UN Regionalism — The European
We are experiencing an increasing abandonment of sovereignty within
the European Community in favor of this Community and, as I hope,
also in favor of [a] European parliament equipped with full rights.
• German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
September 25, 1989
Twenty years ago, when the process began, there
was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any
rate, a dishonest obfuscation.
• Sir Peregrine Worsthorne,
London Sunday Telegraph, August 4, 1991
We have here the recreation of the familiar 20th century
bureaucratic nation state, but on a Leviathan scale.... A monolithic
Europe would be the last great folly of the 20th century, hustled
into existence at the very moment when such concepts are withering
everywhere else ... repeating all the errors, the vanities and
conceits, of the collectivist epoch.
• David Howell,
chairman of the Select Committeeon Foreign Affairs,
British House of Commons, Wall Street Journal, December 31, 1990
idea of a unified European Community (EC) was sold to the peoples of
Western Europe under the misleading rubric of “a Common Market,” an
arrangement that would supposedly free commerce and consumers from
labyrinthine national regulations and restrictions. The Single
European Act of 1986, agreed to by the 12 member states that year,
called for the establishment of “an area without internal frontiers,
in which the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital
is ensured.” With progress toward a single market, “...
industry will be able to achieve greater economies of scale,” said
U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury M. Peter McPherson (CFR). He
made this remark in an address in 1988 to the Institute for
International Economics, a group led by fellow one-worlder C. Fred
Bergsten (CFR, TC). McPherson continued:
The demands of competition will spur technological innovation and
greater productivity. The program can help stimulate growth and
employment, reduce consumer prices, and raise standards of living
The force that will drive this transformation is opportunity — the
opportunity to compete in a larger and freer marketplace.1 Economic
analyst and former Republican Congressman from Texas Dr. Ron Paul
saw the same developments in a completely different light. Long an
ardent champion of free-market policies, he warned that the movement
toward European “union” and “integration” is a statist scheme
cloaked in free-market rhetoric that is likely to “produce a
monster.” “International statists have long dreamed of a world
currency and a world central bank,” wrote Dr. Paul in the October
1988 issue of The Free Market, published by the Ludwig von Mises
Institute. “Now it looks as if their dream may come true.”
Paul’s essay, entitled “The Coming World Central Bank,” went on to
European governments have targeted 1992 for abolishing individual
and replacing them with the European Currency Unit, the Ecu. Next
they plan to set up a European central bank. The next step is the
merger of the Federal Reserve, the European central bank and the
Bank of Japan into a one world central bank.... The European central
bank (ECB) will be modeled after the Federal Reserve. Like the Fed
in 1913, it will have the institutional appearance of
decentralization, but also like the Fed it will be run by a cartel
of big bankers in collusion with politicians at the expense of the
Time and events have proven Dr. Paul’s assessment, not McPherson’s,
to have been correct. The much touted “free trade/free market
reforms” were merely bait laid out to entice Europeans into the trap
of what is designed eventually to become an all-powerful,
supranational government. This European regional government would
later be merged into a world government under the United Nations.
The agreements reached by the leaders of the European Community who
met in Maastricht, Netherlands in December 1991 are now taking them
down this road.
Major concessions of national sovereignty given by
the 12 member states (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,
and Spain) to the socialist-dominated European Parliament and to the Eurocrats in Brussels are underway. Foremost among these are the
commitments to establish a single currency, the ECU, and a European
Central Bank. The members also agreed to yield more defense and
foreign policy control to the Western European Union.
The Socialist parties, which control a majority (260) of the 518
votes in the European Parliament, are certainly not going to promote
free-market reforms. Nor are those reforms likely to come from the
European Community Commission or the Council of Ministers, the
institutions holding the EC’s real legislative and executive powers.
Those institutions have been dominated by socialists such as
Commission President Jacques Delors, who is leading the push for a
European central bank, and by members of David Rockefeller’s
world-government-promoting Trilateral Commission.
The EC Trilateralists include such influential Eurocrats as Willy De Clercq,
Karl-Heinz Narjes, Carlo Ripa di Meana, Viscount Etienne Davignon,
Raymond Barre, Rene Foch, Jorge Braga de Macedo, Francisco Lucas
Pires, Gaston Thorn, Michael O’Kennedy, Henri Simonet, Simone Veil,
and Edmund Wellenstein. These one-worlders are leading the nations
of Western Europe — their own nations — not only into surrendering
national sovereignty to Brussels, but into merging with the “former
communist” regimes of Eastern Europe.
