The EU's grand designs: who'd've thought it?

CallingEngland's posting holds such an important warning, it needs to be read by as many people as possible.

Here it is:

Sometimes I feel as if I don't exist at all except as a blip or a statistic in someone's in-tray, to be dealt with when they've finished their tea & biscuits.

'What Ambitions for European Defence in 2020?'

From the foreword:

Let it be stressed again that the distinctiveness of the European Union greatly depends on its sustained preference for soft power instruments, for persuasion rather than force. Deviation from this rule, in particular when confronting non-military, non-security challenges of a ‘societal’ nature, be they social, economic, energy or environment-related, would kill European distinctiveness altogether. Reliance on hard power to meet ‘soft’ challenges – a rough equivalent of ‘disproportionate response’ – would not only be inconsistent with the lessons learnt from the European experience, but a sure recipe for alienating partners and pushing the goal of global governance well out of reach.

This leaked 175-page .pdf was produced by the EU Institute for Security Studies, an EU policy think-tank. It covers long term EU security strategy, including the problems of hierarchical class society, with the elite of the world on one side, and the so-called 'bottom billion' on the other.

To avoid "global systemic collapse", the document suggests that the "full spectrum of high intensity combat" be used to protect what is called "globalisers" from "localisers". Localisers, (making up 80% of the world population) include the "bottom billion", states in the Middle East and the so-called "Alienated Modern States" like North Korea. Globalisers include not only members of the OECD and "Rapid Transition Societies" like China and Brazil, but also "Transnational Corporations"—the "Fortune Global 1000".

The paper discusses "barrier operations shielding the global rich from the tensions and problems of the poor". "As the ratio of the world population living in misery and frustration will remain massive, the tensions and spillover between their world and that of the rich will continue to grow. As we are unlikely to have solved this problem at its root by 2020 - i.e. by curing dysfunctional societies, we will need to strengthen our barriers. It is a morally distasteful, losing strategy, but will be unavoidable if we cannot solve the problems at their root."

Excuse me while I pinch myself to see if I'm really here. Two things seem certain in all this: (1) my views, my votes, don't count, and (2) the past 13yrs of Labour's authoritarian legislation are merely stepping stones.

Yes, we are statistics. We are parts of "groups" defined by them. That's how collectivists think. The individual is not important. Ergo, they do not value our vote. That is why democracy has being going down the toilet because it is not part of their grande visage.

There is hope here:

Reliance on hard power to meet ‘soft’ challenges – a rough equivalent of ‘disproportionate response’ – would not only be inconsistent with the lessons learnt from the European experience, but a sure recipe for alienating partners and pushing the goal of global governance well out of reach

The italicised text suggests acknowledged vulnerabilities to their decades old plan.

That they believe their goals cannot be achieved by anything but "soft power instruments", seems to suggest that they need our acquiescence in order to proceed. Legally, they can't send the European Military to control the masses until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all member states.

Why do the premiers of member countries put the EU before their people, treason before integrity?

Because they don't want to be amongst the "bottom billion".

They don't want to be statistics. And for their treason, the EU and their fellow globalist puppeteers reward them handsomely. In their world, doing what most of us would consider to be "the unthinkable" is exactly what the globalists want from leaders they select for us, with their money created out of thin air**.

Given the above, it is all the more imperative that we put our fear of ridicule aside and inform people about what is going on.

Most of the people I know, including family members, regardless of their intelligence, qualifications, class or place in the pecking order, don't believe the NWO exists, even though I've shown many of them videos of the world's leaders such as Bush, Brown, etc. include the term in their speeches.

They don't believe that our PMs and Presidents are mere puppets of the globalists. They believe the government is on their side - and they are otherwise reasonable people!

I'm still working on them and have told them to at least remember what I say, so that when they encounter startling developments which seem to make no sense and which fit the pattern of the picture I have outlined, they might have a Eureka moment.

If we are to prevent the horrific world that the globalists want from becoming a reality, those of us who are aware of what is going on (to whatever extent) must cease to worry about being branded "conspiracy theorists", and inform others.

In law, a conspiracy is defined as "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act" and also "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result".

Given these definitions of "conspiracy", can we possibly contend that the EU's goals are not a conspiracy? That the globalists' goals are not a conspiracy? If these are conspiracies, then there's nothing theoretical about it. The term "conspiracy theory" has been used by those in power as a hate term, that can be used to discredit those who would seek the truth, uncover it and make it public - to their detriment.

Consider: the globalists and world leaders hatched a plan which they have managed to keep largely secret. The really nasty bits they disguise. Everything must fit the "narrative" they have concocted. What is a narrative*? It is the story they devise that they want us to accept as reality, which suits their direction of political travel, which enables them to achieve their goals without alerting the natives as to what they are really doing and planning behind the scenes.

To understand the narrative, consider Political Correctness:



* Peter Oborne discovered the narrative, introduced to New Labour by Alistair Campbell, and wrote about it in his book The Rise of Political Lying.

** Money out of thin air includes bailout money, which we pay for twice with our taxes: (1) we pay the capital 'back' to the bankers (which they never owned in the first place, because it didn't exist); (2) we pay interest on that capital. Good scam, isn't it?