Rise of the 4th Reich – part 3

Rise of the 4th Reich

by Jim Marss

PART THREE

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE THIRD REICH

This page has been copied from the following website address;
http://blacksun.greyfalcon.us/PART%20ONE.htm

Visit www.JimMarss.com website for other excellent books on NAZI History    

See 10losttribes.com preface,
See article Amalek the NAZI
& USA subverted by Edom’s NWO and Amalek’s NAZI infiltrators
see also intro article titled “Edom & the Church” to understand the biblical roots of the NAZI’s and ‘New World Order’

Click here for Rise of the 4th Reich – Part 1 or  Rise of the 4th Reich – Part 2

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 totalled 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 NationalUnion 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, totalled 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 Göring, 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 defence, 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, defence 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 re-election 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 cancelled 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 Defence 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 co-chair 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 long-time 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 extra constitutional – 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 Partycited 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 defence, 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 re-evaluate 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.

 

“Their [Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s] participation in the extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises, remarkable in its own right, also demonstrates a broad, underlying truth about these two men,” Mann stated.

 

“For three decades, from the Ford administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never far away. They stayed in touch with defense, military, and intelligence officials, who regularly called upon them. They were, in a sense, a part of the permanent hidden national-security apparatus of the United States.”



All of this was a far cry from the fringe rants of neo-Nazis like George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, who was assassinated by a former colleague in August 1967.

Rockwell, a former navy pilot during World War II and failed artist like his hero, Adolf Hitler, saw the telltale signs of conspiracy abroad in America, but, like Senator Joseph McCarthy and the more recent Holocaust deniers, attributed it to “international communism” coupled with the anti-Semitic view of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. He formed various National Socialist political organizations and made headlines trying to conduct public rallies in various places.

Rockwell, as well as the more recent Nazi skinheads, merely served to focus public attention on these fringe elements of society and away from the military-industrial empire being created all around them.

The United States has long been governed by men connected to secret societies such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, both of which can be traced back to much earlier societies, like the previously mentioned Bavarian Illuminati and Freemasonry. These groups can, in turn, be traced back to even earlier societies, such as the Knights Templar and Rosicrucians, which all had a particular interest in alchemy and the occult.

 

As reported earlier, it was the right-wing German Thule Gesellschaft, or Thule Society, an offshoot of the Teutonic Knights, that formed the nucleus of the fledgling Nazi Party. Whether or not the infamous Illuminati still exists, its credo “the end justifies the means” lives on in the hearts of the corporate owners of today – globalists who value the blending of state and corporate power, the very definition of fascism.

One organization that forms the connective tissue between these various secret groups may be the shadowy Bilderberg Group – powerful men and women, many of Europe an royalty, who meet in secret each year to discuss the issues of the day. This reclusive group is considered by researchers to be the center of the world’s social and economic manipulation, yet the Bilderberg meetings receive virtually no coverage in the corporate mass media, even though well-known American journalists, such as William F. Buckley and Bill Moyers, attend.

Founded by Prince Bernhard, the Bilderberg Group is composed of the inner-core elite of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The name “Bilderberg” has been identified with the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the group was first discovered, but some researchers claim the name was derived from an I.G. Farben subsidiary, Farben Bilder.Prince Bernhard was a director of Farben Bilder in the 1930s.

Dutch prince Bernhard – full name Bernhard Julius Coert Karel Godfried Pieter, prince of the Netherlands and of Lippe-Biesterfeld – was the primary impetus for the Bilderberg meetings. As previously noted, Bernhard was a former member of the Nazi Schutzstaffel, or Elite Guard, and an employee of Germany’s I. G. Farben in Paris. In 1937, he married Princess Juliana of the Netherlands and became a major shareholder and officer in Dutch Shell Oil, along with Britain’s Lord Victor Rothschild

.
In England, after the war, Rothchild and Polish socialist Dr. Joseph Hieronim Retinger encouraged Prince Bernhard to create the Bilderberg Group, which began as unofficial meetings between members of Europe’s wealthy elite.

 

The official creation of this highly secret organization came about in the early 1950s, following discussions between Prince Bernhard and Dr. Retinger, a founder of the European Movement after World War II, Retinger became known as the “father of the Bilderbergers”.


