Although this analysis of an EU article, printed in The Economist, is from 2007 it has more to do with the passing of the EU to it’s current federal possiton today than you can imagine. The analysis is done by Alan Watt and at times contains humorous satire.
By Alan Watt (Copyrighted Alan Watt exempting literary quotes)
A little article in The Economist in the print edition from March 29, 2007, it goes like this:
“Few people cared about the European Union’s 50th birthday party. But apathy has its consolations.
“NOBODY has a good word for apathy. Arnold Toynbee, a historian–“
I like how they just give you a little bit. He was a ‘historian’. He was the Carroll Quigley of his time. Also working for the British government, as well as Oxford.
“thought it defined the penultimate stage of decadence. Civilisations proceed, he said, from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency;”–
That’s where we are now.
“and from dependency back to bondage.”–
We’re actually under bondage, too.
“Apathy is also anti-democratic: democracy requires the informed consent of the governed,”–
It doesn’t mean you have to understand it. They’ve been told and we are told everything in such a way that legally they did tell us. It’s just that it’s not put in such a fashion that you really necessarily understand it and it’s not put across as something you’re supposed to remember. They tell us by hype what we’re supposed to remember and what is important. They could tell you something very very important casually and if they don’t stress the importance of it themselves then we won’t reason it out for ourselves. It’s as simple as that.
“Europe’s leaders also fret that apathy is anti-European. Popular indifference, they fear, leaves the European Union’s institutions vulnerable to the gusts of popular indignation. Their worry is understandable. The polling evidence, for what it is worth, shows that people who say they know a lot about the EU”–
“tend to support it.”–
The polls, remember, were first put out by Britain in World War I to CON the public into going along with something. The idea being that the masses tend to go along with what they think is popular. They’re not individuals amongst the mass, so they want to go along with what’s popular. They want to, basically, back the winner, so they don’t reason things out for themselves and they believe the polls. That’s what the polls are for. It’s to give you a belief in something, which generally is untrue. They’re used for psychological warfare purposes. There’s actually books out on it that you can find in libraries – those old dusty places that no one goes anymore where books gather dust.
“Those who know nothing about the EU and care less tend to be Eurosceptics. So governments and public institutions naturally seek to combat Euro-apathy”–
It must be a new flu. ‘Euro-apathy’.
“as much as they can: by public-relations campaigns”–
Well, you see here, that’s a little bit of truth. They do massive public relations campaigns of a “rah-rah” thing and how well we’re all doing, being managed by an elite new parliament which is over there – somewhere away from you. Very far away.
“and it is by exhortations that Europe must dream (Jacques Delors’s admonition against indifference)—or by stunts such as last weekend’s birthday bash in Berlin to mark the 50th anniversary of the EU’s founding Treaty of Rome.”
“Ha, ha, ha.” The Treaty of Rome was only one part of the plan to integrate us all into the system. It was a kind of official double-edged sword, meaning, “we spoke with fork tongue,” as the white man often does. They give one formality to the public without telling them the whole agenda. It was just to be an economic thing, where we just traded better with each other. The Club of Rome that was behind a lot of it, the old Bilderbergers had set it up, the real agenda up themselves. At least in the initial planning stages they had massive bureaucracies working for them. You’ll find they set up the bureaucracies and departments of governments in 1948, although it was really signed back in 1945, this whole part of the agenda. The Club of Rome and the actual Treaty of Rome was a later thing, a later pretense for the public to swallow.
This goes on to say:
“If apathy were indeed a threat to European integration, there would seem to be much reason to worry. Apathy is lolling about everywhere. Voter turnout has fallen in every election to the European Parliament since the institution was created. In the most recent one, in 2004, it slumped below 50%—a lower rate than India’s parliamentary polls. The gap between turnout in national elections and in European ones is widening, so the problem seems especially acute for the EU. Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, has a website where people can file online petitions.”–
That’s right. ‘Complain’ to them.
