Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #1013 Fascism and the Politics of Immigration

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained HERE. The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by the fall of 2017. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE.

This broadcast was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.

Waffen SS: The GOP’s idea of ideal immigrants.

Introduction: In The Hitler LegacyPeter Levenda noted anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia as part of “The Hitler Legacy.”

Fear of “the other” has been a staple of fascist thought and is dominating much of the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic.

In FTR #838, Levenda discoursed on how immigration from Europe, both Catholic  and Jewish,  melded with other events in the post-World War I period to mobilize fascist sentiment and activism.

Reacting to the advent of the Soviet Union, abortive Marxist revolutions in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, large scale immigration of Catholics from Ireland and Italy and Jews from Eastern Europe, powerful elements of the U.S. power elite embraced fascism and eugenics ideology.

With the onset of the Great Depression, the potential threat of Communism was magnified in the eyes of many powerful American industrialists, financiers and corporate lawyers. Germany’s success in putting down the Marxist revolutions within its own borders, as well as the business relationships between corporate Germany and its cartel partners in the U.S. business community inclined many influential American reactionaries to support fascism.

By the same token, these same elements came to despise Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his “Jew Deal,” as it was called by his enemies. American Jews were seen as hiring Jewish immigrants and thus denying “real Americans” jobs and economic well-being.

Attacking Roosevelt as a Jew and a Communist, American fascists embraced a cognitive and rhetorical position not unlike the view of Barack Obama as a “Kenyan Muslim,” and, consequently, a “traitor.”

Some key points in Peter’s analysis are explored a section of the book titled the “Origins of 21st Century Conflict.” Highlights of this part of the program include:

  • Analyzing the abortive socialist revolutions that took place in Germany at the end of the First World War, Peter notes the role of the Freikorps and related institutions in suppressing those revolts. In particular, a number of overlapping Pan-German occult organizations, including the Thule Gesellschaft, contributed to the substance of German reaction in the post-World War I period.
  • In the United States, the Bolshevik Revolution produced a spate of anti-Communist organizations that saw Marxism’s advocacy of a workers’ revolution as a fundamental threat to the existing order.
  • Marx’s Jewish background–in tandem with large Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe–fed a doctrinaire anti-Semitism which fused with anti-Communism to become a key element of fascist ideology in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
  • The program set forth how Bolshevism, immigration and anti-Semitism fused to become a theory of “global conspiracy.”
  • We highlight the role in the formation of this ideology of Darwin’s theories and eugenics, both in the U.S. and in Germany. (In particular, we discuss the impact of Irish and Italian Catholic immigration as well as Jewish immigration on the consciousness of elements of the American power elite.) We also detail how National Socialists came to view their role in shaping the evolution of homo sapiens.
  • The Depression and FDR’s New Deal and their effects on many of those same elements of the Power Elite.
  • Hate-mongering that labeled FDR as a “Jew” and a “Communist”–similar to anti-Obama rhetoric portraying him as a Muslim and a traitor.
  • Atavism–the longing for a “simpler time” and its manifestations both in the 1930’s and presently.

In FTR #864, recorded in September of 2015, Peter updated the context of our discussion from March of that year in the context of Donald Trump’s lead in the GOP primary struggle and the reaction sweeping Europe.

Immigration dominated the news that fall and has continued to do so. The flood of refugees from the wars in the Middle East threatened to overwhelm European infrastructure and the phenomenon dominated the political debate in the GOP primary election campaign. Donald Trump capitalized on anti-immigrant xenophobia during the primary and then the presidential campaign.

Of course, he continues to do so today.

In The Hitler LegacyPeter noted anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia as part of “The Hitler Legacy.”

Fear of “the other” has been a staple of fascist thought and has dominated much of the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic.

“. . . Xenophobia is at an all-time high in Europe and increasingly in America. The Internet has provided new and improved means of communication. . . .

As the political life of every country becomes more and more polarized between “right” and “left,” the men of ODESSA can only laugh at our discomfort. . . .”

Next, we turn to a more recent development.

Melania Trump garnered considerable media attention when she visited a detention center for immigrants, including children, wearing a jacket that said “I Really Don’t Care. Do U?”

Tasteless on its surface, the statement assumes added significance when we factor in the fact that  “I don’t care” (“Me Ne Frego” in Italian) was an important fascist slogan.

Furthermore, the Zara company that made Melania’s jacket has a history of marketing garments with fascist/racist overtones. It marketed a shirt that mimicked a concentration camp inmate’s garb and a swastika-enlaid handbag. It also marketed a Pepe The Frog skirt.

Recent comments by Trump disparaging Haiti as a “shithole” country and pining for immigration from Norway instead warrant a fresh look at the Crusade For Freedom.

