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

For The Record  

FTR #366 What’s Going On Here?

Lis­ten: Side 1 | Side 2

This broad­cast con­tin­ues analy­sis of the polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and strate­gic alliances, rela­tion­ships and con­flicts under­ly­ing the 9/11 attacks. These rela­tion­ships will be dis­cussed at greater length below. If one could sum up the 9/11 attacks in one sen­tence, it might be as fol­lows. If Adolf Hitler had been in the White House when Pearl Har­bor was attacked this is what you would be see­ing. 9/11 con­sti­tutes the most dra­mat­ic and vis­i­ble (though not nec­es­sar­i­ly the most impor­tant) ele­ment in an observ­able con­tin­u­a­tion of World War II. This war is being waged between the Unit­ed States, the Under­ground Reich and its Islam­o­fas­cist allies.

The broad­cast begins with dis­cus­sion of five arti­cles in the same edi­tion of The Finan­cial Times. (Three of these were set forth at the end of FTR 365.) As we saw in FTR 353, the U.S. econ­o­my is depen­dent on direct net for­eign invest­ment in order to coun­ter­bal­ance the grow­ing cur­rent accounts deficit. Direct net for­eign invest­ment decreased from $200 bil­lion in 2000. It dropped to slight­ly over $2.1 bil­lion in 2001. In that regard, the eco­nom­ic effect of the threat of ter­ror­ism (includ­ing weapons of mass destruc­tion) should be tak­en into account. After Sep­tem­ber 11, Osama Bin Laden called for his fol­low­ers to attack tar­gets that would dam­age the U.S. econ­o­my.

1. Investors should be great­ly cheered by Mr. Rums­feld’s recent state­ments. “Ter­ror­ists will inevitably get their hands on chem­i­cal, bio­log­i­cal and nuclear weapons and use them against the U.S., Don­ald Rums­feld, the U.S. defense sec­re­tary, said yes­ter­day.” (“Mass Destruc­tion Weapons Attack ‘Inevitable’ ” by Lydia Ade­tun­ji; Finan­cial Times; 5/22/2002; p. 6.)

2. The same day that Rums­feld’s com­ments were made, the cap­i­tal mar­kets reflect­ed investor anx­i­ety. “U.S. equi­ties fell sharply, accel­er­at­ing loss­es late in the ses­sion as more warn­ings of pos­si­ble ter­ror­ist attacks sent jit­ters through Wall Street.” (“Ter­ror Alerts Accel­er­ate Wall Street Loss­es” by Mary Chung; Finan­cial Times; 5/22/2002; p. 36.)

3. “A slide in stocks yes­ter­day helped gov­ern­ment bonds hold on to their gains of Mon­day with investors also favor­ing Trea­suries amid ner­vous­ness over fur­ther pos­si­ble ter­ror­ist attacks . . . Con­cerns are mount­ing over a pos­si­ble fall in for­eign invest­ment as the U.S. dol­lar weak­ens against the yen.” (“Ter­ror Fears Trig­ger Run for Havens” by Jen­ny Wig­gins, James Poli­ti, and Ken Hiji­no; Finan­cial Times; 5/22/2002; p. 24.) The 9/11 attacks and the threat of more dev­as­tat­ing assaults threat­en to bank­rupt the Amer­i­can econ­o­my. The Bush/Republican tax cuts and result­ing cur­rent accounts deficit will destroy the coun­try as effec­tive­ly as an Al Qae­da nuke. This is par­tic­u­lar­ly true in light of the mil­i­tary buildup that is tak­ing place. The buildup, nec­es­sary under the cir­cum­stances, must be done intel­li­gent­ly. The increase would not nec­es­sar­i­ly be a large per­cent­age of GDP, how­ev­er if the “Mag­inot Mis­sile Defense” is imple­ment­ed, it will draw essen­tial resources away from oth­er valu­able pro­grams, civil­ian and military.This is par­tic­u­lar­ly true if Bush’s tax cuts go through.

4. Next, the broad­cast focus­es on geo-polit­i­cal maneu­ver­ing between the U.S. and Ger­many. Note that (like the first three arti­cles above) both of the fol­low­ing sto­ries are from the same edi­tion of the Finan­cial Times. One of the piv­otal ele­ments in the geo-polit­i­cal strug­gle between the Unit­ed States and the Under­ground Reich is the Amer­i­can rela­tion­ship to Rus­sia. “As Pres­i­dent George W. Bush begins his vis­it to Europe today, it could be argued that Europe should be in a bet­ter mood. Ger­many is unit­ed. The cold war is over. The Euro­pean Union is about to embark on an his­toric enlarge­ment East­wards. But col­lec­tive­ly, Amer­i­ca’s Euro­pean Union allies are in a grumpy mood, not only because of Wash­ing­ton’s grow­ing uni­lat­er­al­ist stance on trade, glob­al warm­ing and oth­er for­eign pol­i­cy issues. . . . Rather, it is Wash­ing­ton’s very suc­cess with Moscow that is caus­ing the unhap­pi­ness.” (“Links with Putin Leave Europe out in the Cold” by Judy Dempsey; Finan­cial Times; 5/22/2002; p. 2.)

