FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: SuperState vs. The People
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig W:
Quote:
Are you saying nothing can be done to stop it at all?


What do you suggest Craig, after UKIP already tried to stop this for the last 14 years? I didn't take any notice of UKIP. Did you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Julian wrote:
Craig W:
Quote:
Are you saying nothing can be done to stop it at all?


What do you suggest Craig, after UKIP already tried to stop this for the last 14 years? I didn't take any notice of UKIP. Did you?


No. But does that mean nothing can be done?

A counsel of despair often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:38 pm    Post subject: All to Play For Reply with quote

Quote:
abcar: But I have to ask, if the EU is doing what David Noakes is saying, then isn't this in conflict with the idea put out by Fintan and alot of you veteran posters that the bubble is being burst on the G8 and they are 'blinking' and their house of cards is going to fall? Also, the 'rantings' of Alex Jones about the coming prison planet are not much different than what Mr. Noakes is saying is it? In other words...is Noakes a fake as well? Is this another fear tactic on the community of real investigators such as yourselves at BFN?

After hearing Fintan on the Jim Fetzer show and his clear outlining of the CIA fakes etc, this is very ironic to hear Noakes' warnings taken seriously by Fintan and you all...am i missing something here?


Quote:
Julian: Noakes knows, as does Fintan Dunne, that the horse has already bolted. UKIP tried, and failed.


Abcar, if you missing anything it's the air of hysteria and portentuous
music that accompanies the Alex Jones treatment of these issues.

Fear doesn't enter into it. This is about awareness of the global plan. And
I don't agree that that the horse has bolted or that this is too little too late.

The elite gameplan has been rolled out at a legislative level. True.
Not much we can do to stop them passing laws. They don't listen or care.

However..... they need more than laws. They need some legitimacy.
But the French and Dutch voted down the EU Constitution.
Period.

Meanwhile, they are tinkering around to finesse the NAU.
But once again, stealthily, 'cos they know the people would say NO!

So the fat lady has not even come out on stage -let alone sung.

And it's ALL to play for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I understand, the Republic of Ireland has embraced the EU more than any other country. What's the feeling in Ireland/Eire right now about this matter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kathy



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Surfing The Waves

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Julian

Welcome to the forum Smile

Here in Ireland it started with EU grants for farmers, then EU grants for roads, then EU grants for scratching ones ass Very Happy Most thought it was great.

I remember being involved on a voluntary basis with a "drop in center" for women around the time the whole push for Maastricht Treaty began. It was not that people were stupid but the way the politicians were pushing it was that consumer goods would be cheaper. I remember one elderly lady stating that from what she understood from the media was that everything would be cheaper Mad

So Ireland was bought because coming from a history where there was dire poverty, not all that many years prior to the whole EU crap, people wanted better for themselves and their families. The results are: Massive roads, destruction of natural habitat. Farmers being paid to set aside land, allow it to go fallow, while, for instance, last year during a particularly unusual dry spell farmers had to ask permission to graze their cattle on the "fallow" land because there was not enough grazing grass for them in the fields they were allowed to graze in.

Do the people regret what they fell for? I don't know, I cannot speak for the majority. I have heard from a few farmers, who have small farms, and they curse the EU. The EU is for the big land owner or the brain dead in the cities, although even there people see they were duped.

The Republic of Ireland is a country with a population of 4,239,848, not everyone voted for joining the EU or for any of the treaties. Some who did vote for membership live to regret, others just continue to be willing participants.

http://www.iro.ie/EU-overview.html

http://www.iro.ie/funding/index.shtml

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnbyage2006.htm

I am no expert on any of this stuff but just thought I would give my 2cents worth Very Happy

Kathy

_________________
IMAGINE
Truth fears no questions
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the input from Ireland Kathy. And thanks for the welcome to the Forum Very Happy

Has there been any action on the scale of UKIP from the Irish people AGAINST the EU, given that they now realise they were sold a pup?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More groups apparently opposed to the EU (at least as it is constituted, if not out right) and yet from whom we never hear... Question

I know I am posting a lot but this information needs to be seen. Please take a look below at the "Propaganda" article from the Bruges Group. I have highlighted many important bits. The CIA even gets a brief mention deep down there. Shocked


What I don't understand as I look further into this issue is why, with a number of apparently heavyweight organisations and establishment types seemingly in opposition to the super-state of EUROPA, nothing seems to make it into the MSM or into the political arena.


How has this agenda been driven through so sucessfully with so many MPs, Lords, and other important types apparently opposed to it? Why do I not hear their voices or see their words in MSM? Are they all fake opponents?!

Any thoughts?

Another group: The Campaign for an Independent Britain

Quote:
What is CIB?

What are we for?
The Campaign for an Independent Britain seeks the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 under which EU directives take precedence over UK law. Once self-government has been recovered, the United Kingdom would be free, as an independent state, to co-operate and trade with its neighbours in Europe and with countries elsewhere in the world without the restrictions imposed by EU membership.

This does not make us anti-European, which is just a silly jibe of our opponents;on the contrary, CIB supports friendly relations with our European neighbours,
Who are we?
The campaign for an Independent Britain is cross-party, non-sectarian and non-racist. Although it has both Conservative and Labour MPs and Peers among its officers, most of its members are ordinary people from all over the country. The campaign was formed in 1976 as the Safeguard Britain Camapign. Its name was changed to British Anti-Common Market Campaign in 1983 and changed again in 1989 to Campaign for an Independent Britain, which exactly states our purpose.
What do we do?
We campaign to achieve our aims by all lawful means. So we explain the harm, political as well as economic, that EU membership has caused our country. Furthermore, we state the positive case for withdrawal, particularly in our book,There IS an alternative, which enumerates the many advantages to be obtained once we are outside of the EU. How do we do it?
We distribute leaflets, display car, window and envelope stickers and T-shirts, write letters to the press and MPs, hold meetings, collect signatures to petitions, participate in radio and TV discussions, interviews and phone-ins. In addition to publishing popular single subject leaflets, CIB provides arguments, facts and figures to its members by its quarterly publication,Independence. Periodic newsletters tell members of forthcoming meetings and other activities.
How are we run?
Officers are appointed by the national committee on which eleven places are filled by members elected by postal ballot. In addition, affiliated bodies have representation on the committee: these are Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign, Campaign against Euro Federalism, Conservatives against a Federal Europe, Anti-Common Market league and Cheaper Food League.
We work through our members. CIB is visible and effective in those places where active members campaign vigously. County contacts encourage and promote local campaigning and many of them have formed county branches. Several of the branches produce their own regular newsletter.


Quote:

Who is CIB?
National Officers
President Sir Richard Body
Vice Presidents Leolin Price QC, Sir Teddy Taylor, Nigel Spearing
Chairman Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Profile)
Vice Chairmen Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Colin Bullen, Stuart Notholt, George West
Hon. Secretary Sir Robin Williams Bt
Hon. Treasurer John Harrison
Press Officer Stuart Gulleford MIPR
Chairman of Area Planning Committee George West
Chairman of Campaigning Secretariat Colin Bullen
Join CIB and set Britain free



And from the Bruges Group

Quote:
The Bruges Group
The Bruges Group is an independent all-party think tank. Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations.

