"It is clear that the enemy does not hesitate to tell the most outrageous lies, even when we possess irrefutable and persuasive numerical evidence. They clearly are not trying to impress us with their figures any longer. The sole goal is a more or less short-term impact on world opinion. They no longer have the courage to tell the whole truth, since they begin to realise that it could be a shock to domestic public opinion that could not be controlled."It's what the psychologists call 'Projection' - ascribing to an enemy or adversary our own worst fears of our own faults.
So When Donald Tusk - one of the EU's several unelected 'Presidents' - said in an interview;
"In this Parliament, it is possible to have two movements represented: one becoming more and more “brown shirt” nationalist and anti-European, the second wanting to push integrating with the EU as much as possible"What he really meant was;
"In this Parliament, it is possible to have two movements represented: one becoming more and more "brown shirt" in seeking to force Europe's nations and peoples to surrender their sovereignty to the EU, the second patriotic and determined to preserve their freedom"And when he said;
"This doesn’t apply to MPs just yet, but these forces are gaining strength right in front of our eyes. Forces that create conflict rather than cooperation and work for disintegration rather that integration"What he really meant was;
"This doesn't apply to MPs just yet, but these forces are gaining strength right in front of our eyes. Forces that resist national disintegration, ready to oppose losing sovereignty to the EU, working against their nations being integrated into the Federation"It's a clear warning, a warning that an authoritarian EU is preparing to deploy social and political controls to counter internal dissent.
Be afraid.
13 comments:
It's like when a lefty was complaining this morning that when you buy a t shirt that has been made by a poor woman or child under horrific conditions in a sweat shop in Karachi, but surmised that her support of EU control and corporatism in general was the answer, when in fact it is anathema. The more EU we get, the more corporatism we get, and the worse these people's conditions become...
...But not only that, the same conditions are becoming the norm for western folk living and working in London (for instance), they are enslaved, but they don't realise it as they pity that poor woman (or child) in Karachi.
By allowing organisations like the EU and the UN to do the opposite to that which they claim they are doing, remainers are ensuring that their conditions will become progressively worse, and they will become less and less free.
The more difficult we make it for them to take the piss, the better our own conditions become.
God forbid that they have to source workers locally, or pay to ensure that local people have the skillsets that they require to turn a profit...
That would never do.
Far easier to massively increase the labour pool and devalue their cost in the process.
Socialists.... Dontcha just love 'em?
I remember reading a post about a WW2 documentary :
“I am reminded of a World War Two documentary I saw some years ago, where a German woman was looking all around at the ruins of a German city after the allied bombing. She said, ‘If only you had surrendered in 1940, all of this need not have happened.’”
I think this is the view of the UK’s EU collaborators, not just believing that the UK should surrender its sovereignty and become a vassal state to prevent possible “chaos” as Mr. Jo Johnson describes it, but I am beginning to believe that all along our large budget payments to the EU, our massively unfair £80bn/year trade deficit with the EU, the giving away of our fishing grounds etc. was all reparations for not surrendering in 1940.
This would certainly be the view of the Germans, the Italians and half the French.
No--don't be afraid of the EU.
FIGHT THE FUCKERS.
Listening Ketch or are you working on excuses already?
The first step has already been put before the EU Parliament. The regulation of the internet known as Article 13.
It seeks to stop people using copyrighted material. So instead of the concept of "fair use", the EU would stop everyone from using clips of video to emphasise a point, or create a report. It would even stop the most innocent of pasttimes, the internet meme.
Stopping people from fair use means that no-one can show video material that is not theirs (for instance showing video of Nigel Farage in the EU Parliament) or showing someone else's video showing masses of migrants arriving at Italian ports.
In effect it would have an immense chilling effect on the disemination of information across the internet. Ostensibly using copyright as the vehicle of promotion, but having an authoritarian outcome.
Hmm, using corporatism to authoritarian ends.... sounds familiar.... now what was the word for that?
@Mark the Skint Sailor:
Indeed, the EU hates the USA so much that it want to break the internet and destroy opportunity for all of its citizens.
With a bit of luck and a fair wind though, they will be as successful at breaking it as they have been at breaking the GPS system, which they have been trying to destroy for nearly twenty years now.
As for breaking the internet, they have managed to destroy the email system with their moronic GDPR, so maybe hubris will ensure that sensible people across Europe will begin to notice what some of us have perceived as self evident since the 1990's.
