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

For The Record  

FTR #676 Sedition! (Part 2): Target, America!

MP3: Side 1 | Side 2

For sev­eral years, For The Record has pre­sented infor­ma­tion about efforts to break up larger coun­tries by empow­er­ing the independence/secessionist aspi­ra­tions of var­i­ous regional and eth­nic groups within those states. Included in this analy­sis are the efforts on the part of var­i­ous groups to secede from, and break up, the United States of America.

The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece in the Wall Street Jour­nalcall­ing for the breakup of the United States, seen as “eco­nom­i­cally ben­e­fi­cial” for those par­tic­i­pat­ing in the process! In con­sid­er­a­tion of the above-noted drive for seces­sion from the United States,  the broad­cast reit­er­ates that a bank­rupt United States could, fol­low­ing polit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe such as a ter­ror­ist attack with weapons of mass destruc­tion, disintegrate.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text are the move­ments of the Lakota, the Hawai­ians, the League of the South and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party–the first two cham­pi­oned by the Hapsburg-led UNPO and the lat­ter two strongly con­nected to neo-fascist and white suprema­cist par­ties. (Sarah Palin’s polit­i­cal career appears to be a front for the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party.)

Also worth not­ing is the fact that for­mer Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion func­tionary Christina Luhn is a major pro­po­nent of the dis­so­lu­tion of the United States. As dis­cussed is many pro­grams, the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion was staffed by Helene Von Damm, pro­tege of Otto von Bolschwing, one of Hitler’s top experts on “Jew­ish Mat­ters” and a post­war employee of the CIA.

After review­ing Friedrich List’s eco­nomic blue­print for Ger­man world dom­i­na­tion (for­mu­lated in the 19th cen­tury), the pro­gram reviews the Third Reich’s goals to real­ize List’s design, as well as the post­war Fed­eral Republic’s real­iza­tion of those goals.

The pro­gram con­cludes by com­par­ing the real­ity of the dawn­ing eco­nomic land­scape and the “cor­po­racracy” set forth in the “novel” Serpent’s Walk. Mr. Emory believes that, like The Turner Diaries (also pub­lished by National Van­guard Books), the book is actu­ally a blue­print for what is going to take place. It is a novel about a Nazi takeover of the United States in the mid­dle of the 21st cen­tury. The book describes the Third Reich going under­ground, buy­ing into the Amer­i­can media, and tak­ing over the country.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is the “cor­po­racracy” that the SS envi­sions will enable them to con­trol the world (in this “novel”). It is inter­est­ing to reflect on the poten­tial breakup of the U.S. and other nations large enough to coun­ter­mand the ini­tia­tives of trans-national cor­po­ra­tions. Such resis­tance might be the only poten­tial oppo­si­tion to the “cor­po­racracy” in a world of frag­mented [for­merly large] nation/states.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of links between Holo­caust Museum shooter James Van Brunn’s links to Rea­gan White House offi­cial Todd Blod­gett; review of National Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitaker’s role in vet­ting Rea­gan White House appointees; review of the con­ti­nu­ity between SS busi­ness pro­jec­tions for post­war Ger­many and the role in the Fed­eral Repub­lic played by SS pro­tege Lud­wig Erhard, pic­tured at right.

1. The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece in the Wall Street Jour­nal call­ing for the breakup of the United States! There are a num­ber of things to high­light in the arti­cle. For one thing, do not fail to note that the var­i­ous seces­sion­ist move­ments are those that have linked to those move­ments cham­pi­oned by the UNPO includ­ing the Lakota, (whose ter­ri­to­r­ial claims cover the Bakken for­ma­tion, rich in petro­leum strata) and the native Hawai­ians. Note also that fascist-linked seces­sion­ist ele­ments such as the neo-Confederate League of the South (whose flag is at right) and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Party, for which Sarah Palin runs interference.

Note also that the story high­lights [briefly] poten­tial breakup of China (in which both the Tibetans and the Uighurs are push­ing for inde­pen­dence from the People’s Republic.)

Remem­ber that clas­sic Bea­t­les riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a rev­o­lu­tion?” Imag­ine this instead: a devo­lu­tion. Pic­ture an Amer­ica that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Wash­ing­ton autoc­racy but, in free­wheel­ing style, by an assem­blage of largely autonomous regional republics reflect­ing the eclec­tic eco­nomic and cul­tural char­ac­ter of the society.

There might be an aus­tere Repub­lic of New Eng­land, with a nat­ural strength in higher edu­ca­tion and tech­nol­ogy; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Repub­lic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin Amer­i­can econ­omy; and maybe even a Repub­lic of Las Vegas with unfet­tered license to pur­sue its ambi­tions as a global gam­bling, enter­tain­ment and con­ven­tion­eer des­ti­na­tion. Cal­i­for­nia? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emer­gency fed­eral bailout, but by a mer­ci­ful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own inge­nu­ity in mak­ing their con­nec­tions to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national-economic logic sug­gests a nat­ural mul­ti­lin­gual com­bi­na­tion between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s North­ern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seat­tle and Van­cou­ver in a megare­gion already dubbed “Cas­ca­dia” by eco­nomic cartographers.

Devolved Amer­ica is a vision faith­ful both to cer­tain postin­dus­trial real­i­ties as well as to the plu­ral­is­tic heart of the Amer­i­can polit­i­cal tradition-a tra­di­tion that has been betrayed by the creep­ing cen­tral­iza­tion of power in Wash­ing­ton over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an ani­mat­ing spirit for the future. Con­sider this propo­si­tion: Amer­ica of the 21st cen­tury, pro­pelled by cur­rents of moder­nity that tend to favor the lit­tle over the big, may trace a long cir­cle back to the orig­i­nal small-government ideas of the Amer­i­can exper­i­ment. The present-day Amer­i­can Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a wan­ing age of pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics as con­ducted on a super-sized scale-too large to make any ratio­nal sense in an emerg­ing age of per­sonal empow­er­ment that harks back to the era of the yeo­man farmer of America’s early days. The soci­ety may find blessed new life, as para­dox­i­cal as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.

This per­spec­tive may seem espe­cially fan­ci­ful at a time when the polit­i­cal tides all seem to be run­ning in the oppo­site direc­tion. In the midst of eco­nomic trou­bles, an aggran­diz­ing Wash­ing­ton is gath­er­ing even more power in its hands. The Obama Admin­is­tra­tion, while con­sid­er­ing replac­ing top exec­u­tives at Cit­i­group, is newly appoint­ing a “com­pen­sa­tion czar” with pow­ers to deter­mine the retire­ment pack­ages of exec­u­tives at firms accept­ing fed­eral finan­cial bailout funds. Pres­i­dent Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Trea­sury to take a major­ity own­er­ship stake in Gen­eral Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Indus­trial Age bron­tosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is get­ting in on the act: A rul­ing this past week awarded fed­eral judges pow­ers to set the stan­dards by which judges for state courts may recuse them­selves from cases.

All of this adds up to a fed­eral power grab that might make even FDR’s New Deal­ers blush. But that’s just the point: Not sur­pris­ingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jef­fer­son are tak­ing a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted cit­i­zenry yet more depen­dent on an already immense fed­eral power. The back­lash, already under way, is a prime stim­u­lus for a neo-secessionist move­ment, the most extreme man­i­fes­ta­tion of a broader push for some form of devo­lu­tion. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Gov­er­nor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech inter­rupted by cries of “secede.” The Gov­er­nor did not sound inclined to dis­agree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attend­ing the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”

Such sen­ti­ments res­onate beyond the lib­er­tar­ian fringe. The Daily Kos, a lib­eral Web site, recently asked Perry’s fel­low Texas Repub­li­cans, “Do you think Texas would be bet­ter off as an inde­pen­dent nation or as part of the United States of Amer­ica? It was an even split: 48% for the U.S., 48% for a sov­er­eign Texas, 4% not sure. Amongst all Tex­ans, more than a third-35%-said an inde­pen­dent Texas would be bet­ter. The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment claims that over 250,000 Tex­ans have signed a form affirm­ing the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

Seces­sion­ist feel­ings also per­co­late in Alaska, where Todd Palin, hus­band of Gov­er­nor Sarah Palin, was once a reg­is­tered mem­ber of the Alaska Inde­pen­dence Party. But it is not as if the Right has a lock on this issue: Ver­mont, the seat of one of the most vibrant seces­sion­ist move­ments, is among the country’s most politically-liberal places. Ver­mon­ters are espe­cially upset about impe­r­ial America’s for­eign excur­sions in haz­ardous places like Iraq. The philo­soph­i­cal tie that binds these oth­er­wise odd bed­fel­lows is belief in the birthright of Amer­i­cans to run their own affairs, free from cen­tral­ized con­trol. Their hal­lowed parch­ment is Jefferson’s Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, on behalf of the orig­i­nal 13 British colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion gath­ered for their con­ven­tion in Philadel­phia. “The right of seces­sion pre­cedes the Constitution-the United States was born out of seces­sion,” Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment, put it to me. Take that, King Obama.

Today’s devo­lu­tion­ists, of all stripes, can trace their pedi­gree to the “anti-federalists” who opposed the com­pact that came out of Philadel­phia as a bad bar­gain that gave too much power to the cen­ter at the expense of the limbs. Some of America’s most vig­or­ous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia’s Patrick Henry, of “give me lib­erty or give me death” renown. The sainted Jef­fer­son, who was serv­ing as a diplo­mat in Paris dur­ing the con­ven­tion, is these days claimed by seces­sion­ists as a kin­dred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.

The anti-federalists lost their bat­tle, but his­tory, in cer­tain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they antic­i­pated how many Amer­i­cans have come to feel about their nation’s seat of fed­eral power. “This city, and the gov­ern­ment of it, must indu­bitably take their tone from the char­ac­ter of the men, who from the nature of its sit­u­a­tion and insti­tu­tion, must col­lect there,” the anti-federalist pam­phle­teer known only as the Fed­eral Farmer wrote. “If we expect it will have any sin­cere attach­ments to sim­ple and fru­gal repub­li­can­ism, to that lib­erty and mild gov­ern­ment, which is dear to the labo­ri­ous part of a free peo­ple, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.”

