Beyond a Failing European Super State

Julian Rose, Contributor
Waking Times

This subject should be of interest to everyone, regardless of where you live. We are all affected by the unraveling of this behemoth called the European Union, just as we are by its continued presence. It is, after all, a work of mammon; yet masterfully disguised as a pan European socio-economic entente-cordiale.

It has its roots in the historical imperative of empire building and came into being as a direct extension of Hitler’s Nazi inspired goal of establishing a ‘Third Reich’.

The leading voice of the EU’s first version, the European Union Treaty of 1957, was a German named Walter Hallstein. He became the founder president of the Commission of the European Economic Community and one of the founding fathers of the European Union. His suitability for filling this role was based upon his earlier work as a senior attorney of the Nazi/IG Farben partnership. The line of continuity is direct.

However, the blueprint that lead to the formation of the European Union was first tabled at a meeting of the highly secretive Bilderberg group in Rome some four years earlier. The Bilderberg group, which meets annually to this day, is composed of elite bankers, industrialists, political high-flyers and royalty. It is hardly surprising that the notion of a European Super State should find favor with this assembly.

We are looking at the key individuals behind what became a self selecting, autocratic top-down hierarchy. A hierarchy whose decision making process would be entirely self contained. It was never, by any remotest stretch of the imagination, a ‘people’s movement’. Nor did it aspire to any form of ‘democracy’; but developed rapidly into a centrally based technocracy. A pyramid, whose top-end bureaucracy consists of an unelected cabal serving the interest of big business, multinational corporations and political power mongers interested in the wider control of humanity as a whole.

It is a major plank in the long desired elite vision of a ‘New World Order’.

Overt Monopoly

Hallstein himself stated in his book ‘Europe in the Making’: “The Commission is entrusted with what virtually amounts to a monopoly in taking the initiative in all matters affecting the Community. There are few exceptions to this general rule, but these ought to be removed at the earliest opportunity.”

He adds “As I see it, the Commission should eventually be empowered to take all measures necessary for the implementation of the Treaty on its own authority, without having to rely on special and specific approval by the Council of Ministers.”

Thus it has been and continues to be. But due to a fundamental belief and expertise in the powers of deception, it has carried some four hundred million European citizens along with it under the aegis of uniting independent nations behind what it has claimed to be ‘an economically beneficial harmonization of rules and regulations’.

A process which has led the European Union to become the largest trading block in the world. With the Commission as leader of a ‘Supranational’ authority, overseeing the ‘acquis communautaire’ (the great acquired rule book) under which all member nation states are bound.

‘Supranational’: please remember that this means ‘above national’ the ‘highest authority’ – that which  supersedes national law.

What an incredible feat! Millions and millions across the continent of Europe have come to passively accept the covert – and often overt – imposition of a dictatorship under the illusion that it is a benign force for good.
But such deception cannot prevail forever. Signs of dissent have been growing for decades. In 2001 the Irish voted ‘no’ to being party to the Nice Treaty. The news rocked Europe, causing the Commission to put the Irish government under enormous pressure to do a re-run and to embark on a massive propaganda exercise warning that the Irish economy would collapse unless it voted in favor of the Treaty. It duly conformed.

Further tremblings have grown in intensity since that time, and then, in June 2016, the infamous ‘Brexit’ was launched into reality. It shook the nation and it shook the federation – and the shock waves have not ceased to reverberate. With similar rebellions simmering on a number of fronts throughout the Union, cracks are opening up that can no longer be papered-over.

There are good reasons to be suspicious of the sincerity of the British government in genuinely freeing Britain from the chains that have bound it to the Union for the past forty four years. However that is the subject for another article.

Do We Have a Vision of the Future We Want?

Whatever the political reality actually is – one thing in particular is alarming the powers that be – people are becoming aware. Slowly at first, but week by week the process is gathering pace.

As a result, a large question now presents itself to all citizens of Europe and beyond: what shape do we want our collective futures to take?