5. In the con­text of the dis­cus­sion that fol­lows, one should not lose sight of the fact that the EU, as well as the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union are dom­i­nat­ed by Ger­many and the Under­ground Reich. “ ‘Europe does not have a glob­al secu­ri­ty role at present because it lacks capa­bil­i­ties. Nor does it have a strat­e­gy for Rus­sia,’ said Sergei Kor­tunov, vice-pres­i­dent of the Moscow-based For­eign Pol­i­cy Asso­ci­a­tion. ‘Yet in the long run, it is Europe to which Rus­sia will rejoin. Europe must be ready.’ ” (Idem.)

6. “The Euro­peans are far from ready to deal with Rus­sia, even though EU enlarge­ment to east­ern and cen­tral Europe runs the risk of exac­er­bat­ing Russ­ian fears of iso­la­tion.” (Idem.)

7. “Enlarge­ment is mak­ing the EU inward-look­ing instead of devel­op­ing its rela­tions with Rus­sia,’ said Christo­pher Lang­ton, defense ana­lyst at Lon­don’s Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute for Strate­gic Stud­ies. He argued that even though the EU bemoans its lack of mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties and defense spend­ing, it could eas­i­ly lese from Rus­sia air­lift trans­porta­tion, the key equip­ment it lacks. Europe could seize that advan­tage but it refus­es to do so for nation­al or bureau­crat­ic rea­sons,’ added Mr. Lang­ton. ‘Europe should grasp Putin’s prag­ma­tism. Time is not lim­it­less.” (Idem.)

8. The U.S./Underground Reich strug­gle also embraces Ger­many’s long-sought posi­tion on the U.N. Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil. “The new alliance between Rus­sia and the North Atlantic Treaty Orga­ni­za­tion has under­mined Ger­many’s long-held ambi­tion to become a per­ma­nent mem­ber of the Unit­ed Nations Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil, diplo­mats said yes­ter­day.” (“Nato-Rus­sia Alliance Hits Ger­many’s U.N. Amti­tions” by Car­o­la Hoyos, Finan­cial Times; 5/22/2002; p. 2.)

9. “ ‘The new alliance will play into the debate on the Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil expan­sion,’ said one west­ern diplo­mat. ‘Now that four out of the five per­ma­nent mem­bers are prac­ti­cal­ly Nato, it will have an impact on Ger­many’s chances.’ ” (Idem.)

10. Bear­ing in mind the con­cept of the “Earth Island”, note the sit­u­a­tion vis-à-vis India. “India, which is also vying for a per­ma­nent seat at the table, has seized on the announce­ment. Vijay Nam­biar, the coun­try’s ambas­sador to the U.N., said: ‘The essen­tial ques­tion is the estab­lish­ment of a bet­ter bal­anced Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil. The Russ­ian move­ment towards Nato would in fact be pos­i­tive in our view and would add to the ratio­nale [of India gain­ing a per­ma­nent seat].’ ” (Idem.)

11. Anoth­er major geo-polit­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tion is the effect of the pro­posed Caspi­an Sea/Afghan pipeline. Should the long-stand­ing hos­til­i­ties between India and Pak­istan erupt into nuclear war this might very well man­date a Euro­pean route for any access­ing of Caspi­an fuels. In that con­text, con­tem­plate the pos­si­ble role of Al Qae­da in exac­er­bat­ing India/Pakistan ten­sions. “Hun­dreds of al Qae­da and for­mer Tal­iban fight­ers are oper­at­ing in the Indi­an sec­tor of Kash­mir, accord­ing to a mem­ber of the state’s par­lia­ment and its police chief.” (“Promi­nent Kash­miris Say Al Qae­da is There” by Anna Bad­khen; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 6/23/2002; p. A12.)

12. “The star­tling claims by Kash­miri leg­is­la­tor Javed Hus­sain Shah and top police offi­cial A.K. Suri come on the heels of asser­tions by India and the Unit­ed States that Al Qae­da fight­ers may be active in Kash­mir.” (Idem.)

13. “Of course al Qae­da fight­ers are here,’ Shah said, ‘Hun­dreds of them.’ ” (Idem.) Whether or not Mr. Shah’s assess­ment is accu­rate, it is cer­tain that Al Qae­da is in Pak­istan itself and that Ger­many played a promi­nent in the devel­op­ment of the Pak­istani nuclear capa­bil­i­ty.

14. In attempt­ing to under­stand the com­plex­i­ties of the Under­ground Reich’s attack on the Unit­ed States, it is impor­tant to assess the retrench­ment of the American/German eco­nom­ic axis at the end of World War II in the con­text of the Cold War, in par­tic­u­lar the con­cept of renascent Nazi ele­ments using anti-com­mu­nism as a vehi­cle for world con­quest. In addi­tion, one should remem­ber that the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion was serv­ing as a Tro­jan Horse. Like the Islam­o­fas­cists with which the U.S. iden­ti­fied itself dur­ing the Afghan war against the Sovi­ets in the 1980s, its erst­while Nazi allies were ded­i­cat­ed to destroy­ing the U.S. (even­tu­al­ly). Bear in mind that the Under­ground Reich and the Yock­eyites were also work­ing with the Sovi­ets, play­ing both sides against the mid­dle.

