Every empire building political group from Soviet Communists to German Nazis to US Neo-cons have adopted reality distorting language patterns to off-set dissent and win support (or at least passive acceptance) for their policies.
In hindsight it’s much easier to identify politicized language after the lies and distortions have been contradicted by reality. These days few are taken in by phrases such as “the war on terror”, “rogue states”, “policing the world”, “axis of evil”, “weapons of mass destruction” and “international terrorism” as a case for unprovoked invasion of a country. But back in 2003 enough of us fell for these language tactics. The Iraq war went ahead.
Contradiction between rhetoric and reality tends not to be noticed early enough to prevent implementation of questionable policies. Therefore a concerted and up to date effort to scrutinize establishment language must be maintained by citizens and opposing parties.
Here we will explore some of the key phrases and buzzwords currently used in EU policy documents and debates. It isn’t a complete list. And many of these language patterns are mirrored in other “globalism” efforts such as those of the US establishment and the three major, pro-EU, political parties in Britain.
Throughout the list counter-language suggestions are offered. Keep a notepad and pen handy as you read.
Anti-discrimination – Genuine anti-discrimination is important, but EU proponents sometimes use the term so that a potentially unpopular policy can be framed as a solution to a non-existent or unrelated problem. The term is most often used to neutralize opposition to mass immigration (both from outside the EU and between member states). Yet mass immigration is expressed in several EU documents, such as Project Europe 2030, as a way of filling supposed labour market shortages (ie. for corporate profit and possibly as a way of importing political support for the EU institutions).
Assertive and relevant player – EU proponents use this term to describe their desired relationship between the EU and the world as a whole. Ask assertive and relevant in what way? The phrase assumes that without expansion the EU is passive and irrelevant. The EU they wish to build could equally be called an “aggressive and dominant player”.
Civil protection – EU proponents are happy to throw this term around to support their policies, but they also use the term “protectionism” as a slur against member states who wish to retain or restore their right to govern themselves. EU proponents support “protection” policies only when they don’t interfere with empire building.
Climate change – once primarily referred to as Global Warming. Potentially unpopular economic policies are presented to the public as solutions to a possibly non-existent, and most-likely over-exaggerated, environmental problem. Protecting the environment is certainly important – anti-pollution for example, but in light of the Climategate scandal of 2009 and the many examples of scientists speaking out against the man-made climate change hypothesis, the EU remains 100% insistent that the problem is real and urgent, when in fact that they are climate change theories.
Co-existence – an almost meaningless term used to make EU policies appeal to our desire for peace. The nations and people of the world already co-exist, and many of them do so without geographically merging their governments into superstate bureaucracies.
Collective security – This phrase generally assumes that collectivism (increased political European Union) is the way to be secure. Security can, in some ways, be achieved with much more efficiency by sovereign independent states in a way that doesn’t compromise the unique needs of those states. Sovereign security is a good counter term.
Common – this is a favourite language tool used by EU proponents. Frequent phrases include Common agenda, Common cultural heritage, Common ground, Common guidelines, Common interests, Common negotiation strategy, and especially … Common purpose and common market. The word implies consensual agreement often where there is intense disagreement. By framing their policies as “common” EU proponents mask over the problems of public opinion. When inappropriately used by EU proponents the word “common” should be singled out and evidence of democratic process demanded.
Competitive – Despite the EU’s self-serving push for what it calls “equality”, in which competitiveness for jobs is considered outdated and is to be replaced by tokenism, EU proponents are happy to consider the rest of the world as competitors on a chess board. This ideological mismatch of internal and external policy is worth raising in debate.
Compliance – the demand that member states surrender and do as they’re told by the unelected EU commission.
Conspiracy theorist – occasionally used to imply social / mental illness on the part of EU opponents. However, the EU holds and disseminates its own conspiracy theories regarding terrorists, right wing extremists, racism and world domination competition from China and Russia.
Culture – the word “culture” carries generally positive connotations. When on holiday we enjoy exploring other cultures without having to adapt to them. In restaurants we enjoy food from other cultures. And some of us enjoy watching subtitled films or documentaries that allow us to explore other cultures. But EU proponents frequently use the term to promote the permenant mixing of often incompatible religions and cultures within the same geographical boundaries. In reality this frequently triggers a breakdown of communication and social trust. EU proponents use terms such as Cultural barriers, Cultural diversity and Culture of co-operation to imply that people who object to the permanent mixing of religions and cultures in their neighbourhoods and cities are disrespecting other cultures. It is actually the EU proponents who are disrespecting cultures by attempting to break down geographical boundaries that maintain their uniqueness.
