- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #346 Pearl Harbor Meets the Reichstag Fire, Part III: Nation Building by the Underground Reich

Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 [1] | Side 2 [2]
RealAu­dio

It is impor­tant to note that the dis­tinc­tion between the domes­tic and for­eign pol­i­cy impli­ca­tions of the inci­dents is, to a con­sid­er­able extent, aca­d­e­m­ic. The attacks, seen from a military/foreign pol­i­cy stand­point, are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with their domes­tic impact. As the title of the broad­cast indi­cates, the attacks can be accu­rate­ly con­sid­ered as a sneak attack by a for­eign power—the Under­ground Reich—and its Fifth Col­umn in the Unit­ed States nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. The 9/11/2001 attacks can also be viewed as pro­mot­ing the domes­tic polit­i­cal and police pow­ers of the seat­ed polit­i­cal inter­ests. The fact that they were fol­lowed by the pas­sage of sweep­ing law enforce­ment and intel­li­gence pro­vi­sions which may be used to abridge the con­sti­tu­tion­al free­doms of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens and to sti­fle legit­i­mate polit­i­cal dis­sent is not to be over­looked. The fun­da­men­tal the­sis here is that, in addi­tion to being an attack on the Unit­ed States by the Under­ground Reich, the Sep­tem­ber 11 assaults con­sti­tute “nation build­ing” in this coun­try by the Bor­mann group. Cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence sug­gests that the Bush fam­i­ly may well be the Amer­i­can “point ele­ment” for that remark­able and dead­ly orga­ni­za­tion.

1. This pro­gram begins with back­ground dis­cus­sion of “nation-build­ing” in the Unit­ed States by ele­ments asso­ci­at­ed with the Under­ground Reich. The Bush fam­i­ly’s his­to­ry is inex­tri­ca­bly linked with that of the Third Reich. W’s great grand­fa­ther (George Her­bert Walk­er) was one of Hitler’s ear­li­est finan­cial back­ers. Walk­er (whose last name is the Pres­i­den­t’s mid­dle name) brought his son-in-law, Prescott Bush Sr., into his Nazi-linked busi­ness­es. The pro­gram reviews the role of Sul­li­van & Cromwell attor­ney Allen Dulles in attempt­ing to mask the Bush fam­i­ly’s Nazi assets, as well as high­light­ing the con­fis­ca­tion of sev­er­al of those com­pa­nies by the Alien Prop­er­ty Cus­to­di­an dur­ing World War II. (The Secret War Against the Jews: How West­ern Espi­onage Betrayed the Jew­ish Peo­ple; John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons; Copy­right 1994 [HC]; St. Mar­t­in’s Press; ISBN 0–312-11057‑X; pp. 360–61.)

2. It should be not­ed that the post­war liq­ui­da­tion of the Union Bank­ing Cor­po­ra­tion (one of the Bush Nazi-linked busi­ness­es) pro­vid­ed much of the cap­i­tal foun­da­tion for the Bush fam­i­ly’s post­war eco­nom­ic endeav­ors. Anoth­er (the Ham­burg-Ameri­ka line) became a key ele­ment of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion. The eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal com­po­nent of a Third Reich gone under­ground, the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion con­trols cor­po­rate Ger­many and much of the rest of the world. Cre­at­ed and run by Mar­tin Bor­mann, the orga­ni­za­tion­al genius who was the “the pow­er behind the throne” in Nazi Ger­many, the Bor­mann group is a pri­ma­ry ele­ment of the analy­sis pre­sent­ed in the For the Record pro­grams.

3. Next, the pro­gram reviews Allen Dulles’ piv­otal role in help­ing to boost Ibn Saud to the throne of Sau­di Ara­bia, and their mutu­al con­nec­tion to British fas­cist Jack Phil­by and the Third Reich. (Ibid.; p. 21.)

4. Dulles, in turn, uti­lized his polit­i­cal pro­tégé Richard Nixon to help import Nazis and Third Reich col­lab­o­ra­tors into the Unit­ed States to counter what the Repub­li­cans felt was exces­sive “Jew­ish influ­ence” in the Amer­i­can elec­torate. (Ibid.; p. 122.)

