Thursday, 19 April 2012

The House of European Lies


When did European history begin, do you think? It’s not so easy to answer, is it? There are a number of points of departure. We could, I suppose, alight on Bronze Age Greece, recalled in the epics of Homer. It's as good a starting point as any. Wrong! European history began in 1946! Yes, it did, at least it did according to the idiots behind the House of European History, a massively expensive vanity project being promoted by the European Parliament.

European history began in 1946. When I read about this in the press recently not only could I not stop laughing but Annus Mirabilis immediately came to mind, a poem by Philip Larkin which opens with the following verse;

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.


European history began in nineteen forty-six (which is rather late for me) between the end of World War Two and the rise of Sarkozeee!

So, why 1946, you may wonder? Simply because the various governments that make up the EU can’t agree on what went before. They can’t agree, above all, on the course of the Second World War, which among enthusiasts is risibly referred to as the ‘European Civil War.’ Ah, yes, the ‘European Civil War’ in which the Americans, the Russians (not all Europeans), the Canadians, the Australians and many other non-European nations were silly enough to get involved!

Apparently this project goes hand in hand with a Franco-German proposal to create a “European History Book,” to be used in all schools across the EU in order to “foster a common cultural identity.” Like hell it will. It will be an exercise in dissimulation and evasion, an avoidance of inconvenient truths and facts that dare not speak their name.

Metternich once said that Italy was only a geographical expression. If that is true of a country that still shows deep political and cultural fissures a hundred and fifty years after the Risorgimento, a process which brought superficial unity, it is doubly true of Europe. Beyond living on the same continent we, in England, have very little in common with the other nations of Europe. Our history is unique; we show little of the slave mentality that was such a feature of the pasts of so many of our neighbours.

I might argue that there is something deeply sinister about the whole Museum of European History project, something Orwellian along the lines of the Ministry of Truth, where the past will continually be rewritten in the light of Big Brother’s perceptions. It won’t be about objectivity and historical truth but anodyne propaganda. Yes, I could argue that there are sinister motives here but the whole thing is far too banal for that particular spin.

This House of Euro Cards is scheduled to open in Brussels in 2014. In a way it’s a sign of the Nero-like blindness of the Eurorats, singing in a vacuum while Greece and much of the rest of southern Europe burns. Does anyone in this country want this narcissistic project? Want it or not it will cost British taxpayers alone £19million, that’s around $30million.

It’s just another example of the massive waste that is such a feature of an organisation that exercises power without responsibility, the prerogative, as was once said, of the harlot throughout history. Yes, that’s another way of looking at the European Commission, a massively expensive mistress, a sort of Madame Pompadour, kept by the various governments of European Union, who have continually ignored or sidestepped the wishes of their own people, the people from whom the largesse is ultimately drawn.

There are lessons in this for those who care to look, lessons for the French particularly in the decline and fall of the Bourbon monarchy. Ah, but that demands looking at history objectively, not through a prism of self-deception.

There is a madness here that’s almost impossible to fathom, recklessness in the face of political reality, a wilful waste of money in the midst of the deepest economic crisis in decades. The decadence is such to recall the twilight of the last Roman Empire. I guarantee that is something else that will be airbrushed out of the House of European Lies.

26 comments:

  1. If the EUSSR plans to revise history mirror its prejudices, then there is a great task ahead for other historians to preserve and disseminate the truth. Not before time, I think. The past century has been dominated by histories devised to bolster quite narrow national and political interests via the manipulation of populations processed through state-mandated education.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Civilization ended in 1945.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not describe what went before as 'civilization', Anthony.

      Delete
  3. "Shurely shum mishtake", to quote a phrase often used by Private Eye to express drunken incredulity. What will they think of next? By the way Ana, I see that you refer to "Eurorats". Is that what we'd call a Freudian slip? It certainly seems appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "European History book". That sounds scary!

    Given that the "EUSSR" label started out, I am almost certain, on the premise that the USSR was a bad thing, it's notable that one thing that has become increasingly commonplace recently (-in the last 2-5 years, but not really any more, as far as I can tell) is the making of precisely that comparison by those leaders (in, particularly, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan) who wish to resurrect something like the USSR, who have taken to referring to the EU as a model worthy of emulation. (Notable too, that one of the main proponents of "Eurasianism", and, that rare thing in Russian public life, a genuinely political and non-grey intellectual figure, Dmitry Rogozin was until very recently Russia's Ambassador to NATO and the EU, clearly in part to learn how things are done in Brussels.) Roll on the Eurasian Commission and the Eurasian Community! They say.

    Meanwhile, back at this end of the continent: better off out, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lord, Dominic, is it really destined to end with Eurasia? Better part of Oceania. :-)

      Delete
  5. Well said, Ana. Here are my recent thoughts on the EU and David Cameron:

    http://my.telegraph.co.uk/nobby/hdgdggd/16313154/weakness-2/#disqus_thread

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that, Nobby. Very good. Cameron is turning out to be a huge disappointment.

      Delete
  6. ". . . power without responsibility, the prerogative . . . of the harlot throughout history"--what a great line, Ana!

    Alas, Babylon!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ana the level of indoctrination the eminence grise aims for here is disturbing since it shows a sinister form of propaganda at work. Given the level of bureaucracy this ridiculous set up has already inflicted on us, imagine how much worse it will get as they continue to airbrush out the wrinkles on the lined face of Europe, until it looks like a cross between Sarkozy and Blair with a perma tan and all the avuncular beneficence of a Joseph Stalin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nice post ana... :) thanx for u sharing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Admin, thanks. I'm sorry I missed this. For some reason it ended up in the spam box.

      Delete
  9. Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website. However, I would like to see more details about this topic. I'm going to keep coming back here.
    farm house karachi

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very well said Ana, very very well said.

    It seems that textbooks over the years have been slanted toward the bias of their publishers.

    A few years go by, new technology emerges and new discoveries are made and the credibility of the textbooks claims are "shot full of holes."

    The European Union at this point can only agree on a few things and though there is a "Union" of sorts, it is still a collection of ideologies and subcultures, each with their own viewpoints on the world around them.

    And in the neighboring countries, fingers are pointed and accusations are made about what each country believes. The fact that lies exist, nobody will dispute, but it is always "someone else" telling the lies.

    and through the disparity, somewhere in the middle lies fragmented truth, like a jisaw puzzle, waiting to be assembled.

    Dan the Yank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, thank you. I shall keep trying to put the pieces together in my own inimitable way. Anyway, it's lovely to see you again. :-)

      Delete
  11. The idea of an European nationalism is certainly ridiculous and probably even goes against Europe's nature itself. If us Western Europeans managed to dominate the world for almost 500 years was precisely due to our "unity in our disunity".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Replies
    1. Anthony, the person I blame is Ted Heath, another PM altogether.

      Delete
  13. It's all to do with the narrative, is it not? The only hope is that they fall out along the way and can't even agree on post-46.

    ReplyDelete