Cybercrime – EU proponents are aware that new media activism is a major factor in exposing widespread EU corruption. It is in their interests to clamp down on the dissemination of information on the internet. Cybercrime policies, while of course needed in some areas, can be a convenient tool for suppressing internet free speech and should be carefully scrutinized. Perhaps we should begin referring to EU corruption itself as bureaucrime or eurocrime.
Democracy – this word is used by the EU with about as much legitimacy as its use by George W Bush. The EU has a puppet parliament of highly paid MEPs who are given all manner of financial incentives not to oppose the EU commission. MEPs are given inadequate time to review policies before voting on them, are given very short speaking times and are unable to propose new legislature. The proposing of legislature is the sole right of the unelected EU Commission, which presides over the EU parliament. Basically the EU is undemocratic. Ask democratic in what way?
Diversity – one of the favourites of EU proponents. This is used almost exclusively in reference to race, nationality and religion because breaking up these groups is essential to European / US / global political empire. This tactic is so important that the modellers of the EU chose “United in diversity” as the EU motto, a self-contradicting term equivalent to “joined in difference”. EU proponents rarely push for political diversity, economic diversity, diversity of dissent or diversity of expression for the simple reason that these forms of diversity would quickly become a threat to EU centralization and social engineering aspirations.
Ecological awareness – A trick term used to imply that belief in man made climate change theories are conclusive. A person or organisation that expresses awareness of the politicizing and over-funding of man-made climate change theories or an awareness of the lack of consensus among scientists on the subject wouldn’t be referred to in EU rhetoric as “aware”. They’d likely be branded deniers, skeptics or irresponsible. Retorts against these labelling tactics could include counter-branding such as democracy skeptics, concensus deniers or, an already oft used term, alarmists.
Emerging world order – a favourite phrase of empire builders both in the EU, US imperialist circles and world financial centralist institutions. It basically means social, financial and political engineering on a global scale through a communist style tactic of incrementalism / gradualism.
Environmental protection – the phrase implies that there really is something threatening to be protected against. It conflicts with the “protectionist” slur used to marginalize dissenters against the EU. So called environmental protection often conflicts with protection of industry, trade and democracy.
Equality / equal opportunities – Another favourite of EU proponents. It follows the same false promise of communism; the idea that all differences between people can be eradicated. To succeed in this utopian dream would be to eradicate all forms of individuality (and dissent), resulting in an ant-colony-like population of worker drones. The leaders of such a society, those who promised the dream, would of course make themselves exempt of such personal sacrifices. This was the way it was with communism and the way it currently is with the EU. Empire building motives aside, what EU proponents call “equality” is not genuine equality. It is tokenism; a policy of inequality, based on the perverse assumption that institutional discrimination / favouritism results in a less discriminatory society. Outside of the globalist blocks (North America and Europe) such tokenism isn’t being practiced by other countries because they don’t have their sites set so determinedly on empire expansion, part pursued through mass immigration.
Europe – even this basic geographical word is distorted by EU proponents. They regard a group of political and economic bureaucrats (the EU commission), representing just a tiny portion of the entire population of Europe, as Europe itself. Terms such as “Britain should stay in Europe” are standard distortions. To leave the bureaucratic mess of the so-called European Union is not a removal of the UK from Europe. The EU is a political institution. It is not Europe.
European citizen – obviously a direct conflict with national sovereignty of member states.
European interests – referring to the interests of bureaucrats within the EU commission, but presented as being in the interests of over 500 million people.
European Union – This undemocratic political collective is neither European by definition, nor is it a union. A union is done by choice and consent. The EU isn’t. Europe is a clearly defined geographical space on the Asian landmass. Some countries within that space are not members of the EU and some of the countries being brought into the EU, Turkey for example, extend well beyond the borders of Europe. Even Russia has been mentioned in some EU documentation as a potential future member. A more realistic label would be the Eurasian Empire.
Europeanize – abandon national sovereignty, bring under EU control.
Euroskeptic – this is a highly distorting phrase. A skeptic is a person who holds or expresses doubt of a widely believed doctrine. Being that UK opinion polls reveal a majority distrust of the EU and a desire for UK withdrawal it is the EU proponents who are the minority and therefore the skeptics. They are sovereignty skeptics. The term Euroskeptic also plays down the level of activism against the EU as it infers passive doubt and reluctant consent. Many thousands of “euroskeptics” in the UK are active campaigners who outright reject the EU and demand a return to full sovereignty and self-governance. An activist fighting the EU isn’t just a skeptic. They are an opponent of the EU or a Euro-opponent.
Extremism / extremists – a simple demonization tool used to refer to terrorists one minute and peaceful opponents of the EU the next. Ask extreme in what way?
