Financial Times Changes Article Headline on EU Three Times! 

Can someone at your illustrious newspaper explain why the headline changed from "EU fails to reach an agreement" to "Eurozone signs up to closer ties" in the space of 10 minutes? Presumably because senior FT management regarded the former as a nationalist distortion of the truth. There was an agreement and a good one....it just did not include the UK. No doubt various eminent commentators on the FT will now rant on about how the agreement is incomplete, because, just like your failed writer of headlines, they would rather see a glass half empty than half full....especially when it comes to decisions which undermine the economic theories of the nation state. With all the respect that I believe the UK coalition government is due, what has happened here is entirely due to the continuing rift in the Conservative Party, which, logically, should be resolved by its break up....not the break up of the Eurozone! – Financial Times feedback/Danny Barrs 

 
Dominant Social Theme: Every little headline helps. The EU has nowhere to go but up.
Free-Market Analysis: In a feedback to a Financial Times article entitled "Eurozone Signs Up to Closer Ties," writer Danny Barrs makes the point that the FT, a high-profile elite mouthpiece, is "spinning" decisions made at yesterday's EU summit by rewriting its headlines.
He points out that the FT changed its headline (see excerpt above) to minimize the harshness of what was taking place between the EU and the UK. But just as we'd started to write about it, we noticed the headline had changed AGAIN.
This is interesting! Why are the FT editors having so much trouble with a headline? It's obviously a very sensitive issue ... and indeed it is. The EU and euro are in the process of collapsing and the FT headline writers seem to want to figure out a way to cushion the blow.
Yes, we believe the FT editors are doing their best to find a way to "position" the unwinding of the EU. And watching their struggles, we may be able to gain some valuable clues as to how the Anglosphere powers-that-be intend to deal with the euro's ongoing unraveling and the erosion of the larger Eurozone.
So let us analyze what the FT is struggling with. We have three headlines (on the same FT article) in the space of perhaps two hours. This is not only unusual in terms of editorial conduct, from our point of view; it is also unusual strictly from a publishing standpoint. Even here at tiny Daily Bell, if we make a substantive article update, we will alert the readers at the bottom of the story. We could find no such emendations at FT.
Here are the three headlines, so far as we can tell, in order:
• EU Fails to Reach an Agreement
• Eurozone Countries Sign Up to Closer Ties
• Eurozone Deal Leaves Britain Isolated
Okay. Let's put these headlines into context. First, let's remind ourselves of what the Anglosphere elite's GOAL is. The great banking families use dominant social themes, fear-based promotions, to frighten Western middle classes into giving up wealth and power to globalist organizations like the UN that have been put in place as receptacles for this purpose.
The ultimate intention is to gather enough power and clout for internationalist agencies to ensure that the world itself gradually migrates toward an internationalist agenda and political structure. The European Union itself is a kind of promotion that is to be used as a stepping stone toward technocratic world government. Ultimately, this government, from what we can tell, is intended to report to the Anglosphere elites who control central banking around the world and are therefore the "power" behind the globalist throne.
Keeping in mind the above reality (as we see it), the rapidly changing headlines become a bit more comprehensible. The first one cast the EU's summit in a negative light and the latter two are far more positive for the goals of global governance.
Obviously the FT, being pro-EU, doesn't want to position the summit as any kind of failure. The second headline, therefore, turns a negative story into a positive one for those who are Euro-centric and wish to promote the vitality, or at least the viability, of the euro and the EU.
The third headline is the most interesting because we believe it to be an emerging elite meme when it comes to the EU and Britain. It casts Britain as the "odd man out" of European affairs. The implication is that "Britain," by being stubborn, has become lonely and unloved.
This is an old trick of the powers-that-be, by the way – to take a group of people and identify them by nationality. It's all part of the larger strategy of divide and conquer. In this case, we think this third headline has elements that go beyond merely "divide and conquer."
The Anglosphere elite seems, nowadays, to WANT to raise tensions between Britain and Europe and even Britain and Germany. We've already noted this meme in articles that have probed why the British (and American) press have started to claim the EU evolution is a Nazi invention.
It is not, of course. It is an Anglosphere effort, and has been from the beginning, as it is the great central banking families that wish to create global governance and have been turning nations into larger regional entities. The EU is the most advanced and aggressive of these creations.
But given the pushback that the elites are receiving as regards a number of globalist promotions, the Anglosphere in our view has increasingly turned toward creating financial and social chaos as a way of producing the desired result. Perhaps increasing tension between Germany and Britain is just one more way of promoting the desired meme.
We can see this in another story in FT today from columnist Philip Stephens entitled, "Now the Franco-German question ... Philip Stephens discusses the new German question, asking whether Europe can find a new equilibrium now that Germany is the preponderant power."
Germany is NOT the preponderant power in the EU, or not for long anyway. The German economy is over-extended along with the rest of Europe and German banks are especially over-loaned. Beyond that, the German constitutional court has already ruled that any "transfer union" must be duly examined by the Parliament. And Merkel keeps losing elections. The Germans may well wish to be out of the Union if the other, proximate choice is propping it up.
The Germany-versus-Britain meme doesn't really hold up. It is not meant to stand close scrutiny no doubt. Much of what is written about the EU is a kind of purposeful obfuscation, in our view. We also think the point that Mr. Barrs makes (see initial excerpt) is also unbelievable.
He is trying to argue that the FT is being too soft on the Conservative Party (the Tories) and he blames the problems that Britain has with the EU on them. In fact, the FT only appears to be a Conservative newspaper. It is not, or not anymore. It is internationalist.
We, on the other hand, believe that the Tories are run out of the City of London, as we explained yesterday in our article, "UK Telegraph Promotes Cameron's EU Support as 'Honourable'."
We pointed out yesterday that the UK Telegraph had inexplicably and suddenly come down in favor of propping up the euro and suggested that the mainstream media generally was under pressure to support the EU and the euro. Obviously, the FT is, and that's not just a historical matter – we can see the editors trying to shape the story with these headlines.
There are many possibilities in Cameron's current stance. What one probably cannot argue is that the Anglosphere elites are entirely in control of what's taking place right now. If they were, then Britain would already be part of the eurozone and more tightly integrated into the EU.
Instead, the elites have found it necessary to take it more slowly. And now it would seem that Cameron has found the pushback so extreme that he has been forced into a position of defending Britain at the expense of the EU.
After 50 years of integration, Cameron's reversal must surely tell us something. Perhaps the Internet Reformation itself is making the EU a more difficult promotion to realize. Or perhaps the elites have found it necessary to create a Hegelian dialectic between Germany and Britain.
There are many possibilities inherent in what is taking place. But we will not take it at face value. The power elite and its enablers and associates are determined Europhiles. The EU is their invention, first and foremost, and if they find it necessary to position Britain on the sidelines ... they will. But not because they wish to.
The British mainstream media – the media that count like the UK Telegraph and the FT – are evidently and obviously behind one permutation or another of the EU project. So are the elites, no matter Cameron's twists and turns. In fact, Britain's marginalization may be intended to strengthen the "core" EU project. Time will tell.
Conclusion: But from our point of view, this is a setback for the EU and for globalism. In today's other article we try to put it into a larger context. And in the meantime, we shall keep reading headlines ... even if they change two or three times an hour!