REBUILDING THE REICH,
AMERICAN-STYLE
WITH KENNEDY DEAD AND LYNDON B. JOHNSON IN THE White House, the Nazification
of the United States moved ahead largely unhindered.
During the Johnson years, the president was surrounded by a coterie of
advisers, collectively known as his “wise men.” All were members of the
Council on Foreign Relations. These included John J. McCloy, Averell
Harriman, Dean Rusk, William Bundy, Dean Acheson, George F. Kennan, and
Robert A. Lovett. “By the early 1960s the Council on Foreign Relations,
Morgan and Rockefeller interests, and the intelligence community were so
extensively interbred as to be virtually a single entity,” remarked
Professor Donald Gibson.
With young people, the media, and members of Congress fixated on the Vietnam
War, few people were aware of the growing power and influence of the
military and the immense war machine assembled behind it. Not that this war
machine was designed to actually win battles. On the contrary, it was
designed to suck tax dollars from the public treasury, centralize power in
the government and its corporate sponsors, and spread the new Reich’s
influence across the globe.
Under the banner of freedom and democracy, yet pursuing the agenda of the
globalists who supported the Nazis, the United States slowly turned from one
of the most admired nations in the world to one of the most despised.
William Blum, a former State Department employee turned author, stated:
“From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than forty
foreign governments and to crush more than thirty populist-nationalist
movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the U.S.
bombed some twenty-five countries, caused the end of life for several
million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and
despair.”
The result of America’s empire-building national policy has been dismal at
best and catastrophic at worst.
Putting aside the historical aggression displayed by American foreign policy
in the Mexican War of 1848 and the Spanish-American War of 1898, a series of
misguided foreign-policy adventures since the arrival of thousands of Nazis
following World War II includes:
-
In 1953, a few years after Iran’s prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh
engaged in a gradual and lawful nationalization of the oil industry in that
Mideast nation, he and his democratic government were deposed by a coup
instigated by the CIA. This brought the shah to power, with the monarchy
assuming complete control in 1963, and turning Iran into a client state of
the United States. Thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions, died during the
repressive rule of the shah and his brutal SAVAK secret police. The shah was
finally forced out in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who quickly became the
United States’ latest foreign enemy, despite the fact that he had been on
the CIA payroll while living in Paris. The shah was granted asylum in the
United States, and a medieval version of Islam took control over Iran, which
by 2007 was again a targeted enemy.
-
In 1954, the CIA toppled the popularly elected government of Jacobo Árbenz
in Guatemala, which had nationalized United Fruit property. Prominent
American government officials such as former CIA director Walter Bedell
Smith, then CIA director Allen Dulles, Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs John Moors Cabot, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were all
closely connected to United Fruit. An estimated 120,000 Guatemalan peasants
died in the resulting military dictatorships.
-
Fidel Castro, with covert aid from the CIA, overthrew the military
dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and instituted sweeping land,
industrial, and educational reforms as well as nationalizing American
businesses. He was swiftly labeled a communist, and the CIA organized
anti-Castro Cubans, which resulted in numerous attacks on Cuba and the
failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. The island nation has been the object
of U.S. economic sanctions since that time.
-
In 1965, more than 3,000 persons died in the wake of an invasion of the
Dominican Republic by U.S. Marines. The troops ostensibly were sent to
prevent a communist takeover, although later it was admitted that there had
been no proof of such an attempt.
-
Also in 1965, the United States began the bombing of North Vietnam after
President Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed the civil war there an “aggression”
by the North. Two years later, American troop strength in Vietnam had grown
to 380,000, and soon after climbed to more than 500,000. U.S. dead by the
end of that Asian war totaled some 58,000, with casualties to the
Vietnamese, both North and South, running into the millions.
-
In 1973, the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was
overthrown by a military coup aided by the CIA. Allende was killed, and some
30,000 persons died in subsequent violence and repression, including some
Americans. Chile was brought back into the sphere of influence of the United
States and remained a military dictatorship for the next two decades.
-
In 1968, General Sukarno, the unifier of Indonesia, was overthrown by
General Suharto, again with aid from the CIA. Suharto proved more
dictatorial and corrupt than his predecessor. Some 800,000 persons
reportedly died during his regime. Another 250,000 persons died in 1975,
during the brutal invasion of East Timor by the Suharto regime, aided by the
U.S. government and Henry Kissinger.
-
In 1979, the powerful and corrupt Somoza family, which had ruled Nicaragua
since 1937, was finally overthrown and Daniel Ortega was elected president.
But CIA-backed Contra insurgents operating from Honduras fought a protracted
war to oust the Ortega government, and an estimated 30,000 people died. The
ensuing struggle came to include such shady dealing in arms and drugs that
it created a scandal in the United States called Iran- Contra, which
involved persons connected to the National Security Council selling arms to
Iran, then using the profits to buy drugs in support of the Contras. All of
those indicted or convicted of crimes in this scandal were pardoned by
then-president George H. W. Bush.
-
In 1982, U.S. Marines landed in Lebanon in an attempt to prevent further
bloodshed between occupying Israeli troops and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Thousands died in the resulting civil war, including hundreds of
Palestinians massacred in refugee camps by right-wing Christian forces while
Ariel Sharon, then an Israeli general, looked on with apparent approval.
Despite the battleship shelling of Beirut, and the destruction of that great
Mediterranean city, American forces were withdrawn in 1984 after a series of
bloody attacks on them. More than two decades later, the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians remains as intractable and deadly as ever, in
large part due to the virtually unconditional support of Israel by the
United States, which has been sustained by the Israel lobby.
-
In 1983, U.S. troops invaded the tiny Caribbean island nation of Grenada
after a leftist government was installed. The official explanation was to
rescue a handful of American students who initially said they did not need
rescuing. The only real damage inflicted in this tiny war was to a
mental-health hospital partly owned by a White House physician and widely
reported to be a CIA facility, possibly used for mind- control experiments.
-
During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. government gave aid and arms to the
right-wing government of the Republic of El Salvador, which represented the
financial interests of a tiny oligarchy,
for use against its leftist enemies. By 1988, some 70,000 Salvadorans had
died.
-
More than a million persons died in the fifteen-year battle in Angola
between the Marxist government aided by Cuban troops and the National Union
for the Total Independence of Angola, supported by South Africa and the U.S.
government.
-
When Muammar al-Qaddafi tried to socialize the oil-rich North African
nation of Libya, beginning with his takeover in 1969, he drew the wrath of
the U.S. government. In 1981, it was claimed that Qaddafi had sent hit teams
to the United States to assassinate President Reagan, and in 1986, following
the withdrawal of
U.S. oil companies from Libya, an air attack was launched, which missed
Qaddafi but killed several people, including his infant daughter.
-
In 1987, an Iraqi missile attack on the U.S. frigate Stark resulted in 37
deaths. Shortly afterward, the Iraqi president apologized for the incident.
In 1988, a U.S. Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner over the Persian
Gulf, causing 290 deaths. The Reagan administration simply called it a
mistake.
-
As many as 8,000 Panamanians died over Christmas 1989, when President
George H. W. Bush sent U.S. troops to invade that Central American nation to
arrest one- time ally, Manuel Noriega. The excuse was that the Panamanian
dictator was involved in the importation of drugs to the United States. U.S.
News & World Report noted that a year later, the amount of drugs moving
through Panama had doubled.
-
Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian, totaled more than 300,000
during the short Persian Gulf War of 1991. It has been estimated that more
than a million Iraqis, including women and children, have died as a result
of the continued missile and air attacks - not including those killed since
the U.S. invasion in 2003 - as well as of economic sanctions against that
nation.
-
Also in 1991, the United States suspended assistance to Haiti after the
election of a liberal priest sparked military action and disorder.
Eventually, U.S. troops were deployed. Once again in 2004, the United States
fomented and backed the toppling of the democratically elected president and
replaced him with an unelected gang of militarists, CIA operatives, and
corporate predators.
Other nations that have felt the brunt of CIA and/or U.S. military
activity as a result of globalist foreign policy include Somalia, Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Brazil, Chad, Sudan, and many others.
IN EARLY 1974, while President Nixon was desperately trying to find a way
out of impending impeachment, G. Gordon Liddy, ringleader of the break-in at
the National Democratic Party headquarters, was preoccupied with Nazi
imagery.
Liddy had named the Watergate “plumbers” after that vast secretive
organization that helped Nazis escape both Europe and justice after the war.
“Our Organization had been Directed to Eliminate Subversion of the Secrets
of the Administration, so I created an acronym using the initial letters of
those descriptive words.
ODESSA appealed to me because when
I organize, I am inclined to think in German terms and the acronym was also
used by a World War II German veterans organization belonged to by some
acquaintances of mine,” Liddy wrote in his 1980 book Will: The Autobiography
of G. Gordon Liddy.
According to author Edward Jay Epstein, in 1971, Liddy invited a number of
White House officials to view Nazi propaganda films to,
“demonstrate how a
few determined men could manipulate the emotions of an entire nation by
invoking a few highly visual symbols of fear.”
These Nixon officials
included John Ehrlichman, Egil Krogh, Donald Santarelli, and Robert Mardian.
“The cycle of films was climaxed on June 13 by the showing of Triumph of the
Will, a Nazi propaganda film made under the auspices of Hitler and Goering,
which graphically depicted the way a ‘national will’ could be inculcated
into the masses through the agency of controlled fear and frenzied outrage,”
reported Epstein.
Paul Manning noted:
“The German–South American group also had direct access
to the Nixon White House through their representatives in Washington, and
were proud of the fact that Bebe Rebozo was President Nixon’s closest
friend. For, knowingly or unknowingly, Rebozo processed millions of their
dollars through his Florida bank as part of normal commercial operations.”
And it was during Nixon’s presidency that Prescott Bush’s son,
George
Herbert Walker Bush, one of the last of Nixon’s Republican loyalists, was
named chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC).
With Nixon’s resignation in August 1974, the United States entered a period
of further turmoil. The Church Committee uncovered conspiracies, including
assassination plots within the CIA, and recriminations started, following
the loss in Vietnam. Gerald Ford, a Republican insider, had been appointed
vice president with the resignation of Spiro Agnew, who was under indictment
for tax evasion. When Ford became president, he promptly pardoned Nixon of
all crimes and, at the behest of his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld,
appointed George H. W. Bush to head the CIA.
At the time, most people could not understand Bush’s appointment, having
forgotten that his Nazi- connected grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, had
been one of those instrumental in establishing the CIA.
Meanwhile, the globalists, realizing that the Republican Party in the wake
of Nixon’s resignation was politically vulnerable, were maneuvering to place
a Democrat in the White House.
They created an outgrowth of the old
Council
on Foreign Relations called the
Trilateral Commission.
THE CONCEPT OF the Trilateral Commission was brought to
David Rockefeller in
the early 1970s by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, then head of the Russian studies
department at Columbia University. While at the Brookings Institution,
Brzezinski had been researching the need for closer cooperation between the
trilateral nations of Europe, North America, and Asia.
In a book titled
Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,
Brzezinski foresaw a society,
“that is shaped culturally, psychologically,
socially, and economically by the impact of technology and
electronics - particularly in the area of computers and communication.”
He
also declared,
“National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept” and
predicted “movement toward a larger community by the developing nations...
through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on
national sovereignty.”
He saw this larger community being funded by “a
global taxation system,” similar to one that is now being proposed in the
United Nations.
Brzezinski’s plan for a commission of trilateral nations was first presented
during a meeting of the ultrasecret
Bilderberg Group in April 1972, in the
small Belgian town of Knokke.
Reception to Brzezinski’s proposal reportedly
was enthusiastic.
The Trilateral Commission was officially founded on July
1, 1973, with David Rockefeller as chairman. Brzezinski was named
founding North American director. North American members included Georgia
governor Jimmy Carter, U.S. Congressman John B. Anderson (another
presidential candidate), and Time Inc. editor in chief Hedley Donovan.
Foreign founding members included Reginald Maudling, Lord Eric Roll,
Economist editor Alistair Burnet, FIAT president Giovanni Agnelli, and
French vice president of the Commission of Europe an Communities Raymond
Barre.
Even the establishment- oriented media expressed uneasiness over the
preponderance of Trilaterals in government in early 1977.
