I have heard many arguments about the EU over the past few years. What I have learnt is that there is a new movement in the world. It is a movement that has become more powerful than communism or Islam. Once I describe it I am sure you will recognise it.
The new movement is based on the idea that the whole world should have no borders for people, trade, money or culture. That the world is one people. "No borders" is another term for "world government".
If you want to remain in the EU ask yourself this question: do you believe that the countries of the EU should have no borders for people, trade, money or culture? The answer amongst those who want to remain is always "Yes" and, in the long run, those who wish to remain believe that this idea would be good if applied to the whole world. Strangely, few of those who have this idea know its origins.
The roots of the new movement can be traced to the settlement imposed after the Second World War. The victorious Allies in the West (the "Allies") set up an array of new bodies to promote recovery and good government in the hope of preventing another war. Within five years of the war the Allies had created the UN, the World Bank, GATT, the Common Market in Europe, NATO and the IMF. These organisations were all deliberately created to manage the vast, new, conquered territories, allowing them to be freed with a large measure of self government. The Allies had, mostly successfully, trodden a very fine line between conquest and gentle control.
When people say that the world will inevitably become a single culture they are describing the apparatus of international governance put in place by the victorious Allies. There is nothing "inevitable" about it: you get conquered then you get governed. The fact that the Allies were remarkably sophisticated after WWII does not change the end result.
We now find ourselves, 70 years later,
with the Allied World appearing as if it is entirely natural. GATT later
became the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and this presides over
"globalization" but high intensity global trading was the Allied plan. The Common Market looks like it occurred naturally and became the EU as a
result of European heroes but that was also the Allied plan and was actually a condition of the Martial Plan. A sure sign that you do not know your history is if you believe all of this was "inevitable" (See: How the Allies created the EU).
Of course, it can be argued, from an Allied perspective, that the world is much better off living an Allied lifestyle. Given that the British became bankrupt after WWII this Allied lifestyle was the materialist lifestyle of the United States, with little British input, but many British people prefer the American way of life.
Although the post-WWII Allied Plans have been moving the world towards global government this happened later as the UN, WTO, EEC etc. gained momentum. I do not believe that the original Allied planners wanted global government. They wanted peace and imagined this would be achieved by cooperation between nations. In fact many of those who created the post-WWII settlement were utterly against the Soviet Union which appeared to be agitating for global government. Indeed, whilst the Soviet Union existed it was obvious that there were problems with the idea of global government and the Allies resisted it firmly.
How would global government work?
"No borders" is an idea that young people often like because they think: "wouldn't it be nice if we could all be friends and work together".
The childish "lets all be friends" idea seems OK until we think what the world would be like if everyone had to be friends. Some people might want to be alone, some might want to lead lives that differ so much from the norm that they cannot be accommodated alongside other people in a given area of land. What then? Make them be friends? Destroy their organisation and ringleaders and make them be friends? It very quickly becomes obvious that "lets all be friends" is just the slogan of all empires: do it our way and we can all be friends!
There are two paths we can take. The first is to gang up as friends and remove our enemies, creating an empire of like thinking people who pose no threat. The other is to respect other people and agree to live alongside them in peace. Certainly we might remonstrate with those we respect and even, in absolutely extreme conditions, intervene, but our commitment would be towards mutual respect and peace. We can even have extremely close relations such as the EEC (the Trade Treaty before the EU) and preserve mutual respect. However demanding union shows that we have taken the first path and wish to impose our views on countries rather than respecting their independence.
The European Union is about placing Union above mutual Respect.
Suppose, eventually, all those who don't share our view of life are defeated. Imagine the day when Islamic Extremists, National Socialist Chinese and grumpy, bent, independent Russians have all been conquered.
What will our empire be like? It is an American Empire so it will use money and corporate control of the media to ensure that governments are highly profitable for wealthy corporations.
Our empire will be far less diverse than the modern world. It will have no Islamic or other extremists, National Socialism will have been removed. Hindus will be educated to implement an expanded list of Human Rights that includes things like clean water and minimal health legislation. The first decade or two of our empire might seem like a materialist's paradise.
