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

For The Record  

FTR #398 More on the Virtual State & Manipulation of Political Polarities

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

As the title indi­cates, this pro­gram fur­thers inves­ti­gates the influ­ence of a “vir­tu­al state”—the Under­ground Reich—within dia­met­ri­cal­ly oppo­site polit­i­cal and eth­nic divi­sions. After dis­cus­sion of Sau­di gov­ern­men­tal assis­tance in the flight of a grand jury wit­ness under inves­ti­ga­tion in con­nec­tion with 9/11, the broad­cast focus­es on Sau­di spon­sor­ship of African-Amer­i­can Mus­lim chap­lains for prison pop­u­la­tions. The indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions involved over­lap the milieux of Al Qae­da, Al Taqwa, and the ele­ments promi­nent­ly involved in the 3/20/2002 Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids. Ahmed Huber‑a prin­ci­pal fig­ure in Al Taqwa’s oper­a­tions and an impor­tant per­son­age with­in the Euro­pean far right as well-has net­worked with an African-Amer­i­can Mus­lim extrem­ist cler­ic who was prin­ci­pal­ly fea­tured at a January/2003 anti-war ral­ly in Wash­ing­ton, D.C.

Inter­na­tion­al ANSWER—the par­ent orga­ni­za­tion behind sev­er­al sig­nif­i­cant anti-war demon­stra­tions is an impor­tant ele­ment of dis­cus­sion. (This should in no way be mis­un­der­stood as impugn­ing the motives of the vast major­i­ty of peo­ple oppos­ing the war and/or in atten­dance at these ral­lies.) One of its most impor­tant ele­ments is a Stal­in­ist off-shoot of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty USA—the WWP. The head of the par­ent orga­ni­za­tion of ANSWER-the Inter­na­tion­al Action Cen­ter-is for­mer Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ram­sey Clark. Clark’s dubi­ous polit­i­cal past is ana­lyzed at con­sid­er­able length.

Shift­ing focus dra­mat­i­cal­ly, the broad­cast dis­cuss­es the dis­as­trous eco­nom­ic poli­cies of the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion. Cou­pled with anx­i­ety about war in the Mid­dle East and ter­ror­ism in the Unit­ed States itself, this has led to sig­nif­i­cant strength­en­ing of the euro against the dol­lar. Tra­di­tion­al­ly, the dol­lar was seen as a “safe haven” in tur­bu­lent times. That appears to be chang­ing, at least for the time being. Now, investors see Europe as a more sta­ble invest­ment cli­mate than the U.S. This ele­ment of the pro­gram must be eval­u­at­ed against some of the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic under­pin­nings of pan-Ger­man­ism and geopol­i­tics. The the­o­ret­i­cal pos­tu­la­tions of thinkers like Friedrich List, Karl Von Clause­witz and Karl Haushofer are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the analy­sis pre­sent­ed in For The Record, and for under­stand­ing the devel­op­ment of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion.

Many respect­ed peo­ple with­in the mil­i­tary have pro­found reser­va­tions about Bush admin­is­tra­tion pol­i­cy in Iraq. This broad­cast presents some sur­pris­ing addi­tions to the ros­ter of Bush detrac­tors from deep with­in the ranks of the pro­fes­sion­al mil­i­tary.

The pro­gram con­cludes with a com­par­i­son between one of the clos­ing pas­sages from The Turn­er Diaries and the 9/11 attack on the Pen­ta­gon. Although not pre­cise, by any means, the com­par­i­son between the cli­mac­tic episode of The Turn­er Diaries and the Pen­ta­gon attack is close enough to war­rant scruti­ny. Was the pas­sage, in part, the seed for part of the 9/11 attack?

Pro­gram High­lights Include: con­nec­tions between the Wah­habi-influ­enced Mus­lim prison milieu and the milieu of the Repub­li­can Par­ty; review of the inter­ces­sion of Bush asso­ciate Talat Oth­man on behalf of the Green Quest tar­gets; Ram­sey Clark’s role in sub­vert­ing inves­ti­ga­tions of the assas­si­na­tions of Pres­i­dent Kennedy, his broth­er Robert and Dr. Mar­tin Luther King; Clark’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Lyn­don Larouche, Sheikh Rah­man, and Nazi war crim­i­nal Karl Lin­nas; review of evi­den­tiary trib­u­taries con­nect­ing the Okla­homa City bomb­ing with the events in, and around, 9/11.

1. Despite the claims of its apol­o­gists, Sau­di Ara­bi­a’s role in the events in, and around, 9/11 con­tin­ues to raise eye­brows, if not the hack­les of this admin­is­tra­tion. The Saud­is recent­ly pro­vid­ed a pass­port to a wit­ness involved in a grand jury inves­ti­ga­tion of the 9/11 sit­u­a­tion-the pass­port per­mit­ted her exit from the coun­try. “The Sau­di Embassy qui­et­ly pro­vid­ed the wife of a ter­ror sus­pect a pass­port and trans­porta­tion out of the Unit­ed States in Novem­ber, after she was sub­poe­naed to tes­ti­fy before a fed­er­al grand jury in New York inves­ti­gat­ing her hus­band’s pos­si­ble links to the Al-Qai­da ter­ror­ist net­work, diplo­mat­ic and law enforce­ment sources said. . . . Maha Hafeez al-Mar­ri and her five young chil­dren flew to Sau­di Ara­bia on Nov. 10, just three days after fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors had their last con­tact with a lawyer rep­re­sent­ing her. The FBI had con­fis­cat­ed pass­ports for Mar­ri and her chil­dren soon after her hus­band was arrest­ed in Peo­ria, Ill., in late 2001.” (“Saud­is Help Ter­ror Sus­pec­t’s Wife Leave U.S.” [Mer­cury News Wire Ser­vices]; San Jose Mer­cury News; 2/5/2003; p. 7A.)

2. Before exam­in­ing the Under­ground Reich’s influ­ence with­in Third World pop­u­la­tions, the dis­cus­sion reviews the geopo­lit­i­cal the­o­ries of Karl Haushofer. Haushofer (a key influ­ence on a num­ber of impor­tant Hitler aides) devel­oped the con­cept of Ger­man alle­giance with “the Col­ored Peo­ples” of the colo­nial world as a fur­ther vehi­cle for secur­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal con­trol. “In its strug­gle to break British dom­i­nance, Ger­man mil­i­tary intel­li­gence also looked to nation­al­ist inde­pen­dence move­ments in the Mid­dle East, Asia, and Ire­land. After World War I, Haushofer con­tin­ued to sup­port these anti-British groups. In the 1930’s, Indi­an nation­al­ist leader Sub­has Chan­dra Bose [whose Indi­an nation­al Army lat­er received mil­i­tary sup­port in World War II from both Ger­many and Japan] was a cor­re­spon­dent for the Zeitschrift fur Geopoli­tik. [Haushofer­’s pub­li­ca­tion.] . . . In July 1942, for­eign pol­i­cy expert Hans Weigert pro­filed Haushofer­’s ‘Eurasian lib­er­a­tion front’ poli­cies in For­eign Affairs. Weigert point­ed that Haushofer actu­al­ly wel­comed ‘the rise of the col­ored world,’ even writ­ing that ‘the strug­gle of India and Chi­na for lib­er­a­tion from for­eign dom­i­na­tion and cap­i­tal­ist pres­sure agrees with the secret dreams of Cen­tral Europe.’ ” (Dream­er of the Day: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al; by Kevin Coogan; Autono­me­dia Inc.; Copy­right 1999 [SC]; ISBN 1–57027-039–2; pp. 68–69.)