In the mid-19th cen­tury, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attach­ing itself to the cause of the Con­fed­er­acy, which was formed by the uni­lat­eral seces­sion of 13 south­ern states over the bloody issue of slav­ery. Lin­coln had no choice but to go to war to pre­serve the Union-and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and indeed retrograde.

But nearly a cen­tury and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slav­ery is dead, and so too is the large-scale indus­trial econ­omy that the Yan­kees embraced as their path to vic­tory over the South and to global pros­per­ity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, sur­viv­ing all the way through the New Deal and the first sev­eral decades of the post-World War II era, com­ing a crop­per at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the econ­o­mist John Ken­neth Gal­braith was hold­ing out “The New Indus­trial State,” the master-planned econ­omy, as a seem­ingly per­ma­nent con­di­tion of mod­ern life.

Not quite. In a glob­al­ized econ­omy trans­formed by tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tions hatched by happily-unguided entre­pre­neurs, his­tory seems to be dri­ving one nail after another into the cof­fin of the big, which is why the Obama plan­ners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one any­more expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the econ­omy, so should any­one expect the best think­ing to be done by the whales of the polit­i­cal world?

A notable prophet for a com­ing age of small­ness was the diplo­mat and his­to­rian George Ken­nan, a stew­ard of the Amer­i­can Cen­tury with an uncanny abil­ity to see past the seemingly-frozen geopo­lit­i­cal arrange­ments of the day. Ken­nan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he pre­dicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was get­ting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union col­lapsed, he sug­gested that a sim­i­lar fate might await the United States. Amer­ica has become a “mon­ster coun­try,” afflicted by a swollen bureau­cracy and “the hubris of inor­di­nate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Per­sonal and Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy.” Things might work bet­ter, he sug­gested, if the nation was “decen­tral­ized into some­thing like a dozen con­stituent republics, absorb­ing not only the pow­ers of the exist­ing states but a con­sid­er­able part of those of the present fed­eral establishment.”

Kennan’s genius was to fore­see that mat­ters might take on an organic, a bottom-up, life of their own, espe­cially in a soci­ety as dynamic and as cre­ative as Amer­ica. His spirit, the spirit of an anti-federalist mod­ernist, can be glimpsed in an intrigu­ing “mega-region” ini­tia­tive encom­pass­ing greater San Diego County, next-door Impe­r­ial County and, to the imme­di­ate south of the U.S. bor­der, North­ern Baja, Mex­ico. Elected offi­cials rep­re­sent­ing all three par­tic­i­pat­ing areas recently unveiled “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region,” as the “inter­na­tional mar­ket­ing brand” for the project.

The idea is to cre­ate a global eco­nomic pow­er­house by com­bin­ing San Diego’s proven abil­i­ties in sci­en­tific research and devel­op­ment with Impe­r­ial County’s abun­dance of inex­pen­sive land and avail­abil­ity of water rights and North­ern Baja’s man­u­fac­tur­ing base, low labor costs and abil­ity to sup­ply the San Diego area with elec­tric­ity dur­ing peak-use terms. Bilin­gual­ism, too, is a key-with the aim for all chil­dren on both sides of the bor­der to be flu­ent in both Eng­lish and Span­ish. The project direc­tor is Christina Luhn, a Kansas native, his­to­rian and for­mer staffer on the National Secu­rity Coun­cil in Ronald Reagan’s White House in the mid-1980s. Con­tem­po­rary Amer­ica as a unit of gov­er­nance may be too big, even the perpetually-troubled state of Cal­i­for­nia may be too big, she told me, by way of say­ing that the polit­i­cal and eco­nomic future may belong to the megare­gions of the planet. Her con­vic­tion is that large sys­tems tend not to endure-“they break apart, there’s chaos, and at some point, new things form,” she said.

The notion that small is bet­ter and even inevitable no doubt has some fla­vor of romance-even amount­ing to a kind of mod­ern sec­u­lar faith, girded by a raft of multi-disciplinary lit­er­a­ture that may or may not be rel­e­vant. Luhn takes her philo­soph­i­cal cue not only from Ken­nan but also from the sci­ence writer and physi­cist M. Mitchell Wal­drop, author of “Com­plex­ity: The Emerg­ing Sci­ence at the Edge of Order and Chaos.”

Amer­i­can seces­sion­ist groups today range from small star­tups with a few lap­top com­put­ers to orga­nized move­ments with meet­ings of del­e­gates from sev­eral states.

The Mid­dle­bury Insti­tute, a group that stud­ies and sup­ports the gen­eral cause of sep­a­ratism and seces­sion­ism in the U.S., has held three Seces­sion Con­gresses since its found­ing in 2004.

At the most recent gath­er­ing, held in New Hamp­shire last Novem­ber, one dis­cus­sion focused on cre­at­ing a new fed­er­a­tion poten­tially to be called “Nova­ca­dia,” con­sist­ing of present-day New Hamp­shire, Ver­mont, Maine, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Sco­tia. An arti­cle high­lighted on the group’s Web site describes Den­mark as a role-model for the poten­tial coun­try. In the months fol­low­ing the con­ven­tion, the idea “did not actu­ally evolve into very much,” says Kirk­patrick Sale, the institute’s director.

Below the Mason-Dixon Line, groups like the League of the South and South­ern National Con­gress hold meet­ings of del­e­gates. They dis­cuss seces­sion as a way of accom­plish­ing goals like pro­tect­ing the right to bear arms and tighter immi­gra­tion poli­cies. The Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment claims that over 250,000 Tex­ans have signed a form affirm­ing the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

A reli­gious group, Chris­t­ian Exo­dus, formed in 2003 with the pur­pose of trans­form­ing what is today South Car­olina into a sov­er­eign, Christian-run state. Accord­ing to a state­ment on its Web site, the group still sup­ports the idea, but has learned that “the chains of our slav­ery and depen­dence on God­less gov­ern­ment have more of a hold on us than can be bro­ken by sim­ply mov­ing to another state.”

On the West Coast, elected offi­cials rep­re­sent­ing greater San Diego County, Impe­r­ial County and North­ern Baja, Mex­ico, have pro­posed cre­at­ing a “mega-region” of the three areas called “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region.”

Hawaii is home to numer­ous groups that work toward the goal of sov­er­eignty, includ­ing Nation of Hawaii. The group argues that native Hawai­ians were col­o­nized and forced into state­hood against their will and with­out fair process, and there­fore have the right to decide how to gov­ern them­selves today. In Alaska, the Alaska Inde­pen­dence Party advo­cates for the state’s independence.

There is also a Web site for a group called North Star Repub­lic, with a mis­sion to estab­lish a social­ist repub­lic in what today is Min­nesota, Wis­con­sin and Michigan.

A group of Amer­i­can Indi­ans led by activist Rus­sell Means is work­ing to estab­lish the Repub­lic of Lako­tah, which would cover parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Mon­tana, Wyoming and Nebraska. In 2007, the Repub­lic pre­sented the U.S. State Depart­ment with a notice of withdrawal.

Even for the hard-edged seces­sion­ist crowd, with their rapt atten­tive­ness to America’s roots, pop­u­lar texts in the future-trend genre min­gle in their minds with the yel­lowed scrolls of the anti-federalists. “The cor­ner­stone of my thought,” Daniel Miller of the Texas Nation­al­ist Move­ment told me, is John Naisbitt’s 1995 best seller, “Global Para­dox,” which cel­e­brates the entre­pre­neur­ial ethos in posit­ing that “the big­ger the world econ­omy, the more pow­er­ful its small­est players.”

More con­vinc­ingly, the propo­si­tion that small trumps big is pass­ing tests in real-life polit­i­cal and eco­nomic lab­o­ra­to­ries. For exam­ple, the U.S. ranked eighth in a sur­vey of global inno­va­tion lead­er­ship released in March by the Boston Con­sult­ing Group and the National Asso­ci­a­tion of Manufacturers-with the top rank­ings dom­i­nated by small coun­tries led by the city-state repub­lic of Sin­ga­pore. The Thun­der­bird School of Global Man­age­ment, based in Ari­zona, has called Sin­ga­pore “the most future-oriented coun­try in the world.” His­to­ri­ans can point to the spec­tac­u­larly inven­tive city-states of Renais­sance Italy as an exam­ple of the small truly mak­ing the beautiful.

How, though, to get from big to small? Seces­sion­ists like Texas’ Miller pledge a com­mit­ment to peace­ful meth­ods. His­tory sug­gests skep­ti­cism on this score: Even the Amer­i­can repub­lic was born in a vio­lent rev­o­lu­tion. These days, the Russ­ian pro­fes­sor Igor Panarin, a for­mer KGB ana­lyst, has snagged pub­lic­ity with his dystopian pre­dic­tion of civil strife in a dis­mem­bered Amer­ica whose jagged parts fall prey to for­eign pow­ers includ­ing Canada, Mex­ico and, in the case of Alaska, Rus­sia, naturally.

Still, the prece­dent for any breakup of today’s Amer­ica is not nec­es­sar­ily the one set by the musket-bearing colonists’ demanded depar­ture from the British crown in the late 18th cen­tury or by the crisis-ridden dis­so­lu­tion of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the 20th cen­tury. Every empire, every too-big thing, frag­ments or shrinks accord­ing to its own unique char­ac­ter and to the age of his­tory to which it belongs.

The most hope­ful prospect for the USA, should the decen­tral­iza­tion impulse prove irre­sistible, is for Amer­i­cans to draw on their nat­ural inven­tive­ness and demo­c­ra­tic tra­di­tion by patent­ing a for­mula for get­ting the job done in a grad­ual and coop­er­a­tive way. In so doing, geopo­lit­i­cal his­tory, and per­haps even a path for oth­ers, might be made, for the prob­lem of big­ness vexes polit­i­cal leviathans every­where. In India, with its 1.2 bil­lion peo­ple, there is an active dis­cus­sion of whether things might work bet­ter if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of auton­omy from New Delhi. Devo­lu­tion may like­wise be the future for the Euro­pean continent-think Catalonia-and for the British Isles. Scot­land, a lead­ing source of Enlight­en­ment ideas for America’s found­ing fathers, now has its own flour­ish­ing inde­pen­dence move­ment. Even China, held together by an aging autoc­racy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.

So why not Amer­ica as the global leader of a devo­lu­tion? America’s return to its origins-to its type-could turn out to be an act of cre­ative polit­i­cal destruc­tion, with “we the peo­ple” the bet­ter for it.