Set up in February 1989, its aim was to promote the idea of a less centralised European structure than that emerging in Brussels. Its inspiration was Margaret Thatcher's Bruges speech in September 1988, in which she remarked that,

"We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level".

The Bruges Group has had a major effect on public opinion, and forged links with Members of Parliament as well as with similarly minded groups in other countries.

Through its groundbreaking publications and wide-ranging discussions The Bruges Group has spearheaded the intellectual battle against the notion of ever closer union in Europe and will continue its fight against further integration and, above all, against British involvement in a single European state.
The Group also holds regular high-profile public meetings, seminars, debates and conferences. These enable influential speakers to contribute to the European debate.

A brief selection of those who have addressed our regular public meetings are:

Michael Howard MP, Iain Duncan Smith MP, Baroness Thatcher, Frank Field MP, Michael Portillo MP, John Redwood MP, Nigel Farage MEP, Lord Tebbit of Chingford, Lord Bell, Dr Cris Shore - author of Building Europe, Graeme Leach - Chief Economist at the IoD, Martin Howe QC - author of Europe and the Constitution after Maastrict, Bill Jamieson - Executive Editor of The Scotsman, Jens-Peter Bonde - Danish MEP and leader of the June Movement, Dr John Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.

Mission Statement
The Bruges Group aims to promote discussion on the European Union and to advance the education of the public on European affairs. The Bruges Group's research also explores alternative international relationships and policies. Equipping politicians, key opinion-formers and the media with the information needed for a complete restructuring of Britain’s relationship with other European countries.

What people say about the Group

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1990-93, says,

"The Group has become the most authoritative, thoughtful, and occasionally provocative of all the many different groups on European issues. Bruges Group publications are always characterised by clarity, and a willingness to think the unthinkable.

"I have been proud to be associated with the Bruges Group. I believe it has a vital influence on the European debate and I hope others will support it enthusiastically."

The Rt. Hon. John Redwood MP, states that,

"The Bruges Group has a vital role to play in setting out the case for a common market rather than a common government in Western Europe. The Bruges Group has built on the original Bruges speech of Margaret Thatcher and has set out many important points in the debate about the way Europe is careering towards a superstate and the way in which Britain needs a different and better relationship with our European partners."




http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=79

[quote]Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine
Martin Ball
Robert Oulds
Dr Lee Rotherham

Contents
Supporting the fight against EU Propaganda
About the Authors
Acknowledgements
Foreword by Theresa Villiers MEP
Introduction
Propaganda and the European Union?
What is propaganda?
The historical context
The European Union's propaganda budget
Funding for European political parties
An unending process?
Propaganda as free information for the public
Propaganda through Trojan Horse organisations
Propaganda in the class room
Propaganda in the lecture hall
Propaganda as a youth service
Propaganda through European symbols
Propaganda as a town twinning exercise
Propaganda as a freebie
Propaganda to win over the media
Propaganda as promotion of a European culture
Government Euro propaganda:
Her Majesty's Government breaks it's own guidelines
Conclusion
Appendix
Notes

Supporting the fight against EU Propaganda

"Only recently the European Commission has appointed the Czech PR Agency "Via Perfecta" to be in charge of the EU information and communication strategy in the Czech Republic (and funded it). However, this agency is led by a wife of one prominent and most pro-european politician in the CR. This implies possible misuse of the EU funds for self-promotion of certain politicians or political opinions that are familiar to the EU bureaucracy."
Jan Zahradil, MP - Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the ODS Party in the Czech Republic

"It is now clear that not only the European Commission but the British Council, under the direction of the Foreign Office, is funding a European Resource Centre, which is cover for an EU propaganda unit."
The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP - Convention on the Future of Europe

"In a referendum people should have the right to hear both sides of the argument in a balanced and fair manner. I took the Irish government to court because they not only restricted the voters access to balanced information, but they used the voter's own money to persuade them to vote in a particular way. In a referendum the people are being asked for their opinion. This process is made pointless if having asked for their opinion you then tell them there is only one answer they can give and you use their money to convince them that this is true."
Patricia McKenna, MEP - Green Party Member of the European Parliament representing Dublin

"European propaganda is organised according to a methodical plan. One of its principal victims in France is the University. The purpose of the Jean Monnet Chairs, to which Brussels devotes each year four million euros, is to teach European integration, imposing federalist contents on the lessons in all the fields of social sciences: history, law, political science, economy, etc..."
Control by the European Commission takes the form of a scientific committee carefully selected by the Commission, which validates the attribution of the "Jean Monnet" labels and grants subsidies only to the teachers who present sufficient political guarantees on the matter."
Georges Berthu, MEP - French MEP and Minister for Administrative Reform (1986-1987), Senior Administrator at the Ministry of Finance (1991-1994)

"There is no doubt a lot of money is being poured out from Europe through our Universities, through the media and many other channels to persuade the British people to accept a European identity that they instinctively reject. Most of the spending is a scandalous waste of money."
The Rt Hon. Lord Lamont of Lerwick - Chancellor of the Exchequer (1990-1993)

"It is absurd and abuse of taxpayers' money, yet each year more and more is spent by the European Commission in its bid to con the European public into thinking that a deeper federal Europe is the only way forward."
Chris Heaton-Harris, MEP - Conservative Spokesman on Budgetary Control in the European Parliament

"The European Commission office in Copenhagen works entirely for the Yes side and we even experienced in the 1980's that the Office sent insulting letters about the No side to editors and political opponents without informing us."
Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP - Danish "No" Campaigner

"A group of deputies from various parliamentary groups proposed in January a motion for an urgent EU referendum. However, it was voted down by the Chamber. This debate on the motion has so far been the fairest discussion of EU pros and cons. We are now collecting a half a million signatures for a motion to hold an EU referendum. Meanwhile the government started last month its 1 m Euro promotional campaign to convince Poles that the terms of EU membership, still under negotiation, are advantageous for Poland."
Jan Lopuszanski, MP - Member of the Sejm Committee for Foreign Affairs (Parliamentary Group of the League of Polish Families (LPR) and Chairman of the Polish Alliance (PP))

About the Authors
Martin Ball works as the public affairs officer of a national charity. He is the author of The Conservative Conference and Euro-sceptic Motions 1992-95, and co-authored Conservative MEPs and the European People's Party: Time for Divorce, both published by the Bruges Group.

He has a degree in Politics from the University of Nottingham and a Master's degree in Political Economy from the University of Sheffield. His articles, book reviews and letters appear regularly in a wide range of publications.

Robert Oulds is the Director of the Bruges Group. He has done much research and analysis in the field of Political Communications and Marketing and has researched the communication strategy of the europhile Britain in Europe organisation. He has a degree in Politics, from the University of Portsmouth, and a Master's degree in Communications Management, which he studied at London Guildhall University.