Columnist William Greider writing in the
Dallas Morning News noted:
“But here is the
unsettling thing about the Trilateral Commission. The president-elect
[Carter] is a member. So is vice president–elect Walter F. Mondale. So are
the new secretaries of state, defense and treasury, Cyrus R. Vance, Harold
Brown and W. Michael Blumenthal. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is a former
Trilateral director and Carter’s national security advisor, also a bunch of
others who will make foreign policy for America in the next four years.”
Antony C. Sutton and Patrick M. Wood, authors of
Trilaterals Over
Washington, commented,
“If you are trying to calculate the odds of three
virtually unknown men [Carter, Mondale, and Brzezinski], out of over sixty
[Trilateral] commissioners from the United States, capturing the three most
powerful positions in the land, don’t bother. Your calculations will be
meaningless.”
Despite being a creation of the Rockefeller-dominated Trilateral Commission
and following some of their aims, such as eliminating price controls for
domestic petroleum production by establishing a national energy policy and
further drawing power to the federal government by creating the departments
of energy and education, Carter apparently failed to satisfy the globalists.
The mass media were already focusing on conservative California government
Ronald Reagan as the man of the hour. Reagan’s nomination as GOP
presidential candidate for the 1980 election seemed assured.
Carter asked for and was granted a national television spot during prime
time, and many media pundits predicted that he was about to announce
sweeping changes in government as well as new initiatives that would move
his upcoming presidential reelection campaign off high center. But before
his televised appearance, Carter journeyed to California, where he was to
address a Hispanic crowd in the Los Angeles Civic Center Mall celebrating
Cinco de Mayo, the day the Mexicans defeated the French Army in 1862.
A few
days later, a handful of newspapers carried a small story stating that a
“grubby transient” had been arrested there and was being held on suspicion
of the attempted assassination of the president. A Secret Service spokesman
downplayed the arrest, stating the incident was about as “nothing as these
things get.”
However, a few days later, another news item appeared, which reported that
the thirty-five-year- old Anglo suspect was being held in lieu of $50,000 on
charges of conspiring to kill the president. Finally, a one-time story in
the May 21, 1979, edition of Newsweek revealed more details of the incident.
According to the news magazine, the suspect was arrested after Secret
Service agents noticed him “looking nervous.”
A .22, eight-shot revolver was
found on the man along with seventy rounds of blank ammunition. A short time
later, the suspect implicated a second man, a twenty-one-year-old Hispanic,
who also was taken into custody and subsequently held in lieu of $100,000
bail. The second suspect at first denied knowing the other man, but finally
admitted that the pair had test-fired the blank starter pistol from a nearby
hotel roof the night before Carter’s appearance. Both men said they were
simply local street people hired by two hit men who had come up from Mexico.
They were to create a diversion with the blank pistol, and the two hit men
were to assassinate President Carter with high-powered rifles.
Lending credence to their story, both suspects led authorities to the shabby
Alan Hotel located near the civic center. Here investigators found an empty
rifle case and three rounds of live ammunition in a room that had been
rented under the name Umberto Camacho. Camacho apparently had checked out
the day of Carter’s visit. No further trace of the hit men could be found.
The Anglo suspect’s name was Raymond Lee Harvey and his Hispanic companion’s
name was Osvaldo Ortiz. This oddity of their names prompted Newsweek
reporters to state,
“References to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy were unavoidable... But,” they added, “it was
still far from clear whether the authorities had a real conspiracy or a wild
goose chase on their hands.”
No further news stories appeared, and the disposition of the case against
Lee Harvey and Osvaldo apparently has never been made public. A recent
search of the federal prisoner database indicated no such persons are
currently incarcerated.
But apparently Carter got the message. He canceled his national TV speech
and went into seclusion at Camp David. After seeking advice from a lengthy
line of consultants, including the Reverend Billy Graham, Carter was
reported to have said,
“I have lost control of the government.”
Backing away from any serious policy changes, Carter remained indecisive in
the public eye. By mid-November the following year, the United States took a
conservative turn and elected Republican Ronald Reagan.
Reagan’s victory was
due, in large part, to a failed military attempt to rescue U.S. hostages
held by Iranian radicals, followed by the collapse of negotiations regarding
their release in mid-October 1980.
REAGAN, A FORMER spokesman for General Electric Company, stocked his
administrations with current and former members of globalist groups, the
very people he had criticized while campaigning.
During the 1980 presidential campaigns, Reagan verbally attacked the
nineteen Trilaterals in the Carter administration and vowed to investigate
the group if elected. While competing against George H. W. Bush for the
nomination, Reagan lambasted Bush’s membership in both the Trilateral
Commission and the CFR and pledged not to give Bush a position in a Reagan
government.
Yet during the Republican National Convention, a strange series of events
took place.
With Reagan secured as the presidential candidate, there was a
contentious fight to see who would be vice president. In midweek, national
media commentators suddenly began talking about a “dream ticket” to be
composed of President Ronald Reagan and Vice President (the former
president) Gerald Ford. It was even suggested that since Ford had been
president, he should choose half of the Reagan cabinet.
Faced with the prospect of a split presidency, Reagan rushed to the
convention floor late at night and announced,
“I know that I am breaking
with precedent to come here tonight and I assure you at this late hour I’m
not going to give you my acceptance address tonight... But in watching at
the hotel the television, and seeing the rumors that were going around and
the gossip that was taking place here ... [l]et me as simply as I can
straighten out and bring this to a conclusion.
It is true that a number of
Republican leaders ... felt that a proper ticket would have included the
former president of the United States, Gerald Ford, as second place on the
ticket... I then believed that because of all the talk and how something
might be growing through the night that it was time for me to advance the
schedule a little bit... I have asked and I am recommending to this
convention that tomorrow when the session reconvenes that George Bush be
nominated for vice president.”
For one brief moment, the power of those who control the corporate mass
media was revealed. Reagan never again uttered a word against the globalist
groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Following his election, Reagan’s fifty-nine-member transition
team was composed of twenty-eight Council on Foreign Relations members, ten
members of the elite Bilderberg Group, and at least ten members of the
Trilateral Commission. He even appointed prominent CFR members to three of
the nation’s most sensitive offices - Secretary of State Alexander Haig,
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and Secretary of the Treasury Donald
Regan.
Additionally, he named Bush’s campaign manager James A. Baker III,
who then served as a chairman of the Reagan-Bush campaign committee, as his
chief of staff. Baker is a fourth- generation member of a family long
connected to Rockefeller oil interests.
After Reagan won in November, it was alleged that Bush, along with CIA
Director William Casey, had privately cut a deal with Iranian leaders to
hold American hostages until after the November election, thus assuring a
Reagan victory.
Later testimony confirming this “October surprise” came from
several people involved, including Richard Brenneke and Heinrich Rupp, who
claimed to have flown Casey to a meeting with the Iranians and the Iranian
foreign minister.
Because of his damaging testimony, Brenneke was tried for
perjury but found not guilty.
Jury foreman Mark Kristoff stated,
“We were
convinced that, yes, there was a meeting, and he was there and the other
people listed in the indictment were there.”
Despite this verdict, no action
was taken by the Reagan-Bush administration, thanks primarily to debunking
by a House Task Force led by Congressman Lee Hamilton, the same man Bush’s
son would name to cochair his 9/11 Commission in late 2002.
On January 20, 1981, claims of this “October surprise” conspiracy were
further supported by the facts that just minutes after Reagan was sworn into
office, the American hostages were released, and within weeks, military
supplies that Carter had withheld from Iran began moving to that nation.
Then, just two months after taking office in 1981, President Reagan was shot
by would-be assassin John W. Hinckley, who exhibited the symptoms of
brainwashing and whose brother had scheduled dinner with Neil Bush the very
day Reagan was shot.
For many weeks, while many Americans prayed for
Reagan’s recovery, the son of Prescott Bush ran the nation.
Bush had exerted his influence to have Alexander Haig appointed secretary of
state, and only days before the attempted assassination of Reagan had named
Haig to head a special emergency preparedness committee. Haig, a ranking
globalist member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was Nixon’s chief of
staff from 1973 to 1974. It was Haig who finally advised Nixon to resign.
Haig was also NATO commander from 1975 to 1979.
Was it sheer coincidence that Hinckley’s brother had scheduled dinner with
Bush’s son Neil the very night Reagan was shot, or that Hinckley’s father, a
Texas oil man, and George H. W. Bush were longtime friends?
It should also
be noted that Bush’s name - including his then little- publicized nickname
“Poppy,” which has caused many to wonder if this referred to his parenthood
or the narcotic plant - address, and phone number were found in the personal
notebook of oil geologist George De-Mohrenschildt, the last known close
friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Many researchers view these seemingly small,
unconnected, and little-reported details as being beyond coincidence.
Some
saw Hinckley’s action as an attempt to bring Bush to power eight years
before he was elected president.
“This I believe was a coup,” stated assassination researcher John Judge,
cofounder of the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA).
In a 2000
interview, Judge stated his belief that,
“loyalists won the concession that
Reagan will be allowed to stay alive but Bush would come into power and at
that point Haig emerged from the situation room to the press and said, his
famous quote, ‘Gentlemen, I am in charge here until the vice president
returns.’ That meant two things: number one, that they were going extraconstitutional
- beyond the twenty-fifth amendment, a military takeover,
and [number two] Haig in this office of preparedness, prior to Bush, and
basically he’s taking charge.
The press was questioning, ‘What does this
mean?’ What they don’t understand is all that constitution stuff is pushed
aside once they declare national emergencies. Then they go into
FEMA and
they have whole other orders of succession that have to do more with the
military and the Pentagon than with any of the civilian sector.”
Constitutionally, the next in line in the order of succession is the vice
president, then the speaker of the House, then the Senate president pro
tempore, then the secretary of state.
Vice President George H. W. Bush was
flying from Texas at the time of Haig’s proclamation.
Hinckley was whisked off to Quantico Marine Base, then sent for psychiatric
evaluation at Fort Butner, South Carolina, which Judge described as “the
first mind-control experimentation prison in the country.”
All this time,
Hinckley was under military control, not civilian.
He was eventually brought
to court and declared not guilty by reason of insanity for the assassination
attempt.
“The patterns are always the same. You have a patsy that takes the blame.
You have a second gunman that never comes to light. And you have an
ascendance of power. That’s what I think happened after that point: that
Reagan was basically allowed to function but Bush was president,” said
Judge.
And Bush was virtually unassailable, due to his hidden but powerful support
base.
Robert Parry, a former investigative reporter for the
Associated Press
and Newsweek, noted:
“Even when - or maybe especially when - Bush found himself
in a corner on what appeared to be an obvious lie, he was a master at
turning the tables on his critics. Coming to Bush’s defense was an
impressive network of friends in high places. They rarely failed him... When
that happened, it was wise not to ask too many questions.”
ANOTHER INDICATION THAT the Reagan administration may have been under the
influence of fascists came in May 1985, when the president laid a wreath at
a soldiers’ cemetery in Bittburg, Germany, where many Nazi SS officers were
buried. It was also the former site of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
Although a hue and cry went up from veterans organizations and Jewish groups
prior to his visit, Reagan followed through with his plan to honor war dead.
In his remarks, he placed the blame for Nazi atrocities on “the awful evil
of one man,” an obvious reference to Adolf Hitler. This effort to foist off
all the blame for Nazism onto one person was perhaps an indication of the
influence of pro-Nazi elements within his party.
Meanwhile, throughout the 1980s, Republican Party leaders continued their
policy of bringing former Nazis and Nazi-minded foreigners into the party’s
camp. According to investigative reporter Christopher Simpson, author of
Blowback, Nazi émigrés brought into the USA by the CIA were placed in
prominent positions within the Republican Party through “ethnic outreach
committees.”
Online Journal is a reader-supported Webzine that was established in 1998 to
“provide uncensored and accurate news, analysis and commentary.” According
to their reporter Carla Binion, a convicted Nazi war collaborator named
Laszlo Pasztor served as an adviser to Republican Paul Weyrich, who founded
the powerful conservative Heritage Foundation and is considered by many to
be one of the founders of the “New Right.”
Weyrich garnered large support by
appealing to Christian fundamentalists and anticommunists. Pasztor built up
the GOP émigré network and was founding chairman of the Republican Heritage
Groups Council. Pasztor reportedly belonged to the Hungarian Arrow Cross, a
group that helped liquidate Jews there during the war.
Interestingly enough, Pasztor’s efforts to make the Heritage Groups Council an effective branch of
the GOP coincided with George H. W. Bush’s term as head of the Republican
National Committee.