“It is an unscientific measure of popular concerns, but intriguing nonetheless. A recent petition asking Britain to hold a referendum on any EU constitution got a few thousand electronic signatures. One opposing road pricing got a few million. It is hard to measure degrees of apathy non-anecdotally because people tend to react badly to polling questions such as “Do you care two hoots about the EU?” But lack of knowledge might be taken as a proxy for lack of concern. Here too the evidence is discouraging. Some three-quarters of Europeans, asked to rate their own knowledge of the EU, say it is modest or non-existent, and this share is rising not falling. Yet is it really true that apathy is an obstacle to European integration? A certain amount of apathy is understandable, perhaps inevitable. The EU’s institutions are remote and deliberately complex”–
That is true. It’s deliberately complex. That’s why you don’t understand what’s really going on. It says:
“(deliberately in the sense that they seek to balance pan-European decision-making with national checks and balances).“–
I guess what they really mean by that is you’re paying the checks and it knocks you off balance.
“Most voters have no idea who represents them in the European Parliament and would not recognise a European commissioner if one turned up on their doorstep. There are also reasons why apathy might have grown. Historically, the term entered common use after the first world war, when it was associated with shell-shock and depression. The EU is suffering from the bombshell when French and Dutch voters rejected the draft constitution in 2005. It can also be argued that economic sluggishness and high unemployment (at least until the current recovery”–
Ha, ha, ha. Recovery. It’s just a mark in a book. We’re not recovered.
“have led to a continent-wide depression. More important, apathy has its compensations, especially for Europhiles.”–
Europhile, hmmm. That’s a file that diddles with young Euros.
“Without it, European integration would not have gone as far as it has.”–
What a joke. You had no option.
“There was almost no debate about the content of the constitution in the referendum campaigns in Spain or Luxembourg, which approved it by wide margins. The voters who looked most closely at the text were in France and the Netherlands. Similarly, Britain debated the merits of the single currency more extensively than any other country. But Britain stayed out, while others adopted it without discussion.”
That’s because the big boys were paid off and were members of certain institutions and organizations.
“European integration can proceed without popular enthusiasm because of its character: the EU has a large regulatory component and much integration proceeds through rules-based co-operation.”–
Isn’t that beautiful that term that they come up with? Rules-based co-operation. The rule being that you don’t tell the truth to the public and we’ll all cooperate in keeping it secret.
“Rules and technical standards are peculiarly unsuited to mobilising popular opinion, whether for or against. Most people are content to leave them to experts.”–
The experts. Remember the Bertrand Russell experts and the society of experts?
“Integration by regulation proceeds under the voters’ indifferent gaze. In that sense, apathy is the Europhiles’ best friend. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has learned this lesson. The ‘Berlin declaration’ to mark the 50th birthday was written in secret”–
What’s new? What’s new?
“and signed only by the EU’s own representatives: Ms Merkel as holder of the EU presidency and the heads of the European Commission and Parliament. It seems likely that any revised constitutional treaty will also be cooked up in semi-secret”–
Well, I wonder why they’re apathetic about that, eh?
“with the aim of ratification by national parliaments”–
Who are also paid-off.
“not referendums. Let sleeping voters lie. But there is a further manifestation of apathy to consider: a behavioural condition associated with it, known as ‘learned helplessness’.”
Learned helplessness, oh. What are they suffering from? They have ‘learned helplessness’.
“In 1965 a psychologist, Martin Seligman, subjected two groups of dogs to electric shocks.”–
He was a sweetheart this guy Seligman, eh? Another psychopath.
“The first group could end the punishment by pressing a lever. These dogs recovered quickly; in a subsequent experiment, they learned to avoid further shocks by jumping a low wall. The second group had a lever that did nothing.”–
A placebo lever.
“They became apathetic and in the subsequent experiment simply cowered on the electrified floor”–
Imagine you couldn’t get out of that – an electrified floor, so now you just got shocked. Ah, disgusting, disgusting creatures these psychopaths are.
“unable to escape the shocks. They had ‘learned helplessness‘.”
You know your tax money funds this kind of stuff and what they learned is ultimately used on us to control us. Do you realize that? Ah, it’s a horror show.
“In Europe, the treaties of Maastricht and Nice were rejected by Danish and Irish voters, only to be largely implemented later. If the constitution is successfully revived—a big if—it would continue this pattern. Some EU leaders may hope that, if they do this often enough, apathetic voters will learn that they are helpless to stop further integration, even when they want to.”
There’s your little blurb, which in itself the way it’s worded is a downer. It’s meant to make you feel more apathetic because it doesn’t give you any answers to it. In fact, in a sense, it’s pointing out between the lines that there are no usual answers to it. The usual answers are gone because this was planned as a “must be” and you’re getting it rammed down your throats regardless.