A study of the evolution of the European Community reveals ominous
parallels with the campaign
currently underway for the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), signed by President George Bush on August 12, 1992. The EC
is the model for this and other “common market” arrangements for
Latin America, Asia, and Africa now being promoted by CFR
Establishment figures and their globalist colleagues.
EC Emerges From Shadows of World War I
On November 9, 1988, European heads of state and government gathered
in solemn ceremony at the Pantheon in Paris to inter the remains of
Jean Monnet, the French internationalist who is often called “the
Father of Europe.” The celebration marking the centennial of his
birth was the crowning highlight of numerous tributes in honor of
the principal architect of the Common Market.
Jean Omar Marie Gabriel Monnet was born in Cognac, the son of a
brandy merchant. In 1910, at the age of 20, he was sent to Canada by
his father to open new markets for the family business. Hooking up
with the Hudson Bay Company and the Lazard Brothers banking house,
two of the Western Hemisphere’s most eminent Establishment
companies, the parvenu Frenchman was given entree into high British
circles of power and soon became the protégé of the Anglo-American
Insiders. Thus began the mercurial rise of Jean Monnet, who — though
lacking even the equivalent of a high school diploma — was to become
a renowned wizard of high finance, a political mastermind, and a
confidant and advisor to presidents and prime ministers.
Through the influence of French Foreign Minister Etienne Clementel,
Monnet gained an exclusive and very lucrative contract for shipping
vital materiel from Canada to France during World War I. Following
that war, he won an appointment to the Allied Supreme Economic
Council, was made an advisor to the committee preparing the Treaty
of Versailles, and was introduced to that closed group of one-worlders
around Colonel House that was preparing the way for the creation of
the League of Nations.
In 1919, he became an international figure at
the age of 29 through his appointment as deputy secretary-general of
Monnet, the committed internationalist, also became a steadfast
socialist. Monnet biographers Merry and Serge Bromberger wrote:
“Behind the scenes he helped to arrange the appointment of the
French Socialist Albert Thomas as head of the International Labor
Office.”2 They also record Monnet’s boast:
“I’ve always voted Socialist, except on one occasion.”3 That single
exception occurred during the 1965 French presidential election when
he publicly supported Jean Lecanuet, a champion of a federated
In 1925, Monnet moved to America to accept a partnership with the
Blair Foreign Corporation, a New York bank that had done a bonanza
business in the “war effort.” From there he went on to become vice
president of Transamerica, the giant San Francisco-based holding
company that owned Bank of America.
At that time there were many campaigns underway to create a United
States of Europe. In 1923, Count Richard N. Coudenhove- Kalergi of
Austria authored his book Pan Europa; three years later, he
organized his first Pan European Congress in Vienna.4
By the end of
the 1920s, branches of the Pan European Union were operating
throughout the continent and Britain. In How Can Europe Survive, a
piercing critique of Coudenhove’s Pan European idea, the eminent
freemarket economist Hans F. Sennholz observed that there is no
getting around “the fact that his plan is a scheme for the
attainment of wholesale socialism in Europe.”5 (Emphasis in
Nevertheless, Coudenhove’s plan received the support and
patronage of many of Europe’s leading statesmen and men of letters,
not to mention that of the Anglo-American Establishment. One of
Count Coudenhove’s most important disciples was Aristide Briand, who
between 1909 and 1930 was the Socialist Premier of France 11 times
and Minister of Foreign Affairs 12 times. In 1930, Briand unveiled a
plan for “European Union” that provided for a regional supranational
union within the League of Nations.6
It failed not because of
antipathy to the idea but largely because of differences of opinion
among the various socialist and integrationist factions over the
best means to accomplish the shared goal. That same year, another
important apostle of Coudenhove’s Pan Europa, Sir Winston Churchill,
wrote an essay entitled “The United States of Europe” aimed at
winning support for the idea from the American public. It was
published in the February 15, 1930 issue of the Saturday Evening
Post, one of America’s most popular periodicals at that time.