15. In that con­text, we present the obser­va­tions of James Stew­art Mar­tin. Mar­tin was in charge of the eco­nom­ic war­fare sec­tion of the antitrust divi­sion of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice dur­ing the Sec­ond World War. As such, he was in charge of attempt­ing to inter­dict the eco­nom­ic forces under­ly­ing the Third Reich.

16. Mar­tin cit­ed the expe­ri­ence of for­mer Ger­man Chan­cel­lor Hein­rich Brun­ing, deposed by the Nazi seizure of pow­er. “Dr. Brun­ing’s sto­ry was one of being always a step behind the events. By his own account he nev­er knew what hit him until after he had been deposed and w hid­ing out in the moun­tains of Aus­tria. While gangs of nazis combed the coun­try­side look­ing for him, he spent his days read­ing and for the first time under­stand­ing Thucy­dides’s clas­sic his­to­ry of the Pelo­pon­nesian War: a work that gen­er­a­tions of British diplo­mats have used for a teething ring, and that Dr. Brun­ing had car­ried with him from his ear­ly youth. As he reread Thucy­dides’s sto­ry of ancient pow­er strug­gles, he sud­den­ly began to real­ize what forces had been com­bined against him in Ger­many: how under the pres­sure of admin­is­tra­tion he had assent­ed to decrees that weak­ened the ‘equal pro­tec­tion of the laws,’ and how large-scale eco­nom­ic forces had made inevitable some devel­op­ments he had tried to stem by ‘vol­un­tary’ agree­ments among busi­ness inter­ests.” (All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; pp. 5–6.)

17. Brun­ing’s expe­ri­ences did not seem to ful­ly reg­is­ter. “Even in the retelling, how­ev­er, it seemed to me that Dr. Brun­ing again showed some of his for­mer blind­ness. The main point in Thucy­dides’s his­to­ry was the dis­cov­ery of the large part that eco­nom­ic forces play in bring­ing nations into con­flict. Yet, even when pressed by ques­tions, Dr. Brun­ing showed no par­tic­u­lar con­cern over the role of the large Ger­man indus­tri­al cor­po­ra­tions. He relat­ed the entire sto­ry of Franz Von Papen’s intrigues, his post­ing of gun­men to pre­vent Brun­ing from see­ing the aging Von Hin­den­burg, and the oth­er events of the last days, with­out once allud­ing to Von Papen’s con­fer­ences with the bankers and the Rhineland indus­tri­al­ists who agreed to back Hitler and who put up the funds. It was, through­out, a sto­ry of pol­i­tics with­out eco­nom­ics: a sto­ry of a man who had felt that no harm could come from tem­po­rary dic­ta­tor­ship so long as the laws and the courts pro­tect­ed civ­il rights, who showed no feel­ing for the ways in which great eco­nom­ic pow­er and unlim­it­ed funds could get around an incon­ve­nient legal­ism.” Thucy­dides’ account should inform our present sit­u­a­tion. (Ibid.; p. 6.)

18. Next, the pro­gram sets forth Mar­t­in’s analy­sis of the ecopo­lit­i­cal con­ti­nu­ity prac­ticed by Ger­man pow­er bro­kers. The chap­ter quot­ed here is titled (appro­pri­ate­ly) “The Decline and Fall.” “Gen­er­al [Lucius] Clay [in charge of the occu­pa­tion of Ger­many] exhib­it­ed a well-devel­oped his­tor­i­cal sense. Yet a future gen­er­a­tion of his­to­ri­ans may find that, iron­i­cal­ly, it was this sense of his­to­ry, com­bined with the life­time habits of a mil­i­tary career, that con­tributed most to the defeat of the occu­pa­tion. Gen­er­al Clay, in my first talk with him in Jan­u­ary 1946, said that he was deter­mined to make the four-pow­er occu­pa­tion suc­ceed. He was con­vinced that fail­ure to make four-pow­er gov­ern­ment work would be a cat­a­stro­phe, and per­haps the biggest sin­gle step toward a third world con­flict.” (Ibid.; p. 235.)

19. Note the impor­tance of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Von Clause­witz on the think­ing of Ger­man ecopo­lit­i­cal strate­gists. “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. This post-war of the Ger­man occu­pa­tion was dif­fer­ent from the ‘cold war’ between the Unit­ed States and Rus­sia, which broke out at about the same time. The lat­ter com­pli­cat­ed the diag­no­sis, like a man get­ting typhoid fever and pneu­mo­nia at the same time.” (The Ger­man ecopo­lit­i­cal maneu­ver­ing had suc­cess­ful­ly con­fused the issues, to their great advan­tage. (Idem.)

