> Home > Articles > Add-ons > Regional Subversion In The United Kingdom
Regional Subversion In The United Kingdom
Date 17/09/2014 21:00  Author webmaster  Hits 2347  Language Global

Subversion by a foreign power (as contrasted with internally-generated subversion, which is, more properly, "dissention") has been a weapon of overt, and covert, war, for as long as sovereign, political units have existed, whether aimed at the ethnic minorities of the target-population, or at the ethnic majority or classes of it.

Regional subversion is aimed specifically at the ethnic minorities, which form (or can be persuaded that they form) local majorities, in substantial areas of the target-population's territory.  As with subversion generally, regional subversion has been an instrument of hostile, foreign policy, time out of mind:  it was employed, for example, against the UK, in Ireland, by the Germany of Wilhelm II, before, and during, the war of 1914-18, as part of that war, in the traditional, ad hoc, manner, namely - simply, or principally - in order to weaken the war-effort of the UK, at that time.

However, in 1920, the Politburo of the Soviet Union formulated a scheme, whereby a Soviet world-government might be built upon the (more or less) ethnically-defined fragments of the existing, sovereign states' territories.  Such fragments would be pacified by a degree of self-determination, or the illusion of it, and would anyway be too small and mutually dependent to oppose the will of the, necessarily autocratic, global authority.  The Soviet scheme was perceived, among the political elites, which were bent upon world-domination, at that time, as a brilliant innovation - when applied to all states other than their own - and it was quickly taken up by them.  After 1920, therefore, all plans for global government - namely, those of Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States of America - incorporated a strategy for the fragmentation-into-regions of all rival states.  In this way, regional subversion graduated, from being a temporary, tactical policy, with a short-term goal, to being a general strategy with a millennial outcome.

As the principal, imperial power, the UK became the main target of this new, systematic phase of regional subversion.  The Americans took over from the Germans in fomenting unrest in Ireland, and the Soviets began to focus on the subversion of Scotland. After her defeat of 1918, moreover, Germany remained introspectively quiescent for more than twelve years.

In 1922, subversive efforts, in the form of massive funding, from the USA, for an "Irish Free State" - together with much treasonable collusion at Westminster - culminated in the effective separation of most of Ireland from the UK; while, in Scotland, the UK's first Communist MP's were elected, as members, both of the Labour Party, and of the Third Communist International, directed from Moscow.

In 1928, the National Party of Scotland (NPS) was formed, by the openly Communist, Hugh MacDiarmaid, and John MacCormick of the Labour Party.  In 1934, the NPS became the Scottish National Party (SNP) which first won a Parliamentary seat, eleven years later, at the Motherwell by-election, of April 1945.

Germany's preoccupation with her internal affairs ended abruptly, in 1933, when the National-Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSADP) came to power and began to consider actively, once again, the plans - put forward as a "peace-proposal", by Wilhelm II, in 1914 - for a united "Europe" under German leadership.  In 1935, the Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farben-Industrie (IG-Farben) - the industrial cartel, which had fostered the rise of the NSDAP - constructed a four-year plan to place Germany on a war-footing, sufficient to achieve "European Unity" through a programme of conquest.  However, only three years later, in 1938, this programme began, with Germany's invasion and absorption (Anschluss) of Austria and the Sudetenland (Bohemia and Moravia)

On 23rd January 1939, Walther Hallstein (Dean of the Faculty of Law and Economics at the University of Rostock, in northern Germany) gave a remarkable speech to academics and government-officials, entitled "Die Rechtseinheit Grossdeutschlands" ("The Legal Unity of Greater Germany") explaining how German Law would be adapted to serve "the modern social order" (die moderne soziale Ordnung) throughout Germany and the territories, newly linked (neu angeschlossen) to the Fatherland, "creating a new nationality for the people".