In May 2002 he became a Conservative Councillor in Chiswick for the Chiswick Homefields ward.

Robert Oulds has also worked for an interior design magazine, as a freelance broadcast football journalist and has been actively involved in the hospital radio movement, volunteering for charity hospital radio services to entertain patients.

Dr Lee Rotherham was special adviser to three Shadow Foreign Secretaries and a Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate in the 2001 general election, where he fought the butler-strewn seat of St. Helens, South. He is currently working for the Rt. Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP - UK Parliamentary delegate to the Convention on the Future of Europe.

He is Secretary of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe and regularly writes for the European Journal.

He has widely written on European issues. He is the author of EMU Understood and All At Sea; he has co-authored the Bluffers Guide to the EU, and the Centre for Policy Studies booklet Bloc Tory. He edited Who Represents Rural Britain and Professor Patrick Minford's cost/benefit analysis of EU membership, Britain and Europe: The Balance Sheet.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Helen Szamuely and Chris Heaton-Harris MEP.

Foreword
by Theresa Villiers MEPIn 1835, analysing the success of the US federal state in his seminal Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that democracy on a continental scale requires more than just elections. Among the features he noted as crucial to the success of the American federal system was the existence of a single, cohesive and identifiable political class.

It remains as true nearly 200 years later that democracy is not simply a matter of elections. For an institution to be genuinely democratic, it must command the interest, loyalty and scrutiny of the people it seeks to represent. Democracy requires a demos-a group of people who have enough in common to accept government at one another's hands. There can never be a pan-European democracy unless there is a European people-a European public consciousness, a European public opinion and a European political discourse.

This paper documents some of the ways in which attempts are being made, artificially and deliberately, to create both a European political class and a European demos, by generating the sense of European identity and 'Europeanness' which both of these goals require.

There are many across Europe (and I would count myself as one of them) who believe that these twin goals are neither possible nor desirable. Yet they are central to any claim the EU may make to genuine popular consent and to democratic legitimacy. They are therefore an integral part of the attempt to create a country called Europe.

They are two of the last pieces in the jigsaw which federalists have being putting together for nearly half a century and thus should attract the scrutiny of all those of us who value the continued existence of the nations of Europe.

The authors document the long-term project to convince people of the merits of ever closer EU integration and to shift people's loyalties from national to EU institutions. They reveal that large sums of public money are being deployed to this end, documenting both the sheer scale of the project and its deliberate orchestration.
This very timely paper has the worthy aim of bringing to light and exposing to public scrutiny the propaganda exercise which is being carried out. It examines the use of taxpayers' money to shape and manipulate public opinion on the merits of European integration.

The authors analyse the EU budget, including the €7 million devoted to moulding today's resolutely fractured and diverse pan-European political groupings into a single political class of the type to which de Tocqueville referred. They analyse some of the vast range of material sent directly to the public, before going on to document the less visible, but even more influential means of shaping public opinion: the taxpayer-funded network of organisations taking forward an integrationist agenda. A recurrent feature revealed by the authors' research is the targeting of opinion formers, with the aim of shaping opinions in the organisations with which they are involved.The focus on the vulnerable and the young is of particular concern. As the authors point out, projects designed expressly to mould the political outlook of school children-useful "information multipliers" for the EU propagandist-are not only undemocratic, they are unlawful under the Education Act 1996.

The EU's recurring concentration on the young is demonstrated as the authors document just a few of the thousands of education projects designed to promote European integration. As well as direct inculcation of the merits of ever closer integration, such funding helps build up an EU client support base in universities. The authors go on to examine the parallel work to cultivate a base of supporters amongst journalists.

Of course, not all of the cultural and educational projects funded by the EU have a sinister undertone or motivation. Many of its educational and youth projects, such as its orchestras, do provide laudable opportunities for young people to learn more about other cultures and languages, whether or not these projects are badged with the imprimatur of EU integration. Nor would I accuse those who run such projects of sinister intent. If anything, they, too, are victims of the subtle manipulation which is being undertaken at the expense of the taxpayer. The political undertone discredits and undermines the valuable work that such projects can achieve.

Lastly, the authors put forward their suggestions on how to deal with the problems their paper reveals, including new rules requiring a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, supervised by an independent watchdog.

Most Member States have some form of check on politicised and propagandist spending yet no such safeguard is applied to the EU.

In some ways the problem extends well beyond the remit of this paper to a whole range of EU spending areas. For example, those who devised the EU's various regional development projects, such as the European Social Fund, had an explicit political purpose in mind. They deliberately sought to create a client base of opinion formers who would see Brussels as a source of funds and assistance; or as the authors put it, as "the origin of a specific benevolence".

In conclusion, while I would hesitate to go as far as the authors as to draw a parallel between the EU's communication techniques and those of totalitarian regimes of the last century, I firmly agree with them that spending public funds on promoting closer EU integration threatens the proper functioning of democracy.
There is an increasingly wide gulf between ordinary people in Europe and its political elite. While a substantial proportion-probably a majority-of ordinary people across Europe are sceptical about further EU integration, the political elite are almost universally committed to this goal. On the three most recent occasions when people have been allowed to express their views in a referendum, they have voted no to further integration: in Switzerland on EU membership; in Denmark on the euro; and in Ireland on the Nice Treaty.

In such circumstances it becomes ever more crucial to ensure that people are allowed a fair and informed choice on the decisions they make on further integration. It is vitally important that taxpayers' money is not abused in a referendum campaign on the euro to give an unfair advantage to the "Yes campaign". The well known imbalance of funding in previous referendums is deservedly highlighted by the authors.

Whether or not the members of the European Union should integrate more closely is an intensely political subject. Regardless of their views on this issue, any democrat should condemn the deployment of public money on one side of such a highly charged political debate. Those who espouse federalist and integrationist ideals are entitled to express their views but they should not receive millions from the taxpayer to assist them in doing so.

Introduction
This pamphlet is not intended to stand as the definitive, all-encompassing bible on EU propaganda. There is a very good reason for this. To undertake the task would require the long-term services of a forensic accountant and more pages than a soft cover book can hold. Instead, the authors intend to set out here an overview, to provide a general assessment of where the main thrust of EU policy lies, and demonstrate a number of key specific examples in illustration. Crucially, the pamphlet will also try to put an accurate figure on the enormous financial resources the European Union is putting into promoting itself as a separate and superior identity that will 'rightly replace' the national identity of the Member States.

