You are right and you are wrong. You have too look at this issue at an entirely different level of abstraction. So yes, on the surface the EU seems to be falling apart. Nation states are hovering close to bankruptcy and you get the feeling that it would only take some minor economic tremor for the entire European experiment to fall apart.

But in order to really understand what's taking place you have to look at this from the perspective of the true owners of Europe. I've said this many times: Trans-national capital HATES state governments. They are the only force capable of placing restrictions on their activities. Ever since the US Government broke up John. D. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, then followed by the even bigger catastrophe (from their perspective) - Franklin D. Roosevelt who was the last US President who wielded near-absolute control over American industry, the major banks and corporations have been engaged in a bloody, winner-takes-all battle to arrest the influence of the "Big Powers".

Initially they tried a direct assault with the creation of the United Nations (a Rockefeller, Chase-Manhattan etc. front from the outset) which was meant to evolve into a supra-national political entity whose authority would gradually supersede the powers of individual states. There's a good deal of logic to this plan - especially as world population grows exponentially whilst the planet's ability to support such can only ever follow a linear path. It's noticeable that ever since the creation of the United Nations ALL US Presidents have instead of passing the vote for foreign wars to Congress (as the US Constitution dictates) have refused - often bullying the United Nations instead into creating a pretext. Devolving executive authority for foreign wars was the first step in the gradual transference of power to a higher-level authority. An authority primarily under the control of the big banks and major industrial sectors.

When Nixon and Kissinger moved to a position of "detente" with the Soviets and then brought China back into the fold (the initial loss of which to Mao's Communists was a grievous wound the "Eastern Establishment" had never got over) everything seemed to be moving along smoothly.

Unfortunately, Watergate and the removal of Richard Nixon signified a titanic power coup in the United States. For the first time in living memory the Wall Street crowd were out on their ear as the new force in global politics (Big Oil & the automotive sector and the military industrial complex) were calling the shots. These people (including the NeoCons, the Bush family and two young and very ambitious men called Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) were completely opposed to any kind of accommodation with the Russians or Chinese and they loathed the United Nations.

As the Middle East collapsed into anarchy with a series of "Oil Shocks" not to mention the panic caused by the Iranian Revolution, plans for a global government stalled and the UN became something of a lame duck.

It took until the mid-eighties and the collapse of the Soviet Union before both sides settled their differences and an entirely new plan was hatched upon. Ronald Reagan cut US funding to the United Nations and his successor George H.W. Bush's signaled the beginning of this new assault on state sovereignty with his "New World Order" speech.

Attacking state sovereignty head on was deemed to have been a mistake. It was too easy for opponents to wrap themselves in the flag and appeal to the patriotic sentiment of their respective peoples. The new strategy involved the hollowing out of state authority through legally binding "Trade Agreements" such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO and now TPP (all of which were codified in secret by Wall Street lawyers working on behalf of the big banks and financial institutions) and patent law.

No less important to this "New World Order" has been the push toward "Union" not just in Europe but the United States, too. The NAFTA agreement (which was bitterly opposed by members of Congress who saw through this facade") brought the US, Canada and Mexico closer toward some kind of EU arrangement. Admittedly progress has been slower across the Atlantic (not least because forces opposed to this union are that much stronger) but it carries on unabated.

But the REAL GENIUS of the plan was leaving in place the fiction of democratic governance for the remaining 99.5%. Political leaders who were amenable to these changes and would later attach their signatures to these trade deals were fast-tracked and their election campaigns bankrolled (Clinton, Obama, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Sarkozy etc. etc.) whilst opponents were crushed (this is the reason so many herald from outside the Patrician class where previously this was the norm).

But none of this would be possible without monopolization of the media by the very same .5% in order to facilitate the orderly transferal of power - no questions asked.

I mean, regardless of our politics and world view, all of us at some fundamental level SENSE, that our media is not giving us the full truth. Yes?

I should point out that the .5% have faced significant opposition. Several times I've mentioned the tragic case of Yugoslavia. The death of Tito left a vibrant semi-socialist nation which, from the outset, had no wish to join the EU or any other globalist entity. For a brief moment it seriously challenged the hegemony of not just the EU but the US Federal Reserve.