3. The geopo­lit­i­cal strug­gle for­mu­lat­ed by Haushofer must also be con­sid­ered in light of the the­o­ries of Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz. Von Clause­witz not­ed that: ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­ma­cy by oth­er means.’ The con­verse of that state­ment is also true (‘. . .a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by oth­er means.’) To under­stand how the events of 9/11 fit into the par­a­digm pre­sent­ed in the For The Record series, it is impor­tant to com­pre­hend the fact that the Under­ground Reich’s geopo­lit­i­cal thinkers have a deep under­stand­ing of the con­ti­nu­ity of wars and post­wars. (For analy­sis of the events of 9/11 from an eco­nom­ic and geopo­lit­i­cal stand­point, see FTR#‘s 344–346, 353, 365–367, 372. For a sum­ma­ry analy­sis of the events of 9/11, see FTR#391.) “The end of bat­tle in 1945 had sin­gled the start of a new kind of war‑a post-war. Ger­many’s clas­si­cal mil­i­tary the­o­rist, Von Clause­witz, is famous for hav­ing declared that ‘war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of diplo­ma­cy by oth­er means.’ In deal­ing with a Ger­many which had gone to school with Von Clause­witz for gen­er­a­tions, we knew that, con­verse­ly, a post-war is the con­tin­u­a­tion of war by oth­er means. Since Bis­mar­ck, wars and post-wars have formed a con­tin­u­ous series, chang­ing the qual­i­ty of the events only slight­ly from year to year, with no such thing as a clear dis­tinc­tion between heat of bat­tle and calm of peace.” (All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 [HC]; Lit­tle, Brown & Co.; p. 235.)

4. One of the pop­u­la­tions of “Col­ored” peo­ple in which the Under­ground Reich and its Islam­o­fas­cist allies have been able to spread their influ­ence is the African-Amer­i­can prison pop­u­la­tion in the Unit­ed States. (For more about Islam­o­fas­cist recruit­ing efforts in the African-Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tion, see FTR#‘s 378, 381, 386.) “Over a qui­et din­ner at an Indi­an restau­rant in upstate New York, Warith Deen Umar offered his views of Islam and the Sept. 11 attacks. The hijack­ers should be hon­ored as mar­tyrs, he said. The U.S. risks fur­ther ter­ror­ism attacks because it oppress­es Mus­lims around the world. ‘With­out jus­tice, there will be war­fare, and it can come to this coun­try, too,’ he said. The nat­ur­al can­di­dates to help press such an attack, in his view: African-Amer­i­cans who embraced Islam in prison. . . . ” (“Cap­tive Audi­ence: How a Chap­lain Spread Extrem­ism to an Inmate Flock” by Paul M. Bar­rett; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 2/5/2003; p. A1.)

5. Umar has trav­eled under the aus­pices of the GSISS, one of the insti­tu­tions tar­get­ed in the 3/20/2002 Green Quest raids. ” . . . Imam Umar-Born Wal­lace Gene Marks and lat­er known as Wal­lace 10-twice has trav­eled to Sau­di Ara­bia for wor­ship and study at the expense of the Sau­di gov­ern­ment and its affil­i­at­ed char­i­ties, part of an exten­sive pro­gram aimed at spread­ing Islam in U.S. pris­ons. He and oth­er prison chap­lains also have stud­ied and attend­ed con­fer­ences at an Islam­ic school in Vir­ginia that U.S. offi­cials raid­ed last year in a probe of orga­ni­za­tions sus­pect­ed of help­ing move mon­ey to Mid­dle East­ern ter­ror­ists. Although New York State offi­cials knew that a few chap­lains were mak­ing pil­grim­ages to Sau­di Ara­bia, the state’s prison com­mis­sion­er said last week that he did know a large group had trav­eled at the Sau­di gov­ern­men­t’s expense.” (Ibid.; pp. A1-A13.)

6. In addi­tion to laud­ing the attacks of 9/11, Umar has also spo­ken glow­ing­ly of Osama bin Laden. “Imam Umar and some of his col­leagues have brought some of Wah­habis­m’s harsh­est prej­u­dices to their cap­tive flock. On Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, the chap­lain at the men’s prison in remote Cape Vin­cent, N.Y. preached that God had inflict­ed his pun­ish­ment on the wicked and the vic­tims deserved what they got, accord­ing to a labor arbi­tra­tor’s sub­se­quent rul­ing uphold­ing his fir­ing. Shocked offi­cials at the prison did­n’t inter­vene for fear of spark­ing a riot. About six weeks lat­er, the chap­lain at the Albion Cor­rec­tion­al Facil­i­ty for women told inmates that Osama bin Laden ‘is a sol­dier of Allah, a hero of Allah,’ prison offi­cials say. . . .” (Ibid.; p. A13.)

7. Like the accused Wash­ing­ton, D.C. sniper (John Allen Muham­mad) Umar’s pro­fes­sion­al path has crossed with that of Louis Far­rakhan. “Before begin­ning his two-year prison term, he vis­it­ed nation of Islam leader Louis Far­rakhan, who promised that Allah would pro­tect him. Mr. Marks became a Nation of Islam leader in prison and lat­er changed his name to Wal­lace 10X. In 1975, short­ly after he was released, New York put the 30-year old parolee on its pay­roll as one of the state’s first two Mus­lim chap­lains. Some of the oth­er ear­ly Mus­lim chap­lains also were ex-con­victs. Even­tu­al­ly he moved to the more ortho­dox Sun­ni school of Islam and changed his name to Warith Deen Umar. (Warith Deen means ‘inher­i­tor of the reli­gion’; Umar was an ear­ly Mus­lim leader. There are now 200,000 to 340,000 Mus­lim inmates nation­wide, mak­ing up 10% to 17% of the prison pop­u­la­tion, accord­ing to esti­mates by cor­rec­tions offi­cials and Mus­lim orga­ni­za­tions.” (Idem.)