Fair – a simple value judgement thrown around to make any policy seem justifiable. Gordon Brown’s announcement of an intention to sell off large amounts of British gold drove down market prices, costing UK tax payers billions when the sales were made. The announcement of the sales was justified by the intention of being “fair” to investors seeking to buy British gold. The question should be asked “fair to whom and to whose cost?” Ask fair in what way?
Fair and caring society – a simple buzzphrase spoken to give an air of morale values to whatever social engineering policies the speaker is proposing.
Far right / extreme right / hard right – ridiculous and childish notions of a political left/right spectrum have been embedded in public perception through media overuse, often by academics who ought to know better. History has shown that there is little difference in reality between “extreme right” (Nazis, Romans) and “extreme left” regimes (Soviets, Chinese communist), yet insistence of this blunt political measuring tool carries on. By contrast EU proponents seeking to smear their opposition as the “far / extreme / hard right” will refer to themselves and their supporters as the “centre / moderate / soft” left. They rarely speak of a “soft right” or “extreme left” because to do so wouldn’t support their smear tactic.
Flexicurity / flexible security – a new word / phrase beginning to appear in EU documents. Ask flexible in what way?
Fragmentation – a word used to discredit the notion of countries restoring their sovereignty were they to leave the EU. Were complete and irreversible creation of a single EU nation to exist, the expansionists would then begin describing the world as “fragmented” to imply that the entire globe should fall under the EU bureaucracy. The words independence, sovereignty and the phrase diversity of nations are good retorts. Ask fragmented from what?
Free trade – trade within the EU is anything but free. The costs of signing up to free trade agreements have led to an intrusion into many areas of our lives normally governed under our own democratic system. Tariffs are also placed on trade with non-EU countries. Ask free in what way?
Global governance – a thinly veiled, user-friendly term for world government, (one that is incidentally undemocratic).
Global player – The EU talks of internal policy making as being all about fairness and equality, but when it comes to the world such rhetoric is dropped in favour of a more honest description of competitive one-up-manship; a global superstate.
Global warming – now called climate change due to scientific counter-evidence and a divided scientific community.
Globalization – user-friendly term for political / geographical expansionism, power centralism and world imperialism.
Green energy – an aesthetically appealing term based upon a scientifically and politically questionable man made climate change theory. Ask in what way the energy is green?
Good governance – a simple framing of political control within a positive value judgement. EU proponents often speak of “good governance”, but not so much of “bad governance”. Ask good in what way?
Governing in partnership –The EU has for decades sought to politically / financially bribe or subvert leading figures of European states into betraying the interests of their host nations. Conspiring to control is a better term for the EU’s brand of governance.
Growing family – A metaphor used by EU proponents to play down the vast geographical space and cultural variation of their expanding empire.
Harmonize – another value judgement used to positively frame EU policy. It could equally be said that the restoring of national currencies and sovereignties in Europe would “harmonize” its population in “mutual democracy”. Ask harmonize in what way?
Human rights – sounds good, but who decides what is and isn’t a human right? The EU commission believes it has sole discretion to make such judgements. The one right that the EU wants to remove from its citizens is the right to democracy. This is why elected MEPs are not allowed to propose legislature in the EU puppet parliament.
Incentives – all too often referring to forms of economic and political bribery and always with the EU expansionist / centralist motives in mind.
Inclusiveness – use of this word connotes that there is a problem of exclusion that must be resolved through policy implementation. In many contexts there hasn’t been any research conducted to demonstrate that exclusion really is present. Generally the word is used as part of a verbal package to push the EU’s warped versions of multiculturalism, diversity and equality (which collectively are about promoting mass immigration). Ask what is the evidence of exclusion? … and who will be excluded in the process of inclusion?
Interdependence – often used as a term implying that political and economic independence is unrealistic, which it isn’t. The term is also used to imply dependence of European countries upon each other, but what the EU proponents really mean and want is for all the European countries to be dependent upon the EU institution itself.
Labour mobility – freedom for corporations to import cheap foreign labour at the expense of unemployment and decreasing wages (through over-saturated workforces) among the people of the host country.
Modernize – used to imply that EU policies and institutions are the most up to date and advanced, while those of member states are a primitive thing of the past. The opposite is frequently true. The argument can be countered that the EU needs to modernise by adopting a genuinely democratic structure.
Multiculturalism – this is actually anti-culturalism for the purposes of diluting the varied beliefs and attitudes associated with different European countries and races into a new single European mindset. The multiculturalism lie is frequently promoted with glossy photos and commercial video showing choreographed people of different nationalities, races and religions huddled together and posing smiles like a happy family.
