Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
RealAu­dio

This broad­cast presents the events in and around 9/11 as a con­tin­u­a­tion of a geopo­lit­i­cal strug­gle between the Under­ground Reich and the United States. With recent events under­scor­ing the rapid growth of post-Cold War fric­tion between the US and West­ern Europe, this broad­cast ana­lyzes the con­flict in the con­text of the the­o­ries of sev­eral promi­nent polit­i­cal intel­lec­tu­als. Of cen­tral impor­tance are the for­mu­la­tions of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz, Ger­man econ­o­mist Friedrich List, and Ger­man “geopoliti­cian” Karl Haushofer—all have strongly influ­enced the cur­rent devel­op­ment of events. Von Clause­witz noted that: ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­macy by other means.’ The con­verse of that state­ment is also true (‘. . .a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by other means.’) Friedrich List posited the idea of German-dominated cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union as a vehi­cle for estab­lish­ing Ger­man eco­nomic and impe­r­ial supe­ri­or­ity to Britain, Germany’s top geopo­lit­i­cal rival. Karl Haushofer (a key influ­ence on a num­ber of impor­tant Hitler aides) devel­oped the con­cept of Ger­man alle­giance with “the Col­ored Peo­ples” of the colo­nial world as a fur­ther vehi­cle for secur­ing Ger­man eco­nomic and polit­i­cal con­trol. These thinkers’ applied (and com­bined) the­o­ries are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the theme pre­sented here.

Another major ele­ment of the dis­cus­sion is the fur­ther analy­sis of “the Bat­tle of Men­with Hill,” the con­flict between the U.S. and Britain on the one side and Ger­many and the EU on the other over the Men­with Hill elec­tronic intel­li­gence facil­ity and related ECHELON net­work. Bin Laden’s aware­ness of US intel­li­gence sig­nals intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties was cen­tral to his escape from Afghanistan. The broad­cast also presents fur­ther scrutiny of the Ger­man role in 9/11.

A cen­tral ele­ment of the pro­gram con­cerns the use of Islam­o­fas­cist and sec­u­lar Arabo/fascist ele­ments in the Mid­dle East as “proxy war­riors,” car­ry­ing out the designs of the Under­ground Reich (in many cases unknow­ingly.) The PLO, Iraq, Al Qaeda and related ele­ments are essen­tial to the Under­ground Reich’s efforts at the destruc­tion and/or sub­ju­ga­tion of the United States.

Much of the broad­cast deals with the applied con­cept of the “vir­tual state.” The “vir­tual state”—a state with­out for­mal geographical/legal bor­ders as such—is exem­pli­fied by both Al Qaeda and the Bor­mann Organization/Underground Reich. This pro­gram under­scores the “poly-ethnic” nature of the Under­ground Reich by high­light­ing the fas­cist her­itage of key ele­ments of the Hindu Nation­al­ist move­ment that is cur­rently gain­ing influ­ence in Indian pol­i­tics. An asso­ciate of this fas­cist ele­ment within the Hindu Nation­al­ist move­ment assas­si­nated Mahatma Gandhi. At the same time that the Under­ground Reich is present in the fas­cist pres­ence in the Hindu Nation­al­ist forces, it is vitally rep­re­sented in the Islam­o­fas­cist move­ment in Pak­istan, India’s mor­tal enemy.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: analy­sis of the Franco/German revi­sions to the gov­ern­ing struc­ture of the EU; the sig­nif­i­cance of Ger­man con­trol of French cor­po­ra­tions; the pro-Palestinian activism and appar­ent anti-Semitism of the wife of the pres­i­dent of the ECB; the geopo­lit­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the Iraqi and Israeli/Pakistani con­flicts for the deep­en­ing fric­tion between the US and the EU; a ter­ri­fy­ing pre­sen­ta­tion of the pre­car­i­ous eco­nom­ics of the cur­rent US world polit­i­cal stance.

1. The dis­cus­sion begins by touch­ing on a cen­tral premise of the think­ing of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz. Von Clause­witz noted that: ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­macy by other means.’ The con­verse of that state­ment is also true (‘. . .a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by other means.’) In order to under­stand how the events of 9/11 fit into the par­a­digm, it is impor­tant to com­pre­hend the fact that the Under­ground Reich’s geopo­lit­i­cal thinkers have a deep under­stand­ing of the con­ti­nu­ity of wars and postwars.