During Trump’s brief tenure as President, the media have consistently lamented his actions as idiosyncrasies. Trump’s policies are not his alone, but follow in a linear path, along which the GOP has traveled for decades.

In this post, we review the Crusade For Freedom–the covert operation that brought Third Reich alumni into the country and also supported their guerrilla warfare in Eastern Europe, conducted up until the early 1950’s. Conceived by Allen Dulles, overseen by Richard Nixon, publicly represented by Ronald Reagan and realized in considerable measure by William Casey, the CFF ultimately evolved into a Nazi wing of the GOP.

“. . . . Vice President Nixon’s secret political war of Nazis against Jews in American politics was never investigated at the time. The foreign language-speaking Croatians and other Fascist émigré groups had a ready-made network for contacting and mobilizing the Eastern European ethnic bloc. There is a very high correlation between CIA domestic subsidies to Fascist ‘freedom fighters’ during the 1950’s and the leadership of the Republican Party’s ethnic campaign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to offset the Jewish vote for the Democrats. . . .

. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Ethnic Division within the Republican National Committee. Displaced fascists, hoping to be returned to power by an Eisenhower-Nixon ‘liberation’ policy signed on with the committee. In 1953, when Republicans were in office, the immigration laws were changed to admit Nazis, even members of the SS. They flooded into the country. Nixon himself oversaw the new immigration program. . . .”

1. In FTR #838, Peter Levenda discoursed on how immigration from Europe, both Catholic  and Jewish,  melded with other events in the post-World War I period to mobilize fascist sentiment and activism.

Reacting to the advent of the Soviet Union, abortive Marxist revolutions in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, large scale immigration of Catholics from Ireland and Italy and Jews from Eastern Europe, powerful elements of the U.S. power elite embraced fascism and eugenics ideology.

With the onset of the Great Depression, the potential threat of Communism was magnified in the eyes of many powerful American industrialists, financiers and corporate lawyers. Germany’s success in putting down the Marxist revolutions within its own borders, as well as the business relationships between corporate Germany and its cartel partners in the U.S. business community inclined many influential American reactionaries to support fascism.

By the same token, these same elements came to despise Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his “Jew Deal,” as it was called by his enemies. American Jews were seen as hiring Jewish immigrants and thus denying “real Americans” jobs and economic well-being.

Attacking Roosevelt as a Jew and a Communist, American fascists embraced a cognitive and rhetorical position not unlike the view of Barack Obama as a “Kenyan Muslim,” and, consequently, a “traitor.”

Some key points in Peter’s analysis are explored a section of the book titled the “Origins of 21st Century Conflict.” Highlights of this part of the program include:

  • Analyzing the abortive socialist revolutions that took place in Germany at the end of the First World War, Peter notes the role of the Freikorps and related institutions in suppressing those revolts. In particular, a number of overlapping Pan-German occult organizations, including the Thule Gesellschaft, contributed to the substance of German reaction in the post-World War I period.
  • In the United States, the Bolshevik Revolution produced a spate of anti-Communist organizations that saw Marxism’s advocacy of a workers’ revolution as a fundamental threat to the existing order.
  • Marx’s Jewish background–in tandem with large Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe–fed a doctrinaire anti-Semitism which fused with anti-Communism to become a key element of fascist ideology in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
  • The program set forth how Bolshevism, immigration and anti-Semitism fused to become a theory of “global conspiracy.”
  • We highlight the role in the formation of this ideology of Darwin’s theories and eugenics, both in the U.S. and in Germany. (In particular, we discuss the impact of Irish and Italian Catholic immigration as well as Jewish immigration on the consciousness of elements of the American power elite.) We also detail how National Socialists came to view their role in shaping the evolution of homo sapiens.
  • The Depression and FDR’s New Deal and their effects on many of those same elements of the Power Elite.
  • Hate-mongering that labeled FDR as a “Jew” and a “Communist”–similar to anti-Obama rhetoric portraying him as a Muslim and a traitor.
  • Atavism–the longing for a “simpler time” and its manifestations both in the 1930’s and presently.

2. In FTR #864, recorded in September of 2015, Peter updated the context of our discussion from March of that year in the context of Donald Trump’s lead in the GOP primary struggle and the reaction sweeping Europe.

Immigration dominated the news that fall and has continued to do so. The flood of refugees from the wars in the Middle East threatened to overwhelm European infrastructure and the phenomenon dominated the political debate in the GOP primary election campaign. Donald Trump capitalized on anti-immigrant xenophobia during the primary and then the presidential campaign.

Of course, he continues to do so today.

In The Hitler LegacyPeter noted anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia as part of “The Hitler Legacy.”

Fear of “the other” has been a staple of fascist thought and has dominated much of the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Hitler Legacy by Peter Levenda; IBIS Press [HC]; Copyright 2014 by Peter Levenda; ISBN 978-0-89254-210-9; p. 315.