8. “Prison dawa, or the spread­ing of the faith, has become a pri­or­i­ty for many Mus­lim groups in the U.S. and the Sau­di Ara­bi­an gov­ern­ment, which runs what spokesman Nail al-Jubeir calls a ‘prison out­reach’ pro­gram. The Islam­ic Affairs Depart­ment of its Wash­ing­ton embassy ships out hun­dreds of copies of the Quran each month as well as reli­gious pam­phlets and videos, to prison chap­lains and Islam­ic groups who then pass them along to inmates. The Sau­di gov­ern­ment also pays for prison chap­lains, along with many oth­er Amer­i­can Mus­lims, to trav­el to Sau­di Ara­bia for wor­ship and study dur­ing the hajj, the tra­di­tion­al win­ter pil­grim­age to Mec­ca that all Mus­lims are sup­posed to make at least once in their lives. The trips typ­i­cal­ly cost $3,000 a per­son and last sev­er­al weeks says Mr. Al-Jubeir, the Sau­di spokesman.” (Idem.)

9. Fur­ther devel­op­ing the link between the Saud­is, the GSISS, the pro­gram details the under­writ­ing of Umar’s trips to Sau­di Ara­bia. “Since 1978, Imam Umar has made the pil­grim­age to Mec­ca four times. In 1998 and 2000, he was a mem­ber of groups whose trav­el was financed by the Sau­di gov­ern­ment affil­i­at­ed orga­ni­za­tions. On the 2000 trip, Imam Umar was among 17 prison chap­lains and their wives from the U.S. Taha Jabir Alal­wani, the pres­i­dent of the Grad­u­ate School of Islam­ic and Social Sci­ences in Lees­burg, Va., helped arrange the trip in 2000 for the prison-chap­lain con­tin­gent. He made con­tacts on their behalf with Sau­di gov­ern­ment offices and gov­ern­ment-fund­ed char­i­ties, he says. Mr. Alal­wani had got­ten to know Imam Umar and oth­er New York prison chap­lains in the 1990’s, when they stud­ied at his school and attend­ed con­fer­ences there. The school award­ed Imam Umar a mas­ters degree in 2001. . . .” (Idem.)

10. The Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids were direct­ed at Islam­o­fas­cist ele­ments direct­ly linked to the Repub­li­can Eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion and the milieu of George W. Bush. There could be no bet­ter illus­tra­tion of the “vir­tu­al state” that is the Under­ground Reich than its pres­ence with­in the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and the Repub­li­can Par­ty and its pres­ence with­in the milieu of Imam Umar. “The U.S. gov­ern­ment uses the school to help select chap­lains for its pris­ons and for the mil­i­tary. Last March, a fed­er­al task force led by Cus­toms Ser­vice agents raid­ed the grad­u­ate school and Mr. Alal­wani’s Vir­ginia home, truck­ing away doc­u­ments and com­put­er files. The search was part of a broad inves­ti­ga­tion of Islam­ic orga­ni­za­tions and char­i­ties in Vir­ginia sus­pect­ed by fed­er­al agents of help­ing to move Sau­di mon­ey to for­eign ter­ror­ist groups, includ­ing al Qae­da and Hamas.” (Idem.)

11. “Many Amer­i­can Mus­lim lead­ers have con­demned the Cus­toms Ser­vice task force, known as Oper­a­tion Green Quest, say­ing its mis­sion reflects anti-Islam prej­u­dice. Mr. Alal­wani strong­ly denies any asso­ci­a­tion with ter­ror­ism. The gov­ern­ment has­n’t brought any charges against him or his school or any oth­er of the Vir­ginia-based orga­ni­za­tions. Oth­er inves­ti­ga­tions by Oper­a­tion Green Quest have result­ed in 70 indict­ments, most­ly on charges relat­ed to mon­ey laun­der­ing, cur­ren­cy smug­gling and fraud, a Cus­toms Ser­vice spokesman says. He denies the ser­vice is moti­vat­ed by any bias against Mus­lims.” (Idem.)

12. “In its state­ment, the Bureau of Pris­ons declined to com­ment on the inves­ti­ga­tion but added, ‘We would cer­tain­ly take appro­pri­ate action with respect to any school or orga­ni­za­tion that has ties to ter­ror­ist groups. A Pen­ta­gon spokes­woman says the Depart­ment of Defense is aware of the inves­ti­ga­tion and con­firms that the mil­i­tary uses the school as an ‘eccle­si­as­ti­cal cer­ti­fy­ing orga­ni­za­tion.’ ” (Idem.)

13. Intrigu­ing­ly, a pam­phlet blam­ing Shia Islam on (that’s right, you guessed it) the Jews was cir­cu­lat­ed with­in the New York prison sys­tem. This pam­phlet was pub­lished by the World Assem­bly of Mus­lim Youth, linked to Jamal Barz­in­ji, Abdul­lah bin Laden, Al Qae­da and the Al Taqwa milieu. Barz­in­ji exem­pli­fies the GOP/Islamofascist link, with a set of asso­ci­a­tions going to the milieu of George W. Bush and Grover Norquist. “Shi­ite pris­on­ers at Fishkill have accused Imam Muham­mad of call­ing them ‘infil­tra­tors and snitch­es’ dur­ing Fri­day ser­mons. They say Sun­ni inmates have cir­cu­lat­ed a pam­phlet, ‘The Dif­fer­ence Between the Shi­ites and the Major­i­ty of Mus­lim Schol­ars,’ which recounts an ancient smear that Shi­aism grew out of a sev­enth-cen­tu­ry con­spir­a­cy orches­trat­ed by a Yemeni Jew, who sought ‘to cre­ate dis­cord among Mus­lims by agi­tat­ing the tri­ble [sic] and racial dif­fer­ences and hos­til­i­ties.’ The 32-page book­let was pub­lished by the World Assem­bly of Mus­lim Youth, an orga­ni­za­tion based in Riyadh and backed by the Sau­di gov­ern­ment.” (Idem.)

14. Anoth­er inter­est­ing con­nec­tion between Islam­o­fas­cist ele­ments asso­ci­at­ed with the Under­ground Reich and rad­i­cal­ized African-Amer­i­can mus­lims con­cerns Al Taqwa’s Ahmed Huber’s asso­ci­a­tion with Abdul Alim Musa. “Huber has pre­sent­ed talks to pro-Khome­i­ni groups like the Per­sian Speak­ing Group of the Mus­lim Stu­dents’ Asso­ci­a­tion (MSA). At the 27th MSA con­ven­tion held in Chica­go in Decem­ber 1997, for exam­ple, Huber spoke on Islam at two pan­els with Imam Abdul Alim Musa and Sheikh Moham­mad Al-Asi, both of whom are asso­ci­at­ed with the pro-Khome­i­ni Insti­tute of Con­tem­po­rary of Islam­ic Thought (ICIT). Huber spoke on Islam at two pan­els with Imam Abdul Alim Musa and Sheikh Moham­mad Al-Asi, both of whom are asso­ci­at­ed with the pro-Khome­i­ni Insti­tute of Con­tem­po­rary Islam­ic Thought (ICIT). Huber also appeared with both men a year ear­li­er at anoth­er pro-Khome­i­ni con­fer­ence orga­nized by the Mus­lim Par­lia­ment (MP), which was held in Lon­don in Novem­ber 1996 and which adver­tised par­tic­i­pa­tion by rep­re­sen­ta­tives from both Hezbol­lah and Hamas.” (“The Mys­te­ri­ous Achmed Huber: Friend to Hitler, Allah. . .and Ibn Laden?” by Kevin Coogan: Hit List; April/May 2002 [Vol­ume 3, #4]; pp. 120–125.)