“The end of bat­tle in 1945 had sin­gled the start of a new kind of war-a post-war. Germany’s clas­si­cal mil­i­tary the­o­rist, Von Clause­witz, is famous for hav­ing declared that ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­macy by other means.’ In deal­ing with a Ger­many which had gone to school with Von Clause­witz for gen­er­a­tions, we knew that, con­versely, a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by other means. Since Bis­marck, wars and post-wars have formed a con­tin­u­ous series, chang­ing the qual­ity of the events only slightly from year to year, with no such thing as a clear dis­tinc­tion between heat of bat­tle and calm of peace.”

(All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; p. 235.)

2. Friedrich List is another of the the­o­reti­cians whose ideas are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the geopo­lit­i­cal con­test between the Under­ground Reich and “Anglo-Saxonia” (the United States and Britain.) List posited the idea of German-dominated cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union as a vehi­cle for estab­lish­ing Ger­man eco­nomic and impe­r­ial supe­ri­or­ity to Britain, Germany’s top geopo­lit­i­cal rival. List’s for­mu­la­tions are the basis for the German-dominated Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union. List under­stood that eco­nomic con­trol led auto­mat­i­cally to polit­i­cal con­trol. That aware­ness is cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the oper­a­tions of the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion.

“Many of the major ele­ments of eco­nomic impe­ri­al­ism were enun­ci­ated in the 1840’s by the ubiq­ui­tous Friedrich List. List argued that over­seas colonies were needed to sup­ple­ment his favorite scheme for eco­nomic devel­op­ment: a cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union. He fore­saw an eco­nomic orga­ni­za­tion with an indus­tri­al­ized Ger­many as its cen­ter and a periph­ery of other cen­tral and east­ern Euro­pean states that would sup­ply food and raw mate­ri­als for Ger­man indus­try and would pur­chase Ger­man indus­trial prod­ucts. A semi­au­tar­kic struc­ture would thus be cre­ated; it would have the advan­tage of per­mit­ting con­trol, or even exclu­sion, of British com­pe­ti­tion, thus allow­ing cen­tral Europe to indus­tri­al­ize suc­cess­fully in an orderly, planned manner.”

(The Ide­o­log­i­cal Ori­gins of Nazi Impe­ri­al­ism; by Woodruff D. Smith; Copy­right 1986 [SC]; Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press; ISBN 0–19-504741–9 (PBK); p. 30.)

3. Karl Haushofer (a key influ­ence on a num­ber of impor­tant Hitler aides) devel­oped the con­cept of Ger­man alle­giance with “the Col­ored Peo­ples” of the colo­nial world as a fur­ther vehi­cle for secur­ing Ger­man eco­nomic and polit­i­cal control.

“In its strug­gle to break British dom­i­nance, Ger­man mil­i­tary intel­li­gence also looked to nation­al­ist inde­pen­dence move­ments in the Mid­dle East, Asia, and Ire­land. After World War I, Haushofer con­tin­ued to sup­port these anti-British groups. In the 1930’s, Indian nation­al­ist leader Sub­has Chan­dra Bose [whose Indian national Army later received mil­i­tary sup­port in World War II from both Ger­many and Japan] was a cor­re­spon­dent for the Zeitschrift fur Geopoli­tik. [Haushofer’s pub­li­ca­tion.] . . . In July 1942, for­eign pol­icy expert Hans Weigert pro­filed Haushofer’s ‘Eurasian lib­er­a­tion front’ poli­cies in For­eign Affairs. Weigert pointed that Haushofer actu­ally wel­comed ‘the rise of the col­ored world,’ even writ­ing that ‘the strug­gle of India and China for lib­er­a­tion from for­eign dom­i­na­tion and cap­i­tal­ist pres­sure agrees with the secret dreams of Cen­tral Europe.’”

(Dreamer of the Day: Fran­cis Parker Yockey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tional; by Kevin Coogan; Autono­me­dia Inc.; Copy­right 1999 [SC]; ISBN 1–57027-039–2; pp. 68–69.)