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:



·    First National City Bank [now Citibank]

·    Morgan Guaranty Trust Company

·    Ford Motor Company

·    Standard Oil

·    Du Pont


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 co-chairman 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 intra-governmental 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 defence, 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. Bushadministration 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 defence” 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.



/i

, 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 Rockefellerwealth 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. Smithh 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 Schröder 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 England’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 defence 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 multi=potential 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 containsodium 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 anti-tobacco work.

As in America from the 1960s to the 1980s, German tobacco interests formed organizations and hired various experts to counter the claims of anti-tobacco 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 non-smokers, 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 anti-tobacco 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 anti-tobacco 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 non-alcoholic 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.

---

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 Rockefellerwealth 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. Smithh 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 Schröder 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 England’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 defence 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 multi=potential 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 containsodium 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 anti-tobacco work.

As in America from the 1960s to the 1980s, German tobacco interests formed organizations and hired various experts to counter the claims of anti-tobacco 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 non-smokers, 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 anti-tobacco 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 anti-tobacco 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 non-alcoholic 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.

---

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 Josef] Göbbels 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 Müller, as Reich bishop.

Six months later, Müller 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.

Müller 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 Göbbels’s propaganda, many Germans believed that Hitler was heaven-sent.

A Cologne children’s prayer began, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.”

And, with the notable exception of some anti-Nazi clerics such as Pastors Martin Niemöller and the martyred Dietrich Bonhöffer, 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 multi-sectarian 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 anti-capitalism.

According to a special report by the Traditional Values Coalition, which claims to be the largest non-denominational, 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 long-time 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 non-profit 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 ‘neo-con’ 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 pre-war 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 HolySpirit.

EPILOGUE

America today is a national socialist’s dream come true.

Individuals are computerized, data-based, logged, and categorized. Video cameras, motion sensors, metal detectors, and spy satellites monitor our movements, while think tanks and foundations study our every habit. We are constantly bombarded with “official” pronouncements and advertising. Television is everywhere – in bars, waiting rooms, airports, and usually constantly on in our very living rooms. In our fast-paced society, no one has time to think, much less read deeply.

Business, especially corporate business, is king. Giant corporations, governed by faceless directors answering to shadowy owners, control everything, from water to wing nuts. Even the time-honored profession of soldiering has been usurped by private corporate armies like B;lackwater, in 2007 already being accused of becoming America’s version of the Nazi Brownshirts.

Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is footing the bill, even though, as convincingly shown in Aaron Russo’s 2006 documentary America: Freedom to Fascism, there is no law requiring Americans to pay an income tax.

Of course, the IRS, through its myriad rules and regulations, can drag into court and even jail those who fail to fulfill “voluntary compliance.”

“[F]ascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm,” stated author Dr. Laurence W. Britt, in an article for Free Inquiry, a long-standing publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, which promotes secular humanist principles.

Following a careful study of the regimes of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia, Britt concluded that these fascist governments had observable similarities.

“Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power,” he noted. “These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.”

Britt’s fourteen characteristics of a fascist regime, many sounding ominously close to what’s happening today in the United States, include:

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.

Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

Examples of such patriotic zeal may be found in the ever-present yellow ribbons showing support for U.S. troops to the plethora of American flags and bunting at large public events such as the Super Bowl.

Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted.

When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. In November 2007, former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey was sworn in as attorney general of the United States, despite contentious confirmation hearings focused on the issue of torturing prisoners.

He replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, who was criticized for his part in crafting the Bush administration’s secretive legal arguments permitting the torture of suspects.

Mukasey, who served eighteen years as judge of U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York, presided over the trials of Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair, the convicted bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993; the trial of José Padilla, the man declared an “enemy combatant” by President Bush and the only person convicted in connection with the 9/11 attacks; and the lawsuits between World Trade Center leaser Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies over damages stemming from the 9/11 attacks.

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scape-goating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice – relentless propaganda and disinformation – were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labelled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Examples of such tactics can be heard from the mouths of those who constantly use racial slurs. Afghanistan’s former “freedom fighters” have semantically changed into “insurgents” then into “al-Qaeda terrorists” in the news columns, while such epitaphs as “rag head” and “sand nigger” are commonly used in the general population.