Coudenhove spent the devastating years of World War II in the United
States propagating his Pan Europa idea. “In seeking to persuade
America, once she became a belligerent, to adopt European unity as
one of her war aims,” said the Count’s colleague and hagiographer
Arnold J. Zurcher in The Struggle to Unite Europe, 1940-1958, “Count
Coudenhove enlisted the cooperation of certain leading American
citizens whom he had interested in his movement some years prior to
his enforced wartime sojourn.”7
These “leading citizens” — all
Establishment heavyweights — were: Nicholas Murray Butler, president
of both Columbia University and the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace; Dr. Stephen Duggan, founder and first president
of the International Institute of Education, a completely CFR-dominated
internationalist propaganda operation; and William C. Bullitt,
alternately U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union and to France.
With the help of these high-powered patrons, Coudenhove and Zurcher
obtained positions at New York University where, for the remainder
of the war years, they conducted graduate seminars devoted
exclusively to the need for European federation. Their CFR contacts
aided them greatly in obtaining favorable media coverage.
York press, for example, was wholly sympathetic,” wrote Zurcher,
“both major morning dailies, The New York Times and the New York
Herald Tribune, having given generous space to reporting the Count’s
occasional public utterances and to the efforts of the New York
University seminar on federation.”8
With the academic respectability
conferred by the NYU seminars and the popular dissemination of their
ideas by a friendly press, said Zurcher, “For the first time in the
twentieth century, the slogan ‘United States of Europe’ had become
something more than a label for hortatory idealism.”9
While Coudenhove-Kalergi and his sidekick Zurcher labored among the
intelligentsia and the captains of industry in New York, Citizen
Monnet was shuttling back and forth between Washington, Paris, and
London on trans-Atlantic diplomatic missions for French Premier
Edouard Daladier, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and
General de Gaulle. It was Monnet who gave Roosevelt the slogan
“America will be the great arsenal of democracy” that the President
would later use in one of his fireside chats.10
“Monnet was above
all a public relations man,” claimed biographers Merry and Serge Bromberger. “He was particularly close to Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s
right-hand man. Through Hopkins he became the President’s personal
advisor on Europe.”11
The close Roosevelt-Hopkins relationship has
often been compared to the relationship between Wilson and House. In
each case, there was almost total dependence of the president on a
mysterious, shadowy advisor. Hopkins, like House, admired communism
and played a key role in formulating many of the pro-Soviet policies
of the Roosevelt Administration that proved so disastrous for the
United States and the Free World. He and Monnet got along .
M. Bloch-Morhange, writing in the authoritative Information Et
Conjectures for March 1957, summed up the French interna’s
pro-communist record this way: “Never in his long career has Jean
Monnet a single time criticized the Soviet Union publicly.”
According to the Brombergers, “behind the scenes Monnet played an
important role in the negotiations that prepared the ground for
lend-lease,”12 the operation that funneled to the USSR massive
infusions of war materiel and money, even the blueprints and nuclear
materials that enabled the Soviets to develop the atomic bomb.13 The
lend-lease program was supervised by Harry Hopkins.
In 1939 as World War II was about to begin, Clarence Streit, a
Rhodes scholar and correspondent for the New York Times, authored
Union Now.14 In it, he advocated an immediate political union
involving the U.S., Britain, Canada, and other Atlantic
“democracies,” and then, finally, world union. The book was lavishly
praised in the CFR-dominated press and by 1949 had been translated
into several languages, selling more than 300,000 copies.
Union Now and Union Now With Britain, published in 1941, gave rise
to a sizable Federal Union movement (which later changed its name to
Atlantic Union Committee and still later to the Atlantic Council of
the United States), the leadership of which has always been
top-heavy with CFR members. During the late 1970s, George Bush sat
on the Council’s board of directors, along with Henry Kissinger,
Winston Lord, and a long line-up of CFR-TC cronies. In 1942,
Streit’s Federal Union proposed the adoption of a joint resolution
by Congress favoring immediate union with the aforementioned
Atlantic states. The resolution had been written by John Foster
Dulles (CFR), who was later to become Eisenhower’s Secretary of
State and a key player in the formation of Monnet’s United Europe.15
One of the most ambitious and visionary schemes of this period was
put forth in a book entitled Plan for Permanent Peace by Hans Heymann, a German economist and refugee who held a research and
teaching post at Rutgers University. Funded by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, a perpetual font of world order
schemes, Plan for Permanent Peace asserted:
Nations have created international disharmony in the vain belief
that harmony in our society can be achieved on a national basis....