4. Putting Haushofer’s the­o­ries into prac­tice, the Under­ground Reich has uti­lized the “col­ored world” in the real­iza­tion of its polit­i­cal agenda-the sub­ju­ga­tion of the United States, in par­tic­u­lar. This pro­gram under­scores the “poly-ethnic” nature of the Under­ground Reich by high­light­ing the fas­cist her­itage of key ele­ments of the Hindhu Nation­al­ist move­ment cur­rently gain­ing increas­ing influ­ence in Indian pol­i­tics. An asso­ciate of this fas­cist ele­ment within the Hindhu Nation­al­ist move­ment assas­si­nated Mahatma Gandhi. At the same time that the Under­ground Reich is present in the fas­cist pres­ence in the Hindhu Nation­al­ist forces, it is vitally rep­re­sented in the Islam­o­fas­cist move­ment in India’s mor­tal oppo­nent, Pak­istan. The dis­cus­sion focuses on the RSS-a key Hindhu Nation­al­ist organization.

“Dur­ing the 1940’s the RSS’s new leader, Mad­hev Gol­walkar, fol­low­ing the death of [RSS founder Keshav Bali­ram] Hedge­war, sym­pa­thized both with Ger­man Nazism and Ital­ian fas­cism. In 1939, Gol­walkar said: ‘Ger­man race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its cul­ture, Ger­many shocked the world by her purg­ing the coun­try of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its high­est has been man­i­fest here. Ger­many has shown how well nigh impos­si­ble it is for Races and cul­tures, hav­ing dif­fer­ences going to the root, to be assim­i­lated into one united whole, a good les­son for in Hin­dusthan to learn and profit by.’ (Gol­walker [1939] in We, or Our Nation­hood, Defined.’”

(“Hindu Fun­da­men­tal­ism: Why We Are Con­cerned” by Paul Crofts and Anjona Roy; Search­light Mag­a­zine; January/2003 [#331]; p. 20.)

5. “There has been no explicit and uncon­di­tional dis­avowal of nazi-like doc­trines by the RSS/HSS or a repu­di­a­tion of Golwalker’s ideas. Indeed, Gol­walkar is held up as an exam­ple and spir­i­tual leader for young RSS/HSS Swayam­se­vaks (mem­bers) and affec­tion­ately referred to as ‘Guruji.’”

(Idem.)

6. “Fol­low­ing Mahatma Gahdhi’s assas­si­na­tion by a for­mer RSS mem­ber, Nathu­ram Godse, the RSS was banned by the Indian gov­ern­ment from 1948 to 1949. After the ban was reversed the RSS, while claim­ing to devote itself solely to cul­tural activ­i­ties, cre­ated sev­eral off­shoot orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), or World Hindu Coun­cil, in 1964, the Jana Sangh polit­i­cal party in 1951, which was the pre­cur­sor to the cur­rent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and numer­ous other organizations.”

(Idem.)

7. Numer­ous pro­grams have focused on the Islam­o­fas­cist Al Taqwa milieu. We have exam­ined the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of a Saudi national who sits on the board of direc­tors of the DMI. In con­sid­er­ing the Islam­o­fas­cist Al Taqwa net­work, it is impor­tant to bear in mind its pro­found links to Saudi Ara­bia and the Bush administration’s links to the Saudis. The Bush fam­ily, in turn, has strong his­tor­i­cal con­nec­tions to the Third Reich. The “poly-ethnicity” of the Under­ground Reich is evi­dent on both sides of the US con­flict with the Islamofascists.

“In 1981, in the back­rooms dur­ing the Islamic sum­mit in Taef, Mohammed Bin Fay­cal al-Saud, brother of Prince Turki’s brother, brought together major investors from Saudi Ara­bia and the United Arab Emi­rates to cre­ate a pri­vate Islamic bank, Dar al-Mal al-Islami. DMI, the ‘Islamic finan­cial house,’ shares a head­quar­ters in the Bahamas with the bank of the Mus­lim Broth­ers [Al Taqwa].”

(Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The United States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algora Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 240.)

8. The Saudi-based DMI is a prin­ci­pal share­holder in Al Taqwa.

“Dar al-Mal al-Islami (DMI) is an invest­ment con­sor­tium made up of var­i­ous eco­nomic and finan­cial insti­tu­tions like Faysal Finance, the Islamic Invest­ment Com­pany of the Gulf, etc. Based in Geneva, DMI had sub­sidiaries in ten coun­tries (Bahrain, Pak­istan, Turkey, Den­mark, Guinea, Sene­gal, Niger and Lux­em­bourg). The King Faysal Foun­da­tion of Riyadh fig­ures among the prin­ci­pal share­hold­ers. Cre­ated by the heirs to the late King of Ara­bia, this foun­da­tion is known for its many schools, Islamic arts cen­ters and mosques. DMI is also one of the prin­ci­pal share­hold­ers of Bank Al Taqwa Lim­ited, the Mus­lim Broth­ers of Egypt’s bank, which also plays a cen­tral place in financ­ing many Islamist organizations.”

