Not so long ago a study on human behaviour found that people forget the lessons from history every 50 years and therefore history tends to repeat itself every hundred years. The same problems arise and the same mistakes are made again and again.
Wars are recorded in history books but do you wonder why they still happen? Do the Napoleonic wars seem less horrific than those recent wars, of course they do because time is a healer. We empathise with innocent Syrian civilians killed in Aleppo but not at all with the victims slaughtered by Napoleon. We lose touch with our past like a woman swears during a difficult childbirth that she’ll never go through it again, yet ten months later she falls pregnant.
Wars have always employed propaganda, it’s just better known as ‘disinformation’ or ‘fake news’ these days. Nazi Germany is the best example of how to live and die by propaganda.
With days remaining until the General Election in December 2019, many people remained unsure which way to vote due to the level of propaganda so it was a Brexit election and most people voted for a Leave or Remain party according to their bias, on the only issue of the day.
Much of the nation saw the General Election as a second referendum, so a Conservative win also meant a re-affirming mandate to proceed to leave the EU. Despite all the intimidation and propaganda waged against Leavers, they still voted to Leave.
But there had already been a previous affirmation in the result of the 2017 General Election. Brexit has been a three part affirmation process; 1. referendum – 2. GE 2017 – 3. GE 2019.
In the EU referendum, 52% voted to Leave. However, there was a majority in favour of Leave in 63% of constituencies (409 out of 650). This is due to the way that voters are clustered across the country. (House of Commons Library)
The problem with figures if you look at the diagram below; the 317 Conservative seats represents 49% therefore it would appear that since the referendum public opinion had shifted to Remain by 3%. It makes sense when the information is presented to you in this way, it’s how propaganda works.
In 2017 many voters had voted for the same party all their lives. There was a conflict in deciding if the Brexit issue was so important that they would switch sides. The Labour seats that turned Conservative had almost all voted to Leave in 2016.
Three quarters (74%) of Leave voters in the referendum that also voted in the 2019 general election, voted Conservative. This means 26% of Leave voters stuck with their traditional party for the general election. Indeed it became known in 2019 that five million Labour Party members were Brexiteers.
The same trick was played in Scotland when Nicola Sturgeon continued to push for Scottish Independence based on the almost total majority the SNP had secured campaigning as a pro-EU party. However, 38% of Scotland voted to Leave the EU, rather more people than the yellow map of Scotland would suggest.
It was a revelation that Scotland felt such a connection with the EU. They believe it will be so devastating to detach from the EU institutions which they have only been integrated with for 48 years yet see no issue in detaching themselves from the UK which they have been attached to for 300 years.
700 hundred years ago Scotland decided that the people, not a king, would decide their future. This was in the Declaration of Arbroath, the first time that the sovereignty of the people of Scotland was articulated, and each had an equal say and an equal right. This would be redundant if Scotland were to leave the UK and join the EU – Why doesn’t Scotland see this?
Those three years from the referendum in 2016 to 31st January 2020, the actual leave date, were a real eye opener for ordinary people and the rest of the world that watched the shambolic goings-on in parliament, live on television.
First I felt anger in that I had not realised what had been going on in the preceding years. Like when you first learn the world is controlled by nefarious bloodline families or when it suddenly dawns on you that there is no god in that moment when you can say it out loud without a fear of eternal damnation.
I suddenly became very patriotic at the thought that so many people could disrespect the ultimate sacrifices made for their freedoms in two world wars. I began to think of them as brainwashed EU soldiers, primed like the Hitler youth – traitors. Hadn’t they payed attention in history lessons or were so much of the British population actually that stupid.
Thoughts flashed through my mind of my grandmother born in 1916 who had made those jackets with sheep-like fur on the collar for RAF bomber pilots during the Second World War. Did you know they plugged in to the cockpit and heated the jacket; aircrew were able to fly to Germany and back without freezing because of people like my grandmother.
She would tell me what it was like when the doodlebugs went silent and that moment when they stopped flying and fell to earth, you never knew if you would be hit. She would tell me about people she knew that had gone off to fight in the war and were never heard of again.