. . . Xenophobia is at an all-time high in Europe and increasingly in America. The Internet has provided new and improved means of communication. . . .

As the political life of every country becomes more and more polarized between “right” and “left,” the men of ODESSA can only laugh at our discomfort. . . .

3. Melania Trump garnered considerable media attention when she visited a detention center for immigrants, including children, wearing a jacket that said “I Really Don’t Care. Do U?”

Tasteless on its surface, the statement assumes added significance when we factor in the fact that  “I don’t care” (“Me Ne Frego” in Italian) was an important fascist slogan.

Furthermore, the Zara company that made Melania’s jacket has a history of marketing garments with fascist/racist overtones. It marketed a shirt that mimicked a concentration camp inmate’s garb and a swastika-enlaid handbag. It also marketed a Pepe The Frog skirt.

“A Brief (Fascist) History of ‘I Don’t Care’” by Giovanni Tiso; Overland; 06/22/2018

This article was sparked by the jacket that Melania Trump wore as she travelled to a detention camp for migrant children, but my intent isn’t to argue that she or her staff chose that jacket in order to send a coded message to the president’s far-right followers. It is, rather, to highlight some of the historical echoes of that phrase – ‘I don’t care’.

The echoes of which someone ought to have been aware, especially in an administration that includes – to put it mildly – several far-right sympathizers. And also to show that the attitude, the theatrical ‘not caring’, was an explicit character trait of Fascism. . . . 

. . . . Fascism lay its roots in the campaign for Italy’s late entry in the First World War, of which Mussolini was one of the leaders. It was at this time that the phrase ‘me ne frego’ – which at the time was still considered quite vulgar, along the lines of the English ‘I don’t give a fu ck’ – was sung by members of the special force known as arditi (literally: ‘the daring ones’) who volunteered for the front, to signify that they didn’t care if they should lose their lives.

The arditi were disbanded after the war, but many of them volunteered in 1919 for an expedition led by the poet Gabriele D’Annunzio to capture the city of Fiume (Rijeka, in present-day Croatia) and claim it for Italy during the vacuum created by the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire. At the time of this occupation, former arditi also formed the backbone of the original Black Squads during the terror campaigns that began in 1919 and culminated with the ‘March on Rome’ of 1922, which completed Fascism’s swift rise to power.

This lapel pin worn by an original member of the Black Shirts was recently sold on a website devoted to military memorabilia. It is emblazoned with the words ‘Me ne frego’ underneath the original symbol of the arditi and the acronym FERT (which stands for the motto of the Royal Family). The seller calls it ‘bellissimo’.
[see image of “me ne frego” pin worn by the Black Shirts]

‘Me ne frego’ was the title of one of the most famous songs of the Fascist era.Its original version, dating around 1920, hails D’Annunzio and Mussolini as the fathers of the fascist movement, recycling the old war song of the arditi as the third stanza.

Me ne frego I don’t care

me ne frego I don’t care

me ne frego è il nostro motto, I don’t care is our motto

me ne frego di morire I don’t care if I should die

per la santa libertà! … For our sacred freedom! …

Later versions removed mentions of D’Annunzio, who faded fairly quickly into the background. In the meantime, Mussolini made the slogan his own, and explicitly elevated it to the philosophy of the regime.
[See image of Benito Mussolini “me ne frego” quote]

The meaning of ‘Me ne frego’

The proud Black-Shirt motto ‘I don’t care’ written on the bandages that cover a wound isn’t just an act of stoic philosophy or the summary of a political doctrine. It’s an education to fighting, and the acceptance of the risks it implies. It’s a new Italian lifestyle. This is how the Fascist welcomes and loves life, while rejecting and regarding suicide as an act of cowardice; this is how the Fascist understands life as duty, exaltation, conquest. A life that must be lived highly and fully, both for oneself but especially for others, near and far, present and future.

The connotations of altruism at the end of the quote are in direct contrast with the meaning taken on by the word menefreghismo(literally, ‘Idontcareism’), which ever since the regime has meant in common parlance a kind of detached self-reliance, or moral autocracy. Just as Italy broke with its former allies and charted a stubborn path towards the ruin and devastation of the Second World War, so too the Fascist citizen was encouraged to reject the judgement of others and look straight aheadIt should be remembered in this regard that the regime treated ignorance and proclivity to violence as desirable qualities to be rewarded with positions of influence and power. This required a swift redrawing of the old social norms, and of the language used to signify the moral worth of individuals. ‘Me ne frego’ was the perfect slogan for the people in charge of overseeing such a program.