The supremacy of the military and avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

The U.S. military budget for many years has consumed the bulk of the national spending. President Bush’s 2008 budget provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget – a 7 percent increase over 2006 and a whopping 48 percent increase over 2001. This figure does not include military-related expenditure such as nuclear weapons research or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Neither does it count trust funds, anticipated costs of Social Security, and Veterans Administration costs of services to veterans.

“The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human-needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller,” according to literature from the War Resisters League (WRL), an antiwar organization founded in 1923.

By totalling all government figures relating to the military, the WRL estimated that more than half (51 percent) of all federal spending goes to the military.

Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

This practice is less prevalent in the United States today, although many women still find it difficult to break through what has been termed the “glass ceiling,” in which they can see higher positions in the workplace but never seem to get there. Modern America also differs from Nazi Germany and other cultures in that women are beginning to fill the corporate chairs formerly held by men.

Many seem agreeable to advancing fascist and globalist philosophy.

A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.

The leaders of the mass media were oft en politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually successful in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses. As previously detailed, the American corporate mass media today is essentially in the hands of six giant multinational communications corporations.

The owners of these corporations are proponents of “free trade” in business policies, yet coverage of alternative news and views is mostly ignored.

“One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear, and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions,” warned Congressman Bernie Sanders, adding, “This is an issue that Congress can no longer ignore.”

Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was labelled unpatriotic or even treasonous.

While all Americans should be concerned about national security, many see it as a pretext to strip away constitutional rights.

Thoughtful persons also worry about a man like Michael Chertoff, son of a Jewish rabbi, who has been accused of having dual citizenship (American and Israeli) and was a major architect of Bush administration policies, being named secretary of the Homeland Security Department.

Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and proto-fascist regimes were never proclaimed godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion.

The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Earlier in this work, the obvious parallels have been drawn between the use of religion in Nazi Germany and modern America to support government policies.

Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states) but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

According to the Federalism Project of the American Enterprise Institute, a group that conducts and sponsors original research on American federalism{

Consumer advocates, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and state officials argue that broad federal pre-emption claims – often by federal regulatory agencies, without a clear congressional mandate – interfere with the states’ historic role in protecting citizens against corporate misconduct. Corporations and federal agencies respond that pre-emption is often the only viable safeguard against unwarranted state interferences with the national economy.

In a 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times, Alan C. Miller and Myron Levin noted how a series of steps by federal agencies were meant to “shield leading industries from state regulation and civil lawsuits on the grounds that they conflict with federal authority.”

Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass that was viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice. As previously noted, anti-labor actions of the Bush administration prompted Jack Heyman, an official of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, to state that:

Bush is effectively declaring war on the working class here.

Those with long memories know that labor news has largely dropped from the mainstream media’s radar screen.

Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals, and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them, were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled, politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.

To these regimes, art and literature had to serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many conservative groups on college campuses denounced academic freedom, according to a report by John K. Wilson, coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project.

Other academics were fired or reprimanded for merely speaking out on the issues of war or questioning the official story of 9/11.

Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained draconian systems of criminal justice, with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime.

Fear and hatred of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. The United States today has a higher incarcerated population than all European jails combined, and in certain areas, such as Washington, D.C., police presence is at an all-time high.

One visitor to Washington in the summer of 2007 asked a police officer why there were so many cops around.

He replied, “People would rather have security than freedom.”

Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways: the power elite would receive financial gift s and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources.

With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

The cronyism and outright nepotism of the Bush administration has been well documented. Elizabeth Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter, was named as a deputy secretary of state in late February 2002, and within about a week, her husband, Philip Perry, became chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget, where he joined director Mitchell Daniels, whose sister Deborah is an assistant attorney general.

“That’s just the beginning,” noted Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank.

Among Deborah Daniels’ colleagues at Justice is young Chuck James, whose mother, Kay Coles James, is the director of the Office of Personnel Management, and whose father, Charles Sr., is a top Labor Department official.

