The U.S. intelligence community was responsible for usurping Europeans' right to self-government, in an effort to impose what Obama recently called “one of the greatest political and economic achievements of modern times.” As British voters prepare to vote on secession from the European Union super-state, the Obama administration's bizarre intervention to support the pro-EU side has sparked a fresh examination of the shadowy origins of the controversial European regime.
Under scrutiny is the critical backing the EU and its predecessor outfits received at every step of the way from top globalists within the U.S. government, and in particular from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its predecessor. The real goal was always what globalists called an "Atlantic Union," and eventually, a global government. And as the Obama-backed U.S.-EU merger known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) moves forward, that remains the case today, just under a new name and new marketing slogans.
While the information about the CIA's major role in foisting the superstate on Europe is not new, it is back in the headlines. The latest large-scale exposure and discussion of the facts came from the U.K. Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a seemingly establishment-minded journalist who occasionally veers into the truth about what happens behind the scenes. Referring to the “shattering intervention” of the Obama administration in the British Exit (Brexit) debate on the EU, the columnist noted that the supranational regime “always was an American project.” “It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations,” he explained, citing official documents and other sources.
While Evans-Pritchard does not go into detail about the broader globalist agenda, he is right about the EU having always been a CIA project. There can be no doubt that top U.S. globalists worked to unite Europe under a single government. In fact, the evidence is all over the congressional record. The role of the CIA and its predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), is also indisputable at this point. As highlighted again in the Telegraph report and elsewhere, official documents from the agencies, declassified in recent decades, show that the shadowy “intelligence” outfits pumped vast amounts of money and resources into the creation of the European federalist movement across the 1950s and 1960s.
One 1950 declassified memorandum, signed by General William Donovan, the former head of the OSS, even details the plot, as well as instructions on imposing a “European Parliament” on the formerly sovereign nations and peoples of Europe. Today, the rubber-stamp pseudo-Parliament is a reality. Indeed, despite the wishes of Europeans as expressed in numerous referendums, the superstate just keeps usurping more and more power, with a bogus fig-leaf of public accountability provided by the Soviet-style “Parliament” that does not even create legislation.
Another declassified CIA memo, this one from 1965, calls on the vice-president of the “European Community,” as the proto-superstate was then known, to impose a single currency on the nations of the continent. Today, the widely unpopular and practically failed single currency is a reality, too, and is known as the euro. Back then, U.S. officials warned their lackeys in Europe to impose the scheme by stealth, and to avoid public debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable.” The plot appears to have been followed. And it worked.
Ensnaring Britain in the superstate was also a high priority, the declassified documents confirmed. As the new Telegraph report put it, there are “declassified documents from the [U.S.] State Department archives showing that U.S. intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.” Again, the plot succeeded, with the once proud and independent British people ruled largely by bureaucrats in Brussels, with little to no say over their own destiny as a thousand years of advancements in individual liberty get thrown by the wayside.
The so-called American Committee for a United Europe, founded in 1948, was a crucial vehicle for the U.S. government's secretive machinations in bringing about today's increasingly totalitarian superstate. The outfit was chaired by Donovan, by then the “former” OSS chief. Its vice-chair was globalist Allen Dulles, who led the CIA in the 1950s. And the board of directors was packed with “former” OSS and CIA officials.
All along, the CIA-run front group was funding the so-called “European Movement,” described in a 15-year-old article in the Telegraph as “the most important federalist organization in the post-war years.” “In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds,” the paper reported in its 2000 article about the declassified CIA documents. The “European Youth Campaign,” also a tentacle of the CIA-controlled outfit, was entirely funded and controlled by U.S. officials, too. In exchange for selling out his nation's sovereignty, the outfit's director was even receiving payments into a “special account.”
Of course, it was not just the CIA, and not all of the scheming was secret, even back then. The congressional record during those decades is literally packed with testimony from top U.S. State Department officials openly outlining the policy of Washington, D.C., to promote and finance ever-closer “integration” among European nations into a federal union. Numerous resolutions and bills advocating precisely such a scheme were introduced, and some even passed. U.S. taxpayer funding was used to advance the effort, both overtly and covertly. But the agenda was even broader than just imposing a single, unaccountable regime over Europe to crush self-government and national sovereignty.
In essence, the globalist-controlled U.S. State Department believed that unifying Europe under one government beyond control of voters was needed to advance the next stage of globalism — what they called an “Atlantic Union.” From presidents to congressional leaders, the idea was all the rage. Among the most important reasons why so many globalists in the United States and Europe felt the unification of European nations under a single regime was so crucial to imposing an Atlantic Union: many Europeans, especially those from smaller nations, were worried about being dominated politically and economically by the overwhelming power of the post-World War II United States.