Four years ago, speaking at a First World War commemoration in the small town of Redipuglia, Pope Francis linked ‘me ne frego’ not only with the carnage of that conflict, but also with the horrors of Fascism, recognising its ideological and propaganda value for Mussolini’s project. This is the form in which the slogan has survived until the present day, as a linguistic signifier not of generic indifference, but of ideological nostalgia. And because the attempts in Italy and beyond to stem the spread of such signifiers have been comprehensively abandoned, we readily find those words appearing not just on seemingly ubiquitous Fascist-era memorabilia but also on posters,
[see image of poster]
t-shirts,
[see image of t-shirt]
or this line of stickers that can be purchased for $.193 from Redbubble (motto ‘awesome products designed by independent artists’), where it was uploaded by user ‘fashdivision’.
[see image of stickers]
The international neofascist movement is of course well aware of this lineage. By way of example, if you search for it online you’ll find a long-running English-language podcast called Me ne frego which recycles this imagery in support of arguments against immigration and multiculturalism, or to opine on the subject of ‘the Jewish question’.
 I don’t doubt that people close both to the Trump administration and this world are similarly cognisant of the uses to which those three words have been put. But even for those who aren’t, claims to indifference have a history which we mustn’t allow ourselves to forget.

4.  The Zara company that made Melania’s jacket has a history of marketing garments with fascist/racist overtones. It marketed a shirt that mimicked a concentration camp inmate’s garb and a swastika-enlaid handbag.

“Zara Removes Striped Pyjamas with Yellow Star Following Online Outrage” by Elena Cresci; The Guardian; 08/27/2014

High street retailer Zara has pulled a striped shirt featuring a yellow star on the front on Wednesday after social media users likened it to the uniform worn by Jewish prisoners in concentration camps during the second world war.

The striped “sheriff” T-shirt, aimed at children aged three months to three years, drew criticism for a design which featured white and blue stripes and a six-pointed yellow star on the front. The star itself had the word “sheriff” written across it, which was not completely clear in the zoomed-out images on the Spanish chain’s website.

But from first glance, many people felt the shirt bore too close a resemblance to the striped uniform and yellow star Jewish prisoners were forced to wear during the Holocaust.

The shirt was available via Zara’s UK homepage as well as in a number of its international outlets, including Israel, France, Denmark, Albania and Sweden. Israeli journalist Dimi Reider was among the first to notice the resemblance.

Writing on 972mag.com, he said: “It’s a SHERIFF shirt for your three-year-old. Obviously. What else could it be?

“Why, what else does it remind you of?”

The retailer has since apologised, in several languages on its Twitter feed, and confirmed the shirt is no longer on sale.

A spokesperson for Zara’s parent company Inditex said: “The item in question has now been removed from all Zara stores and Zara.com.

“The garment was inspired by the classic Western films, but we now recognise that the design could be seen as insensitive and apologise sincerely for any offence caused to our customers.”

This is not the first time Zara has made an unfortunate design choice. In 2007, the retailer withdrew a handbag from its stories after one customer pointed out the design featured swastikas.

5.  Zara’s fascist fashion sense just keeps bubbling up. It turns out Zara made a skirt in 2017 with what appear to be ‘Pepe the Frog’ faces

“Zara Loses Its Skirt Over Pepe the Frog” by Vanessa Friedman; The New York Times; 04/19/2017

Digital activists have claimed another head. Or, rather, skirt.

On Tuesday, Zara, the Spanish chain owned by Inditex that has more than 2,100 stores in 88 countries around the world and was rated No. 53 on the Forbes 2016 list of the world’s most valuable brands, quietly withdrew a distressed denim miniskirt printed with a cartoon face from its websites and stores in the United States and Britain after it became a subject of social media controversy for the graphic’s resemblance to Pepe the Frog.

You know, the green amphibian that was originally intended as a “peaceful frog-dude,” according to Matt Furie, the man who created him, but that was co-opted by anti-Jewish and bigoted groups and designated an alt-right hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League last September.

The skirt had been on sale as part of Zara’s limited-edition “oil on denim” offering of spring-fling artist partnerships.

Twitter got on it pretty fast. “Zara is really out there trying to sell a P*pe the frog skirt, apparently unaware (?) of its current implications,” @meaganrosae wrote. Added @ccarella, “Hmm Pepe on a Zara skirt.”

There is a lot of “how did this happen?” and “how deluded could they be?” going around the cybersphere, but the answer may come down to a blunt collision of globalism and cultural ignorance.

A spokeswoman for Zara said: “The skirt is part of the limited Oil-on-Denim collection, which was created through collaborations with artists and is only available in selected markets. The designer of the skirt is Mario de Santiago, known online as Yimeisgreat. There is absolutely no link to the suggested theme.”

Mr. de Santiago is a Spanish artist based in London whose biography on his official web page states, “I like to explore social interactions and gather them into quirky and colourful storytelling compositions.” According to Zara, he said the frog face “came from a wall painting I drew with friends four years ago.” It is not hard to imagine he was unaware a similar frog face had been used for a somewhat different purpose in the United States.