Charles James Sr.’s boss, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, knows about having family members in government: Her husband is [Kentucky] Sen. Mitch McConnell and her department’s top lawyer, Labor Solicitor Eugene Scalia, is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. . . . Ken Mehlman, the White House political director, regularly calls his younger brother Bruce, an assistant commerce secretary, to get his input.
 

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is the father of Michael Powell, who chaired the Federal Communications Commission. An informal survey of 415 historians conducted by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten, or 81 percent, of the responding historians rated Bush’s presidency as an overall failure.

One respondent to the survey wrote that Bush “ranks with U. S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Halliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant”.

Central to this belief were the numerous Bush administration scandals, including:

·         the deceit that preceded the invasion of Iraq

·         the Abu Ghraib mistreatment of prisoners

·         pre-9/11 intelligence failures

·         the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, announced by Donald Rumsfeld the day before 9/11

·         the mishandling of the Katrina disaster, which resulted in the resignation of Bush’s appointee Michael D. Brown as director of FEMA

·         Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan that shifted 6.2 million low-income seniors whose medications had been covered by Medicare over to private insurers

·         the non-competition government contracts to Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former employer

·         the substitution of political ideals for science

In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement blasting the administration’s politicization of science. Ultimately, this statement was signed by 4,062 scientists, including 51 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies.

Buzzflash.com, which styles itself as marketplace for progressives, after listing several debacles and scandals of the Bush administration, said it operated in a “culture of cronyism and corruption.”

Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would, as a rule, be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result.

Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Americans are well aware of the controversies concerning the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. George W. Bush’s first term was decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And it was just as bad in 2004.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in Rolling Stone magazine, stated:

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted – enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
 

Controversy over both elections continues today and in 2008 charges of vote fraud were already being voiced in the state primary elections, primarily over computer voting machines.

Many Americans noticed the similarities between George W. Bush’s unprovoked attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and Hitler’s unprovoked attacks on Poland, the Low Countries, and France. In both cases, the pretext for invasion proved false and reservists were used rather than the option to resort to a military draft .

In early 2008, a study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity documented 935 “false statements” by the Bush administration in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses,” stated the CPI report.

Most people would term this telling lies.

“Does any of this ring alarm bells?” asked Britt. “Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

It seems that by comparing Britt’s characteristics of fascism to current events, the argument can definitely be made that globalist fascists are turning the once free and independent United States into a not-so-profitable subsidiary of their global corporate structure – their empire of the rich.

You are free to accept this idea or not. But when secular humanists, conservative Christians, Jews, liberal Democrats, bedrock Republicans, and moderates, not to mention the activist fringe elements, all start issuing the same warning against fascism, perhaps it is time we start paying serious attention.

Commentators like Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal have spoken out against the “national security state” from the left. The late Senator Barry Goldwater and evangelist Pat Robertson have spoken out from the right. Even mainstream centrists, like commentator Bill Moyers and attorney Gerry Spence, have warned of the abuses of a “secret government.”

When historical figures along with concerned citizens from opposite ends of the political spectrum all say the same thing, it is time to consider the true state of the American union. And perhaps time to stand up and be counted for true freedom – freedom from the corporate state.

The Reverend Erwin W. Lutzer, senior pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, wrote:

We must support our government, but we must be ready to criticize it or even defy it when necessary. Patriotism is commendable when it is for a just cause. Every nation has the right to defend itself, the right to expect the government to do what is best for its citizens. However, if the German church has taught us the dangers of blind obedience to government, we must eschew the mindless philosophy ‘My country, right or wrong.’

Media critic Michael Parenti observes:

To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Führer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That’s just what the Germans did with Hitler and look where it got them.

There are those who would argue that it is perhaps unpatriotic or at least not politically correct to speak out on issues involving taxation, immigration, political beliefs, race, eugenics, or criticism of the military-industrial complex.

The term “political correctness,” which has entered today’s discourse, is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

Today many believe that definition has grown to include the perceived need to conform to restrictions on speech and behavior set by politicians, corporate leaders, and other self-appointed authorities.

This is the same self-imposed restriction that was adopted by too many Germans during the Third Reich. Not only was the man on the street afraid to speak out against the Nazi regime but free speech was denied the intelligentsia.