Those pushing for this move toward global governance had planned for precisely such an eventuality by "encouraging" friendly US governments to redistribute military forces into "Theaters of Operation" matching this interim phase of regional power blocs (the EU, North America, the Middle East etc.) This is the "enforcement arm" of the .5% and its first real application was in facilitating the break-up of Yugoslavia so that it could never again present a challenge to their push toward globalism. The country was smashed, broken up and sucked into the EU. It also served as a public reminder to any nation (whether it be in the EU or anywhere within the US military's sphere of influence) that any attempt to arrest the movement toward global hegemony would meet with swift and savage reprisals.

Before you correctly point out that I'm being too "US-centric" when discussing the EU we simply must remember that right now the United States is no different to imperial Rome, or the British Empire. Sure, the US can say it isn't an empire all it likes. But if so - why the need for over a thousand KNOWN bases spread across the globe? "The World's Policeman" be damned! You think the Japanese or the Italians or the Panamanians WANT those bases on their soil? They know damned well they exist as a potent reminded not to "Step out of Line".

Sixty years ago those bases were (largely) the tools of the President. But now their allegiance is to the very same banks and corporations who make their money out of foreign wars.

I'll remind you that we're talking about layers of abstraction here. At OUR level sovereign states function no differently than a hundred years ago. Yes, there has been a move toward greater unity in the EU but governments still operate visibly and independently.

But what you don't see (because the media represents the interests of the .5%) is the gradual wearing away of government's ability to interfere at an economic level. So, whilst someone such as David Cameron could THEORETICALLY and perhaps even CONSTITUTIONALLY reverse the gradual privatization of the NHS those very same trade agreements preclude the possibility entirely because their legality supersedes domestic law.

If state governments are as free to dictate economic policy as the media would have us believe - why is it that the changes we've seen in the UK (including the gradual removal of safety nets such as welfare, environmental policy etc. ) are happening throughout almost all of the Western world - at precisely the same pace)?

Do you understand now what I mean when I say state sovereignty is a media fiction meant for me and you (the 99.5%)? Do you see what I mean when I say the future (at least over the short term) will be one in which we possess the illusion of self-determination whilst the owners of the planet operate with total freedom at a level completely outside our ability to influence legally?

TTIP is perhaps the penultimate phase to the realization of a plan nearly a hundred years in the making. It speaks volumes that the media says almost nothing about its meaning or likely effect on us. Even if it chose to investigate (which it most certainly won't) it has about as much knowledge of its contents as those US Congressmen who were shocked to discover their access had been denied.

You are right and you are wrong. You have too look at this issue at an entirely different level of abstraction. So yes, on the surface the EU seems to be falling apart. Nation states are hovering close to bankruptcy and you get the feeling that it would only take some minor economic tremor for the entire European experiment to fall apart.

But in order to really understand what's taking place you have to look at this from the perspective of the true owners of Europe. I've said this many times: Trans-national capital HATES state governments. They are the only force capable of placing restrictions on their activities. Ever since the US Government broke up John. D. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, then followed by the even bigger catastrophe (from their perspective) - Franklin D. Roosevelt who was the last US President who wielded near-absolute control over American industry, the major banks and corporations have been engaged in a bloody, winner-takes-all battle to arrest the influence of the "Big Powers".

Initially they tried a direct assault with the creation of the United Nations (a Rockefeller, Chase-Manhattan etc. front from the outset) which was meant to evolve into a supra-national political entity whose authority would gradually supersede the powers of individual states. There's a good deal of logic to this plan - especially as world population grows exponentially whilst the planet's ability to support such can only ever follow a linear path. It's noticeable that ever since the creation of the United Nations ALL US Presidents have instead of passing the vote for foreign wars to Congress (as the US Constitution dictates) have refused - often bullying the United Nations instead into creating a pretext. Devolving executive authority for foreign wars was the first step in the gradual transference of power to a higher-level authority. An authority primarily under the control of the big banks and major industrial sectors.

When Nixon and Kissinger moved to a position of "detente" with the Soviets and then brought China back into the fold (the initial loss of which to Mao's Communists was a grievous wound the "Eastern Establishment" had never got over) everything seemed to be moving along smoothly.

Unfortunately, Watergate and the removal of Richard Nixon signified a titanic power coup in the United States. For the first time in living memory the Wall Street crowd were out on their ear as the new force in global politics (Big Oil & the automotive sector and the military industrial complex) were calling the shots. These people (including the NeoCons, the Bush family and two young and very ambitious men called Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) were completely opposed to any kind of accommodation with the Russians or Chinese and they loathed the United Nations.

As the Middle East collapsed into anarchy with a series of "Oil Shocks" not to mention the panic caused by the Iranian Revolution, plans for a global government stalled and the UN became something of a lame duck.