“After Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, he ordered a general house
cleaning on the basis of loyalty,” stated John Loftus and Mark Aarons in The
Secret War Against the Jews.
The authors quote Nixon as telling John Ehrlichman,
“Eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything
for our cause.”
Indeed, it was the elder Bush who fulfilled Nixon’s pledge
to make émigrés with Nazi backgrounds a permanent part of Republican
politics.
“It is clear that George Bush, as head of the Republican National
Committee in 1972, must have known who these ‘ethnics’ really were,” the
authors concluded.
Based on the research of journalist Russ Bellant, author of the 1991 book
Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party, other Nazi collaborators
involved with the Republican Party included:
-
Radi Slavoff , executive director of the GOP’s Heritage Council and leader
of “Bulgarians for Bush,” who was a member of a Bulgarian fascist group.
Slavoff created a Washington public event for writer Austin App, who in 1987
revealed his pro-Nazi sympathies by writing, “The truth is that in WW II,
the Third Reich fought for justice, and the Allies fought to prevent
justice.”
-
Florian Galdau, who directed a Republican outreach program among Romanians
and would head “Romanians for Bush” in 1988. Galdau was a supporter of
Valerian Trifa, convicted of war crimes when he headed the Romanian Iron
Guard in Bucharest.
-
Nicholas Nazarenko, a former SS officer, who was the head of a Cossack
Republican ethnic unit during the Nixon years. Although accused of hanging
Jews in Odessa, in the 1980s Nazarenko organized an anticommunist
demonstration in New York City.
-
Method Balco, who headed the Slovak-American Republican Federation of the
GOP’s Heritage Groups Council and during the 1950s organized annual
memorials to the pro-Nazi regime of Slovakian Josef Tiso, a creation of
Hitler’s after the division of Czech o slovakia in 1939.
-
Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP’s
Belarusian ethnic unit, who was
closely connected to the Belarusian-American Association, an organization
rife with transplanted fascists, and in 1988 became national chairman of
“Belarusans for Bush.”
-
Bohdan Fedorak, who during the war was a top U.S. representative of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists - Bandera, a group that committed
atrocities in the Nazi- occupied Ukraine - and in 1988 became national vice
chairman of “Ukrainians for Bush.” As a ranking member of the Ukrainian
Congress Committee of America, Fedorak lobbied Congress trying to stop
Justice Department prosecutions of pro-Nazi Ukrainian war criminals.
Allan A. Ryan Jr., former director of the
Justice Department’s Office
of Special Investigations, said he found Bellant’s reporting “well-documented and reliable.”
Just weeks before the 1988 election, the Washington Jewish Week revealed
that several Nazis and Jew-haters were involved in the coalition supporting
Bush’s Republican campaign. When this news broke, at least four of those
mentioned by name were forced to resign. The Nazi connections to the
Republican Party cited by Bellant and the Jewish publication were confirmed
by an investigation by reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer in September
1988.
Online Journal reporter Carla Binion wondered aloud if Reagan, Bush, or
Reagan’s CIA director William Casey realized they were being aided and
supported by Nazis and Nazi collaborators.
The available evidence indicates
they were.
“One thing is certain,” Binion concluded, noting that Bush had
preceded Casey as a CIA director, “The intelligence agencies know the scope
and extent of Nazi involvement with the political right in this country. It
is a shame they keep it hidden from the majority of the American people.”
This charge is confirmed by a list of nearly two thousand “Former Nazi and
Fascist Individuals Entering the U.S. under Official Auspices,” recently
released by the National Archives after being locked away for years by
presidential order.
Peter Levenda also has studied the connection between old Nazis and ranking
Republicans.
After noting the prosecution of Prescott Bush for being a
financial frontman for Hitler, he wrote,
“We cannot, of course, hold former
President Bush responsible for the sins of his father; nor can we hold his
son responsible. Yet, we can expect a higher degree of moral responsibility
in their actions as men and as political leaders. Unfortunately ... in the
1988 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush was happy to accept support
from a range of Nazis and Nazi-sympathizers in his quest for the White
House, and was just as happy to keep them on in the administration even
after they had been identified as such.”
Writing about a streak of anti-Semitism in the globalist individuals and
companies that supported Hitler and continued to support Nazism even after
the war, Levenda stated,
“I believe that the entire racial theory of Nazism
was a comfortable environment for these men. They were, after all, from
privileged backgrounds: old money, power, prestige, the right companies, the
right schools, the right fraternities (such as the infamous
Skull and Bones
at Yale, to which generations of the Bush family belonged). The Nazis
embodied the secret dreams and unspoken loyalties of these men, the public
acknowledgment of all that the American elite held dear.”
DURING THE REAGAN years, as most Americans were lulled into a false sense of
security, the minions of the fascist globalists took steps to change the
power structure of America.
James Mann, former Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times and a
senior writer-in-residence at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, took note that during the 1980s, when Bush was in virtual command
of the White House during Reagan’s hospitalization and recuperation, Dick
Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were conspicuously absent at least once a year.
Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with several dozen federal officials and one
member of the cabinet, would travel to Andrews Air Force Base, usually in
the middle of the night, and from there would proceed to a remote location
in the United States, such as a decommissioned military base or an
underground bunker.
Mann reported that,
“Cheney [Gerald Ford’s chief of staff and a former
director of the CFR] was working diligently on Capitol Hill as a congressman
rising through the ranks of the Republican leadership. Rumsfeld, who had
served as Gerald Ford’s secretary of defense, was a hard-driving business
executive in the Chicago area - where, as the head of G.D. Searle and
Company, he dedicated time and energy to the success of such commercial
products as NutraSweet, Equal, and Metamucil.
Yet for periods of three or
four days at a time no one in Congress knew where Cheney was, nor could
anyone at Searle locate Rumsfeld. Even their wives were in the dark; they
were handed only a mysterious Washington phone number to use in case of
emergency.”
Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved in one of the most highly classified
programs of the Reagan administration, a program that called for setting
aside the legal rules for presidential succession. This “continuity of
government” program was created by a secret executive order from Reagan.
According to Mann, one of the program’s participants told him,
“One of the
awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a
nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate
without them. For one thing, it was felt that reconvening Congress, and
replacing members who had been killed, would take too long.”
Mann continued:
“Within Reagan’s National Security Council the ‘action
officer’ for the secret program was Oliver North, later the central figure
in the Iran-contra scandal. Vice President George H. W. Bush was given the
authority to supervise some of these efforts, which were run by a new
government agency with a bland name: the National Program Office. It had its
own building in the Washington area, run by a two-star general, and a secret
budget adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
When George H.
W. Bush was elected president, in 1988, members of the secret Reagan program
rejoiced; having been closely involved with the effort from the start, Bush
wouldn’t need to be initiated into its intricacies and probably wouldn’t
reevaluate it. In fact, despite dramatically improved relations with Moscow,
Bush did continue the exercises, with some minor modifications.”
Although the elder Bush gained his own time in the White House in 1988, it
was limited to one term due to the controversies and conspiracies swirling
about him, not the least of which was his father’s pro-Nazi background. It
was to escape this heritage that, in 1949, young George had moved from his
ancestral home in Connecticut to the more receptive environs of Texas.
During the Clinton administration, those who knew about the “continuity of
government” plan considered it an outdated relic. Though it was neglected,
it was not abolished.
After
September 11, 2001, the creators of this plan
moved into action.
Mann reported that, in the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center
under the White House, Cheney told President Bush to delay
his planned flight back from Florida, while at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld
instructed Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to leave Washington
for the safety of one of the underground bunkers.
“Cheney also ordered House
Speaker Dennis Hastert, other congressional leaders, and several cabinet
members (including agriculture secretary Ann Veneman and interior secretary
Gale Norton) evacuated to one of these secure facilities away from the
capital,” added Mann.
In the days following 9/11, the American news media finally mentioned the
existence of this “shadow government.” Of course, there was no mention of
the Nazi- connected globalists who had inspired it.
Retinger was brought to America by Averell Harriman just after the war, when
Harriman was U.S. ambassador to England. In America, Retinger visited
prominent citizens, such as David and Nelson Rockefeller , John Foster
Dulles, and then CIA director Walter Bedell Smith, all men with close
connections to the Nazis.
Previously, Retinger had formed the American Committee on a United Europe,
working alongside future CIA director and CFR member Allen Dulles, then CFR
director George Franklin, CIA official Thomas Braden, and former OSS chief
William Donovan. Donovan began his intelligence career as an operative of J.
P. Morgan Jr. and was known as an “Anglophile,” a supporter of close
British-American relations.
Retinger continued his participation in
Bilderberg meetings until his death in 1960. Another CIA-connected person
who helped create the Bilderberg Group was Life magazine publisher C. D.
Jackson, who served under President Eisenhower as “special consultant for
psychological warfare.”
In fact, the list of American institutions that initially supported the
Bilderberg Group reads like a list of prewar financiers of Hitler:
The common denominator of these societies seems to be the acquisition of
money, which translates into power.
Spencer Oliver, the ranking Democratic
Party leader whose telephone was bugged as part of the Watergate break-in,
has stated,
“The biggest weapon in American politics is money, because you
can use money to influence people, to influence the media, to influence
campaigns, to influence individuals, to bribe people.”
As has been seen, the
fascist globalists have all the money. They are where the buck stops... and
begins.
In 1991, then Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was honored as a Bilderberg
guest, and the next year he ran for and won the presidency of the United
States. After his election, Clinton made no mention of the Bilderberg
meetings. Hillary Clinton attended a meeting in 1997, becoming the first
American first lady to do so. Thereafter, talk steadily grew concerning her
future role in politics, and by 2008 she was a leading Democratic
presidential candidate.
One illustration of globalist control within the Clinton administration can
be found in the person of President Clinton’s treasury secretary Robert
E. Rubin, a former cochairman of Goldman Sachs, who was named to head
Clinton’s National Economic Council.
Despite Clinton’s promises to,
“reform
our politics so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of
the people,” according to Professor Donald Gibson, who lectures on wealth
and power at the University of Pittsburgh and is author of Battling Wall
Street, Rubin, in his capacity as council director, fought “to protect
China’s preferred trading status, to protect employers’ interest in
health-care reform, and to pursue a tougher policy in negotiations with
Japan.”
“At Goldman Sachs, Rubin had been involved in the kind of high-level paper-
shuffling that Bill Clinton has said was undermining the economy,” Gibson
wrote.
“Goldman Sachs, along with Morgan Stanley, First Boston, Dillon Read,
and others had arranged corporate mergers and acquisitions costing hundreds
of billions of dollars in the 1980s. Goldman Sachs and other investment
banks were paid many millions of dollars to arrange these deals. For
example, Goldman Sachs earned $10 million arranging U.S. Steel’s 1982 buyout of Marathon Oil. Rubin’s firm was paid $18.5
million for its role in the 1984 Texaco takeover of Getty Oil, and it was
paid $15 million for facilitating General Electric’s 1986 acquisition of
RCA/NBC. In other words, Rubin would seem to have been part of the problem.”
In 2007, Rubin was vice chairman of the board of directors of the
Council on
Foreign Relations.
NOT JUST FRINGE conspiracy theorists have spoken out about hidden control in
the world.
President Woodrow Wilson, who was intimately connected with
conspiratorial power, once wrote,
“Some of the biggest men in the United
States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody,
are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized,
so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they
had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of
it.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt once wrote,
“The real truth of the matter
is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has
owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, a liaison officer between the Pentagon and the
CIA in the 1960s, was able to witness the control mechanisms over both
intelligence and the military.
Prouty said the United States is run by a
“secret team,” answerable only to themselves. Their power is derived from
their vast covert intragovernmental infrastructure and its direct
connections with private industries, mutual funds, investment houses,
universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing
houses. Prouty would have been horrified to learn that this “secret team”
might include Nazis brought into the military-industrial complex after the
war.
Another insider who confirmed that a plot was afoot was President Truman’s
choice for America’s first secretary of defense, James V. Forrestal, a man
intimately connected with the globalists.
Forrestal noted,
“These men are
not incompetent or stupid. They are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has
never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would
occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”
They do not make mistakes that favor the best interests of the American
people. Take, for example, the position assumed by the
George W. Bush
administration toward the Russian Federation.