(Idem.)

9. Germany’s strange behav­ior in con­nec­tion with 9/11 exem­pli­fies the con­tem­po­rary appli­ca­tion of Haushofer’s the­o­ries on uti­liz­ing “the col­ored peo­ples” of the world as vehi­cles for conquest-with the United States being the main tar­get of this “proxy war.” Sup­ple­ment­ing dis­cus­sion of a topic pre­sented in FTR#395, the pro­gram presents more infor­ma­tion about the Ger­man phys­i­cal sur­veil­lance of the 9/11 cell that launched the attacks. Moham­mad Zam­mar (a Syr­ian national) was a key per­son­age mon­i­tored by Ger­man intel­li­gence officials.

“The inves­ti­ga­tors watched him [Zam­mar] closely, obtain­ing war­rants to tap his phone and fol­low him, accord­ing to Ger­man intel­li­gence doc­u­ments. On Aug. 29, 1998, for exam­ple, inves­ti­ga­tors noted that Mr. Zam­mar attended a meet­ing on Buntaweite Street in Ham­burg. Also present: Mr. Motas­sadeq and Said Bahaji, who fled Ger­many just before the Sept. 11 attacks and remains at large.”

(“Pre-9/11, Ger­many Had al Qaeda Cell In Sights for Years” by David Craw­ford and Ian John­son; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 1/17/2003; p. A6)

10. The Ger­man fail­ure to thwart the 9/11 attacks is all the more inter­est­ing in light of the fact that Mr. Zammar’s activ­i­ties were of an obvi­ously unsa­vory nature.

“Two months after that meet­ing, author­i­ties had another clue that Mr. Zam­mar had links to dan­ger­ous peo­ple. Accord­ing to Ger­man intel­li­gence doc­u­ments, his name, address and two of his phone num­bers were dis­cov­ered in a raid by Ital­ian police on an apart­ment used by mem­bers of Jihad Islami in Turin. The Ital­ian police arrested three men and found an Uzi sub­ma­chine gun, hand­guns, ammu­ni­tion, wigs, false beards and Mr. Zammar’s con­tact infor­ma­tion. By then, Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors had begun another oper­a­tion that would lead them to some of the Ham­burg cell mem­bers. Action on a U.S. war­rant, police arrested a Sudanese busi­ness­man, Mam­douh Mah­mud Salim. The charge was that he was one of al Qaeda’s chief financiers.”

(Idem.)

11. “Ger­man police noted that Mr. Salim had reg­u­lar ties to Ger­many; it was his fifth trip in three years. He reg­u­larly met with Mamoun Dark­azanli, a Hamburg-based trader who ran an import-export com­pany. Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors were skep­ti­cal that Mr. Salim was much of a threat, but under pres­sure from the U.S., they extra­dited him to New York, accord­ing to inves­ti­ga­tors. And they put Mr. Dark­azanli under observation.”

(Idem.)

12. “They soon noticed that Mr. Dark­azanli had reg­u­lar con­tact with a fel­low Syr­ian immi­grant: Mr. Zam­mar. They also found that both men, as well as Messrs. Motas­sadeq and Bahaji, paid reg­u­lar calls to a cer­tain apart­ment on Marien­strasse in Ham­burg. Occu­py­ing that apart­ment was Mr. Atta, later the pilot of one of the planes that struck the World trade Center. . .”

(Idem.)

13. In eval­u­at­ing the behav­ior of the Ger­man author­i­ties under the cir­cum­stances, one should remem­ber that all res­i­dents of Ger­many are required to reg­is­ter with the police. The lax­ity of Ger­man intel­li­gence with regard to the 54 Marien­strasse cell is all the more sus­pi­cious in light of this fact.