"Furthermore," he said, "this process subjugates these peoples and territories to the sovereignty of the mother-state, with its defined [i.e. combined: not separated? - Ed] legislative and executive, constitutional powers," and went on, "in all other legal areas, the union (Anschluss) leaves the existing legal order intact:  in all the unified territories (vereinigte Gebiete) the old legal system continues - except, of course, where this contradicts the constitution of the unified state (soweit sie der Verfassung des Gesamtstaates zuwiderlaufen)"

It is clear enough that, in the foregoing remarks, Hallstein was not referring only to Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, for he continued:  "the structure of the administrative organisation of Austria and the Sudetenland, which is currently being shaped, will serve as the model for the future administration of the entire Reich".

Hallstein also referred to the division of the "unified territories" into "regions of the Reich" (Reichsgaue) and, "at the lower level", further division into cities and counties (Stadt- und Landkreise)  "The regions of the Reich," he concluded, "will be led by Governors of the Reich (Reichsstatthalter) while each of their cities or counties will be led by an administrative council (Landrat)"

It is clear enough too that work on the creation of this new, legal order was already proceeding and that Hallstein was involved in it.  Note too that Hallstein was not a retiring academic in a sequestered, provincial university!  In June 1938, some months before his "Greater Germany"-speech, he had taken part in a "legal working-group", in Rome, together with Reichsminister Hans Frank, and representatives of the government of Benito Mussolini, to agree a framework for precisely the legal reforms, which he discussed at length, in Rostock, in January 1939.

At this stage, of course, the German scheme for a "united Europe", and its division into "cities and regions", did not entail subversion:  it was to be accomplished by brute force and direct decree, as indeed it was accomplished, albeit only for a few years' duration, in Poland (1939) and France (1940) both of which countries were then divided, along somewhat traditional lines, into smaller states, and their German-speaking regions (Silesia, Lorraine and Alsace) directly absorbed into Germany.

Interestingly enough, Walther Hallstein is said to have volunteered for military service, towards the end of the war, and to have been captured, by American forces, in France, in 1944.  He was then held, for the rest of the war, in the USA.  On his return to Germany, in 1945, while living at an address in Frankfurt and, apparently, working as a high-school administrator, he answered a questionnaire from the occupying authorities, asserting that he had never belonged to any NSDAP-organisation, nor sympathised with the aims of the NSDAP-regime.  The next we hear of him (1950) he is the chief civil servant in the German Foreign Ministry and Konrad Adenauer's chief negotiator, in the process, which led to the creation of the "European Communities".  Hallstein was one of the twelve signatories to the Treaty of Rome (1957) and then became, in 1958, the first President of the "European Commission", serving in that capacity, for the next nine years.

Thus, the project - namely, the unification of "Europe" under German leadership - which the UK and France had opposed in the greatest wars ever fought, was initiated, with their consent, by the power, which had proposed it, and which had been defeated, twice, while trying to bring it about.

At the same time, after these years of bitter fighting, Germany was transformed almost instantaneously into a staunch ally of the western powers, while, just as instantaneously, the Soviet Union - the western powers' lately so indispensable eastern ally - became the enemy.  These baffling metamorphoses are only explicable in terms of the foreign policy of the USA - the only western ally not to have been economically crippled by the conflict and the holder of the purse-strings (the Marshall Plan) for the funding of post-war reconstruction.

A high-level "American Committee for a United Europe" disbursed further funds and instructions specifically to the German, and Franco-German, advocates of the "European Project" and their agents, and exerted diplomatic pressure to smooth their path through the chancelleries of western Europe.

The Soviet Union - despite having suffered greater loss-of-life and economic devastation, during the war, than any other of the allies - remained resilient and threatened (so it was felt in the West) to extend its own brand of totalitarian unification to western Europe; and it was partly in preference to this prospect that the peoples of western Europe submitted to the Americo-German plan for a centralised "European" state, under the impression that it was a plan only for closer co-operation in a "Common Market".

The transformation of the Soviet Union, in western eyes, from heroic ally to cold-war bugbear, rapidly demolished the Communist Party in the UK, but its influence continued in the Scottish Labour Party and, even more discreetly, in the SNP.  However, Scottish separatism made little outward progress, during the twenty years after the war.  Eventually, in 1967, the SNP again gained a Parliamentary seat, in a by-election, and, in 1968, Edward Heath (the prime instigator of surrendering the UK to the "European Project" and a promoter of ethnic regionalism) made much of the SNP's (very minor) success by unveiling an ambitious plan for "Scottish devolution", which was to empower the SNP and Scottish separatism for the next decade.

