Chapter 10

Regionalism

We cannot leap into world government in one quick step.... [T]he precondition for eventual globalization —genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.1
— Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, TC), former National Security Advisor, 1995

Within and outside the United Nations, world federalists should strongly support the growth of regional organizations such as the European Community and the Organization of African Unity and development of them into regional federations with governmental power in some policy areas.2
— John Logue, Vice President, World Federalist Association

One of the most striking governance features of globalization is that it has a strong regional flavor. Deep integration has proceeded fastest on a regional basis, notably within the EU [European Union].3
— The Commission on Global Governance

A day would come when governments would be forced to admit that an integrated Europe was an accomplished fact, without their having had a say in the establishment of its underlying principles. All they would have to do was to merge all these autonomous institutions into a single federal administration and then proclaim a United States of Europe....4
— Merry and Serge Bromberger in their sympathetic biography, Jean Monnet and the United States of Europe

"How do you eat an elephant?" asks an old riddle. The answer; "One bite at a time."

 

It is the same with any large task; successful accomplishment requires dividing the project into logical constituent parts and then systematically, incrementally, proceeding step by step, bite by bite. In the case of our elephant metaphor, that would mean skinning, dressing, and quartering or sectioning the animal, cutting it into smaller and smaller parts, until the desired consumable size is reached.

The globalist Insiders and their Communist partners have done precisely this throughout the course of the 20th century. From one corner of the globe to the other, the Communists have sponsored revolutions and "wars of national liberation," pitting tribe against tribe, or exploiting some other division based upon race, creed, class, nationality, or past grievances. The Insiders, operating from their positions of power in the business, financial, political, and media worlds, have repeatedly supported these ruinous tumults. They have provided financial and propaganda assistance as well as undermined the targeted governments through direct political pressure or diplomatic intrigue from Washington, D.C. and London.*

 

* The prototype for these operations was first put into operation by the secret Rhodes network in South Africa in the late 19th Century. Carroll Quigley, in The Anglo-American Establishment (pp. 44-47 and 107-112) and Tragedy and Hope (pp. 136-144), provides an important inside look at the high-level conspiracy involved in the Jameson Raid (1895) and the instigation of the Boer War (1899-1902). James Perloff, in The Shadows of Power, shows the CFR-RIIA machinations in bringing about U.S. entry into World War I and II. That story is also powerfully told, in far greater detail, in America's Second Crusade, by William Henry Chamberlain (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1950). The Insider-Communist collaboration in turning Poland into a Soviet satellite is told in: 7 Saw Poland Betrayed, by Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane, The Rape of Poland, by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, and Allied Wartime Diplomacy, by Edward J. Rozek. David Martin tells the brutal story of the oneworlders' betrayal of Yugoslavia into Communist hands in Ally Betrayed. Hilaire du Berrier's Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam is essential reading for an understanding of Insider treachery in undermining America's allies and supporting our Communist enemies in Southeast Asia. Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza tells the story of Insider perfidy and support for Communist revolution in Latin American in Nicaragua Betrayed. The Betrayal of Southern Africa: The Tragic Story of Rhodesia and South Africa by Warren McFerran details the Insider treachery in the repeated betrayal of America's allies in southern Africa and the handing over of that region to Communist terrorists and corrupt thugs.

Through this convulsive process of controlled chaos, nations, kingdoms, and empires have been toppled, borders erased and redrawn, stable social and political systems uprooted, and whole peoples annihilated or driven as refugees into foreign lands.

 

The maps of Europe, Africa, and Asia, especially, have been repeatedly redrawn in this fashion, with the result that the number of nation states in the world has increased from 72 at the end of World War II to 195 today.

 

Some of these nations were artificially created by, and had their borders drawn by, the United Nations. Others, though not officially spawned by the UN, are the illegitimate offspring of the Insiders and the Communists who created the UN. In virtually every case where these new nations have been created or reformulated, the one-worlders have assured that corrupt, socialist regimes would be placed in power — either the totalitarian, revolutionary, socialist (Communist) variety, or the evolutionary, big-business, socialist (Fascist) variety.

 

These newly created entities have been manipulated, with rel-ative ease, into joining various regional organizations established, ostensibly, for the mutual benefit of the countries involved.

 

Thus,

• the Organization of American States (OAS)

• the Organization of African Unity (OAU)

• the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

• the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

• the European Union (EU)

• the European Monetary Union (EMU)

• the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA)

• the Middle East-North Africa economic area (MENA),

...and other regional organizations have sprouted and grown into sizable establishments wielding increasing power.**

 

** We cannot examine all of these groups here, but we especially direct the readers to the following articles from The New American for important exposes on the more recently launched APEC and MENA regional organizations. "The Free Trade Charade" (December 27, 1993) reveals the CFR-TC hands and machinations in the formation and control of APEC. "Play It Again, Uncle Sam" (December 12, 1994) tells the amazing story of the overt controlling role of the CFR in sponsoring (together with the World Economic Forum and the Socialist International!) the 1994 Casablanca conference that launched MENA. Both articles are available at www.thenewamerican.com.

