Bilderberg.org

[TonyGosling]

Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels = 12:00AM BST 19 Sep 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm7zjGncLMg
DECLASSIFIED American government documents show 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.
The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.
The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, 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.
The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.
The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.
It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk

[TonyGosling]

The Real Agenda Behind the CIA Spawning the EU
Thursday, 05 May 2016 Written by Alex Newman
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23120-the-real-agenda-behind-the-cia-spawning-the-eu

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.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com

Related articles:

Will Obama’s Anti-Brexit Remarks in Britain Backfire?

Leaked TTIP Deal to Merge U.S. and EU Triggers Outrage

A Review of "World Federalism 101"

Brexit: EU on Trial

Brexit Panic: CFR, Media Step Up Campaign to Scare British Voters

Obama and Global Establishment Warn U.K. not to Ditch EU

The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty

Amid Syria Uproar, CIA Files Show U.S. Helped Saddam Gas Iranians

“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss

CIA “Manages” Drug Trade, Mexican Official Says

United States of Europe

TTIP “Trade” Regime Would Let EU Meddle in U.S. Policy

Leaked Obama “Trade” Pact Exposes Assault on Self-government

Transatlantic Danger: U.S.-EU Merger Talks Underway in D.C.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23120-the-real-agenda-behind-the-cia-spawning-the-eu
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk

[TonyGosling]

Philip Agee & Louis Wolf - Dirty Work (1978)
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:How_CIA_Money_Took_the_Teeth_Out_of_Socialism
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-9MwmH_nnJ4eOmL66/Philip%20Agee%20&%20Louis%20Wolf%20-%20Dirty%20Work%20(1978)_djvu.txt

How CIA Money Took the Teeth Out of British Socialism

It was during the fifties, furthermore, that Anthony Crosland,
Rita Hinden, and the other members of the Socialist Commen-
tary group adopted the argument put forcibly in the New Leader
that a strong united Europe was essential to protect the Atlantic
Alliance from Russian attack, and European and Atlantic unity
came to be synonymous in official thinking as Gaitskell and his
friends moved into the party leadership. They received transat-
lantic encouragement, furthermore, from a New York-based
group called the American Committee on United Eruope, whose
leadership was openly advertised in the New York Times as
including General Donovan, wartime head of OSS, George Mar-
shall, the U.S. Secretary of State, General Lucius D. Clay, and
Allen Dulles of the CIA.

This high-powered and lavishly funded pressure group—
whose thesis was essentially that a United Europe would defend
America's interest against Russia — financed in Europe the so-
called "European Movement," whose inspiration was a friend
of Hugh Gaitskell's, Joseph Retinger, an elderly Polish James
Bond, who, after a professional career as an iminence grise, had
come to rest at the Dutch court under the patronage of Prince
Bemhard.

Retinger had, furthermore, secretly persuaded Shepard Stone
of the U.S. High Commission in Germany to finance his Euro-
pean Movement out of so-called "counter-part funds" — Mar-
shall Aid repayments which the Americans banked in Europe.
Later he promoted select gatherings of European and American
politicians, businessmen, aristocrats, top civil servants, and mil-
itary leaders to propagate the ideals of Atlantic and European
unity. Invitations to these Bilderberg Group meetings — named
after the Dutch hotel where the first gathering was held in 1954 —
were issued personally by Prince Bernhard on Retinger's recom-
mendation. Few of those who received the card of invitation
embossed with the Royal Netherlands coat of arms declined to
spend three or four days in civilized discourse with the world's
leaders in luxurious surroundings — certainly not Hugh Gaitskell
and Denis Healey, who were founder members of the group
along with such diverse personalities as the president of Uni-
lever and Sir Robert Boothby.

Healey, an ex-Communist, had been head of the International
Department at Transport House before entering Parliament in
1951. He was a convinced supporter of Atlantic Union and
spread the message through Socialist Commentary and the New
Leader, for whom he wrote nearly 80 articles before joining the
Labour government as Defense Minister in 1964.

While top people were relaxing with Prince Bernhard, the
Congress for Cultural Freedom was establishing solid ties with
the coming man of the British Labour Party, Anthony Crosland,
who was by now acknowledged as the party's chief theoretician.
He had lost his seat at Westminster in the 1955 election, but in
the following years was traveling regularly to Paris to plan the
international seminars of the CCF with Melvin Lasky and Mi-
chael Josselson under the directorship of Daniel Bell. Michael
Josselson, who in 1967 admitted that he had for 17 years been
channeling CIA money into the CCF, has described to us Cros-
land's role at this period. Crosland's contribution, he says, was
"encouraging sympathetic people" to participate in the semi-
nars sponsored by the congress all over the world. Hugh Gait-
skell traveled in these years to congress functions in Milan 1955,
New Delhi 1957, the island of Rhodes 1958, and Berlin 1962.
Crosland himself traveled to Vienna in 1958, to Berlin in 1960,
and to Australia and Japan in 1964 on a congress-sponsored tour.