“Divided We Stand” by Paul Starobin; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 6/13/2009.

2. Cited as a pos­i­tive influ­ence in his advo­cacy of a “smaller” United States, George Ken­nan was in fact an an ante­dilu­vian reactionary.

“. . . A Wash­ing­ton Post obit­u­ary pro­vided an insight into the mind of one of the fore­most fig­ures of post-World War II U.S. for­eign pol­icy and his antipa­thy for the mod­ern world. ‘Wal­ter Isaac­son and Evan Thomas reported in their book The Wise Men that he sug­gested in an unpub­lished work that women, blacks and immi­grants be dis­en­fran­chised. He deplored the auto­mo­bile, com­put­ers, com­mer­cial­ism, envi­ron­men­tal degra­da­tion and other man­i­fes­ta­tions of mod­ern life.’ . . .”

Afghanistan’s Untold Story by Paul Fitzger­ald and Liz Gould; Copy­right 2009 by Paul Fitzger­ald and Liz Gould; City Lights Books (SC); ISBN 13: 978–0-87286–494-8; p. 270.

3. Not­ing that seces­sion advo­cate Christina Luhn was a vet­eran of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion, we review some of the Nazi char­ac­ter of that admin­is­tra­tion. Accused Holo­caust Museum killer James Van Brunn was linked to for­mer Rea­gan White House aide Todd Blod­gett. In this con­text, it is impor­tant to recall that the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion per­son­nel were selected by Otto von Bolschwing pro­tege Helene Von Damm.

“. . . Todd Blod­gett, a for­mer White House aide to Pres­i­dent Ronald Rea­gan who later became affil­i­ated with extrem­ist groups, said he spent a lot of time with Von Brunn in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Von Brunn is obsessed with Jew­ish peo­ple, Blod­gett told the Post. He had equal con­tempt for both Jews and blacks, but if he had to pick one group to wipe out, he’d always say it would be Jews.

Von Brunn went so far as to say he fought on the wrong side of World War II, accord­ing to Blodgett.

You’d get the impres­sion that he was intel­li­gent and a bit off, said Blod­gett, who worked as a paid FBI infor­mant on white suprema­cist groups. . . .”

“Holo­caust Museum Shoot­ing Sus­pect Had Been Grow­ing More Hate­ful and Des­per­ate”; Fox News; 6/11/2009.

4. Again not­ing the legacy of the Helene Von Damm/Otto von Bolschwing axis within the GOP and the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tions, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that Amer­i­can neo-Nazi Bob Whitaker held a sen­si­tive posi­tion within the Rea­gan White House. Again, avail­able evi­dence sug­gests very strongly that Von Damm served as a func­tionary of the Under­ground Reich. Notice the posi­tion of National Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitaker within the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­rity clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing. . . .”

It will be inter­est­ing to see if peo­ple infil­trated into gov­ern­ment by the likes of Whitaker and Von Damm play a role in the breakup of the United States.

” . . . KAS: When we intro­duced you for the first time to our read­ers in National Van­guard, we gave a cap­sule biog­ra­phy of you as follows:

‘Mr. Whitaker was born and raised in South Car­olina, and attended the Uni­ver­sity of South Car­olina and the Uni­ver­sity of Vir­ginia Grad­u­ate School. He has been a col­lege pro­fes­sor, an inter­na­tional avi­a­tion nego­tia­tor, a Capi­tol Hill senior staffer, a Rea­gan Admin­is­tra­tion appointee, and a writer for the Voice of America.”

So you’re a Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion appointee — what’s the story behind that?

BW: I was Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­rity clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing.

KAS: Why is some­one with such excel­lent estab­lish­ment cre­den­tials defend­ing the White race, as you do in your work, with­out apol­ogy or regret? Isn’t that some­thing that sim­ply ‘isn’t done’ these days by any­one who wants to retain his posi­tion in pri­vate or pub­lic life?

BW: Well, I did it. And they cleared me at the high­est pos­si­ble lev­els, so if you do it right, you can do it. And I’m good at it. . . .”

“A White Future is Com­ing: an Inter­view with Bob Whitaker” by Kevin Alfred Strom; Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voices; 7/3/2004.

5. Next, the pro­gram reviews the Nazi plans for Europe after their vic­tory. Writ­ing in 1943, author Paul Win­kler fore­saw that the Prusso-Teutonics would real­ize their goals through the cre­ation of a German-dominated cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union (bear­ing a strik­ing resem­blance to today’s Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union.) One of the prin­ci­pal influ­ences on List’s think­ing was the “con­ti­nen­tal” con­cept of Napoleon, who attempted to eco­nom­i­cally unite Europe under French influence.

The Lis­t­ian for­mula for Ger­man world dom­i­nance should be viewed against the back­ground of the mate­ri­als set forth below con­cern­ing the suc­cess­ful real­iza­tion of con­ti­nu­ity from the Third Reich to the “new” Fed­eral Repub­lic of Germany.

How will this cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nomic union inter­act with a dis­mem­bered United States?

“Charles Andler, a French author, summed up cer­tain ideas of List in his work, The Ori­gins of Pan-Germanism, (pub­lished in 1915.) ‘It is nec­es­sary to orga­nize con­ti­nen­tal Europe against Eng­land. Napoleon I, a great strate­gist, also knew the meth­ods of eco­nomic hege­mony. His con­ti­nen­tal sys­tem, which met with oppo­si­tion even from coun­tries which might have prof­ited from such an arrange­ment should be revived, but, this time, not as an instru­ment of Napoleonic dom­i­na­tion. The idea of united Europe in a closed trade bloc is no longer shock­ing if Ger­many assumes dom­i­na­tion over such a bloc—and not France. [Empha­sis added.] Bel­gium, Hol­land, Switzer­land, will­ingly or by force, will enter this ‘Cus­toms Fed­er­a­tion.’ Aus­tria is assumed to be won over at the out­set. Even France, if she gets rid of her notions of mil­i­tary con­quest, will not be excluded. The first steps the Con­fed­er­a­tion would take to assure unity of thought and action would be to estab­lish a joint rep­re­sen­ta­tive body, as well as to orga­nize a com­mon fleet. But of course, both the head­quar­ters of the Fed­er­a­tion and its par­lia­men­tary seat would be in Ger­many. [Empha­sis added.]”

(The Thousand-Year Con­spir­acy; by Paul Win­kler; Charles Scribner’s Sons [HC]; 1943; pp. 15–16.)

6. A stun­ning mea­sure of the suc­cess of the Under­ground Reich and Ger­man Ost­poli­tik can be obtained by read­ing Dorothy Thompson’s analy­sis of the Third Reich’s plans for world dom­i­nance by a cen­tral­ized Euro­pean eco­nomic union. (In this, we can again see the plans of pan-German the­o­reti­cian Friedrich List, as real­ized by the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union.) Ms. Thomp­son was writ­ing in The New York Her­ald Tri­bune on May 31, 1940! Her com­ments are repro­duced by Tetens on page 92.

“The Ger­mans have a clear plan of what they intend to do in case of vic­tory. I believe that I know the essen­tial details of that plan. I have heard it from a suf­fi­cient num­ber of impor­tant Ger­mans to credit its authen­tic­ity . . . Germany’s plan is to make a cus­toms union of Europe, with com­plete finan­cial and eco­nomic con­trol cen­tered in Berlin. This will cre­ate at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned econ­omy in the world. In West­ern Europe alone . . . there will be an eco­nomic unity of 400 mil­lion per­sons . . . To these will be added the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Bel­gian empires. These will be pooled in the name of Europa Germanica . . .”

“The Ger­mans count upon polit­i­cal power fol­low­ing eco­nomic power, and not vice versa. Ter­ri­to­r­ial changes do not con­cern them, because there will be no ‘France’ or ‘Eng­land,’ except as lan­guage groups. Lit­tle imme­di­ate con­cern is felt regard­ing polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions . . . . No nation will have the con­trol of its own finan­cial or eco­nomic sys­tem or of its cus­toms. The Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of all coun­tries will be accom­plished by eco­nomic pres­sure. In all coun­tries, con­tacts have been estab­lished long ago with sym­pa­thetic busi­ness­men and indus­tri­al­ists . . . . As far as the United States is con­cerned, the plan­ners of the World Ger­man­ica laugh off the idea of any armed inva­sion. They say that it will be com­pletely unnec­es­sary to take mil­i­tary action against the United States to force it to play ball with this sys­tem. . . . Here, as in every other coun­try, they have estab­lished rela­tions with numer­ous indus­tries and com­mer­cial orga­ni­za­tions, to whom they will offer advan­tages in co-operation with Germany. . . .”

Ger­many Plots with the Krem­lin by T. H. Tetens; Henry Schu­man [HC]; p. 92.

7. Illus­trat­ing the real­iza­tion of con­ti­nu­ity between the Third Reich and the new Ger­man eco­nomic empire real­ized through the EU and the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union, the show fea­tures a recent Daily Mail arti­cle that bears out much of the line of argu­ment pre­sented in For The Record.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is Joseph Goebbels pre­dic­tion that ” . . . ‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’” Reflect on Goebbels’ state­ment against the back­ground of a dis­mem­bered United States.

“The paper is aged and frag­ile, the type­writ­ten let­ters slowly fad­ing. But US Mil­i­tary Intel­li­gence report EW-Pa 128 is as chill­ing now as the day it was writ­ten in Novem­ber 1944.

The doc­u­ment, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meet­ing at the Mai­son Rouge Hotel in Stras­bourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi offi­cials ordered an elite group of Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to plan for Germany’s post-war recov­ery, pre­pare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ’strong Ger­man empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

The three-page, closely typed report, marked ‘Secret’, copied to British offi­cials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Sec­re­tary of State, detailed how the indus­tri­al­ists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s econ­omy by send­ing money through Switzerland.

They would set up a net­work of secret front com­pa­nies abroad. They would wait until con­di­tions were right. And then they would take over Ger­many again.