15. Huber’s polit­i­cal milieu is reviewed in this pro­gram, in order to give us a clear­er per­spec­tive on the extrem­ist nature of the milieu over­lap­ping the anti-war move­ment. “Even as Huber plays a major role in Islamist net­works, he remains high­ly active inside Europe’s far right elite. Along with a poster of Imam Khome­i­ni and a framed quote from Hitler denounc­ing mod­ern art, Huber’s house con­tains a pho­to of his friend Joerg Haider, Aus­tri­a’s lead­ing elec­toral right­ist. But Huber’s most eye-open­ing pic­ture dis­plays both him­self and Genoud at a meet­ing in Spain with Leon Degrelle, A Waf­fen-SS Gen­er­al who Hitler once said he want­ed to adopt as a son. Degrelle, who lived in Spain in order to escape war crimes charges in his native Bel­gium was a top leader of the post­war ultra right. Inside Switzer­land, Huber helps direct the Aval­on Gemein­schaft, an elite far right group whose mem­bers include for­mer Waf­fen SS vol­un­teers. Each year Aval­on’s cadre retire to the woods dur­ing the sum­mer sol­stice and con­duct rit­u­al cel­e­bra­tions of Europe’s pagan past.” (Idem.)

16. The pres­ence of Huber asso­ciate Musa at a recent ral­ly against the war in Iraq could be viewed as por­tend­ing the for­ma­tion of a Third Position/Yockeyite milieu inside of the anti-war move­ment. In con­nec­tion with the bur­geon­ing anti-war move­ment, it is worth not­ing that an orga­ni­za­tion named Inter­na­tion­al ANSWER (an off­shoot of the Inter­na­tion­al Action Cen­ter) invit­ed Huber asso­ciate Musa to par­tic­i­pate in a recent anti­war ral­ly in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Musa led the crowd in a provoca­tive chant that (like much of what the so-called pro­gres­sive sec­tor is doing these days) plays right into the hands of those who would equate sin­cere sen­ti­ment against war in Iraq with ter­ror­ism and trea­son. Speak­ing of Inter­na­tion­al ANSWER, the pro­gram relates: “It march­es with, and stands with, and cheers on, peo­ple like the speak­er at the Wash­ing­ton ral­ly, Imam Musa of the mosque Masjid al-Islam, who declared ‘the real ter­ror­ists have always been the Unit­ed Snakes of Amer­i­ca,’ and then led the crowd in the Islam­ic bombers’ chant ‘Allahu Akhbar!’ ” (“March­ing with Stal­in­ists” by Michael Kel­ly; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 1/23/2003.)

17. Next, the pro­gram reviews some of the back­ground of the IAC, ANSWER and for­mer Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ram­sey Clark, the nom­i­nal head of IAC. (For more on Clark, see FTR#350.) “On Sep­tem­ber 29, 2001, just a few weeks fol­low­ing the Sep­tem­ber 11 ter­ror­ist attack on the World Trade Cen­ter and the Pen­ta­gon, a large peace ral­ly was held in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., to oppose an Amer­i­can mil­i­tary response to the attack. The main orga­niz­er of D.C. ral­ly, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), was offi­cial­ly estab­lished short­ly after the 9/11 attack. The lead­ing force behind ANSWER’s cre­ation is the Inter­na­tion­al Action Cen­ter (IAC), which rep­re­sents itself as a pro­gres­sive orga­ni­za­tion devot­ed to peace, jus­tice, and human rights issues. The IAC’s orga­ni­za­tion­al clout is con­sid­er­able: for the past decade it has played a lead­ing role in orga­niz­ing protest demon­stra­tions against U.S. mil­i­tary actions against both Iraq and Ser­bia. After the Sep­tem­ber 11th attack, the IAC decid­ed to turn its long-orga­nized planned protest against the Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary fund and World Bank gath­er­ing sched­uled for the 29th , into an action oppos­ing any use of U.S. mil­i­tary pow­er in response to ter­ror­ism.” (“The Inter­na­tion­al Action Cen­ter: ‘Peace Activists’ with a Secret Agen­da” by Kevin Coogan; Hit List, November/December 2001.)

18. “The IAC owes its cur­rent suc­cess to Ram­sey Clark, a for­mer Attor­ney Gen­er­al dur­ing the John­son Admin­is­tra­tion, who is list­ed on the IAC’s Web site as its founder. Clark’s estab­lish­ment cre­den­tials have caused many in the mass media to accept the IAC’s self-por­tray­al as a group of dis­in­ter­est­ed human­i­tar­i­ans appalled by war and pover­ty who are work­ing to turn Amer­i­can for­eign pol­i­cy towards a more humane course. On its Web site the IAC says it was ‘Found­ed by Ram­sey Clark’ and then describes its pur­pose: ‘Infor­ma­tion, Activism, and Resis­tance to U.S. Mil­i­tarism, War, and Cor­po­rate Greed, Link­ing with Strug­gles Against Racism and Oppres­sion with­in the Unit­ed States.’ ” (Idem.)

19. The IAC has a pro­found rela­tion­ship with a Stal­in­ist orga­ni­za­tion called the Work­ers World Par­ty. “Yet since its incep­tion in 1992, the IAC’s actions have giv­en rise to seri­ous doubts about its bona fides as an orga­ni­za­tion tru­ly com­mit­ted to peace and human rights issues. Behind the blue door entrance to the IAC’s head­quar­ters on 14th Street in Man­hat­tan can be found deep­er shades of red. When one looks close­ly at the IAC, it becomes impos­si­ble to ignore the over­whelm­ing pres­ence of mem­bers of an avowed­ly Marx­ist-Lenin­ist sect called the Work­ers World Par­ty (WWP), whose cadre staff vir­tu­al­ly all of the IAC’s top posi­tions. Whether or not the IAC is sim­ply a WWP front group remains dif­fi­cult to say. Nor is there any evi­dence that Ram­sey Clark him­self is a WWP mem­ber. What does seem unde­ni­able is that with­out the pres­ence of scores of WWP cadre work­ing inside the IAC, the orga­ni­za­tion would for all prac­ti­cal pur­pos­es cease to exist. There­fore, even if Clark is not a WWP mem­ber, he is fol­low­ing a polit­i­cal course that meets with the com­plete approval of one of the most pro-Stal­in­ist sects ever to emerge from the Amer­i­ca far left. . . .” (Idem.)