But surely our empire will be internally diverse, with people flowing from all parts of the earth? The Soviet Union was horribly uniform, the USA, a giant landmass, had but a tenth of the cultural diversity of the European continent and even as the EU becomes more united the USA is still a monotony in comparison. Within a century our empire will have created a monotonous world, drab and boring. Even the people will start to lose their colour. The idea that a café in 2200 AD would have a clientèle composed of people in Arab, Chinese and Ugandan clothing, speaking different languages and acting as individuals is absurd. The cafe of 2200AD will have coffee coloured people wearing identical fashions with identical educations and outlooks and all speaking a version of English.
Slowly parts of the world and groups of people will feel ignored or disadvantaged. Western countries are busy installing surveillance and control technologies so that any rebellion can be quelled rapidly. Our technologies will be used across our global empire. There will be no help for rebellion from outside.
One day, within a century or so, the empire will be captured by a corrupt group and elections will be suspended in reaction to protests against the government (terrorism). There will then be centuries or even a millennium of slow decay until the global empire falls to pieces in a mire of corruption and evil.
Global government is a terrible idea. Human diversity is essential and is the essence of what humanity means on this planet. It can only be preserved by preserving Nations and by the whole world struggling to tolerate and respect each other. Global government is a childish fantasy, we all want peace but not peace at the price of abolishing the very differences that make the world sparkle.
If you decide to vote "Remain" in the referendum there are two crucial facts to bear in mind. The first is that, as described above, the idea of global government is evil, just look at the films, those who want global government are always the psychopaths. The second is that some of us care about our country and want future generations to live in an independent Britain, the great mystery is why a mainly middle class, urban group of "Remainers" could desire to take away this independence with scarcely a thought.
What is the "terrifying" alternative to the EU?
We simply carry on as now but with no EU directives and regulations. We get a trade deal with the EU. It is not the 1970s, the entire cost of EU tariffs would only be £5bn pa even if there were no deal. We treat the EU with friendship and cooperation. We will continue to forge our nation from the varied peoples that now compose it. We will escape just before the EU enters full political union and perhaps, with luck, will cause the EU to return towards an EEC style of relationship rather than full union.
Be careful what you wish for. The ever expanding EU is the cutting edge of the Western Empire and, with TTIP about to be concluded, may eventually succeed in the psychopathic dream of ruling the world.
Whatever Cameron and the Remain camp say, the EU is currently on a course towards full union. The Eurozone is even entering an official "Stage 2" of political union next year, leaving the UK on its own. Just consider the views of the major players:
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor said:
"we need a political union first and foremost" (BBC News).
Francois Hollande, the French president said:
"Political union is the step that follows fiscal union, banking union, and social union. It will provide a democratic framework for successful integration." (Le Monde)
President Sergio Mattarella of Italy's inaugural speech Feb 2015:
"The EU is now once again a perspective of hope and true political union to be relaunched without delay."
Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spanish prime minister:
"We need to fix these objectives - fiscal union, banking union, political union...And we must set a time scale. We are giving a message that we really want greater European integration. We can't say something is this first, then something else, without saying where we're going," Rajoy said at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. (Reuters report).
What the European Commission says:
José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission said:
"This is why the Economic and Monetary Union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it."...
.."A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve." (State of the Union 2012 Address to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012).
The EU's Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union (and political union) states that:
"This Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU describes the necessary
elements and the steps towards a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union."
What the European Central Bank says:
1999 paper by the European Central Bank: Europe: Common Money - Political Union? In this paper it says that:
"The monetary order established by the Maastricht Treaty with the detailed statute of the European System of Central Banks by itself represents an important building block for the development of a European statehood."
The importance of the connection between monetary union and the establishment of a single state was well understood at the new European Central Bank in 1999:
"So what does the future hold? Anyone who believes in the role of a single currency as a pace-setter in achieving political unity (Europe will be created by means of a single currency or not at all (Jacques Rueff 1950)) will regard the decisive step as has having already been taken. This does not provide an answer as to how the "rest" of the journey should be approached. "
How does the European Central Bank see the current Euro crisis evolving? Here is an extract from an ECB approved presentation on the subject, Short Term Crisis Management and Long Term Vision, describing the 4 steps to a solution:
10/4/16
The new movement is based on the idea that the whole world should have no borders for people, trade, money or culture. That the world is one people. "No borders" is another term for "world government".