“On another occa­sion a man named ‘Mar­wan’ called. Mr. Zam­mar, who urged him to visit him in Ham­burg as soon as pos­si­ble. ‘Mar­wan’ later moved back to Ham­burg. Inves­ti­ga­tors have said that they didn’t know who all the men dis­cussed in the phone calls were. But Ger­man res­i­dents must reg­is­ter with police where they live. A check of some of the addresses Mr. Zam­mar called could have revealed, for exam­ple, that ‘Mar­wan’ was Mar­wan al-Shehi, later a room­mate of Mr. Atta and the pilot of the other plane that hit the World Trade Center. . .”

(Idem.)

14. Taken in con­junc­tion with their fail­ure to suc­cess­fully inter­dict the 9/11 attacks, the Ger­man attempt to deflect respon­si­bil­ity to US intel­li­gence is more than a lit­tle inter­est­ing under the cir­cum­stances. It is par­tic­u­larly impor­tant to note that US intel­li­gence was pres­sur­ing the Ger­mans to do more with the field intel­li­gence infor­ma­tion high­lighted above.

“The Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency was aware of at least part of the Ger­man efforts, accord­ing to Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors. They say that in Decem­ber 1999, the CIA assigned a case offi­cer to the U.S. con­sulate in Ham­burg. The agent tried to push his Ger­man coun­ter­parts to take stronger action against Mr. Dark­azanli, accord­ing to a Ger­man intel­li­gence offi­cer. When the Ger­mans replied that they hadn’t been able to find any crim­i­nal activ­i­ties, the agent sug­gested turn­ing him into a double-agent. Skep­ti­cal, the Ger­mans approached Mr. Dark­azanli but were rebuffed. Mr. Dark­azanli, who remains free in Ham­burg, declined to com­ment. Accord­ing to Ger­man inves­ti­ga­tors, the CIA offi­cer then turned to the Fed­eral Office for Pro­tec­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion, which was con­duct­ing Oper­a­tion Ten­der­ness. It couldn’t be estab­lished whether he learned about the oper­a­tion. The CIA had no comment.”

(Idem.)

15. Sup­ple­ment­ing dis­cus­sion of “the Bat­tle of Men­with Hill” the pro­gram notes that Osama bin Laden’s aware­ness of US sig­nals intel­li­gence capa­bil­i­ties fig­ured promi­nently in his escape from Tora Bora. Is there a con­nec­tion between the begin­ning of the German/EU attack on the Men­with Hill sta­tion and bin Laden’s aban­don­ment of satel­lite phone tech­nol­ogy to com­mu­ni­cate with his lieutenants?

“With U.S. forces clos­ing in on him, Osama bin Laden deceived U.S. spy tech­nol­ogy and van­ished into the moun­tains that led to Pak­istan in late 2001, accord­ing to senior Moroc­can offi­cials. A Moroc­can who was one of bin Laden’s long­time body­guards took pos­ses­sion of the al Qaeda leader’s satel­lite phone on the assump­tion that U.S. intel­li­gence agen­cies were mon­i­tor­ing it to get a fix on their posi­tion, said the offi­cials, who have inter­viewed the body­guard, Abdal­lah Tabrak.”

(“Guard’s Phone Ploy Helped bin Laden Flee, Moroc­cans Say” by Peter Finn [Wash­ing­ton Post]; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 1/21/2003; p. A5.)

16. “Tabarak moved away from bin Laden and his entourage as they fled. He con­tin­ued to use the phone in an effort to divert the Amer­i­cans and allow bin Laden to escape. Tabarak ws cap­tured in the Tora Bora moun­tains in pos­ses­sion of the phone, offi­cials said. ‘He agreed to be cap­tured or die,’ a Moroc­can offi­cial said of Tabarak. ‘That’s the level of his fanat­acism for bin Laden. It wasn’t a lot of time, but it was enough.”

(Idem.)

17. With the US and Britain (“Anglo-Saxonia”) ranged against a renewed Franco-German axis within the EU, the pro­gram notes a Ger­man ini­tia­tive to max­i­mize its con­trol over Europe.

“Denis Mac­Shane, Britain’s Europe min­is­ter, has accused Ger­many of want­ing to appoint an all-powerful ‘kaiser’ at the top of the Euro­pean com­mis­sion and warned Ger­hard Schroder, Germany’s chan­cel­lor, that the Eng­lish decap­i­tated such a fig­ure 350 years ago. In an inter­view with the Finan­cial Times, Mr. Mac­Shane dis­missed sug­ges­tions that Britain might lose influ­ence in Europe to a renascent Franco-German axis.”

