The euro bail-out is a conspiracy against democracy … The bail-out of the euro represents the introduction of socialism on a continental scale – with the British government's cynical endorsement. How very appropriate that tanks should have been rolling through the streets of Brussels on the day that Europe dismantled another pillar of democracy. The military display, as it happened, was commemorating Belgium National Day, not the triumphal march toward financial union, but the coincidence was one of history's better jokes. Europe is now galloping toward the final realisation of its great post-war dream: the abolition of independent nation states whose governments are answerable to their own people. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Don't read this article. It was published by mistake.
Free-Market Analysis: In the other article today, we covered the essential immorality of the modern money system and the ramifications that must inevitably occur; this article (excerpted above) is a surprising analysis, and one that makes some of the same points that we have presented regarding the larger money system.
Why does an article like this appear in the Telegraph? It is a "Tory" paper that supports the royal family and serves as a foil to papers like the leftist Guardian in the UK. The elites evidently and obviously control both papers, but the Hegelian Dialectic being employed allows an occasional yelp of truth to emerge. This is one of those cases.
It is written by Janet Daley who is something of a neocon columnist; the paper's brief, which includes an ongoing campaign to extricate Britain from the EU, means that there is room for the kinds of sentiments voiced in this article. For a mainstream article, it's pretty strong, fairly surprising.
Daley does not of course put what's going on in its proper context. She characterizes the EU as socialist, when the truth is more brutal: It is simply a dictatorship in the making. Nonetheless, she makes some practical points. She writes about accountability, for instance, and asks the following questions: "If the government is not accountable to you for what it does with your money, and how much it will take from you to do those things, then what is left of your power as a citizen? In what sense is your consent to being governed required?"
One could ask, in a larger sense, how casting a vote in a democracy extends one's "consent to be governed." A ballot does not necessarily imply an endorsement of everything a democratic government will do in your name. In fact, those legislators you are electing are not inclined to represent YOUR best interests. They are merely intend on pursuing their own.
Nonetheless, Daley has as a grasp of the larger ramifications. "We are setting out on a course with the most terrifying political implications," she writes. "There is nothing accidental about this trajectory. The Greek (and Irish, and Portuguese, and Italian, and Spanish) crisis has been useful, as everyone now seems to be admitting, as an accelerant: having to scrape a whole cohort of Eurozone countries off the floor has simply made the "need" for financial integration undeniable." Here's some more from the article:
The logical conclusion of an economically illiterate project has been reached. No more messing with the will of the people: resentful Germans and rebellious Greeks will be equally overridden in the name of – what? An international welfare state in which wealth is redistributed not just from the hard-working to the non-working classes of one's own country, but from industrious nations to failing ones. The traditional socialist model of the wealth of the richer being taken by the state to give to the poorer is being applied on a continental scale, with the inevitable result that southern Europe will become a permanent basket case, dependent indefinitely on "support" – cheap loans and periodic bail-outs – from the north. The governments of those dependent countries will simply be ciphers, as powerless as welfare recipients are likely to be in any system.
And what of their voters? They will scarcely be electorates in the true sense at all. Which is why the Greeks were rioting in the streets: not just because they saw their early retirement age and their casual attitude to taxpaying under threat, but because they recognised that their views would now be irrelevant to their fate. Which is pretty much exactly what was intended all along. Deriding public opinion by dismissing it as populist, ignorant and inflammatory is not an incidental feature of the European project: it is essential. The will of the people is not a mere irritant or an obstacle, to be overcome under the pressure of particular circumstances. It is inherently volatile and dangerous: a threat to the benign, enlightened governance which only an apolitical bureaucratic administration can deliver.
The post-war received wisdom was that the terrible international crimes of the first half of the 20th century were directly attributable to the existence of vainglorious nation states and their rabidly xenophobic peoples. Only the abolition of their sovereignty and the disabling of their popular will could rid the world of that terrible blood-and-soil mystical relationship between countries and their own populations. It is not surprising or discreditable that it was Germany itself – the most infamous incarnation of this historical tendency – that was so determined to extinguish the possibility of it ever recurring. The question is: does undermining the fundamental principle of democracy – that the legitimacy of government requires the consent of the people – make that more or less likely to happen?
She also understands the inevitable outcome of what is going on in the EU today. "Deny people the ballot box as an effective outlet for their dissatisfaction, and they will take to the streets, either to replace their government by force, or worse, simply to vent their inchoate fury."
With astonishing frankness, she reveals the essential hypocrisy of the British elites. As we have pointed out many times in the past, the EU is fundamentally a creation of the Anglo-American powers-that-be. It is a pharisaical invention, intended to be a stepping stone to liturgically-inspired world government, one possibly to be ruled from Jerusalem.
The mainstream press has attempted to blur this reality in numerous ways. Most recently, the sub-dominant social theme being advanced is that the EU is a German "takeover" of Europe. No, no, no, as the unfortunately departed Amy Winehouse might croon. The German people were dragged into the Union and continuing to resist it even now.
It is the German elites that are continually salvaging the Union as it limps from one disaster to the next. But this is hardly a popular endeavor. Chancellor Angela Merkel has actually sacrificed her power base and ultimately her job in pursuit of the EU's agglomerated destiny.
Such behavior is politically bizarre: There is obviously great pressure being brought on Merkel. It is not coming from Brussels. It is coming from the elite banking families of Europe and London that are behind the project. One needs to peer through the smokescreen of verbiage and articles to perceive the truth.
From a British standpoint, the Union has never been popular. It has been sold to the British public through a series of lies. At no point would the British have voted for it. This has put the Tory party – which supposedly represents British sovereignty – into a bad position. Though the Tory partiy is as controlled by the elites, as is Labour, each generation of Tory leaders has made a great show of support for the idea of leaving the Union.
David Cameron (pictured above left), the current Prime Minister, scrupulously presented his disavowals of the Union and promised a referendum on British involvement. The referendum, we would predict, will never come. But what has emerged is even more startling. And Daley points it out …
Bizarrely, in a reversal of what has been Tory foreign policy for a generation, the party leadership is now urging Europe on toward greater and faster financial union. The superficial (and reasonably plausible) economic case for this volte face is that, at this stage, it is only by accepting full economic integration that the eurozone can survive – and our economic fate being dependent on the survival of the euro as a currency means that it is in our interests to encourage whatever is necessary to keep it viable.
This is the crux of the matter. There is no hiding such sentiments in the Internet Reformation era. The reality of Britain's position is that its foreign and domestic policies are entirely manipulated by a tiny coterie of impossibly wealthy banking families bent on world domination. We have to thank Daley as well for summarizing the "evolution" of the current Tory position. Unable to pretend anymore to the British people that the Tories are anything more than a "controlled" opposition, Cameron et al. have now taken the position that a greater union is justified by Britain's economic interests!
Daley calls out the realigned position as a contradiction. (Good for her.) "This is a cynical form of realpolitik: that we should sell the pass on other people's democratic rights in spite of whatever dark forces may be unleashed. That is not, as I recall, the traditional British view of our moral role in the world."
Of course here Daley is being less than forthcoming. There is no "British moral view." There is only a tired, confused and harassed population, endlessly videotaped, incarcerated and taxed as they are gradually shoved toward the mind control of world government.
It is an astonishing article, nonetheless, all the moreso for Daley's blunt appraisal of British rhetoric surrounding the EU. In an adult world, representatives of a political party do not spend 50 years decrying the Union they are forming and then, finally, when it is about to collapse, declare their fidelity to it. These are the sorts of unbelievably bizarre actions that belong in a Franz Kafka novel. They, alone, constitute "proofs of a conspiracy."