If you want to remain in the EU ask yourself this question: do you believe that the countries of the EU should have no borders for people, trade, money or culture? The answer amongst those who want to remain is always "Yes" and, in the long run, those who wish to remain believe that this idea would be good if applied to the whole world. Strangely, few of those who have this idea know its origins.
The roots of the new movement can be traced to the settlement imposed after the Second World War. The victorious Allies in the West (the "Allies") set up an array of new bodies to promote recovery and good government in the hope of preventing another war. Within five years of the war the Allies had created the UN, the World Bank, GATT, the Common Market in Europe, NATO and the IMF. These organisations were all deliberately created to manage the vast, new, conquered territories, allowing them to be freed with a large measure of self government. The Allies had, mostly successfully, trodden a very fine line between conquest and gentle control.
 |
| The Allies created the UN |
When people say that the world will inevitably become a single culture they are describing the apparatus of international governance put in place by the victorious Allies. There is nothing "inevitable" about it: you get conquered then you get governed. The fact that the Allies were remarkably sophisticated after WWII does not change the end result.
 |
| Notice the global motifs. |
Of course, it can be argued, from an Allied perspective, that the world is much better off living an Allied lifestyle. Given that the British became bankrupt after WWII this Allied lifestyle was the materialist lifestyle of the United States, with little British input, but many British people prefer the American way of life.
Although the post-WWII Allied Plans have been moving the world towards global government this happened later as the UN, WTO, EEC etc. gained momentum. I do not believe that the original Allied planners wanted global government. They wanted peace and imagined this would be achieved by cooperation between nations. In fact many of those who created the post-WWII settlement were utterly against the Soviet Union which appeared to be agitating for global government. Indeed, whilst the Soviet Union existed it was obvious that there were problems with the idea of global government and the Allies resisted it firmly.
How would global government work?
"No borders" is an idea that young people often like because they think: "wouldn't it be nice if we could all be friends and work together".
The childish "lets all be friends" idea seems OK until we think what the world would be like if everyone had to be friends. Some people might want to be alone, some might want to lead lives that differ so much from the norm that they cannot be accommodated alongside other people in a given area of land. What then? Make them be friends? Destroy their organisation and ringleaders and make them be friends? It very quickly becomes obvious that "lets all be friends" is just the slogan of all empires: do it our way and we can all be friends!
There are two paths we can take. The first is to gang up as friends and remove our enemies, creating an empire of like thinking people who pose no threat. The other is to respect other people and agree to live alongside them in peace. Certainly we might remonstrate with those we respect and even, in absolutely extreme conditions, intervene, but our commitment would be towards mutual respect and peace. We can even have extremely close relations such as the EEC (the Trade Treaty before the EU) and preserve mutual respect. However demanding union shows that we have taken the first path and wish to impose our views on countries rather than respecting their independence.
The European Union is about placing Union above mutual Respect.
Suppose, eventually, all those who don't share our view of life are defeated. Imagine the day when Islamic Extremists, National Socialist Chinese and grumpy, bent, independent Russians have all been conquered.
What will our empire be like? It is an American Empire so it will use money and corporate control of the media to ensure that governments are highly profitable for wealthy corporations.
Our empire will be far less diverse than the modern world. It will have no Islamic or other extremists, National Socialism will have been removed. Hindus will be educated to implement an expanded list of Human Rights that includes things like clean water and minimal health legislation. The first decade or two of our empire might seem like a materialist's paradise.
But surely our empire will be internally diverse, with people flowing from all parts of the earth? The Soviet Union was horribly uniform, the USA, a giant landmass, had but a tenth of the cultural diversity of the European continent and even as the EU becomes more united the USA is still a monotony in comparison. Within a century our empire will have created a monotonous world, drab and boring. Even the people will start to lose their colour. The idea that a café in 2200 AD would have a clientèle composed of people in Arab, Chinese and Ugandan clothing, speaking different languages and acting as individuals is absurd. The cafe of 2200AD will have coffee coloured people wearing identical fashions with identical educations and outlooks and all speaking a version of English.
Slowly parts of the world and groups of people will feel ignored or disadvantaged. Western countries are busy installing surveillance and control technologies so that any rebellion can be quelled rapidly. Our technologies will be used across our global empire. There will be no help for rebellion from outside.