It took until the mid-eighties and the collapse of the Soviet Union before both sides settled their differences and an entirely new plan was hatched upon. Ronald Reagan cut US funding to the United Nations and his successor George H.W. Bush's signaled the beginning of this new assault on state sovereignty with his "New World Order" speech.

Attacking state sovereignty head on was deemed to have been a mistake. It was too easy for opponents to wrap themselves in the flag and appeal to the patriotic sentiment of their respective peoples. The new strategy involved the hollowing out of state authority through legally binding "Trade Agreements" such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO and now TPP (all of which were codified in secret by Wall Street lawyers working on behalf of the big banks and financial institutions) and patent law.

No less important to this "New World Order" has been the push toward "Union" not just in Europe but the United States, too. The NAFTA agreement (which was bitterly opposed by members of Congress who saw through this facade") brought the US, Canada and Mexico closer toward some kind of EU arrangement. Admittedly progress has been slower across the Atlantic (not least because forces opposed to this union are that much stronger) but it carries on unabated.

But the REAL GENIUS of the plan was leaving in place the fiction of democratic governance for the remaining 99.5%. Political leaders who were amenable to these changes and would later attach their signatures to these trade deals were fast-tracked and their election campaigns bankrolled (Clinton, Obama, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Sarkozy etc. etc.) whilst opponents were crushed (this is the reason so many herald from outside the Patrician class where previously this was the norm).

But none of this would be possible without monopolization of the media by the very same .5% in order to facilitate the orderly transferal of power - no questions asked.

I mean, regardless of our politics and world view, all of us at some fundamental level SENSE, that our media is not giving us the full truth. Yes?

I should point out that the .5% have faced significant opposition. Several times I've mentioned the tragic case of Yugoslavia. The death of Tito left a vibrant semi-socialist nation which, from the outset, had no wish to join the EU or any other globalist entity. For a brief moment it seriously challenged the hegemony of not just the EU but the US Federal Reserve.

Those pushing for this move toward global governance had planned for precisely such an eventuality by "encouraging" friendly US governments to redistribute military forces into "Theaters of Operation" matching this interim phase of regional power blocs (the EU, North America, the Middle East etc.) This is the "enforcement arm" of the .5% and its first real application was in facilitating the break-up of Yugoslavia so that it could never again present a challenge to their push toward globalism. The country was smashed, broken up and sucked into the EU. It also served as a public reminder to any nation (whether it be in the EU or anywhere within the US military's sphere of influence) that any attempt to arrest the movement toward global hegemony would meet with swift and savage reprisals.

Before you correctly point out that I'm being too "US-centric" when discussing the EU we simply must remember that right now the United States is no different to imperial Rome, or the British Empire. Sure, the US can say it isn't an empire all it likes. But if so - why the need for over a thousand KNOWN bases spread across the globe? "The World's Policeman" be damned! You think the Japanese or the Italians or the Panamanians WANT those bases on their soil? They know damned well they exist as a potent reminded not to "Step out of Line".

Sixty years ago those bases were (largely) the tools of the President. But now their allegiance is to the very same banks and corporations who make their money out of foreign wars.

I'll remind you that we're talking about layers of abstraction here. At OUR level sovereign states function no differently than a hundred years ago. Yes, there has been a move toward greater unity in the EU but governments still operate visibly and independently.

But what you don't see (because the media represents the interests of the .5%) is the gradual wearing away of government's ability to interfere at an economic level. So, whilst someone such as David Cameron could THEORETICALLY and perhaps even CONSTITUTIONALLY reverse the gradual privatization of the NHS those very same trade agreements preclude the possibility entirely because their legality supersedes domestic law.

If state governments are as free to dictate economic policy as the media would have us believe - why is it that the changes we've seen in the UK (including the gradual removal of safety nets such as welfare, environmental policy etc. ) are happening throughout almost all of the Western world - at precisely the same pace)?

Do you understand now what I mean when I say state sovereignty is a media fiction meant for me and you (the 99.5%)? Do you see what I mean when I say the future (at least over the short term) will be one in which we possess the illusion of self-determination whilst the owners of the planet operate with total freedom at a level completely outside our ability to influence legally?

TTIP is perhaps the penultimate phase to the realization of a plan nearly a hundred years in the making. It speaks volumes that the media says almost nothing about its meaning or likely effect on us. Even if it chose to investigate (which it most certainly won't) it has about as much knowledge of its contents as those US Congressmen who were shocked to discover their access had been denied.