Elites’ strange plot to take over the world, by Matt Stoller at Salon

If this is as far as Salon has gotten with figuring things out, I’m sorry to say I think we probably still have a long way to go . . . ~J

FRIDAY, SEP 20, 2013 11:53 AM PDT
Source: Salon

A few decades ago, politicians hatched a Tom Friedman-esque idea to unite U.S. and Western Europe. Did it succeed?

  • Elites' strange plot to take over the worldThomas Friedman (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

The idea of a country seems pretty simple. I live in America, and I’m an American. She lives in France, and she is French. The Americans have a president who is their leader, the British have a prime minister, the French have their own president, and so forth.

But the way political decision-making around security issues ricochets around the world, from Western capital to Western capital, is making a mockery of commonly held conceptions of national sovereignty. In recent weeks, a British parliament vote on Syria forced the U.S. president to seek authorization from Congress, while leaked documents detailed extensive cooperation between the intelligence services of the U.S. and other nations. The president of Bolivia was forced to down his plane by Italy and France, just because he joked about having Edwards Snowden on board. And so on, and so forth.

This all demands the question: Why do we hold the conception that we live in separate nation-states? Well, it turns out that this question was actually asked after World War II, and the answer American leaders came up with was … we shouldn’t.

In fact, Western elites in America and Western Europe after World War II made a serious effort to get rid of nations altogether, and combine all “freedom-loving peoples” into one giant “Atlantic Union,” a federal state built on top of the NATO military alliance.

As odd as it sounds, the documentary evidence is clear. This movement did manage to create a “European Union,” which came from the same ideological wellspring as the “Atlantic Union.” Once we recognize that the Cold War saw the construction of a powerful international regime that explicitly sought to get rid of sovereign nations, these broad security architectures revealed by the Syria situation and the NSA spying revelations make a lot more sense.

The strange story of Atlantica

The effort to unite Europe and the U.S. started in 1939, with the publication of a book by an influential journalist, Clarence Streit. This influential book was called ”Union Now,” and had a galvanizing effect on the anti-fascist youth of the time, a sort of cross between Thomas Friedman’s “The World Is Flat” and Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” Streit served in World War I in an intelligence unit, and saw up close the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles. He then became a New York Times journalist assigned to cover the League of Nations, which led him to the conclusion that the only way to prevent American isolationism and European fascism was for political and economic integration of the major “freedom-loving” peoples, which he described as America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and most of Western Europe. The Five Eyes surveillance architecture was created just a few years later, as was the international monetary regime concocted at Bretton Woods.

When Streit wrote “Union Now,” in 1939, the German threat was obvious, World War II was beginning, and fascism and communism had linked arms through the pact between the Nazis and the Soviets. Streit’s argument, that the West needed to combine its strength to fight totalitarianism everywhere, was a powerful draw. The youth of the 1930s — those who read Streit’s book — became the political and diplomatic leaders of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and many of them went on to craft the multilateral institutions and international policies of the Cold War.

Indeed, the congressional record is peppered with resolutions and hearings from the late 1940s to the 1970s pushing for Atlantic Union. For example, in 1971, the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives convened a hearing to discuss the prospect of combining the United States of America and Western Europe into one country. This “Atlantic Union” would be a federal union, very similar to the the one described in United States Constitution. Existing countries would become states under a federalist system, with the larger federal system having its own currency, military, interstate commerce regulation and foreign relations apparatus.

That day in 1971, the committee was discussing a specific piece of legislation, a resolution — House Concurrent Resolution 163 — to create an “Atlantic Union Delegation,” a committee of 18 “eminent citizens” to join with other NATO country delegations and negotiate a plan to unite. The subcommittee chairman presiding over the hearing, congressman Donald Fraser of Minnesota, described the specific goal of the legislation as convening an “international convention to explore the possibility of agreement on a declaration to transform the present Atlantic alliance into a federal union, set a timetable for transition to this goal and to prescribe democratic institutions under which the goal would be achieved.” It was to be a Constitutional Convention.

Similar legislation, he noted, “was considered by the full House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1960, 1966, and 1968, with favorable reports in 1960 and 1968.” Congress even passed the resolution in 1960, and spent money to send a delegation to Paris for such a convention (though John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ignored the delegation’s recommendations).

This proposal had a great deal of elite support. Nearly every presidential candidate from the 1950s to the 1970s supported it, as did hundreds of legislators in the U.S. and Western Europe. The context of first World War II, and then the Cold War, made such a proposal sound reasonable, even inevitable. 1971 was the tail end of the post-World War II era, during which there had been a frenzy of international institutional creation work designed to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and the two world wars. A large multilateral military force formed of allied governments and millions of soldiers of all nationalities had recently defeated the fascist powers on three continents. Millions had an experience of international comity in the defeat of the Axis Powers — so the concept of political union was not so far-fetched.

Click Here to continue reading.

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Elites’ strange plot to take over the world, by Matt Stoller at Salon

  1. Pingback: One world after all – Elites’ strange plot to take over the world. | Living in Phnom Penh

  2. IrishSqueezeBox says:

    I would consider this 1 small step in a positive direction— for this information to come out at all on a widely-accepted media platform [from their site : “the award-winning online news and entertainment Web site”]. While not complete and only suggestive in nature, it opens up the idea that things aren’t as they seem. in Western society, one has to remember that the “bread winners” — [for TPB]–the middle class— those that work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet, cherish and revel in what little off- time they have, and love to put family and pet pictures up on Social media. What news they do have time for , they ingest with their cup of Starbucks coffee before going to the daily grind, and usually watch a bit of the local news before turning in for the night. This “news” is repeated over several days—and followed up on in such a professional and seemingly right manner by multiple outlets that mimic one another— why question it? And to try to undo history as it’s been taught in the public school system for the last 100 years is going to be another feat.

    With truth being stranger than the fiction being doled out– will the masses really believe what’s been going on? It’s so fundamentally earth shaking–as it touches not only the daily lives [money and news], but it will also affect their religious belief systems to find that those too, have been compromised to suit TPB with the current “scripture” and materials taught in the different denominations.

    Can 1000+ years of wrong [more condensed the last 300 especially] be righted in a grand fell swoop?

    Jean, thank you for your tireless efforts and the work you do here. It’s my 1-stop news source.

    Also a shout out to Neil [and crew]– as it if hasn’t been said before— You’re totally awesome and awe-inspiring. I would only hope that once this is all over [hopefully there is no NDA involved in letting the truth out once the money situation is sorted] –!

    Too bad the general public can’t put in votes for the Nobel Peace prize-Neil is totally deserving

  3. Keith says:

    Appears as the Military Industrial Complex won out. We don’t need any stinking passports. Country divisions are just a control factor, much like “divide and conquer”.

  4. sb says:

    If we knew what we are
    would we do the things we do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s