He was at this date a member of the International Council of
the CCF after nearly a decade working to remodel European
socialism in the image of the American Democratic Party, a
cause for the sake of which the CCF had financed a systematic
campaign of congresses, seminars, and private gatherings for
leading Socialists throughout Europe. This had been backed up
by the fullest publicity in Encounter, Preuves, Der Monat, and
the other CCF journals — whose influence was further extended
by discreet arrangements with Socialist Commentary for pub-
lishing each other's pamphlets and articles.

Rita Hinden was by now the editor of Socialist Commentary
and playing a similar role to Crosland in picking African partici-
pants for congress seminars. Michael Josselson describes her as
"a good friend of ours. We relied entirely on her advice for our
African operations." She also visited India and Japan on a CCF-
sponsored trip after the Suez crisis, speaking on the theme that
traditional socialism was irrelevant in a modern capitalist society
where there was full employment.

This was the nub of the matter. Many of Europe's Socialist parties still had old-fashioned Marxist notions written into their
rulebooks, which had become an embarrassment to their lead-
ers. A glaring example was the British Labour Party whose
Clause IV — "common ownership of the means of production,
distribution and exchange" and so on — sounded to some like a
passage from the Communist Manifesto. The proof of its irrelev-
ance seemed provided by the 1959 General Election in which
Anthony Crosland regained his seat at Westminster, but which
represented a catastrophic defeat for the Labour Party. The day
after Labour's defeat, Roy Jenkins, Anthony Crosland, and
Douglas Jay were among a small group who met with Gaitskell at
his home. They decided that the time had come for Labour to
drop its old commitments and get rid of its cloth cap image
which had become an electoral liability.

Douglas Jay immediately wrote the now celebrated article
which appeared in Forward the following week, calling for the
abandonment of Clause IV and a change in the Labour Party's
name. And early in 1960, Socialist Commentary commissioned
Mark Abram's firm. Research Services Ltd., to carry out an
attitude survey on "Why Labour Lost." The results were pub-
lished in the journal's May to August number, and they con-
firmed the Gaitskell thesis that nationalization was a liability.
This Abrams survey had been turned down by the Labour Party
Executive before the 1959 election as being too costly. But now
Socialist Commentary found the money to pay for it and in
February 1960 William Rodgers, General Secretary of the Fa-
bian Society since 1953, organized a letter of support to Gait-
skell signed by 15 young parliamentary candidates. Shortly aft-
erward, a steering committee was set up with Rodgers as
chairman, and including some of the signatories of the Gaitskell
letter together with Crosland, Roy Jenkins, Patrick Gordon
Walker, Jay, other party members from Oxford, and some sym-
pathetic journalists. This group started work on a manifesto to
be released in the event of Gaitskell's defeat in the defense
debate at the party conference. This duly occurred in the au-
tumn of 1960, when the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
triumphed in its campaign to win the Labour Party to a neutralist
program.

So in October 1960 Rodgers and his friends released their
manifesto in 25,000 copies with widespread press coverage.
Calling for "Victory for Sanity" — a dig at their old enemies, the
"Victory for Socialism" group — they appealed to party members to rally behind Gaitskell and his conference call to "fight
and fight and fight again." They also issued an appeal for funds
with which to continue the campaign, and in mid-November
Rodgers reported to the steering committee that many small
donations had been received, together with a large sum from a
source which wished to remain anonymous.

Rodgers' windfall enabled the group to take a permanent of-
fice and appoint paid staff. The title "Campaign for Democratic
Socialism" was chosen and a six-man Executive Committee set
up with Rodgers as full-time paid Chairman. The Committee was
told that available funds were sufficient for a year's activities,
and CDS thus had a start on its opponents who, in spite of their
widespread support in Labour constituencies and trade-unions,
were unable to raise more than a few hundred pounds over the
following year and had to rely entirely on volunteer workers. At
CDS's disposal were fieldworkers in the constituencies and un-
ions, whom it supported with traveling expenses, literature, and
organizational backup, tens of thousands of copies of the mani-
festo, pamphlets and other publications, plus a regular bulletin,
Campaign, circulated free of charge to a large mailing list within
the movement. And all this was produced without a single sub-
scription-paying member.

CDS achieved its objectives. The unions cracked under the
pressure and the Labour Party returned to the Atlantic fold at
the party conference in 1961 after a campaign by the most effec-
tive pressure group the party had ever seen. Rodgers was its
driving force. With financial backing assured, he created an or-
ganization whose influence was out of all proportion to its origi-
nal support among party members. Whoever put up the money
could justly claim to have changed the course of the history of
the Labour Party and Britain in the 1960s.

Nor did the importance of CDS vanish totally after it had
restored the Labour Party to commitment to NATO, for its ad-
herents felt bitterly betrayed when Hugh Gaitskell later qualified
his support for Common Market entry at the Brighton Confer-
ence in 1962. Standing at the back of the hall Rodgers turned to
the party press officer, John Harris — later Roy Jenkins' PR man
— and said "I'm through with that man, John." Anthony Cros-
land, furthermore, supported Gaitskell's compromise and so
also lost the backing of the ardent marketeers, who hencefor-
ward rallied around Roy Jenkins.
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk

[TonyGosling]