Unfortunately for Zara, however, the brand has a history with public pressure over a product with potentially offensive implications — especially anti-Semitic implications — which may have exacerbated the reaction. In 2014, it apologized for offering, and then withdrew, a set of children’s striped pajamas with a yellow star on the breast that was widely seen as resembling a concentration camp uniform (the star was supposed to be a sheriff’s badge). In 2007, it withdrew a handbag printed with folkloric designs, one of which happened to look a lot like a swastika.

All of this may add up to something of a teachable moment for the fast-fashion model. Because the business is based on the constant turnover of new products that are effectively “tested” on the shop floor, so that companies can respond quickly to what sells and drop less popular items without much cost, it involves a higher than usual amount of churn. This may mean designs are subject to less stringent vetting than they might be in, say, a traditional fashion brand in which products are created and assessed more than six months ahead of production.

Add to that the recent commercialization of the summer festival circuit, in which corporate giants are leveraging the fashion appeal of sartorial rebellion (always a dangerous game, since it co-opts symbols without really understanding their use), and the pitfalls were potentially pretty big. Just think for a minute of the absurdity implicit in choosing a hate symbol to stick on a garment seemingly meant for a summer-of-love/dancing-in-the-muddy-fields-type event. Oops.

Given the increasing role of the internet in policing brands and companies, it was probably only a matter of time before a company attempting to make hay while the music played made a mistake instead.

Consider it a cautionary tale.

6. Although we have discussed it frequently over the decades, recent comments by Trump disparaging Haiti as a “shithole” country and pining for immigration from Norway instead warrant a fresh look at the Crusade For Freedom.

During Trump’s brief tenure as President, the media have consistently lamented his actions as idiosyncrasies. Trump’s policies are not his alone, but follow in a linear path, along which the GOP has traveled for decades.

In this post, we review the Crusade For Freedom–the covert operation that brought Third Reich alumni into the country and also supported their guerrilla warfare in Eastern Europe, conducted up until the early 1950’s. Conceived by Allen Dulles, overseen by Richard Nixon, publicly represented by Ronald Reagan and realized in considerable measure by William Casey, the CFF ultimately evolved into a Nazi wing of the GOP.

“. . . . Vice President Nixon’s secret political war of Nazis against Jews in American politics was never investigated at the time. The foreign language-speaking Croatians and other Fascist émigré groups had a ready-made network for contacting and mobilizing the Eastern European ethnic bloc. There is a very high correlation between CIA domestic subsidies to Fascist ‘freedom fighters’ during the 1950’s and the leadership of the Republican Party’s ethnic campaign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to offset the Jewish vote for the Democrats. . . .

The elder George Bush installed the GOP ethnic outreach organization as a permanent part of the GOP:

“. . . . . . . . . It was Bush who fulfilled Nixon’s promise to make the ‘ethnic emigres’ a permanent part of Republican politics. In 1972, Nixon’s State Department spokesman confirmed to his Australian counterpart that the ethnic groups were very useful to get out the vote in several key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Republican National Committee exactly coincided with Laszlo Pasztor’s 1972 drive to transform the Heritage Groups Council into the party’s official ethnic arm. The groups Pasztor chose as Bush’s campaign allies were the émigré Fascists whom Dulles had brought to the United States. . . . “

6a.    The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons; Copyright 1994 by Mark Aarons; St. Martin’s Press; [HC] ISBN 0-312-11057-X; pp. 122-123.

. . . . Frustration over Truman’s 1948 election victory over Dewey (which they blamed on the “Jewish vote”) impelled Dulles and his protégé Richard Nixon to work toward the realization of the fascist freedom fighter presence in the Republican Party’s ethnic outreach organization. As a young congressman, Nixon had been Allen Dulles’s confidant. They both blamed Governor Dewey’s razor-thin loss to Truman in the 1948 presidential election on the Jewish vote. When he became Eisenhower’s vice president in 1952, Nixon was determined to build his own ethnic base. . . .

. . . . Vice President Nixon’s secret political war of Nazis against Jews in American politics was never investigated at the time. The foreign language-speaking Croatians and other Fascist émigré groups had a ready-made network for contacting and mobilizing the Eastern European ethnic bloc. There is a very high correlation between CIA domestic subsidies to Fascist ‘freedom fighters’ during the 1950’s and the leadership of the Republican Party’s ethnic campaign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to offset the Jewish vote for the Democrats. . . .

. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Ethnic Division within the Republican National Committee. Displaced fascists, hoping to be returned to power by an Eisenhower-Nixon ‘liberation’ policy signed on with the committee. In 1953, when Republicans were in office, the immigration laws were changed to admit Nazis, even members of the SS. They flooded into the country. Nixon himself oversaw the new immigration program. AsVice President, he even received Eastern European Fascists in the White House. . . .