Nazi academic Walter Schultze in 1939 stated that, “the reorganization of the entire university system must begin with people who understand that freedom has limits and conform to National Socialist thinking.”

Germans in the Third Reich did not know the term “political correctness,” but they well understood the penalties for freely voicing their opinions.

Recent legislation targeting so- called hate speech can easily slip into official punitive action against any speech that arouses the ire of politicians, police, or judges.

Jonathan Rauch writing in Harper’s magazine noted that equating verbal violence with physical violence is a “treacherous, mischievous business.”

Rauch quoted author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death in absentia by Muslim ayatollahs after writing a book they claimed slandered the beliefs of millions of Muslims.

“What is freedom of expression?” asked Salman Rushdie. “Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

Rauch wrote that the public should learn a lesson from Rushdie’s experience. Rauch proclaimed:

The campaigns to eradicate prejudice – all of them, the speech codes and workplace restrictions and mandatory therapy for accused bigots and all the rest – should stop, now. The whole objective of eradicating prejudice, as opposed to correcting and criticizing it, should be repudiated as a fool’s errand.

Even though the German Nazis preached the unity of the Volk and spoke out against the old divisions of class and education, the leaders operated in an entirely different manner.

“In reality, the Third Reich was a network of rival leaders, each with his own followers and his own patronage,” noted George Mosse in his book Nazi Culture. “Hitler kept them competing against one another and in this way was able to control the whole leadership structure.”

Likewise, the globalist rulers of America pit bureaucrats, politicians, academics, corporate leaders, and the public against one another in an agenda of divide and conquer. They maintain control in a society fragmented by combative ideologies and philosophies as well as competing corporate interests. In today’s America it seems the only common denominator is consumerism and debt.

Because of their loss of control over Hitler, the globalists learned well the dangers of allowing any one individual to gain the power over masses of people. Consequently, there has not been one prominent figure in recent American history who has commanded the popular respect and esteem of a majority of the population. Even the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, beloved by so many, never held popular goodwill to the extent of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Since World War II, no national leader has gained the stature of Roosevelt, Churchill, or Hitler.

“Hitler’s world has gone forever. But many of the basic attitudes and prejudices which went into his worldview are still with us, waiting to be actualized, to be directed into a new mass consciousness,” prophesied Professor Mosse from the relatively naive year of 1966.

Ladislas Farago, author of Aftermath: Martin Bormann and the Fourth Reich, wrote:

The despicable forces loosed by the Third Reich are not expunged, although, like some virulent virus, they may have changed to other forms and be difficult to identify. They remain malignant and as potentially dangerous as before.

In his 1997 book The Beast Reawakens, Martin Lee wrote:

Fascism is on the march again… unchecked corporate power has, to a significant degree, stultified the democratic process, and fascist groups in Europe and the United States feed upon this malaise.
 

These sentiments came from writers unaware of the fascist globalists’ plan being woven around them.

Yet, they could sense that Americans could easily fall sway to the pernicious ideology of National Socialism.

The biggest stumbling block to the plans of the globalists has always been the United States, with its tradition of individual freedom, its Constitution that guarantees that freedom, and the fact that so many Americans own firearms to protect their freedoms. But true freedom is a transient quality.

National politicians no longer refer to the “Republic,” because modern America has ceased to be one. It is now an Empire – a new Reich.

Obviously, there are dissimilarities between Hitler’s Third Reich and the new American Reich. After all, the United States today is a very different time and culture. But it has been demonstrated how the same philosophies and methodologies employed by the same families, corporations, and organizations that at one time supported Hitler’s Third Reich, have now found roots in modern America.

It has been necessary for these fascist globalists to break up the United States into divisions of race, sex, age, generation and culture. This has been accomplished through a degrading of popular culture, downgrading the education process, permitting a steady flow of illegal immigrants, and the fragmentation of the population over issues such as abortion, immigration, non-heterosexual relationships, and foreign policy.

Control over a diminished national economy and corporate downsizing has brought undue stress on workers, resulting in the gradual destruction of the nuclear family.

None of this construction of the new American empire has come about suddenly.

