[Rushtalk] Have You Seen This?

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Fri Feb 20 23:57:10 MST 2015

29 September 2013 16:30

Salon Acknowledges "Elites' Strange Plot to Take Over the World"

Every once in a great while, someone in the globalist camp makes a 
spectacular admission against interest, to the effect that there 
really is as patriotic organizations like The John Birch Society have 
long maintained  a plot to set up world government and to subordinate 
to it the sovereignty of all independent nations, including the United States.

In the 1960s, it was Georgetown University history professor Carroll 
Quigley's revelations about a secret international organization 
laying plans for world federalism, first in his magnum opus "Tragedy 
and Hope", and later in a slimmer and more focused tome "The 
Anglo-American Establishment," that galvanized American patriots to 
warn against a conspiracy to erect a world government. In 1974, 
Columbia University professor Richard Gardner, eventual U.S. 
ambassador to Italy and Spain and member of the Trilateral 
Commission, observed in a famous article in Foreign Affairs, "The 
Hard Road to World Order," that world government could best be 
created piecemeal, via an "end run around national sovereignty" that 
would look to casual observers like a "booming, buzzing confusion" 
but would succeed far better than an "old-fashioned frontal assault."

In general, though, such candid admissions have been hard to come by, 
mostly because those who favor some form of world government fear 
arousing the wrath of the American people. World government, after 
all, would amount to a total disavowal of the Declaration of 
Independence, and would lead in the long run not to some kind of 
enlightened global federal republic, but to world socialism and the 
extinction of liberty.

Nevertheless, Salon's Matt Stoller apparently feels that the 
20th-century drive to create world government  obvious in 
hindsight  is now far enough in the rearview mirror, and the 
institutions that stemmed from it enough of a fait accompli, to be 
worthy of open discussion in one of the Web's most influential 
magazines. Stoller, be it noted, is an accomplished left-wing 
journalist and former senior policy advisor for prominent Democrat 
congressman Alan Grayson. Stoller has written for Politico and 
Reuters, in addition to Salon, and has been a writer and consultant 
for the show "Brand X with Russell Brand," featuring the quirky 
British comedian.

In a September 20 Salon article 
"Elites' Strange Plot to Take Over the World," Stoller spelled out 
much of what The John Birch Society and other patriot groups have 
been ridiculed for believing for decades. Writing of events that have 
been "written out of liberal historical memory," Stoller introduces 
Salon readers to Clarence Streit, a Rhodes Scholar-turned elite 
journalist who, in 1939, published an influential but now 
scarcely-remembered tome, "Union Now: A Proposal for an Atlantic 
Federal Union of the Free." In his book, Streit proposed to federate 
the United States, Canada, the "freedom-loving" nations of Europe, 
and other English-speaking countries like Australia and New Zealand 
under an international government designed along the lines of the 
U.S. government. As other countries adopted the ways of freedom, they 
would be invited to join, leading eventually to a federal world 
government American republicanism on a global scale, as it were.

Union Now became the founding text of a movement known as 
"Atlanticism," the notion that North America and Western Europe ought 
to be united under a trans-Atlantic government  and soon attracted 
the support of most North American and Western European political 
elites. "Nearly every presidential candidate from the 1950s to the 
1970s supported it, as did hundreds of legislators in the U.S. and 
Western Europe," Stoller claims, since "the context of first World 
War II, and then the Cold War, made such a proposal sound reasonable, 
even inevitable."

Indeed, out of the chaos of World War II a number of new 
international organizations and institutions were created which 
persist, in some form, to this day: the World Bank, the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF), the dollar as the world's international 
currency, the United Nations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT, which was the predecessor to the World Trade 
Organization), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

According to Stoller, NATO was in many respects the cornerstone 
organization, upon which the rest of the envisaged transatlantic 
government could eventually be built. The rise of the Soviet Union 
and the Eastern Bloc provided a convenient pretext; the Atlantic 
Union was the only possible way to protect the West from Communism:

Faced with a Soviet threat, it seemed only natural to think that the 
next step after all of this institution-building was an Atlantic 
Union. Richard Nixon in 1966 supported the "Atlantic Union 
resolution" as a "forward-looking proposal which acknowledges the 
depth and breadth of incredible change which is going on in the world 
around us." President Dwight Eisenhower, upon leaving office, thought 
such a trans-Atlantic union was inevitable, and argued it could cut 
massive Cold War defense costs by half. Eugene McCarthy, just before 
entering the presidential primary race against Lyndon Johnson (who 
did not support the measure), cosponsored the resolution in the 
Senate. Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern and Estes Kefauver were ardent 
believers. Even Barry Goldwater supported it; Ronald Reagan was the 
only major national figure in the Republican Party who opposed it, 
and Lyndon Johnson was a significant opponent in the Democratic Party.