6b. More about the composition of the cast of the CFF: Note that the ascension of the Reagan administration was essentially the ascension of the Nazified GOP, embodied in the CFF milieu. Reagan (spokesman for CFF) was President; George H.W. Bush (for whom CIA headquarters is named) was the Vice President; William Casey (who handled the State Department machinations to bring these people into the United States) was Reagan’s campaign manager and later his CIA director.

The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons; Copyright 1994 by Mark Aarons; St. Martin’s Press; [HC] ISBN 0-312-11057-X; p. 605.

. . . . As a young movie actor in the early 1950s, Reagan was employed as the public spokesperson for an OPC front named the ‘Crusade for Freedom.’ Reagan may not have known it, but 99 percent for the Crusade’s funds came from clandestine accounts, which were then laundered through the Crusade to various organizations such as Radio Liberty, which employed Dulles’s Fascists. Bill Casey, who later became CIA director under Ronald Reagan, also worked in Germany after World War II on Dulles’ Nazi ‘freedom fighters’ program. When he returned to New York, Casey headed up another OPC front, the International Rescue Committee, which sponsored the immigration of these Fascists to the United States. Casey’s committee replaced the International Red Cross as the sponsor for Dulles’s recruits. Confidential interviews, former members, OPC; former members, British foreign and Commonwealth Office. . . .

6c. While serving as chairman of the Republican National Committee, the elder George Bush shepherded the Nazi émigré community into position as a permanent branch of the Republican Party.

The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons; Copyright 1994 by Mark Aarons; St. Martin’s Press; [HC] ISBN 0-312-11057-X; pp. 369-370.

 . . . . . It was Bush who fulfilled Nixon’s promise to make the ‘ethnic emigres’ a permanent part of Republican politics. In 1972, Nixon’s State Department spokesman confirmed to his Australian counterpart that the ethnic groups were very useful to get out the vote in several key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Republican National Committee exactly coincided with Laszlo Pasztor’s 1972 drive to transform the Heritage Groups Council into the party’s official ethnic arm. The groups Pasztor chose as Bush’s campaign allies were the émigré Fascists whom Dulles had brought to the United States. . . . 

Discussion

One comment for “FTR #1013 Fascism and the Politics of Immigration”

  1. Here’s an article that points towards another refugee crisis that President Trump is apparently very keen on exacerbating: the Venezuelan refugee crisis that’s going to explode of the US invades Venezuela. And as the article makes painfully clear, while Trump’s advisors and US allies in the are staunchly against the idea of a US invasion of Venezuela, Trump is still really, really interested in invading Venezuela and can’t contain that interest:

    The Associated Press

    Trump pressed aides on Venezuela invasion, US official says

    By JOSHUA GOODMAN
    07/05/2018

    BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?

    The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

    In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

    But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

    The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.

    The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

    But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.

    Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

    The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

    Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.

    Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.

    The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.

    Trump’s bellicose talk provided the unpopular leader with an immediate if short-lived boost as he was trying to escape blame for widespread food shortages and hyperinflation. Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn “Emperor” Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S.

    Even some of the staunchest U.S. allies were begrudgingly forced to side with Maduro in condemning Trump’s saber rattling. Santos, a big backer of U.S. attempts to isolate Maduro, said an invasion would have zero support in the region. The Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying “the only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “any option that implies the use of force.”

    But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.

    A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.

    Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.

    “People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”

    ———-

    “Trump pressed aides on Venezuela invasion, US official says” by JOSHUA GOODMAN; The Associated Press; 07/05/2018

    “As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?

    Why can’t the US just go ahead an invade Venezuela? That’s the question President Trump appeared to be genuinely asking back in August. And when those top aides, like then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, explained to Trump the magnitude of such an action and how easily it could backfire, Trump pushed back, citing the US invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 80’s:


    The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

    In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

    But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

    And then the very next day, Trump made public remarks about the “military option” to remove Maduro:


    The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.

    The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

    And then he raised prospect of a military invasion directly with the president of Colombia, a country that is already facing large numbers of Venezuelan refugees, and brought the idea up again on the sides of the UN General Assembly:


    But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.

    Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

    The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

    Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.

    And when the Trump administration is asked about these previously unreported incidents, the National Security Council give the ominous replay that the US considers ‘all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability’:


    Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.

    The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.

    And there are apparently already consequences to all of Trump’s public and private talk of a military invasion of Venezuela: the Venezuelan opposition appears to be warming to the idea:


    But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.

    A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.

    Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.