 

Originally concerned primarily with a very narrow range of military and economic matters, these regional entities have, like the UN, gradually assumed more and more authority to deal with matters concerning the environment, labor policy, human rights, immigration, commerce, education, transportation, etc.

It is no accident that these regional Intergovernmental Organizations (or IGOs, in globospeak) have been grasping for more power — at the expense of their nation-state members. Most of them were planned from the beginning to do that very thing. They were designed eventually to become — through gradual accretions of legislative, executive, and judicial powers -regional supra-state governments which could, ultimately, be merged with other regional entities to form a world government under the United Nations.

 

What is now known as the European Union is a case in point. It was a colossal "bait and switch," presented as a trade pact, but intended from the start to become a nation-destroying super government.

In this, as in so many other areas we have already examined, we see an amazing parallelism between the plans of the Pratt House one-worlders and those of the Communist strategists. Joseph Stalin, for instance, recognized that populations will more readily merge their national loyalties with a vague regional loyalty — with which they may be able to find some sense of connection or identity — than they will for a world authority.

 

In his 1912 essay,

"Marxism and the National Question," the aspiring dictator insisted that "regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of the national problem."⁵

Again and again over the decades, the Communists emphasized the necessity of creating "regional organs" to facilitate the "eradication" of nationalism.

 

In 1936, the official program of the Communist International declared:

This world dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries, when the newly established proletarian republics enter into a federative union with the already existing proletarian republics ... [and] when these federations of republics have finally grown into a World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state.⁶

The Communists and the Insiders were (and still are) working from the same page: They are building regional blocs with structures that override national sovereignty and can later be merged into a global superstructure.

Two of the main regional IGOs that currently present a real and increasing danger to the United States are NAFTA and NATO, the former being a fairly recent creation formed for economic pretexts (trade, principally), and the latter of considerably older vintage established as a military alliance under a pretext of "collective security."

 

Each of these IGOs is serving, in the words of a top globalist operative, as an "end run around national sovereignty, eroding it bit by bit." 7
 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the campaign to secure its passage in Congress were closely modeled after the Insiders' game plan four decades earlier to establish the Common Market, later known as the European Community (EC) and (most recently) the European Union. And it is very clear that the Pratt House one-worlders intend to "evolve" NAFTA into a full-fledged, supra-national, regional government like the EU, but on an accelerated timeline, accomplishing in one decade what it has taken them four to do in Europe. We are not speculating on this; the CFR world planners have told us this repeatedly, as we will show.

NAFTA, which was originally promoted as a tripartite "free trade" agreement that would open markets and expand trade between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, is now being transformed into a Western Hemisphere Free Trade Association (WHFTA), with a single currency (the U.S. dollar is being proposed, for now), a hemispheric central bank, and an entire hemispheric regime of regulations to "harmonize" business, industry, labor, agriculture, transportation, immigration, environment, health, trade, and other policies "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego."

 

NAFTA is not, and never was, about "free trade." Free trade — real free trade — is a voluntary exchange between two parties, unhampered by government intervention.

But NAFTA, like the European Union, seeks to regulate and control virtually every industrial, agricultural, environmental, and labor matter. Rather than creating or permitting economic freedom by eliminating government intervention, NAFTA seeks to homogenize the plethora of socialist interventions that now hamstring the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian economies.

Insider Jacques Delors, the socialist president of the European Community Commission in 1992, when the NAFTA debate was raging, clearly saw the parallels between the two regional organizations.

 

Delors gloated that,

"NAFTA is a form of flattery for us Europeans. In many ways, we have shown what positive, liberating effect these regional arrangements can have."⁸

Naturally, what a thorough socialist and internationalist like Delors considers "positive" and "liberating" tends to jarringly conflict with "negative" and "retrograde" concepts such as independence, sovereignty, free enterprise, property rights, and constitutional limitations on power.

The CFR journal Foreign Affairs led the way, with a continuous fusillade of pro-NAFTA articles. Some even conceded, in essence, a key point made by this author and other NAFTA opponents at the time, to wit, that NAFTA was, in reality, a stealth plan to foist an EU-type regional government scheme upon Americans.

"The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures"⁹, M. Delal Baer approvingly wrote in the Fall 1991 Foreign Affairs.

 

"After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority"¹⁰

Dr. Baer went on to draw a direct analogy to the EC, suggesting:

It may be useful to revisit the spirit of the Monnet Commission, which provided a blueprint for Europe at a moment of extraordinary opportunity. The three nations of North America, in more modest fashion, have also arrived at a defining moment. They may want to create a Wiseman's North American commission to operate in the post-ratification period.... The commission might also adopt a forward-looking agenda on themes such as North American competitiveness, links between scientific institutions, borderland integration, the continental ecological system and educational and cultural exchanges.¹¹

Dr. Baer was not telling anything new to the CFR's top political operatives; they were already lined up behind the internationalist program. Republican President George Bush (the elder) (CFR), Democrat House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (CFR), and Republican House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (CFR) * played the pivotal political roles in pushing "fast track" authority for NAFTA through Congress — with massive help from their CFR confreres in the worlds of business, banking, media, and academia.

