Once again, despite the constant rumors of the demise of the EU, we see evidence that the opposite is true. Consistent with what we would expect to see from biblical prophecy, the EU is becoming more and more centralized as the nations lose their sovereignty.
This is actually pretty big news and it will probably go unnoticed, even among prophecy watchers. Remember, the road to the Tribulation is still being paved. The more central control with less involvement by the citizens of these nations - the closer we are to the evolution into the 10 kings phase, and the Tribulation. Ultimately, it is paving the way for the arrival of the antichrist and his world-wide totalitarian control. We are now seeing this process underway. It really is amazing, despite being so predictable - to watch this play out in real time as we move so rapidly towards the Tribulation. It's all coming together.
A campaign for the European Union to become a "United States of Europe" will be the "best weapon against the Eurosceptics", one of Brussels' most senior officials has said.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.
"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.
Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.
Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.
National leaders, meeting as the European Council, would be reduced to consultative, second chamber role similar to the House of Lords.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, said that Mrs Reding had revealed the true choice for British voters to make at polling stations.
"For people in power in Brussels that is the only choice on offer, no reform just a United States of Europe. On 22 May the British people must ask themselves if they want this and vote accordingly," he said.
"I am sure people will say no to this centralist fanaticism."
Mrs Reding's comments illustrate the growing gulf between a Europe committed to "ever closer union" and Britain, which is pushing to reduce the EU's powers.
Senior EU figures, such as Mrs Reding, want the European elections in May to move beyond debates over eurozone austerity by embracing a grand vision of Europe.
"This debate is moving into the decisive phase now. In a little more than four months' time, citizens across Europe will be able to choose the Europe they want to live in," she said.
"There is a lot at stake. The outcome of these elections will shape Europe for the years to come. That is why voting at these elections is crucial.
This will be our best weapon against the Eurosceptics: to explain to our citizens that their vote really matters."
In the run up to the springtime pan-European vote, the EU is gearing up to mount an unprecedented campaign for the hearts and minds of voters.
Speaking in Athens, José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, signalled that the EU would use the centenary of World War One to warn that Euroscepticism, far-Right and populist anti-European parties could bring war back to Europe.
"No other political construction to date has proven to be a better way of organising life to lessen the barbarity in this world," he said.
"It is especially important to recall this as we will commemorate this year the start of the First World War. We must never take peace, democracy or freedom for granted. It is also especially important to remind this as in May the peoples of Europe will be called to participate in European elections."
The attempt by Mr Barroso and Mrs Reding to raise the stakes in the EU elections have not been well received by all governments.
"Federalist hyperbole about a United States is the opposite of helpful to the majority of countries who want a reformed EU to work better," said a European diplomat.
The article below was written in October '13, but further reveals the coming world consolidation. This is most definitely a worthwhile read:
One World After All
An article in Salon was recently brought to our attention by Hugo, a feedbacker. It is entitled "Elites' strange plot to take over the world." Thanks, Hugo.
Appearing about a month ago, it is basically an admission of the entire globalist enterprise over the past half-century or so. It clearly admits what we all know – that top Western elites have been in an open conspiracy to merge the world, at least the Western world, under one legislative, economic and military regime.
And what is Salon? Salon is a leftist 'Net publication funded by William Hambrecht, one of the founders of financial firm Hambrecht and Quist that was purchased by Chase Manhattan in 1999. Hambrecht resides within the fault lines of financial elite and Salon is an important mouthpiece for the internationalist set.
Major articles appearing at Salon surely represent a kind of positioning that internationalists want to adopt, and this is an article that rehearses the evolution of globalism.
The viewpoint of this group rejected both liberal and conservative perspectives when it came to globalism and focused at least to some extent on elite efforts at centralization that were economic and financial rather than political. Banking elites in particular want larger and larger agglomerations of power; profit is the motive, profit and control.
Here's more from the Salon article:
Why do we hold the conception that we live in separate nation-states? Well, it turns out that this question was actually asked after World War II, and the answer American leaders came up with was ... we shouldn't. In fact, Western elites in America and Western Europe after World War II made a serious effort to get rid of nations altogether, and combine all "freedom-loving peoples" into one giant "Atlantic Union," a federal state built on top of the NATO military alliance. As odd as it sounds, the documentary evidence is clear. This movement did manage to create a "European Union," which came from the same ideological wellspring as the "Atlantic Union."
Once we recognize that the Cold War saw the construction of a powerful international regime that explicitly sought to get rid of sovereign nations, these broad security architectures revealed by the Syria situation and the NSA spying revelations make a lot more sense.
Representatives convened a hearing to discuss the prospect of combining the United States of America and Western Europe into one country. This "Atlantic Union" would be a federal union, very similar to the one described in United States Constitution. Existing countries would become states under a federalist system, with the larger federal system having its own currency, military, interstate commerce regulation and foreign relations apparatus. That day in 1971, the committee was discussing a specific piece of legislation, a resolution — House Concurrent Resolution 163 — to create an "Atlantic Union Delegation," a committee of 18 "eminent citizens" to join with other NATO country delegations and negotiate a plan to unite.
... Congress even passed the resolution in 1960, and spent money to send a delegation to Paris for such a convention (though John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ignored the delegation's recommendations). This proposal had a great deal of elite support. Nearly every presidential candidate from the 1950s to the 1970s supported it, as did hundreds of legislators in the U.S. and Western Europe. The context of first World War II, and then the Cold War, made such a proposal sound reasonable, even inevitable. 1971 was the tail end of the post-World War II era, during which there had been a frenzy of international institutional creation work designed to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and the two world wars.
We see from the above that a vital globalist initiative has been percolating in elite political circles even up to 1981.
Mainstream State Department liberal internationalists, the JFKs and LBJs, who built entangling institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. and so forth ... The institutional framework of a world government composed of Western European and American states remains far more potent than we like to imagine, even beyond the security apparatus revealed by Snowden's documents. For example, in every major free trade agreement since NAFTA, U.S. courts have been subordinated to international tribunals, which operate according to rules laid out either by the World Trade Organization, a division of the World Bank, or by a division of the United Nations known as UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law).
My diagnosis: I think we're observing the rise of a new meme. It is one that is going to be a good deal more honest about the world's reality, which is increasingly one of internationalism.
We've written numerous times that both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are very possibly (at least partially) playing assigned roles in a larger promotional scheme. They are duly appointed to provide a portion of the dialectic. We believe this simply because they garner enormous publicity. No one shows up on the cover of Time magazine, in our view, unless the top elites want him to. Nor do people's life stories get made into lavish Hollywood movies unless they are part of a larger plan, as Julian Assange is, or at least was.
Edward Snowden's allotted role in all this – whether he knows it or not – is likely to enlighten people about the length and breadth of US control of information around the world. It is intended to make people immensely nervous about their actions, business life and plans, especially if they disapprove of what the Anglosphere has built.
Turns out that globalists were after "one world" after all. A new narrative is being built in front of our disbelieving eyes. Of course, like everything else in this post-technological era, it is being built too quickly. They flee the hot breath of the Internet Reformation but in their haste they begin to undo what they've built so arduously in the past.
Does this have investment ramifications? Of course it does. Globalism is an organizing force of investing. Money Power will use this new openness to move even more quickly to create global stock exchanges and even international carbon marts if they can manage it.
The ultimate plan is to support every trading function on a single platform – stocks, bonds, futures, options, even derivatives, all moderated by one central bank and regulated by a single facility as well. That is still a long ways away but as this article shows, the top elites are becoming less reticent about explaining what's really going on.
You read it here. Again.
Post a Comment