Thursday, August 24, 2006

Richard North’s link with the Jesuits

Cranmer has enormous respect for this man. He has consistently and persistently exposed the failings of the European Union, and contributed an enormous body of information to the anti-EU cause. His research is broad, and his depth of inquiry profound. He has spoken and written on almost every dimension of ‘ever closer union’ conceivable, and he has done so with the passion of a convicted patriot and democrat.

Dr North frequently and unashamedly berates politicians (and others) for missing ‘the elephant in the room’. He has little time for those who focus on the minutiae while failing to acknowledge the real source of the problem. Thus his eminent EU Referendum blog has talked of the folly of European economic governance; exposed the Galileo satellite system for the covert intelligence-gathering, anti-American project that it is; detailed how the EU is not good for agriculture, fisheries, or the environment; destroyed the notion that the EU is about freely-cooperating nation states; identified the lack of democratic accountability; and poured scorn on the notion that the EU is responsible for keeping the peace in Europe.

His research has drawn on thousands of books, papers and official documents, many of which have only become publicly available in the past few years. He has been assiduous in tracing the EU vision to its source of a handful of determined visionaries, yet he himself misses an elephant in the room, and quite a significant one. What these visionaries all had in common was a faith, an inspiration to do ‘the work of God’ in Europe. It is the principal source of the EU’s woes, and the main reason why nothing in the EU seems to change. It is simply that these visionaries constructed the ECSC/EEC/EC/EU on the bedrock of inviolable, immutable Roman Catholic social doctrine, which constitutes the ‘infallibility’ at the heart of the EU edifice. As a reward, the Vatican was reported to be considering the beatification of the ‘Founding Fathers’– yes, politicians on the path to sainthood. Does that not send out a message to the faithful that the EU is possibly a design of God?

The Vatican has made consistent efforts to influence and dominate the whole process of European integration, indeed, not only the Pope but also leading Jesuit Cardinal Maria Martini of Milan addressed the European Parliament on the crucial importance of unification. The agenda has been on-going, expressed in their recent demands for 'God' to feature in the EU Constitution. Dr North has done no analysis of the implications of this, nor has he understood why the inclusion of ‘God’ would confirm that the EU is a ‘design of God’, for whom the Vatican claims to be the sole interlocutor for communicating truth to the world. What does the Pope seek to gain by addressing the EPP? Why is he invited to address the entire European Parliament? What are the threats made against Catholic scientists and politicians who do not toe the Vatican’s line? Why does the Vatican oppose the admission of Turkey into the club? Dr North has done no detailed analysis of these issues.

There is presently an ages-old battle going on within the EU, with the re-emergence of the ancient conflict between Church and State. The Frankish Enlightenment vision is presently on the ascendancy, and Cranmer found the treatment of Rocco Buttiglione an appalling consequence of amoral secularism. Indeed, faith is presently being so marginalised in the EU that Babel is once again seen to be arrogantly rejecting God. But such developments and persecutions do not deter the Vatican, nor persuade the Pope that the EU as a political project is anything but a force for good. The Vatican has consistently supported ‘ever closer union’. Pope John Paul II lauded the single currency - 'the first since the Roman Empire' – and was credited with swinging the referendum on Poland’s accession: ‘The Holy Father hopes that... Poland can make a contribution with its moral and spiritual values and its religious convictions’, said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, at a crucial point in the campaign. It is noteworthy that voting picked up on the Sunday, as many churchgoers went from the political message of the mass to the polling booths.

Does Dr North not realise that when the leader of the EU’s Roman Catholics speaks, that his words have political as well as spiritual significance? That if the Pope says the EU is a good thing, then the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics may be persuaded to believe that this is the case? Of course. there are divisions within Catholicism on the EU as there are within all faiths, but Cranmer is talking here of significant majorities, not the notable or eminent exceptions. The population of the EU is more than 60% Roman Catholic, which means that when His Holiness declares the EU to be a design of God, however subliminally, his words and allusions may sway almost 300 million European citizens. No other individual in the Union has such power, authority, or potential influence. No wonder Boris Johnson perceives an element of the Roman Empire in the construction.