What do we mean by propaganda? Suffice it to say for now that we are talking about an essential engagement in policy presentation, a battle for the hearts and minds of the 376 million citizens of the European Union. This, naturally, takes place at a variety of practical levels. There is, in its plainest form, simple brand management, of projecting the 12 star flag, the anthem, and the burgundy passport. More deeply, there are advertising initiatives demonstrating to passive audiences that actions are sourced from the Communities budget, and that by extension the EU is a boon to society as a whole-deliberately overlooking the fact that ultimately it is the nation states that provide the funds and the legitimacy. These actions permit the EU to be viewed as the origin of a specific benevolence, be it an idea-a law, say, on working hours or clean beaches-or physical construction work with placards bearing signs indicating that the EU has paid for it. Finally, there is the "information" campaign itself, targeting social or economic groups with selective material designed to make the audience accept the EU as a legitimate body politic. The most perfidious and blatant form of propaganda, and on which we shall concentrate, varies from the wining and dining of politicians and opinion-formers, especially those in the media, to the provision of public funds to organisations that support integration and the Euro. Sinisterly, the EU has even gone as far as to spread its propaganda into the classroom by providing games, videos and cartoon books to "explain" Europe to school children.
These actions are orchestrated and not random. There is a deliberate and ongoing campaign to target in particular those perceived to be vulnerable groups in society. Children we have already noted, but the elderly and disabled have also been listed. At its most ghastly, some texts openly justify educating children as information multipliers, able to explain, for instance, the benefits of the Euro to more conservative older people in the family.
Of course, national governments can be said to use information campaigns in their own right, and by no means every document that issues from Brussels can be called propaganda. However, the sheer volume of propagandist material that does is staggering. Moreover, in the case of national governments, domestic parliaments provide some form of notional checks and balances. Yet such a safeguard does not exist at the European level and thus the propaganda keeps flooding out.

This is not only a blatant misuse of taxpayers' money; democracy and the future of Europe are at stake. A referendum in the UK on the Euro is imminent. The Convention on the Future of Europe is under way, and while packed with a huge majority of integrationists, this will be sold over the coming months as the democratic popular talking shop behind the federal drive. On its conclusion, an IGC in the mould of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice will be held. This time it shall determine a written constitution for the European federal construct, and all this will be happening as a dozen possible aspirants to the EU ratify their accession in their national parliaments, and in some cases by referendum. There are also other important plebiscites where EU propaganda may swing the popular vote in favour of further integration and determine the fate of an entire continent for a generation. The Irish face Nice II, the Danes may have a rerun of their Euro referendum. The Swedes also could face a referendum on joining the Euro and the key vote of them all, on saving the Pound, will take place in the UK.

We have already seen the effect of integrationist propaganda in action. In 1975 in the UK, the pro-EEC side outspent the No campaign by over ten to one, swinging public opinion for long enough to win the vote. We can see the same happening again. Thanks to the Labour Government's legislation on the funding of a Euro referendum, inspired by its experience-and difficulties-in the devolution referenda, there will not be parity between each side because funding will be decided by party affiliation. So with both Labour and the Liberal Democrats wedded to EMU, there is an in-built bias to any funding arrangement over the Euro. And under this undemocratic backdrop we are faced with European Union propaganda further subverting a free and fair debate.

Our objective in sifting through the thousands of pages of propaganda examples and writing this pamphlet-not to mention dissecting the thousand-plus pages of each year's EU budget-is threefold. Firstly, we aim to demonstrate some of the mechanisms that are coming into play as the referendum draws closer. This will allow journalists and politicians to object to the more flagrant cases, and ordinary people can write in to ensure a modicum of impartiality in the state media, government-funded publications, and also in state schools. Secondly, on a practical level, to establish an archive at the Bruges Group offices collating what has been the result of several years of monitoring and investigation, and which interested parties can consult as required. And finally, we aim not only to denounce these propagandist activities, but also hamper the Brussels propaganda machine that instigates them. However, if EU propaganda is not stopped as a consequence we hope, at least, that the public will become alert to the nature of the threat, and to the volume of material out there.

* * *

Propaganda and the European Union?
Some, particularly in Britain where the final goal of European integration has traditionally been hidden from the public, may question whether this propaganda is taking place and would dispute our assertion that these information campaigns are intended to undermine political opposition to integration and foster a European public consciousness. However, there can be little doubt as to what is taking place in the name of building Europe.

You don't have to take our word for it. The EU itself believes that it has a mission to educate the public. Helpfully, senior representatives of the European Commission have not been shy in claiming a role in a campaign to 'educate' the public as to the advantages of EU membership. In an interview on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost the former EC President Jacques Santer said: "We have as politicians to inform the population and train them in this direction".1 More importantly, those who would doubt our claim that the EU is engaged in a long term project to shift the public's loyalties from the nation-state to the EU's institutions and underpin the newly emerging European State should consider the following details from the many treaties, reports and plans to foster 'European consciousness':

The Adonnino Report 1985, where Pietro Adonnino MEP proposed numerous methods to promote the integration of Europe.
The ambitions of the EU culturalists were also set out in the Maastricht Treaty 1992, which enshrined such goals as "the dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples". Funding was made available for such activities so long as the recipients could demonstrate the activity had a European dimension.
The EU's de Clercq Report 1993 devised initiatives to ensure that:
"...European identity must be 'ingrained in people's minds' as a 'good product' using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly 'women and youth', should become 'priority target groups'. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union...so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause." 2

This ties in with a parallel report by the Commission's Media and Culture Directorate, which showed that money has been made available for the media to promote "a more positive line towards Europe".

The Pex Report 1998 called for measures to "increase awareness of the achievements and advantages of the Union and foster public support for the forthcoming stages of the integration process". In particular it proposed targeting of the "least favoured" elements of society to persuade them of the glory of the EU. Later that year, a report on the Commission's Euro communication and information strategy stated that acceptance of the Euro will be decisive for pursuing European construction. It demanded extra funding, some of which was directed to campaigns in the UK. It established 'Euro mediators' for disadvantaged sections of society, while the role of children as information multipliers was acknowledged. Women were to be targeted because "they manage the finances of the family, go shopping, etc."
The inclusion in The Amsterdam Treaty 1998 of provisions relating to cultural matters demonstrated the determination of the EU to "deepen the solidarity between their peoples" by establishing "a citizenship common to nationals" of all member states. Cultural integration lies at the heart of the drive towards "ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe". Key to this process is the provision that the EU must take cultural aspects into account in all other policies.
Agenda 2000 observed that "the consent and support of European public opinion to enlargement is a clear pre-requisite for the realisation of the project. This will require, during the pre-accession period, a substantial public information effort in both the present and the acceding member states".
So there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the EU is deeply committed to waging a propagandist war on those who oppose its integrationist ambitions. However, before examining in detail the practical application of this philosophy, it is useful to have some measure of what is technically definable as propaganda and what rules the UK Government has about spending public money on promotion of its own policies.

What is propaganda?
The term propaganda has religious origins and originates from the creation in 1597 by the Roman Catholic Church of the 'Congregation for the propagation of faith' - Congregatio de propaganda fidei. However, it wasn't until the second quarter of the twentieth century that the word entered common usage "to describe attempts by totalitarian regimes to achieve comprehensive subordination of knowledge to state policy . . . by overcoming the broadly based cultural hegemony of antecedent regimes".3

In modern political debate it is commonplace for people to call any political message that they disagree with 'propaganda'. This pamphlet, however, examines the advertising and information campaigns that can be technically identifiable as propaganda. So what do we mean when we say propaganda? For the purposes of this study we are using three different definitions of propaganda as benchmarks by which we can define whether any of the EU's activities are such.