20. Ram­sey Clark him­self has an inter­est­ing ros­ter of past clients. “Some of Clark’s cur­rent clients, includ­ing Shaykh ‘Umar’ Abd al-Rah­man, the ‘blind Sheik,’ who was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to a lengthy prison term for his involve­ment in help­ing to orga­nize fol­low-up ter­ror­ist attacks in New York City after the first World Trade Cen­ter attack in 1993 are a far cry from Father Berri­g­an. Shaykh Abd al-Rah­man, of course, deserves legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion. What makes Clark’s approach note­wor­thy is that in the case of Abd al-Rah­man, (as well as those of Clark’s oth­er polit­i­cal clients), his approach is based more on putting the gov­ern­ment on tri­al for its alleged mis­deeds than actu­al­ly prov­ing the inno­cence of his clients. While com­plete­ly ignor­ing Shaykh Abd al-Rah­man’s piv­otal role in the Egypt­ian-based mosque played in the first World Trade Cen­ter attack, Clark tried to por­tray the blind Shaykh as a bril­liant Islam­ic schol­ar and reli­gious thinker who was being per­se­cut­ed sim­ply as a result of anti-Mus­lim prej­u­dice on the part of the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

21. After Clark’s past rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Nazi war crim­i­nal Karl Lin­nas, the pro­gram high­lights anoth­er of Clark’s fas­cist clients-Lyn­don Larouche. ” . . . .Clark’s next legal client was equal­ly sur­pris­ing. In 1989, he became Lyn­don Larouche’s lead attor­ney in Larouche’s attempt to appeal his con­vic­tion on fed­er­al mail fraud charges. Larouche, who began his polit­i­cal career in the late 1940’s as a mem­ber of the Trot­sky­ist Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty (SWP), had by the late 1970s embraced the far right, anti-Semi­tism and Holo­caust denial. . . .” (Idem.)

22. “Left to its own devices, the WWP would have remained on the polit­i­cal mar­gin as a quirky Left sect whose weird­ly mes­sian­ic ide­ol­o­gy com­bined the worst aspects of Trot­sky­ism, Mao­ism, and Stal­in­ism into a unique and utter­ly foul brew. That a bizarre out­fit like the WWP could become a seri­ous play­er in Amer­i­can left-wing rad­i­cal­ism in the year 2001 is above all a tes­ta­ment to the exist­ing ide­o­log­i­cal, intel­lec­tu­al, and moral bank­rupt­cy of the broad­er left, which still insists on liv­ing in a decrepit fan­ta­sy world where crim­i­nals are good, the police are evil, blacks are noble, whites are all racist, het­ero­sex­u­al men are sex­ist, all women are vic­tims, Israel is always 100% wrong, the Pales­tini­ans are always 100% right, Amer­i­ca is ‘objec­tive­ly’ reac­tionary, and Amer­i­ca’s ene­mies are ‘objec­tive­ly pro­gres­sive and there­fore worth defend­ing. If this were not the case, the IAC nev­er could or would have emerged as a seri­ous force.” (Ibid.; p. 10.)

23. As Mr. Emory notes in the pro­gram, Bush’s eco­nom­ic poli­cies will destroy this coun­try. The analy­sis of the 9/11 attacks pre­sent­ed in the For The Record series empha­sizes that this administration‑a front for the Under­ground Reich– is out to destroy the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca. The eco­nom­ic impact of the 9/11 attacks is essen­tial to grasp in order to com­pre­hend the impact that Bush & com­pa­ny are hav­ing. “But now the fis­cal dete­ri­o­ra­tion has reached cat­a­stroph­ic pro­por­tions. In its first bud­get, the Bush admin­is­tra­tion pro­ject­ed a 2004 sur­plus of $262 bil­lion. In its sec­ond bud­get, released a year ago, it pro­ject­ed a $14 bil­lion deficit for the same year. Now it projects a deficit of $307 bil­lion. That’s a dete­ri­o­ra­tion of $570 bil­lion, just for next year-matched by com­pa­ra­ble dete­ri­o­ra­tion in each fol­low­ing year. You know, $570 bil­lion here and $570 bil­lion there, and pret­ty soon you’re talk­ing real mon­ey.” (“Is the Mae­stro a Hack?” by Paul Krug­man; The New York Times; 2/7/2003; p. A29.)

24. “Not my fault, says Mr. Bush. ‘A reces­sion and a war we did not choose have led to a return of deficits,’ he declared. Real­ly? Will the reces­sion and war cost $570 bil­lion per year, every year? Besides, Mr. Bush knew all about the reces­sion and Osama bin Laden (remem­ber him?) a year ago, when his pro­jec­tions showed a return to sur­plus­es by 2005. Now they show deficits for­ev­er-even though they don’t include the costs of an Iraq war. . . .” (Idem.)

25. ” . . . Although finan­cial reporters have start­ed to real­ize that Mr. Bush is out of con­trol-he has ‘lost his mar­bles,’ says CBS Mar­ket Watch-the sheer banana-repub­lic irre­spon­si­bil­i­ty of his plans has­n’t been wide­ly appre­ci­at­ed. That $674 bil­lion tax cut you’ve heard about lit­er­al­ly isn’t the half of it. Even accord­ing to its own low­ball esti­mates, the admin­is­tra­tion wants $1.5 tril­lion in tax cuts over the next decade-more than it pushed through in 2001. Anoth­er $575 bil­lion or so will be need­ed to fix the alter­na­tive min­i­mum tax-some­thing offi­cials have said they’ll do, but haven’t put in the bud­get.” (Idem.)

26. “The admin­is­tra­tion has used gim­micks to post­pone most of the cost of these tax cuts until after 2008-and whad­dya know, the Office of Man­age­ment and Bud­get has sud­den­ly stopped talk­ing about 10-year pro­jec­tions and now offi­cial­ly looks only five years ahead. But there are long-term pro­jec­tions tucked away in the back of the bud­get; they’re overop­ti­mistic, but even so they sug­gest a fis­cal dis­as­ter once the baby boomers start col­lect­ing ben­e­fits from Social Secu­ri­ty and Medicare. (‘We will not pass along our prob­lems to oth­er Con­gress­es, oth­er pres­i­dents, oth­er gen­er­a­tions,’ declared Mr. Bush in the State of the Union. And with a straight face, too.)” (Idem.)