(“UK Attacks Ger­man Plans for ‘Kaiser” to Lead Europe” by Christo­pher Adams and James Blitz; Finan­cial Times; 1/2/2003; p. 2.)

18. “He attacked the Ger­man pro­pos­als for a stronger head of the Com­mis­sion, argu­ing that they would side­line national gov­ern­ments and their lead­er­ship. One idea being touted by a Joschka Fis­cher, Germany’s for­eign min­is­ter, is for a sin­gle per­son to be pres­i­dent of both the Com­mis­sion and the Euro­pean Coun­cil, the body rep­re­sent­ing mem­ber states.”

(Idem.)

19. “At December’s Euro­pean Union sum­mit, France backed Britain by sup­port­ing alter­na­tive pro­pos­als for the appoint­ment of a new EU pres­i­dent to lead the Euro­pean Coun­cil. Mr. Mac­Shane said: ‘I was very struck at Copen­hagen by how France com­pletely lined up with Blair on the neces­sity for an elected chair­man for the Euro­pean coun­cil of min­is­ters, whereas the Ger­man posi­tion is for giv­ing all power to a new kind of Euro­pean kaiser, a Com­mis­sion pres­i­dent who will tell all the other Euro­pean insti­tu­tions what to do. ‘I had long dis­cus­sions with Ger­hard Schroder on this and I explained that 350 years ago we sep­a­rated a king’s head from his body because we didn’t want to take orders from one individual.’”

(Idem.)

20. A col­umn by William Safire in The New York Times placed the French endorse­ment of the Ger­man pro­posal for the EU in the con­text of the diver­gence between the US and Ger­many over war in the Mid­dle East. (Recall that “Cor­po­rate France” is con­trolled by “Cor­po­rate Ger­many” and, by exten­sion, the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion and the Under­ground Reich. It is cred­i­ble that the break between the US and its West­ern Euro­pean allies is due to far more than the myopia and stu­pid­ity of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. Those very real and evi­dent short­com­ings are being taken advan­tage of by the Under­ground Reich. Again, the inter­change­abil­ity of war and diplo­macy as for­mu­lated by Von Clause­witz is impor­tant to bear in mind.

” . . . In its [Schroder’s sec­ond tri­umph] wake came the sec­ond Schroder tri­umph, his recent spinaround of Jacques Chirac of France. Chirac had made a deal with the U.S. last fall: we agreed to post­pone the inva­sion of Iraq until after U.N. inspec­tors had been jerked around long enough to sat­isfy the world street’s opin­ion, and in return France would not demand a sec­ond U.N. res­o­lu­tion before allied forces over­threw Saddam. . . ”

(“ ‘Bad Herr Dye’ by William Safire; The New York Times; 1/23/2003; p. A27.)

21. ” . . . Then Schroder, reliant on his mil­i­tantly anti­war Greens, made Chirac an offer he could not refuse to per­ma­nently assert Franco-German dom­i­nance over the 23 other nations of Con­ti­nen­tal Europe. In a stun­ning power play in Brus­sels, Ger­many and France moved to change the prac­tice of hav­ing a rotat­ing pres­i­dency of the Euro­pean coun­cil, which now gives smaller nations influ­ence, to a sys­tem with a long-term pres­i­dent. This Franco-German czar of the Euro­pean Union would dom­i­nate a tooth­less pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, cho­sen by the Euro­pean Parliament.”

(Idem.)

22. “Lit­tle guys of Europe hollered bloody mur­der this week, but will find it hard to resist the Franco-German steam­roller. France then had to repay Schroder by double-crossing the U.S. at the U.N. that explains France’s star­tling threat to veto a new U.N. res­o­lu­tion O.K.‘ing the inva­sion of Iraq-a sec­ond res­o­lu­tion that France had promised Colin Pow­ell would not be needed.”

(Idem.)