While more or less overt attempts to set up an Atlantic Union faded 
after the Cold War reached a crescendo in the '70s and early '80s, 
Stoller notes with satisfaction that most of the architecture of 
international agreements, and the assumptions that guide modern 
foreign policy, were wholly shaped by Cold War-era Atlanticism:

The institutional framework of a world government composed of Western 
European and American states remains far more potent than we like to 
imagine, even beyond the security apparatus revealed by Snowden's 
documents. For example, in every major free trade agreement since 
NAFTA, U.S. courts have been subordinated to international tribunals, 
which operate according to rules laid out either by the World Trade 
Organization, a division of the World Bank, or by a division of the 
United Nations known as UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on 
International Trade Law). These tribunals rule on consumer, labor, 
and environmental questions  not just trade. And they are 
trans-national, much as the supply chains of Apple, Ford, Toyota, or 
any other multi-national corporation are, or the technology that 
Google, Microsoft, or IBM promote all over the world.

There are other deep links. The Basil banking accords seek 
international harmonization of capital standards. Why? It's not clear 
what the benefits are of having global standards for what banks 
should do. But the global elites push onward, regardless, towards a 
one world solution. And lest one think this is just theoretical, the 
Federal Reserve supported the European Central Bank with unlimited 
swap lines during the financial crisis, lending as much as $500B to 
the ECB in 2008 and 2009. European and other foreign banks drew 
liberally from the New York Federal Reserve's discount window. The 
Fed became the central banker to the world.

In other words, thanks to precedents set during the Cold War, we have 
effectively lost sovereignty in matters of trade and finance, and 
global elites continue to work to solidify the one world economic and 
financial order, as a prelude to world government in other sectors.

Although Stoller may be unaware of it, the notion of "Atlanticism," 
or a limited global federation of "freedom loving peoples" as a 
prelude to more comprehensive world government, was certainly not 
original to Clarence Streit. Thanks to the work of Quigley, we know 
that the "Round Table" groups set up at the beginning of the 20th 
century in England and the United States worked for precisely such a 
goal. One of their most influential members, eccentric Britich 
billionaire Cecil Rhodes, was particularly desirous of such an 
outcome, and founded among other things the Rhodes Scholarship 
program as a way of identifying potential elite players to enlist in 
the effort.

Streit, as we have seen, was a Rhodes Scholar; he was also involved 
in the Versailles peace negotiations after World War I that involved 
many other early globalists like Walter Lippman and Edward M. House. 
It is unclear to what extent Streit was "in the know" as far as the 
ultimate designs of 20th century globalist insiders, but there is no 
question that the agenda laid out in Union Now  and warned about by 
John Birch Society founder Robert Welch and other discerning patriots 
for decades  was the brainchild of far more powerful men than he.

Like Carroll Quigley, Stoller cannot resist taking a few jabs at the 
American "right wing" who criticized the Atlanticists' program. 
Echoing similar claims in "Tragedy and Hope," Stoller chides American 
patriots for their supposedly reflexive and unenlightened anti-Communism:

The far right hated this idea. Gunthler Klincke of the Liberty Lobby 
called it a scheme for a socialist world government, and Myra Hacker 
of a group called the "American Coalition of Patriotic Societies," 
said proponents of this plan "distrust and despise the American 
citizen" and that it was a plan for "national suicide." Though the 
proposal for Atlantic Union has been written out of liberal 
historical memory, there are echoes of this episode in right-wing 
rhetoric about One World Government. The irony of this is that, as 
liberals gently chuckle at right-wing paranoia about what they 
perceive as an imagined plot to create a world government, it is the 
conservatives who have a more accurate read on history. There was a 
serious plan to get rid of American sovereignty in favor of a 
globalist movement, and the various institutions the right wing hates 
the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. were seen as stepping stones to it. 
Where the right wing was wrong is in thinking that this plot for a 
global government was also a communist plot; it wasn't, it was 
motivated by anti-communism. The proponents of the Atlantic Union in 
fact thought that this was the only way to defeat the USSR.

So, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we still have 
NATO, and the rest of the institutions created under the convenient 
pretext of anti-Communism are still going strong under sundry new 
justifications. NATO currently oversees the seemingly endless war in 
Afghanistan and has enlisted many of the former Eastern Bloc nations. 
North America and Europe have been separately corralled into regional 
governments masquerading as free trade zones, and efforts to further 
integrate NAFTA with the European Union continue unabated.

It is important to understand that the drive for global government 
was not "motivated" by anti-Communism (or by any other ism, for that 
matter); rather, it used anti-Communism as a pretext. The ultimate 
motivation behind the program was and remains greater and greater 
power, pure and simple  power for a small cadre of vain, self-serving 
elites who are convinced they can abolish all the ills of this fallen 
world if only they can wrest enough power from the wretched and 
ignorant masses to achieve their objectives.

The threat of global government is as dire as ever. There is nothing 
benign about the generations-long project to abolish national 
sovereignty and replace it with some kind of planetary principate, 
but don't expect the Matt Stollers of the world to acknowledge that.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list