 

* As House Speaker, the CFR's Newt Gingrich — posing as the nation's premier Conservative — also played a decisive role in pushing the Insiders' World Trade Organization. During the 1994 hearings on the WTO, Gingrich disarmed WTO opponents by feigning concern over the WTO threat to our sovereignty. Gingrich noted that "yes, we could in theory take the power back. Yes, we, de jure, as f Judge Bork] points out, can take the power back. But the fact is we are not likely to disrupt the entire world trading system [by pulling out]. And, therefore, we ought to be very careful, because we are not likely to take it back."

 

And the same players campaigned furiously and continuously for final approval of the deceitful agreement.

The CFR internationalists intend to use NAFTA (and their proposed WHFTA) to foster, first, economic interdependence between the United States and other nations and then economic integration as a means, ultimately, to achieving political interdependence and integration.

 

Which is precisely the path the Insiders trod in foisting the EU upon the unsuspecting peoples of Western Europe.
 

European Union

Because it is the internationalists' template for NAFTA/WHFTA, a rudimentary understanding of the EU — how it was launched and by whom, what it has become, and what it is becoming — is absolutely essential for American patriots, in order to be successful in stopping this insidious attack on our sovereignty and independence. Our treatment here must necessarily be brief.**

 

** Gingrich expressed concern about the transfer of U.S. authority to GATT, declaring that "we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States, at a practical level, significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change." He declared that GATT was very similar to the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, by which the European Union's member nations had ceded a good deal of their economic and political sovereignty, "and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."

 

Nevertheless, Gingrich subsequently joined then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in not only promoting and voting for the GATT pact, but urging that it be considered during a lame-duck session of Congress when its prospects for passage would be enhanced.
 

The following points are key to an understanding of the Common Market/United Europe movement and its counterpart, NAFTA, in this hemisphere: While posing as a "bottom-up" popular movement, it was completely a "top-down" enterprise, conceived and run entirely by an elite coterie of one-worlders.
While posing as a native European movement, it was largely directed by U.S. Insiders and almost totally financed by U.S. taxpayers.

Presented to Americans as a way to defend Western Europe from Communism, it has instead been used to drive Europe into socialism.

• Warnings that the Common Market would erode national sovereignty were shouted down as paranoid ravings, but they have proven true.

• The national and local governments of the EU countries are being swallowed up and increasingly overruled by unaccountable Eurocrats and Eurojudges.

• The EU currency, the euro, and the Eurobank are destroying the value of the individual national currencies and the economic sovereignty of the member states.

• The EU governing institutions, acting in coordination with their fellow one-worlders in national governments, are becoming increasingly socialistic and oppressive.

All of this was foreseen by astute observers many years ago, when the foundations for this diabolical scheme were being laid. One of the most knowledgeable historians of the Common Market/EU, and an indefatigable critic of it, is Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American (and its predecessors American Opinion and The Review of the News).

 

For more than four decades he has published his authoritative HduB Reports from Monte Carlo, Monaco and has repeatedly exposed the machinations and plans of the European and American Insiders for Europe and the world.

 

For a more detailed examination of the history of the Common Market/EC, please see this author's book Global Tyranny12 and the following articles from The New American, available online at www.thenewamerican.com: "United States of Europe," April 10, 1989 ; "A European Suprastate," May 7, 1991; "From the Atlantic to the Urals (and Beyond)," January 27, 1992; "Forcing a United Europe," November 16, 1992; "European Nightmare," March 1, 1999.

"The CFR," wrote du Berrier in January 1973,

"saw the Common Market from the first as a regional government to which more and more nations would be added until the world government which the UN had failed to bring about would be realized. At a favorable point in the Common Market's development, America would be brought in. But the American public had to be softened first and leaders groomed for the change-over."¹³

Mr. du Berrier chronicled in his reports the "secret history" of the Common Market, utilizing published statements from the European and American press, official documents of European governments, the diaries and memoirs of European Insiders, and his own unparalleled intelligence sources developed over a lifetime of direct participation in some of the most momentous events of the 20th century.

 

Step by step, he detailed the Insider-orchestrated program, from the pre-World War II era, through the war years, and then the post-WWII era.

As du Berrier notes, the first concrete step toward the abolition of the European nation-states was taken in 1951 with the signing of the seemingly innocuous treaty creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ostensible purpose of this move was to so integrate the basic industries of coal and steel that a future war between France and Germany would be "physically impossible."