23. Another area of diver­gence between the US and Europe con­cerns the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict. In the con­text of the present dis­cus­sion, the Pales­tini­ans are also seen as an Under­ground Reich “proxy force”-working against the US in both mil­i­tary and diplo­matic modes. One should not lose sight, how­ever, of the con­nec­tions between inter­na­tional fas­cism and the Israeli right-wing-the “vir­tual state” of the Under­ground Reich is to be found on BOTH sides of the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict. In addi­tion to the fascist/Third Reich her­itage of Arafat, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that Saudi Ara­bia is the num­ber one finan­cial backer of the PLO, while the German-dominated EU is the pri­mary finan­cial backer of the Pales­tin­ian Author­ity. Exem­pli­fy­ing the diver­gence between the US and Europe with regard to the Palestinian/Israeli con­flict is the pro-Palestinian activism of Gretta Duisen­berg (the wife of Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank pres­i­dent Wim Duisenberg.)

“Here and abroad, some Pales­tini­ans treat Gretta Duisen­berg like a queen. Yas­sir Arafat refers to Ms. Duisen­berg as Her Excel­lency. She is not a queen and her hus­band, Wim Duisen­berg, is not a king or a prince. Mr. Duisen­gerg is pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank-the Euro­pean ver­sion of the Fed­eral Reserve-and the polit­i­cal activism of his wife on behalf of Pales­tin­ian causes has cre­ated a royal prob­lem for him and for their coun­try, the Netherlands.”

(“Pro-Palestinian Wife of Europe’s Banker Upsets the Dutch” by Gre­gory Crouch; The New York Times; 1/9/2003; p. A6.)

24. “The Dutch Min­istry of For­eign Affairs said diplo­matic pass­ports issued to civil ser­vants and their spouses should only be used on offi­cial busi­ness. One Dutch politi­cian has called on the gov­ern­ment to rescind Ms. Duisenberg’s diplo­matic privileges.”

(Idem.)

25. “Ms. Duisen­berg first drew atten­tion last April after she draped a Pales­tin­ian flag over a bal­cony out­side the couple’s Ams­ter­dam home. ‘That came straight from my heart because I wanted to show what my feel­ings were,’ she said. That dis­play in turn led to a rally speech and peti­tions along with con­tri­bu­tions to a pro-Palestinian Web site.”

(Idem.)

26. A remark made by Ms. Duisen­berg about a peti­tion she was cir­cu­lat­ing on behalf of the Pales­tini­ans is more than a lit­tle reveal­ing. It is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine that social jus­tice is the real con­cern of Ms. Duisen­berg, under the circumstances.

“Some Jew­ish groups were out­raged sev­eral months ago after a radio inter­view Ms. Duisen­berg gave. The reporter asked her how many sig­na­tures she intended to col­lect for a pro-Palestinian peti­tion. She paused, laughed and then responded, ‘Six mil­lion?’ [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]”

(Idem.)

27. The use of the Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion of the Mid­dle East as “proxy war­riors” is implicit in the pas­sage that follows.

“It is much eas­ier to appre­ci­ate the evil of Sep­tem­ber 11 than it is to grasp that the US and its civ­i­liza­tion are widely seen in the Mid­dle East as the unique source of all the evils that beset the Islamic world-the exis­tence of Israel, the dis­pos­ses­sion of the Pales­tini­ans, the US mil­i­tary pres­ence in the holy places. As the fount of all evils, the US then becomes the only tar­get that mat­ters. America’s allies may say that they are all tar­gets now. But they hope and believe the in the glob­al­iza­tion of ter­ror­ism as spec­ta­cle, Big Ben, the Eif­fel Tower the Reich­stag or St. Peter’s in Rome will remain just tourist attrac­tions, not mil­i­tary objec­tives, for the assas­sins of al Qaeda. [Empha­sis added.]”

(“The Divided West” by Michel Ignati­eff; Finan­cial Times; 8/31–9/1/2002; p. 4.)

28. Although many ana­lysts have placed the grow­ing divide between the United States and Europe in the con­text of Euro­peans’ pro­gres­sive polit­i­cal atti­tudes, it is worth remem­ber­ing that Euro­pean pol­i­tics are swing­ing right­ward. This right­ward shift is par­tially due to the resent­ment of “immi­grants” from the Mid­dle East-many of them Mus­lim. Exem­pli­fy­ing the suc­cess­ful manip­u­la­tion of the anti-immigrant theme is the Aus­trian Jörg Haider.

