The most covert political project in modern times: the plan to unite Europe under a single ‘supranational’ government has been challenged by the British Referendum. The referendum debate illustrated politicians failed to inform voters of the known history of the EU, but also illustrated the level of ignorance over that history. This book IN TWO VOLUMES, based on original research carried out in Greece in the early 90s seeks to reveal a deeper hitherto totally unknown history: which identifies the role of the secret groups and one controlling and concealed group in particular, which has manipulated religion and politics and created wars and revolutions over the centuries. The strategy of deliberate deception and ‘gearing’ enabled the gradual assembling of a European government as a slow motion revolution and coup d’etat: a government which holds ultimate hidden religious and political goals. The blueprint for European Union is variously given as first being conceived by a British civil servant in the 1920s; whilst others claim the EU is part of the ongoing covert strategy of seeking to establish ‘Europe from the Atlantic to Vladivostock’ – Soviet hegemony stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific; together with a continuing and parallel Pan-German strategy unchanged from the days of Hitler and earlier – ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.’ Drawing on a wealth of new evidence, archaeological research and the decoding of the Minoan and Celtic archetypes and bardic poetry, the author Renee Henry demonstrates a much deeper history which traces a hitherto concealed group back to the beginning, through a complex and convoluted trail. The author demonstrates that whilst it is believed the political model for Europe is based on a format sketched out in the Nazi compendium, published in Berlin in 1942, entitled Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, the actual model was conceived in Minoan Crete c.1300-1600BC. The ideology, history and strategies of the controlling group are based in apocalyptic psychology, retained within their Ancient Mysteries – ‘the eternal doctrine’ – where they view themselves as “Guardians.” The author as a scientist explains the origin of their Mysteries and psychology and the various misunderstandings the group holds, through cutting edge science of pixelated 3-dimensional space and holograms. The book chillingly warns man he is sleep-walking in a deadly cyclical game that continually repeats – the science of which indicate that the United States of America was meant to procure the final goal, which the author compares with goals of ‘The United States of the West’ – European Union or as it is known now a Supranational single state.
In the beginning; The British Millennium icon and Olympic Games; The Akashic Record; The Man-Gods of Bronze Age Greece; From God-Men to Bankers; The Secret Origins of European Union; False Prophets; Utopian Socialism and the Tortoise; The Rise of Bolshevism; The United States of Europe; The Nazi Party and a United States of the West; Imbecils and Incompetence or Co-ordinated Goal; A Universal Religion and Church – Rebuilding Atlantis; The Nazi Blueprint for a United Europe; The Right Wing Agenda. 430 pages, 55 figures, 7 Plates in colour.
This letter was sent to the Attorney General by Renee Henry on the 2nd January 2019
Attorney General’s Office
5-8 The Sanctuary
Dear Sir I wrote to the Rt. Hon. Baroness Hale [9.10. 2018 –letter attached to this letter], as she had positioned herself as “…an outspoken critic of perceived sexual bias within the legal system.” I received no reply – another hypocritical avenue then: never mind I usually place these letters and responses [or lack of them] in the Appendixes to my books.
……I overheard recently Harriet Harman’s point on ‘Women’s’ Hour’ [radio 4] that one could approach the Attorney General on points of law.
As I understand it, the Attorney General has “responsibilities” which include the “Government Legal Department.” In addition other responsibilities include acting as principle legal adviser on questions of EU and international law, “to include Human Rights.” My enclosures covering cases of British and EU law are then relevant. I also understand that “Government Legal Department” “includes the Ministry of Justice” thus again my cases and experience are relevant.
My family’s Human Rights were violated over a quarter of a century, entirely due to the genre and content of my research and book publications. The ACADEMIC research was far reaching, but included ….in main part Freemasonry and the history of Secret Groups. 99% of the violations were incurred in British Courts of Law. Past cases ……are enclosed in the laminated folder which became a case versus The United Kingdom in the European Court.
With regard to the loose papers of the most recent case , the case was illegally ‘dead-ended’ following the letter to the Complaints Correspondence Team [dated 08.02.2013]. The case now exceeds ‘Reasonable Time’ [Article 6] thus accumulating yet another violation in addition to the cases covered in the laminated folder totalling 100 pages and covering a quarter of a century………………………………………………………………………..
No doubt the case was ‘dead-ended’ after I mentioned my papers were stolen, in a break-in at the Bar Council [!] in a prior case, which involved the Master of Sussex Freemasonry and a barrister [……]. It is well known after the expose of Martin Short into Freemasonry [‘Inside the Brotherhood’] that the Law Society in the UK is one of the most Masonic institutions in the world, although repeated in other countries [The Secret History of European Union Vol. 1 p.206]. Many judges and barristers and police are members in this country.
THE POINT OF LAW HERE IS HOW A JUDGE OR MEMBER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION CAN REMAIN UN-BIAS [ARTICLE 6], WHEN FACED WITH A LITIGANT WHO IS PERCEIVED AS CRITICAL OF FREEMASONRY AND THE SECRET GROUPS. THIS IS A “STATE ABOVE A STATE,” COVERED IN MY BOOKS. THIS QUESTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS IN THE PAST BEEN RAISED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HANSARD DEBATES [30th March 2001, pt 16, 17; Charles Wardell].