The global National Socialists – Nazis – are in it for the long haul. The owners of the multinational corporations, with their membership in secret societies, know their goals will not be achieved overnight, although since 9/11 they seem to have redoubled their efforts, speeding up the timetable. While businessmen deal with yearly quarters, and the average worker lives for his weekly pay check, these people look ahead fifty years or a hundred, if that’s what it takes.

They realize that their program of a global fascist socialism is the only means of maintaining their power and control, the only way – in their view – to maintain the purity of their race and class. They laugh at the concepts of true individual freedom and multiculturalism, for they have no faith in the innate goodness of humankind or its ability for self-government.

They have no real faith in God and use religious ideals and concepts merely as another tool for social control.

The struggle against such steadfast will to power and its attendant control will not be easy. Sacrifices and change will have to be made in all areas of society. Lifestyles will have to be altered. But it can be done – hopefully before the United States falls into depression, anarchy, and then a police state. New energy sources and technologies are lurking in the wings. Technological breakthroughs await only the change of attitude on the part of conventional politics, commerce, and finance.

A sea change in the public consciousness is well under way, although it is not reflected in the corporate-controlled mass media. Yet it is happening. Informed consumers are beginning to realize they can vote with their spending. If enough people refuse to buy a certain product – whether it’s a brand of car, gasoline, or something else – or even reject a federal policy proposal, it can force a change of direction in the controllers.

We may do well to recall the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had to deal with a previous “New World Order.”

In a 1940 address, he stated:

The history of recent years proves that the shootings and the chains and the concentration camps are not simply the transient tools but the very altars of modern dictatorships. They may talk of a ‘new order’ in the world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and the worst tyranny.

In that there is no liberty, no religion, no hope. The proposed ‘new order’ is the very opposite of a United States of Europe or a United States of Asia. It is not a government based upon the consent of the governed. It is not a union of ordinary, self-respecting men and women to protect themselves and their freedom and their dignity from oppression. It is an unholy alliance of power and self to dominate and to enslave the human race.

It appears that the “New World Order” is really just the “Old World Order” packaged with modern advertising slickness – new names, logos, and slogans.

What once was traditional American conservatism has been molded into fascist forms, beginning with the infusion of National Socialism ideals into the military-industrial complex, which then spread into science, corporate life, the mass media, and even political parties.

This change has been engineered by the globalist elite who hold monopolies over basic resources, energy, pharmaceuticals, transportation, and telecommunications, including the news media.

As detailed throughout this work, the same men, families, and companies that first supported communism in Russia funded and supported National Socialism in prewar Germany. With the defeat of the Germans, they simply shifted their attention to the United States. They were abetted by Nazis financed by the stolen wealth of Europe – perhaps including Solomon’s treasure – and utilizing a vast network of worldwide corporations.

Thousands of Nazis escaped to both North and South America, their way facilitated by supporters in Wall Street, the Bank of England, and the Vatican.

Using German advances in the study of the human mind, behavior, and propaganda, these self-styled globalists are now attempting to subdue the American population through a maze of government policies, drugs, a dumbed-down education system, and a controlled corporate mass media. Political and corporate leadership continually swap roles, creating a merger of the state and industry – the very definition of fascism.

Mergers and leveraged takeovers have concentrated corporate power into fewer and fewer hands, many of those directly connected through banking and corporate ties to prewar support for the Nazis.

Captalism Fascism and
WWII

Law enforcement personnel increasingly no longer wear the blue uniforms of police sworn “to serve and protect,” but black body armor with the German-style military helmets, initially dubbed the “Fritz” by the soldiers. Even the fields of religion, education, and entertainment are being used to transform whole generations of formerly free Americans into cowed and subservient members of an increasingly National Socialist system.

Is the new American Empire, as it is described in numerous books and articles, in danger of becoming an empire of the wealthy – a fascist Fourth Reich?

Hitler’s Thousand-year Reich collapsed after a mere twelve years. How long before the end of the New World Order’s Fourth Reich in America?  An account of the fall of the Fourth Reich has not yet been written, for it has yet to happen.

If, and how, this is to be accomplished, is up to you, dear reader.