20. Mar­tin is sym­pa­thet­ic to the forces that manip­u­lat­ed Gen­er­al Clay—a resolved and sin­cere­ly patri­ot­ic man. He was among those suc­cess­ful­ly and trag­i­cal­ly sub­vert­ed. “In the first years of the occu­pa­tion of Ger­many, the two strug­gles had not yet become con­fused. Gen­er­al Clay said the best con­tri­bu­tion we could make to peace would be to get four-pow­er co-oper­a­tion in car­ry­ing out the agree­ments for the con­trol of Ger­many.” (Idem.)

21. “Lat­er oth­ers with less his­tor­i­cal sense began to sup­port anti-Russ­ian Ger­mans on the the­o­ry that ‘any ene­my of Rus­sia is a friend of the Unit­ed States.’ The two wars became inter­wo­ven, and men who saw no dif­fer­ence came to make up the effec­tive bulk of Gen­er­al Clay’ staff. When the Eco­nom­ics divi­sion chose to ignore agree­ments to lim­it heavy indus­try and expand light indus­try, this depar­ture was ‘nec­es­sary’ to build up a strong Ger­many. When the French or Rus­sians object­ed to eco­nom­ic ‘uni­ty’ under the lead­er­ship of old-line Ruhr coal and steel men, the same peo­ple held that fail­ure of the French and Rus­sians to live up to the Pots­dam agree­ment for eco­nom­ic uni­ty was an act of inter­na­tion­al bad faith. Here, instead of crack­ing down on his own staff, Gen­er­al Clay let the pen­du­lum swing. He allowed his sense of his­to­ry to tell him such devel­op­ments were inevitable.” (Ibid.; p. 236.)

22. “It was a fair guess that con­fus­ing the cold war with the post-war was lead­ing to com­pet­i­tive woo­ing of the most strong­ly entrenched Ger­man ele­ments. That would mean the end of reforms—not mere­ly the end of decarteliza­tion but denaz­i­fi­ca­tion, but of land reforms, inten­sive agri­cul­ture, the rebal­anc­ing of heavy and light indus­try, polit­i­cal decen­tral­iza­tion, re-edu­ca­tion, and the oth­ers. But the ‘civil­ian’ and ‘mil­i­tary’ habits under such cir­cum­stances are some­times dif­fer­ent. A civil­ian may fight back on a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple and if defeat­ed will resign. The mil­i­tary habit is to argue back until stopped by a direct order from high­er author­i­ty and then knuck­le under. Gen­er­al Clay, sens­ing a swing of the pen­du­lum or a wave of the future, had held his fire in cas­es when he, as ‘high­er author­i­ty,’ had the pow­er to give a direct order. As a result, he was steadi­ly los­ing both civil­ians and offi­cers who had been in charge of the ‘reform’ pro­grams. The fights for the reform pro­grams looked like mere quar­rel­ing if the oppo­nents of reform were not declared ‘wrong’. Yet the reform poli­cies remained ‘unchanged,’ while the reforms were total­ly blocked.” (Ibid.; pp.237–238.)

23. Next, the pro­gram high­lights Mar­t­in’s obser­va­tions about the nature of the forces that had defeat­ed his and his col­league’s efforts. This analy­sis is impor­tant to remem­ber in the con­text of some of the dis­cus­sion about whether or not it was “the gov­ern­ment” that “did” 9/11. Would that it were so sim­ple. “After two and a half years, I came back from Ger­many quite well aware that I had been wrestling with a buzz saw. We had not been stopped in Ger­man by Ger­man busi­ness. We had been stopped in Ger­many by Amer­i­can busi­ness.” (Ibid.; 264.)

24. “The forces that stopped us had oper­at­ed from the Unit­ed States and had not oper­at­ed in the open. We sere not stopped by a law of con­gress, by an exec­u­tive order of the Pres­i­dent, or even a change of pol­i­cy approved by the Pres­i­dent or any mem­ber of his cab­i­net. In short, what­ev­er it was that had stopped us was not ‘the gov­ern­ment’ But it clear­ly had com­mand of chan­nels through which the gov­ern­ment nor­mal­ly oper­ates.” (Ibid.; p. 264.)

25. One of the major stick­ing points for many of Dulles’ co-con­spir­a­tors was Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt, and his New Deal. “In the Unit­ed States in 1933. Pres­i­dent Roo­sevelt tried to estab­lish a gov­ern­ment pow­er­ful enough to talk back to the pri­vate oper­a­tors. For a time the Roo­sevelt gov­ern­ment assert­ed its right to con­trol busi­ness activ­i­ties wher­ev­er they might affect the pub­lic inter­est. But with the out­break of war, men who had been on the out­side dur­ing this New Deal Era. Curs­ing ‘that man’ from their chairs in the Union League had to be called to Wash­ing­ton. The gov­ern­ment of the Unit­ed States found that it was in no posi­tion to fight a war unless it made a deal with the pow­ers in con­trol of the coun­try’s pro­duc­tive capac­i­ty.” (Ibid.; pp. 264–265.)