The next nail in the coffin of European national sovereignty came on March 25, 1957 with the signing by the six ECSC nations (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) of the two Treaties of Rome. These created the European Economic Community (EEC or Common Market) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), which greatly furthered the process of merging the economic and energy sectors of the member states.

 

(As the ECSC, Euratom, and EEC gradually assumed more and more economic and political powers, the name of this regional collective changed to the European Community.)

The next stage involved bringing the rest of Western Europe into the fold. In 1973 the United Kingdom, after more than two decades of resisting, came in, as did Ireland and Denmark-Greece joined in 1981, bringing the number of member states to ten. Spain and Portugal became the 11th and 12th members in 1986. The year 1986 also marked passage of the Single European Act, which mandated the establishment of "an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital is ensured."

The 1991 Treaty of Maastricht committed the EU signatories to a single currency and a European central bank.14 The European Monetary Institute (EMI), the embryonic European central bank created by the treaty, was officially launched on January 1, 1994. Frankfurt was chosen as the site for the new entity and Alexander Lamfalussy, former head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland, was tapped to be president.*

 

* Significantly, the establishment of the EMI in Frankfurt coincided with that city's March celebration of the founding of the Rothschild banking dynasty. About 80 members of the famous first family of international banking Insiders gathered in Frankfurt during the first week of March to commemorate the birth of dynasty founder Meyer Amschel Rothschild, who was born there 250 years ago. The Lamfalussy-BIS connection is also significant, inasmuch as the BIS has long been recognized by all observers of banking as the central bank of international banking.

 

Work in the Shadows

Now let's drop back for a moment and briefly examine the nutsand-bolts process and the main actors involved in putting this amazing scheme together, beginning with the European Coal and Steel Commission, or ECSC.

"This was a truly revolutionary organization," wrote Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, the Insiders' own inside historian, "since it had sovereign powers, including the authority to raise funds outside any existing state's power."¹⁵

The ECSC merged the coal and steel industries of six countries under a single High Authority. It was, Quigley pointed out, "a rudimentary government."

 

In his 1966 history of the world, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley wrote:

This "supranational" body had the right to control prices, channel investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel.... Its powers to raise funds for its own use by taxing each ton produced made it independent of governments. Moreover, its decisions were binding, and could be reached by majority vote without the unanimity required in most international organizations of sovereign states.¹⁶

The proposal for the ECSC was introduced, amidst great fanfare, in May 1950 as the "Schuman Plan." Although Jean Monnet, a consummate Insider and at that time head of France's General Planning Commission, was the real author of the plan, he thought it expedient to name it for his comrade, Robert Schuman, the Socialist French Foreign Minister who later became Prime Minister.

The American Insiders leapt to praise the Schuman Plan.

 

John Foster Dulles, a CFR founder, called it "brilliantly creative."¹⁷ Dulles had become close pals with Monnet decades earlier, when both labored at Versailles following World War I to establish the League of Nations. Later, as Secretary of State, he would use U.S. power to help Monnet quash European opposition to a United Europe. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (CFR) termed it a "major contribution toward the resolution of the pressing political and economic problems of Europe."¹⁸

 

The CFR dominated Carnegie Foundation awarded Monnet its Wateler Peace Prize of two million francs "in recognition of the international spirit which he had shown in conceiving the Coal and Steel Community...."¹⁹

Insider Jean Monnet, a life-long, self-avowed, multi-millionaire socialist, whom columnist Joseph Alsop (CFR) admiringly dubbed the "good, gray wizard of Western European union,"²⁰ was appointed the first president of the powerful new ECSC. Monnet knew full well just how subversive and revolutionary his new creation was.

 

Merry and Serge Bromberger record in their biography Jean Monnet and the United States of Europe that when Monnet and his "brain trust" had outlined the basics of the ECSC proposal, they called in legal expert Maurice Lagrange to take care of the detail work.

 

The Brombergers wrote:

Lagrange was stunned. An idea of revolutionary daring had been launched and was being acclaimed by the Six and the United States — a minerals and metals superstate.... "I hope the structure will stand up," Monnet said dubiously.²¹

In other words, Monnet recognized that his scheme was so audaciously subversive it was doubtful that the governments of sovereign nations would ever agree to such a radical proposal. Unless, of course, the proponents just as audaciously employed deception, duplicity, bribery, extortion, and coercion. Which is precisely what they did.

The Brombergers, who are ardent admirers of Monnet, admit the conspiratorial and totalitarian mind-set of their hero:

Gradually, it was thought, the supranational authorities, supervised by the European Council of Ministers at Brussels and the Assembly in Strasbourg, would administer all the activities of the Continent. A day would come when governments would be forced to admit that an integrated Europe was an accomplished fact, without their having had a say in the establishment of its underlying principles. All they would have to do was to merge all these autonomous institutions into a single federal administration and then proclaim a United States of Europe....