The indus­tri­al­ists included rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Volk­swa­gen, Krupp and Messer­schmitt. Offi­cials from the Navy and Min­istry of Arma­ments were also at the meet­ing and, with incred­i­ble fore­sight, they decided together that the Fourth Ger­man Reich, unlike its pre­de­ces­sor, would be an eco­nomic rather than a mil­i­tary empire — but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intel­li­gence files, was the inspi­ra­tion for my thriller The Budapest Pro­to­col.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, dur­ing the elec­tion cam­paign for the first pres­i­dent of Europe. The Euro­pean Union super­state is revealed as a front for a sin­is­ter con­spir­acy, one rooted in the last days of the Sec­ond World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Ger­many did export mas­sive amounts of cap­i­tal through neu­tral coun­tries. Ger­man busi­nesses did set up a net­work of front com­pa­nies abroad. The Ger­man econ­omy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated mil­i­tar­ily, but pow­er­ful Nazi-era bankers, indus­tri­al­ists and civil ser­vants, reborn as democ­rats, soon pros­pered in the new West Ger­many. There they worked for a new cause: Euro­pean eco­nomic and polit­i­cal integration.

Is it pos­si­ble that the Fourth Reich those Nazi indus­tri­al­ists fore­saw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was writ­ten by a French spy who was at the meet­ing in Stras­bourg in 1944 — and it paints an extra­or­di­nary picture.

The indus­tri­al­ists gath­ered at the Mai­son Rouge Hotel waited expec­tantly as SS Ober­grup­pen­fuhrer Dr Scheid began the meet­ing. Scheid held one of the high­est ranks in the SS, equiv­a­lent to Lieu­tenant Gen­eral. He cut an impos­ing fig­ure in his tai­lored grey-green uni­form and high, peaked cap with sil­ver braid­ing. Guards were posted out­side and the room had been searched for microphones.

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. Ger­man indus­try must realise that the war can­not be won, he declared. ‘It must take steps in prepa­ra­tion for a post-war com­mer­cial cam­paign.’ Such defeatist talk was trea­so­nous — enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo’s cel­lars, fol­lowed by a one-way trip to a con­cen­tra­tion camp.

But Scheid had been given spe­cial licence to speak the truth — the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the indus­tri­al­ists to ‘make con­tacts and alliances with for­eign firms, but this must be done indi­vid­u­ally and with­out attract­ing any suspicion’.

The indus­tri­al­ists were to bor­row sub­stan­tial sums from for­eign coun­tries after the war.

They were espe­cially to exploit the finances of those Ger­man firms that had already been used as fronts for eco­nomic pen­e­tra­tion abroad, said Scheid, cit­ing the Amer­i­can part­ners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line ship­ping company.

But as most of the indus­tri­al­ists left the meet­ing, a hand­ful were beck­oned into another smaller gath­er­ing, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Arma­ments Min­istry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the indus­tri­al­ists that the war was lost, resis­tance against the Allies would con­tinue until a guar­an­tee of Ger­man unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strat­egy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the indus­tri­al­ists were to ‘pre­pare them­selves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go under­ground as a Maquis’, using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the gov­ern­ment allo­cat­ing large sums to Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to estab­lish a ’secure post-war foun­da­tion in for­eign coun­tries’, while ‘exist­ing finan­cial reserves must be placed at the dis­posal of the party so that a strong Ger­man empire can be cre­ated after the defeat’.

In stage three, Ger­man busi­nesses would set up a ’sleeper’ net­work of agents abroad through front com­pa­nies, which were to be cov­ers for mil­i­tary research and intel­li­gence, until the Nazis returned to power.

‘The exis­tence of these is to be known only by very few peo­ple in each indus­try and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,’ Bosse announced.

‘Each office will have a liai­son agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its con­trol over Ger­many, the indus­tri­al­ists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by con­ces­sions and orders.’

The exported funds were to be chan­nelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agen­cies in Switzer­land which bought prop­erty in Switzer­land for Ger­man con­cerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly send­ing funds through neu­tral coun­tries for years.

Swiss banks, in par­tic­u­lar the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the trea­suries of Nazi-occupied coun­tries. They accepted assets and prop­erty titles taken from Jew­ish busi­ness­men in Ger­many and occu­pied coun­tries, and sup­plied the for­eign cur­rency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss eco­nomic col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazis had been closely mon­i­tored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report’s author notes: ‘Pre­vi­ously, exports of cap­i­tal by Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to neu­tral coun­tries had to be accom­plished rather sur­rep­ti­tiously and by means of spe­cial influence.

‘Now the Nazi Party stands behind the indus­tri­al­ists and urges them to save them­selves by get­ting funds out­side Ger­many and at the same time advance the party’s plans for its post-war operations.’

The order to export for­eign cap­i­tal was tech­ni­cally ille­gal in Nazi Ger­many, but by the sum­mer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Sovi­ets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assas­si­na­tion attempt. The Nazi lead­er­ship was ner­vous, frac­tious and quarrelling.

Dur­ing the war years the SS had built up a gigan­tic eco­nomic empire, based on plun­der and mur­der, and they planned to keep it.

A meet­ing such as that at the Mai­son Rouge would need the pro­tec­tion of the SS, accord­ing to Dr Adam Tooze of Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity, author of Wages of Destruc­tion: The Mak­ing And Break­ing Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: ‘By 1944 any dis­cus­sion of post-war plan­ning was banned. It was extremely dan­ger­ous to do that in pub­lic. But the SS was think­ing in the long-term. If you are try­ing to estab­lish a work­able coali­tion after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the aus­pices of the appa­ra­tus of terror.’

Shrewd SS lead­ers such as Otto Ohlen­dorf were already think­ing ahead.

As com­man­der of Ein­satz­gruppe D, which oper­ated on the East­ern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlen­dorf was respon­si­ble for the mur­der of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly edu­cated, intel­li­gent lawyer and econ­o­mist, Ohlen­dorf showed great con­cern for the psy­cho­log­i­cal wel­fare of his exter­mi­na­tion squad’s gun­men: he ordered that sev­eral of them should fire simul­ta­ne­ously at their vic­tims, so as to avoid any feel­ings of per­sonal responsibility.

By the win­ter of 1943 he was trans­ferred to the Min­istry of Eco­nom­ics. Ohlendorf’s osten­si­ble job was focus­ing on export trade, but his real pri­or­ity was pre­serv­ing the SS’s mas­sive pan-European eco­nomic empire after Germany’s defeat.

Ohlen­dorf, who was later hanged at Nurem­berg, took par­tic­u­lar inter­est in the work of a Ger­man econ­o­mist called Lud­wig Erhard. Erhard had writ­ten a lengthy man­u­script on the tran­si­tion to a post-war econ­omy after Germany’s defeat. This was dan­ger­ous, espe­cially as his name had been men­tioned in con­nec­tion with resis­tance groups.

But Ohlen­dorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domes­tic secu­rity ser­vice, pro­tected Erhard as he agreed with his views on sta­bil­is­ing the post-war Ger­man econ­omy. Ohlen­dorf him­self was pro­tected by Hein­rich Himm­ler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlen­dorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the Ger­man econ­omy in the Twen­ties. Such a cat­a­stro­phe would ren­der the SS’s eco­nomic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war pri­or­ity was rapid mon­e­tary sta­bil­i­sa­tion through a sta­ble cur­rency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occu­py­ing power, as no post-war Ger­man state would have enough legit­i­macy to intro­duce a cur­rency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was intro­duced in 1948. It was an aston­ish­ing suc­cess and it kick-started the Ger­man econ­omy. With a sta­ble cur­rency, Ger­many was once again an attrac­tive trad­ing partner.

The Ger­man indus­trial con­glom­er­ates could rapidly rebuild their eco­nomic empires across Europe.

War had been extra­or­di­nar­ily prof­itable for the Ger­man econ­omy. By 1948 — despite six years of con­flict, Allied bomb­ing and post-war repa­ra­tions pay­ments — the cap­i­tal stock of assets such as equip­ment and build­ings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the arma­ments boom.

Erhard pon­dered how Ger­man indus­try could expand its reach across the shat­tered Euro­pean con­ti­nent. The answer was through supra­na­tion­al­ism — the vol­un­tary sur­ren­der of national sov­er­eignty to an inter­na­tional body.

Ger­many and France were the dri­vers behind the Euro­pean Coal and Steel Com­mu­nity (ECSC), the pre­cur­sor to the Euro­pean Union. The ECSC was the first supra­na­tional organ­i­sa­tion, estab­lished in April 1951 by six Euro­pean states. It cre­ated a com­mon mar­ket for coal and steel which it reg­u­lated. This set a vital prece­dent for the steady ero­sion of national sov­er­eignty, a process that con­tin­ues today.

But before the com­mon mar­ket could be set up, the Nazi indus­tri­al­ists had to be par­doned, and Nazi bankers and offi­cials rein­te­grated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the Amer­i­can High Com­mis­sioner for Ger­many, issued an amnesty for indus­tri­al­ists con­victed of war crimes.

The two most pow­er­ful Nazi indus­tri­al­ists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Indus­tries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group even­tu­ally owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serv­ing barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been cen­tral fig­ures in the Nazi econ­omy. Their com­pa­nies used slave labour­ers like cat­tle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp com­pany soon became one of Europe’s lead­ing indus­trial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European busi­ness empire. Friedrich Flick remained unre­pen­tant about his wartime record and refused to pay a sin­gle Deutschmark in com­pen­sa­tion until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a for­tune of more than $1billion, the equiv­a­lent of £400million at the time.

‘For many lead­ing indus­trial fig­ures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pur­su­ing Ger­man national inter­ests after the defeat of Hitler,’ says his­to­rian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jew­ish for­mer slave labourers.

‘The con­ti­nu­ity of the econ­omy of Ger­many and the economies of post-war Europe is strik­ing. Some of the lead­ing fig­ures in the Nazi econ­omy became lead­ing builders of the Euro­pean Union.’