27. Review­ing one of the prin­ci­pal the­o­ret­i­cal ele­ments at the foun­da­tion of the analy­sis pre­sent­ed in For The Record, the broad­cast high­lights the work of Friedrich List. List is anoth­er of the the­o­reti­cians whose ideas are cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the geopo­lit­i­cal con­test between the Under­ground Reich and “Anglo-Sax­o­nia” (the Unit­ed States and Britain.) List posit­ed the idea of Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union as a vehi­cle for estab­lish­ing Ger­man eco­nom­ic and impe­r­i­al supe­ri­or­i­ty to Britain, Ger­many’s top geopo­lit­i­cal rival (since sup­plant­ed by the US). List’s for­mu­la­tions are the basis for the Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union. List under­stood that eco­nom­ic con­trol led auto­mat­i­cal­ly to polit­i­cal con­trol. That aware­ness is cen­tral to an under­stand­ing of the oper­a­tions of the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion.  “Many of the major ele­ments of eco­nom­ic impe­ri­al­ism were enun­ci­at­ed in the 1840s by the ubiq­ui­tous Friedrich List. List argued that over­seas colonies were need­ed to sup­ple­ment his favorite scheme for eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment: a cen­tral Euro­pean eco­nom­ic union. He fore­saw an eco­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion with an indus­tri­al­ized Ger­many as its cen­ter and a periph­ery of oth­er cen­tral and east­ern Euro­pean states that would sup­ply food and raw mate­ri­als for Ger­man indus­try and would pur­chase Ger­man indus­tri­al prod­ucts. A semi­au­tar­kic struc­ture would thus be cre­at­ed; it would have the advan­tage of per­mit­ting con­trol, or even exclu­sion, of British com­pe­ti­tion, thus allow­ing cen­tral Europe to indus­tri­al­ize suc­cess­ful­ly in an order­ly, planned man­ner.” (The Ide­o­log­i­cal Ori­gins of Nazi Impe­ri­al­ism; by Woodruff D. Smith; Copy­right 1986 [SC]; Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press; ISBN 0–19-504741–9 (PBK); p. 30.)

28. One of the prin­ci­pal influ­ences on List’s think­ing was the “con­ti­nen­tal” con­cepts of Napoleon, who attempt­ed to eco­nom­i­cal­ly unite Europe under French influ­ence. “Charles Andler, a French author, summed 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. 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.” (The Thou­sand-Year Con­spir­a­cy; by Paul Win­kler; Charles Scrib­n­er’s Sons [HC]; 1943; pp. 15–16.)

29. The poli­cies of List were put into prac­tice by Hjal­mar “Horace Gree­ley” Schacht, Hitler’s finance min­is­ter. “Var­i­ous first­hand reports have giv­en us a fair­ly accu­rate pic­ture of the man­ner in which Nazi Ger­many is apply­ing the prin­ci­ple of ‘eco­nom­ic col­lab­o­ra­tion’ to the ‘occu­pied’ coun­tries, and how, through her agents, she has seized con­trol of all the great indus­tries of France, Bel­gium and Hol­land. We have also seen how she has allowed the whole of her eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy to be dic­tat­ed by Schacht. All this indi­cates clear­ly that Hitler is mere­ly apply­ing the cen­tu­ry- old the­o­ries of List in the eco­nom­ic sphere.” (Ibid.; pl. 16.)

30. Key Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists and financiers, apply­ing the prin­ci­pals of Von Clause­witz and List, sought to uti­lize the Sec­ond World War as a vehi­cle for achiev­ing Ger­man dom­i­nance in post­war mar­kets. The afore­men­tioned Hjal­mar Schacht was among those who held this view. “In con­trast, much of the bank­ing and indus­tri­al elite of Ger­many favored a more tra­di­tion­al, impe­r­i­al approach to acquir­ing a new empire in Europe. Among their prin­ci­pal spokes­men were Eco­nom­ics Min­is­ter Hjal­mar Schacht, Her­mann Abs, and a young Reichs­bank direc­tor, Karl Bless­ing. Their strat­e­gy favored inte­grat­ing busi­ness­es in coun­tries occu­pied by the Ger­mans into pri­vate indus­tri­al syn­di­cates coor­di­nat­ed through Ger­man-based car­tels and through pri­vate insti­tu­tions such as Deutsche Bank. The pri­vate com­pa­nies in turn pledged their loy­al­ty to Hitler’s gov­ern­ment. Ger­man mil­i­tary con­quest should be used to cre­ate con­di­tions through which Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions could buy up the key enter­pris­es in new­ly sub­ju­gat­ed coun­tries at very favor­able prices, this fac­tion con­tend­ed, but only in rare instances should the state take direct com­mand of indus­try. Much of the senior lead­er­ship of the Deutsche Bank, IG Far­ben, the Siemens group of com­pa­nies, and oth­er Ger­man-based car­tels main­tained that Ger­many should reen­ter the world mar­ket­place rather than attempt build up the ortho­dox Nazi dream of a self-suf­fi­cient Ger­man empire in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe.” (The Splen­did Blond Beast: Mon­ey, Law and Geno­cide in the 20th Cen­tu­ry; by Christo­pher Simp­son; Copy­right 1995 by Christo­pher Simp­son; Com­mon Courage Press [SC]; ISBN 1–56751-062–0; p. 71.)

31. These “cor­po­ratist” impe­ri­al­ists main­tained strong con­nec­tions with the SS, and that rela­tion­ship strength­ened as the war wound down. In the views and prac­tices of this milieu, one can bet­ter under­stand the gen­e­sis of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion. “As the SS grew as an eco­nom­ic pow­er, the SS mem­bers of the Himm­lerkreis often migrat­ed to new posi­tions on cor­po­rate boards, where they could secure gov­ern­ment con­tracts and embody cor­po­rate loy­al­ty to the regime. SS men and Nazi par­ty activists who made this tran­si­tion includ­ed Wil­helm Kep­pler (of the BRABAG brown coal com­bine and SS enter­pris­es), Fritz Krane­fuss (BRABAG, Dres­d­ner Bank), and Rit­ter von Halt, who joined the Deutsche Bank board. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 155.)

32. ” . . . The com­pa­nies rep­re­sent­ed in Himm­ler’s cir­cle became pace­set­ters in Aryaniza­tion, exploita­tion of con­cen­tra­tion camp labor, seizure of for­eign com­pa­nies in the occu­pied ter­ri­to­ries, and sim­i­lar busi­ness ven­tures that depend­ed on SS coop­er­a­tion.” (Idem.)