Already posted elsewhwere:
We are *already* a vassal state, governed (for now) by those who prefer to be part of an EU Empire more to their taste.
Strange how 'right-on' Remainers demonise colonialism and revere independence movements yet can't see Brexit as a principled escape from an overbearing Empire.
@John Brown: NOT the Italians. The Italian fascists, possibly, but they are a very very small minority.
I'm with Mr Ecks
Fight the Bastards to the bitter end.
The writing is on the wall and they know, and they know, that we know it.
Like a cornered animal they will lash out at everything. Soon it will be time to pierce its black heart with the sword of freedom.
I read all of Tusk's speech with interest. Whilst it sounds very strange to British Brexiteers he actually endorses the EU as a bulwark of Poland's independence. Until 100 years ago, Poland was actually wiped from the political map. It did not exist as a national territory.
So it is ( just) possible to follow the idea that EU membership recognising Poland's existence is a sort of insurance policy against disappearing again. Tusk also saw EU membership as a guarantee of civil liberties and human rights.
I first heard something like this when Poland joined the EU. Nottinghamshire County Council arranged a visit by a delegation of Polish councillors to welcome them. Some friends and I turned up at this Europhile love fest - rather like the proverbial pork chop at a Barmitzvah.
We offered a warm welcome to the delegation and wished them and their country well. But why, we asked, had they accepted subjection to the EU, having so recently escaped the Soviet yoke.
The most impressive member of the delegation was a retired general who said it was a matter of national security. I touched a nerve with him when I mentioned Poland's borders. "'We did not fix our own borders"'he snapped . Of course the Soviets seized much of Eastern Poland and awarded the Poles a large slice of Germany - so it was easy to see the attraction of full stable acceptance into the Western community of free nations ( as it was sold to them)
The leader of the delegation did not speak English but made a flowery speech. I was next to the charming lady interpreter. We applauded politely at the end and, as the applause was dying away she whispered " Remember. He is politician"!
Tusk also saw EU membership as a guarantee of civil liberties and human rights.
Unsurprisingly when one considers his own family history- and that he isn't, according to many on the Polish right, actually Polish but Kashubian (spelling?) with a dash of German.
The more Brexitey among us also tend to forget that Tusk was (and perhaps still is at heart) a fan of, and a good friend to, Orban.
"...an authoritarian EU is preparing to deploy social and political controls to counter internal dissent."
And military controls. Did anyone listen properly to Merkel's speech to the EU Parliament today? After A) tearing into Eastern Europeans for their 'nationalism' (i.e. their unwillingness to threaten their social fabric by taking the hordes Merkel invited into Germany) and B) lambasting the Italians for daring to defy the ECB, she then went on to propose C) what commentators call 'a European army'. But is it? She never used the phrase. What she actually said was „Wir müssen eine europäische Eingreifstruppe schaffen mit dem Europa auch am Ort des Geschehens handeln kann.“
A European aggressive intervention force - not a defence force and not an army, but a 'Truppe' - a battalion, a militia, to intervene 'on the spot, where the [incident] is taking place'. The impression is certainly given here of a paramilitary 'Blitzkriegtruppe' or 'Sondereinheit' (maybe along the lines of the GSG 9).
Put A) and B) together with C) - and what impression is conjured up? Surely that of an EU force centrally directed (from Brussels? or Berlin?) by what she called a 'European Security Council with rotating membership so as to make decisions more quickly' - possibly tasked to enforce within the EU itself militarily political and economic decisions of the EU and ECB...
And yet the frenzied applause of MEPs seemed oblivious of this - at least possible - interpretation on her literal words.
What the EU army will be is French troops subduing Hungary, Irish troops in Italy and so on.
Not forgetting the already existing heavily armed European Gendarmerie. Google EUROGENDFOR
This exists to give what the Soviets used to call " fraternal assistance" to EU member states and what the EU calls " the export of stability" to other countries.
HANSARD 11 June 2012 written answers - in response to a question by Dominic Raab on whether the force would be deployed in the UK
James Brokenshire ( on behalf of Home Secretary Theresa May. The United Kingdom's response to any incident will be individually tailored to the nature and scale of that incident. Should we identify the need to seek support of our allies in managing a crisis situation, we would of course do so.
There you have it. Yes HMG would call on EU armed forces to act against British citizens in their own country.
Post a Comment