This narrow-minded attitude has left us one strong hope, namely,
that this fallacious concept may hold only during a transitional
period.... After the debacle [World War II] an international
organization will be imperative for the well-being of society as a
Heymann then detailed his scheme for a global superstate
headed by a Federal World Authority, a Bank of Nations (with three
branches: the Hemisphere Bank, Europa Bank, and the Oriental Bank),
and a World Army, Navy, and Air Force.17 Plan for Permanent Peace
includes several ambitious fold-out maps and diagrams detailing the
monstrous bureaucracy needed to regiment the hapless citizens of the
proposed planetary union.
At the conclusion of World War II, the myriad of organizations,
individuals, movements, and publications advocating various models
of global governance all coalesced behind a concerted crusade to
insure U.S. adoption of the United Nations Charter. Once that was
accomplished, they returned to campaigning for what U.S. national
security adviser Walt W. Rostow (CFR) would later term “an end to
nationhood as it has been historically defined.”18
All of these
individuals knew that the UN could never become a genuine world
government as long as member nations retained any vestige of
sovereignty and autonomy.
Winston Churchill and his son-in-law, Duncan Sandys, led the United
Europe Movement, which convened a Congress of Europe at The Hague in
May of 1948.19
While world attention was focused on the glittering
assembly of current and former heads of state — Churchill, LŽon
Blum, Alcide de Gasperi, Paul-Henri Spaak, et al. — it was Jean
Monnet and the mysterious Polish Socialist, Joseph Retinger, the bon
vivant and globe-trotting master of political intrigue, who ran the
One of the accomplishments of The Hague Congress was the
adoption of seven Resolutions on Political Union. Resolution number
seven stated: “The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as
an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”
Marshaling a United Socialist Europe
On June 5, 1947, General George C. Marshall, then Truman’s Secretary
of State, delivered a speech at Harvard University detailing the
suffering and privation of war-ravaged Europe and calling for an
American response.21 Thus was launched the European Recovery Program
(ERP) — better known as the Marshall Plan — a massive foreign aid
program designed to restructure Europe along “cooperative,” i.e.,
internationalist and socialist lines.
The ERP, however, did not originate with General Marshall, but
rather with Jean Monnet and the Council on Foreign Relations. The
Brombergers noted that prior to the Harvard speech, Marshall sent
his assistant H. G. Clayton to confer with Monnet, and that Marshall
himself conferred at length with Monnet at the Paris Peace
Laurence Shoup and William Minter, in their study of
the CFR entitled Imperial Brain Trust, reported: “In 1946-1947
lawyer Charles M. Spofford headed a [CFR study] group, with banker
David Rockefeller as secretary, on Reconstruction in Western Europe;
in 1947-1948 that body was retitled the Marshall Plan.”23
Rockefeller would later lead the Chase Manhattan Bank, serve as
chairman of the board of the CFR from 1970-1985, launch the
Trilateral Commission in 1973, and do everything he could to further
the cause of global “interdependence.” The immediate problem faced
by the Marshall Planners was selling the idea to Congress. There was
considerable opposition to the scheme, led principally by Senator
Robert Taft of Ohio, former President Herbert Hoover, and
free-market economist and Newsweek commentator Henry Hazlitt.
and others argued that the proposed program would force U.S.
taxpayers to subsidize the socialist policies of European
governments — nationalization of industries, central planning, wage
and price controls, excessive taxation, trade restrictions,
burdensome regulation, currency devaluation — just the opposite of
what was needed to help Europe recover from the war’s devastation.
They argued instead for a program that would unleash private
enterprise to solve Europe’s economic problems.
responded by organizing an impressive assemblage of notables to
campaign for the ERP. “The leadership of this group,” said Michael
J. Hogan, professor of history at Ohio State University and editor
of Diplomatic History, “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).”24
Strong promoters of the “New
Deal synthesis,” members of these groups “accepted the need for
greater economic planning and for Keynesian strategies of fiscal and
monetary management.” These four organizations, said Professor
Hogan, “played an important role in shaping and promoting the ERP,”
and in disarming the opposition.25 “During the congressional
hearings,” Hogan wrote in his comprehensive study entitled The
Marshall Plan, “these private leaders joined their government
partners in a formidable defense of the ERP.”
