fight my corner on that but it’s too late today to go down the splitters (and set the alarm clock for 5 am tomorrow).

It was a completely different project.
Two examples out of many:
1 EC was not a (federal) state as the EU since 1 Dec 2009 (I’m talking legal stuff, not my opinion). That is significant – this has legal implications (i.e. Art 4(3) of the Lisbon Treaty).
2 EC was an economic project with politics playing the second fiddle. EU is a political project with economy playing the second fiddle (for instance the Amsterdam Treaty paved the way for genderism in the EU education – btw something Britain will continue after the EU).

You yourself see that the picture is not so black and white and it was dynamic when you say:

“Thatcher was of course an enthusiastic supporter of the EEC in her earlier carier and, as I recall, campaigned for it in the British Referendum over the entry in the mid-seventies (as I recall). The strange thing that I cannot work out (among so many other things) is how she turned against Europe at the same time as Labour turned the other way.
That this happened at the same time as German reunification is very interesting. ”

But

In my humble opinion – don’t get angry with me for that – you see the problem, you identify why she opposed it but you interpret it upside down (I’m talking now in a very artistic, picturesque way rather than like a logician would).

Here is the main thrust of my inference: Thatcher didn’t change, it’s the EEC that changed.

What’s changed? Well, 2 things: one that I have just mentioned and the second is that believe it or not but Thatcher was actually both hated by and needed by the 1980s Germany and France.
1980s Germany didn’t want French bureaucratisation so they needed Thatcher as enfant terrible.

1980s France was ruled by Mitterand who didn’t want Germany to reunify so he needed anti-German Thatcher too.

When Germany reunited, they needed to hide the fact that they are reviving the old Mittel-Europa/Großraum projects.
They could only hide it if they dressed it as the “Europe of regions” and “more Europe in Europe”. They were happy to let France to bureaucratise Europe because they rightly assumed that they will find a way of making the peripheries to pay for it (remember: 0.86-0.89 out of each EU subsidy to Poland returned to Germany – that’s without any other financial transfers from Poland to Germany and German tax dodging, which is in multiples of all the EU subsidies Poland received – for the whole V4 region, that number is 1.25 out of each euro).

Although this may surprise you, eastern Europe can very well function without the EU provided that they are not absorbed into Russia and that Germany does not brew another war in Yugoslavia to stop central and eastern Europe (that includes Austria) from uniting.
After all, it did precisely that in the 1990s – lived without the EU subsidies, developing faster; and last year, Poland was a net payer (this is the reason why the Carolingians have so miscalculated thinking that they will force Poland to take their “refugees” by threatening to take the EU subsidies – Poland is not in the EU for the subsidies but because it is too weak to form a buffer it needs between Russia and Germany outside the EU – the last time it tried it, with Hungary, Italy, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia and Austria, Germany – with a little help from Russia and acceptance of the US – derailed it by triggering a war in Yugoslavia: Germany recognised the split of Yugoslavia as the first country and provided weapons to Croatia, as did later Russia to Serbia and Saudi Arabia to Bosnia).

BUT

Neither Germany nor France can survive without exports to eastern Europe (after all, they import more than twice of German products than the UK + Ireland): that would immediately get them into a deep recession.

“I look at pc in a extravert-introvert framework.”

As I said a couple of times, this is not my framework and I question it (introvert v extravert comes from Freudism, and I question Freudism) but I always read with interest when you use this framework to describe real people as you are such a good observer of people (did you ever consider writing a book on the Irish establishment in Flaubert style?).

I think a much more accurate framework is this (mind you, Mazur is a man who worked out tests for NASA astronauts and his student, Kossecki, worked out personality tests for BND):

http://www.autonom.edu.pl/publikacje/mazur_marian/cybernetyka_i_charakter/summary.php

I posted that link for you in the past but I don’t think that you’ve read it
:-(

Regarding Tomasz Lis, my point was – I did cover it a few times – that this is a man on German paylist inviting journalists and politicians on German and Soros paylists, who would not have invited any nationalist or conservative politicians to his program on public TV (neither they were invited to any other program) for 8 years of Tusk’s government.
His only reason for being on Polish TV was because Jaroslaw Kaczynski thought in 2005 that public TV needs pluralism so he gave him a TV program as the representative of the left.
In 2015, Kaczynski removed him because Lis tried to influence the outcome of the presidential election by creating of a fake Twitter account of president Duda’s daughter and lying on TV by quoting things from that fake account.
Now Lis is ratting on his own country on German TV lying that he was removed because PiS wants to end the freedom of speech rather than that he was removed because he committed a crime.
Know wha’ I mean? ;-)

Goodnight!!!

http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO13Sep2017.php

“”China and Russia, joined most likely by their major trading partner countries in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), as well as by their Eurasian partner countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are about to complete the working architecture of a new monetary alternative to a dollar world.

Currently, in addition to founding members China and Russia, the SCO full members include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and most recently India and Pakistan. This is a population of well over 3 billion people, some 42% of the entire world population, coming together in a coherent, planned, peaceful economic and political cooperation.

If we add to the SCO member countries the official Observer States—Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia, states with expressed wish to formally join as full members, a glance at the world map will show the impressive potentials of the emerging SCO. Turkey is a formal Dialogue Partner exploring possible SCO membership application, as are Sri Lanka, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia and Nepal. This, simply said, is enormous.”"

“”The dollar imperium is in its painful death agony and its patriarchs are in reality denial otherwise known as the Trump presidency. Meanwhile the saner elements of this world are about building constructive, peaceful alternatives. They are even open to admit Washington, under honest rules, to join them. That’s remarkably generous isn’t it?”"
———————————————————————-

I strongly suspect that the US will renege on its obligations to repay the debts held by China, Japan and other nations around the world. The so called reserves will be empty promises as valuable as the empty substance of their production. They cost nothing to produce and will return to their intrinsic value = zero.

Do not save in denominated USD