Cranmer has asked the EU Referendum blog about this, and was dismissed. He was told: ‘The Pope has expressed certain strong reservations about the European Union. I don't mind people re-fighting ancient battles - that is what history is all about - but some accuracy is required’. Cranmer enquired as to what these ‘strong reservations’ were, and when they were expressed. He received no reply. He asked again, and still nothing was forthcoming. When Dr North and Dr Szamuely dismiss Cranmer as ‘fighting ancient (ie irrelevant) battles’, or demand ‘accuracy’, the least they could do would be to provide proof of the Vatican’s ‘reservations’ of the process of ‘ever closer union’. But the truth is, there are none, beyond expressions of disquiet when the Church’s traditional teachings are set aside.

Cranmer has wondered why a man with such insight as Richard North has never acknowledged the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the whole EU process; indeed, he has not only ignored this dimension, he has specifically rejected it. But the answer may lie in a recent posting on his blog, in which he reveals: ‘Being brought up as a good Catholic boy - by Jesuits, no less’.

What was it the Jesuits said?

Give me the boy until the age of seven, and I will give you the man.

Even people of considerable insight retain their blind spots, and although the shape and colour of elephants tend to remain the same, they come in all sizes, and the clever ones may hide behind very, very large pieces of furniture…


Blogger Croydonian said...

The RC roots of the EU project are highly significant, but I feel that only tells part of the story. The sharper divide is between countries with Napoleonic legal codes and those within the common law tradition and all that has flowed from that. On that basis, the UK will always be something of an odd man out because of our very different legal system and conception of state. I would suggest that southern Ireland does not truly fit either, but all sort of scruples can be overcome if the tide of cash is sufficiently higher.

24 August 2006 at 15:21  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

I wonder if the Arch Bishop ever read the works of Dr vernon Coleman?
He wears a bow tie but apart from that seems a sound man.
The EU being a sinister Catholic plot is new to me.
It is a secular socialist plot and Rome being Rome they will try and attach themselves to any successful form of control in order to suck out the blood and then gain control for themselves.
Just look at all the propaganda put about claiming that Rome (JP2) was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
I for one will be glad when we all wake up and once again start burning Catholic clergy, along with socialists.

24 August 2006 at 15:29  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Veeeerrrry interesting!! Well done for spotting this gem. Croydonian's right that it's not the only 'plot' going on, but it is definitely a key player with colossal influence. Richard North is probably just one of those who holds religion at arm's length (and I probably would too if I'd been interfered with by Jesuits), so don't worry, Cranmer. You've got a missing piece of the jigsaw even if the intelligentsia don't all have eyes to see it.

24 August 2006 at 17:05  
Anonymous Rick said...

Might I suggest reading the interesting tome by Stephen Dorril entitled "MI6" ?

I recommend Chapter 11 Intermarium Chapter 18, Chapter 21

24 August 2006 at 18:43  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I seem to recall that John Paul II addressed a meeting of the Council of Europe in September 2004 where he declared that Robert Schuman, one of the architects of the European integration process and the first president of the European parliament , would be beatified.
Two other well-known ‘founding fathers’ of the EU also being considered for beatification, are Jean Monnet and Italy’s Christian Democrat prime minister in the wake of World War II-Alcide De Gaspieri,. The Pope beatified the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, Charles I in October 2004.

So our Tone is in with a chance of sainthood yet…

24 August 2006 at 20:05  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

A very interesting article, Cranmer. Being a Catholic ought not to prevent one from examining and questioning (indeed, disagreeing fundamentally with) the Pope's apparent political leanings.

You're right; the utterances of the Pope carry a certain political weight by virtue of his position, but that does not always (or often) make a Pope a good politician. Indeed, shut away behind the imposing walls of the Vatican, Popes lead a rather sheltered life and they may not be fully siezed of the issues at hand, nor in touch with the mood of the people.