 

Actually, the founders of the Coal and Steel Community would have to obtain from the various national governments —justifiably reputed to be incapable of making sacrifices for the sake of a federation — a whole series of concessions in regard to their sovereign rights until, having been finally stripped, they committed hara-kiri by accepting the merger.²²

Again, a bald admission that the Insider founders of the ECSC/EU knew from the start that they were slipping a noose around the neck of an unsuspecting Europe and that they Planned to gradually tighten it until it strangled their hapless victim — to death.

Another very important source on this "hara-kiri" phenomenon is Insider Ernst H. van der Beugel, honorary secretary-general of the Bilderberger Group, vice-chairman of the Netherlands Institute for Foreign Affairs (a CFR affiliate), member of the Trilateral Commission, Harvard lecturer, etc.

 

In his book From Marshall Aid to Atlantic Partnership — which contains a foreword by "my friend Henry Kissinger" — van der Beugel explained the workings of the Monnet-CFR symbiosis and cited examples of the diplomatic bludgeoning of those officials who balked at administering national "hara-kiri."

 

For instance, he reported how Monnet's Action Committee, which was "supported by funds from United States foundations," ramrodded the negotiations for the Rome Treaties:

Monnet and his Action Committee were unofficially supervising the negotiations and as soon as obstacles appeared, the United States diplomatic machinery was alerted, mostly through Ambassador Bruce ... who had immediate access to the top echelon of the State Department....

At that time, it was usual that if Monnet thought that a particular country made difficulties in the negotiations, the American diplomatic representative in that country approached the Foreign Ministry in order to communicate the opinion of the American Government which, in practically all cases, coincided with Monnet's point of view.²³

Monnet's high-level friends, who assisted him in these strong-arm tactics, included President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, David Bruce, Averell Harriman, George Ball, and C. Douglas Dillon — all CFR one-worlders. All of this was occurring, remember, in the immediate post-WWII years, when war-ravaged Europe had become very dependent on U.S. aid and looked to the U.S. for protection from the growing (Insiderbacked) Soviet threat.

Hilaire du Berrier relates a story from the diary of Joseph Retinger that illustrates how the CFR's agents built the movement for European merger. Retinger, a Polish one-worlder and inveterate socialist, was a longtime associate of CFR heavy-weights John Foster Dulles, Averell Harriman, John J. McCloy, and Nelson and David Rockefeller. Retinger was seeking more funds for the European Movement headed at the time by Belgian Prime Minister Paul Henri Spaak, who was affectionately known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist."

 

Du Berrier wrote:

Retinger and Duncan Sandys, the British Eurocrat, went to see John J. McCloy, who in 1947 was American High Commissioner to Germany. McCloy, we learn from Retinger's diary, embraced the idea at once. Sheppard Stone, who was on McCloy's staff, and Robert Murphy, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, whom Retinger called one of the European Movement's best supporters, joined McCloy in raiding the huge reserve of European currencies called 'counterpart funds' which had piled up as a result of Marshall Plan aid.... McCloy, Stone and Murphy "promptly and unhesitatingly put ample funds at the disposal of Paul Henri Spaak [to lobby for the European merger]," Retinger recorded.²⁴

Michael J. Hogan, professor of history at Ohio State University and editor of Diplomatic History, is another authority who confirms this Insider use of Marshall Plan "counterpart funds." In fact, Dr. Hogan shows that the whole push for the European Recovery Plan (ERP, better known as the Marshall Plan) was a CFR-run affair to establish interventionist (socialist) policies for post-war Europe.

The Establishment effort was led, Hogan notes, by,

"the Committee for the Marshall Plan to Aid European Recovery, a private, nonpartisan organization composed of labor, farm, and business leaders who worked closely with government officials to mobilize support behind the ERP. The result was something like a coordinated campaign mounted by an interlocking directorate of public and private figures." ²⁵

 

"The leadership of this group," says Hogan "came largely from academic circles, from the major American trade unions, and from such business organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Business Advisory Council (BAC), the Committee for Economic Development (CED), and the National Planning Association (NPA)." ²⁶

But the top leadership, he makes clear, were CFR cognoscenti.

The CFR corporate fascists were ever close at hand to assist Euro-socialist Insiders like Monnet, Retinger, Schuman, Spaak Sandys and their ilk, and to sabotage all European opposition. Europeans representing anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-Soviet, pro-American, free market, Christian, monarchist, nationalist parties and viewpoints were undermined, co-opted, vilified, bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise eliminated from effective leadership positions.

Startling new evidence concerning this cabal was reported in September 2000 by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the EU reporter in Brussels for The Telegraph of London. The story bore the headline, "Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs," and reported on recently declassified American government documents showing "that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.''²⁷

 

The U.S. effort was headed by "William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA." ²⁸

Mr. Evans-Pritchard reported:

Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA.

 

The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.

 

The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.²⁹

What the Telegraph article didn't mention (and perhaps Evans-Pritchard didn't know) was that all of the OSS-CIA-ACUE principals involved in the "European federalist movement" — Donovan, Smith, and Dulles — were CFR members and key Pratt House operatives.