5. The prin­ci­pal spokesper­son for this oper­a­tion (the Cru­sade For Free­dom) was Ronald Rea­gan and the offi­cial prin­ci­pal­ly involved in arrang­ing for the fas­cists to emi­grate to the U.S. was William Casey, cam­paign man­ag­er for the Reagan/Bush cam­paign in 1980 and Rea­gan’s CIA direc­tor. (Ibid.; p. 605.)

6. A major ele­ment in the Cru­sade For Free­dom was the reset­tle­ment of an entire SS intel­li­gence unit (the Vorkom­man­do Moskau) in the New York/New Jer­sey area to coun­ter­act “Jew­ish influ­ence” in that region. (Ibid.; p. 496.)

7. When Nixon became pres­i­dent, the Nazi émi­grés were per­ma­nent­ly incor­po­rat­ed into the Repub­li­can Par­ty. The chair­man of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee who over­saw this incor­po­ra­tion was the elder George Bush. (Ibid.; pp. 369–71.)

8. Turn­ing to the present, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that most of the Al-Que­da pris­on­ers in Cuba are Sau­di nation­als. (“Detainees Are Most­ly Saud­is” by Carl Nolte; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 1/19/2002; pp. A1-A10.) Despite this fact and the Sau­di nation­al­i­ty of 15 of 19 hijack­ers, Bush did not name Sau­di Ara­bia as part of the “axis of evil.”

9. The pro­gram sup­ple­ments pre­vi­ous dis­cus­sion about the Sau­di involve­ment with Al Que­da, high­light­ing the analy­sis of one U.S. diplo­mat that the Unit­ed States had, in effect, become the hired mer­ce­nar­ies of the Saud­is. (“Annals of Nation­al Secu­ri­ty: King’s Ran­som” by Sey­mour Hersh; The New York­er; 10/22/2001.) [3]

10. Next, the pro­gram reviews an ele­ment of dis­cus­sion from past broad­casts: the World Mus­lim Con­gress (WMC). (The Beast Reawak­ens; Mar­tin A. Lee; Copy­right 1997 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; ISBN 0–316-51959–6; pp. 225–226.) A key play­er in the Afghan war against the Sovi­ets, this orga­ni­za­tion embraces the con­ver­gence of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Sau­di gov­ern­ment and roy­al fam­i­ly, Amer­i­can neo-Nazis and ele­ments of U.S. intel­li­gence. (Idem.)

11. The mil­i­tary buildup being request­ed by Bush is pro­ject­ed as rival­ing that req­ui­si­tioned by Rea­gan. (“Bush Wants $120 Bil­lion Bud­get Boost for Pen­ta­gon” by James Dao [New York Times]; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 2/2/2002; p. A11.) It should be empha­sized that in com­bi­na­tion with Bush’s tax cuts, sched­uled to take effect incre­men­tal­ly over the next sev­er­al years, the mil­i­tary buildup will reca­pit­u­late the enor­mous deficit spend­ing of the Rea­gan /Bush admin­is­tra­tions. These deficits, in com­bi­na­tion with the real­iza­tion of the Euro, will do immense dam­age to the Unit­ed States. (The enor­mous debt incurred by the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tions and the first Bush admin­is­tra­tion was man­aged by bor­row­ing against the dol­lars held as reserve cur­ren­cy. In addi­tion to being (prob­a­bly) a weak cur­ren­cy, there­by mak­ing U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing exports rel­a­tive­ly expen­sive for Euro­peans to buy, the Euro will erode the dol­lar’s sta­tus as a reserve cur­ren­cy. One should not lose sight of the fact that Bin Laden called for his fol­low­ers to attack Amer­i­ca’s eco­nom­ic strength. It is Mr. Emory’s belief that Bin Laden and the Bush admin­is­tra­tion are con­trolled by the Under­ground Reich. Bush’s fis­cal pol­i­cy will do enor­mous dam­age to the Unit­ed States. In the short run, the Bush defense pro­gram (like that of Rea­gan) will con­sti­tute a sort of “mil­i­tary Key­ne­sian­ism.” (Remem­ber that Rea­gan’s mil­i­tary build-up was jus­ti­fied by the Saudi/Bush/CIA con­coct­ing of the pho­ny “oil short­age” of 1979–80.) In the short term, Amer­i­cans will be put to work man­u­fac­tur­ing weapons. The high-tech indus­try of the Sil­i­con Val­ley (Demo­c­rat-friend­ly in recent years) may be put to work mak­ing high-tech anti-ter­ror tech­nol­o­gy. Bush’s pro­posed mis­sile shield will be chan­nel­ing a con­sid­er­able amount of mon­ey (and jobs) to South­ern Cal­i­for­ni­a’s aero­space indus­try. This might be viewed as an ele­ment of domes­tic nation-build­ing, with Cal­i­for­nia hav­ing been a bas­tion of Demo­c­ra­t­ic elec­toral strength in recent years.