We live in a country whose monarch is the only world leader to have an adult memory of service in World War II, Queen Elizabeth II, the most famous person on Earth. Are the growing band of people that have been shouting to bring the monarchy down for years now, also the same people that voted to hand sovereignty to a federal regime in 2016?
It was no surprise to me that 52% of people voted to leave the EU. Maybe I was a little surprised the number wasn’t higher. But conversely I was horrified that so many people were shocked that the result had been to leave the EU. What sort of a country did these people think they were living in, that they were that unprepared for the result.
Even the EU was gobsmacked, never had they thought an unfavourable outcome possible, considering the amount invested in brainwashing and propaganda over decades. It dawned on me how fragmented opinions were and without realising it then, I was in a group of people that were to become known as the silent majority.
Patriotism, sovereignty and democracy were words that I had not given a second thought to. As the result of the referendum sunk in and ‘we’ realised that we had won, it immediately dawned on me that there was a big problem. What I was seeing on television did not reflect what had been decided at the referendum. The losing 48% were simply not prepared to accept it.
Overnight the people of the UK had become polarised. The silent majority from then on were victimised and attacked in the cruelest ways. The 48% were in denial. They could not grasp that the 52% understood what they were voting for.
As the onslaught continued the quiet majority reflected on what was going on around them. ‘We’ realised that the 48% viewed us as old and racist and that we were ruining the future prospects of the younger generation. Indeed, we were told it was the younger generation that were the angry ones.
Why wasn’t there more resistance reported on television from the youth then, aren’t the educational establishments usually the first to demonstrate in such political matters. It did seem like young people were pro-EU but then in the entire EU, of the youth aged between 15-29, 48% are foreign-born with just 28% native-born. But the real vitriol did not come from the youth, it was all to do with the media and propaganda.
So why did we have to listen to all that drivel for three years when the decision to leave the EU had been made in the referendum on 23 June 2016. To understand that, one has to take another pill that’s hard to swallow; the British Broadcasting Corporation were in on it and no longer represented the nation’s moral compass.
When discussing propaganda you might expect the BBC to be immune. It is one of the prized institutions of the UK, matched only by the NHS. Therefore is it any wonder that the EU propaganda machine should not target it. Not only was it targeted but it was completely overrun.
It became evident that the BBC was not the voice of the UK but a tool of the EU. This made people realise the level of infiltration by the EU. They had taken over our media. Firstly its integrity was lost, and secondly it was no longer worthy of a public charter. By 2019 most people were getting their news on social media.
The problem with social media is that it is the perfect platform for propaganda. During the US presidential election we saw how effective targeted political advertising is in social media. In that case propaganda was published by the Russians using one or more British analytical data companies.
The common message is not to trust what we find on the internet. Yet what we find on the broadcasted media is no different. Media outlets have lost their integrity.
The BBC had maintained an unprecedented level of respect for its impartiality. This facade was unmasked during Brexit. Those presiding over the Corporation ultimately betrayed it by promoting the EU and the most famous media brand in the world was made redundant by many a licence payer.
A book by Robin Aitken, 25 years a BBC reporter, argues that the left wing political culture has imperilled the Corporation’s impartiality. It demonstrates how some groups and viewpoints get favourable treatment while others are left out in the cold.
A report titled ‘Brussels Broadcasting Corporation?’ published by think-tank Civitas in conjunction with the group News-watch, used specialist media monitoring techniques to analyse hundreds of hours of BBC coverage of EU issues broadcast between 1999 and 2017.
Researchers found that euro-sceptics were consistently excluded from BBC news programmes. Of 4,275 guests on the Today programme between 2005 and 2015 who talked about the EU, only 132 (3.2%) guests supported leaving the EU despite consistent public support for EU withdrawal.
The Sun newspaper reported on 26 January 2019 that the study proved the BBC was ‘overwhelmingly’ biased against Brexit, citing the finding in the report concerning the BBC’s flagship Radio 4 programme, Today.
