Dr. Dennis Cuddy -- Do Americans Care About an Atlantic Union?

DO AMERICANS CARE ABOUT AN ATLANTIC UNION?

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
August 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

(Update on last article: In my last article about the power elite's "larger plan," I indicated they sometimes take actions which create chaos, thus justifying international intervention. I also said they used economic coercion to cause disputing elements to compromise. This was all part of their larger plan to bring about regional arrangements that could then link to form a World Socialist Government. On July 20, 2007, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad wrote in THE NEW YORK TIMES that "In Iraq, the United States supports a larger U.N. role. . . . The influence that the U.N. has over the release of any assistance will give its envoy significant leverage to encourage compromises among Iraqi leaders. The U.N. is also uniquely suited to work out a regional framework to stabilize Iraq." Sound familiar?)

In my last NewsWithViews (NWV) column, I referred to the "New Transatlantic Agenda" described in my June 12, 2006 NWV article "Global Integration." Recently (April 30, 2007), the leaders of the U.S. and European Union (EU) issued a press release [Read] titled "Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration Between the United States of America and the European Union." Basically, the document is a plan for "deeper transatlantic economic integration. . . recognizing that the transatlantic economy remains at the forefront of globalization."

As I related in my last NWV article, economic integration of regional arrangements is part of the plan of the power elite to bring about a World Socialist Government (WSG), which will be a synthesis of Western Capitalism and Eastern Communism. Concerning the Communists' willingness to pursue the WSG, the following 3-stage plan was specified in their 1936 Communist International: (1) Socialize the economies of all nations (2) Bring about federal unions of various groupings of these socialized nations (3) Amalgamate the regional unions into a world union of socialist states. And regarding Americans' willingness to accept Socialism, former head of the Communist Party of the USA, Earl Browder, was quoted in the PITTSBURGH PRESS (June 19, 1966) as explaining: "America is getting socialism on the installment plan through the programs of the welfare state. There is more real socialism in the United States today than there is in the Soviet Union. Americans may not be willing to vote for a program under the name of 'socialism' but put it under another label---whether liberal Republican or Democrat---and they're by and large in favor of the idea....We have a large and growing degree of what 50 years ago would have been recognized as socialism."

That economics is a key component of the power elite's plan can be seen in Benn Steil's "The End of National Currency" published in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) FOREIGN AFFAIRS (May/June 2007). The article summary states: "Global financial instability has sparked a surge in 'monetary nationalism' -- the idea that countries must make and control their own currencies. But globalization and monetary nationalism are a dangerous combination, a cause of financial crises and geopolitical tension. The world needs to abandon unwanted currencies, replacing them with dollars, euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn." In the March/April 2007 issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, you should also look at Daniel Drexner's "The New New World Order" advocating the use of international institutions rather than a unilateral approach to achieve the globalists' goals.

There has been a great deal written about how the EU came about, but not very much has been written about the origins of the New Transatlantic Agenda. Almost 17 years ago, Rhodes scholar Clarence Streit began promoting the idea of an Atlantic Union. In 1951, Streit had an off-the-record talk with Gen. Dwight Eisenhower who expressed his support for a "political Union in the Atlantic." With Eisenhower thus meeting the power elite's approval, he became president in 1953 for 2 terms, and on September 9, 1960 signed Senate Joint Resolution 170 promoting the concept of a federal Atlantic Union. After this, Atlantic Union Committee treasurer Elmo Roper delivered an address titled "The Goal Is Government of All the World," in which he declared: "For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social."

On July 4, 1962, President John Kennedy delivered an address calling for a "Declaration of Interdependence" with a "partnership" of the Atlantic nations with federal institutions between the U.S. and Europe. In his July 11, 1962, NEW YORK TIMES editorial page article about this, CFR member James Reston said Kennedy "virtually proposed to repeal the Declaration of Independence....Yet very little happened,...here in Washington not a whisper of protest from a single national leader."

Then in 1966, Senate Resolution 128 was introduced concerning an Atlantic Union. On March 2 of that year, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller gave it his support, and on September 1, Richard Nixon wrote: "It is fitting that the United States, the world's first truly federal government, should be a main force behind the effort to find a basis for a broad federation of free Atlantic nations." Three years later, Congressman George H.W. Bush on December 2, 1969, introduced House Concurrent Resolution 460, which in part stated: " Whereas a joining together for such purposes of the democratic nations of the Atlantic Community to create an Atlantic Union within the framework of the United Nations would reduce the cost of the common defense, provide a stable currency. . . a declaration that the goal of their peoples is to transform their present alliance into a federal union.