In the mid-1960s, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs John M. Leddy summed up the reason for promoting an EU-style regime in very explicit terms. “The simple, but decisive, fact is that our Atlantic allies do not wish to move forward any type of federal political relationship with the United States, even as an objective,” he said. “The fundamental reason why there is little European interest in federal union with us at this time is, I think, self evident. It is that Europe fears that it would be swallowed by a more powerful United States.” A single regime might change that, even though, ironically, many Europeans were convinced to surrender their sovereignty under the guise of being able to more successfully stand up to America.
Other senior U.S. officials also acknowledged the goals of support for European integration. On September 20, 1966, for example, then-Under Secretary of State George Ball, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), testified before Congress on the State Department’s view on forming an “Atlantic Community,” essentially merging the United States with Europe. “I find little evidence of any strong interest among Europeans for any immediate move toward greater political unity with the United States,” he explained. “They fear the overwhelming weight of U.S. power and influence in our common councils.... We believe that so long as Europe remains merely a continent of medium- and small-sized states there are definite limits to the degree of political unity we can achieve across the ocean.”
The end goal of unifying Europe under a single regime, then, was to eventually build a transatlantic union merging the United States with the European superstate. In fact, that is the very same agenda envisioned in Obama's extraordinarily unpopular “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” or TTIP, with the EU. If approved by the U.S. Congress and European officials, the transatlantic regime created under the TTIP would serve as the nucleus of a future EU-style "Atlantic Union" government to rule over both the United States and the EU.
And that was the idea all along. “Whatever power they can achieve as two separate unions — a United States of Europe and a United States of America — they can achieve far better by forming one union,” explained influential globalist Clarence Streit in testimony before the U.S. Congress' House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1948. The eventual goal, though, was to continue strengthening the UN until the various “unions” could be merged into a single global government, Streit explained. Back then, globalists were often more open about their agenda.
And for decades, that was hardly a fringe idea. On July 4, 1962, for example, President John F. Kennedy called publicly for a “Declaration of Interdependence.” “I will say here and now, on this Day of Independence, that the United States will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence, that we will be prepared to discuss with a united Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic partnership, a mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union,” he said. “For the Atlantic partnership of which I speak would not look inward only, preoccupied with its own welfare and advancement. It must look outward to cooperate with all nations in meeting their common concern. It would serve as a nucleus for the eventual union of all free men —those who are now free and those who are vowing that some day they will be free.”
Even as far back as the 1940s, the globalist-influenced U.S. government was pursuing the subjugation of Europe under a single, ultra-powerful regime controlled by globalist interests. In 1947, then-U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall (CFR) — a key player in handing China to Chairman Mao's murderous communists, and perhaps mass-murdering dictator Joseph Stalin's most important ally in the world — strongly suggested in a speech that European “economic cooperation” was a precondition for the desperately needed American aid after the war. The scheme eventually became known as the “Marshall Plan.”
“It is already evident that, before the United States Government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government,” said Marshall, the man after whom the scheme was named. “The initiative, I think, must come from Europe. The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a European program and of later support of such a program so far as it may be practical for us to do so. The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all European nations.”
The Committee of European Economic Cooperation, chaired by then-British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, officially responded with a major report that was ultimately transmitted approvingly by the State Department to President Harry Truman. Signed by government representatives from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and more, the committee outlined efforts to create a customs union that could eventually lead to even further “cooperation.” U.S. officials were pleased.
Members of Congress, especially Representative Walter Judd (R-Minn.), even tried to get language in the statement of purpose for the original Marshall Plan bill of 1948 explicitly declaring that it was the policy of the United States to encourage the economic unification and the political federation of Europe. In the end, language calling for the development of economic cooperation was included instead. The next year, the “political federation” amendment was pursued again, with the result being the addition of the sentence: “It is further declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe.” By 1951, Congress finally came out and said it openly, with a clause included in the 1951 Mutual Security Act stating that the goal was “to further encourage the economic unification and the political federation of Europe.”
The U.S. government has similarly supported integration in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and beyond. The eventual goal remains the same: merging all of the regional superstates into a single global system often referred to by globalists in both parties and all around the globe as the “New World Order.” Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger spelled it out clearly in his new book World Order: “The contemporary quest for world order [world government] will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order [regional government] within the various regions and to relate these regional orders [governments] to one another.”
As regular readers of this magazine know well, the CIA has been involved in everything from overthrowing governments and arming dictators with WMDs to drug trafficking and weapons smuggling. The U.S. State Department has also been lawlessly waging war on freedom around the world for decades. Just consider as one example its decisive efforts to bring the bloody Castro dictatorship to power in Cuba, as explained by then-U.S. Ambassador to Havana Earl Smith, under the phony guise of supporting a “freedom fighter.” The backing for a transnational regime to rule over Europe and eventually the United States should be considered in that light. The people of the United States and the United Kingdom must resist the agenda. And voting in favor of a “Brexit” would be an excellent first step.