Smith, Laswell, and Casey (1946) suggested that the difference between education and propaganda is that the former involves the teaching of uncontroversial information whereas propaganda relates to issues that are controversial. Pritkanis & Aronson (1992) have put forward the definition that, "The word propaganda has since evolved to mean mass suggestion or influence through the manipulation of symbols and the psychology of the individual".
O'Shaughnessy (1999) proposed that propaganda
"...Simplifies and exaggerates; it often is propelled by a clear, purposive, and coherent ideology. Idealism, even utopianism, may motivate its sponsors and often may characterise its imagery. Propaganda eschews argumentative interchange; seldom is there any element of give-and-take."4

If these definitions apply to a particular EU information campaign then it will be included in this study. If not it will be discounted as a form of legitimate communication.

When analysing the propaganda activities of the EU it is useful to judge them by the UK government's own rules on public information campaigns conducted by the Civil Service. This Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service can be found on the website www.gics.gov.uk, and provides ground rules for the proper use of taxpayer money. They are as follows:

"These resources may not, however, be used to support publicity for party political purposes: this rule governs not only decisions about what may or may not be published but also the content, style and distribution of what is published."

"Subject matter should be relevant to government responsibilities. The specific matters dealt with should be ones in which government has direct and substantial responsibilities."

"[They] should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical. The treatment of information should be as objective as possible."

"[Resources] should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being, party political."

"[And they] should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds."

When the literature provided by the EU for educational establishments, chiefly schools, is considered later in the pamphlet another yardstick will be introduced for assessing whether these activities constitute propaganda. At that time the question will be asked whether such activities are permissible under the provisions of the Education Act 1996, since this legislation is intended to prevent political indoctrination.

The historical context
Propaganda is not a new feature for the EU and has been a part of its development from the earliest days. MEPs today have regular visitor allowances for them to impress their local power base with their activities. Moreover, it is well known that there was a great deal of wining and dining of key decision makers-politicians, academics, trade unionists, the media etc. - in the period prior to British accession. This winning over of opinion formers has always been a political priority towards applicant countries.

When Britain's continuing participation in the EEC was called into question in 1975, therefore, the propaganda machine went into overdrive-as glossy pamphlets from the 'Yes' campaign testify. The immense funding imbalance between the two sides is well recorded.

Such activities are less obvious than the clear role the Commission has itself played in referenda. Veterans of the Danish campaigns have long complained at the manner in which EU money has funded one side of the debate at the expense of the other, not least through the actions of the Danish European Movement, ever the focus of the 'Ja' campaign. Thanks to the tireless actions of Green MEP Patricia McKenna this support has been curtailed in the Irish Republic. The Irish courts have ruled that funding has to be equal for both sides, and attempts by the Commission and Irish Government to circumvent this in the context of the Nice Referendum have been challenged effectively in the courts.

The European Union's propaganda budget
Tracking the amount of money spent by the European Union on its propagandist activities is not so easy. Alas, there is no entry in the EU budget called Propaganda. Expenditure is spread around many departments and then within many sections. Even DG X (the EU institution responsible for Information and Communication) is unlikely to have a complete idea of how much is being spent. However, we can catalogue and detail many of the various lines in the EU Budget that are being used for propaganda expenditure in 2002 and show how much money is spent on supporting such work.

The main section of the EU budget to be tapped on propaganda is B3-3, which is concerned with information and communication, and in 2002 it had a total budget commitment of €105,205,600. €44.7 million of this was available to Prince (B3-306), the section dealing in part with the single currency. Other key lines include B3-301 (Information outlets) and B3-304 (European Integration in Universities).

A-3020 (429)* Our Europe Association
* Bracketed figure corresponds to the page number of the Community's budget.

The 'Our Europe' Association is a study and research group which sponsors and organises seminars on European issues.
Funding €600,000*
* Figures are in euros. One euro has the approximate value of £0.62p at the time of writing.

A-3021 (430) Grants to think tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe

This covers grants to non-profit-making European organisations involved in advancing and raising awareness of the European ideal, particularly those seeking to establish transnational networks in order to increase their impact at the European level.
Funding €1,830,000

A-3023 (430) European Union Youth Forum

The Forum is a non-profit international association that acts as a political platform for European national youth organisations in order to facilitate and stimulate their participation in the European decision-making process. It lobbies the EU on issues affecting young people by organising conferences and other activities.
Funding €2,000,000

A-3024 (431) Associations and federations of European interest

This is intended to support activities connected with reflection at the European level on the ethnical and spiritual foundations of European integration.
Funding €1,260,000

A-3025 (431) Journalists in Europe

This organisation runs an annual training programme for young journalists from around the world, focussing on the EU and on political, economic and social developments in Europe.
Funding €250,000

A-3029 (432) Support for international non-governmental youth organisation

This budget line consists of subsidies to more than 100 international youth non-governmental organisations.
Funding €1,500,000

A-3037 (434) European Women's Lobby

An organisation which lobbies the EU on issues of concern to women in Europe and is considered an essential adjunct to EU measures in support of women.
Funding €650,000

A-3410 (439) General publications

Money for the printing of EU pamphlets.
Funding €2,000,000

A-3411 (440) Priority publications program

Distinct from the money for general publications, this is used to produce pamphlets on major topical interests for opinion-formers.
Funding €2,500,000

B3-1000 (789) Preparatory measures for reinforcing co-operation in the field of education.

Financing of specific measures advancing European co-operation on education matters. This historically includes funding for parliaments representing the Youth of Europe, as well as studies and conferences.
Funding €17,000,000

B3-1001 (791) Socrates

Of concern through its support for educational projects from nursery school to higher education that promote the development of European citizenship. Includes funding for the Youth European Parliament and Model European Parliament Foundation, together with the measure Parliaments Representing the Youth of Europe.
Funding €248,150,000


B3-1007 (797) Promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and cultures

This covers pilot teaching projects, cultural events, conferences, and media products. Also requires that EU funding be acknowledged.
Funding €1,000,000

B3-1010 (798) and B3-1010A (799) Formerly: Youth for Europe, Now: Youth

The Youth programme is concerned with developing a sense of European citizenship and the subsidy of projects featuring a European dimension. It has been reported that once Youth even sent a troubled British juvenile to a Balkan Bear Sanctuary.
Funding €69,120,000 + €2,880,000

B3-2000 (780) Raphael

Covers funding for Europe Day, held on the 9th May each year. Projects supported must involve two member states and are selected by the Commission after consultations with a panel of internationally renowned experts.
Funding €9,400,000


B3-2001 (781) Kaleidoscope

Covers the support of artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension.
Funding €8,900,000

B3-300 (823) and B3-300A (825) General information and communication work concerning the EU