They published briefs on behalf of the program. Their spokesmen
testified before the relevant congressional committees. They served
on the President’s Committee on Foreign Aid, or Harriman Committee,
and on 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.
Of the nineteen people on the executive
board of the Marshall Plan Committee, eight were members of the CFR
and two of these eight were also members of the BAC, CED, or NPA.
Included in this list were Allen W. Dulles, president of the CFR,
and Philip Reed, chairman of the board of General Electric. Former
Secretaries of War Henry L. Stimson and Robert P. Patterson, along
with former Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson, also served on
the executive board.26
However, even with this massive and
well-orchestrated campaign, the ERP advocates did not have it easy.
They had originally packaged the plan as a humanitarian operation to
alleviate the suffering, starvation, and devastation caused by the
war. But Congress was not so willing to accept that Europe’s
economic woes could or should be solved by the American taxpayers.
So the Establishment one-worlders changed to a different tack: They
said U.S. aid was urgently needed
to protect Western Europe from the threat of communism. “People sat
up and listened when the Soviet threat was mentioned” said John J.
McCloy, the Insiders’ Insider who was chairman of the CFR from
1953-1970. McCloy, who served as U.S. High Commissioner to Germany
after the war, said his assignment there taught him a valuable
lesson — that a good way to assure a viewpoint gets noticed is to
cast it in terms of resisting the spread of Communism.27
“chairman of the American establishment,” McCloy, and his globalist
CFR colleagues would master the lesson well. The “resisting
communism” tactic was developed to such a fine degree that virtually
any pro-communist policy could be sold to the American public if the
anti-communist label was applied to it. That McCloy’s
“anti-communism” was a cynical charade is evident not only from
statements like those above, but from the critical role he played in
the many decisions and policies that proved so helpful to the
communists and so harmful to America and the Free World over the
course of his half century of “public service.”28
had not gone unnoticed by security agencies. Max Holland,
contributing editor to The Wilson Quarterly, reported in the Autumn
1991 issue of that journal that the FBI had become concerned over
In a May  memo, FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned the Truman
Administration of an “enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington
... with reference to atomic energy,” and identified McCloy along
with Dean Acheson and Alger Hiss, as worrisome for “their pro-
It was McCloy, who two years earlier, as
Assistant Secretary of War, approved an order permitting Communist
Party members to become officers in the U.S. Army. He defended
identified Communist John Carter Vincent and supported J. Robert
Oppenheimer after the scientist was denied a top security clearance.
It was McCloy who organized the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency for President Kennedy and who, together with Soviet
counterpart Valerian Zorin, drew up the 1961 Freedom From War
surrender plan we have cited in previous chapters.30
Truman also admitted paying lip service to anti-communism in order
to win support for his European aid plan. His so-called Truman
Doctrine — the policy of providing U.S. support to “democracies”
around the globe supposedly to combat the spread of communism — was
completely disingenuous. According to authors Walter Isaacson and
Evan Thomas, when Secretary of State Marshall expressed concern that
the President’s “Truman Doctrine” speech was too anti-communist in
tone, “The reply came back from Truman: without the rhetoric,
Congress would not approve the money.”31
The deception worked, and
Congress did indeed approve the funding: some $13 billion dollars
for the Marshall Plan, and tens of billions more through various
other reconstruction programs. From the close of World War II
through 1953, the United States government poured more than $43
billion into Europe. Professor Hans Sennholz described it as a
“windfall for socialism,” and in his How Can Europe Survive detailed
the myriad of destructive government programs and wasteful
state-owned monopolies that swallowed up these enormous funds while
thwarting real economic growth and progress.
With the ERP, European socialists and one-worlders had hit on a
veritable bonanza, and American Establishment Insiders had hit on a
scheme that gave them the leverage they needed to push
independent-minded European governments in a “cooperative”
direction. “American officials interfered with foreign governments
which endeavored to abolish controls and return to sounder
principles of government,” said Dr. Sennholz.
officials repeatedly exerted pressure on the Belgian and German
governments to inflate their national currencies at a greater degree
and create more credit through simple expansion. Fortunately for
these nations, their governments usually resisted this Fair-Deal
“Through American aid,” said Professor Hogan, “and
particularly through the use of counterpart funds, Marshall Planners
tried to underwrite industrial modernization projects, promote
Keynesian strategies of aggregate economic management, [and] ...
encourage progressive tax policies, low-cost housing programs, and
other measures of economic and social reform.”33
From its very
inception, the ERP’s main purpose was to destroy the European
nation-states by merging them into a regional government. The early
planning for the program was carried out by a special agency called
the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC) under the
direction of George Kennan.