Following the collapse of Communism, there was a splendid opportunity to
create new friendship and working arrangements with the eighty-six political
entities that comprise the new Russian Federation. No real negative mention
was made of Russia during the Clinton years.
Yet, suddenly, following the
arrival of the Bush administration and the attacks of 9/11, Russia has been
presented as a potential enemy and the United States has provoked hostility
there by aggressive diplomatic and military maneuvers.
“When the Cold War ended, we seized upon our ‘unipolar moment’ as the lone
superpower to seek geopolitical advantage at Russia’s expense,” noted
conservative writer Patrick J. Buchanan.
“Though the Red Army had packed up
and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an
understanding we would not move NATO westward, we exploited our moment. Not
only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and
Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother
Russia’s front porch. Now there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and
Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.”
Others saw America’s reaction to Russian peace overtures as nothing less
than aggression, perhaps a continuation of the National Socialist agenda of
destroying the old Soviet Union.
According to Mike Whitney of the
Information Clearing House, a reader-supported Web information service,
“Since September 11 [2001], the Bush administration has carried out an
aggressive strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles
on its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite political
upheaval in Moscow through U.S.-backed ‘pro-democracy’ groups.”
It was also
noted that it was Bush’s America, not Russia, that withdrew from the
antiballistic missile treaty, a move that reminded some of the USSR’s Cold
War-era public pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons, a pledge
never reciprocated by the United States.
In mid-2007, such actions prompted federation president Vladimir Putin to
chastise the United States in a major press conference at the Forty-third
Munich Conference on Security Policy.
Putin’s reasoned remarks were little
reported in the corporate-controlled U.S. mass media.
“For the first time in
history,” he said, “there are elements of the U.S. nuclear capability on the
European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of
international security... Of course, we have to respond to that.”
Criticizing Bush’s “war on terror,” Putin also produced a copy of a report
from Amnesty International and stated,
“The organization has concluded that
the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and freedoms
worldwide.”
Equally disturbing was Bush’s announced advocacy of an American first-strike
nuclear capability as well as his proposed “missile defense” system, which
though defended as a deterrent to rogue nations, such as North Korea,
nevertheless will be placed in Europe.
Nobel Prize–winner Thomas C.
Schelling of Harvard, an early advocate of the U.S. Mutual Assured
Destruction (MAD) Cold War strategy, which theorized that equal nuclear
capability would deter a nuclear exchange, shifted his rhetoric from
“deterrence” to “compellence,” a newspeak term for blackmailing nations into
submission through the threat of nuclear weapons.
Pat Buchanan asked:
“How would we react if China today brought Cuba,
Nicaragua, and Venezuela into a military alliance, convinced Mexico to sell
oil to Beijing and bypass the United States, and began meddling in the
affairs of Central America and Caribbean countries to effect the electoral
defeat of regimes friendly to the United States? How would we react to a
Russian move to put anti-missile missiles on Greenland?”
Some researchers saw this return to the Cold War by America as yet another
sign that the global National Socialists have not given up on trying to
coerce Russia, a nation only too familiar with socialist tyranny, into their
New World Order.
Following the tempestuous Clinton administration, the Republicans took power
and swiftly set out on a new “neoconservative” path for the party.
John W.
Dean, former Nixon counsel, who was jailed for felonies committed at the
time of Watergate, referred to this new Republican conservatism in his 2007
book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative,
Executive and Judicial Branches:
“It has been new on Capitol Hill since
about 1997, about three years after the GOP gained control of the House; it
has been new to the White House since 2001, with the arrival of George W.
Bush and Richard B. Cheney, although its roots first emerged during the
Nixon presidency and began blossoming in the Reagan and Bush Senior [sic]
years.”
Although Dean never quite identifies the origin of this “new
Republican way of thinking,” it is possible that it stemmed from the
National Socialist philosophy brought into this country after World War II.
BUT NOT ONLY the grandson of financier Prescott Bush, Nixon cronies, or the
neoconservatives have shown sympathy for National Socialist ideals.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born former bodybuilder turned actor
turned governor of California, has a background of pro-Nazi statements and
friends. In a 1977 interview, Schwarzenegger was asked which person he
admired.
His response:
“I admire Hitler, for instance, because he came from
being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire
him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it.”
His admiration for Hitler may have come from sitting at his father’s knee.
In 1938, Hitler’s Nazis took control of Austria in an Anschluss, unifying
that country with Germany. Arnold’s father, Gustav, one year later joined
Hitler’s infamous Sturmabteilung storm troopers (SA), known as the Brown
Shirts. Gustav even sported a Hitler-like mustache.
Schwarzenegger also caught flak because of his friendship with Kurt
Waldheim, former secretary general of the United Nations, who lost the
presidency of Austria in 1992, after his Nazi past was revealed. Records
showed that Waldheim had hidden his role as a member of the Nazi SA.
According to the 1991 book Arnold: An Unauthorized Biography by
Wendy Leigh,
Schwarzenegger toasted Waldheim at his 1986 wedding to Maria Shriver by
proclaiming,
“My friends don’t want me to mention Kurt’s name, because of
all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy. But I love him and Maria
does too, and so, thank you, Kurt.”
In an effort to rehabilitate this Nazi background, Schwarzenegger has
subsequently renounced Hitler and made hefty contributions to the Wiesenthal
Center in Los Angeles, named for the Jewish Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.
But if prominent Americans have tried to distance themselves from their Nazi
pasts, this same concern did not apply to Nazi-developed ideals and
substances.
Return to Contents
GUNS, DRUGS, AND EUGENICS
WHILE NAZI SCIENCE WAS BROUGHT TO AMERICA AFTER
WORLD War II, so were attendant Nazi restrictions on scientific liberty.
“Many of the standards of scientific freedom and exchange of knowledge were
suspended by all the belligerents,” noted John Cornwell, author of Hitler’s
Scientists.
Since 1940, America’s scientists have become faceless members of
teams working under the auspices of the military-industrial complex or the
corporate world.
Addressing the Nazi- connected men in control of America’s scientific
establishment after the war, Cornwell explained:
“The most dramatic
alteration was in the West. The Office of Scientific Research and
Development under the government science chief Vannevar Bush commissioned
more than 2,000 research programs in the course of World War II. The
projects involved industrial research and development units employing tens
of thousands of scientists and technicians in companies such as Du Pont and
General Electric, as well as major university laboratories like MIT and
Caltech... [A] proposal for a barrier between government and military
funding and civilian control of the choice and direction of basic research
would prove, however, a vain hope.”
Such tight inner control over scientific
advances was reminiscent of the late-war Nazi SS control over technology in
the Third Reich.
Hitler’s Germany was not only the first nation to use or advance television,
rocketry, and computers but also the first to build a national freeway
system, to address occupational health issues, restrict the use of firearms,
attack the use of alcohol and tobacco, pass laws for the protection of the
environment, and wage war against cancer.
Hitler realized that he needed the support of his wealthy conservative
followers, so he directed much of his public statements to them,
particularly in the areas of rearmament and foreign policy. But his social
programs in many cases were a liberal’s dream come true.
For example, gun control was already widespread in a pre-Nazi Europe
unaccustomed to the freedom to bear arms. Anti–gun control advocates have
long pointed out that it was an unarmed population that allowed the Nazis to
both gain and maintain power. Ironically, the Nazis used the Weimar
Republic’s gun-control laws - intended to restrict private armies such as
Hitler’s SA - to keep the population disarmed.
Hitler and his ilk were against keeping arms in the hands of citizens,
especially conquered peoples.
Hitler once declared:
“The most foolish
mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to
possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs
is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”
Still, the Nazis were not content with the stringent gun laws already on the
books. In 1938, they strengthened these laws by asserting that only loyal
Nazis could own weapons. This was codified in the Nazi Weapons Law of March
18, 1938.
A group opposed to gun control, called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership, Inc. (JPFO), has made the shocking but well-supported
argument that U.S. gun-control legislation is based on this Nazi law.
“JPFO
has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is
the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68),” stated the group
on its Web site.
“The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of
April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected
German government that wanted to curb ‘gang activity,’ violent street fights
between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their
firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? ‘Gun control’ did not save
democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals - the
Nazis - prevailed.”
JPFO literature noted:
“The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and
their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis
used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms
from persons who were not ‘reliable.’ Knowing exactly who owned which
firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or
decline to renew them.”
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy precipitated a cry for gun
control in the United States, and the corporate media went into high gear
promoting this agenda.
Yet, resistance was strong and the idea languished
until after the 1968 murders of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4 and
Robert F. Kennedy on June 6. Following these shocking deaths, the Gun
Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed in October of that year, after
strenuous debate and compromise. Some conspiracy researchers see this as a
classic example of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution, and
settling for a compromise that still fulfills the original agenda.
The gun legislation of 1968 stated only licensed dealers could send and
receive firearms across state lines, thus ending mail-order sales. It also
allowed bureaucrats in Washington to decide what types of firearms Americans
could own.
The term “sporting” guns was not clearly defined, allowing whole
classes of firearms to be banned.
“Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we
concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 - lacking any basis in American law
to sharply cut back the civil rights of law-abiding Americans - drew on the
Nazi Weapons Law of 1938,” stated JPFO literature.
There seems to be some support for this argument, because the architect of
the 1968 Gun Control Act was Connecticut senator Thomas J. Dodd, a Democrat
who lost to Republican Prescott Bush in a 1956 Senate election but gained
the state’s other Senate seat two years later.
Dodd had served as a special
agent for the FBI in the 1930s and as executive trial counsel for the Office
of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis
Criminality at the Nuremberg war crimes trials at the end of the war. It may
have been during his time in Nuremberg that he became familiar with the Nazi
gun laws.
A letter from the Library of Congress to Dodd in July 1968 showed
that four months prior to his gun-control legislation being passed, he
received an English translation of the Nazi Weapons Law based on the
original German law document he supplied to the library.
Dodd died of a heart attack in 1971. In 1980, his son, Christopher J. Dodd,
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, won his father’s seat in the
Senate. The younger Dodd, a liberal, nevertheless took money from and lent
considerable support to corporate miscreants like Enron and Arthur Andersen,
indicating his willingness to support the globalists.
But control of weapons was not the only item on the fascist globalist
agenda.
WHILE EVERYONE KNOWS of the Rockefeller control of oil, most do not know the
extent of
Rockefeller wealth and influence over modern medicine and
drugs.
According to Eustace Mullins, the last surviving protégé of the famous
twentieth-century intellectual and writer Ezra Pound, and author of the 1988
book
Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against
America, the drug industry is controlled by a Rockefeller “medical
monopoly,” largely through directors of pharmaceutical boards representing
Chase Bank, Standard Oil, and other Rockefeller entities.
“The
American College of Surgeons maintains a monopolistic control of hospitals
through the powerful Hospital Survey Committee, with members [such as]
Winthrop Aldrich and David McAlpine Pyle representing the Rockefeller
control,” he wrote.
Winthrop Aldrich also served on the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC),
which was originated by Dr. Alexander Lambert, the personal physician to
Teddy Roosevelt and a president of the AMA.
According to Dr. Charles C.
Smith, who researched the activities of the committee:
“[Dr. Lambert]
obviously was to be the needed ‘figurehead.’
Other notable choices were Winthrop Aldrich, president of Chase National
Bank; John Frey, secretary-treasurer, AFL; William T. Foster, director of
the Pollack Foundation in Economic Research; Olin West, M.D., executive
secretary, AMA; and fifteen physicians plus two dentists in private
practice.
Five physicians from Public Health were chosen, and the director
of research for the Milbank Memorial Fund. Representatives from insurance,
hospital, nursing, pharmacy sources were appointed and six members from
positions. They numbered forty-nine in all. The full-time staff was
headed by Harry H. Moore of Washington, who in 1927 published ‘American
Medicine and the People’s Health’ while a member of Public Health Service.
His main tenets were the need for a system to distribute medical care and an
insurance plan to pay for it.”
Smith noted that a minority of the committee recommended, among other
things, that government competition in the practice of medicine be
discontinued and that corporate medicine financed through intermediary
agencies, such as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO), should be opposed,
because they fail to provide high-quality health care and exploit the
medical profession.
These recommendations were not followed.
“The
tenor of the [CCMC] report was such that one can read into it the seeds of
everything that led to the health-care system we have today... So at last
we find ourselves, as always, in a health-care crisis,” Dr. Smith wrote in
1984. This health- care crisis continues today.
Rockefeller control over the medical establishment also was exercised
through the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission and the Rockefeller
Institute for Medical Research, at one time headed by Dr. Detlev Bronk,
already named as a suspected member of
MJ-12.