These cover a range of activities including opinion polling, impact assessments, sponsored visits, publications, television productions and internet sites, which are intended to foster a better understanding of the objectives and reality of European integration and the methods used to achieve it, in a context of dialogue between the institutions, firms and citizens.
Funding €18,020,000 + €144,000

B3-301 (826) and B3-301A (827) Information Outlets

This provides funding for information centres throughout the EU. It also covers the International Federation of European Houses, which encourage debate about the issue of integration, and the European Movement.
Funding €11,120,000 + €300,000

B3-302 (828) and B3-302A (829) Information programmes for non-member countries

Promotes the work of the EU, in particular as a provider of aid and as a trading partner, to target audiences in non-member countries. Specifically targets journalists as visitor groups to sell EU external policy as "consistent and dynamic."
Funding €5,455,000 + €45,000

B3-303 (830) and B3-303A (832) Communication Work

Joint European Parliament and Commission information work, including contacts with the press, and national information bodies.
Funding €12,430,000 + €1,170,000

B3-304 (833) and B3-304A (834) European Integration in Universities

Money for the Jean Monnet programme of higher education academic chairs.
Funding €3,604,000 + €405,000

B3-306 (837) and B3-306A (838) The PRINCE Priority Information Program for European Citizens

Money for communication and dialogue on specific policies between EU citizens and EU institutions. Mainly used to promote the Euro outside of the UK. Priority is presently being given to creating a "constructive" political debate among young people across Europe.
Funding €44,700,000 + €1,020,000

B3-4002 (843) Information and training measures for worker organisations

Training measures and information for worker organisations in connection with the implementation of EU action on the social dimension of the internal market. It also funds the European Trade Union Academy and the European Workers' Centre.
Funding €8,860,000


B5-3001 (956) and B5-3001A (959) Strategic Programme on the Internal Market

Includes grants in support of projects of EU interest undertaken by outside bodies, publications on these projects, and raising awareness of EU legislation.
Funding €10,599,000 + €1,791,000


Funding for European political parties
Budget line B3-500 allocates €7 million of taxpayers' money to trans-European political parties. According to the explanatory guidelines, "this appropriation is intended to finance, at European level, political parties which contribute to forming a European awareness."

To qualify for European Union funds parties must put up candidates across the European Union for the European Parliament. This will by definition preclude Eurosceptic parties-which are nationally based-from an important source of funds and will thus create a distinct imbalance in the democratic process by handing a financial advantage to those parties which accept the Brussels writ.

Additionally, from the track record of the European Parliament to-date, the parties that qualify for the allocated €7 million will be pressurised into espousing the more politically correct and leftist agenda, which EU institutions are attempting to codify across the Europe Union. This will reinforce and spread current ideology throughout the EU and prejudice the democratic process against those who happen to share an alternative vision of Europe.

An unending process?
Can this massive spending on propaganda be stopped? Yes. The following budget line has since been suspended after critical questions were raised in the House of Commons. This is an example of how Eurosceptics can successfully challenge the EU propaganda machine.

B2-5122 (742) Enhancing public awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy
This covered the financing of information, communication and training in rural areas and measures to increase mutual awareness of different expectations of and demands on the CAP, as put forward by consumer organisations, environmental associations and agricultural organisations.
Funding €5,500,000 in 1999, now extinct.

Propaganda as free information for the public
A staggering number of publications that provide information about the EU are produced and made available to the public. Communication materials include question and answer texts, technical reports, and videos.

Prominent is the PRINCE programme, which has provided informational activities on citizens' rights under the Single Market, on the single currency, and on the future shape of the European Union. Under Building Europe Together it has been responsible for fact sheets on successive European treaties, as well as the publications The Citizen's Guide to the Treaty of Amsterdam and The Treaty of Amsterdam: Questions and Answers. The Prince money was used to produce the 1997 questions and answers booklet Talking About the Euro, which included all 15 members states in a map subliminally referring to EMU. It has also paid for seminars on the Euro "to train people to provide information and shape opinions in their respective organisations".
Let's have a look at some other publications and their content:

In The Budget of the European Union: How is your money spent? the cost of the CAP is said to be "very modest" and the equivalent of two cigarettes per day. Building the Social Dimension applauded the "advanced" ways of some states when it comes to worker protection. The European Union's Cohesion Fund stresses that a single currency will help those countries "still suffering from handicaps". The When Will the 'Euro' Be in Our Pockets? claims that governments who "resist" membership of the Euro are denying themselves the right to shape the future Europe. The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy states that "Member States' national interests often stood in the way of a common approach". The Did You Know That series of leaflets claimed that the CAP was "too successful" and led to waste, and that the UK left the ERM "because of too many fluctuations in the financial markets".

The European Commission's representation in the United Kingdom also produces a series of Do You Know? leaflets rebutting policy attacks through presenting facts in policy areas. They contain quotes such as "a centralized European super-state is not on anyone's agenda", "Eurosceptics base their propaganda on a false premise-that Commissioners in Brussels decide. They do not. Ministers take the decisions and national leaders set the agenda". This, of course, overlooks the role of the Commission in proposing legislation.EU has also produced magazines, including one called Le Magazine published by DG XXII (Education and Youth). Its September 1998 issue contained an article covering education on the Euro in schools. It claimed that the classroom approach has the "advantage of being removed from the commercial considerations of information transmitted by certain private operators" and presents an ideal opportunity for pupils to take "a step towards acquiring a sense of European citizenship".

From time to time the EU publishes historical overviews of its development. One such publication, European Integration: The Origins and Growth of the European Union, claimed about CAP that "it would be hasty to condemn the entire policy simply because of these aberrations and short-comings and from there, as sometimes happens, to call into question the utility and purpose of European integration in general". Another, Europe in 10 Points, informs the public that, "A people's Europe is merely a foretaste of political union" and that, "the time has come for cultural integration to make further headway and contribute to the emergence of a shared consciousness".

DG XVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion) produces material selling integration of the regions such as the map chart Europe Invests in its Regions, which states that creating wealth will lead to a "dynamic and integrated Europe of the future".

It would be no good having all these materials if there were no means of distributing them. The EU has developed a network of libraries and information centres to ensure distribution of its publications. In the UK the EU funds and manages twenty-four Euro-Info Centres (EICs) to provide "local access to a range of specialist and advisory services to help companies develop their business in Europe". There are close institutional and personnel links between the EICs and UK governmental business agencies such as Enterprise Councils. In addition to the EICs there are also six Carrefours, which are smaller versions of EICs in rural areas. Some are housed in local government facilities and a number receive funding from the National Lottery.

If you cannot get to EU information it will come to you, courtesy of the high-profile exhibition wagon operated by Relay Europe Ltd. This travels to schools, colleges, universities and teaching development centres and invites visitors to play with interactive videos extolling the benefits of EU membership. Relay Europe also runs a free video loan service offering extensive viewing on all EU topics. *
* The reader may recall the Soviet propaganda train carriage exhibited at MOMI (Museum of the Moving Image).