In 1979, a referendum, in Scotland, on Scottish "devolution", was lost, and, indeed, the SNP never gained more than a handful (7) of Scotland's 60 parliamentary seats, but separatist pressure continued to grow, through extra-parliamentary means, thanks to covert support from the leadership of the Conservative Party and secret funding from the Soviet Union.

The conduit for Soviet money and influence, at this stage, was the General Secretary of the Scottish Council of Churches (an ecumenical body designed to merge religious denominations and make them subject to supra-nationalist, political correctness)  This was Canon Kenyon Wright, who, in 1989 - almost at the last gasp of the Soviet Union - succeeded in organising a "Scottish Constitutional Convention", thereby reviving Edward Heath's now lapsed proposals for "Scottish devolution", and producing the "devolution-programme" of 1995, which was endorsed by the Labour Party, a tiny remnant of the Communist Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and, significantly - as we shall see - the Scottish Green-Party.  This programme was put to a referendum, in Scotland, in 1997, and carried.  The "devolved, Scottish parliament", consisting of "MSP's", was established in 1999, while Scottish MP's continued to sit at Westminster, thus giving rise to the over-representation of Scottish opinion in the political institutions of the UK.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in December 1991, its similarly Russo-centric successor, the "Commonwealth of Independent States" (CIS) entered a period of introversion, rather like that of Germany after the first, great war, but longer:  it was some twenty years before the CIS achieved sufficient cohesion and identity to exert powerful, international influence.

Not so, Germany, after the second war!  Under American leadership, the former, western allies ensured the lightning recovery of German, economic power and armed Germany - albeit with their own armies of occupation - to the teeth.  Even more significantly, as outlined above, the Americans quietly rehabilitated "useful" Germans and initiated the German plan for west- and- central European, legislative and administrative centralisation (which is called "integration") in Brussels, and the homogenisation (known as "harmonisation") of the laws and cultures of the states subject to it (called "member-states") while encouraging these states (apart from Germany) to fragment into impotent, ethnic "regions".

With Hallstein, from Germany's Foreign Ministry, in Brussels, Germany led the centralising effort;  but she also led the fragmentation-initiative, setting up, in 1949, through her Interior Ministry, an organisation called the "Federal Union of European Nationalities" (FUEN) [Foederalistische Union Europaeischer Volksgruppen, FUEV]  The excuse given for this was, plausibly enough, a need to redress the "democratic deficit" of the Brussels-centred "community"; but, far from strengthening democracy in the subject states, the fragmentation of those states - through the "devolution" of national powers to Brussels-supported, regional separatists - also fragmented electorates, reducing their ability to influence the central, legislative machine (the "European Commission") or even to hold their own, Brussels-oriented leaders to account.

In fact, the point of regionalisation has always been to put meaningful democracy even further out of reach than Brussels-Central alone can succeed in putting it.  Ethnic regionalisation is the most flagrant of the methods supra-nationalists employ for "perforating sovereignty" (as opposed to transferring sovereignty entire to a fake-democratic process, like that of EU-Central) but other methods, such as the delegation of sovereignty to Brussels-controlled "Quasi-Autonomous National Government Organisations" (QuANGO's) and to the self-styled "independent", "Non-Government Organisations" (NGO's) are kinds of "perforation" vigorously, and cunningly, in use.  In this way, democratically-elected representatives gradually find themselves divested of responsibility for large areas of their territory and of their legitimate sphere of control, in general, and those seeking accountability are blocked by the "independence" (that is, the bureaucratic immunity) of institutions, which were once subject to identifiable, elected officials.