“Rockefeller’s General
Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the
nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the
allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs,”
commented Mullins.
Mullins also pointed to the Nazi connections of
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the
second-largest pharmaceutical company in the world after Pfizer. The
history of the Big Pharm giant can also serve as an example of the
consolidation of drug companies in recent years.
Burroughs Wellcome & Company was founded in London in 1880 by two American
pharmacists, Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs. Glaxo, a New Zealand firm
that originally manufactured baby food, became Glaxo Laboratories and went
multinational in1935. After the postwar acquisition of other companies,
including Meyer Laboratories, Glaxo moved its facilities to the United
States. Burroughs Wellcome and Glaxo, Incorporate merged in 1995. The new
name of the company was GlaxoWellcome.
In 1830, John K. Smith opened his first pharmacy in Philadelphia. Over the
years, Smith, Kline and Company merged with the French, Richard and Company,
and changed its name to Smith Kline and French Laboratories in 1929. By
1969, the firm had spread its business worldwide and purchased seven
additional laboratories in Canada and the United States.
In 1982, it merged
with Beckman Incorporate, becoming Smith-Kline Beckman. With the 1988
purchase of its biggest competitor, International Clinical Laboratories,
SmithKline Beckman grew by 50 percent. The latest merger took place with GlaxoWellcome in 2000, and the firm became GlaxoSmithKline.
According to Eustace Mullins, the original Burroughs Wellcome drug firm was
wholly owned by Wellcome Trust, whose director was the British lord
Oliver
Franks.
“Franks was ambassador to the United States from 1948 to 1952,”
Mullins wrote.
“He [also was] a director of the Rockefeller
Foundation, as its principal representative in En gland. He also was a
director of the Schroeder Bank, which handled Hitler’s personal bank
account; director of the Rhodes Trust in charge of approving Rhodes
scholarships; visiting professor at the University of Chicago; and chairman
of Lloyd’s Bank, one of En gland’s Big Five.”
Recalling that John D. Rockefeller ’s father, William “Big Bill”
Rockefeller, once tried to sell unrefined petroleum as a cancer cure,
Mullins, who spent more than thirty years researching the “Rockefeller
medical monopoly,” commented,
“This carnival medicine-show barker would
hardly have envisioned that his descendants would control the greatest and
most profitable medical monopoly in recorded history.”
Mullins reported that
I.G. Farben and the drug companies it controlled in
the United States through the Rockefeller interests were responsible
for the suppression of effective drugs until a monopoly could be
established. For example, from 1908 to 1936, Farben withheld its discovery
of sulfanilamide, an early sulfa drug, until the firm had signed working
agreements with the important drug firms of Switzerland, Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy.
In one of the largest corporate mergers in history, these two
firms joined in 1996 to form Novartis.
It has been previously detailed how the support of globalists and
transplanted Europe an fascists helped put the Reagan-Bush team into power
in 1980. Against this background, it is instructive to look at one of the
many controversial drugs now being used by millions of Americans -
aspartame,
an additive sugar substitute found in most diet soft drinks and more than five thousand foods, drugs, and medicines.
Aspartame is found in most sugar
substitutes, such as NutraSweet, Equal, Metamucil, and
Canderel.
When heated to more than 86 degrees Fahrenheit - keep in mind that the human
body temperature is 98.6 degrees - aspartame releases free methanol that
breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a
deadly neurotoxin. One quart of an aspartame-added beverage is estimated to
contain about 56 milligrams of methanol.
Dr. Louis J. Elsas explained to the
U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources:
“I am a pediatrician, a
professor of pediatrics at Emory, and have spent twenty-five years in the
biomedical science[s], trying to prevent mental retardation and birth
defects caused by excess phenylalanine... [I] have considerable concern for
the increased dissemination and consumption of the sweetener
aspartame - 1-methyl N-L-a-as partyl-L-phenylalanine - in our world food supply.
This artificial dipeptide is hydrolyzed by the intestinal tract to produce
L-phenylalanine, which in excess is a known neurotoxin.”
Countering claims
that laboratory tests indicated little harm from small amounts of aspartame,
Dr. Elsas noted,
“Normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine as
efficiently as do lower species, such as rodents, and thus most of the
previous studies in aspartame effects on rats are irrelevant to the
question.”
Before 1980, the Federal Drug Administration had refused to approve the use
of aspartame.
FDA toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross testified to Congress that
aspartame caused tumors and brain cancer in lab animals and, therefore,
violated the Delaney Amendment that forbids putting anything in food that is
known to cause cancer.
Aspartame also is blamed for the increase in diabetes
as it not only can precipitate the disease but also stimulates and
aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, which, when interacting with
insulin, can cause diabetics to go into convulsions.
Dr. Betty Martini worked in the medical field for twenty-two years. She was
the founder of Mission Possible International, working with doctors around
the world in an effort to remove aspartame from food, drinks, and medicine.
She gave this account of how pharmaceutical interests overcame claims of
public welfare:
“Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate that manufactured
aspartame. For sixteen years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because
it’s not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both
U.S. prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of
limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon.
Skinner went
on to become secretary of transportation, squelching the cries of the pilots
who were now having seizures on this seizure-triggering drug, aspartame, and
then chief of staff under President Bush’s father. Some of these people
reached high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former
Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years
ago.) When [John] Ashcroft became attorney general [in 2001, Larry] Thompson
from King and Spalding Attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became
deputy under Ashcroft.
However, the FDA still refused to allow NutraSweet
on the market. It is a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive.
It interacts with all antidepressants, L-dopa, Coumadin, hormones, insulin,
all cardiac medication, and many others. It also is a chemical
hypersensitization drug, so it interacts with vaccines, other toxins, other
unsafe sweeteners, like Splenda that has a chlorinated base like DDT and can
cause autoimmune disease.
It has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG.
Both being excitotoxins, the aspartic acid in aspartame, and MSG, the
glutamate, people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies,
even before it was approved. The FDA has known this for a quarter of a
century and done nothing even though it’s against the law. Searle went on to
build a Nutra-Sweet factory and had $9 million worth of inventory.
Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan’s transition team and the day after
[Reagan] took office he appointed an FDA commissioner who would approve
aspartame.”
Searle salesperson Patty Wood-Allott claimed that in 1981 Rumsfeld told
company employees,
“he would call in all his markers and that no matter what,
he would see to it that aspartame be approved this year.”
Dr. Martini noted:
“The FDA set up a board of inquiry of the best scientists
they had to offer, who said aspartame is not safe and causes brain tumors,
and the petition for approval is hereby revoked. The new FDA commissioner,
Arthur Hull Hayes, overruled that board of inquiry and then went to work for
the PR agency of the manufacturer, Burson-Marstellar, rumored at $1,000 a
day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since.
There were three
congressional hearings because of the outcry of the people being poisoned.
Senator Orrin Hatch refused to allow hearings for a long time. The first
hearing was in 1985, and Senator Hatch and others were paid by
Monsanto. So
the bill by Senator [Howard] Metzenbaum never got out of committee. This
bill would have put a moratorium on aspartame, and had the NIH do
independent studies on the problems being seen in the population,
interaction with drugs, seizures, what it does to the fetus, and even
behavioral problems in children.
This is due to the depletion of serotonin
caused by the phenylalanine in aspartame.”
Reagan’s FDA commissioner Hayes initially approved aspartame only as a
powdered additive. But in 1983, just before he left his position, he
approved the additive for all carbonated beverages.
Attempting to study or report on aspartame is a thankless task for
mainstream academics. Dr. Janet Starr Hull, an OSHA-certified environmental
hazardous-waste emergency-response specialist and toxicologist, in 1991 was
diagnosed with incurable Graves’ disease (a defect in the immunization
system that leads to hyperthyroidism) only to learn through her own research
that she had been poisoned by aspartame.
She stated:
“Many scientists at
prestigious American universities will tell you they cannot get grants for
continued research on aspartame or Splenda, or their department heads have
been told to drop all discussions on the topic. Some will say aspartame
research isn’t worth the effort because they cannot get published in
American scientific journals. Others claim the research centers constructed
by the large corporations, such as Duke University’s Searle Research Center,
were designed with managed research as a construction proviso.”
Illustrating the battle between experts in regard to aspartame was the 2005
research by Dr. Morando Soffritti, scientific director of the European
Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna,
Italy.
Soffritti conducted a three-year study on 1,800 rats and concluded
that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. His work was peer-reviewed by
seven world experts, and in April 2007, Dr. Soffritti received the third
Irving J. Selikoff Award from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York
City, where he presented a more recent study that confirmed the cancer-
causing potential of aspartame at even small doses. He noted that only a
small amount of aspartame can trigger cancer, and babies of mothers who
ingested aspartame could grow up to contract cancer.
Other research
conducted in Spain, such as the “Barcelona Report” by the staff of the
biology department of the University of Barcelona, confirmed that aspartame
transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living laboratory specimens
and spread throughout vital organs. These studies, largely unreported in
the U.S. media, confirmed aspartame’s carcinogenicity in laboratory rats.
In 2006, media reports spoke of a “new study” that countered Soffritti’s
research. This study was not new. It was actually conducted in the mid-1990s
and reported that researchers could find no link between aspartame and
cancer, according to Unhee Lim, PhD, a researcher at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH).
Lim and colleagues worked with 473,984 men and women
between the ages of fifty and seventy-one who participated in this
diet-and-health study. In 1995 and 1996, participants were asked how much
they drank of three popular diet beverages - soda, fruit drinks, and iced tea.
They were also asked if they added aspartame to their coffee and tea. From
their answers, the researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed
on a daily basis. During the next five years, 1,972 of those studied
developed lymphoma or leukemia, and 364 developed brain tumors. When the
researchers looked at people who consumed an average of at least four
hundred milligrams of aspartame a day - about the amount found in two cans of
soda - they found no link between aspartame consumption and cancer.
Critics noted that this study was subject to “recall bias,” since those in
the study were being asked to remember what and how much they drank.
“If
their recollections weren’t accurate, it compromises the findings,” said
Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, a consumer watchdog organization.
There also was no
consideration of the many other foods and additives that contained
aspartame, which added to the daily intake.
Yet, the few corporate mass
media outlets that carried the story in 2006 introduced the ten-year-old
study with headlines such as “Findings May Help to Alleviate Concerns Raised
by Rat Study Last Year.”
Why such aversion by the media to dealing with controversial health issues?
According to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), in the past seven years
the
pharmaceutical and health-products industry spent in excess of $800
million to lobby legislators and government officials at both the federal
and state levels.
Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and
other health products spent nearly $182 million on federal lobbying from
January 2005 through June 2006.
“No other industry has spent more money to
sway public policy,” stated a 2005 CPI special report titled “Drug Lobby
Second to None.” “Its combined political outlays on lobbying and campaign
contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.”
It should also be noted that the large pharmaceutical corporations annually
spend nearly twice as much money on marketing as they do on research and
development. In 2004, the CPI reported that pharmaceutical direct-to-
consumer advertising has grown from $791 million in 1996 to more than $3.8
billion in 2004. Drug ads on television are now ubiquitous.
The cross-corporate ownership of both pharmaceutical houses, medical
institutions, and the mass media, combined with the extraordinary amount of
pharmaceutical advertising, might explain the media’s hesitation in
reporting the deleterious effects of drugs.
According to Dr. Marcia Angell,
former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, profit is the
driving force behind medicine today.
“In 2002 the combined profits for the
ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the
profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7
billion),” she states.
“Over the past two decades, the pharmaceutical
industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering
and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell
drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co- opt
every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress,
the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.”
Dr.
Angell, also author of the 2004 book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How
They Deceive Us and What to Do About It brings focus to the argument that
the current power of the pharmaceutical industry can be directly traced to
its phenomenal growth during the Reagan years.
“The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was perhaps the fundamental element
in the rapid rise of Big Pharma - the collective name for the largest drug
companies,” wrote Angell.
Dr. Angell and a number of others took note of a
strong pro-business attitude shift during the Reagan-Bush years - not just in
government but within American society.