One of the concerns of the agency, wrote
“to consider how national sovereignties might be
transcended. As Joseph Jones, who attended the meetings, recalled,
the State Department’s economic officers encouraged committee
members to think of Europe as a whole and to administer aid in ways
that would foster economic unification.”34 (Emphasis added)
Of course, not everyone advocating the abolition of Europe’s
sovereign governments was so subtle. Some pursued an open frontal
approach. On March 21, 1947, before Marshall had made his Harvard
speech, Senators William Fulbright and Elbert D. Thomas submitted to
Congress the following concurrent resolution:
“Resolved by the
Senate (the House of Representatives concurring) that the Congress
favors the creation of a United States of Europe.”
The CFR-Insider press sprang forth to champion the incredibly
arrogant Fulbright resolution. According to the March 17, 1947 issue
of Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was a leading CFR
member), “our policy should be to help the nations of Europe
federate as our states federated in 1787.” “Europe desperately needs
some effective form of political and economic federation,” wrote
Sumner Welles (CFR) in the Washington Post, owned by CFR member
The Christian Science Monitor (long a CFR mouthpiece)
advised on April 28, 1947: “For its part, the U.S. could hardly
impose federation on Europe, but it could counsel.... It could mold
its leading and occupation policies toward upbuilding a single
continental economy.” The New York Times, the Establish’s most
influential organ, editorialized on April 18, 1947: “But it is only
too true ... that Europe must federate or perish.”
The St. Louis
Post Dispatch of March 16, 1947 declared that “for Europe it is a
case of join — or die.”35 Cooler heads among the “brain trust”
realized, however, that any attempt at openly forcing a European
federation would stir nationalist resistance and resentment in
Europe, and would rightly be viewed as American imperialism. They
had to make it appear that the call for a United States of Europe
was coming from “the people” of Europe themselves.
The most informative account of the role of America’s Insider
Establishment in organizing the movement for a United Europe can be
found in a six-part report about the Common Market appearing in the
authoritative H. du B. Reports during 1972 and 1973. Written by
geo-political analyst Hilaire du Berrier, an American who has been
publishing his highly respected intelligence reports from for more
than 30 years, the “Story of the Common Market” series details the
intrigues of the American CFRAtlantic Council-Bilderberger-Trilateral
Commission combine and its European accomplices in their joint
campaign for a supra-national European government.
In part five of
his series, 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 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.
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,” Retinger recorded.36
It was this same Joseph Retinger who recruited Prince Bernhard of
the Netherlands to host the meeting at the Hotel Bilderberg in
Oosterbeek, Holland in May 1954 that launched the annual secretive
Bilderberger conclaves where the international ruling elite meet to
scheme and palaver. McCloy would become a member of the Bilderberger
The Merger Begins
The first concrete step toward the abolition of the European
nation-states was taken in 1951 with the signing of the treaty
creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). “This was a
truly revolutionary organization,” wrote 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.”38 The ECSC treaty, which went into force in July 1952,
merged the coal and steel industries of six countries (West Germany,
France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) under a
single High Authority.
Professor Quigley wrote in his 1966 history
of the world, Tragedy and Hope:
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.39
proposal for the ECSC was introduced, amidst great fanfare, in May
1950 as the “Schuman Plan.” Although Monsieur Monnet, then 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.40 The American Insiders leapt to praise the Schuman
Plan. John Foster Dulles called it “brilliantly creative.”41 Dean
Acheson termed it a “major contribution toward the resolution of the
pressing political and economic problems of Europe.”42
Truman called it “an act of constructive statesmanship.”43 The
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....”44 Monnet,
whom columnist Joseph Alsop (CFR) called the “good, gray wizard of
Western European union,”45 was appointed the first president of the
powerful new ECSC. Monnet knew full well just how powerful and
revolutionary his new creation was.
Merry and Serge Bromberger
reported in 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.