With the media stranglehold exercised by the ruling elite of the Milner Group-Royal Institute of International Affairs-CFR thought cartel, few Europeans or Americans — even those who were politically sophisticated — could put all of the pieces together. Lone voices — even influential ones — could not break through the media blackout. In 1959, for example, few British citizens heard (and fewer still understood the importance of) the warning of Reginald Maulding, Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning the real nature of the Common Market.

 

Said Maulding:

"We must recognize that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept the ultimate goal — political federation in Europe including ourselves."³⁰

 

"Twenty years ago, when the process began, there was no question of losing sovereignty," Sir Peregrine Worsthorne wrote in London's Sunday Telegraph in 1991. "That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

Further, said Worsthorne,

"For the past twenty years or so anybody wanting to have a career in the public service, in the higher reaches of the city, or the media has had to be pro-European. In the privacy of the closet or among close friends, even many federalists would admit as much. But such is the momentum behind the European movement that none of these individual doubts, expressed separately, will be remotely sufficient to stop the juggernaut."³¹

Lord Bruce of Donington, a Member of Parliament from the Labour Party who has been a stalwart opponent of Euro-convergence schemes for four decades, was likewise given the media blackout treatment.

 

In a 1962 speech he cited Maulding's warning that the Common Market was really aimed at eventual political unification.

"This, of course, is not how the issue has been presented by the government to the people of this country," Lord Bruce cautioned. "The matter has been put forward in terms of the economic advantages which would accrue to Britain if we joined 'the Six' in a Customs Union ... allowing our industries to thrive in what appears to be a lush 'home' market of 214 million people."³²

No "right-wing isolationist," Lord Bruce served in the European Parliament as a representative of the European Socialist Group. In a 1996 interview, Lord Bruce noted that much of the impetus for European convergence comes from the ruling elite of,

"the United States, which disguises its intent for public consumption but has consistently assisted the merging of Britain and the other European nations into a regional bloc."

 

"The Americans," he said, "have subsidized and promoted this aberration almost since its inception, and they are very active today."³³

 

Western Hemisphere EU

With this knowledge in mind, the first thing an observant onlooker should have noticed when proposals for NAFTA and WHFTA began floating about was the Pratt House imprint. It wasn't difficult to spot; the CFR logo was all over these schemes, as we have already seen in the case of NAFTA.³⁴

The Insiders have stepped up their political, economic and propaganda efforts for the next step, an EU for the Western Hemisphere. Following the pattern of the ECSC-EU, most of the important early activity for the WHFTA was taking place "below the surface of public attention." In 1999, after years of preparation, the business pages of newspapers began buzzing over the startling proposal by Argentine President Carlos Menem to abandon his country's peso for the dollar.

 

Similar proposals soon started flowing in from the leaders of Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela. All of a sudden, "dollarization" became the sexy economic issue of the day, with Republicans and Democrats alike lining up with euphoric praise for the ultra-radical scheme.

What we were witnessing, in reality, was another CFR ventriloquism show; like the European leaders a generation earlier, the Western hemispheric choir hymning the dollarization theme were merely mouthpieces for the CFR puppet masters. In April 1974, the CFR telegraphed much of what was to come when Foreign Affairs published a remarkably frank attack on U.S. sovereignty. Authored by Columbia University law professor and veteran State Department official Richard N. Gardner (Clinton's Ambassador to Spain), the article was entitled "The Hard Road to World Order."

 

It began with CFR member Gardner's lamentation that like-minded internationalists had failed to achieve what he termed "instant world government."

 

He proposed a new and more effective route to the creation of an all-powerful, global superstate, asserting:

In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.³⁵

Gardner's piecemeal scheme for world government proposed, among other things, luring all nations into a variety of economic and political entanglements, including trade traps like NAFTA and WHFTA.
 

The Dollarization Bandwagon

In 1984, 10 years after Gardner's "Hard Road" manifesto, Foreign Affairs brought forth another audacious piece entitled "A Monetary System for the Future," by Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC). Cooper, a professor of international economics at Harvard, boldly stated:

"I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy."³⁶

The main problem with this scheme, Cooper realized, is that,

"a single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy."

 

"How can independent states accomplish that?" he asked rhetorically. Naturally, he had the answer: "They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body"³⁷

More recently, in its July/August 1999 issue, Foreign Affairs explicitly took up the campaign for such a supranational power and dollarization, with an essay by Zanny Minton Beddoes of The Economist, one of Britain's leading Fabian Socialist periodicals.