One day, within a century or so, the empire will be captured by a corrupt group and elections will be suspended in reaction to protests against the government (terrorism). There will then be centuries or even a millennium of slow decay until the global empire falls to pieces in a mire of corruption and evil.
Global government is a terrible idea. Human diversity is essential and is the essence of what humanity means on this planet. It can only be preserved by preserving Nations and by the whole world struggling to tolerate and respect each other. Global government is a childish fantasy, we all want peace but not peace at the price of abolishing the very differences that make the world sparkle.
If you decide to vote "Remain" in the referendum there are two crucial facts to bear in mind. The first is that, as described above, the idea of global government is evil, just look at the films, those who want global government are always the psychopaths. The second is that some of us care about our country and want future generations to live in an independent Britain, the great mystery is why a mainly middle class, urban group of "Remainers" could desire to take away this independence with scarcely a thought.
What is the "terrifying" alternative to the EU?
We simply carry on as now but with no EU directives and regulations. We get a trade deal with the EU. It is not the 1970s, the entire cost of EU tariffs would only be £5bn pa even if there were no deal. We treat the EU with friendship and cooperation. We will continue to forge our nation from the varied peoples that now compose it. We will escape just before the EU enters full political union and perhaps, with luck, will cause the EU to return towards an EEC style of relationship rather than full union.
Be careful what you wish for. The ever expanding EU is the cutting edge of the Western Empire and, with TTIP about to be concluded, may eventually succeed in the psychopathic dream of ruling the world.
Whatever Cameron and the Remain camp say, the EU is currently on a course towards full union. The Eurozone is even entering an official "Stage 2" of political union next year, leaving the UK on its own. Just consider the views of the major players:
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor said:
"we need a political union first and foremost" (BBC News).
Francois Hollande, the French president said:
"Political union is the step that follows fiscal union, banking union, and social union. It will provide a democratic framework for successful integration." (Le Monde)
President Sergio Mattarella of Italy's inaugural speech Feb 2015:
"The EU is now once again a perspective of hope and true political union to be relaunched without delay."
Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spanish prime minister:
"We need to fix these objectives - fiscal union, banking union, political union...And we must set a time scale. We are giving a message that we really want greater European integration. We can't say something is this first, then something else, without saying where we're going," Rajoy said at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. (Reuters report).
What the European Commission says:
José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission said:
"This is why the Economic and Monetary Union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it."...
.."A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve." (State of the Union 2012 Address to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012).
The EU's Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union (and political union) states that:
"This Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU describes the necessary
elements and the steps towards a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union."
What the European Central Bank says:
1999 paper by the European Central Bank: Europe: Common Money - Political Union? In this paper it says that:
"The monetary order established by the Maastricht Treaty with the detailed statute of the European System of Central Banks by itself represents an important building block for the development of a European statehood."
The importance of the connection between monetary union and the establishment of a single state was well understood at the new European Central Bank in 1999:
"So what does the future hold? Anyone who believes in the role of a single currency as a pace-setter in achieving political unity (Europe will be created by means of a single currency or not at all (Jacques Rueff 1950)) will regard the decisive step as has having already been taken. This does not provide an answer as to how the "rest" of the journey should be approached. "
How does the European Central Bank see the current Euro crisis evolving? Here is an extract from an ECB approved presentation on the subject, Short Term Crisis Management and Long Term Vision, describing the 4 steps to a solution:
The first is a financial union, with a single framework for supervising and resolving banks and for insuring customer deposits. This would build on the single supervisory mechanism now under development and ideally lead to a European version of the FDIC, financed by contributions from the private sector.
The second building block is a fiscal union, with powers at the euro area level to prevent unsustainable fiscal policies and to limit national debt issuance. With these powers in place, a path towards common debt issuance would also be possible, but only at the end of the process.
The third building block is an economic union, which would help euro area members to remain fit and to adjust flexibly within monetary union. This could entail, for example, moving from soft coordination of structural reforms in Member States to an enforceable framework at the euro area level.
And the fourth building block is a political union, which aims at strengthening democratic participation. This final building block is equally important, as the other measures cannot be effective unless they are legitimate. This requires innovative thinking as regards the involvement of the European Parliament and national parliaments in decision-making on euro area issues.
10/4/16
Comments