Numer­ous house­hold names had exploited slave and forced labour­ers includ­ing BMW, Siemens and Volk­swa­gen, which pro­duced muni­tions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an inte­gral part of the Nazi war machine. Many con­cen­tra­tion camps were attached to ded­i­cated fac­to­ries where com­pany offi­cials worked hand-in-hand with the SS offi­cers over­see­ing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Her­mann Abs, post-war Germany’s most pow­er­ful banker, had pros­pered in the Third Reich. Dap­per, ele­gant and diplo­matic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthu­si­as­ti­cally ‘Aryanised’ Aus­trian and Czechoslo­vak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 direc­tor­ships, a quar­ter of which were in coun­tries occu­pied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised com­pa­nies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank’s wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the super­vi­sory board of I.G. Far­ben, as Deutsche Bank’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive. I.G. Far­ben was one of Nazi Germany’s most pow­er­ful com­pa­nies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and sub­sidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thou­sands of Jews and other pris­on­ers died pro­duc­ing arti­fi­cial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were ver­braucht (used up) in the Nazis’ chill­ing term, they were moved to Birke­nau. There they were gassed using Zyk­lon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good busi­ness­men, I.G. Farben’s bosses hedged their bets.

Dur­ing the war the com­pany had financed Lud­wig Erhard’s research. After the war, 24 I.G. Far­ben exec­u­tives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III — but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sen­tenced to prison terms rang­ing from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Far­ben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most impor­tant fig­ures in Germany’s post-war recon­struc­tion. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a ’strong Ger­man empire’ was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today’s Euro­pean Union.

Abs was put in charge of allo­cat­ing Mar­shall Aid — recon­struc­tion funds — to Ger­man indus­try. By 1948 he was effec­tively man­ag­ing Germany’s eco­nomic recovery.

Cru­cially, Abs was also a mem­ber of the Euro­pean League for Eco­nomic Co-operation, an elite intel­lec­tual pres­sure group set up in 1946. The league was ded­i­cated to the estab­lish­ment of a com­mon mar­ket, the pre­cur­sor of the Euro­pean Union.

Its mem­bers included indus­tri­al­ists and financiers and it devel­oped poli­cies that are strik­ingly famil­iar today — on mon­e­tary inte­gra­tion and com­mon trans­port, energy and wel­fare systems.

When Kon­rad Ade­nauer, the first Chan­cel­lor of West Ger­many, took power in 1949, Abs was his most impor­tant finan­cial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was work­ing hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to recon­sti­tute itself after decen­tral­i­sa­tion. In 1957 he suc­ceeded and he returned to his for­mer employer.

That same year the six mem­bers of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the Euro­pean Eco­nomic Com­mu­nity. The treaty fur­ther lib­er­alised trade and estab­lished increas­ingly pow­er­ful supra­na­tional insti­tu­tions includ­ing the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and Euro­pean Commission.

Like Abs, Lud­wig Erhard flour­ished in post-war Ger­many. Ade­nauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war eco­nom­ics min­is­ter. In 1963 Erhard suc­ceeded Ade­nauer as Chan­cel­lor for three years.

But the Ger­man eco­nomic mir­a­cle — so vital to the idea of a new Europe — was built on mass mur­der. The num­ber of slave and forced labour­ers who died while employed by Ger­man com­pa­nies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some spo­radic com­pen­sa­tion pay­ments were made but Ger­man indus­try agreed a con­clu­sive, global set­tle­ment only in 2000, with a £3billion com­pen­sa­tion fund. There was no admis­sion of legal lia­bil­ity and the indi­vid­ual com­pen­sa­tion was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accept­ing the deal had to under­take not to launch any fur­ther legal action.

To put this sum of money into per­spec­tive, in 2001 Volk­swa­gen alone made prof­its of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 Euro­pean Union mem­ber states vote in the biggest transna­tional elec­tion in his­tory. Europe now enjoys peace and sta­bil­ity. Ger­many is a democ­racy, once again home to a sub­stan­tial Jew­ish com­mu­nity. The Holo­caust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s pro­pa­ganda chief, once said: ‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’

For now, the nation state endures. But these three type­writ­ten pages are a reminder that today’s drive towards a Euro­pean fed­eral state is inex­orably tan­gled up with the plans of the SS and Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists for a Fourth Reich — an eco­nomic rather than mil­i­tary imperium.”

“Revealed:The Secret Report That Shows How the Nazis Planned a Fourth Reich . . . in the EU” by Adam Lebor; Mail Online; 5/9/2009.

8. The pro­gram com­pares the real­ity of the dawn­ing eco­nomic land­scape and the “cor­po­racracy” set forth in the “novel” Serpent’s Walk. Mr. Emory believes that, like The Turner Diaries (also pub­lished by National Van­guard Books), the book is actu­ally a blue­print for what is going to take place. It is a novel about a Nazi takeover of the United States in the mid­dle of the 21st cen­tury. The book describes the Third Reich going under­ground, buy­ing into the Amer­i­can media, and tak­ing over the country.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­poses here is the “cor­po­racracy” that the SS envi­sions will enable them to con­trol the world (in this “novel”). It is inter­est­ing to reflect on the poten­tial breakup of the U.S. and other nations large enough to coun­ter­mand the ini­tia­tives of trans-national cor­po­ra­tions. Such resis­tance might be the only poten­tial oppo­si­tion to the “cor­po­racracy” in a world of frag­mented [for­merly large] nation/states.

As noted by Joseph Goebbels more than 50 years ago [and quoted in the Daily Mail arti­cle above], no one will be talk­ing about nation states a half cen­tury after the Third Reich.

“It assumes that Hitler’s war­rior elite—the SS—didn’t give up their strug­gle for a White world when they lost the Sec­ond World War. Instead their sur­vivors went under­ground and adopted some of their tac­tics of their ene­mies: they began build­ing their eco­nomic mus­cle and buy­ing into the opinion-forming media. A cen­tury after the war they are ready to chal­lenge the democ­rats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Amer­i­cans, who have begun to have their fill of government-enforced multi-culturalism and ‘equality.’”

(From the back cover of Serpent’s Walk by “Ran­dolph D. Calver­hall;” Copy­right 1991 [SC]; National Van­guard Books; 0–937944-05-X.)

Discussion

14 comments for “FTR #676 Sedition! (Part 2): Target, America!”

  1. Awww...Wyoming won’t get an air­craft car­rier after all:

    Wyoming Advances ‘Dooms­day’ Bill With­out ‘Air­craft Car­rier’ Provision

    share
    Jil­lian Ray­field Feb­ru­ary 28, 2012, 11:28 AM

    If the world ends, Wyoming’s got you covered.

    The Wyoming House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives advanced a bill Mon­day that would cre­ate a task force to study “gov­ern­men­tal con­ti­nu­ity in case of a dis­rup­tion in fed­eral gov­ern­ment oper­a­tions,” or what the local press has nick­named a “dooms­day” bill.

    The task force would con­sider reme­dies in the event of national cat­a­stro­phes, includ­ing dis­rup­tions in food or energy dis­tri­b­u­tion, a con­sti­tu­tional cri­sis, or “a sit­u­a­tion in which the fed­eral gov­ern­ment has no effec­tive power or author­ity over the peo­ple of the United States.”

    It would also con­sider what to do in the event that the dol­lar rapidly declines, and whether Wyoming should estab­lish an “alter­na­tive currency.”

    The bill would have also allowed the task force to con­sider whether the state should insti­tute its own stand­ing army and mil­i­tary draft, and acquire strike air­craft and an air­craft car­rier (in a land­locked state). But the House struck that part of the lan­guage from the bill on Mon­day. It will now move for­ward to a full House vote.

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 28, 2012, 11:42 am
  2. etc., etc., ...

    US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations

    UN’s cor­re­spon­dent on indige­nous peo­ples urges gov­ern­ment to act to com­bat ‘racial dis­crim­i­na­tion’ felt by Native Americans

    -

    A United Nations inves­ti­ga­tor prob­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion against Native Amer­i­cans has called on the US gov­ern­ment to return some of the land stolen from Indian tribes as a step toward com­bat­ting con­tin­u­ing and sys­temic racial discrimination.

    James Anaya, the UN spe­cial rap­por­teur on the rights of indige­nous peo­ples, said no mem­ber of the US Con­gress would meet him as he inves­ti­gated the part played by the gov­ern­ment in the con­sid­er­able dif­fi­cul­ties faced by Indian tribes.

    Anaya said that in nearly two weeks of vis­it­ing Indian reser­va­tions, indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties in Alaska and Hawaii, and Native Amer­i­cans now liv­ing in cities, he encoun­tered peo­ple who suf­fered a his­tory of dis­pos­ses­sion of their lands and resources, the break­down of their soci­eties and “numer­ous instances of out­right bru­tal­ity, all grounded on racial discrimination”.

    “It’s a racial dis­crim­i­na­tion that they feel is both sys­temic and also spe­cific instances of ongo­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion that is felt at the indi­vid­ual level,” he said.
    Anaya said racism extended from the broad rela­tion­ship between fed­eral or state gov­ern­ments and tribes down to local issues such as education.

    “For exam­ple, with the treat­ment of chil­dren in schools both by their peers and by teach­ers as well as the edu­ca­tional sys­tem itself; the way native Amer­i­cans and indige­nous peo­ples are reflected in the school cur­ricu­lum and teach­ing,” he said.

    “And dis­crim­i­na­tion in the sense of the invis­i­bil­ity of Native Amer­i­cans in the coun­try over­all that often is reflected in the pop­u­lar media. The idea that is often pro­jected through the main­stream media and among pub­lic fig­ures that indige­nous peo­ples are either gone or as a group are insignif­i­cant or that they’re out to get ben­e­fits in terms of hand­outs, or their com­mu­ni­ties and cul­tures are reduced to casi­nos, which are just flatly wrong.”

    Close to a mil­lion peo­ple live on the US’s 310 Native Amer­i­can reser­va­tions. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casi­nos on reser­va­tions but most have not.

    Anaya vis­ited an Oglala Sioux reser­va­tion where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national aver­age, and life expectancy is about 50 years.

    The two Sioux reser­va­tions in South Dakota – Rose­bud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country’s poor­est liv­ing con­di­tions, includ­ing mass unem­ploy­ment and the high­est sui­cide rate in the west­ern hemi­sphere with an epi­demic of teenagers killing themselves.

    “You can see they’re in a some­what pre­car­i­ous sit­u­a­tion in terms of their basic exis­tence and the sta­bil­ity of their com­mu­ni­ties given that pre­car­i­ous land tenure sit­u­a­tion. It’s not like they have large fish­eries as a resource base to sus­tain them. In basic eco­nomic terms it’s a very dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion. You have upwards of 70% unem­ploy­ment on the reser­va­tion and all kinds of social ills accom­pa­ny­ing that. Very tough con­di­tions,” he said.