There was a time in the not-so-distant past when educated persons of class
looked upon commercial businessmen only slightly more kindly than they had
once looked upon theater folk. They also had a slight disdain for enormous
inherited wealth. Scientists, teachers, public servants such as firemen and
policemen chose their careers for service and community betterment rather
than for lavish salaries and retirement benefits.
But times and attitudes
change. Today, the corporate mass media portrays the race for wealth as
practically virtuous.
The wealthy are considered winners while everyone else
is a loser.
“The gap between the rich and poor, which had been narrowing
since World War II, suddenly began to widen again, until today it is a
chasm,” remarked Dr. Angell.
She went on to say that before 1980, pharmaceuticals was a good business,
but afterward, it was a stupendous one.
From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug
sales were fairly static as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product, but
from 1980 to 2000, they tripled.
“They now stand at more than $200 billion a
year,” said Dr. Angell. “Of the many events that contributed to the
industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the
drugs the companies were selling.”
The success of Big Pharma has more to do with marketing than with the
efficiency of its drugs. Dr. Michael Wilkes described a recent process
called “disease-mongering.”
This term is applied to large drug corporations’
attempts to convince healthy people they are sick and need drugs.
“This is
all in an attempt to sell treatments,” explained Dr. Wilkes. “When their
profits don’t match corporate expectations, they ‘invent’ new diseases to be
cured by existing drugs.”
Dr. Wilkes cited these examples of medical
conditions he considers disease-mongering: female sexual dysfunction
syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, toenail fungus, baldness, and
social anxiety disorder (formerly known as shyness).
He said these are but a
few areas,
“where the medical community has stepped in, thereby turning
normal or mild conditions into diseases for which medication is the
treatment.”
Referring to the colossus that the pharmaceutical industry has become, Dr.
Angell remarked,
“It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do.”
Beginning in the 1980s, important new laws were passed relaxing restrictions
on pharmaceutical corporations.
These included the Bayh-Dole Act, after its
chief sponsors, Indiana Democratic senator Birch Bayh and Kansas Republican
senator Robert Dole. The Bayh-Dole Act allowed universities and small
businesses to patent discoveries from research underwritten by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), the major distributor of tax dollars for medical
research. It also allowed taxpayer-financed discoveries formerly in public
domain, to be granted to drug corporations through exclusive licenses.
Dr.
Angell said that today universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is
carried out, can patent and license their discoveries and charge royalties.
Subsequent but similar legislation allows the NIH itself to directly
transfer NIH discoveries to industry.
Today,
“all parties cash in on the
public investment in research,” she noted.
Under this system, research paid for by public money becomes a commodity to
be sold for profit by private concerns.
Dr. Angell provides examples of the
large consulting fees paid by pharmaceutical corporations to individual
faculty members and to NIH scientists and directors, increasing the
intrusion of the globalist pharmaceutical corporations into medical
education and the almost complete domination of medical education,
particularly when it comes to drugs. Recall that it was an NIH study that
refuted peer-reviewed research linking cancer to the sweetener aspartame.
Approximately half of the largest pharmaceutical corporations are not
American. About half of them are based in Europe.
In 2002, the top ten were
the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers
Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies
GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and
the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French
company, Sanafi Synthelabo, and that put it in third place).
“All are much
alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in
other markets,” stated Dr. Angell.
The lucrative connection between Big Pharma and
medical schools and
hospitals has brought about a definite corporate-friendly atmosphere.
“One
of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical
research - exactly where such bias doesn’t belong,” argues Dr. Angell.
She also blasted pharmaceutical corporations for their claims that high drug
prices are necessary to fund research and development.
“Drug industry
expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently
far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11
percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The
biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but
something usually called ‘marketing and administration’ - a name that varies
slightly from company to company.
In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales
revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the
same for over a decade. Note that this is two and a half times the
expenditures for R&D.”
Dr. Angell further noted what many people see as excessive salaries of
pharmaceutical executives such as Charles A. Heimbold Jr., the former
chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, who made $74,890,918 in 2001.
This
does not count his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. During
this same time, John R. Stafford, chairman of Wyeth, made $40,521,011, not
counting his $40,629,459 in stock options.
Congress expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices
through its bulk purchasing power and, in 1997, the FDA permitted the drug
industry to do direct advertising, previously restricted to physicians, to
the public, with no mention of side effects except for the most serious.
The excesses of the globalists’ pharmaceutical corporations have prompted
many Americans to seek price relief by traveling to Canada or Mexico to
purchase drugs.
Dr. Angell concluded that only an aroused American public can rein in the
power of the pharmaceutical monopoly.
Noting that drug companies have the
largest lobby in Washington, and they give copiously to political campaigns,
Dr. Angell said legislators and the mass media corporations are now so
dependent on the pharmaceutical industry for campaign contributions and
advertising that it will be exceedingly difficult to break their power.
“But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is
votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on... there
will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it
happen,” she said.
IF
ASPARTAME IS not worry enough, a 2007 report by
Peter Piper, a professor
of molecular biology and biotechnology at Britain’s Sheffield University,
stated that sodium benzoate, a mold-prevention substance used routinely by
the $160 billion soft-drink industry, creates the carcinogen benzene when
mixed with vitamin C in drinks.
Worse yet, according to Piper,
“These
chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria
to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out
altogether... there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to
damage to this DNA - Parkinson’s and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative
diseases, but above all the whole process of aging.”
This report intensified the controversy over chemical food and drink
additives that have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
One British
news report on sodium benzoate quoted the makers of Coca-Cola, Pepsi Max,
and Diet Pepsi, which all contain sodium benzoate, as saying they entrusted
the safety of additives to the government.
Unfortunately, many government
agencies are under the control of the giant pharmaceutical corporations.
Don’t look for any real relief from the Democrats. Although two of the
leading Democratic presidential hopefuls in 2008, New York senator Hillary
Clinton and Illinois senator Barack Obama, both pledged to fight the huge
pharmaceutical and insurance industries - promises similar to those Mrs.
Clinton made during her husband’s time in office - campaign contributions
data released in April 2007 showed that, with the exception of Republican
Mitt Romney, both Clinton and Obama were the largest recipients of Big
Pharma largess in campaign funding.
And despite announced plans by Mrs. Clinton to pass laws to prevent insurers
from charging higher rates to people in poor health, the insurance industry
contributed a whopping $226,245 to her campaign.
WHILE THE FASCIST globalists took swift charge of Nazi drug technology after
the war, it is most interesting that they neglected a little-known and
little-publicized aspect of the Third Reich - the fight against cancer,
tobacco, alcohol abuse, and occupational hazards.
In fact, the National Socialists’ predilection for health foods and
preventative medicine may have been yet another reason the globalists turned
against Hitler and his regime. After all, most food additives, colorings,
and preservatives are petrochemicals, and any decrease in human consumption
would spell loss of profits to the globalists’ corporations. Early on, the
Nazi regime instituted policies designed to create healthier environments
within the workplace. However, as the imperatives of wartime production
grew, these measures lost priority.
One example of globalist neglect of Nazi science can be seen in the issue of
asbestos. By the late 1930s, Nazi Germany had firmly documented the link
between asbestos and lung cancer. This connection was flatly stated in a
1939 textbook, and by 1943 the Nazi government had recognized
asbestos-induced cancer as a compensable occupational disease.
This Nazi
research would be used in later years to counter asbestos producers’ claims
that they were unaware of the danger of asbestos until modern studies.
“The net effect in the field of cancer research was to slow recognition of
the asbestos hazard,” noted author Robert N. Proctor, a professor of the
history of science at Pennsylvania State University and author of The
Nazi War on Cancer.
“The consensus achieved in Germany in the early 1940s
would not [be] obtain[ed] in Britain or the United States until more than
two decades later. Science and political stigma [and commercial obstinacy]
thus conspired - at least for a time - to confine the truth to the shadows.”
In addition to confining occupational health hazards to the shadows in
corporate America, the owners of the U.S. tobacco industry fought a
successful, decades-long rearguard action against the claims that cigarettes
are a leading cause of cancer. Utilizing one hired expert after another,
they bought time while they diversified their ownership away from tobacco.
Contrary to the popular belief that the link between smoking and cancer was
demonstrated in postwar Britain and America,
“it was in Germany in the late
1930s that we first find a broad medical recognition of both the addictive
nature of tobacco and the lung cancer hazard of smoking,” according to
Proctor.
The Nazis were among the first to ban smoking in public places such
as Nazi party offices, post offices, hospitals, rest homes, and waiting
rooms - a restriction today becoming prevalent across America. In 1938, the
Nazi Luftwaffe barred all smoking on its properties. As in modern America,
limitations were placed on tobacco advertising.
Much of the attack on alcohol and tobacco stemmed from the Nazi ideals of
racial hygiene and Aryan purity. But it also was well supported by German
science.
Although the connection between smoking and cancer has been theorized for
many years, it was the German physician Fritz Lickint who brought the
connection to public knowledge with the publication of his 1939 opus Tabak
und Organismus, or “Tobacco and the Organism.”
In 1940, Lickint, described
as “most hated by the tobacco industry,” escaped persecution by the Nazis
for belonging to the Social Democratic Party, thanks to official Nazi
support for his antitobacco work.
As in America from the 1960s to the 1980s, German tobacco interests formed
organizations and hired various experts to counter the claims of antitobacco
activists. As in America, they claimed that the medical evidence against
tobacco was “unscientific” and the propaganda of health fanatics. But it was
an uphill fight, considering the amount of scientific data then available,
plus the fact that Hitler disdained tobacco and alcohol.
In the widespread National Socialist effort to stamp out both smoking and
drinking, it was continually pointed out that Hitler neither smoked nor
drank. Hitler would not permit his lover, Eva Braun, or his deputy, Martin
Bormann, to smoke in his presence.
Once, Hitler even suggested that tobacco
was,
“the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having
been given hard liquor.”
It was also publicly noted in wartime propaganda
that while Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were nonsmokers, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all smoked cigarettes, cigars, or a pipe.
The attack on tobacco also has been traced to economic concerns. The Nazis,
like modern American corporations, came to realize that tobacco-related
illnesses could impact the hospital industry as well as the insurance
industry.
This concern, coupled with the increasing demands for healthy
wartime workers, undoubtedly was an added stimulus for the antitobacco
campaign.
It is ironic to learn that some of the Nazis’ most ardent antismoking
activists, such as Karl Astel, director of Jena University’s Institute for
Tobacco Hazards Research, who committed suicide in 1945, were also virulent
anti-Semites and supporters of euthanasia. This is a fascinating example of
how social idealism can be subverted for tyrannical purposes.
As Proctor
noted,
“[T]here is the fact that many of Germany’s leading antitobacco
activists were also war criminals.”
THE NAZIS’ CONCERN over rising cancer rates also resulted in a bizarre
confrontation over the use of X-rays.
“The SS radiologist Hans Holfelder,
who spearheaded an ambitious drive to X-ray hundreds of thousands of
Germans, was trying to identify illness so steps could be taken to treat or
isolate afflicted individuals,” reported Proctor.
“[Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics founding director] Eugen Fischer’s concern in warning against overexposure was the longer-term
‘genetic health of the race.’ Both were solid Nazis, but the two had very
different conceptions of how to preserve the health of the favored race.”
One of the only Jewish cancer researchers allowed to continue working during
the Nazi regime was Nobel laureate, biochemist Dr. Otto Warburg, a relative
of the banking family and director of Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Cell Physiology.
Warburg’s institute was founded in 1931, following a
substantial donation by the Rockefeller Foundation to the Kaiser
Wilhelm Gesellschaft, today known as the Max Planck Institute.
More than forty years ago, Dr. Warburg gave a lecture describing both the
cause and cure for cancer.
“Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of
cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells
by a fermentation of sugar. All normal body cells meet their energy needs by
respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great
part by fermentation.
All normal body cells are thus obligate aerobes,
whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes... Oxygen gas, the donor of
energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced
by an energy-yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely, a
fermentation of glucose.”
In other words, while most living cells require oxygen to live, cancer cells
can do well without oxygen, instead drawing energy from the fermentation of
sugars.
To maintain normal health, humans require a minimum of 22 percent
oxygen in the air they breathe. Most American cities regularly fall below
this minimum, and on so-called ozone-alert days, the oxygen level often
drops to 18 percent or lower.
And the less said about the amount of sugar in
the American diet the better. Obesity is quickly becoming a major national
health problem.