12. Next the pro­gram high­lights the extent to which the Bush polit­i­cal agen­da ben­e­fits com­pa­nies con­nect­ed to his fam­i­ly and asso­ciates. A major ben­e­fi­cia­ry of the Bush defense build-up will be the Car­lyle Group, inti­mate­ly con­nect­ed to the Bush fam­i­ly and involv­ing key Sau­di “petrodol­lar” asso­ciates of the Bush milieu, up until recent­ly includ­ing the Bin Ladens. (“Crony Cap­i­tal­ism, U.S.A.” by Paul Krug­man; New York Times; 1/15/2002; p. A23.)

13. In addi­tion to Bush’s defense pol­i­cy, his edu­ca­tion pro­gram may well ben­e­fit his sib­lings and their Sau­di busi­ness asso­ciates. At a recent con­fer­ence in Jed­dah, Sau­di Ara­bia, the Bin Ladens (among oth­ers) expressed anx­i­ety about their U.S. busi­ness ties. Bush’s younger broth­er Neil was using that (in part) Bin Laden-spon­sored con­fer­ence to recruit Sau­di investors for his new edu­ca­tion­al soft­ware com­pa­ny, which fig­ures to be a ben­e­fi­cia­ry of his broth­er’s edu­ca­tion pro­gram. (“Neil Bush’s Sau­di Busi­ness Con­nec­tion” by Michael Isikoff; Newsweek; 2/4/2002; p. 6.)

14. In the con­text of nation-build­ing in the Unit­ed States, the pro­gram exam­ines the bomb­ing of the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 as a dis­cred­i­ta­tion of the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion both at home and abroad. The bomb­ings were designed to inter­dict a rap­proche­ment between the Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ist regime of Sudan and the U.S. (Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 349.)

15. Where­as many African, Mid­dle East­ern and Islam­ic coun­tries con­demned the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion’s assess­ment that the Al Shi­fa phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal plant was con­nect­ed to Al Que­da and being used to man­u­fac­ture chem­i­cal weapons, that was, in fact, the case. (Ibid.; p. 358.)

16. In that con­text, one should remem­ber that Khalid Bin Mah­fouz, whose fam­i­ly is con­nect­ed to the BCCI, the Bush fam­i­ly (through Car­lyle Group and Arbus­to ener­gy, and to Bin Laden milieu, was close­ly con­nect­ed to the own­er of the plant. (Ibid.; pp. 359–60.)

17. In addi­tion to being used to attack Clin­ton abroad at a time when he was fac­ing impeach­ment at home, the attack was attrib­uted by the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood to Clin­ton’s desire to dis­tract from his domes­tic prob­lems stem­ming from the Lewin­sky scan­dal. (Ibid.; p. 367.)

18. Mr. Emory then sum­ma­rizes a cyn­i­cal, Machi­avel­lian rela­tion­ship between the Repub­li­can estab­lish­ment, the Israeli right, and the Pales­tin­ian nego­ti­at­ing team. It is Mr. Emory’s view that this rela­tion­ship was instru­men­tal in desta­bi­liz­ing Clin­ton’s for­eign pol­i­cy and weak­en­ing his domes­tic polit­i­cal con­sen­sus.