Four years after that, in 1973, Gerald Ford supported a similar House of Representatives resolution. Remember, all of these leaders aren't just talking about trade between the U.S. and Europe, but rather an actual federal Atlantic Union between the U.S. and Europe! In Congressional hearings regarding this latter House resolution, Mrs. Lillian Williams testified: "How would you explain to the mothers and fathers that their sons and daughters may be called upon to fight and die on some distant shore, not in defense of their homeland, but as policemen for a regional or world government? Once committed to a federal union, we are forever trapped, betraying the sacrifices made by all our honored war dead, who gave to the last bitter drop that we might live free and independent. We must never betray them; they must not have died in vain."

However, the attitude of most Americans seems to be that they just don't care! Many talk show hosts try to inform the people about threats to our national sovereignty saying, "If the people only knew that. . . . " But most people don't want to know. They're contented being kept fat, dumb and happy. They don't want to know about the nearly 50 million babies violently killed by abortion in America. They don't want to know that elements of our infrastructure (e.g., toll roads) are being sold to companies in other lands. They don't want to know that many American companies are now foreign-owned. They don't want to know that our bringing "democracy" to Iraq has resulted in the persecution of Christians there. They don't want to know about the waste of our tax dollars in Iraq (the wrong fuel was put in $90 million turbines thus ruining them). They don't want to know about the Iraqi parliament having just gone on a month long vacation, even though our soldiers will continue to die there because Sunni and Shiite members of parliament are unwilling to agree on a political solution. They don't want to know that NATO (including the U.S.) armed and trained people who then assassinated innocent mayors and policemen in Serbia (see my last NWV article). If 50 years ago, Americans had been informed of something like this, they would have brought the federal government to a halt until top officials were fired or impeached. At least former director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. William Odom, in FIXING INTELLIGENCE (2003) expressed his concern by asking "Should the CIA be permitted to carry out assassinations?"

So why do Americans today act indifferently, or as if they are psychologically numbed, when outrageous or horrible acts are committed? Hypothetically speaking, today you could probably tell them something like the U.S. was behind the Nazis and Soviets killing millions of people in gas chambers and concentration camps, and their only reaction would be "Golly, that's too bad," before they resumed their all-consuming pursuit of self-satisfaction. It is a tragic reality today that as long as most Americans have their jobs, sports events, fast foods, stupid TV sitcoms and immoral soap operas, they really don't care about much else. A TV reporter once asked a husband, wife and children if they knew the radio made in China they were buying would hurt American workers. The family looked sad for a second, but then smilingly replied, "But it's a great bargain for us!" They really didn't care that their neighbors and friends might be losing their jobs because of their attitude, which is reflective of the attitude of many Americans.

Why don't they care? It's because they've been conditioned to feel that way. Tavistock senior researcher Fred Emery explained the "Theory of Social Turbulence" by saying if people are confronted by a series of crises, they go into psychological retreat, thinking only of themselves and fulfilling their immediate desires. With the threat of terrorism today, a recent poll showed 71% of Americans approve of surveillance cameras on streets. They are oblivious to the fact that Big Brother could use these cameras to monitor every American.

By the end of the 1960s, one began to hear many people saying such things as "What's in it for me?" "Look out for number one." "Do your own thing." According to Dr. Richard Day (former medical director of Planned Parenthood) in a speech he gave in Pittsburgh on March 20, 1969, people were also conditioned to accept "change" for change's sake, constantly seeking something new and different. Dr. Day said people would come to accept more sex education, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and euthanasia (taking what he called a "demise pill").

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This was all part of "population control" in all its aspects, according to Dr. Day, who said the system was now in place and couldn't be stopped. He revealed that elected officials really weren't in charge, but rather others behind the scenes. And he explained that certain other things could be expected to come about. He said students would go to school longer but learn less, heavy industry would move overseas, and the U.S. would become more of a "service" nation. Sex and violence would become more commonplace in entertainment. (Dr. Day at this point actually mentioned video games and the term VCR). Nationalism would become less important, and people would become "citizens of the world." There would be a New World Religion with no dogma or doctrine, but rather based on what makes people feel good. Finally, Dr. Day said there'd be an increase in terrorism, and Americans would relinquish their freedoms for security. Does any of this sound familiar?

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.