If Dr. Warburg is correct, and he stated that,
“on the basis
of anaerobiosis there is now a real chance to get rid of this terrible
disease,” it is astounding that nothing has been done to cure cancer in the
intervening four decades.
Perhaps this is because, as has been pointed out
by suspicious researchers, more people are making a living off cancer than
dying from it.
Meanwhile in America, Rockefeller executive Frank Howard, after
convincing Alfred Sloan and Charles Kettering of General Motors to fund a
cancer institute, was named chairman of the new Sloan-Kettering Institute.
Howard chose Cornelius “Dusty” Rhoads, former chief of research for the
medical division of the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service, to direct the
institute’s experimentation with chemotherapy.
Later, Howard represented
Rockefeller interests in the drug company Rohm and Haas.
IT IS INTRIGUING that in modern health-conscious America, very little has
been done to educate citizens about the dangers of overly prescribed drugs,
including the depressant alcohol.
During the Third Reich, there was even a substantial anti-alcohol movement in
beer-loving Germany, including a sizeable German Anti-alcoholism Association
with a membership numbering in the thousands. The Nazis outlawed
alcohol advertising aimed at youth, as well as any that suggested alcohol
was healthful. Alcohol-related hazards such as cirrhosis of the liver,
cardiomyopathy, fetal abnormalities, and esophageal cancer were well known
even prior to the rise of National Socialism but mostly ignored in modern
America’s popular media.
Yet, like Prohibition in America, the Nazi anti-alcohol effort largely failed, due to the pressure for consumption from
a thirsty population, coupled with the sizeable amounts of money gained by
the government through taxes on alcohol.
Like Americans today, the Nazis introduced a variety of nonalcoholic beers
and even produced some made from liquefied vegetables. In 1936, a
certification system was instituted, designed to protect children from
“unsuitable” drinks. Coca-Cola was declared one such beverage due to its
sugar and additives.
In fact, today’s “New Age” issues echo aspects of National Socialism in the
Third Reich.
In addition to high-ranking Nazis’ fascination with the occult,
organic foods, herbs, and healing plants were all encouraged in Nazi
Germany, along with a “back to nature” idealism and respect for the rural
life.
“From 1934 to 1937, the amount of land devoted to herbs and healing
plants... increased by more than a factor of ten - from 820 hectares to 3,896
hectares,” noted Proctor.
“Cultivation was especially strong in the forests
of Thuringia and north-central Germany, but every part of the country was
involved. Popular magazines celebrated the importance of natural foods and
drugs, and professional apothecaries took steps to evaluate the efficiency
of medicinal herbs.”
Hitler advocated a vegetarian lifestyle.
“One may regret living at a period
when it’s impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future
will assume. But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the
world of the future will be vegetarian.”
Many Germans followed Hitler’s
dream of a meatless society. About 83,000 voluntarily participated in his
vegetarian-lifestyle program.
But Hitler was also a consummate politician.
Although he disdained both
hunting and eating meat, he did not attempt to force his ideals on his
followers, for purely pragmatic reasons.
“Personally, I cannot see what
possible pleasure can be derived from shooting... I have never fired at a
hare in my life. I am neither poacher nor sportsman... [But] if I excluded
poachers from the Party, we should lose the support of entire districts.”
In viewing the reality behind benign, if tyrannical, government efforts at
social control, Robert N. Proctor correctly concluded,
“The Nazi campaign
against tobacco and the ‘wholegrain-bread operation’ are, in some sense, as
fascist as the yellow stars [worn to identify Jews] and the death camps.
Appreciating these complexities may open our eyes to new kinds of
continuities binding the past to the present; it may also allow us better to
see how fascism triumphed in the first place.”
THE FASCIST GLOBALISTS, in addition to making unconscionable profits from
tobacco and dangerous drugs such as aspartame, may be promoting a program of
population reduction.
As previously noted, Third Reich Nazis, as well as their prominent American
business partners, were greatly interested in the field of eugenics, the
study of scientifically applied genetic selection to maintain and improve
ideal human characteristics, which grew to include birth and population
control. The concept grew from the writings of the Victorian scientist Sir
Francis Galton, who after study reached the conclusion that prominent
members of British society were such because they had “eminent” parents.
In 1925, after more than a decade in which at least sixty thousand
“defectives” in the United States were legally sterilized, Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority in a Supreme Court case, stated,
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can
prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
Of course, to determine who was dirtying the gene pool required extensive
population statistics.
In 1910, the Eugenics Records Office was
established as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London, endowed
by Mrs. E. H. Harriman, the wife of railroad magnate Edward Harriman and
mother of diplomat Averell Harriman. In 1912, Mrs. Harriman sold her
substantial shares of New York’s Guaranty Trust bank to J.P. Morgan, thus assuring his control over that institution.
After 1900, the Harrimans, the family that gave the Prescott Bush family its start, along
with the Rockefellers, provided more than $11 million to create a eugenics
research laboratory at Cold Springs Harbor, New York, as well as eugenics
studies at Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. The first International Congress
of Eugenics was convened in London in 1912, with Winston Churchill as a
director.
Obviously, the concept of “bloodlines” was significant to these
people.
In 1932, when the Congress met in New York, it was the Hamburg-Amerika
shipping line controlled by Harriman associates George Walker and Prescott
Bush that brought prominent Germans to the meeting.
One leader was
psychiatry professor Dr. Ernst Rudin of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Genealogy and Demography in Berlin.
Rudin was unanimously elected president
of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies for his work in
founding the Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene, or the German Society
for Racial Hygiene, a forerunner of Hitler’s racial institutions.
Honored personally by Hitler in 1939 and 1944, Rudin continued to be
acknowledged as a leader in psychiatry.
In 1992, the prestigious Max Planck
Institute praised Rudin for,
“following his own convictions in ‘racial
hygiene’ measures, cooperating with the Nazis as a psychiatrist and helping
them legitimize their aims through pertinent legislation.”
Despite much public renunciation of eugenics following the revelations of
the Nazi racial extermination programs at the Nuremberg trials, work
continues right up to today, under more politically correct names.
General William H. Draper Jr. was a “supporting member” of the International
Eugenics Congress in 1932 and, despite or because of his ties to the
Harriman and Bush families, was named head of the economic division of the
U.S. Control Commission in Germany at the end of hostilities.
According to
Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, authors of
George Bush: The Unauthorized
Biography,
“General Draper [in later years] founded ‘Population Crisis
Committee’ and the ‘Draper Fund,’ joining with the Rockefeller and Du
Pont families to promote eugenics as ‘population control.’ The
administration of President Lyndon Johnson, advised by General Draper on the
subject, began financing birth control in the tropical countries through the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).”
Draper also served as a
population consultant to President George H. W. Bush, and he and his son
were in charge of Bush’s campaign fund-raising in 1980. The younger Draper
went on to work with population- control activities of the United Nations.
Early efforts at reducing the birth rate by sterilization met with
resistance in the United States, so the rhetoric was softened and other
means pursued.
“Castration evidently hit a little too close to home for the
average member of the public to stomach,” wrote authors Jonathan Vankin and
John Whalen, “so vasectomy became the preferred method for sterilizing
males, and its equivalent, salpingectomy, became the preferred sterilization
method for women.”
The abortion controversy stems from the eugenics views of the globalist
families and their belief that some form of population control must be
allowed in a well-run society.
The Human Genome Project has only elevated
fears that human DNA can be manipulated and controlled.
Organizations such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Inc., a tax-exempt corporation that has 860 centers nationwide and
claims to prevent more than 617,000 unintended pregnancies a year, are
subsidized by the plutocracy, usually through their foundations and think
tanks. In 2006, more than a third of the group’s contributions came from
corporate and foundation grants.
Rudin’s eugenics work was, in a large part, funded by Rockefeller
money.
“The plutocrats were in league with scientists, many with formidable
reputations,” noted Vankin and Whalen.
“These scientists expended
immeasurable energy trying to ‘prove’ that blacks were stupid, Jews were
greedy, Mexicans were lazy, women were nutty, and so on - as well as the
corollary: rich, white people with good table manners and glowing report
cards were genetically superior.”
General Maxwell Taylor, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, who began addressing the Council on
Foreign Relations in 1952, reflected his fellow globalists’ viewpoint in a
1981 interview with Executive Intelligence Review.
Taylor stated that the
underlying cause of world problems was overpopulation.
He said it would be
necessary by the beginning of the twenty-first century to reduce the human
population, mostly in Third World countries, by disease, starvation, and
regional conflicts.
“I have already written off more than a billion people.
These people are in places in Africa, Asia, Latin America. We can’t save
them. The population crisis and the food-supply question dictate that we
should not even try. It’s a waste of time,” Taylor said.
When one considers the starvation that wracks so many poor countries, the
AIDS epidemic sweeping Africa, and the ongoing strife in Afghanistan and
Iraq, plus dozens of smaller conflicts all over the world, it would seem
that Taylor’s vision of the future has come to pass.
But the real fear is to be found in the desire to control others, not in
voluntary population control or human genes.
“[T]he twentieth century
suffered two ideologies that led to genocides,” said MIT cognitive scientist
Steven Pinker, author of the 2002 book The Blank Slate.
Referring to the
wrongness of Nazi genetics beliefs, Pinker observed,
“The other one,
Marxism, had no use for race, didn’t believe in genes, and denied that human
nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it’s not an emphasis on genes or
evolution that is dangerous. It’s the desire to remake humanity by coercive
means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances
through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over
inferior ones.”
Before anyone looks for relief from social manipulation from heaven, it is
instructive to see the parallels in the use of religion both in the Third
Reich and in modern America.
Return to Contents
RELIGION
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH HAS BEEN ONLY THE MOST RECENT world leader who has
used religious factions to gain support for his policies and objectives.
“National Socialism was a religion,” noted Professor
George Lachmann Mosse
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, whose wealthy Jewish family fled
Germany in 1933.
“The depth of the ideology, the liturgy, the element of
hope, all helped to give the movement the character of a new faith. It has
been shown that [Nazi propaganda minister Paul Joseph] Goebbels quite
consciously used religious terminology in many of his speeches. Moreover,
Nazism was a total worldview which by its very nature excluded all others.
From this it followed that traditional Christianity was a rival, not a
friend. But here Hitler at first went very slowly indeed, for he needed (and
got) the support of the majority of the Christian churches.”
Mosse concluded that,
“the Nazi future would have lain with the Evangelical
Christians had the war been won.”
In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke condescendingly of religion, offering this
rationalization for organized religion.
“The great masses of people do not
consist of philosophers, and it is just for them that faith is frequently
the sole basis of a moral view of life.”
He also saw in Christian fundamentalism a reflection of his own National Socialist zeal and ambition.
“The greatness of Christianity was not
rooted in its attempted negotiations of compromise with perhaps similarly constructed philosophical opinions of the old world,” he wrote, “but
in the inexorably fanatical preaching and representation of its own doctrine.”
Despite this public support for religion, Hitler, who, as has been
seen,
was surrounded by occultism, privately expressed disdain for formal religions, as evidenced by this discourse related in Hitler’s
Table Talk:
An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before
the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going
over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he
perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas
in the matter of religion, while in other fields it bases everything on pure
science.
That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious
questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from
forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other
out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these
churches’ forms of worship... In any case, the main thing is to be clever in
this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided... So
it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the
churches...
The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of
science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the
myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no
frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the
universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars
are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours,
then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
Originally,
religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end
in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction,
with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to
the detriment of society collectively.
Hitler’s thoughts were echoed by his deputy Martin Bormann, who flatly
stated in a 1942 German Evangelical Church yearbook:
“National Socialist and
Christian concepts are incompatible.”
Because of his private opposition to true Christianity, Hitler quickly took
steps to subdue the church. On July 23, 1933, just six months after he came
to power, a Nazi-dominated National Synod in Wittenberg named a former
German Army chaplain and virulent anti-Semite, Ludwig Mueller, as Reich
bishop.
Six months later, Mueller issued what came to be known as the
“Muzzling Order,” a decree designed to bring control over the German
Evangelical Church. Ministers were forbidden to speak about controversial or
political matters; hence there could be no opposition to the Nazi regime.
Mueller proclaimed that church services were “for the proclamation of the
pure Gospel, and for this alone.” This same no-involvement-with-politics
message can be heard in many churches in America today.
Despite Nazi hostility to Christianity and thanks to Goebbels’s propaganda,
many Germans believed that Hitler was heaven-sent.