    Anaya said Rose­bud is an exam­ple where return­ing land taken by the US gov­ern­ment could improve a tribe’s for­tunes as well as con­tribute to a “process of reconciliation”.

    “At Rose­bud, that’s a sit­u­a­tion where indige­nous peo­ple have seen over time encroach­ment on to their land and they’ve lost vast ter­ri­to­ries and there have been clear instances of bro­ken treaty promises. It’s undis­puted that the Black Hills was guar­an­teed them by treaty and that treaty was just out­right vio­lated by the United States in the 1900s. That has been recog­nised by the United States supreme court,” he said.

    Anaya said he would reserve detailed rec­om­men­da­tions on a plan for land restora­tion until he presents his final report to the UN human rights coun­cil in September.

    “I’m talk­ing about restor­ing to indige­nous peo­ples what obvi­ously they’re enti­tled to and they have a legit­i­mate claim to in a way that is not devi­sive but restora­tive. That’s the idea behind rec­on­cil­i­a­tion,” he said.

    But any such pro­posal is likely to meet stiff resis­tance in Con­gress sim­i­lar to that which has pre­vi­ously greeted calls for the US gov­ern­ment to pay repa­ra­tions for slav­ery to African-American communities.

    Anaya said he had received “exem­plary coop­er­a­tion” from the Obama admin­is­tra­tion but he declined to spec­u­late on why no mem­bers of Con­gress would meet him.

    “I typ­i­cally meet with mem­bers of the national leg­is­la­ture on my coun­try vis­its and I don’t know the rea­son,” he said.

    Last month, the US jus­tice and inte­rior depart­ments announced a $1 bil­lion set­tle­ment over nearly 56 mil­lion acres of Indian land held in trust by Wash­ing­ton but exploited by com­mer­cial inter­ests for tim­ber, farm­ing, min­ing and other uses with lit­tle ben­e­fit to the tribes.

    The attor­ney gen­eral, Eric Holder, said the set­tle­ment “fairly and hon­ourably resolves his­tor­i­cal griev­ances over the account­ing and man­age­ment of tribal trust funds, trust lands and other non-monetary trust resources that, for far too long, have been a source of con­flict between Indian tribes and the United States.”

    But Anaya said that was only a step in the right direction.

    “These are impor­tant steps but we’re talk­ing about mis­man­age­ment by the gov­ern­ment of assets that were left to indige­nous peo­ples,” he said. “This money for the insults on top of the injury. It’s not money for the ini­tial prob­lem itself, which is the tak­ing of vast ter­ri­to­ries. This is very impor­tant and I think the admin­is­tra­tion should be com­mended for mov­ing for­ward to set­tle these claims but there are these deeper issues that need to be addressed.”

    Guardian UK

    Posted by participo | May 5, 2012, 7:11 am
  3. Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 12, 2013, 5:59 pm
  4. Rick Perry is about to teach Texas a valu­able les­son in money-management: main­tain­ing your state’s bil­lion dol­lar gold hoard ain’t free:

    Wash­ing­ton Post
    Texas wants its gold back! Wait, what?

    Posted by Neil Irwin on March 26, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Texas has gen­er­ally been at the front of the pack of a cer­tain vari­ety of uber-hawkish, vaguely para­noid mon­e­tary pol­icy talk over the last few years. Recall it was the state’s gov­er­nor, Rick Perry, who while run­ning for pres­i­dent strongly sug­gested that Ben Bernanke would be com­mit­ting trea­son should the Fed­eral Reserve print any more money.

    But now some in the state, includ­ing Perry, are look­ing to put their money where their mouths are. Literally.

    Perry and some in the Texas leg­is­la­ture want to bring the roughly $1 bil­lion worth gold held by the state uni­ver­sity system’s invest­ment fund onto Texas soil, rather than in its cur­rent rest­ing pace in a vault in New York.

    “If we own it,” Perry said on Glenn Beck’s radio show last week, accord­ing to the Texas Tri­bune. “I will sug­gest to you that that’s not some­one else’s deter­mi­na­tion whether we can take pos­ses­sion of it back or not.”

    Here’s the thing. Perry’s push to relo­cate the state’s gold to a newly cre­ated “Texas Bul­lion Depos­i­tory,” in a strange way makes per­fect sense. It lays bare the ratio­nale for invest­ing in the yel­low metal to begin with, and is an excel­lent illus­tra­tion of the strange role that gold plays in a mod­ern econ­omy and investors’ psyches.

    ...

    If Texas moves its gold back home, it will deal with this in a very real way: What­ever it costs to build, main­tain, and guard a facil­ity secure enough to stash $1 bil­lion of gold in will essen­tially sub­tract from what­ever invest­ment return the hold­ings offer. (The law­maker advo­cat­ing the plan pointed out that only about 20 square feet of space would be needed for the gold as evi­dence that the cost shouldn’t be high, which kind of misses the point. It’s not the real estate cost that is expen­sive, it’s the tech­nol­ogy and man­power needed to pre­vent the heist of the mil­len­nium).

    Texas media out­lets have reported that the state’s gold is held at the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of New York, though it appears the gold in ques­tion is actu­ally at the vault of a pri­vate bank, HSBC, in New York (here is a 2011 arti­cle about the acqui­si­tion; an aide to Texas State Rep. Gio­vanni Capriglione con­firmed that this is the gold in ques­tion). Despite what you may have seen in Die Hard 3, in which thieves ran­sack the New York Fed, the secu­rity around major vaults is extremely sophis­ti­cated. Texas is con­sid­er­ing repli­cat­ing those secu­rity costs and giv­ing up the con­ve­nience of being able to sell gold eas­ily at the world’s finan­cial cap­i­tal. But why?

    The most com­mon rea­son to buy gold is as some­thing of an insur­ance pol­icy against some very bad events, like a bout of sig­nif­i­cant infla­tion. In the more plau­si­ble sce­nar­ios, like a return of 1970s-style period of 10 per­cent or so annual price increases, gold would indeed likely prove to be quite a good invest­ment. But in that sce­nario, the state of Texas would have no prob­lem get­ting access to its gold stored in New York. There would be no need to go to the trou­ble and expense of set­ting up a minia­ture Fort Knox in Austin.

    For it to make sense to go to all that has­sle of stor­ing your own gold, you have to be insur­ing against some much darker pos­si­bil­i­ties, like a col­lapse of the U.S. gov­ern­ment and mon­e­tary sys­tem, and/or Texas mak­ing a (sec­ond) bid to secede from the United States.

    In some episode of hyper­in­fla­tion and U.S. gov­ern­ment col­lapse, as the nation falls into a Hobbe­sian state of nature, paper dol­lars will be no good, and gold would likely be the medium of exchange for buy­ing food and guns and what­ever else is needed for Texas to pros­per amid the post-apocalyptic hellscape.

    Sim­i­larly, if Texas were to decide that enough was enough and it wished to no longer be part of these United States (a notion that Perry him­self seemed to joke about in 2009, say­ing “When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”), one could imag­ine the desir­abil­ity of hav­ing its gold sup­ply close to home. That would put New York banks, reg­u­lated by the U.S. gov­ern­ment, in the posi­tion of hav­ing to deter­mine whether the rebel repub­lic of Texas was the right­ful owner of the gold in its vault. In that sce­nario, it’s easy to imag­ine Texas would have a hard time get­ting ahold of its gold.

    In other words, if you think you need to hold gold as a hedge against a total col­lapse of the U.S. mon­e­tary and polit­i­cal sys­tem collapsing–not just as a hedge against higher-than-expected inflation–you had best store it close to home.

    Texas, it is worth not­ing, is not the only large, pros­per­ous econ­omy with a hard-money men­tal­ity to look to keep its gold close to home. Ear­lier this year, Germany’s cen­tral bank said it will relo­cate bil­lions worth of gold from vaults beneath the New York Fed and French cen­tral bank, guard­ing them in Frank­furt rather than entrust­ing them to cen­tral banks elsewhere.

    So there you have it: Texas, the Ger­many of America.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 9, 2013, 12:10 pm
  5. Lone Star Secessionist-lit: Romance nov­els for those that just can’t stop pin­ing for a civil war:

    May 12, 2013, 10:31 p.m. ET
    The Wall Street Jour­nal
    The Yel­low Prose of Texas? Seces­sion Move­ment Blooms in Fic­tion
    Alternate-History Authors Explore Putting The ‘Lone’ Back in the Lone Star State

    By MIGUEL BUSTILLO

    In the real world, Texas remains very much a part of the United States.

    But in the world of fic­tion, sev­eral authors have released books in the past year depict­ing the Lone Star State as a break­away repub­lic rebelling against shenani­gans in Washington.

    It’s the start of a lit­er­ary sub­genre: seces­sion­ist fan­tasy.

    “The Seces­sion of Texas” by Dar­rell Mal­oney of San Anto­nio envi­sions an inde­pen­dent Texas with its own bor­der patrol, guard­ing against peo­ple try­ing to sneak into the coun­try illegally—from Oklahoma.

    “Lone Star Day­break” by Erik L. Lar­son of Hous­ton tells the story of recruits in the Texas Defense Force, a mili­tia that pro­tects the sep­a­ratist state from Yan­kee armies. “Yel­low Rose of Texas” by Den­nis Sny­der describes a U.S. sad­dled with $22 tril­lion in debt, a defanged mil­i­tary and a left­ist pres­i­dent who promises to remove reli­gion from pub­lic life, prompt­ing an armed and eco­nom­i­cally vibrant Texas to declare that it has had enough.

    “It’s not a com­edy by any means,” says Mr. Sny­der, a pas­tor at a non­de­nom­i­na­tional church in Michi­gan who has never been to Texas. “The pres­i­dent basi­cally says he is going to rewrite the Con­sti­tu­tion when he takes office,” he says. “Texas real­izes he is going to take us into bondage and rebels.”

    None of the authors say they actu­ally sup­port seces­sion; they just think it makes for a provoca­tive story line. Texas seces­sion fic­tion falls into a long line of what-if books explor­ing alter­nate ver­sions of history.

    Win­ston Churchill con­tributed to a 1931 col­lec­tion of essays called “If It Had Hap­pened Oth­er­wise” with an entry envi­sion­ing how World War I might have been avoided—if the Con­fed­er­acy had won the Civil War.