On top of all this Relay Europe can get you what appears to be any item under the sun so long as you don't mind a Euro symbol on it. So roll up for your Euro tie, your Euro T-shirt, your Euro scarf, your Euro hat, your Euro watch, your Euro clock, your Euro ruler, your Euro pencil, your Euro umbrella, your Euro greeting card, your Euro sticker, your Euro mouse pad, your Euro magnet, your Euro calculator, your Euro purse, your Euro pack of cards, your Euro board game, and, of course, your Euro flag. Even your Euro chocolate to spend your actual Euros on and your Euro champagne to celebrate having your actual Euros. For these at least you would have to pay.

If after reading the publications and watching the videos you still want more information about the EU then why not get a speaker from Groupeuro, a collection of EU approved speakers who can be approached to address seminars. The EU asks these independent experts to sign a statement whereby they agree that "they may speak in a personal capacity for a part of their lecture, provided they state explicitly that they are going to do so and do not express any views contrary to those of the Commission". A large number of Groupeuro members are also involved with Team Europe, a body more distant from the Commission and speaking on its own terms.

Propaganda through Trojan Horse organisations
The European Union provides funding, either directly or indirectly, for a range of pro-EU and pro-Euro organisations both here in the UK and across Europe.

The Brussels-based International Secretariat of the European Movement admits that: "From time to time, it receives small grants from the European Commission for specific information projects..." A portion of this money is passed on to the UK section of the European Movement, which is "leading the campaign for a 'yes' vote in the forthcoming referendum on joining the European single currency". *
* What has come under less scrutiny (for obvious reasons) is the documented role the CIA historically played in supporting the activities of the European Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Archived at George Town University Washington, D.C.

The UK's Young European Movement (YEM) produced Join - the campaign to join the Euro-a leaflet with the support of the Commission's Far From Brussels programme. YEM, which describes itself as being part of the historic coalition who "believe Britain cannot afford to go it alone outside the Euro" takes the pro-Euro message to youth events, such as festivals and conferences. They are part of the Europe-wide Young European Federalists, which proposes "to transform the Commission into a Government, responsible to a Parliament endowed with full legislative powers in all Union matters".

A relative newcomer is the Britain in Europe organisation, which was initially formed to "campaign in favour of UK membership of the single currency". Former European Movement Director Stephen Woodard has admitted that his organisation "heavily subsidises Britain in Europe", with whom it shares both offices and personnel. In fact, Britain in Europe (BiE) documents reveal that it was set-up in order to accept funds from the European Movement.5

Other organisation such as the Federal Trust and the Local Government Group for Europe also get funding. The Federal Trust, which wants a 'widening and deepening of the European Union', uses money from the Commission to provide materials on European citizenship to educational establishments. Such information encourages "teachers and students to explore the European and International dimension to their lives". It's Practising Citizenship urges schools and colleges to run courses on European Citizenship and to organise mock elections. One paper on the Euro claimed it was necessary because "it is no longer possible for any nation state on its own to find solutions to the economic, social and ecological problems of our time".

The Local Government Group for Europe aims to "help local government people engage in the ongoing European debate and thus play their part in creating a European Union that is democratic, inclusive and respectful of diversity". The LGE shares the same office as the European Movement and Britain in Europe, and admits to working "closely and constantly alongside the official organisations building the united Europe, including the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Committee of the Regions, the Council of Europe, and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions".

Funding has been provided for the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe, an organisation founded in 1987 by European industrialists to support the single currency, and PromEuro, an organisation with just 77 members across the EU, which has run campaigns such as No Fear for the Euro aimed at the elderly. According to the European Commission, PromEuro has been "very committed in promoting the new currency". Another organisation in receipt of funds is the International Federation of Europe Houses, which aims to encourage debate among the peoples of Europe about the nature of European integration.

The Commission has also provided funds for the British trade union, the AEEU, who in their publication The European Union: A Guide for AEEU Members admitted to receiving EU funding for their regular bulletin on European matters. The bulletins consistently publicise the activities of Britain in Europe and carry pro-Euro articles.

Support for networking amongst the next generation of pro-European opinion-formers in the UK led to the Europe 2010 dining club receiving a grant of £25,000.6 The group was established by Derek Draper, who has been a member of the steering committee of the European Movement's campaign for a single currency.

It is fair to say that such is the level of EU funding for pro-Euro groups such as; BiE, the European Movement, the Federal Trust, the Local Government Group for Europe and the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe that they are artificial front organisations for the interests of the European Commission. Let us not forget that the subsidies these organisations receive come originally from the taxpayer-a blatant misuse of public funds, a Danegeld gone wrong.

Propaganda in the class room
Europe's youth is in the eyes of Brussels a legitimate target for indoctrination and are given special treatment. This is because school children are said to be a "very receptive" section of the population and can "perform a messenger function in conveying the message to the home environment, among family and friends. It is the active population of tomorrow's Europe". The scandalous attitude of the EU is best illustrated by a document endorsed by DG XXII, which noted that the introduction of the Euro represented:

"...a wonderful opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the Euro in its historical perspective, by bringing out the symbolic nature of the Euro as a symbol of peace and economic prosperity, and by giving the Euro a civic dimension."7

Crucially, the paper states that,

"...[the] education system-and teachers in particular-will have a major role to play in forming and communicating with young people. Young people will often in practice act as go-betweens with the older generations, helping them to familiarise themselves with and embrace the Euro".

To achieve this the EU has developed teaching aids and educational modules to spread the message. It is worth recalling some of them and their content.

One pamphlet, entitled Resources and Contacts, provides a list of contact points for further information that is one-sided. The Commission offices and European Movement are listed as sources to contact, with no health warning. Once again, no critical balances are included.

A far more perfidious booklet is Let's Draw Europe Together, a fancy fun book. It was first published in 1997 by DG X and printed in the UK for older pupils in primary schools. The opening section is entitled "My country: Europe", which speaks for itself. It contains colouring-in pages, crosswords, maps, an EU history date game, children's tales. The Euro is talked about in glowing terms.

Then there is Exploring Europe, a glossy booklet in which the genius and diversity of the member states is used to sell the idea of 'Europe', i.e. that in learning more about other countries the EU is the ultimate message-European Union and Europe are the same thing. This is underlined by the concluding few pages, on The Path of European Integration. An underlying theme is that nationalism has been a darned nuisance for the development of a united continent.

The most notorious of the publications aimed at children is The Raspberry Ice Cream War
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So much information Craig! And so many groups of people seemingly against the EU.

But the fact remains: people are easily 'bought':

kathy:
Quote:
So Ireland was bought because coming from a history where there was dire poverty, not all that many years prior to the whole EU crap, people wanted better for themselves and their families. The results are: Massive roads, destruction of natural habitat. Farmers being paid to set aside land, allow it to go fallow, while, for instance, last year during a particularly unusual dry spell farmers had to ask permission to graze their cattle on the "fallow" land because there was not enough grazing grass for them in the fields they were allowed to graze in.