26. The Euro­pean and glob­al cen­ter of this pow­er axis was the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, which these pro­grams have dis­cussed so often. The secre­cy of this pow­er cen­ter, even to some of those who were encharged with neu­tral­iz­ing it. “Even today, how­ev­er, there are U.S. Trea­sury old-timers of World War II still not aware of the mag­ni­tude of the Bor­mann oper­a­tion and of its suc­cess. Those who know, in Wash­ing­ton, in South Amer­i­ca, and in the capi­tols of Europe, are locked togeth­er in a con­spir­a­cy of silence that has endured for thir­ty-sev­en years until the pub­li­ca­tion of this work.” (Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; p. 152.)

27. “In this silent con­test dur­ing the wind down years of World War II, Orvis A. Schmidt was not to emerge vic­tor over Mar­tin Bor­mann, although he tried. Tire­less­ly, he told assort­ed Sen­ate com­mit­tees what was hap­pen­ing, spoke of the extent of the Ger­man plan, and urged a new ded­i­ca­tion to stop­ping the flight-cap­i­tal blitzkrieg, with the pre­scient warn­ing, ‘It is these new con­cen­tra­tions of eco­nom­ic pow­er which will enable Ger­many to rise again.’ ” (Idem.)

28. “Orvis A. Schmidt felt that he was a man cry­ing in the wilder­ness as he gave tes­ti­mo­ny before Sen­ate com­mit­tees. The mood of the coun­try and the mar­ket­place was sim­i­lar: get our boys home and get on with the busi­ness of mak­ing mon­ey and build­ing new homes and sta­bi­liz­ing the econ­o­my for the bumper crop of babies which was sure to come. When Orvis Schmidt told the Sen­a­tors the extent of Ger­man eco­nom­ic infil­tra­tion into the for­eign coun­tries even before VE-day and that the Ger­mans intend­ed to pre­serve this vast hid­den eco­nom­ic struc­ture in order to rise again, he knew instinc­tive­ly that he had failed to catch the inter­est of the Amer­i­can law­mak­ers.” (Idem.)

29. “Schmidt tes­ti­fied: ‘The dan­ger does not lie so much in the fact that the Ger­man indus­tri­al giants have hon­ey­combed the neu­trals, Turkey and Argenti­na, with branch­es and affil­i­ates which know how to sub­vert their com­mer­cial inter­ests to the espi­onage sab­o­tage demands of their gov­ern­ment. It is impor­tant and dan­ger­ous, how­ev­er, that many of these branch­es, sub­sidiaries, and affil­i­ates in the neu­trals and much of the cash, secu­ri­ties, patents, con­tracts and so forth, are osten­si­bly owned through the medi­um of secret num­bered accounts or rubric accounts, trusts, loans, hold­ing com­pa­nies, bear­er shares, and the like by dum­my per­sons and com­pa­nies claim­ing neu­tral nation­al­i­ty and all of the alleged pro­tec­tion and priv­i­leges aris­ing from such iden­ti­ties. The real prob­lem is to break the veil of secre­cy and reach and elim­i­nate the Ger­man abil­i­ty to finance anoth­er world war. We must ren­der use­less the devices and cloaks which have been employed to hide Ger­man assets.” (Ibid.; pp. 152–3.)

30. Next, the pro­gram high­lights FDR’s plan to ensnare the Amer­i­can end of the Under­ground Reich’s Ger­man ecopo­lit­i­cal arm and (employ­ing the tes­ti­mo­ny of their Nazi col­leagues), and try them at Nurem­berg for war crimes. Note that Oper­a­tion Safe­haven was the code-name for the U.S. Trea­sury Depart­ment and British intel­li­gence oper­a­tion to track the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal pro­gram. “All through the war, Roo­sevelt had reluc­tant­ly caved in to British demands that the Jew­ish issue be ignored, that the con­cen­tra­tion camp vic­tims must be expend­able to the war effort. But the one issue upon which Roo­sevelt was unyield­ing was his insis­tence that after the war, the Ger­man bankers must stand in the dock at the Nurem­berg war crimes tri­al. This is con­firmed by the top-secret White House—Justice Depart­ment cor­re­spon­dence files.” (The Secret War Against the Jews: How West­ern Espi­onage Betrayed the Jew­ish Peo­ple; John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons; Copy­right 1994 [HC]; St. Mar­t­in’s Press; ISBN 0–312-11057‑X; p. 77.)

31. “The plan was to wait until [Deutsche Bank chief Her­mann] Abs, Krupp, [indus­tri­al­ist Friedrich] Flick, and the rest of the indus­tri­al­ists were charged. Then Mor­gen­thau would unleash the wire­tap evi­dence show­ing that the Nazis had hid­den their stolen assets in Switzer­land, with the help of Allen Dulles. The whole scan­dal of West­ern aid to the Ger­man econ­o­my would unrav­el. All the slights of the Stan­dard Oil black­mail would be avenged.” (Idem.)

32. In this con­text, one should not lose sight of the fact that George W.‘s grand­fa­ther (Prescott Bush, Sr.) and great grand­fa­ther (George Her­bert Walk­er might very well have been either wit­ness­es and/or defen­dants in the case.)

