The Student Room Group

The CIA set up the European Movement that runs StrongerIn

Scroll to see replies

Original post by scrotgrot
There's no doubt that we are under an American empire, but the thing about empires is the centre of power shifts over time. We have more of a chance of breaking American dominance over the West if we act as a continent (as the *United States* of America have been doing for at least 150 years).

I don’t understand why going it alone would help Britain to dominate the Western alliance, unless you want to break from it completely and be a big fish in a small Commonwealth pond.


I believe in diversity. I love the way Italians are different from Russians, I believe that Turkey was one of the world's great civilizations and like the way that there are still a few men wearing big gold earrings and flashing gold teeth on the Moroccan coast.

These Islands, this UK, can do very well for itself if it looks after its own interests. The richest countries in the world per head of population are, except for the US, not the most powerful or largest.
Original post by newpersonage
I believe in diversity. I love the way Italians are different from Russians, I believe that Turkey was one of the world's great civilizations and like the way that there are still a few men wearing big gold earrings and flashing gold teeth on the Moroccan coast.

These Islands, this UK, can do very well for itself if it looks after its own interests. The richest countries in the world per head of population are, except for the US, not the most powerful or largest.


What does diversity have to do with it?

We balance GDP per capita with GDP, the latter allowing us to be that much more influential actors in the world.

Also delete all the ones with oil wealth and/or tiny population.
Original post by scrotgrot
What does diversity have to do with it?


The EU is about union, not respect. Homogenisation, not diversity.

We balance GDP per capita with GDP, the latter allowing us to be that much more influential actors in the world.


According to that argument global government is the ultimate destination because a global government will have the most influence.

Yes, the EU is on the path to homogenising humanity and global government - which is why I argued for diversity. I love diversity, it is the crowning glory of humanity.
Original post by newpersonage
The EU is about union, not respect. Homogenisation, not diversity.


How? The EU does not issue cultural edicts. Within existing member states, under the state's full sovereignty, there still exists a wide diversity of culture; and the same in the USA. What reason have you to believe the EU, or even a fully sovereign USE, would erode cultural diversity?

According to that argument global government is the ultimate destination because a global government will have the most influence.

Yes, the EU is on the path to homogenising humanity and global government - which is why I argued for diversity. I love diversity, it is the crowning glory of humanity.


Well if we had a global government, without rival countries, in theory there would be no need to engage in a dick-measuring contest over GDP. Not that a global government is necessarily something to aim for, just wondering how exactly your argument follows here. To clarify, GDP is a measurement of how much economic activity happens under the law and sovereignty of a given region, country etc. Therefore a country or region will have more influence over its rivals if its GDP is higher. In the scenario of a global government there would surely be no need to push for higher GDP.
Original post by newpersonage

Yes, the EU is on the path to homogenising humanity and global government - which is why I argued for diversity. I love diversity, it is the crowning glory of humanity.


Providing that diversity is rigidly divided up and contained by state borders?
Original post by scrotgrot
How? The EU does not issue cultural edicts. Within existing member states, under the state's full sovereignty, there still exists a wide diversity of culture; and the same in the USA. What reason have you to believe the EU, or even a fully sovereign USE, would erode cultural diversity?


As the American Cris Shore (2013) put it:
In other words, "Unity in Diversity" is part of a premeditated operation to destroy the identities of the Nation States within the EU.

Shore, C. (2013) Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration Routledge, 2013 ISBN 1136283528, 9781136283529

Well if we had a global government, without rival countries, in theory there would be no need to engage in a dick-measuring contest over GDP. Not that a global government is necessarily something to aim for, just wondering how exactly your argument follows here. To clarify, GDP is a measurement of how much economic activity happens under the law and sovereignty of a given region, country etc. Therefore a country or region will have more influence over its rivals if its GDP is higher. In the scenario of a global government there would surely be no need to push for higher GDP.


You know, it is always the psychopaths who want to rule the world in the films. Most people understand intuitively that it is a really bad idea.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Providing that diversity is rigidly divided up and contained by state borders?


When I travel, and I love to travel, it is the borders that mark the step changes between cultures. Certainly we can have pet "China Towns" and Indian Restaurants but looking down on the elephants plodding through town whilst eating a vegetarian curry in Jaipur is entirely different. Even a few months ago, sitting on the Quay in Genoa was nothing like an Italian Restaurant.
Original post by newpersonage
You cannot have an American, corporate EU AND a socialist all marching together EU. It is going to be one or the other. Scaremongering about leaving does not resolve the issue. The simple fact is that it will be American style - they hold all the corporate cards.


Oh please! One minute they're socialists, the next communists, then rapacious capitalists… sometimes even labelled Nazis!

That the USA was involved to some extent in post-war Europe should not be a surprise. But the EU is not an American project - isn't it obvious that if it had been the UK would have been a member from the start!?
Original post by scrotgrot
There's no doubt that we are under an American empire, but the thing about empires is the centre of power shifts over time. We have more of a chance of breaking American dominance over the West if we act as a continent (as the *United States* of America have been doing for at least 150 years).

I don’t understand why going it alone would help Britain to dominate the Western alliance, unless you want to break from it completely and be a big fish in a small Commonwealth pond.