 

In the opening paragraph of his globalist propaganda tract, "From EMU to AMU?: The Case for Regional Currencies," Beddoes declared with oracular certainty:

"By 2030 the world will have two major currency zones — one European, the other American. The euro will be used from Brest to Bucharest, and the dollar from Alaska to Argentina — perhaps even Asia."³⁸

Mr. Beddoes paid specific tribute to Richard Cooper's 1984 Foreign Affairs article, and threw bouquets to other "farsighted academics" who share his one-world view and chided skeptics who "argue that a national currency is a basic symbol of sovereignty that countries choose to forfeit only under extraordinary circumstances."³⁹

 

Mr. Beddoes and his devious allies would surely like all of us to believe that a national currency is only a "symbol of sovereignty," but it is much more than that, of course. It is an essential ingredient of sovereignty, and a nation is at the fearful mercy of any entity to whom it may be foolish enough to forfeit so important a power. The Federal Reserve System and the International Monetary Fund have already vindicated that claim a thousand times over, and yet here we are about to be enticed into an even deeper abyss.

An even more extraordinary propaganda and disinformation salvo, this one aimed at a broader audience, was provided by the Time magazine cover story for February 15, 1999.

 

Along with the headline, "The Committee to Save the World," the cover featured the beaming visages of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (CFR), then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (CFR), and Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers (CFR), who followed Rubin in the top Treasury post. The article bore this riveting subtitle:

"The inside story of how the Three Marketeers have prevented a global economic meltdown — so far."⁴⁰

The adulatory piece, written by Time's Joshua Cooper Ramo (CFR), reverently refers to the CFR triumvirate as "the Trinity" and suggests that they are uniquely possessed of near-divine virtues and insights, and, thus, deserve our trust in establishing new monetary authority over the hemisphere.⁴¹

The "conservative," CFR-run Wall Street Journal assured its readers that "Dollarization has arisen as a spontaneous movement within our hemisphere,"⁴² and urged U.S. political leaders to embrace this opportunity to "score a powerful victory for free trade and free markets." But the dollarization bandwagon is about as spontaneous as the Normandy invasion, and it has nothing to do with free markets.

The current dollarization-NAFTA/WHFTA drive we are now witnessing is the culmination of a massive, long-range effort that began many years ago as an intermediate stepping stone to world government. Myriad documents, publications, statements, speeches, conferences, meetings, and events from the past several decades copiously document that effort.

 

One such document is Western Hemisphere Economic Integration, a study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer (CFR and former CFR vice president) and Jeffrey J. Schott, published in 1994 by the Institute for International Economics (HE). While hardly a household name in America, the HE, according to Martin Walker of the London Observer,

"may be the most influential think-tank on the planet," with "an extraordinary record in turning ideas into effective policy." ⁴³

The dedication at the beginning of this HE book reads:

"TO DAVID ROCKEFELLER,

For his lifelong devotion to promoting economic development in Latin America and to improving relations among the countries of the Western Hemisphere. His wisdom has been an enormous source of encouragement to the work of the Institute and inspired us to explore the important ties that unite the Americas."⁴⁴

Mr. Rockefeller, of course, was chairman of the CFR from 197085 and, as we will see, has played an especially key role in the dollarization and Western hemispheric economic convergence scheme. Likewise the HE, which is virtually joined at the hip to the CFR.*

 

* The executive director of the HE is former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs C. Fred Bergsten (CFR, TO, who appeared on May 21, 1999 before the House Banking and Financial Services Committee to argue for the dollarization power scam. The complete interlock between the CFR and the IIE is further demonstrated by the list of HE officers and directors provided in the Hufbauer-Schott study. IIE's chairman is listed as Peter G. Peterson, who is also chairman of the board of the CFR, a position he has held since 1985, when he succeeded David Rockefeller in that position. Chairman of the IIE Executive Committee is Anthony M. Solomon (CFR). The study also lists the IIE board of directors, which includes such CFR luminaries as W. Michael Blumenthal, Carla A. Hills, Donald F. McHenry, Paul A. Volcker, Marina Whitman, and Andrew Young. Chairman of the Advisory Committee is (surprise!) Richard N. Cooper (CFR). One of the members of that same Advisory Committee for the Schott study was Lawrence H. Summers. Listed as an Honorary Director was Alan Greenspan.

So what did the Hufbauer-Schott study published by the HE advocate? Very simply, "a Western Hemisphere Free Trade Area (WHFTA)" following the sovereignty-destroying, mega-state pattern of the European Union (EU).

"After four decades of dedicated effort," said the report, "Western Europe has just arrived at the threshold of ... monetary union, and fiscal coordination. It seems likely that trade and investment integration will proceed at a faster pace within the Western Hemisphere...."⁴⁵

 

"Finally," the study stated, "the more countries that participate in integration and the wider its scope, the greater the need for some institutional mechanism to administer the arrangements and to resolve the inevitable disputes, and the stronger the case for a common legal framework." (Which means supranational legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, naturally.)