They found just 14 speakers – 0.2% of those interviewed – were left-wing advocates of leaving the EU. Between them they spoke for just 12 minutes. By comparison, europhiles Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine made 28 appearances, nine times more airtime.
One of the report’s backers, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said:
“Under the terms of the BBC Charter and the BBC’s guidelines, the BBC has to be impartial and must reflect significant strands of public opinion in all of its news programmes. This report shows it has breached that agreement spectacularly.”
Mr George Galloway had this to say:
“There is NO case for anyone to go on paying their BBC licence fee or the deluge of foul-smelling propaganda posing as a ‘press’ in this country. To be lied to is one thing, to PAY for the privilege is beyond the pale.”
The Remain campaign was backed by Britain’s main big business bodies — the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Engineering Employers Federation — as well as by most major City banks including the Bank of England itself.
As an ordinary person the term Marxist applies to a form of communism, certainly not to political activism in the West. Yet the term came up frighteningly often to describe the politics and the media. Mostly directed at the BBC and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party but the term was also used for the British education system, where students are conditioned from primary to university in EU programs and ideology of Marxist collectivisation.
“The level of mass EU indoctrination and brainwashing on Britain’s youth has been evident during and after the EU referendum.” — The Daily Squib
In September 2019 a popular face on the BBC John Humphrys, retired. He presented Radio 4’s Today programme for 32 years. In his memoirs just days after retirement he criticised the ‘institutional liberal bias’ and described how BBC bosses were devastated by the victory of the Leave campaign. He said: “I’m not sure the BBC as a whole ever quite had a real grasp of what was going on in Europe, or of what people in this country thought about it.“
During the referendum many young people claimed they didn’t know why they were sticking up for the EU and some completely changed their view once they had analysed their own behaviour. After Brexit the EU curriculum can be addressed and the effects of long term brainwashing can be looked at but it all may take a generation to rectify.
Nathan Gill at the European Parliament.
At the European parliament ex Welsh MEP Nathan Gill, often seen at the EU Commission sitting at his desk behind Nigel Farage, and now a Brexit Party member, addressed concerns on the material the EU is drip-feeding into the education system. He said:
“I know that those who fail to learn from our history are doomed to repeat it. I believe strongly in education, but know that education can be and is used to further propaganda. I am concerned that the EU will use this as a way to further propagandise its existence and further make patriotic citizens of nation-states into villains.“
Mr Gill referred to the way the EU presents history in schools:
“… I am also very concerned about the often repeated line that the EU has been the source of 75 years of peace in Europe. Communication, cooperation and learning off each other often have helped but do not write out the role of NATO, of the Americans, of the UN, and yes, of nuclear weapons, the threat of which have made war impossible.
If you must dabble in education, please trust the Member States to decide what is best for their children. Trust in national education systems and keep political motivation out of education.“
Judith Schilling, the Publications Manager for the European Commission, said: “Everybody has now picked up on the idea that we will never succeed to convince people about the value of being a member of the European Union if we don’t start early enough with the young people before they have formed prejudices and are misinformed by other sources.”
Then in 2010 at an Education Show in Birmingham, UK , she handed out EU-focused pamphlets aimed at children which appeared on a video on the European Commission official website. Later in 2012 the Daily Express newspaper suggested that these pamphlets were being handed out to teachers to indoctrinate pupils at a young age.
A year later in 2011 Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny and Minister for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton in association with the European Commission in Ireland and European Movement in Ireland started the Blue Star Programme in Primary Schools.
The EU’s Blue Star Programme for Primary schools is launched in Ireland – 2011
According to the European Movement in Ireland the goal of the Blue Star Programme is to foster a strong sense of EU citizenship. The class is given learning materials about the EU to study, including a mini booklet of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On completion of the course the class receives a Blue Star certificate and an EU Flag.
However, Article 406 of the UK’s Education Act 1996 forbids any political indoctrination in schools. Here is the clause:
(1) The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid
(a) The pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and (b) The promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school (Gov.uk).
The EU’s education policy has been kept at arm’s reach in the UK because it remains illegal to spread political propaganda in schools. Other European members do not have such protection as demonstrated by the Blue Star project in Ireland.