Nor should Catholics make the mistake of thinking that "papal infallibility" means that they have no choice but to agree with everything the Pope says about politics and social justice. Not so. "Papal infallibility" refers to matters of Church Doctrine only. For example, I disagree with John Paul II's position on the Iraq war, and I am free in my conscience to do so.

Perhaps the "founding fathers" of the EU began their project with noble intentions and ideals, I really don't know. But if the current Pope is really so enthusiastic about the EU as it exists today, then I feel he must be gravely misinformed about "the way things are, on the ground".

25 August 2006 at 00:14  
Anonymous Rick said...

Perhaps the "founding fathers" of the EU began their project with noble intentions and ideals

As I said you will find the book by Stephen Dorril very informative on this - the salient fact was that Konrad Adenauer was a Catholic, based the German capital in Bonn in Catholic Rhineland and away from Protestant Berlin, and wanted to bring Germany back into the heart of Western Europe and into Atlanticism............whereas the Protestant SPD was suspected of being isolationist and ready to compromise with Moscow.

Much of this was Cold War oriented to resist Soviet blandishments for a unified neutral Germany - the EEC to anchor Germany with France, and NATO to anchor both with the USA.

The Pope was part of US plans for the EEC insofar as it was important to hold out the prospect to Central Europe and undermine the Soviet Bloc...........the tendency nowadays is to forget the Cold War and the Soviet Empire which was the dominant ideological threat to Western Europe and so much of our history is tied up with what happened 1946-1950 in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and in The Balkans and the expectations of a European war by 1954

25 August 2006 at 03:10  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Croydonian: The sharper divide is between countries with Napoleonic legal codes and those within the common law tradition and all that has flowed from that.

Isn't that saying the same thing as Cranmer? The Napoleonic system is inquisitorial (=Inquisition!) where a superior group of 'legal experts' determine guilt (if it isn't presumed) - a bit like Rome's 'theology experts' decide on salvation. It is basically 'top-down'. The Common Law system acknowledges the accountability and equality of man (=jury of peers), stemming from Protestant ideas - it is 'bottom-up'. The Napoleoninc system is Roman, so its roots are with Catholicism. QED.

25 August 2006 at 07:50  
Anonymous Rick said...

The Common Law system acknowledges the accountability and equality of man (=jury of peers), stemming from Protestant ideas - it is 'bottom-up'.

It might do but to claim that Common Law bagan life rooted in Protestantism would be an error - it might have evolved pari-passu

25 August 2006 at 09:08  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

That's what I mean, Rick. It's not that it derived from Protestantism; it accords with it. Croydonian's point is right and a valid observation but it's very much linked to the whole Catholic theme and the Vatican's view of the role of government and the nature of the state, and how these are at variance with a Protestant view.

25 August 2006 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anna Sole said...

The 'founding fathers' of the EU and the 'fondling fathers' of the Roman Church...............

25 August 2006 at 10:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"yes, politicians on the path to sainthood."

There are some that made it. Really. Does Thomas More sound a ring, Your Grace?

29 August 2006 at 18:01  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Cranmer has received an illuminating email from notable scholar and author Lindsay Jenkins, to which she attached her review of Dr North's book. It appears that Cranmer is not alone in his assessment of Dr North's propensity to ignore very significant elephants:

The Great Deception, The Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

This is a very bad book.

Booker and North write a history of the EU, which they say has not been done before. That is false. They say they have used ‘hundreds of documents’ yet do not quote one original source until they reach Heath’s application to join the EEC in 1970. Even after that, references to primary sources are scarce and their emphasis on recent PRO releases for the period 1970 to 1972 is hardly original.

And they have conducted one interview for the whole book.

This then is an amalgam of others’ commentaries and memoirs, as John Laughland wrote in his review in the Spectator. Some would call it plagiarism.

Strangely, although they acknowledge that some of those books are by federalists, they fail to realise that almost all fall into that category. They write ‘that they are particularly indebted to the researches of Prof Andrew Moravcsik of Harvard University’ for his (correct, they say) explanation of why de Gaulle said ‘non’, and ‘for helping to bring this to light’ in their words. Can this be the same Prof Moravcsik (friend of Baroness Williams) who strongly believes that there is no democratic deficit in the EU and lauds integration? I wonder if Prof Moravcsik knows he has been carrying out research for Booker and North, for that is how their words read.

