The premise for non-sovereignists of the self-defense manual for sovereignists

I want to convince you, dear non-populists, dear anti-sovereignists, that the “Self-defense manual for sovereignists” is worth reading. It is a matter of consistency, after all: the pages of the text speak a good deal of persuasion and above all of occult persuasion. But I don't want to be mysterious and the ace up my sleeve is confession. And, therefore, I admit that this is undoubtedly a factious book, a part book; but it is a biased book sui generis.

In fact, all the books, especially those of economy, politics, social commentary, are biased or partisan. For the simple reason that they constitute a particular "window" on the world. And the window is that of the author who is conditioned by a whole personal sum of experiences, studies, readings, insights (the more monumental the more the writer's identity card is yellowed). So they are full of prejudices. But then, how does this biased book aim to distinguish itself from all the other books, albeit biased as mentioned above, on the European Union and the euro? I'll tell you right away: it stands out in the claim not to hide, but rather to reveal d'emblée, and precisely through the prologue, which are the basic prejudices from which it started.

The two ideas underlying the manual, preliminary and preliminary to its entire development, are the following:

1) the euro and the European Union, as we have come to know them and how they have been achieved through their founding treaties, are not "good" projects, in the sense of functional and propitious for the well-being and progress of citizens and peoples Europeans, but “bad”, that is to say badly conceived, worse made and deeply wrong in and of themselves;

2) the euro and the European Union, as described above, are not an unwanted mistake, an unintended effect of the best intentions; that is, they do not constitute a project vitiated by bona fide oversights even though genuinely popular and emanating from below. On the contrary: they are a calculated design – and decided just like that, with all its "perversity" – as well as elitist, dropped from above like a straight jacket on the European peoples. And often without their knowledge.

The two pre-judgments just confessed form a bit of the trait d'union, that is to say the red and logical thread of the entire manual. I wrote: logical thread . Not by chance. I once happened to read a fantastic phrase drawn on a wall with the spray: there is a logical thread and people always trip over it.

Here, this book has a logical thread, underlying the various chapters from which it is composed, on which – I guarantee you – you will not risk stumbling. But you also have to take your word for a bit. In the sense of suspending, at least for the time of reading, all your other prejudices (possibly positive) about the Union, pretending that my two prejudices are perfectly founded. You say that I ask you for a leap of faith? But who doesn't ask you today? The EU itself, as you will be able to verify by continuing to read, is based on an act of faith, in the same way as many religions. And to understand the meaning of this work you have to do the same thing, but for fun, with playful awareness: take for granted the two prejudices mentioned above.

You see, if those two prejudices are true, then the idea of ​​this work acquires a much deeper and more complete meaning: that, that is, that they have actually been used – in the course of development, of historical fulfillment, of translation into institutional realities. , economic, political and legal aspects of the EU – the manipulation techniques I speak of in the text. And that they have been used with a very specific purpose. Techniques from the secular tradition, in some cases, or more recent, elaborated by the cognitive and behavioral psychology of the twentieth century, drawn from Eastern strategic knowledge or from the Greco-Roman dialectical and rhetorical culture.

Be that as it may, the manipulative techniques of which I demonstrate the use – and with respect to which I try to teach the appropriate countermeasures – are part of a much more understandable framework if the euro and the European Union can be summarized in that couple of assumptions of above:

1) a wrong and "bad" project at the root;
2) an intentionally wrong and "bad" project at the root.

If these two premises are true, then it is certainly plausible that those who conceived and synthesized the project at the table also made use of techniques of subtle, if not hidden, persuasion.

Now, given that the use of the techniques "unmasked" by this text is undeniable, as the book undertakes to show you, it is evident that the two prejudices mentioned above cease to be such and are transformed, rather, into very credible: in fact, if the euro and the European Union project were good and "innocent", then what need was there to get there through subtle means or by divulging and spreading what, in the text, I define cognitive-behavioral "viruses" ?

If the European project is really the right answer to a sacrosanct popular need, what reason was there for employing techniques of persuasion and manipulation, such as the ones I mention in the manual? And what reason was there and is there to convince Europeans with artifice and deceit that a united Europe is a paradise of democracy if a united Europe is “really” a paradise of democracy? Rather, the exact opposite should have happened: no technique, no manipulation, no magician's trick would have been necessary to impose a work agenda like the one aimed at consolidating the coming European United States.

Now, once the premises are clear, you are ready to begin. And here I go back to addressing everyone. Whether you are already fiercely populist and sovereign readers or you are "agnostic" readers, let me pass the term, if you start from the two prejudices indicated above, you will understand better what they consist of, how they work, why the strategies I speak of in the book.

You can even just do an experiment like this to see the effect it has. Give yourself the opportunity to consider a sovereign hypothesis. It could also be, if nothing else, fun. And having fun is one of the non-secondary objectives of this text.

However, in the event that at the end of the reading you were persuaded that, indeed, the techniques I am talking about in the book were used, even against you, then you may have wanted to investigate why. That is, to understand if, and to what extent, the two prejudices I have spoken to you are not only credible, but also founded.

For this eventuality, the manual includes three sequiturs :

1. a historical appendix in which I have condensed the authentic nature of the USE (United States of Europe) project as well as the greatest possible number of statements, quotes, interviews, etc., designed to demonstrate the veracity of my two prejudices, in the little space granted by a popular treatise which is – and wants to be – the volume;

2. my personal collection of phrases "pro Europe" easily denied, cards in hand. And when I say "papers", I mean graphs, tables, articles of law: any support, of certain and verifiable origin, able to immediately mislead, and without too many and difficult searches, some of the best known and widespread fake news propagated by European mainstream.

3. an essential bibliography of well-written books on the euro and also on each of the disciplines, or strategies, of which I deal with in the text;

From a certain point of view, the final collection of various documents (briefly commented on) has the function of revealing some blatant "forgotten truths", or of refuting the most widespread "propagated lies", about the EU and the euro.

From another point of view, it is a real “arsenal” of non-fallacious arguments (complete with a source) to always have the answer ready against professional manipulators. It is useful in case you do not want to play it only by unmasking, or using in turn, a psychological or rhetorical technique of those learned by reading this manual. When, in short, you wish to reply point by point, on the factual level, to the false beliefs or statements of others.

But be careful: this manual wants to have "also" its practical usefulness like the Bignami we used at school, but it does not want to be "only" this. Just as it sometimes happened with the scholastic Bignami, it was written with the ambition of transforming it, in the hands of an attentive reader, into a lighter of passions: for that freedom, that civic conscience, that popular sovereignty inscribed in huge letters in the our Constitution. All values ​​that we are in danger of forgetting. And to lose forever.