Do we actually have a vision of the future we want? And if not, why not?…


About the Author
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, international activist and author. Contact Julian at to find out more. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, and is the author of two books with some very powerful perspectives: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life.
This article first appeared on
This article (Beyond a Failing European Super State) was originally created and published by Julian Rose and is re-posted here with permission. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Google Maps Is Making Our Brains Dumb

Depending too much on GPS navigation apps isn’t great for our thinking skills

Photo Illustration: Diana Quach

Navigation apps like Google Maps and Waze might seem like they’re making it easier to get from one place to another, but based on new research, there’s a huge tradeoff: these apps may actually be making our brain lazy and dumb.

Neuroscientists and cognitive scientists from University College London recently published a study that shows how mental power from people who navigate from memory is much higher than those who follow turn-by-turn directions.

The scientists concluded this by tracking the brain activity of two dozen participants as they tried to virtually navigate the London neighborhood of Soho. In the first test, participants had to figure out their destination themselves, but in the second test they were prompted with app directions. The result was that those using their memory to get to a destination had higher brain activity than those depending on an app.

“That might well not be good for you,” Hugo Spiers, the study’s major author, told Popular Science. “It might be better to actually give your brain a bit more of a workout.”

People who were relying on memory to navigate were showing more activity in their hippocampus, which is the part of the brain associated with emotion, memory, and the autonomic nervous system. Spier said that activity would increase with the street’s complexity. However, brain activity would not increase with the GPS scenario — no matter how many intersections or turns the street had.

Spier believes parts of the hippocampus could atrophy if people continue to depend on GPS apps and don’t work out their brain. Neurological researchers in the past have also supported this theory. Some have also said that atrophy of the hippocampus can be tied to an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Previous studies have also shown that memorizing the blueprint of the city and navigating from memory increases activity in the hippocampus. In 2011, a group or researchers published a study that reveled how London taxi drivers experienced gains of gray matter (a collection of cells, which if higher in density, correlates to improved ability and skill) in the hippocampus and positive changed in the memory profile.


Intersex rights

Resultado de imagem para Intersex rights Photo by shaunl/Getty ImagesPhoto by shaunl/Getty Images

Children born with in-between sex development are subject to surgeries that many believe violate their human rights

Alice Dreger is an American historian of medicine and science writer whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal, among others. Her latest book is Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science (2015). She lives in Michigan.

People tend to assume that everyone is born simply male or female. But nature shows us otherwise. About one in 2,000 babies is born with genitals roughly halfway between male and female types. Their genitals might include what looks rather like a penis along with what appears to be a vaginal opening. More subtle forms of in-between sex development are much more common than that. In fact, with modern science, we find that as many as one in 100 of us might have some sex-development type other than the standard male or female, although some will never have occasion to find out.

Nevertheless, cultural attachment to the idea of a clear, simple division between (only) two sexes runs deep. Many physicians believe that there’s nothing we can do about that cultural anchor – You can’t change society, they say. So they think that, for the children’s sake, it’s sometimes necessary to do ‘corrective’ surgeries to make children who are born intersex look more typically female or male. Although statistics can be hard to pin down, it appears that in the United States today, at least one in 300 children is born with a difference of sex development (DSD) evident enough to the naked eye that a paediatrician might recommend an expert consultation.

Variations on typical sex development occur most commonly in boys, and most commonly in the form of hypospadias. Hypospadias is a condition in which the urinary opening is not on the very tip of the penis but lower down the head, or on the shaft of the penis, or, more rarely, at its base. Girls can be born with atypical sex development, too. For example, during foetal development, the clitoris might grow larger than average and can sometimes look like a small penis.

Quite simply, these sex variations occur because the typical male and the typical female represent two ends of a developmental continuum. The clitoris and the penis grow from the same proto-organ in development. In the same way, the labia majora and the scrotum grow from the same tissue. Most newborns have developed genitalia at one end of the developmental spectrum or the other. But not everyone.

And genitals are by no means the only component of sex biology that can vary. What we call simply ‘biological sex’ is in fact a many-factored trait involving various hormones, hormone receptors, external genitals, internal reproductive organs, and much more. Consequently, there are dozens of different ways for what we could call ‘intersex’ development to occur.