    Newt Gin­grich added to the genre with a series of nov­els he co-wrote with William R. Forstchen, includ­ing “1945.” It sees the Nazis tem­porar­ily win­ning World War II in Europe, trig­ger­ing a Cold War with the U.S., which had fought Japan.

    Some alternate-history nov­els have envi­sioned a sep­a­rate Texas, notably 1990’s “The Dif­fer­ence Engine” by William Gib­son and Bruce Ster­ling, which explores what might have hap­pened to the world had com­put­ers been per­fected in Britain a cen­tury ear­lier. In the book, Texas and Cal­i­for­nia morph into inde­pen­dent nations.

    But the sug­ges­tion that Texas might break away has only recently become a com­mon plot­line. Some authors say their inter­est was spurred by recent events, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s remark in 2009 that “if Wash­ing­ton con­tin­ues to thumb their nose at the Amer­i­can peo­ple you know, who knows what might come out of that” (Mr. Perry has repeat­edly said he doesn’t favor secession).

    John Buescher, a researcher at the Roy Rosen­zweig Cen­ter for His­tory and New Media at George Mason Uni­ver­sity, has cham­pi­oned alter­nate his­to­ries as a way to teach real history.

    “For a his­tory geek, there are cer­tain moments when all sorts of things can hap­pen and the world would be totally dif­fer­ent,” Mr. Buescher says. Of the cur­rent Texas fancy, he adds, “Texas is feel­ing its oats eco­nom­i­cally these days, and there is a sense in the Zeit­geist that Texas would be pretty inter­est­ing if it really was its own nation.”

    Seces­sion fic­tion isn’t burn­ing up the best-seller lists. Mr. Snyder’s book, which came out in Feb­ru­ary, is pro­duced by a small Chris­t­ian imprint he owns called Con­cern­ing Life Pub­lish­ing. Mr. Mal­oney pub­lished his novel him­self in Jan­u­ary. Mr. Larson’s book was released by an Okla­homa com­pany called Tate Pub­lish­ing & Enter­prises last month. All are avail­able on Amazon.com.

    “I’m not get­ting rich off of it, that’s for sure,” says Mr. Mal­oney, who is retired from the Air Force. He says he is work­ing on a sequel.

    One book with a major pub­lisher, St. Martin’s Press, is “Don’t Mess with Travis” by Bob Smi­ley, which envi­sions a Texas gov­er­nor dri­ven to seces­sion after he dis­cov­ers a fed­eral plot to siphon off the state’s nat­ural resources and ship them to California.

    “We wanted to show the absur­di­ties on both sides of the aisle,” says Mr. Smi­ley, a tele­vi­sion writer in Los Ange­les and for­mer researcher for the late William F. Buck­ley Jr. Of seces­sion, he adds, “It obvi­ously remains some­thing peo­ple in Texas think could and maybe even should happen.”

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 14, 2013, 9:01 am
  6. Oh look, Rick Joyner — a leader in the Domin­ion­ist/“Lat­ter Rain” move­ment and ‘his­to­rian’ of the David Bar­ton-vari­ety — just called for a US mil­i­tary coup:

    Rick Joyner, Tel­e­van­ge­list And Pas­tor, Wants A Mil­i­tary Takeover Of The U.S. Government

    The Huff­in­g­ton Post | By Hunter Stu­art Posted: 10/02/2013 1:55 pm EDT

    No mat­ter how bad things are in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., right now, most peo­ple would prob­a­bly agree that a mil­i­tary takeover of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment wouldn’t improve the situation.

    But not tel­e­van­ge­list Rick Joyner.

    While on the show “Prophetic Per­spec­tive on Cur­rent Events” on Morn­ingStar TV on Mon­day, the noto­ri­ously con­ser­v­a­tive pas­tor implored God to save Amer­ica from being wiped out by the nefar­i­ous “forces” that are “at work right now to under­mine and destroy the republic.”

    “Raise up those who will save us,” Joyner said. “Because the sys­tem is so bro­ken... I believe our only hope is mil­i­tary takeover. Mar­tial law.”

    Joyner seems to gen­uinely believe the United States is on the brink of anni­hi­la­tion. Ear­lier in the seg­ment, he warns that the coun­try “may not last through [Pres­i­dent Barack] Obama’s sec­ond term.”

    Those famil­iar with Joyner, who is the exec­u­tive direc­tor of Morn­ingStar Min­istries, may not be sur­prised by his remarks. The web­site for Morn­ingStar Min­istries is pep­pered with ref­er­ences to Armaged­don, a topic Joyner fre­quently returns to in his ser­mons and dur­ing round­table discussions.

    ...

    Note that, while it’s prob­a­bly the case that Joyner was call­ing for a coup by the US army, he may have been refer­ring to a dif­fer­ent army. Don’t for­get that Rick Joyner is also appar­ently an mem­ber of the Knights of Malta and was appar­ently a spir­i­tual cat­a­lyst for fel­low Knight Kurt Wald­heim...it turns out being a Catholic isn’t a require­ment for join­ing the order. So maybe Joyner’s coup call also included an unspo­ken ref­er­ence to a dif­fer­ent kind of mil­i­tary force?

    And then there’s his friends in Joel’s Army. Rick hangs out with a lot of scary folks spout­ing scary stuff so who knows what this was all about.

    In other news...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 2, 2013, 8:09 pm
  7. It worth not­ing that de facto seces­sion might look a lot like sedi­tion:

    TPM Cafe: Opin­ion
    Let’s Call The Shut­down What It Is: Seces­sion By Another Means

    Bill Moy­ers – Octo­ber 8, 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

    Repub­li­cans have now lost three suc­ces­sive elec­tions to con­trol the Sen­ate, and they’ve lost the last two pres­i­den­tial elec­tions. Nonethe­less, they fought tooth and nail to kill Pres­i­dent Obama’s health care ini­tia­tive. They lost that fight, but with the cor­po­rate wing of Democ­rats, they man­aged to bend it toward pri­vate interests.

    So, we should be here on this: Oba­macare, as it is known, is deeply flawed. Big sub­si­dies to the health insur­ance indus­try, a bonanza for lob­by­ists, no pub­lic option and, as the New York Times reported this week, “Mil­lions of Poor Are Left Uncov­ered by Health Law” — largely because states con­trolled by Repub­li­cans refused to expand Medicaid.

    [...]

    Despite what they say, Oba­macare is only one of their tar­gets. Before they will allow the gov­ern­ment to reopen, they demand employ­ers be enabled to deny birth con­trol cov­er­age to female employ­ees; they demand Obama cave on the Key­stone pipeline; they demand the watch­dogs over cor­po­rate pol­lu­tion be muz­zled and the big bad reg­u­la­tors of Wall Street sent home. Their ran­som list goes on and on. The debt ceil­ing is next. They would have the gov­ern­ment default on its oblig­a­tions and responsibilities.

    When the pres­i­dent refused to buckle to this extor­tion, they threw their tantrum. Like the die-hards of the racist South a cen­tury and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giv­ing up their slaves, so would these peo­ple burn down the place, sink the ship.

    [...]

    At least, let’s name this for what it is: sab­o­tage of the demo­c­ra­tic process. Seces­sion by another means.

    Well, the GOP maybe have devolved into a state of child­like ter­ror over the prospect of a gov­ern­ment pro­gram pos­si­bly work­ing, but at least they’re still win­ners.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 8, 2013, 11:47 am
  8. @Pterrafractyl and Atlanta Bill–

    What we are look­ing at–under all the flow­ery ide­ol­o­gized rhetoric–is fas­cism and a fun­da­men­tal rejec­tion of not only demo­c­ra­tic process, but of Amer­i­can nation­hood itself.

    Oba­macare was a bill that was passed by both houses of con­gress, signed by the Pres­i­dent and upheld by the Supreme Court.

    The GOP is reject­ing leg­isla­tive democracy.

    The Lud­wig von Mises Insti­tute and “Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­ian Orga­ni­za­tion” rejct Amer­ica, endorse the Con­fed­er­acy, seek to have the South “re-cedede,” and favor SLAVERY.

    What I have been warn­ing of for decades is now tak­ing place before our eyes.

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | October 8, 2013, 7:28 pm
  9. @Dave: With the GOP now offer­ing a six-week rise in the debt ceil­ing (and a six-week exten­sion of the gov­ern­ment shut­down), in exchange for the promise that the Democ­rats will sit down and nego­ti­ate a long-term enti­tle­ment “Grand Bar­gain”, the ques­tion gets raised of just what kind of pres­sure Wall Street is going to be apply­ing to the dif­fer­ent sides if the six-week deal is accepted. It’s widely assumed that Wall Street must be get­ting wor­ried about dam­age the GOP is doing to the econ­omy and the banksters are going to qui­etly urge the GOP to back away from their demands. And who knows, maybe there was some Wall Street involve­ment in this recent debt ceil­ing retreat. But if there’s one thing that could tempt Wall Street into court­ing an eco­nomic cat­a­stro­phe it’s the pos­si­bil­ity that the cat­a­stro­phe will result in Wall Street get­ting their hands on all that social secu­rity money.

    Just imag­ine how much money will be made if one of the GOP’s long-standing enti­tle­ment pri­va­ti­za­tion schemes are put into place.

    So the ques­tion of what type of pres­sure Wall Street is going to apply to the GOP going for­ward is par­tially a ques­tion of whether or not enti­tle­ment pri­va­ti­za­tion is more, or less, likely when the government’s finances are seen as unsta­ble. Sure, a dam­aged econ­omy might make the pop­u­lace a lot less inclined to throw their future finan­cial safety-net into the giant stock mar­ket money-pit. But at the same time, part of the argu­ment we hear in favor of pri­va­tiz­ing social secu­rity is that there’s just no way the gov­ern­ment will be able to afford to pay out enti­tle­ments decades from now so the youth should take pri­vate accounts to pro­tect against that future gov­ern­ment fis­cal uncer­tainty. So is Wall Street likely to be all that con­cerned about the GOP ter­ror­iz­ing the mar­kets and con­vinc­ing the pub­lic that the gov­ern­ment is on a doomed path of unavoid­able insol­vency? There’s a pretty mas­sive pay­out for all those finan­cial giants if the GOP suc­ceeds and they’ve been pin­ing for such a gift for quite some time.