“And if Mr. Haider’s party is floun­der­ing oth­ers are not. The Swiss People’s Party led by the busi­ness­man Christoph Blocher, almost won a ref­er­en­dum it had called for, on the issue of ban­ning all except rel­a­tively wealthy asy­lum seek­ers from Switzerland-one of the rich­est coun­tries on earth. . . ”

(“No to Brus­sels, No to Immi­gra­tion: How Rightwing Pop­ulism Entered the Main­stream” by John Lloyd; Finan­cial Times; 11/28/2002; p. 11.)

29. “Else­where in Europe, pop­ulism still surges. The Octo­ber con­fer­ence of the Dan­ish People’s party was an exul­tant affair of a vastly suc­cess­ful group­ing that had risen to become third party in the elec­tions of the pre­vi­ous Novem­ber. Under the ban­ner of Et Frik Dan­mark (A Free Den­mark), it gave the coun­try notice that it would make it free from too much immi­gra­tion, free from too much Europe. . . .”

(Idem.)

30. “. . . Sud­den suc­cess caused the implo­sion of one of the best known of the pop­ulist groups, Pim Fortuyn’s List, which came from nowhere to be the Nether­lands’ sec­ond largest party in May’s elections.”

(Idem.)

31. Umberto Bossi’s North­ern League is a coali­tion part­ner with for­mer P-2 mem­ber Sil­vio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia and the Allianza Nationale of Gian­franco Fini.

“The con­clu­sion, widely drawn, is that power does not become pop­ulists. That may be true-but only in par­tic­u­lar instances. The North­ern League under Umberto Bossi is part of the rul­ing coali­tion in Italy and Mr. Bossi is him­self a min­is­ter, with some influ­ence. More impor­tantly, when the pop­ulists stay out of power but are seen to have iden­ti­fied a pop­u­lar issue, they can be highly influential-as both the DPP and Norway’s Progress Party are.”

(Idem.)

32. This broad­cast con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of the eco­nomic vul­ner­a­bil­ity of Amer­i­can power. It is Mr. Emory’s view that eco­nomic sub­ju­ga­tion of the US is the pri­mary goal of the Under­ground Reich.

” ... The US, unlike the British Empire, is build­ing its rule on a foun­da­tion that is poten­tially quite unsta­ble. The British Empire in its 19th-century hey­day ran enor­mous cur­rent account sur­pluses (7 per cent of gross domes­tic prod­uct on the eve of the First World War). For more than 20 years, in the period of its cold war vic­tory and of the con­ver­sion of the world to a new con­sen­sus about mar­kets, the US has had quite large cur­rent account deficits. In 2001, the deficit was 4.2 per cent of GDP.”

(“Lessons to Learn from the Decline and Fall of Empire” by Harold James; Finan­cial Times; 12/30/2002; p. 11.)

33. “One way of read­ing this odd situation-which is pop­u­lar with many Americans-is that the rest of the world has bought into US sta­bil­ity. The deficits are financed by cap­i­tal inflows, as the non-American world buys the stock of fast-growing US com­pa­nies or –when the stock mar­ket looks bad, property . . . ”

(“Idem.)

34. ” . . .But nobody thinks that this kind of inflow can be sus­tained indef­i­nitely. The inflows of for­eign cap­i­tal could be rapidly reversed on some chance piece of bad news. Such a rever­sal would involve a col­lapse of the US stock mar­ket, the prop­erty mar­ket and the dol­lar. US con­sumers would no longer be able to binge on cheap goods sup­plied by the rest of the world. Amer­i­can pro­duc­ers would try to pro­tect their mar­kets; for­eign pro­duc­ers would be thrown out of busi­ness and no longer see any gains to be real­ized by peace­ful inte­gra­tion in a benign world economy.”

(Idem.)

35. “The finan­cial rever­sal would also bring the col­lapse of the US secu­rity pol­icy and of its cal­cu­lated strat­egy of world paci­fi­ca­tion. The cost of US defense spend­ing would look much too high and scal­ing it down would give a chance to would-be rivals, at least on a regional basis-China, for example.”

(Idem.)

36. Ref­er­ence is made to Edward Gibbon’s his­tory of the fall of Rome.

“The Amer­i­can case would then look more like that of Spain (which also ran a cur­rent account deficit, financed by the out­flow of pre­cious met­als from its impe­r­ial pos­ses­sions) than that of 19th-century Britain. And Gibbon’s story of decline would begin.”

(Idem.)