“…This is a short Bill with a clear and narrow objective. It simply requires that anyone elected to a local authority, the House of Commons or the National Assembly for Wales who is a member of a secret society–for example, and perhaps most obviously, the freemasons–shall register his membership with that public body…” [Secret Societies (Registration of Membership) Bill]
“…To set an example to other public officials, members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life have established their own code of practice, requiring them to register
“any private interest which might influence their judgement or which”—
this is the crucial part—
“could be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to do so…”
“…I have no idea whether the ombudsman is a freemason. I do not in any sense cast aspersions at the ombudsman, but, if my hon. Friend, as a freemason himself, does not understand what the Select Committee on Home Affairs said some years ago–that the secrecy is worrying to members of the public–and that that fear of secrecy, that apprehension, prompts many people not to ask questions and not to make a complaint because they do not know who will react and how they will react,…”
“…another situation that throws up the sort of conflict of interest…”
“..”In circumstances where a conflict of interest might arise or be perceived to exist, or when freemasonry becomes an issue, a freemason must declare an interest…”
“…it came as no surprise to me that I heard not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury but from the Sussex grand master, although I may have the appellation wrong. He is a very important person at the head of the organisation in Sussex. I do not know him, but he dropped me a line saying that if I knew of any cases of wrongdoing–that is not my purpose here today–would I let him know so that he could take action? If the grand master of the society in Sussex does not know about his own membership, or flock, what price self-regulation?..”
“…My hon. Friend says that there is nowhere to seek redress. Part of the Bill deals with local government. He knows that there is a local government ombudsman. Would it interest him to know that, over the past five years, the ombudsman has investigated some 76,951 complaints, that of those just 24 alleged some improper masonic influence, and that of those he upheld just two? Therefore, over the past five years, the ombudsman has out of 77,000-odd complaints upheld just two–that is 0.001 per cent.–as having anything improper to do with freemasons…”
….It will be noted from cases in the laminate folder that one Judge was found to be a Master of Sussex Freemasonry [unknown to me in court]. He was openly bias, recorded on tape and by barrister in court, for the other side. That tape was conveniently destroyed. A complaint on the case forwarded to the Bar Council, was stolen in a break in! Since Freemasons do not publish any form of conflicting interest, then how many of the judges who in other cases [laminate folder] were openly bias, through this conflicting interest is not known – but they were consciously bias and in violation of Article 6, by their comments and actions. Further after the taped case as litigant in person, there were conveniently no more tape recordings in other cases, which means that litigant in person is left not only without Counsel and solicitor, but with no record of events, so that judge and Counsel [for the opposing side] can deny it ever happened, or was said, in order to protect themselves or the client. This happened in the only case [laminate folder] I tried to bring to Appeal on a point of bias. The British legal system is a disgrace…… The “ME TOO” movement should have made the legal profession realise that women will no longer be placed as victims and that includes by male judges, with a conflict of interest or not and simply sexism.
I compiled a case against the UK government, which I forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights. The laminate folder covering the case contains 100 pages of Human Rights violations over a quarter of a century, relating to my research and books. I have enclosed in the frontage to that folder a letter to the Council of Europe after astoundingly, [but predictably given my books], the ‘Mickey Mouse’ court rejected it on grounds of inadmissibility. The rejection failed to comply with European Law on “Admissibility” [pages 86-95 laminate folder]. Not only could the Italian judge not speak, or read English requiring an interpreter, but could not even record dates correctly or brush up on the Law with regards to “Admissibility.” Given my research into the Secret History of European Union then all of this may have been expected. Conveniently as with other cases it was effectively ‘dead-ended.’
The EU can punish dissent [The Secret History of European Union vol. 1, p. 76-81]. The underlying attitude and policy, was exemplified in 1999, when the EU sought to bring in a Law of “blasphemy” in order to punish dissidents, or those who sought to criticise the EU. The case of Mr Connelly who published a critical book on the EU was a case in point [The Secret History of the European Union, Vol. 1, p. 81, 206; also Vol. 2 p. 107-109, 140-142].
The POINT IN LAW:
A PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF ENGLISH LAW IS NAMELY “THAT A GOVERNING BODY CANNOT RESTRICT CRITICISM IN ORDER TO PROTECT REPUTATION.”
In the last case [laminate folder] I tried to lodge an Appeal, but found the Appeal judge very obstructive and negative, with the intent of forcing me to ‘dead-end’ the Appeal against bias – Article 6. A barrister told me that “they don’t like to grant Article 6 violations, as they have to report them.” This illustrates how the legal profession, is trying to restrict criticism [in this case violations of Article 6 and conflict of interest] in order to protect its reputation and the UK government and the Attorney General are complicit if this is not addressed ….Freemasonry attempts also to restrict criticism, by actions taken in and out of courts. The two points of law I have raised are linked.
The real point here is that if it is not addressed we become no better than China or Russia; we become hypocrites if we condemn them over Human Rights violations and yet conduct ours in covert ways in order to hide them from public view. : “Citizens may not infringe upon the interest of the State, of Society or of the Collective” [Human Rights in China, Information Office of the State Council, Nov. 1991, Beijing]. Further we dismiss our ancient heritage of Magna Carta. China currently, along with Russia ‘disappears’ or assassinates dissenting criticism be that in the form of researchers, authors or journalists, the latter as investigative journalists becoming ever more under threat of being assassinated for their courageous work, on which civilisation depends.
(c) Renee Henry 2019