Is the promotion of EU values in schools education or propaganda? The EU has become a political body and as such its promotion is not allowed. One could say that in Ireland the Blue Star project is educational, but emphasis is on its values where there’s a thin line between ideology and indoctrination.
But then let’s get real, schools do teach about political systems and their values all the time, students study about Russia and communism right. If we say schools can’t teach this or that then do we not become the brainwashers?
Perhaps learning about the EU would be fine but teaching a different version of history is not. The EU have a habit of making things up and then believing it. The single most belief is that they have kept the peace in Europe since World War II.
In Ireland the Department of Education planned a follow on course for Secondary Schools entitled ‘National strategy on education for sustainable development 2014- 2020’ in which was stated:
‘The NCCA has developed a draft syllabus for a new Politics and Society subject . The Minister for Education and Skills has recently prioritised the introduction of this subject. Its availability would complement the Blue Star Programme at primary level.‘
(N.B. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment)
“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people, second of all demoralise them. An educated, healthy, and confident nation is harder to govern.“ — Tony Benn
The youth are not to blame, they are victims of state indoctrination. The Nazis did it so effectively with the Hitler youth, and they didn’t hide it whereas the EU have being drip feeding in stealth mode more likely because as the decades have passed they have been evolving themselves.
Europe was a volatile and dangerous place once, far more than any of us have experienced. It’s been more than 50 years since the UK joined the European Union and a 100 years since the Weimar Republic which means that history is due to repeat itself.
Nation states in the Balkans set the stage for World War I, and in its aftermath six new nations were created in Eastern Europe, all of which had been removed from the map by the middle of World War II. When the Nazis took control of Germany their aim was to conquer and strip away the idea of the nation state, and it was achieved by force, logistical efficiency and propaganda.
Despite the atrocities of the German nation, post-war West Germany was the leading agent of European integration. This became the trade organisation which turned into a political body. In many ways the EU today is a phoenix of the older Weimar and West German visions.
They say history is written by the victors of war but this time it is being re-written in peace time to fit the EU model. The purpose of propaganda is to control by fear. Used in the education system it helps to erode the sense of loyalty to a nation state and replaces it with subservience to the EU. There’s little difference in the objectives for the Hitler youth and the EU education programme.
The reason the EU are involved with state education has to do with providing a uniformed syllabus across the member nations. Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty allows the EU to support, co-ordinate or enhance member states’ efforts in education. The funding is only available for programmes that are consistent with the aims and goals of the EU.
Therefore as long as a nation accepts or follows the EU vision it becomes eligible for funding. Towards the end of 2017 they set out a plan to use billions in education. The plan will come in to force in 2025 and create a new network of EU universities and introduce an EU student card. The education policy “fosters a sense of European identity and culture” and focuses on “the European dimension of teaching”, says the EU.
If the UK had remained in the EU it would be handing over the control of education to Brussels in 2025. Ireland and the UK had the least young people voting out of the twenty-eight members, at 48% and 45% respectively, according to the European Commission’s last EU Youth Report 2015 on their website.
It indicates that Ireland and the UK have the largest number of youth 15-29 that are less involved with national politics and therefore a prime target for the introduction of the EU education agenda to shape young minds for the future.
Nigel Farage in a heated interview by Andrew Marr.
The BBC gave little regard to Brexiteers during and since the referendum denying politicians such as Nigel Farage a platform even though he was the person that petitioned for the referendum, founded the Brexit Party, won the largest European national election ever, helped bring down Theresa May and undoubtedly assured Boris Johnson a home at No10.
On Nigel Farage’s first appearance on The Andrew Marr Show, Marr followed a bizzare line of questioning that had nothing whatsoever to do with the election or Brexit. Marr became obsessed with clearing up an item of fake news, that Nigel Farage had once said he wanted to sell off the NHS in an interview from September 2010 when he was the leader of UKIP.
At this time Boris Johnson was already saying publicly that he had no intention of selling any part of the NHS to the Americans and the American President personally phoned in live on the Nigel Farage radio show on LBC to put the record straight.