33. “The sud­den release of the Safe­haven inter­cepts would force a pub­lic out­cry to bring trea­son charges against those British and Amer­i­can busi­ness­men who aid­ed the ene­my in time of war. The tar­gets includ­ed not only the Dulles broth­ers, but [Dil­lon & Read exec­u­tive and Sec­re­tary of the Navy James] For­re­stal and major indus­tri­al­ists, such as Hen­ry Ford. From a pros­e­cu­tor’s point of view, indict­ing the Ger­man bankers first was a bril­liant strat­e­gy. To save them­selves, Her­man Abs and Hjal­mar Schacht would have to reveal the whole his­to­ry of their sor­did deal­ings with com­pa­nies such as Ford Motor.” (Ibid.; pp. 77–78.)

34. “Despite the shields of Swiss bank­ing laws and the lay­ers of cor­po­ra­tions that Dulles had erect­ed, he had nev­er antic­i­pat­ed that the Swiss bank codes and cables would ever become pub­lic knowl­edge. Roo­sevelt and [Trea­sury Sec­re­tary] Hen­ry Mor­gen­thau would have hanged him and all his col­leagues, for­ev­er break­ing the pow­er of the pirates of inter­na­tion­al finance. It was a glo­ri­ous dream. Yet the scheme com­plete­ly fell apart because some­one tipped off Dulles that he was under sur­veil­lance.” (Ibid,; p. 78.)

35. Dulles was appar­ent­ly tipped off in advance of what was under­way. “Because he learned about the Safe­haven inter­cepts so quick­ly, Dulles knew that there was no smok­ing gun against him. His work for the Nazis pri­or to the war was not ille­gal, let alone trea­so­nous. His wartime com­mu­ni­ca­tions with the Nazis, although high­ly embar­rass­ing, could be excused as an exer­cise in decep­tion or as part of his intrigues to over­throw Hitler. Although many of his wartime actions were unau­tho­rized, they were not crim­i­nal.” (Ibid,; p. 79.)

36. “What was crim­i­nal was the way that Dulles was try­ing to help the Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists get their mon­ey out at the end of the war. After the Nazis’ 1943 defeat at Stal­in­grad, var­i­ous Nazi busi­ness­men real­ized they were on the los­ing side and made plans to evac­u­ate their wealth. The Per­on gov­ern­ment in Argenti­na was receiv­ing the Nazi flight cap­i­tal with open arms, and Dulles helped it hide the mon­ey. This was more than a vio­la­tion of the Trad­ing with the Ene­my Act; giv­ing aid and com­fort to the ene­my in time of war was trea­son. Once again, how­ev­er, Allen Dulles was one step ahead of his pur­suers.” (Idem.)

37. Much of this vital his­to­ry remains obscured to this day. Dulles suc­cess­ful­ly used his employ­ment with the CIA and its OSS pre­de­ces­sor to fal­si­fy the legal and his­tor­i­cal record of his activ­i­ties. Again, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that Dulles had masked the Third Reich assets of the George Her­bert Walk­er and Prescott Bush. “Dulles and some of his friends vol­un­teered for post­war ser­vice with the gov­ern­ment not out of patri­o­tism but of neces­si­ty. They had to be in posi­tions of pow­er to sup­press the evi­dence of their own deal­ings with the Nazis. The Safe­haven inves­ti­ga­tion was quick­ly stripped from Trea­sury, where Mor­gen­thau’s sup­port­ers were still influ­en­tial, and turned over to the State Depart­ment. There Dulles’s friends shred­ded the index to the inter­lock­ing cor­po­ra­tions and blocked fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tions.” (Ibid.; p. 100.)

38. “Dulles had this goal in mind: Not a sin­gle Amer­i­can busi­ness­man was ever going to be con­vict­ed of trea­son for help­ing the Nazis. None ever was, despite the evi­dence. Accord­ing to one of our sources in the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, the U.S. Army Counter Intel­li­gence Corps had two large ‘Civil­ian Intern­ment Cen­ters’ in Occu­pied Ger­many, code named ‘Ash­can’ and ‘Dust­bin.’ The CIC had iden­ti­fied and cap­tured a large num­ber of U.S. cit­i­zens who had stayed in Ger­many and aid­ed the Third Reich all through World War II. The evi­dence of their trea­son was over­whelm­ing. The cap­tured Ger­man records were hor­ri­bly incrim­i­nat­ing.” (Idem.)

39. Amer­i­can col­lab­o­ra­tors who had been based in Ger­many through­out the war were repa­tri­at­ed, with­out being pros­e­cut­ed. With­in this milieu was doubt­less a large con­tin­gent who would have worked for the Under­ground Reich. “Yet Vic­tor Wohre­hei­de, the young Jus­tice Depart­ment attor­ney respon­si­ble for prepar­ing the trea­son tri­als, sud­den­ly ordered the pris­on­ers’ release. All of the Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors were allowed to return to the Unit­ed States and reclaim their cit­i­zen­ship. At the same time, anoth­er Jus­tice Depart­ment attor­ney, O. John Rogge, who dared to make a speech about Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors in the Unit­ed States was quick­ly fired. How­ev­er, the attor­ney who buried the trea­son cas­es was lat­er pro­mot­ed to spe­cial assis­tant attor­ney gen­er­al.” (Ibid.; pp. 100–101.)