A Cologne children’s
prayer began,
“Fuehrer, my fuehrer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.”
And, with
the notable exception of some anti-Nazi clerics such as Pastors Martin Niemoeller and the martyred
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German congregations
all fell into lockstep with the Nazi government.
Many churchgoers were
zealous Nazis, but many were simply hesitant or afraid to speak up against
their noisy fellow members.
“We will discover that the Nazi era shouts its lessons to the church of
America,” concluded the Reverend Erwin W. Lutzer, senior pastor of Moody
Church in Chicago, who made a detailed study of the National Socialists’
seduction of German Christians.
He stated:
“It warns us, challenges us, and
forecasts what might happen in the days ahead. Whether we heed its warnings,
accept its challenges, and recognize its subtle deceptions is up to us.”
GERMANY IN THE 1930s was a predominantly religious nation with the majority
divided between Catholics and Lutherans.
The fascist globalists realized
that the multisectarian United States could not be brought under one
religious control system. Through their corporate control over the large
media outlets, these would-be global rulers have instituted a decades-long
campaign to undermine and discredit organized religion, regardless of
denomination. Some wayward TV evangelists and Catholic priests have only
exacerbated this campaign.
There also appears to be a movement to control the church’s message in the
campaign for the 2008 election.
According to a June 2007 CNN press release,
the TV network,
“will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of a presidential
candidate forum on faith, values and politics during the Sojourners
‘Pentecost 2007’ conference in Washington, D.C.
The Rev. Jim Wallis of
Sojourners and author of the best-selling book God’s Politics: Why the Right
Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, has invited Democratic
presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama to share their ideas and proposals about pressing social issues
with a special emphasis on poverty.”
Soledad O’Brien, a CNN anchor and
correspondent, was asked to moderate the forum.
Jim Wallis in 1971 founded Sojourners, an organization that wishes,
“to
articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building
a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the
world.”
Detractors accuse Wallis of attempting to divide evangelical
Christians to the benefit of secular liberals. In an open letter, William
J. Anderson, a teacher of economics at Maryland’s Frostburg State
University, accused Wallis of serving as a leftist political operative for
the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry.
Anderson wrote:
“I am familiar
enough with you [Wallis] and Sojourners to know that much of what you have
written reeks of the worst kind of hypocrisy... the central theme of
Sojourners from day one... has been anticapitalism.”
According to a special report by the Traditional Values Coalition, which
claims to be the largest nondenominational, grassroots church lobby in
America,
“Throughout the history of Sojourners, Wallis has taken a
consistently left-wing and anti-American stance. He was an antiwar activist
against the Vietnam War... Wallis is also a darling of the liberal media. He
is often quoted in articles critical of conservative Christians or of
President Bush’s faith.”
The report goes on to accuse Wallis of supporting
socialist programs, noting that while Wallis was in seminary, he founded a
magazine he named Post- American. Within its pages, Wallis called for the
redistribution of wealth and for government-managed economies, described as
“social justice.”
Other critics saw Wallis as an example of the plutocracy’s
propensity for supporting - and thus controlling - both sides of an issue.
While Obama in early 2008 was criticized for intemperate remarks by his
former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, little attention was given to Hillary
Clinton’s longtime active participation with a secretive Capitol Hill prayer
and Bible study group known as “The Family” or “The Fellowship.”
According
to an article by Barbara Ehrenreich posted on The Nation Web site, a
former member of The Family - Jeff Sharlet - described the group’s real
work as,
“knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders,
most of them ostensibly Christian.”
Quoting Sharlet, reporter Ehrenreich
wrote that in the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former
Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has
continued, along with ties to “a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.”
Considering Hillary’s ties to the secretive Bilderbergs, her husband’s
membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
Commission, as well as her work with the Nazi-connected group called The Family, it could be said that she provides a connective tissue between the globalists and their new Fourth Reich.
Pastor Lutzer described what he saw as attempts to suppress and denigrate
Christianity in present-day America.
“As the state expands its powers, it
can initiate laws that limit the church’s freedom,” he noted. “Consider the
phrase ‘separation of church and state.’ Interpreted in one way, it can mean
that the church should be free to exercise its influence and practice
religion without interference from the state. That kind of separation is
exactly what the church in Germany so desperately needed.
“However, here in America the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is
given a sinister twist by civil libertarians. To them, it means that
religious people should not be allowed to practice their religion in the
realm that belongs to the state. Religion, we are told, should be practiced
privately; the state must be ‘cleansed’ from every vestige of religious influence. By insisting that the state be ‘free for all religions,’
organizations such as the ACLU in effect makes it free for none!”
Some churches in America are already feeling the eyes of the government on
them.
In 2007, Pastor Mark Holick of the Spirit One Christian Center in
Wichita, Kansas, urged the IRS to brush up on the constitutional freedoms
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This came after his church received a
letter from IRS officials warning it against “political activity” and
demanding answers to thirty-one questions regarding its beliefs.
The IRS
particularly cited church signs, such as one reading,
“[Kansas Governor
Kathleen] Sebelius accepted $300,000 from abortionist [name withheld], price
of 1,000 babies.”
Holick notified the IRS that,
“the church cannot agree to not engage in any
activity that may favor or oppose a candidate. Simply preaching the word of
God on a moral issue to which a candidate is opposed, may be deemed to
oppose a candidate. While it is the church’s policy not to oppose or endorse
a candidate for office, it will not stop preaching God’s word.”
Others have questioned the lack of public concern over a political candidate
forum called “Pentecost 2007.”
“The Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State have suddenly gone mute,” noted Marsha West, founder and
editor of the E-Mail Brigade News Report, an online news service for
conservative Christians.
Evangelist Bill Keller, founder of the fifteen-year-old Bill Keller
Ministries, which created the Liveprayer with Bill Keller television
program and Liveprayer.com, reportedly the world’s largest interactive
Christian Web site, publicly complained that he too faced problems with his
right to free speech.
He specifically mentioned Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, claiming this,
“liberal group ... [would] try
and silence churches and ministries by asking the IRS to investigate them
for allegedly violating their 501(c)(3) status. Of course, this is designed
to intimidate people into silence, even though in 76 previous attempts [they
have] yet to be successful in getting anyone’s tax exemption pulled. Our
attorneys are confident that nothing I said violated our nonprofit status,
but we are now going to be forced to defend ourselves from the IRS.”
Keller also complained his freedom of speech was being curtailed by Internet
corporations.
“For the first seven years, we sent our Daily Devotional every
day to our subscribers around the world without any problems, including
those who use Microsoft e-mail accounts,” he said.
“Last Thanksgiving
[2006], Microsoft went to new filters many ISPs are now using to try and
reduce spam. These new filters are ‘content filters’ and work off of a
dictionary that can have any words added the operator wants. For six months,
we have been getting our Daily Devotional blocked sporadically by
Microsoft’s servers based on the ‘content’ of my message.
This is also
happening to other Christian organizations as well as conservative political
groups who rely heavily on e-mail. We have done all we can to get Microsoft
to rectify this problem, but they have arrogantly failed to even respond...
Even though we could show considerable financial damages over these past six
months, we aren’t seeking any money from Microsoft, only that they stop
blocking our Daily Devotional from going to our subscribers who use their
e-mail accounts.”
The issue here is not abortion or content but the right of free speech,
whether it is a church or an individual. Large mainstream monied churches
have long been used as platforms for politicians, both local and national.
They seem to fare well but it is the fringe churches and religions where we
find long- established freedoms being chipped away.
FOR THOSE UNAWARE of the tactics of the fascist globalists, it must seem
strange that churches can be intimidated by the government much like in Nazi
Germany, even with a professed Christian in the White House.
Some Christians have been less restrained in their comparison between
professed fundamental Christianity on today’s political scene and the use of
religion in Nazi Germany.
“I have been telling conservative Christians that
who should be howling at the top of their lungs is not the Liberal Left, it
is the Far Right Christian Conservatives, for they are being lied to,
seduced, and misled even more so than the Liberal Left . They are being
seduced into fascism and that is not Christianity,” wrote Christian
Republican Karl W. B. Schwarz, who, probably without knowing of the GOP’s
fascist past, nevertheless styled the Bush-dominated Republican Party a
“fascist cult.”
An Online Journal contributing writer, Schwarz stated,
“In fact, if you look
real close at Bush-Cheney and understand the fundamental dynamics of what
brought Hitler to power, how he controlled the masses, how he sold the Great
Lie, it is very easy to see that Bush-Cheney ‘compassionate Conservatism’
and Fascism are one and the same. Many hear the term ‘neocon’ and do not
recognize that in its current operative sense, it is a term meaning ‘New
World Order Fascist.’”
Whole books have been written about the rise to power in America of the
“Religious Right,” a critical support base for the Republican Party.
But
most people appeared not to notice the parallels between the fascism of Nazi
Germany and the conservative Christian movement in America today, both with
deep roots in the conservative faction of the population. In America, this
faction tends to be pro-business, which makes it a prime target of the
fascist globalists, who largely control the corporate life of the nation.
This faith-based political movement began in the late 1970s with the
formation of the Moral Majority, a coalition of Christian conservative
groups who were seeking to defeat President Jimmy Carter in the 1980
election. One of its founders was Southern Baptist preacher Pat Robertson,
who in 1988 severed all connections with the church in order to run for
president on the Republican ticket. Defeated in the primaries, Robertson
urged his followers to vote for George H. W. Bush.
Robertson went on to
become an influential TV evangelist, primarily thanks to the Christian
Broadcasting Network he founded in 1961.
In 2005, he was forced to apologize
for comments interpreted by many as advocating the assassination of
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
“I don’t know about this doctrine of
assassination, but if [Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I
think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper
than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop,”
Robertson told his audience.
Another Moral Majority founder was Jerry Falwell, a televangelist who became
a firm supporter of George W. Bush’s Faith-based Initiative. Following the
attacks of September 11, 2001, Falwell, on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club TV show,
said pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU, and everyone
else trying to secularize America “helped this happen.”
He was found dead in
his office of heart failure on May 15, 2007.
Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL, is the founder of
Blackwater USA, a private
security contracting firm that has grown into one of the largest private
armies in the world. In 2007, Blackwater came under criticism and
congressional scrutiny following more than two hundred shooting reports in
Iraq, one in September of that year that left seventeen Iraqis dead and more
than two dozen wounded.
Prince’s father, Edgar, a self-made millionaire from selling auto parts,
supported the Family Research Council (FRC), a right-wing fundamentalist
Christian group close to the Bush administration. Both men were significant
contributions to the elections campaigns of George W. Bush. Edgar’s widow
served on the boards of FRC and another heavyweight Christian right
organization, Dobson’s Focus on the Family. She runs the Edgar and Elsa
Prince Foundation, of which Erik is a vice president. The foundation
gave more than $1 million to the Christian right from July 2003 to 2006.
Author Jeremy Scahill compared Prince’s private army to Hitler’s
“Brownshirt” storm troopers.
It has been noted that prewar Germany and the United States both had
Christian roots, a widespread acceptance of biblical social values, and a
basic commitment to private virtue. Pastor Lutzer pointed out that America
has differed from Germany in that it has benefited from a constitutional
guarantee of the separation of church and state, as well as its history of
democracy.
But he warned:
“Despite the differences, the American church,
like that of Nazi Germany, is in danger of wrapping the cross of Christ in
some alien flag.”
Like so many in modern America, most Germans of the 1930s offered no
resistance to the ever- encroaching fascism of National Socialism.
“Many
welcomed the abolition of individual responsibility for one’s actions; for
some it is easier to obey than to accept the dangers of freedom,” wrote
Gerald Suster in his 1981 book Hitler: The Occult Messiah.
No one in the area of religion seems able to get a clear picture of what is
happening in modern America.
The push-pull between liberty and security,
scripture and social consciousness appears to have created a stultifying
tension. The globalists have found that such ongoing controversies coming
from many different directions is an effective mechanism to keep Americans
arguing with each other, off balance, and ineffective in uniting to learn
the truth behind their New World Order agenda.
It might be wise to consider the words of the New Testament. On three
separate occasions - Matthew 12:31–31, Mark 3:28–29, and Luke 12:10 - Jesus
specifically stated that all sins can be forgiven, even from those who
choose not to believe in him or have blasphemed against him.
But he stated
the one sin that can never be forgiven is to speak against the holy spirit.
Return to Contents