The brain trust worked feverishly from ten o’clock in the morning
until midnight, without taking Sundays or holidays off, not even
Christmas day. Even the secretaries and the office boys were
infected by the general excitement, by the feeling that they were
part of a fantastic undertaking.46
The Brombergers, who are ardent
admirers of Monnet, then 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
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.47
Realizing that some nations might at some
point rebel against the “new order,” the “good gray wizard” and his Eurocrats sought to establish their own army, which they dubbed the
European Defense Community (EDC). After clamoring for national
disarmament, the Eurocrat pacifists were now demanding that an
independent armed forces complete with nuclear weapons be put under
The EDC treaty was signed by the six ECSC nations
in 1952, but plans for the supranational army fell apart when, after
two years of bitter debate, the treaty was rejected by the French
The next nail in the coffin of European national sovereignty came on
March 25, 1957 with the signing by the six ECSC nations 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. (The ECSC, Euratom, and EEC are
now collectively referred to as the European Community or EC.) “The
EEC Treaty,” said Carroll Quigley, “with 572 articles over almost
400 pages ... looked forward to eventual political union in Europe,
and sought economic integration as an essential step on the way.”49
But the merger architects settled on an approach of patient
gradualism; what Richard N. Gardner (CFR) would later call “an end
run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”50
According to the late Professor Quigley, “This whole process was to
be achieved by stages over many years.”51
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 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
The CFR spared no expense or effort in aiding its European
co-conspirators, especially Jean Monnet, to establish their
dreamed-of Brave New World. A very enlightening source on this
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), Harvard lecturer,
In his book From Marshall Aid to Atlantic Partnership — which
contains a foreword by “my friend Henry Kissinger” —
Trilateralist-Bilderberger van der Beugel explained:
Not only has Monnet been the auctor intellectualis of many steps on
the road to European unification, he has also been a driving force
in the execution of existing plans. His most remarkable capacity has
been his great influence on the formulation of United States policy
He exercised this influence through a network of close friendships
and relationships, some of them going back to the pre-war period.52
Explaining further the workings of the Monnet-CFR symbiosis, van der
Beugel 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
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.53 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,
Monnet’s diabolical designs are coming to fruition at a frightening
pace. The Single European Act (SEA) and the Maastricht Accords are
intended to make political and economic union irreversible.
Citizens of the EC countries are finding their lives and livelihoods
increasingly controlled by Eurocrats in Brussels, even as national
governments find their sovereign rights sacrificed under such
deliberately vague and ambiguous rubrics as “cooperation,” “union,”
“integration,” “convergence,” and “harmonization.” Soon it will be
impossible for member states to block policies that are clearly
harmful to their national interests. EC Commissioner Willy De Clercq,
in a 1987 speech, boasted that the SEA should make it possible for
two-thirds of the EC decisions to be made by a qualified majority,
in contrast to the 90 percent of decisions that previously required
In his prophetic book New Lies for Old, published appropriately in
1984, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn warned of the coming “false
liberalization” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This
deception, he predicted with uncanny accuracy, would be embraced by
the West and would lead to “a merger between the EEC [European
Economic Community, now referred to simply as the European
Community, EC] and Comecon,” the Council of Mutual Economic
Assistance of Communist States. Once that occurred, Golitsyn stated,
the “European Parliament might become an all-European socialist
parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe. ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ would turn out to be
a neutral, socialist Europe.”56
It is happening as he predicted.
This “Finlandization” of Europe does not seem to bother the new
world order ruling elite, however.
In 1990 the Council on Foreign
Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs jointly
published a study entitled The Transformation of Western Europe.
Written by RIIA Deputy Director William Wallace, it triumphantly
We face, as Pierre Hassner has remarked, “not the Finlandization of
Western Europe which Americans feared, but the Brusselization of
To which the obvious response should be, “What is
the difference?” More and more, the plans of the CFR-Trilateral-Bilderberg elite with and become indistinguishable
from those of the Kremlin. Stalin’s 1936 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.58
Is the Stalin formula essentially different
from the globalist vision announced by former German Foreign
Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, one of the most outspoken
proponents of full-tilt European unification? Speaking about “The
Future of Europe” in Lisbon, Portugal on July 12, 1991, he declared:
“The road points not backward to the nation-state of the past....
Basically, it is a matter of constructing a world order of peace in
which the United Nations must at last play the central role assigned
it in its Charter.”59 (Emphasis added)
And there we have a clear admission that the economic and union of
European nations is not the final goal of these socialist and
internationalist manipulators. What they have always sought
ultimately is control of the entire planet by the United.