In the "Jubilee-Brochure - 60 Years of FUEN" ("Published with the support of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Germany, October 2009") we are told that, at FUEN's first conference, on 20th November 1949, "more than 200 delegates took part:  most were French regionalists, who wanted to oppose the concentration of power in the capital [of France, that is!  Is it not curious that such free spirits, such democrats as these are supposed to be, display no concern whatever about the concentration of power going on in the capital of the EU, where there is not, and never can be, any effective, democratic representation, at all? - Ed]"

"The same thing went," the "Brochure" goes on, "for the participants from Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands [but note that no German "regionalists" have ever agitated for the devolution of powers from the government of the Bundesrepublik]"

"They were there," it continues, "to represent regions, not ethnic groups or language-minorities; [but!] Martray [Joseph Martray, the Conference-Chairman and a Breton] recognised the problem [!] and skilfully steered the delegates of the ethnic groups into seeing that they needed to establish their own [ethnicist!] organisation, our Federal Union of European Nationalities, FUEN." [my italics - Ed]

"Hidden behind these words," the "Jubilee-Brochure" proceeds, "is another piece of history, one that could not be more exemplary:  why was it a Breton, who championed the establishment of a minority-organisation at European level?"

The answer to this is even more obscure than the question!  It reads:  "the history of the minorities and the establishment of FUEN are history in focus - a government shows its true face in how it treats its minorities," and "the history of FUEN has always been closely intertwined with the history of Europe".

By "Europe", of course, the author means the central administration in Brussels.  In "how it [a national government] treats its minorities", we do, nevertheless, perceive the legalistic means - to be promulgated by the Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU-Commission - for the dismantling of national, legal systems through the insertion of "minority-rights".  What is meant by "history", above, is never satisfactorily explained.

"The Brochure" is silent about the next forty years of FUEN-conferences, subsidies, alliances and ethno-regional subversion, in general, and leaps straight to 1989/90 and the introduction, via German agents at the CoE, of the "European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages" and the "Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities", together with a scrutiny-committee (chaired by the German-government appointee, Prof. Dr. Rainer Hoffmann) at the CoE, having the judicial authority, through the "European Court of Human Rights" (ECHR) to enforce the terms of the Charter and of the Framework- Convention.

Among the minor irritations arising from these enactments, are the profusion of unreadably long, bilingual road-signs, in regions of minority-activism, and the duty of local authorities to set up camp-sites for "travellers".  More sinister is the power, centralised in Strasbourg (ECHR) and Brussels (EU-Commission) to shape such minorities into separatist and EU-Federalist forces.

After 1990, regional subversion from Russian sources ceased, although, even today, Russian news-agencies seem to delight in recording separatist unrest in Italy, Spain and the UK.  Perhaps they simply fail to grasp that "independence", in this context, means exactly the opposite of freedom and democracy: it means greater dependence, less discretion and ultimately complete direction by the centralised mega-state. How can it be in the interests of the CIS to encourage the EU's mastication, so to speak, of its subject states, and its ingestion of them, in the form of compliant, regional statelets?  The end of such a process is surely the mighty, monolithic, anti-Russian bloc of German, and American, dreams, and every true democrat's nightmares!

The USA still provides some muscle, where necessary, in Ireland, to keep the process of all-Ireland separatism inching forward; but regional subversion is otherwise now under the exclusive control of Germany, working through FUEN and "European" institutions, whence huge amounts of funding are available from EU-taxpayers.

Much of this money is channelled to the Political Group called "Greens-European Free Alliance" (Greens-EFA) in the "European Parliament".  Like regionalist parties, Green parties have long been Communist at heart, and the union of the two breeds in the Greens-EFA was indeed a seamless-transition. It was set up in Barcelona, in 2004, to embrace thirty, regional, political parties, which conveniently propped up the Greens, then wilting, as they were, owing to the theft of their policies by larger parties.  It also made sense that an essentially German policy should be pursued through an essentially German party, the German Greens being far and away the most powerful Green party in the EU.

However, the EFA was led, from the first, by a representative of the SNP, one Ian Hudghton, thus focussing its efforts on the principal prize in view, the separation, within the EU, of Scotland, from the UK.

This is where we find ourselves, on the eve of the so-called "independence"-referendum, in Scotland.