Absolutely agree with this.
Original post by typonaut
Oh please! One minute they're socialists, the next communists, then rapacious capitalists… sometimes even labelled Nazis!

That the USA was involved to some extent in post-war Europe should not be a surprise. But the EU is not an American project - isn't it obvious that if it had been the UK would have been a member from the start!?


Of course the EU was an American project. Marshall Aid was only given to those who agreed to Economic union, the CIA provided the finance for the European Movement (and the other pro-EU groups). The European Movement set up Stronger In and two US banks: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are financing it. The Remain campaign has USA written right through it.

Not all British people want global government like you. The Labour Government after WWII refused Marshall Aid and took out loans instead to preserve UK sovereignty.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
Absolutely agree with this.


No you don't you said earlier that you would be happy with global government.
Original post by newpersonage
Of course the EU was an American project. Marshall Aid was only given to those who agreed to Economic union, the CIA provided the finance for the European Movement (and the other pro-EU groups). The European Movement set up Stronger In and two US banks: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are financing it. The Remain campaign has USA written right through it.


Please provide the data to prove this point. I don't think it should be a surprise that banks established in the UK should wish to continue to be able to trade across the EU. That's not the basis on which to build a conspiracy theory - or at least one that has any substance.

Not all British people want global government like you.


I have not advocated global government, ever. What I say on the issue is that it is probable that it will eventually emerge, but there will need to a common consensus as to why it is required. Currently I think the remoteness of this eventuality is such that it is pointless to speculate as to how this might come about.

It might be suggested that we already have forms of global governance - that's effectively what international treaties start to form. And we have global bodies that influence the decision of national governments.
Original post by newpersonage
No you don't you said earlier that you would be happy with global government.


I don't believe I did. Please quote me. Even if I did that doesn't mean that I support an American led global government - I think it should be European led :smile:
Original post by typonaut
Please provide the data to prove this point. I don't think it should be a surprise that banks established in the UK should wish to continue to be able to trade across the EU. That's not the basis on which to build a conspiracy theory - or at least one that has any substance..


Goldman Sachs has given a 'six figure' contribution and JP Morgan has also stumped up a huge sum to finance Stronger In. Both huge US Banks. The financing of the European Movement (which set up Stronger In) is covered above. BTW, Goldman Sachs chaired the Elite Group meeting a few days before Stronger In was set up. The guy who chaired that meeting is Robert Zoellick, a State Dept/CIA man who writes articles with David Patraeus, the ex CIA director.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
Goldman Sachs has given a 'six figure' contribution and JP Morgan has also stumped up a huge sum to finance Stronger In. Both huge US Banks. The financing of the European Movement (which set up Stronger In) is covered above. BTW, Goldman Sachs chaired the Elite Group meeting a few days before Stronger In was set up. The guy who chaired that meeting is Robert Zoellick, a State Dept/CIA man who writes articles with David Patraeus, the ex CIA director.


As above, please show the evidence that Marshall aid was only given to European federalists.

As I've already stated it shouldn't be a surprise that large businesses in the UK want to be able to continue to trade within the single market. To paint this as a conspiracy by the CIA is well beyond reasonable.
Original post by typonaut
As above, please show the evidence that Marshall aid was only given to European federalists.


Initially the aid was given generally but after 1949 Congress made Economic Union a prerequisite.

"The British went to extraordinary lengths to resist the Marshall Plan’sinsistence on immediate economic integration with the rest of Europe, the great string attached to Marshall aid everywhere." The Marshall Plan: A Strategy that Worked. see also Marshall Foundation website.
Original post by newpersonage
Initially the aid was given generally but after 1949 Congress made Economic Union a prerequisite.

"The British went to extraordinary lengths to resist the Marshall Plan’sinsistence on immediate economic integration with the rest of Europe, the great string attached to Marshall aid everywhere." The Marshall Plan: A Strategy that Worked. see also Marshall Foundation website.


I can't see how "integration" equates to federalism. As the documents you point to illustrate there was an existent BeNeLux customs union that pre-dated the discussions therein.

Please point to the exact phrases that indicate that the US Congress was dictating a federal Europe.
Original post by typonaut
I can't see how "integration" equates to federalism. As the documents you point to illustrate there was an existent BeNeLux customs union that pre-dated the discussions therein.

Please point to the exact phrases that indicate that the US Congress was dictating a federal Europe.


I only mentioned economic integration and customs union as open policy of Congress and the Marshall Plan (check the links I provided). The full union is what the CIA and this post was about. Full union was always going to be subversive, as Duncan Sandys was aware when he asked that the fact of US funding should be hidden.
Original post by newpersonage
I only mentioned economic integration and customs union as open policy of Congress and the Marshall Plan (check the links I provided). The full union is what the CIA and this post was about. Full union was always going to be subversive, as Duncan Sandys was aware when he asked that the fact of US funding should be hidden.


How convenient for you! That means you don't need to show any direct evidence, doesn't it?
Original post by newpersonage
I only mentioned economic integration and customs union as open policy of Congress and the Marshall Plan (check the links I provided). The full union is what the CIA and this post was about. Full union was always going to be subversive, as Duncan Sandys was aware when he asked that the fact of US funding should be hidden.


Please show us the evidence to support this assertion.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you