But it is the sub title, The Secret History of the European Union, that itself deceives. They write that ‘official histories’ call Monnet a visionary. But they themselves have uncritically accorded Monnet sainthood: they have written a hagiography. And thus they have continued the EU spin of who created the EU.

They are playing into the hands of the EU, which wants nothing less than that a Frenchman should be given top honours.

Booker and North have identified four men as central to the history of the EU. Other than Jean Monnet, they are Altiero Spinelli, Paul Henri Spaak and Sir Arthur Salter. They have picked those names out of a hat: then they have made events fit their thesis.

This is truly shoddy and in no way can be described as scholarship.

Critical readers might care to ask the questions why and how after every paragraph and certainly after each page. And then the substantial inconsistencies would be blinding.

Monnet, as Booker and North acknowledge, left school with only a basic education. Yet they have him writing accords, treaties and indulging in detailed planning to promote the EU. He bestrides the European stage, and indeed the American, like a Colossus even telling President Eisenhower what to do.

They should have wondered why the Battle Hymn of the Republic, all five verses, was played at Monnet’s funeral.

So among the many huge gaps in this so-called secret history is a true assessment of Monnet.

The herd of elephants totally missing in the room includes the Fabian Society; its American links especially with Justice Felix Frankfurter and Secretary of State J F Dulles; the role of Arnold Toynbee; of his friend Prof Sir Alfred Zimmern (who wrote Franco-Anglo Union – no, it wasn’t Monnet); the significance of the German Zollverein and the continuation today of that German policy; and the role of Chancellor Adenauer and his American contacts especially Ambassador McCloy.

It is no excuse that in trying to distance themselves from what they see as some commentators’ total reliance on Nazism to explain the origins of the EU they ignore Germany altogether. That is like trying to bake bread without flour. And why include John Laughland as one of those commentators? Bizarre.

Booker and North should ask themselves why Harold Macmillan and then his protégé Ted Heath promoted Britain’s membership of the EEC.

And no it was not depression after the Suez crisis.

There are some wonderful howlers. I especially loved the statement that ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan founded the CIA in 1947. Readers will find factual failings littering the pages.

Perhaps the biggest rogue elephant of all, missed nearly completely by Booker and North, is the CIA. They tantalisingly promise the reader ‘The Secret History of the European Union’ in big letters on the cover and fail totally.

They make casual references to CIA dollars but fail to ask who, when and why. They were right that the CIA was founded in 1947 so they should ask what it did. Thirty years with a federal Europe in its sights is a significant time for a well-financed organisation like the CIA to make a difference to the course of events. And Cord Meyer Jr, head of the CIA London station from 1973 to 1976, must be laughing in his grave that this so-called secret history ignores his name entirely.

I should be flattered that Booker and North have used my booklet on Altiero Spinelli, partially rewriting it, though without my permission. But I would have been more flattered if they had read it properly. Because the sources (British) for Spinelli’s ideas, which he himself fully acknowledged, and help he received, do not fit in with the Booker-North interpretation of history, they ignore them and with them a huge tranche of the history of the EU. Nor do they try to understand why Spinelli, a self-opinionated publicist, was in the political wilderness for forty years. According to them he just pops up after Monnet has died.

Finally, far be it for me to call myself an elephant in the room, but Britain Held Hostage, The Coming Euro Dictatorship is widely available. Indeed I gave Christopher Booker a copy. Yet Booker and North have failed to mention my history of the EU, including the secret history, which took me five years, thousands of documents, and many interviews.

I wonder why?

Lindsay Jenkins 2003

8 September 2006 at 15:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember remember the fifth of November , Conspiracy Treason and Plot ;
I know of no reason why Conspiracy and Treason should ever be forgot .

14 November 2008 at 09:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older