1. M. Peter McPherson, “The European Community’s Internal Market
Program: An American Perspective,” an address before the Institute
for International Economics, August 4, 1988, Treasury News, B-1505,
2. Merry and Serge Bromberger, Jean Monnet and the United States of
Europe (New York: Coward- McCann Publishers, 1969), p. 19.
4. Arnold J. Zurcher, The Struggle to Unite Europe 1940-1958 (New
York: New York Univ. Press, 1958), pp. 4-5.
5. Hans F. Sennholz, How Can Europe Survive? (New York: D. Van
Nostrand Company, 1955), p. 70.
6. Ibid., pp. 29, 137.
7. Zurcher, p. 14.
8. Ibid., p. 15.
9. Ibid., p. 13.
10. Bromberger, p. 33.
13. George Racey Jordan, From Major Jor’s Diaries (New York:
International Graphics, 1952).
14. Clarence Streit, Union Now (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940).
15. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Appleton, WI: Western
Islands, 1965), p. 94.
16. Hans Heymann, Plan for Permanent Peace (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1941), p. 78.
17. Ibid., pp. 263-64 and Chapters V, VI, VII, and X.
18. James Perloff, The Shadows of Power (Appleton, WI: Western
Islands, 1988), p. 127.
19. European Movement and the Council of Europe with Forewords by
Winston S. Churchill and Paul- Henri Spaak, published on behalf of
the European Movement. (London, New York: Hutchinson & Co, 1958),
pp. 33-34, 36.
20. Ibid, p. 34. See also HduB Reports, April 1972, p. 2.
21. Michael J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), p. 43.
22. Bromberger, p. 62.
23. Laurence Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The
Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1977), p 35.
24. Hogan, pp. 97-98.
25. Ibid., pp. 99, 98.
26. Ibid., p. 98.
27. Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1986), p. 289.
28. William P. Hoar, “The Amazing John J. McCloy,” American Opinion,
March, 1983, pp. 25-40.
29. Max Holland, “Citizen McCloy” The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 1991,
30. Hoar, p. 39. See also Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, “Dream of
Total Disarmament Could Become Reality,” Los Angeles Times, January
5, 1992, p. M6.
31. Isaacson and Thomas, p. 397.
32. Sennholz, p. 185.
33. Hogan, p. 429.
34. Ibid., p. 40.
35. Ernst H. van der Beugel, From Marshall Aid to Atlantic
Partnership (Amsterdam, New York:
Elsevier Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 101-02.
36. H. du B. Reports, November-December 1972, p. 6.
37. H. du B. Reports, September 1972, p. 2.
38. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our
Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), page 1284.
40. H. du B. Reports, May, 1972, pp. 1-2. See also Don Cook,
“Monnet: Europe’s Gentle Guiding Hand.” Los Angeles Times, October
8, 1976, pp. 8-9, and “Monnet, Key to European Unity, Dead at Age
90,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1979, pp. 1, 15.
41. Hogan, p. 367.
44. H.du B. Reports, May 1972, p. 1.
45. Joseph Alsop, July 9, 1964, quoted ibid., p. 6.
46. Bromberger, p. 123.
48. Quigley, pp. 1284-85. See also H. du B. Reports, September 1972,
49. Ibid., p. 1285.
50. Richard N. Gardner, “The Hard Road To World Order,” Foreign
Affairs, April 1974, p. 558.
51. Quigley, p. 1286.
52. van der Beugel, p. 245.
53. Ibid., p. 323.
54. Ibid., p. 246. See also: Hogan, pp. 153-63; and H. du B. Report,
July/August 1979, pp. 4-5.
55. “1992: The Great European Market?” address by Willy De Clercq at
the Eurug Conference, Ghent, 25 October 1987, text provided by EC
Office of Press & Public Affairs, Washington, DC.
56. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies For Old (New York: Dodd, Mead, &
Co., 1984), pp. 341-42.
57. William Wallace, The Transformation of Western Europe (London:
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1990), p. 94.
58. Program of the Communist International (New York: Workers
Library Publishers, 1936), p. 36.
59. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, “The Future of Europe,” speech delivered
in Lisbon on July 12, 1991,
Statements & Speeches, Vol. XIV, No. 8, German Information Center,