Salon: One World After All
By Anthony Wile - October 26, 2013

An article in Salon was recently brought to our attention by Hugo, a feedbacker. It is entitled "Elites' strange plot to take over the world." Thanks, Hugo.

Appearing about a month ago, it is basically an admission of the entire globalist enterprise over the past half-century or so. It clearly admits what we all know – that top Western elites have been in an open conspiracy to merge the world, at least the Western world, under one legislative, economic and military regime.

What makes the article important? Well … start with its writer, Matt Stoller, who "has a background in financial journalism and was a fellow at the [technocratic/socialist] Roosevelt Institute and an editor of the financial site Naked Capitalism." (Editor's notation in brackets.)

Stoller is well known within his leftist ambit: "He contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters, focusing on the intersection of foreclosures, the financial system, and political corruption. In 2012, he starred in 'Brand X with Russell Brand' on the FX network, and was a writer and consultant for the show." He's also been a producer for MSNBC's "The Dylan Ratigan Show" and Senior Policy Advisor for [horrible-but-courageous] Congressman Alan Grayson.

And what is Salon? Salon is a leftist 'Net publication funded by William Hambrecht, one of the founders of financial firm Hambrecht and Quist that was purchased by Chase Manhattan in 1999. Hambrecht resides within the fault lines of financial elite and Salon is an important mouthpiece for the internationalist set.

Major articles appearing at Salon surely represent a kind of positioning that internationalists want to adopt, and this is an article that rehearses the evolution of globalism. Here's perhaps the most important excerpt:

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.

This is partially true, of course, but not entirely so. There has always been a sensible strand of realism regarding these globalist plots that is neither conservative nor liberal but classical liberal – libertarian. Call it The Remnant, as some have, but this group was represented by an assortment of enterprises and floating think tanks and most recently has been centered around the Mises Institute.

The viewpoint of this group rejected both liberal and conservative perspectives when it came to globalism and focused at least to some extent on elite efforts at centralization that were economic and financial rather than political. Banking elites in particular want larger and larger agglomerations of power; profit is the motive, profit and control.

Here's more from the Salon article:

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 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. advertisement 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 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.

… 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.

We see from the above that a vital globalist initiative has been percolating in elite political circles even up to 1981. The article also makes it clear that the foundering of the formal initiative was due to the evolution of the sociopolitical climate, especially in the US – as symbolized by the rise of Ronald Reagan and the complications arising out of the Cold War and then the post-Cold War period as well.

It puts the post-World War Two construction of an internationalist infrastructure into a larger frame of reference as well. "The United Nations was constructed to do what the League of Nations had not, to serve as a legitimate forum for nations of the world to continuously deliberate."

And it explains, as we often have, that various parts of this infrastructure were developed for various globalist purposes: "NATO could apply the united military strength of the West. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or the OECD, served originally as a forum whereby the United States could funnel aid to Europe to create the European Union."

Even more damningly:

Mainstream State Department liberal internationalists, the JFKs and LBJs, who built entangling institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. and so forth … 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).

Where have you read this before, dear reader? Why, in the alternative press, of course – the "conspiratorial" press. Never in the mainstream press, or in publications such as Salon that span the divide between mainstream and alternative journalism. And yet … perhaps it is a good place to begin the process of re-education, a web publisher that promotes globalist dominant social themes even as it positions itself as an alternative journalist force.

My diagnosis: I think we're observing the rise of a new meme. It is one that is going to be a good deal more honest about the world's reality, which is increasingly one of internationalism.

We've written numerous times that both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are very possibly (at least partially) playing assigned roles in a larger promotional scheme. They are duly appointed to provide a portion of the dialectic. We believe this simply because they garner enormous publicity. No one shows up on the cover of Time magazine, in our view, unless the top elites want him to. Nor do people's life stories get made into lavish Hollywood movies unless they are part of a larger plan, as Julian Assange is, or at least was.

Edward Snowden's allotted role in all this – whether he knows it or not – is likely to enlighten people about the length and breadth of US control of information around the world. It is intended to make people immensely nervous about their actions, business life and plans, especially if they disapprove of what the Anglosphere has built.

It is also obviously to start a discussion and eventually to provide a "solution" that will end up both limiting and then legitimizing the modern surveillance state. (Eventually the limitations will be discarded, as they always are.) In fact, the Salon article justifies its "admissions" by explaining that Snowden's revelations must inevitably cause a reexamination of what has taken place in the world in the past century or so.

As the spying scandal, a truly global scandal, continues, activists, citizens and journalists are recognizing the powerful remnants of this Cold War-era global deep state. The players in the scandal hop from country to country, some safe zones and some not. The Guardian is a British newspaper, and is now partnering with the New York Times, to keep the global intelligence services at bay. Cyberspace is a new and strange transnational front combining elements of war, trade, journalism, finance, activism, surveillance and applied government power.

Streit never achieved his goal of having a formal "Atlantic Union." But with an international "intelligence community," globalized supply chains, increasingly global free trade agreements that subordinate national court systems, and globalized private and central banks, all couched under the rubric of promoting "freedom," he has as much claim to being the true animating force behind what we're facing today as anyone else.

You see? These "revelations" about the surveillance state are now to be used to reappraise modern history. Turns out that globalists were after "one world" after all. A new narrative is being built in front of our disbelieving eyes. Of course, like everything else in this post-technological era, it is being built too quickly. They flee the hot breath of the Internet Reformation but in their haste they begin to undo what they've built so arduously in the past.

Does this have investment ramifications? Of course it does. Globalism is an organizing force of investing. Money Power will use this new openness to move even more quickly to create global stock exchanges and even international carbon marts if they can manage it.

The ultimate plan is to support every trading function on a single platform – stocks, bonds, futures, options, even derivatives, all moderated by one central bank and regulated by a single facility as well. That is still a long ways away but as this article shows, the top elites are becoming less reticent about explaining what's really going on.

You read it here. Again.