Some intersex types are not noticeable at birth. This happens, for example, when a baby is born appearing typically male or female, but has some internal organs of the other sex. Some people don’t find out that they have a relatively uncommon form of sex development until they hit puberty and don’t develop according to expectations. Some don’t find out until they are older, when they run into trouble trying to have children and, through medical diagnostics, find out that their sex is more complicated than they expected.

Detecting intersex at a late stage comes with an advantage: it gives the person a chance to be informed and make a choice about whether to change her or his own body. Babies born with genital anomalies usually have the choice made for them. In paediatric medicine, when a child has a visible intersex condition, since at least the 1960s, standard practice around the world has been to surgically change the child’s body to look and function in accord with cultural standards…




Prince Was Only a Father for One Week, but It Changed the Rest of His Life

Photograph by Kevin Mazur

by Tim Grierson

In her new memoir, The Most Beautiful: My Life With Prince, Prince’s ex-wife Mayte Garcia spends nine of her book’s 12 chapters recounting their seven years together. Their relationship began with a friendship when she was just 16 (he was in his early 30s at the time), and it culminated in marriage six years later. Not long afterward, they had a son, Amiir, who died within a week of his birth. By all accounts, it was the most heartbreaking moment of Prince’s life. And Garcia’s book illustrates how his grief — as well as his desire to be a father — was both extraordinarily painful and touchingly ordinary.

For starters, Prince had babies on the brain even on his and Garcia’s wedding day:

We got out of the car, and my husband carried me over the threshold on his shoulder like a sack of coffee beans. The house had been completely redone to make it our home. He took me by the hand and showed me every room. … Upstairs in an anteroom outside the master bedroom, there was a crib. My husband went in and cued up the other song he’d been working on: “Let’s Have a Baby.”

Not surprisingly then, Prince was ecstatic when Garcia told him she’d become pregnant on their honeymoon:

We huddled together in bed, living this perfect moment, knowing we were going to be parents, talking about all the things that needed to be learned and done and prepared. The whole house felt full of love and joy and expectation.

Prince even recorded Amiir’s heartbeat in the womb and used it for a song on his 1996 album Emancipation. But he did super-basic dad stuff, too — even reading What to Expect When You’re Expecting:

We planned to do a home birth in the big bathtub upstairs. We watched educational videos on natural childbirth and circumcision and nursing. How to bathe the baby. How to burp the baby. How to change the baby’s diaper.

We both read What to Expect When You’re Expecting, but there’s really no way you can know what to expect when you see that first ultrasound. We craned into it, fascinated at the murky image of our baby’s body, waiting to catch a glimpse of a hand or little toes. We took home a videotape and watched it over and over.

It was the same thing when Amiir was born:

I don’t know how to describe the look on my husband’s face. Pure joy. Pure love. Pure gratitude. I’d seen his face when he stood in front of a stadium filled with 48,000 screaming fans. I’d seen his face as he scored platinum albums and received the highest awards in his industry. I’d seen him experience the ecstasy of creative genius. None of that compared to the look I saw on his face in this moment, when he became a father.

Immediately, though, Prince and Garcia realized the baby was very ill. Amiir had Pfeiffer syndrome type 2, “a genetic disorder that causes skeletal and systemic abnormalities.” The situation was dire, requiring multiple surgeries to keep Amiir alive. His death a few days later created a fundamental change in Prince:

Imagine a skydiver leaps from an airplane. He has the best equipment and does everything right. At first, there’s euphoria. He sees so clearly — blue sky, green earth, beauty without limit, a higher perspective. He has absolute faith that he’ll land safely and be a better man than he was before. But it turns out his parachute is tangled. He struggles to fix it, but the chute tears away and disappears into the sky. Panic grabs him by the throat, but still — faith. He has faith. In free fall, he flails, trying to pray, but the force of gravity takes his breath away. He sees the hard ground coming at him, and he knows that if he survives this, he will never be the same.

At the end of The Most Beautiful, Garcia thinks back on her relationship with Prince, especially in light of his death. And she quotes from his song “Comeback,” a touching final word on the matter that references the child’s death and the Purple One’s sadness — and his hope that one day they’d be reunited:

Don’t have to say I miss you
Because I think you already know
If you ever lose someone
Dear to you
Never say the words “They’re gone”
They’ll come back