 

"The European Commission, Council, Parliament, and Court of Justice have many of the powers of comparable institutions in federal states," the report noted approvingly before commenting, "On this subject, we score Europe with a 5 [on a scale of 0 to 5]."⁴⁶

Not satisfied with the EU model, the authors proposed going far beyond it. They asserted that "integration between NAFTA and Latin America should be legally open-ended; potentially the WHFTA should include countries outside the hemisphere."

 

Indeed, presaging Beddoes, they asserted:

"Economic logic suggests that the expansion of NAFTA in an Asian direction is just as desirable as its expansion in a Latin American direction." ⁴⁷

In countless similar studies, speeches, lectures, and programs over the years, the CFR elitists have prepped the upper echelon of the U.S. and Western intelligentsia and business communities so that they would enthusiastically embrace this deadly nostrum — long before it appeared "spontaneously" for general public consumption. But how did they succeed in drawing Latin American leaders into this snare and overcoming the long-standing fear of Yankee "dollar imperialism"?

 

One obvious answer is that through the lending programs of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Wall Street banks, they have saddled Latin American countries with hopeless debt burdens that have left them desperate and willing to try radical measures. But a more complete answer is to be found in the long-term activities of groups like the IIE and the Council of the Americas (COA), which have for two generations been assiduously grooming and tutoring the business, academic, and political leaders of Latin America.

The COA describes its origins thusly:

"In 1965, David Rockefeller and a group of like-minded business people founded the Council of the Americas based on the fundamental belief that free markets and private enterprise offer the most effective means to achieve regional economic growth and prosperity."⁴⁸

(Those so naive as to believe in the COA's professed embrace of "free markets and private enterprise" probably also believe that the Social Security Administration has set up a bank account with their name on it, awaiting their retirement!)

 

Among the CFR brotherhood joining Mr. Rockefeller in the COA's leadership are COA chairman Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., vice-chairman Robert E. Wilhelm, treasurer Richard de J. Osborne, and general counsel Sergio J. Galvis.

Some 240 COA corporate members with interests in Latin America — ranging from AT&T, Bank of America, Coca Cola, Citibank, and Dow Jones & Company to Exxon, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Microsoft, Newsweek, Turner Broadcasting System, Wal-Mart, and Xerox — provide impressive muscle (and financial support) for the COA's agenda.⁴⁹ Most of these companies, with a heavy CFR presence at their executive and directorate levels, have proven to be reliable supporters of the one-world corporatist line.

Working hand-in-glove with the COA-CFR corporate socialists are the pampered princelings of the U.S.-tax-dollar-subsidized multilateral lending institutions like the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), many of whose officers are also CFR members.

 

The preface to the aforementioned Hufbauer-Schott study, for instance, notes that,

"... the Inter-American Development Bank provided support for the research underlying this project and the bank sponsored seminars for the discussion of its preliminary results." ⁵⁰

Indeed, a brief survey of the daily faxes sent out by the IDB, IMF, and their sister institutions makes very plain the completely corrupt process by which the Insiders form their convergence "consensus." Each day brings announcements of tens of millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of dollars in IDB "loans" for natural gas pipelines in Mexico, electric power plants in Argentina, highways in Bolivia, coffee plantations in El Salvador, etc. IDB cooperation can lift a Latin American politician by financing the programs that make him look good, or help his opposition by pulling funds and destroying confidence in his economic program.

Thus, when President Carlos Menem of Argentina and Hugo Chavez, the Castroite, Marxist president of Venezuela, delivered their CFR-scripted speeches at June 1999 COA luncheons in New York, they knew they were addressing sympathetic movers and shakers of the COA-CFR-IIE-IDB axis who would parlay their proposals into the new "working consensus" that would become official U.S. policy.

Of course, what the new world order architects have in mind for the Americas is exactly what they are foisting on Europe in the form of the European Union and the new euro currency. That evolving supranational monstrosity was also presented to unwary Europeans as a "spontaneous" movement aimed at "free trade" and "free markets."

 

But Europeans are belatedly waking up to the fact that it is no accident that the centralized, socialist bureaucracy of the EU is strangling their freedoms and national sovereignty. As we have seen, it was planned to develop into exactly that from the start.

Like the slime trail that leads to a slug, virtually every trail of American policy disasters leads back to the Council on Foreign Relations. There is no longer reason for any sensible American to doubt that the CFR coterie intends to take us down the same suicidal path that Europe is now traveling. The one-world architects of the European Monetary Union (EMU) are openly advocating an American Monetary Union (AMU), as we have already seen from the pages of Foreign Affairs.

Words fail to convey the enormity and audacity of this colossal, dangerous fraud we are witnessing in the current "spontaneous movement" to transform the Western Hemisphere into a carbon copy of the increasingly tyrannical European Union. But even that grim prospect of an America under an EU-style, centrally controlled economic bloc does not begin to convey the seriousness of the peril we face if we allow these plans to succeed.

 

Regional "integration" is but a stepping stone to the real objective sought by the insiders of this one-world conspiracy: Total, unrestrained power on a planetary scale is the real objective.

 

Back to Contents