33. One of the prin­ci­pal fig­ures in this group was Lud­wig Erhard, a key eco­nom­ic advi­sor to Kon­rad Ade­nauer and the man who suc­ceed­ed him as Chan­cel­lor of Ger­many. “But as the war turned against the Third Reich, a num­ber of busi­ness lead­ers in the Himm­lerkreis began to coop­er­ate in clan­des­tine and semi­clan­des­tine con­tin­gency plan­ning for the post­war peri­od. Two of the best known of these groups, the Arbeit­skreis fur aussen­wirtschaftliche Fra­gen (Work­ing Group for For­eign Eco­nom­ic Ques­tions) and Kleine Arbeit­skreis (Small work­ing Group), were nom­i­nal­ly spon­sored by theRe­ichs­gruppe Indus­trie asso­ci­a­tion of major indus­tri­al and finan­cial com­pa­nies. They brought togeth­er Bless­ing, Rasche, Kurt von Schroed­er, Lin­de­mann, and oth­ers from the Himm­lerkreis with oth­er busi­ness peo­ple such as Her­mann Abs (Deutsche Bank), Lud­wig Erhard (then an econ­o­mist with the Reichs­gruppe Indus­trie and lat­er Chan­cel­lor Kon­rad Ade­nauer’s most impor­tant eco­nom­ic advisor-[and , ulti­mate­ly, his suc­ces­sor]), Ludger Westrick (RKG, alu­minum indus­try, and non­fer­rous met­als), Philipp Reem­st­ma (tobac­co, ship­ping, bank­ing), and with Nazi busi­ness spe­cial­ists such as Otto Ohlen­dorff (the for­mer com­man­der of the Ein­satz­gruppe D mur­der troops) and Hans Kehrl (SS busi­ness spe­cial­ist). A half-dozen sim­i­lar busi­ness forums emerged dur­ing the last years of the Third Reich. Most of these over­lapped in mem­ber­ship, and all of them favored some vari­a­tion of the “cor­po­ratist” strat­e­gy for empire artic­u­lat­ed by Hjal­mar Schacht, Abs, and oth­ers dur­ing the show­down over Aryaniza­tion in Vien­na dis­cussed ear­li­er.” (Ibid.; pp. 155–156.)

34. Schacht and his com­pa­tri­ots (as not­ed above) put their Lis­t­ian the­o­ries into prac­tice in the eco­nom­ic occu­pa­tion of Europe. “More recent occu­pa­tions of coun­tries by Ger­many (Nor­way, Den­mark, Hol­land, Bel­gium, France, Yugoslavia, etc.) at first glance may appear as sim­ple strate­gic occu­pa­tion. If one exam­ines them more close­ly one can per­ceive, how­ev­er, that the Prus­so-Teu­ton­ic pow­ers took advan­tage of each inva­sion of for­eign ter­ri­to­ry, from the first day of occu­pa­tion, to pre­pare in the most thor­ough­go­ing sci­en­tif­ic man­ner for the per­ma­nent sub­ju­ga­tion of the occu­pied coun­try. This was accom­plished first of all on the eco­nom­ic lev­el, where the Prus­so-Teu­ton­ics’ inter­ests pri­mar­i­ly are. They are well aware that eco­nom­ic con­trol leads auto­mat­i­cal­ly to polit­i­cal con­trol. Ger­man eco­nom­ic agen­cies fol­low close­ly on the heels of armies of occu­pa­tion and endeav­or to trans­form the tem­po­rary hold on con­quered coun­tries into a per­ma­nent eco­nom­ic con­trol.” (The Thou­sand-Year Con­spir­a­cy; p. 224.)

35. The Fran­co-Ger­man bloc cur­rent­ly oppos­ing US pol­i­cy in the Mid­dle East has its eco­nom­ic foun­da­tion in the Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of French eco­nom­ic resources. (See FTR#‘s 305, 366, 367, 372.) That con­trol was cement­ed by Schacht and his fel­low “cor­po­ratists” dur­ing the war. “Until the present this oper­a­tion has suc­ceed­ed much more com­plete­ly in a coun­try like France, where local author­i­ties have accept­ed the idea of ‘col­lab­o­ra­tion’ than in coun­tries occu­pied against the resis­tance of their gov­ern­ments. In France cap­ture of con­trol of cor­po­ra­tions through forced sale to Ger­mans took place with a show of legal­i­ty because French author­i­ties and courts, under pres­sure from Vichy, coun­te­nanced these trans­ac­tions. The Prus­so-Teu­ton­ics know that mil­i­tary occu­pa­tion of France can­not last for­ev­er. Besides, they have prob­a­bly con­sid­ered the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a Ger­man defeat which would bring about the fall of the Nazi regime. They must have said to them­selves that, even in that case, con­quest of France would have yield­ed them the key advan­tages they had hoped to gain: they fig­ured that it would be extreme­ly dif­fi­cult for the French to find the legal forms to get rid of Ger­man con­trol over near­ly the whole of their nation­al econ­o­my. This con­trol hav­ing thus been estab­lished with­in legal frame­work, accord­ing to French law, the task of destroy­ing it would be ardu­ous and com­pli­cat­ed. This would be true even for a gov­ern­ment under no oblig­a­tion to respect the agree­ments of Vichy. It would of course be more true for any French gov­ern­ment rec­og­niz­ing Vichy laws and decrees.” (Ibid.; pp. 224–225.)

36. “All of this entered into the prepa­ra­tion for what Hitler calls the ‘New Eco­nom­ic Order.’ This ‘New Order’ is in its entire­ty the old Pruss­ian scheme of List, which nine­ty years before Hitler’s reign pro­vid­ed the blue­print for the cre­ation of Euro­pean eco­nom­ic uni­ty under dom­i­na­tion of a Pruss­ian Ger­many. It also pro­vid­ed for sub­se­quent expan­sion of this Prus­so-Teu­ton­ic Europe through inva­sion of the mar­kets of oth­er con­ti­nents, and estab­lish­ment of ‘pro­tec­torates’ through­out the world. This scheme had always been close to the hearts of the Prus­so-Teu­ton­ic pow­ers of Ger­many and had been placed by Dr. Schacht and Dr. Funk in the fore­ground of the aims pur­sued by Hitler. Ter­ri­to­r­i­al con­quest has a mean­ing sub­or­di­nate to eco­nom­ic con­quest, accord­ing to List’s for­mu­la.” (Ibid.; p. 225.)

37. The com­bined the­o­ries of Haushofer, List and Von Clause­witz, as imple­ment­ed by the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion and the EMU, can be viewed in a dis­turb­ing invest­ment phe­nom­e­non. If the euro con­tin­ues to be seen as an eco­nom­ic safe­haven for investors, this will erode the dol­lar’s stance as a reserve cur­ren­cy. That, in turn, will-in com­bi­na­tion with the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s poli­cies-destroy the coun­try. “The one clear trend has been a flow of invest­ment from the dol­lar to the euro. The euro, used by 12 of the 15 mem­bers of the Euro­pean Union rose to $1.083 today, resum­ing a climb that was inter­rupt­ed briefly by Sec­re­tary of State Col­in L. Pow­ell’s speech at the Unit­ed Nations on Wednes­day. Cur­ren­cy experts said the dol­lar was weak now because Mr. Pow­ell had appar­ent­ly not ral­lied the sup­port of France, Ger­many and oth­er coun­tries for mil­i­tary action against Iraq. Some said that the euro was tak­ing over the dol­lar’s his­toric role as a refuge for investors in tur­bu­lent times.” (“Britain and the Con­ti­nent Part Ways on Rates” by Mark Landler; The New York Times; 2/7/2003; p. W7.)