Multilateral governance – another user-friendly term for global empire. The “multilateral” aspect refers to global elitists from the various member states who are not interested in their own populations, but more their collective interest as an emerging global / political / financial elite.
Nationalism / nationalists – used as a passively insulting reference to those wishing to retain sovereignty of their countries. The EU itself is nationalist or supranationalist. Its proponents consider it a new nation and they hold as much prejudice and hostility to the rest of the world as the very nationalists within the EU who they criticize.
Neighbourhood – like with the “growing family” term “neighbourhood” is used by EU proponents to play down the geographical scale and cultural variation that they are attempting to consolidate.
New – EU proponents often tag on this simple word to imply that what they are doing is innovative in some way. Ask new in what way? We could, by comparison, refer to our demand for withdrawal from the EU as a call for a new sovereignty, new democracy or a new Britain.
New global multipolarity – shared global empire between the US and EU.
New world order – undemocratic global empire created and maintained primarily through financial and political manipulation.
Non discrimination – frequently used to frame policies within a positive judgement. Implies that to not follow the policy is a form of discrimination. Conclusive evidence of an existing discrimination problem should be demanded.
Openness – although this value judgment certainly doesn’t apply to the EU commission, whose decision making processes are kept secret, EU proponents are still content to use this word in their rhetoric repertoire. Ask open in what way?
Power sharing – Used to imply democracy, but the sharing is done among EU elitists who hold allegiance to the institution rather than their countries of origin.
Progressive – a value judgement used to frame EU policies as being some sort of positive advancement. Ask progressive in what way? A good counter term would be progressive nationalists or progressive sovereignty.
Prosperity – frequently spoken of, but the EU has severely hampered prosperity of people in Europe. Those who have prospered are EU commission members and their corporate allies.
Pro-active approach / strategy – another value judgement that can’t be accurately measured to determine effectiveness. Ask pro-active in what way?
Protectionism / protectionist reflexes – a term of convenience for dissing critics of the EU who call for national withdrawal. But the EU takes a protectionist stance in its attitude to the rest of the world.
Radicalism – a variation on the “extremism” label used to character assassinate opponents of the EU.
Responsibility – often used with the assumption that Euro empire building is something that needs to happen for the good of all, which also implies that critics and opponents are irresponsible. Ask responsible in what way?
Robust – an extremely vague metaphor used to give policies false value. Ask robust in what way?
Rule of law – naturally EU proponents use this term in reference to EU laws, but not to the laws of member states. Ask whose law, the elected in my country or the unelected in Brussels? Demand that the rule of democracy be adhered to.
Security – fear inducing word to make people feel that they need EU laws. Ask security against what?
Shared competences – The EU is unable to accept that individual countries can be mutually and independently competent. When using the “shared competences” phrase it is often within proposals of centralization. The logic being that if several groups across Europe are doing something well then they may as well do it together under EU commission supervision. EU supervision is unnecessary.
Social cohesion – a value judgement implying that a particular EU policy will prevent some vague, often completely unspecified, form of social disruption. Ask what kind of social cohesion?
Soft power – a metaphor implying aesthetic value to power politics. Ask soft in what way?
Solid foundations / stability – yet another metaphor frequently not backed up in actual practice. Solid in what way?
Sustainable – this one is heard very frequently and is another vague value judgement. Policies are often implied to be “sustainable”, but no evidence is offered to support the notion nor is a time frame of “sustainability” given. Policies not liked by the EU are often labelled “unsustainable”. Ask sustainable / unstustainable in what way?
Terrorism – The classic Bush / Blair favourite for pushing through controversial policies as an alleviation to fear – fear often instilled merely be the word “terrorism” itself. Counter it with reminders of state terrorism and the extremely low death count of terrorism compared to other ongoing causes of death.
Transparency – an aesthetic metaphor, therefore non-verifiable. If this were changed to “access to documentation”, the claim wouldn’t last long due to the secretive nature of the EU commission. Ask transparent in what way?
World class – something EU proponents describe their empire as being or aiming to be. What exactly constitutes “world class” among fellow superpowers as yet is undefined. Will it be democratic?
Work-life balance – user-friendly term for justifying a variety of policies that infringe on the personal lives of European people. Counter these policies with privacy and democracy demands.
Xenophobia – used to imply mental or social illness among those who reject the EU’s mass immigration agenda. The evidence for EU proponents themselves suffering a from of collective mental / social illness is stronger. They reject public opinion, which is against them, and suffer democracy phobia. They are unable to learn from criticism. And they have their sites set on world domination – delusions of grandeur – regardless of the many historical examples of failed expansionist empires.