BY ALEX NEWMAN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/bidens-new-atlantic-charter-advances-globalist-world-order/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The longtime globalist dream of merging the United States with the nations of Europe under an unaccountable transatlantic regime got a big boost this month, with a controversial “New Atlantic Charter” being signed by Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The document advances a dizzying array of internationalist Big Government schemes, including “sustainable development,” entangling military alliances, man-made global-warming alarmism, and the so-called rules-based international order.

But none of it is new. The historical record shows Deep State globalists have been obsessed with the plot for almost a century. The goal is a radical transformation on par with the unprecedented expansion of government under FDR, with a nod to globalist George Soros’ favorite “open societies” language.

The unconstitutional agreement, which has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required for all treaties, actually plays on the original Atlantic Charter inked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1941.

That controversial 80-year-old document vowed to seek the disarmament of nations and build a “new world order,” as the Washington Post put it, after the quashing of National Socialist (Nazi) tyranny in Europe.

The 1941 document came before the U.S. government even formally joined the war effort. But it set the stage for FDR to break his campaign promises and get America involved in World War II, while building up the barbarous Soviet war machine and laying the foundations for the United Nations. For perspective, consider that the Soviet Union endorsed the original “Atlantic Charter” in 1942.

The new document signed on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Cornwall, England, this month reeks of brazen globalism, too. For instance, under the guise of creating a “peaceful and prosperous future,” the two rulers said they “intend to strengthen the institutions, laws, and norms that sustain international co-operation to adapt them to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, and guard against those that would undermine them.”

In other words, the institutions of “global governance” will be strengthened and further empowered over nations and peoples, while efforts to undermine critics will be stepped up. “We will work through the rules-based international order to tackle global challenges together,” the duo added, using standard globalist rhetoric.

The critical military component of the globalist agenda is also laid out for all to see. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a UN subsidiary that is and has always been at the disposal of the UN to enforce globalist aims at the barrel of a gun, is touted as key to the new order. “Our NATO Allies and partners will always be able to count on us,” the document states, purporting to commit the nations involved to “collective security and international stability.”

They also pledged to help develop global rules for “responsible State behavior” — in other words, global laws for nations — on everything from the Internet to weapons. Even “health threats” were addressed in the document. Considering the way Biden and Johnson dealt with COVID by usurping unprecedented powers, that is an ominous sign.

Globalists were pleased with the document. For instance, Council on Foreign Relations “Global Governance” bigwig Stewart Patrick noted that the original Atlantic Charter “influenced planning for the major multilateral institutions that would come to govern the postwar world.” Think UN, IMF, World Bank, and so on.

“The New Atlantic Charter aspires to something similar,” declares the CFR globalist, saying Biden and Johnson both view themselves as “‘wartime’ leaders” and that the agreement “repudiates” Donald Trump’s pro-sovereignty “America First” foreign-policy doctrines. Biden once joked that he “worked for” CFR boss Richard Haass, so his doing the globalist organization’s bidding is hardly surprising.

Alleged man-made “climate change” and “sustainable development” are also key to the globalist new deal, both domestically and on the international stage. For instance, Johnson and Biden promised to impose “an inclusive, fair, climate-friendly, sustainable, rules-based global economy for the 21st century” on humanity and their own nations, though Communist China will almost certainly continue to be exempt as Western governments destroy their own economies.

In a throwback to 1941, the two also vowed to develop new global “labour and environmental standards” while working to foster “sustainable global development.” All of that rhetoric, of course, comes straight from UN Agenda 21 and the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, international agreements aimed at creating a socialistic world authority.

Like the original Atlantic Charter, the new one, aside from being packed with globalist platitudes, lays the groundwork for massive government intervention in the lives of citizens and the economy. Under various pretexts, updated for the 21st century, Biden and Johnson promise to make the state far more active across the board.

Indeed, establishment mouthpieces openly trumpeted the fact that Biden (or his handlers), like FDR 80 years ago, is hoping the Charter will “propel his own New Deal domestically.” The New Deal represented the most dramatic expansion of federal power in history, something Biden and radical congressional leaders are hoping to build upon.

None of this globalist Big Government mongering from Biden was unexpected. During the campaign, he constantly parroted catchy slogans such as “Build Back Better,” a marketing term for Big Government globalism developed by the UN and embraced by Johnson and other leaders ready to sell out their nations. Indeed, Biden’s support for Green New Deal-type extremism masquerading as “environmentalism” was a dead giveaway about the direction he would go.

In February, meanwhile, Biden declared that “the transatlantic alliance is back.” Further evidence of Biden’s leanings comes from his time as vice president. In fact, the Atlantic Charter scheme appears to be an effort to resurrect the ideas behind the Obama-backed globalist scheme known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would have laid the groundwork for eventually merging the United States and the European Union under a supranational regime similar to the one ruling the EU.

Even before his campaign, going back to the 1970s, Biden was affiliated with “Members of Congress for Peace Through Law,” an avowedly globalist organization of lawmakers that ruthlessly demonized anti-communist U.S. allies such as Rhodesia and South Africa while offering cover to murderous communist regimes and promoting the idea of global law to achieve “peace.”

A key strategy for building that world federalist system was to first unite the nations of Europe under a single regime, then merge that with the United States under a trans-Atlantic government dubbed an “Atlantic Union.” And globalist operatives from the Council on Foreign Relations and others within the U.S. government have been diligently working toward that goal since at least the end of World War II.

From presidents to congressional leaders, the idea of an Atlantic Union 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,” he continued. “It is that Europe fears that it would be swallowed by a more powerful United States.”

A single regime for all Europe might change that, even though, ironically, many Europeans were duped into surrendering their sovereignty under the guise of being able to more successfully stand up to America. The CIA helped fund the phony grassroots movement advocating the surrender of sovereignty to what eventually became the EU super-state.

Other senior U.S. officials also acknowledged the goal 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 have served 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.

This would go on to become a global federation, the president continued. “For the Atlantic partnership of which I speak would not look inward only, preoccupied with its own welfare and advancement,” he said. “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 someday 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.

Marshall, who betrayed free peoples and U.S. allies around the world into communist slavery, was adamant. “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,” he said, vowing to use American taxpayer money to promote an EU. “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 U.S. 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,” he wrote.

Contrasting the current Republican Party with internationalist-minded GOP candidate presidential candidate Wendell Willkie in the early 1940s, establishment analysts are already warning that a Republican Party dominated by Donald Trump and America first would be a death blow for the Deep State’s effort to resurrect American globalism through Biden. Republicans must stand firm.