38. The con­cept of “Proxy War” that has been pre­sent­ed in recent FTR pro­grams can be viewed quite clear­ly in the con­text of what fol­lows. “Mr. Duisen­berg allud­ed to this shift, which he described as a change in the ‘val­ue judg­ments’ made about the two cur­ren­cies. ‘In the past, when there was geopo­lit­i­cal uncer­tain­ty, the dol­lar was the safe haven for the world,’ Mr. Duisen­berg said. ‘Now it weighs on the dol­lar, rather than boosts it.’ He not­ed that the euro was still trad­ing slight­ly below its aver­age val­ue in 2000 and 2001, when it was used only in finan­cial trans­ac­tions; it began cir­cu­lat­ing pub­licly in Jan­u­ary 2002. He insist­ed that the euro had not reached a lev­el where it would pose a threat to exporters by mak­ing their goods too expen­sive abroad.” (Idem.)

39. “Ana­lysts said the dol­lar would weak­en fur­ther rel­a­tive to the euro, par­tic­u­lar­ly if the Unit­ed States failed to muster sup­port for its Iraq cam­paign and pro­ceed­ed with­out a Unit­ed Nations man­date. ‘Com­pare the sit­u­a­tion to 12 years ago, when Ger­many paid a large part of the cost of the gulf war,’ said Carsten Fritsch, a cur­ren­cy ana­lyst at Com­merzbank in Frank­furt. ‘If the U.S. fails to build a broad-based coali­tion, it will have to finance this war by itself.’ ” (Idem.)

40. As not­ed in FTR#388, many with­in the mil­i­tary estab­lish­ment are leary of the admin­is­tra­tion’s Iraqi pol­i­cy. “That’s why in the Pen­ta­gon, civil­ian lead­ers are gung-ho but many in uni­form are leery. For­mer gen­er­als like Nor­man Schwarzkopf, Antho­ny Zin­ni and Wes­ley Clark have all expressed con­cern about the rush to war. ‘Can­did­ly, I have got­ten some­what ner­vous at some of the pro­nounce­ments Rums­feld has made,’ Gen­er­al Schwarzkopf told The Wash­ing­ton Post, adding: ‘I think it is very impor­tant for us to wait and see what the inspec­tors come up with.’ The White House has appar­ent­ly launched a post-emp­tive strike on Gen­er­al Schwarzkopf, for he now refus­es inter­views.) As for Gen­er­al Zin­ni, he said of the hawks: ‘I’m not sure which plan­et they live on, because it isn’t the one that I trav­el.’ In an Octo­ber speech to the Mid­dle East Insti­tute in Wash­ing­ton, he added: ‘‘If’ we intend to solve this through vio­lent action, we’re on the wrong course. First of all, I don’t see that that’s nec­es­sary. Sec­ond of all, I think that war and vio­lence are a very last resort.’ ” (Idem.)

41. The pro­gram con­cludes with the cli­mac­tic episode of The Turn­er Diaries, authored by the late William Pierce, the author of Ser­pen­t’s Walk. Pierce (the head of the Nation­al Alliance) has been quite can­did in inter­views that his “nov­els” are teach­ing tools for the Nazi faith­ful. It does not require a great leap of faith to see that the seed for the attack on the Pen­ta­gon may have come from The Turn­er Diaries. Although the cor­re­spon­dence is not pre­cise, the sui­cide attack by a low-fly­ing plane is rem­i­nis­cent of the events of 9/11. “I con­ferred pri­vate­ly with Major Williams of the Wash­ing­ton Field Com­mand for more than an hour on the prob­lem of attack­ing the Pen­ta­gon. The mil­i­tary’s oth­er major com­mand cen­ters were either knocked out on Sep­tem­ber 8 or sub­se­quent­ly con­sol­i­dat­ed with the Pen­ta­gon, which the top brass appar­ent­ly regard as impreg­nable. And it damned near is. We went over every pos­si­bil­i­ty we could think of, and we came up with no real­ly con­vinc­ing plan-except, per­haps one. That is to make an air deliv­ery of a bomb.” (The Turn­er Diaries; “Andrew Mac­don­ald;” Bar­ri­cade Books, Inc. [SC] 1996; Copy­right 1978, 1980 William Pierce; ISBN 80–82692; p. 201.)

42. “In the mas­sive ring of defens­es around the Pen­ta­gon there is a great deal of anti-air­craft fire­pow­er, but we decid­ed that a small plane, fly­ing just above the ground, might be able to get through the three-mile gaunt­let with one of our 60-kilo­ton war­heads. One fac­tor in favor of such an attempt is that we have nev­er before used air­craft in such a way, and we might hope to catch the anti-air­craft crews off their guard.” (Idem.)

43. “Although the mil­i­tary is guard­ing all civ­il air­fields, it just hap­pens that we have an old crop duster stashed in a barn only a few miles from here. My imme­di­ate assign­ment is to pre­pare a detailed plan for an aer­i­al attack on the Pen­ta­gon by next Mon­day. We must make a final deci­sion at the time and then with­out fur­ther delay.” (Idem.)

44. “Novem­ber 9, 1993. It’s still three hours until first light, and all sys­tems are ‘go.’ I’ll use the time to write a few pages-my last diary entry. Then it’s a one-way trip to the Pen­ta­gon for me. The war­head is strapped into the front seat of the old Stear­man and rigged to det­o­nate either on impact or when I flip a switch in the back seat. Hope­ful­ly, I’ll be able to mange a low-lev­el air burst direct­ly over the cen­ter of the Pen­ta­gon. Fail­ing that, I’ll at least try to fly as close as I can before I’m shot down.” (Ibid.; p. 202.)

45. “It’s been more than four years since I’ve flown, but I’ve thor­ough­ly famil­iar­ized myself with the Stear­man cock­pit and been briefed on the plane’s pecu­liar­i­ties: I don’t antic­i­pate any pilot­ing prob­lems. The barn-hangar here is only eight miles from the Pen­ta­gon. We’ll thor­ough­ly warm up the engine in the barn, and when the door is opened I’ll go like a bat out of hell, straight for the Pen­ta­gon, at an alti­tude of about 50 feet. . .” (Idem.)

46. “Thus end Earl Turn­er’s diaries, as unpre­ten­tious­ly as they began. His final mis­sion was suc­cess­ful, of course, as we all are remind­ed each year on Novem­ber 9‑our tra­di­tion­al Day of the Mar­tyrs.” (Ibid.; p. 205.)


No comments for “FTR #398 More on the Virtual State & Manipulation of Political Polarities”

Post a comment