The One That Says 'No It Bloody Isn't'. . .

Via Ian P-J on a Facebook comments thread, this bucket of utter, utter drivel:

The European Civil War is a period that includes both World War I, World War II and the inter-war period referring to the many major European regime changes.

Is it? First I've bloody heard of it.

It is used in referring to the repeated confrontations that occurred during the early 20th Century.

Really? By whom? Not any historians I've ever read, watched or listened to.

Those supporting the idea of a European Civil War contend that the heads of state in many European nations were so closely related as to constitute branches of the same family. European culture is also relatively homogeneous, with most nations tracing the roots of their culture to two principal sources; the Judeo-Christian Bible and Classical antiquity. Their respective legal systems, while separate, were remarkably similar and evolved to become more so over time. A single culture and a single ruling elite could therefore lead to the assumption that Europe was evolving (albeit slowly) towards becoming a single state.

Now hang on just a fucking minute. European culture is relatively homogeneous? Relative to what? Tracing roots of culture to the bible and classical antiquity? No attempts to qualify that assertation then? Homogeneous my arse, what do the Flemish have in common with the Sami? Ever noticed how different the Russian ethnic Estonians are from the Portuguese?

The Bible argument is bullshit as well, that's like saying that the Irish are the same as the Ethiopians, well, they're both Christian. When do we start to see that ridiculous bloody flag flying over parliament in Addis then?

At the end of the conflict, elites in the different countries of Europe began work to create a centralized "state" that has since grown into the European Union.

At the end of the conflict? What do you think the conflict was about? Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin all were very keen on idea of creating a centralized European state, the problem being that they weren't all that keen on asking the other countries if they wanted to join.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the EU is like the plans they had, I mean, in the Referendum held in 1975, were we not asked explicitly if we wanted to join a centralised political European Union with lawmaking primacy?

Errrm, no, we were told that*:

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

OK, so perhaps things have moved on a little, haven't they? I mean it isn't as if it's a big organisation who overrides the wishes of the population on the rare occasions they are given a choice, is it? Hang on. . .

I'll tell you what the EU is, it is an organisation that we have NEVER been able to have a say about, it has brought about its position by wriggling in through the back door using threats and smears.

This revisionist view is straight out of Mini-truth, and is an insult to the memories of those who landed on the Normandy beaches 65 years ago. Normal people who were compelled, but in the main, went willingly to defend the sovereignty of the nations of Europe. These men and women gave their lives for freedoms which are now being surrendered without a whimper.

For the EU flag to be flying alongside the Stars and Stripes, Tricolore and Union Flag at the commemoration today is a disgusting example of political posturing. These people did not pay the ultimate price so there could be a centralised European state, it is what they were fighting against.

*taken from a pamphlet of the time, it makes interesting reading.