Indeed it was the EU that had held meetings with the US about the sale of the NHS. The EU openly stated that all national health systems, including the NHS, would be replaced post Brexit. Dismantling of the NHS was already in the making by the EU.
In the UKIP interview 2010 Nigel Farage had called for private health firms to relieve the burden on the NHS. Following the Marr interview 2019 the Mirror newspaper fact-checked Mr Farage’s comments from the 2019 interview and compared them to what he had said originally about the NHS in 2010.
Here are the words verbatim:
Mr Marr asked: “Do you still want to replace the NHS with a private insurance basis?“
Mr Farage answered: “I never did. I would like to take the burden off the NHS. If I was encouraged to opt out of the system to relieve the burden of the NHS I would do so gleefully.“
Farage also said in September 2012 under UKIP:
“I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently. I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare. Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the market place of an insurance company than just us trustingly giving £100bn a year to central government and expecting them to organise the healthcare service from cradle to grave for us.“
From September 2019 French education law made it compulsory for EU flags to be hung in every French classroom along with the motto : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité (Freedom, Equality, Fraternity). The law does not yet permit real flags in classrooms so poster illustrations will do for now.
History teaching will be taught very differently by removing national history from history textbooks and replacing it with the history of African tribes in order to ‘rid’ children of the sense of nationality. Under the new law children are required to attend school from three years old instead of the previous six years old.
Eric Ciotti, a member of centre-right The Republicans, introduced the reforms as a series of amendments to the existing law. The lyrics of the country’s national anthem, the Marseillaise will also be displayed in classrooms and when a map of France is present in classrooms it must now represent the overseas territories.
“The values that underlie our nation must be transmitted from an early age.” — Eric Ciotti
Similar steps, which are backed by the EU parliament, are taken in other EU countries. Not surprisingly British children know very little about their national history and helps to explain why they cannot tell you who Admiral Nelson was or who won the battle of Waterloo.
If you want to read further about EU indoctrination in education, head to the Bruges Group website and look for Federalist Thought Control, a document published by them about the Brussels propaganda machine. Children are in the eyes of Brussels a legitimate target for indoctrination and are given special treatment because they are very receptive.
The EU propaganda machine spares no cost to influence people. In February 2018 Brussels signed an agreement with UEFA to use major sporting events such as the champions league to portray a positive image of Europe at tournaments. Euro 2020 will be used to push pro-EU propaganda. The list of avenues goes on and on.
William Joyce apprehended by accident, shot in the buttocks and being arrested on stretcher.
History stopped in 1936 – after that, there was only propaganda. So said George Orwell. It was a reference to the Nazis in Europe. The Nazi propaganda enterprise started with Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), the Reich Minister of Propaganda. Less known about is William Joyce the voice of German propaganda broadcast to Britain throughout World War II.
William Joyce was born to English and Irish parents that later emigrated to the US. During the early 1920s he messed with fascism and communism. He was soon giving speeches for the British Union of Fascists led by Sir Oswald Mosley and later formed his own party.
In 1934 Joyce became Mosley’s propaganda director and later deputy leader of the movement. By 1939 he was under surveillance by MI5 for being in contact with German agents in Britain but before he was arrested he fled to Germany, a week before the war started.
In Germany he met with the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop’s private secretary, Erich Hetzler. Joyce was assigned head of German foreign language radio broadcasting under the supervision of the staff of Joseph Goebbels who later described Joyce as “the best horse in my stable”.
He made the first broadcast on 11 September 1939, writing his own scripts to undermine British morale. His voice was heard daily on the wireless across Britain. People felt betrayed by this man but they listened anyway, it’s estimated that he had around six million regular listeners.
For his efforts he was rewarded with German citizenship and in September 1944 was awarded the German War Merit Cross from Hitler (whom he never met). After the war he was sent to Britain to stand trial for high treason and was found guilty at the Old Bailey and hanged on 3 January 1946 at Wandsworth Prison. He was 38.
His last words were: “May the swastika be raised from the dust.”