    The next few weeks should teach us quite a bit about how inter­ested the big banks and plu­to­crats are in just drop­ping the mask and aggres­sively sub­vert­ing democ­racy. Fas­cist dystopias don’t build them­selves, I sup­pose, so they have to make a move at some point. Now sure feels like one of those points.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 10, 2013, 12:02 pm
  10. @Dave: With another round of bizarre “nego­ti­at­ing” end­ing in fail­ure and the dwin­dling prospects of the US busi­ness com­mu­nity reign­ing in the Tea Party kamikazi squads, it’s worth ask­ing whether or not cre­at­ing a hope­less sit­u­a­tion that ends in mass dis­as­ter for the econ­omy and the GOP is a per­fectly accept­able and desir­able result for the far-right oli­garchs. As Krug­man points out, while the GOP has long been a dis­as­ter for the broader US busi­ness com­mu­nity, the GOP’s poli­cies have still been great for those at the very top. So while the busi­ness community’s pro­les might be freak­ing out about the eco­nomic dam­age, it’s pos­si­ble the oli­garchs really would love to see the kind of per­ma­nent dam­age done to the US econ­omy that a default could bring about. Espe­cially if the dam­age is per­ma­nent, at least for a few decades. Because few things could fuel the decades-long far-right drive to undo the New Deal and elim­i­nate the notion of a pub­lic safety-net bet­ter than dethron­ing of the dol­lar as the world’s reserve cur­rency and send­ing the US econ­omy into a deep, extended depres­sion. So there’s obvi­ously going to some seri­ous eurozone-crisis envy at work in the minds of the US’s elite.

    But here’s the best part, from an oli­garch per­spec­tive: The polit­i­cal repur­cus­sions may not really mat­ter. Sure, it’s entirely pos­si­ble that the GOP could sim­ply out-message the Democ­rats so maybe they’re still bet­ting that Obama will get more of the blame in the event of a default. But there’s another pos­si­bil­ity that involves win­ning by los­ing. The more dam­age the GOP does to itself, the bet­ter this could end up being for far-right move­ments that truly want to want to desta­bi­lize the US. Why? Because what could be more use­ful to the far-right than con­vinc­ing one of the most heavily-armed and rad­i­cal­ized seg­ments of the pop­u­lace to poten­tially just give up on the demo­c­ra­tic process. And what could con­vince that seg­ment of the pop­u­lace to give up on democ­racy bet­ter than an utter eco­nomic dis­as­ter that the rest of the coun­try blames on the GOP? In other words, if the GOP screws up so badly that they do per­ma­nent dam­age to the econ­omy and GOP itself, we’re going to be left with a deeply depressed econ­omy and an utterly hope­less and dejected far-right com­mu­nity that sees no sal­va­tion in elec­toral pol­i­tics. That’s the per­fect sce­nario for seces­sion­ist move­ments and worse.

    And, of course, if Obama caves to their demands they can claim ulti­mate vic­tory and rinse and repeat.

    So it’s poten­tially a “Heads I win, Tails You lose, unless I lose, in which case I lead an insur­rec­tion­ist move­ment fueled by blind rage that destroys the coun­try and Your children’s future and there­fore I still win”-situation.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 12, 2013, 5:22 pm
  11. @Dave: Speak­ing of seces­sion and sedi­tion, check out today’s event at the WWII memo­r­ial. It’s appar­ently going to be a “game-changer”, accord­ing to the House GOP­ers, because of all the enthu­si­asm being whipped up to oppose the tyranny of clos­ing war memo­ri­als dur­ing gov­ern­ment shut­downs:

    TPM Editor’s Blog
    Rage & Per­for­mance Art
    Josh Mar­shall – Octo­ber 13, 2013, 6:04 PM EDT

    In case you missed the day’s events, while high level nego­ti­a­tions sput­tered on, a Tea Party rally includ­ing Sen. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin suc­ceeded in cap­tur­ing some of the essence of the polit­i­cal world the rejec­tion­ist rump of the GOP is now inhab­it­ing in scenes rem­i­nis­cent of 2009’s Sum­mer of Teh Crazy.

    Spurred by out­rage at the clo­sure of fed­eral war memo­ri­als they demanded be closed along with the rest of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, the crowd sym­bol­i­cally ‘stormed’ two closed memo­ri­als and then headed to the White House where at least one Con­fed­er­ate Flag proudly flew and far-right gad­fly Larry Klay­man, who has of late been call­ing for an upris­ing to unseat the Pres­i­dent (sched­uled for Nov. 19th), told the crowd to “demand that this pres­i­dent leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to fig­u­ra­tively come out with his hands up.”

    ...

    Despite the fact that the num­ber of par­tic­i­pants seem to have num­bered in the low hun­dreds, House con­ser­v­a­tives report­edly see the event as a “game changer” which will turn the tide against the Pres­i­dent next week and allow them to move on to victory.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 13, 2013, 4:49 pm
  12. The promi­nent place­ment of the Oath Keep­ers flag at Sunday’s “Mil­lion Vet March” at the WWII Memo­r­ial in DC might seem like poten­tially dis­turb­ing news when Larry Klay­man is also speak­ing there. But keep in mind that this could be an exer­cise by the Oath Keep­ers’ “Civ­i­liza­tion Preser­va­tion” units. Maybe they thought the war memo­ri­als needed pre­serv­ing. And why not? Learn­ing about the his­tory of war­fare — all the sac­ri­fice and hor­rors involved and why we absolutely have to avoid war­fare in the future if we’re to truly pre­serve civ­i­liza­tion — is a pretty impor­tant com­po­nent of “Civ­i­liza­tion Preser­va­tion” so it’s hard to argue with orga­ni­za­tions focused try­ing to pre­serve war memo­ri­als. Espe­cially if the orga­ni­za­tion is also offer­ing FEMA-like ser­vices in the event of dis­as­ters. That sounds quite help­ful, actu­ally. That may or may not be what the Oath Keep­ers have in mind for the future but it would be nice if it was.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 13, 2013, 11:16 pm
  13. It looks like we have a win­ner!

    TPM Livewire
    Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party Sen­ate Chal­lenger Attended Neo-Confederate Gath­er­ings
    Daniel Strauss – Octo­ber 23, 2013, 11:40 AM EDT

    Mis­sis­sippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel ®, the recently announced pri­mary chal­lenger for Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss) Sen­ate seat, spoke at a neo-Confederate con­fer­ence in Lau­rel, Mis­sis­sippi in August, accord­ing to Mother Jones.

    The con­fer­ence was hosted by the Jones County Rosin Heels, a local chap­ter of the Sons of Con­fed­er­ate Vet­er­ans. Invi­ta­tions for the event described it as a “South­ern Her­itage Con­fer­ence” intended for “polit­i­cally incor­rect folks.” Actu­ally, Mother Jones also noted, that event was the sec­ond Jones County Rosin Heels event he recently attended. In June McDaniel was the keynote speaker at the Divi­sion Reunion in Jack­son, also hosted by the Jones County Rosin Heels.

    The Jones County Heels have been pretty clear about its seces­sion­ist sen­ti­ments, Mother Jones fur­ther noted. The group’s newslet­ter said in Sep­tem­ber said that “we are liv­ing in the times that Jef­fer­son Davis pre­dicted would one day come” where the dis­agree­ments that resulted in the Civil War arose again.

    McDaniel is con­sid­ered a top-tier chal­lenger to Cochran. Almost imme­di­ately after he entered the race, he was endorsed by the Sen­ate Con­ser­v­a­tives Fund, The Madi­son Project and the Club for Growth.

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 23, 2013, 7:07 pm
  14. The GOP’s civil war between the overtly crazy Tea Party wing and the not quite as overtly crazy estab­lish­ment wing can man­i­fest in all sorts of dif­fer­ent ways. Some­times, this con­flict can take on his­tor­i­cal res­o­nance with the US civil war itself. For instance, in Mis­sis­sippi, the GOP’s civil war is about whether or not the party should be seek­ing out the sup­port of seces­sion­ist and seg­re­ga­tion­ists. It’s a reminder that his­tory can come alive in con­tem­po­rary con­flicts. Espe­cially when you’re try­ing to repeat:

    TPM DC
    Tea Partiers Livid State GOP Wants Clar­i­fi­ca­tion On White Supremacy Affiliation

    Daniel Strauss – April 16, 2014, 10:58 AM EDT

    Mis­sis­sippi Tea Partiers want the state’s Repub­li­can Party chair­man to resign for call­ing on state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) to clar­ify whether he planned to be the keynote speaker at a pro-Second Amend­ment event and tea party rally that fea­tured a seg­re­ga­tion­ist vendor.

    The call for state party chair­man Joe Nosef (pic­tured) to resign comes in response to Nosef telling MSNBC that McDaniel needed to clar­ify whether he had planned to attend the event or not. Nosef, on the Paul Gallo Show, also sug­gested that McDaniel could cost Repub­li­cans a Sen­ate seat. McDaniel is run­ning to unseat Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS).

    “It is inap­pro­pri­ate for Nosef to make such claims given his role as Chair­man of the MS GOP. Accord­ingly, Joe Nosef should resign from his posi­tion as Chair­man of the MS GOP effec­tive imme­di­ately,” the Mis­sis­sippi Tea Party said in a statement.

    ...

    As TPM pre­vi­ously reported, McDaniel had been slated to be the keynote speaker at a com­bined Firearm Free­dom Day/ Tea Party Music Fes­ti­val in Gun­town, Mis­sis­sippi. That event fea­tured a ven­dor who sold Con­fed­er­ate mem­o­ra­bilia and founded the Coun­cil of White Patriot Vot­ers and the Con­fed­er­ate Patriot Vot­ers United, which the South­ern Poverty Law Cen­ter listed as an active white nation­al­ist group. Orga­niz­ers said McDaniel had been the con­firmed speaker since February.

    When TPM reached McDaniel cam­paign offi­cials they denied that he was sched­uled to speak and pushed the orga­niz­ers to remove McDaniel’s name from posters adver­tis­ing him as the keynote speaker.

    McDaniel’s asso­ci­a­tion to neo-Confederates has been called into ques­tion before. Last year he attended at least one neo-Confederate event in Mississippi.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 16, 2014, 1:14 pm

Post a comment