40. Loom­ing large in the back­ground of the events of 9/11 and strug­gle for con­trol over the “Earth Island” is the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Tru­man reversed Roo­sevelt’s pol­i­cy of friend­ly neu­tral­i­ty toward Dulles asso­ciate Ibn Saud (one of whose asso­ciates and friends was Mohammed Bin Laden). Tru­man endorsed the estab­lish­ment of Israel. “To the utter dis­may of the pirates of Wall Street and their friends in the Tru­man admin­is­tra­tion, the new pres­i­dent dis­missed these scare tac­tics. Worse, he reversed the com­mit­ments that Roo­sevelt had made to Ibn Saud. Tru­man had more regard for the prob­a­ble influ­ence of the Amer­i­can Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty on his reelec­tion prospects than he did for the anti-Semi­tes of the State Depart­ment.” (Ibid.; p. 100.)

41. “Six months into his pres­i­den­cy, Tru­man assem­bled his top Mid­dle East advis­ers, who were deeply con­cerned at the Arabs’ hos­til­i­ty toward the new pres­i­den­t’s pro-Zion­ist tilt. As hard as they tried, they could not bring him around. Har­ry Tru­man did not want to be a one-term, unelect­ed pres­i­dent. He want­ed to win the 1948 elec­tion and claim the man­tle in his own right. Even in 1945, Tru­man knew there might be just enough Jews in the Unit­ed States to tip the 1948 elec­tion, while Arabs were a neg­li­gi­ble elec­toral quan­ti­ty. Roo­sevelt’s pol­i­cy of neu­tral­i­ty in favor of the Arabs was dead, at least as far as the new pres­i­dent was con­cerned.” (Idem.)

42. Remem­ber that in the wake of Dewey’s loss to Tru­man, the Dulles/Nixon/Bush/Reagan/Casey pre­cip­i­tat­ed the Cru­sade For Free­dom, which, in turn, helped to spawn the Eth­nic Out­reach orga­ni­za­tion of the GOP. A repos­i­to­ry for fugi­tive Third Reich and fas­cist ele­ments from Europe in the post war years, the orga­ni­za­tion incor­po­rat­ed Wahhabiite/Islamofascist ele­ments dur­ing the 1980’s.

43. Note that this took place dur­ing the Afghan/Soviet war of the 1980’s. An ele­ment of com­mon­al­i­ty between the Euro­pean fas­cist and Islam­o­fas­cist ele­ments of the GOP Eth­nic orga­ni­za­tions is the for­mer World Anti-Com­mu­nist League. Many of the Euro­pean fas­cists belonged to the Anti-Bol­she­vik Nations, a piv­otal WACL ele­ment. Found­ed by the Grand Mufti and financed large­ly from Sau­di Ara­bia, the WACL- asso­ci­at­ed World Mus­lim Con­gress was an impor­tant ele­ment in the Afghan effort against the Sovi­ets. This same strug­gle saw the gen­e­sis of Osama Bin Laden as a war­rior.

44. In not­ing the milieu involved in the devel­op­ment of the Islam­o­fas­cist /Underground Reich con­nec­tion is Fran­cois Genoud, in turn close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with Dulles asso­ciates, such as Himm­ler’s adju­tant Karl Wolff. “Genoud, too, was in the thick of things, hav­ing estab­lished a friend­ship with SS Gen­er­al Karl Wolff, leader of the Ger­man team in Italy that nego­ti­at­ed Oper­a­tion Sun­rise with Dulles. Short­ly after the war, Genoud acquired the pub­lish­ing rights to the works of Adolf Hitler, Mar­tin Bor­mann, and Joseph Goebbels. He also played a major, in murky, role in aid­ing fugi­tive Nazi war crim­i­nals.” (Dream­er of the Day: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al; by Kevin Coogan; Copy­right 1999 [SC]; ISBN 1–57027-039–2; p. 585.)

45. Genoud was also close to for­mer Nazi finance min­is­ter Hjal­mar Schacht, anoth­er of Dulles’ col­leagues and key mem­ber of the post­war Nazi under­ground. Note that Von Leers was men­tor to Ahmed (nee Albert) Huber, an ardent Nazi and direc­tor of Al Taqwa. “In 1955, with the Grand Mufti’s friend Johann von Leers help­ing to run Egyp­t’s Pro­pa­gan­da Min­istry and its all-impor­tant ‘Insti­tute for the Study of Zion­ism,’ Genoud began to see Egypt as a base for the anti-French FLN inde­pen­dence move­ment in Alge­ria. He worked in Tang­i­er with an ex-SS offi­cer named Hans Reichen­berg to cre­ate the Arabo-Afri­ka import-export com­pa­ny, which sup­plied the FLN with weapons. Arabo-Afri­ka was actu­al­ly a cov­er enter­prise estab­lished by Wern­er Nau­man­n’s net­work, and includ­ed Genoud’s friend Dr. Hjal­mar Schacht.” (Idem.)