    “People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”

    So we have the Venezuelan opposition increasingly hoping for a US invasion after Trump’s many declarations, which presumably means elements of the Venezuelan opposition diaspora are going to be increasingly lobbying the Trump administration for exactly that. Will they get their wish? Well, considering that people like HR McMaster and Rex Tillerson have been replaced with people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, it’s looking a lot more like they will get their wish. Especially with Bolton, who has made his hawking views on Venezuela abundantly clear for years:

    McClatchy

    Trump pick Bolton to drive hardline agenda against Venezuela

    By Franco Ordoñez And Anita Kumar
    March 22, 2018 07:43 PM
    Updated March 23, 2018 10:57 AM

    WASHINGTON John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is expected to put a sharper focus on Venezuela as President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, applying a hard line against Nicolás Maduro’s government.

    “For Latin America, he has always emphasized how Cuba and Venezuela and Nicaragua have undermined U.S. interests throughout the region,” according to a senior administration official.

    But Bolton’s tough talk on North Korea and other countries will make Latin American leaders nervous, raising old fears of U.S. intervention in a region that prides itself on diplomatic solutions, according to a National Security Council official for President Barack Obama.

    “He’s a war monger and Latin Americans get nervous when American presidents tend to lean toward military versus diplomatic solutions,” the official said. “It’s a militaristic style that won’t go down well in Latin America.”

    Bolton believes that economically distressed Venezuela is vulnerable and that others, including Iran, continue to have great influence on the government there.

    Bolton raised concerns about Venezuela in 2013. During a hearing on Syria and Iran, Bolton said Iranians were operating in Caracas to avoid international watchers. “These are expert smugglers with—the largest Iranian diplomatic facility in the world is in Caracas, Venezuela,” Bolton said at the time. “Because of their close cultural ties? No, because they are laundering their money through the Venezuelan banks.”

    Trump has already taken a hard line against the Venezuelan government, applying more than 20 individual and economic sanctions including restricting U.S. financial transactions involving its new digital currency.

    One big question is whether Bolton will take another look at U.S. Cuba policy, according to the Obama official. Bolton blasted Obama for reopening diplomatic relations with the Castro government in 2014.

    Bolton has long been an advocate for even stronger restrictions against Cuba. In 2002, as undersecretary of state, he accused Havana of trying to develop biological weapons, and added Cuba to a list of “axis of evil” countries.”

    ”The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort,” Bolton said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

    Bolton has already served under three presidents, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

    “Bolton is a foreign policy professional, which is a good start, and more than you can say for the president’s first two picks for secretary of state,” said Benjamin Gedan, who served as Venezuela director on the National Security Council under Obama.

    Trump announced late Thursday that he would replace his second national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, with Bolton in mid-April. It’s the latest in a series of staff changes in recent weeks.

    Last week, Trump announced on Twitter that he would replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, with CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

    Bolton and Trump met regularly during the presidential transition and at the White House to discuss foreign policy. He was spotted in the West Wing earlier Thursday.

    “Though he and Pompeo are considered hardliners, most governments in Latin America should not be spooked, assuming Bolton does not share the president’s habit of bullying U.S. allies,” Gedan said.

    ———-

    “Trump pick Bolton to drive hardline agenda against Venezuela” by Franco Ordoñez And Anita Kumar; McClatchy; 03/22/2018

    ““Though he and Pompeo are considered hardliners, most governments in Latin America should not be spooked, assuming Bolton does not share the president’s habit of bullying U.S. allies,” Gedan said.”

    LOL, what an assurance: The US allies in Latin American shouldn’t be too concerned about John Bolton replacing HR McMaster as the new national security adviser, if you assume Bolton doesn’t share Trump’s habit of bullying US allies.

    If, on the other hand, you assume that Bolton will be perfectly fine with Trump’s habit of bullying US allies, there is plenty to worry about, because both Bolton and Trump clearly have a predilection for military solutions:


    John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is expected to put a sharper focus on Venezuela as President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, applying a hard line against Nicolás Maduro’s government.

    “For Latin America, he has always emphasized how Cuba and Venezuela and Nicaragua have undermined U.S. interests throughout the region,” according to a senior administration official.

    But Bolton’s tough talk on North Korea and other countries will make Latin American leaders nervous, raising old fears of U.S. intervention in a region that prides itself on diplomatic solutions, according to a National Security Council official for President Barack Obama.

    “He’s a war monger and Latin Americans get nervous when American presidents tend to lean toward military versus diplomatic solutions,” the official said. “It’s a militaristic style that won’t go down well in Latin America.”

    But perhaps the most ominous aspect of Bolton becoming the new national security adviser is his suspicion that Venezuela is being used by Iran to launder money and avoid international sanctions. Because it’s already abundantly clear that the Trump administration is interested in whipping up a war with Iran, with Bolton calling pressing a regime change push by the US. So if Bolton gets his wish, will a war with Venezuela soon follow? It’s one of those questions we have to ask:


    Bolton believes that economically distressed Venezuela is vulnerable and that others, including Iran, continue to have great influence on the government there.

