The two faced presentation.

“Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people; and second, is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it.”

Over the past few decades there have been many changes on a global and local scale which, on the face of it, may seem to have some benefit. However, as time passes it becomes more obvious that the change has much deeper implications, or leads to other significant changes, which were not obvious at the time.

An example is the European Union.  Between 1952 and 1973 the European Economic Community (as it came to be known, and also referred to as the ‘Common Market’) consisted of the ‘Inner Six’ countries, Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The ‘Inner Six’ formed an alliance with the name of the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ (ECSC) which aimed to pool the steel and coal resources of the country to enable the ‘Inner Six’ to compete more effectively in the world market. In the first five years of the ECSC, there were various attempts to extend and centralise control of the member states (primarily in the areas of politics and military), on which the member states could not reach agreement. This led to the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

The Treaty of Rome was signed on 25th March 1957 by the ‘Inner Six’ which led to the founding of the European Economic Community (EEC) on 1st January 1958. The treaty’s aim was to create a common market where member states could freely trade goods and services, and where capitol and workers could freely move. It also proposed a reduction in customs duty between the states and established the European Commission. Other proposals were to create common policies on transport and agriculture, and to establish a European social fund. The push to create a Europe-wide state was under way, and through various treaties and agreements, power and resources became more centralised.

In 1973, three other countries were due to became members of the EEC. These were Denmark (including Greenland), Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although Norway had applied to join the EEC, the plan was abandoned after a referendum where 53.5% of the population voted against joining. Greenland later left the EEC in 1985. In Ireland, a referendum held in 1972 showed 83% of the people supported Ireland joining the EEC.

There was no referendum in the United Kingdom when the country joined the EEC in 1973. Referendums had been opposed in the past and were seen as violating the right of the government to change and repeal legislation. However, the government introduced the Referendum Bill in 1975 which allowed for the British people to decide if the United Kingdom should stay part of the EEC. The question was “Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?”

From the outset, the emphasis was on trade and free movement, and how this would improve global business and commerce, at a time when the United Kingdom manufacturing industry was facing severe difficulties competing in the international market, and at a time where the world had seen a recession at the end to the post World War Two boom.

There was a ‘Yes’ campaign and a ‘No’ campaign.

The ‘Yes’ campaign was well funded and supported by large business organisations and some trade unions, as well as much of the press (who were allies of many of those involved in the ‘Yes’ camp), whereas the ‘No’ campaign struggled to get funding and exposure. The ‘Yes’ campaigners used every tool at their disposal to bombard the public with their message that joining the EEC was good for the economy – good for jobs.

At the time of the referendum, very few of the general public were aware of the implications that staying in the EEC would have on the United Kingdom. Few knew that the EEC would have centralised power over laws and government in the UK. The emphasis was on trade and economy, which seemed like a positive move at a time when there was high unemployment and the people had recently experienced power shortages, imposed 3 day working weeks (as a state of emergency), there was double-digit inflation, miner’s strikes, the oil ‘crisis’, and the national debt was rising at a rate not seen before.

The result was that 67.2% of the British population voted to stay in the EEC.

History has proven that membership of the EEC means far more than economic cooperation. In 1975 when the referendum took place, the British people had no idea that successive governments would take the United Kingdom deeper and deeper into the centralised control network of the EEC. Few would have considered that there would be a European single currency (the Euro) which was planned as far back as 1969. Although the UK has not joined the Euro, it still impacts on the UK’s economy.

The public would have had little concept of how the centralisation of the European legal system would have impacted on how laws are made and implemented in the UK, or of the restrictions placed on trade through various agreements and treaties which successive governments in the UK have committed the United Kingdom to with little or no reference to public opinion.

What started as the European Economic Community, has now turned into the European Union – a very different beast than that envisaged by the voters in 1975.

The European Union is a very good example of how an idea is presented to the public in a way which seems to solve or ease problems during a time when the people have experienced hardship or discord. The real reason and objectives are masked through control, emphasis of the benefits people want to hear at the time, and manipulation of media.

There are generations who have known nothing else in but the centralised control of Europe. These generations have become, and are becoming the decision makers, the workers, mothers and fathers, who have never known what it is like for a country to be truly independent.

The real reason for the European Community is to create a zone where control is centralised. Control of law, government, finance, trade, defence, and so on. The zone has been created so people get used to the idea of national identities being diluted, and get used to being controlled by a centralised power. In effect, the European Union is a model for what is to come.

Another example is the proposed economic and monetary union of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. A similar pattern is emerging of how this is being presented to the general public. At a time of economic crisis, the proposals claim to offer a solution to the concerns of citizens, the solution of cooperation with nearby countries in a joint effort to re-stabilise the economy, to create jobs, to become competitive in the international market, and so on. Part of the proposal is to introduce a common currency – referred to as the Amero – so that trade between member states is easier and more beneficial. The same pattern as the establishment of the European Union, probably with the same motives of increased centralisation of control.

We will probably find that these ‘zones’ and currencies are not meant to last. They are a tool that those who have long-term plans use to get people used to the idea of centralised control. Eventually, there will be a situation where the zones and common currencies are proven not to work, and yet another solution will be offered – a worldwide centralisation of resources. Step by step to globalisation.

There is already a seed being planted in the public’s mind in Europe that the union is not working as well as it is supposed to. The seed will be nurtured until such a time that it has grown, and other resources can be offered as a solution.

The tactics of the globalists have been repeated many times, and the creation of the European Union is (perhaps) a classic example. First, there is a problem, usually created by the globalists (such as the recession and turmoil created in the early 70s), then a solution is offered which appears to ease or solve the problem (joining the European Economic Community to improve the economy), then there is the implementation of the solution with the purpose of meeting globalist objectives (the gradual introduction of additional control of members, and the public). We will see this tactic used time and again.

To remind you of the words of Dr Day “Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people; and second, is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it.”

Advertisements

One thought on “The two faced presentation.

  1. Pardon my skepticism, but where is the evidence to show that Dr. Richard Day: (1) actually said these things and, (2) even if proven to have made these comments, actually made them as long ago as 1969? Furthermore, Dr. Dunegan, the man who is attributed as having brought Dr. Day’s comments to light did so in 1989 or thereabouts. Where is the evidence to establish this dateline? It seems to me that all these comments are being revealed “after the fact” but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise based on clear evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s