46. Anoth­er intelligence/lynchpin of the Dulles/Bush/Bormann milieu was OPC com­mis­sion­er Frank Wis­ner. Author Dick Rus­sell dis­cussed Wis­ner’s (pos­si­bly fatal) anx­i­ety about Mar­tin Bor­mann in the wake the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy. “Anoth­er fig­ure who end­ed up deeply tor­ment­ed was Frank Wis­ner, the CIA’s orig­i­nal man in charge of bring­ing over the Nazi sci­en­tists under ‘Paper­clip,’ and with estab­lish­ing the Gehlen, Ukrain­ian, and White Russ­ian under­ground move­ments in Europe. In 1961, after suf­fer­ing two ner­vous break­downs in recent years, Wis­ner left the CIA but kept his inter­est in agency affairs.” (The Man Who Knew Too Much; by Dick Rus­sell; Car­roll & Graf; Copy­right 1992 [HC]; ISBN 0–88184-900–6; p. 682.)

47. “Appar­ent­ly some­time not long after the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion, as Wis­ner’s daugh­ter Wendy recalled to author Bur­ton Hersh, her father became obsessed with the world he had been so enmeshed in cre­at­ing. Wis­ner began talk­ing about his belief that Mar­tin Bor­mann, Hitler’s lead­ing hench­man, had escaped Berlin at the end of the war and reset­tled in Latin Amer­i­ca. ‘He was on a thing about this,’ Hersh quotes Wendy Wis­ner in his 1992 book The Old Boys, ‘that we should pool our sources and resources and get Bor­mann. He talked about the ‘mys­te­ri­ous and sin­is­ter fig­ure of Mar­tin Bor­mann.’ He wrote mil­lions of let­ters. If there real­ly was a CIA con­nec­tion to Bor­mann in South Amer­i­ca, who knows if he was­n’t feel­ing ter­ri­ble about it? If he’s start­ing to yell and scream about these Nazis, who in the CIA is start­ing to get wor­ried about it?’ ” (Idem.) (Her­sh’s book has been reis­sued in paper­back, by Tree Farm.)

48. “On Octo­ber 29, 1965, Frank Wis­ner put a twen­ty-gauge shot­gun to his head and pulled the trig­ger.” (Idem.)

49. In con­clu­sion, the broad­cast relates Gen­er­al Rein­hard Gehlen’s pre­sen­ta­tion of Chi­nese mil­i­tary philoso­pher Sun-Tzu in his clas­sic The Art of War. Describ­ing the prac­tice and strat­e­gy of psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare, as well as what oper­a­tions that were to be known as “covert action,” the pas­sage presents what may well be the blue­print for what the Under­ground Reich may be plan­ning to do in the Unit­ed States. Con­sid­er the sit­u­a­tion of the U.S. in recent years, in light of what is to fol­low. “ ‘There is no art high­er than that of destroy­ing the ene­my’s resis­tance with­out a fight on the bat­tle­field. The direct tac­tic of war is nec­es­sary only on the bat­tle­field; but only the indi­rect tac­tic can lead to a real and last­ing vic­to­ry.’ ” (The Ser­vice: The Mem­oirs of Gen­er­al Rein­hard Gehlen; World Pub­lish­ing Com­pa­ny; copy­right 1972 [HC];p.331.)

50. “ ‘Sub­vert any­thing of val­ue in the ene­my’s coun­try. Impli­cate the emis­saries of the major pow­ers in crim­i­nal under­tak­ings; under­mine their posi­tion and destroy their rep­u­ta­tion in oth­er ways as well, and expose them to the pub­lic ridicule of their fel­low cit­i­zens.’ ” (Idem.)

51. “ ‘Do not shun the aid of even the low­est and most despi­ca­ble peo­ple. Dis­rupt the work of their gov­ern­ment with every means you can.’ ”(Idem.)

52. “ ‘Spread dis­uni­ty and dis­pute among the cit­i­zens of the ene­my’s coun­try. Turn the young against the old. Use every means to destroy their arms, their sup­plies, and the dis­ci­pline of the ene­my’s forces. Debase old tra­di­tions and accept­ed gods. Be gen­er­ous with promis­es and rewards to pur­chase intel­li­gence and accom­plices. Send out your secret agents in all direc­tions. Do not skimp with mon­ey or with promis­es, for they yield a high return.’ ” (Idem.)

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

54. The pos­si­bil­i­ty that the Under­ground Reich is delib­er­ate­ly work­ing to bring about an ecopo­lit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe is not one to be too read­i­ly dis­missed. Many of those who ulti­mate­ly make the “calm judge­ment of busi­ness neces­si­ty” will do so (if they do), despite grave, sin­cere doubts about the deci­sions they have been forced to make. Kind of like chan­cel­lor Brun­ing. They won’t be Nazis, the peo­ple who manip­u­late them will be.


No comments for “FTR #366 What’s Going On Here?”

Post a comment