Do the people regret what they fell for? I don't know, I cannot speak for the majority. I have heard from a few farmers, who have small farms, and they curse the EU. The EU is for the big land owner or the brain dead in the cities, although even there people see they were duped.

The Republic of Ireland is a country with a population of 4,239,848, not everyone voted for joining the EU or for any of the treaties. Some who did vote for membership live to regret, others just continue to be willing participants.


The Irish haven't put up any resistance to the EU from what I can see. I repeat, UKIP tried and tried VERY HARD. Now let's see if Ormond can single-handedly stop the NAU.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in the welcome thread, Julian wrote:
Wu Li:
Quote:
Although in this forum I will proceed to rail against this globalization that we speak so much of, it is the human spirit to create things of beauty that keeps me in the game.
They may try to make my world and all of ours seem dark but through our love for living and those around us we may still have our day in the sun.


The human spirit can NEVER be crushed. All of history has proved that. I don't see the world as dark at all. There are simply dark PARTS. Many of us walk through life and don't walk into those dark PARTS. Sometimes we accidently do. That is when we meet the CHALLENGE. And how do we react? That is the BIG question.


Julian wrote:
I repeat, UKIP tried and tried VERY HARD. Now let's see if Ormond can single-handedly stop the NAU.

it is clearly stated in the audio the manner in which ukip was an owned asset, it looked like it was trying whilst it was not actually doing so

i don't think Ormond is quite so alone as your 18 'duh'ty street line would like us to believe

repeat ? you sure do, just click your heels together three times and repeat: 'there's no face like gnome, there's no face like gnome'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That is when we meet the CHALLENGE. And how do we react? That is the BIG question.


Perhaps the EU State isn't the big challenge? It clearly hasn't threatened the individual one little bit. Perhaps all this fear-mongering is the REAL threat? Alex Jones comes to Ireland!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Julian wrote:
Craig W:
Quote:
Are you saying nothing can be done to stop it at all?


What do you suggest Craig, after UKIP already tried to stop this for the last 14 years? I didn't take any notice of UKIP. Did you?


We'll have to see how the Government corrale the people into voting yes when the promised referendum comes.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ta Seti
I downloaded GHWBush-NWO__9,11,1990.mpeg. Sorry, it's crap!
I did not realize until a short time ago how badly this was cut-edited, I even have the edited quote on my own website, and I shall remove or repair it. This is duplicitious, inflammatory John Birchite propaganda, and rather blatant and crude. I posted Bush's complete NWO speech on another page here, quoted in Brzezinski's book, and it's actually kinda idealistic.

Now I'm not suggesting that Bush IS idealistic, or that he's not a vicious CIA demon -- or a promoter of ruthless globalism and globalization. HE IS ALL THAT. I think the evidence of his ruthlessness and inhumanity [hate to say 'evil' since Bush Jr. appropriated that term] is in NAFTA (which Bush was pushing before Clinton), and in the brutal treatment of human rights volunteers (torture, murder) in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Columbia, etc., throughout the Reagan-Bush years, and many other things he has done, while looking gentlemanly, like Allen Dulles.

But the Bush statement about the NWO is a poetic-sounding fantasy about global peaceful relations. There's nothing evil IN the remark itself, for the average person, only tweaking those brainwashed to already consider the term "New World Order" to be filled with ulterior meaning -- a red flag.

"New World Order" is to Birchers what "Anti-Semitic" is to Neo-Cons and Zionists -- a swear word.

Various Presidents going back decades have made similar statements. I would sound like an idiot if anyone confronted me (and people do, even Republicans don't like Birchers) with what mild stuff Bush actually said. It's more factual and believable to describe the progress of global fascism with examples other than an out-of-context quote. That there's no morality preventing the death squads used on civilians in El Salvador or Nicaragua etc. from being used domestically --- even on a wider basis than they have already been used on minorities and Christians at Waco.



re: Mullins:
I understood what Mullins had said about JBS and Rockefeller. It may be true.
I also noted that H.L. Hunt (a big money power player in his own right) had a sort of feud going with Rockefeller and the Eastern Liberals. Hunt and JBS were tight, and so was Hunt and Mullins. (Additionally, I just found that Nelson Hunt was playing with an offshoot of Campus Crusade for Christ, identified along with Hunt as part of that rightwing, CNP, Nazi SS, and CIA malange I have written about.)

So the point of that "Gold is Money" page or whatever that was (also right wing) is that Hunt and Rock were bitter (at least financial) enemies. Then again, I read about some collaboration btw one of Rock's reps and some CNP people. If there's money to be made or deals to be done ....

While I am not in the habit of arrogantly dismissing anything anyone has to say which might have some merit, I am mostly dismissing Eustace Mullins for what might seem to some like obvious reasons to many people, such as:

"The US government has been breeding negroes since the Civil War. But they have know idea what to do with them. They don't realize you're supposed to sell them."

and his other EXTREEEM racist comment which I posted, about Jews taking the Blood of [virgin] gentile children to mix with religious food, and that this is an established religious practice. (Ironically, even chickens and cows which are Kosher-ized must be drained of blood at the kill, then meat soaked and salted to remove any blood, so how unlikely it is that Jews would be required to consume any blood, let alone human.)

When someone spouts whackjob stuff like these Mullins' quotes [lots more where that came from, folks], it's even a little worse than suggesting that the South Tower was hit by a Blue Laser Hologram and CGI faked video. One tends to dismiss the speaker/writer as a KOOK! NUTCASE! CRACKPOT! (The positive thing about 'conspiracy forums' is we are open minded to unusual viewpoints and ideas about coverups -- which surely exist and many of which are officially proven to exist, like COINTELPRO. The negative part is the only gatekeeper is your own common sense, your friends, and a little research.)

That is to say, I have no reason to consider Eustace Mullins to be trustworthy, IMO. But he still may be correct about Rockefeller and JBS. Hell, maybe I even am of some spawn of Satan and never knew it. But I'm not going to consider him and his Christian Identity leanings as a reliable source.

Ta Seti: Is there any particular reason why YOU are attracted to Eustace Mullins as a source? You seem to be quite bullish about Mullins, sort of a promoter. I'll skeptically accept something from even Alex Jones, but I'm not cheerleading for Jones (anymore), more or less am embarrassed that I promoted his videos, and didn't realize the impression or his agenda --- but Jones is not even anywhere near as obscene as Mullins. I think Mullins may be worse than Hutton Gibson -- who was once interviewed by AJ.

I have learned to be skeptical of the Austrians (not that they are obscene or even in the same camp as Mullins). On the surface, they SOUND great! Belligerent, intellectual, cocky, anti-govt, pro-freedom. Until you listen carefully and think. Then it's all promoting corporate tyranny, business coup. Explicitly, not secret. They just don't frame it like corporate tyranny, so it's seductive and super rational.


OH, one more thing: Fintan talking about the EU invites concern and action, insight. Alex Jones screams panic and exteme reaction. There's a difference.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.