19. Cor­rec­tion: Mr. Emory mis­states the dis­pute between Clin­ton and the Repub­li­cans. The Repub­li­cans tried to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yitzhak Rabin and Clin­ton viewed this as inim­i­cal to the peace process, and the leg­is­la­tion passed by the Repub­li­can dom­i­nat­ed Con­gress was vetoed. (Ibid.; p. 167.)

20. The dis­cus­sion con­cludes with an excerpt­ing of a text by James Stew­art Mar­tin, who was in charge of the Eco­nom­ic War­fare Divi­sion of the anti-trust divi­sion of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice dur­ing World War II. Mar­t­in’s task was to inter­dict the Ger­man-Amer­i­can indus­tri­al and finan­cial axis of which the Bush fam­i­ly was an inte­gral part. He was unsuc­cess­ful in doing so. He con­clud­ed the 300 page book he wrote about his expe­ri­ence with a warn­ing about the eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal con­di­tions that made the rise of Hitler pos­si­ble. “The ecopo­lit­i­cal mas­ters of Ger­many boost­ed Hitler and his pro­gram into the dri­ver’s seat at a time when the tide in the polit­i­cal fight between the Nazis and the sup­port­ers of the Weimar Repub­lic was swing­ing against the Nazis. All of the men who mat­tered in bank­ing and indus­tri­al cir­cles could quick­ly agree on one pro­gram and throw their finan­cial weight behind it. Their sup­port won the elec­tion for the Nazis. We must assume that the same thing is not yet true in the Unit­ed States. We do have eco­nom­ic pow­er so con­cen­trat­ed that it would lie in the pow­er of not more than a hun­dred men-if they could agree among them­selves-to throw the same kind of com­bined eco­nom­ic weight behind a sin­gle pro­gram. They have not agreed yet. . . . If the Unit­ed States should run into seri­ous eco­nom­ic dif­fi­cul­ties, how­ev­er, most of the con­di­tions for a re-enact­ment of the Ger­man dra­ma would already exist on the Amer­i­can stage. The slight dif­fer­ences with­in the camp of the fra­ter­ni­ty then may be the only real bar­ri­er to the kind of inte­gra­tion of the finan­cial and indus­tri­al com­mu­ni­ty behind a sin­gle repres­sive pro­gram, like that which the financiers and indus­tri­al­ists of Ger­many exe­cut­ed through Hitler. Are we safe in assum­ing that it would take a grave eco­nom­ic cri­sis to pre­cip­i­tate the dan­gers inher­ent in eco­nom­ic con­cen­tra­tion? The basic inte­gra­tion of the finan­cial and indus­tri­al groups in the Unit­ed States is evi­dent when we look at the increase of con­cen­tra­tion in the past few years.” (All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; p. 295.)

21. A col­umn cit­ed ear­li­er in the pro­gram points that the sit­u­a­tion that Mar­tin warned about is dan­ger­ous­ly present under the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. “It was CBS Mar­ket Watch’s exec­u­tive edi­tor, not some whin­ing polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tor, who warned that ‘a small group of busi­ness lead­ers exert enor­mous clout over Bush and his team in get­ting the rules changed to their ben­e­fit.’ ” (“Crony Cap­i­tal­ism, U.S.A.” by Paul Krug­man; New York Times; 1/15/2002; p. A23.)

22. Again echo­ing James Stew­art Mar­t­in’s warn­ing to the world with a quote from the last para­graph of his 1950 book All Hon­or­able Men: “The moral of this is not that Ger­many is an inevitable men­ace, but that there are forces in our own coun­try which can make Ger­many a men­ace. And, more impor­tant­ly, they could cre­ate a men­ace of their own here at home, not through a delib­er­ate plot to bring about a polit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe but as a calm judg­ment of ‘busi­ness neces­si­ty.’ The men who would do this are not Nazis, but busi­ness­men; not crim­i­nals, but hon­or­able men.” (All Hon­or­able Men; p. 300.)