    Bolton raised concerns about Venezuela in 2013. During a hearing on Syria and Iran, Bolton said Iranians were operating in Caracas to avoid international watchers. “These are expert smugglers with—the largest Iranian diplomatic facility in the world is in Caracas, Venezuela,” Bolton said at the time. “Because of their close cultural ties? No, because they are laundering their money through the Venezuelan banks.”

    Trump has already taken a hard line against the Venezuelan government, applying more than 20 individual and economic sanctions including restricting U.S. financial transactions involving its new digital currency.

    But with hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans already economic refugees, and 5,000 more fleeing to surrounding countries each day, one of the other big questions surrounding a possible military invasion of Venezuela is just what kind of refugee situation is this going to create, for the US but more importantly for Venezuela’s neighbors?

    And what if there is no military invasion but still stronger sanctions on Venezuela that creates even more economic refugees, what’s the US response to that going to be? Well, according to the following article, the top Pentagon commander for Latin America and the Caribbean currently envisions no role in providing direct humanitarian assistance to countries taking in fleeing Venezuelans:

    Bloomberg

    U.S. Military Doesn’t See Role Stemming Venezuelan Refugee Flow

    By Anthony Capaccio
    June 7, 2018, 12:20 PM CDT

    The top Pentagon commander for Latin America and the Caribbean said he sees no role for the U.S. military in providing direct humanitarian assistance to countries being inundated with Venezuelans fleeing a collapsing economy under President Nicolas Maduro.

    “There really is not,” Admiral Kurt Tidd, the head of U.S. Southern Command, told Bloomberg News on Thursday after a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington. “Our role is to listen to” and “partner with” the neighboring countries “to understand what their challenges are and how they are dealing” with the crisis.

    Disaster response exercises Southcom regularly conducts with regional allies “all play a contributory role to help them build their capacity to deal with any kind of humanitarian crisis” but ultimately the Venezuela situation “is going to require a diplomatic solution” Tidd added.

    Until then, the flow of refugees will likely continue, Tidd said. “Desperate people will continue to leave to try and make money in other places that they can send back” home.

    Hyperinflation

    Venezuelans have fled their homeland to escape crushing hyperinflation, a shrinking economy and a shortage of basic goods and food. Maduro, who succeeded his political mentor Hugo Chavez in 2013, has frequently blamed the U.S. for sparking the economic crisis and raises the specter of a U.S.-backed coup in public pronouncements. Maduro won election to another six-year term last month in a vote that was widely criticized and boycotted by the opposition.

    The U.S. has seen “probably at least a million Venezuelans” crossing the border to Colombia, Tidd said at the breakfast. “We’ve seen tens of thousands in Peru. We’ve seen tens of thousands down in Brazil and it’s having an enormous impact on those countries’s ability to care for them.”

    ———-

    “U.S. Military Doesn’t See Role Stemming Venezuelan Refugee Flow” by Anthony Capaccio; Bloomberg; 06/07/2018

    “The top Pentagon commander for Latin America and the Caribbean said he sees no role for the U.S. military in providing direct humanitarian assistance to countries being inundated with Venezuelans fleeing a collapsing economy under President Nicolas Maduro.”

    So, currently, the Pentagon doesn’t envision any direct role for the US military in providing humanitarian assistance for the all of the countries currently receiving thousands of Venezuelan refugees a day. And as the Pentagon commander put it, ultimately the Venezuela situation “is going to require a diplomatic solution”:


    “There really is not,” Admiral Kurt Tidd, the head of U.S. Southern Command, told Bloomberg News on Thursday after a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington. “Our role is to listen to” and “partner with” the neighboring countries “to understand what their challenges are and how they are dealing” with the crisis.

    Disaster response exercises Southcom regularly conducts with regional allies “all play a contributory role to help them build their capacity to deal with any kind of humanitarian crisis” but ultimately the Venezuela situation “is going to require a diplomatic solution” Tidd added.

    Until then, the flow of refugees will likely continue, Tidd said. “Desperate people will continue to leave to try and make money in other places that they can send back” home.

    So we have the top Pentagon commander for Latin America saying the US has no plans to directly assist with a growing South American refugee crisis while reiterating that a diplomatic solution is required for Venezuela. At the same that the White House, led by a president with an open desire for a war with Venezuela, elevates war hawks like John Bolton to positions of high influence.

    All in all, it there’s no shortage of reason why the Venezuelan refugee situation could get a lot worse. And while some of those refugees will presumably flee to the US, the vast majority of them are probably going to end up remaining in South America and is inevitably going to impact South American politics. What kind of political impact will that be? We’ll see, but it’s probably not going to be a positive impact…

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 12, 2018, 2:46 pm

Post a comment