Record­ed Jan­u­ary 11, 2004
Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
RealAu­dio

This broad­cast under­scores the eco­nom­ic rela­tion­ships between the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, the Bormann/Underground Reich milieu, and the Arab petro­le­um-pro­duc­ing states, as well as the fun­da­men­tal con­flict between those inter­ests and the Amer­i­can nation­al inter­est. Anoth­er major aspect of the analy­sis pre­sent­ed here con­cerns the phe­nom­e­non of glob­al­iza­tion. Glob­al­iza­tion in its mod­ern form actu­al­ly began in the imme­di­ate post-World War I peri­od, when the Amer­i­can rob­ber barons (includ­ing the Bush fam­i­ly) invest­ed in Ger­many and Japan rather than the US, in order to escape the reg­u­la­tions imposed by US anti-trust leg­is­la­tion. In addi­tion to help­ing pre­cip­i­tate and exac­er­bate the Great Depres­sion in the Unit­ed States, this for­eign invest­ment fused the Amer­i­can eco­nom­ic elite with those of Ger­many and Japan. The mil­i­tary pow­er with which the Ger­mans and Japan­ese over­ran Europe and Asia was the trans­mo­gri­fied eco­nom­ic pow­er of the US indus­tri­al boom of the 1920’s. In turn, the Japan­ese and Ger­mans used the con­quest to loot the liq­uid cap­i­tal of Asia and Europe. (For more about this, see—among oth­er programs—FTR#‘s 99, 290, 305, 426, 427, 428.) With the approach of the Cold War, the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic sta­tus quo in Europe and Asia was solid­i­fied, and the eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal forces of the Axis restored to pow­er. The US is present­ly involved in a civ­il war between sin­cere­ly demo­c­ra­t­ic, nation­al­ist forces and fas­cist inter­na­tion­al­ists whose alle­giance is to the glob­al­ized, mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty. Much of the broad­cast is devot­ed to an expose of these polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic forces and how they are play­ing them­selves out on the world polit­i­cal stage.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Hitler’s vision of New York sky­scrap­ers explod­ing in flames; “The Turn­er Diaries” and its cli­mac­tic episode—a low-lev­el sui­cide aer­i­al attack on the Pen­ta­gon; the $180 bil­lion plus (in ear­ly 1940’s dol­lars) loot­ed by the Nazis from occu­pied Europe; the $100 bil­lion (in ear­ly 1940’s dol­lars) secret­ed by the Japan­ese in the Philip­pines; the rela­tion­ship between the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion and US-based mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions; the func­tion­al con­nec­tions between the Bor­mann group and Bush-relat­ed eco­nom­ic inter­ests; the deci­sion by key Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists to con­tin­ue fund­ing the Nazi Par­ty in an under­ground, post­war fash­ion; the neu­tral­iza­tion of a class-action suit against the Japan­ese Zaibat­sus by pow­er­ful US polit­i­cal and cor­po­rate inter­ests; the sub­ver­sion of France by its pow­er elite dur­ing World War II; a com­par­i­son of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion to the French indus­tri­al­ists and financiers who sided with Hitler; Karl Von Clause­witz’s con­cept of Total War; the dev­as­tat­ing effects of recent ter­ror alerts on US cities and states; the ruinous impact of the ter­ror alerts on the air­line busi­ness; warn­ings by for­mer Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Robert Rubin and the Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund about the impact of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s eco­nom­ic policies—both warn of impend­ing dis­as­ter; Al Taqwa direc­tor Ahmed Huber’s con­nec­tions to for­mer SS offi­cers who have named Osama bin Laden an “hon­orary Pruss­ian.”

1. The pro­gram begins with a review of for­mer Third Reich defense min­is­ter Albert Speer’s account of Hitler’s vision of the anni­hi­la­tion of New York City. “As Ger­many’s defeat loomed dur­ing the final months of World War II, Adolf Hitler increas­ing­ly lapsed into delu­sion­al [?] fits of fan­ta­sy. Albert Speer, in his prison writ­ings, recounts an episode in which a mani­a­cal Hitler ‘pic­tured for him­self and for us the destruc­tion of New York in a hur­ri­cane of fire.’ The Nazi fuehrer described sky­scrap­ers turn­ing into ‘gigan­tic burn­ing torch­es, col­laps­ing upon one anoth­er, the glow of the explod­ing city illu­mi­nat­ing the dark sky.’ An approx­i­ma­tion of Hitler’s hell­ish vision came true on Sep­tem­ber 11, when ter­ror­ists destroyed the Twin Tow­ers in New York, killing near­ly 3,000 peo­ple.”
(“The Swasti­ka & the Cres­cent” by Mar­tin A. Lee; Intel­li­gence Report; Spring 2002 [#105]; Pub­lished by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter; p. 1.)

2. Next, review­ing infor­ma­tion from FTR#399, the broad­cast high­lights the sim­i­lar­i­ty between the events of 9/11 and the con­clud­ing episode of The Turn­er Diaries—the blue­print for Tim­o­thy McVeigh and com­pa­ny, as well as the Nazi ter­ror group The Order. That Nazi tract con­cludes with a low-lev­el sui­cide aer­i­al attack against the Pen­ta­gon. “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 1–56980-086–3; p. 201.)

3. “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.)

4. “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 act with­out fur­ther delay.” (Idem.)

5. “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.)

6. “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.)

7. The selec­tion of the date of the attack is worth not­ing. Novem­ber 9th is a date that the Nazis com­mem­o­rat­ed. It was the date of the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 and “Die Krys­tall­nacht” in 1938. The Berlin wall came down on Novem­ber 9, 1989. “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.)

8. Begin­ning sub­stan­tive analy­sis of the macro-eco­nom­ic results of World War II, the pro­gram sets forth the tremen­dous amount of cap­i­tal loot­ed by the Ger­mans from the occu­pied coun­tries. By 1943, the Nazis had tak­en an esti­mat­ed $180 bil­lion, minus what they loot­ed from the USSR and Greece. By the end of the war, they had tak­en a great deal more. These tremen­dous sums (in 1940’s dol­lars), plus the

cap­i­tal the Third Reich already pos­sessed, was secret­ed into the cor­po­rate fronts set up by Mar­tin Bor­mann in neu­tral coun­tries. (That is dis­cussed in, among oth­er pro­grams, FTR#305.) “In all, the British esti­mat­ed that the Ger­mans had extract­ed the equiv­a­lent of about $180 bil­lion from occu­pied Europe as of 1943, includ­ing both direct levies for occu­pa­tion costs and a vari­ety of hid­den tech­niques such as cur­ren­cy manip­u­la­tion. These fig­ures were based on finan­cial sta­tis­tics pub­lished by the Ger­mans them­selves and do not include esti­mates for wealth seized from the USSR and Greece. As such, even the $180 bil­lion fig­ure clear­ly under­es­ti­mates the true total.”
(The Splen­did Blonde Beast: Mon­ey, Law and Geno­cide in the Twen­ti­eth Cen­tu­ry; Christo­pher Simp­son; Com­mon Courage Press [SC]; Copy­right 1995 by Christo­pher Simp­son; ISBN 1–5671-062–0 [paper]; 1–5671-063–9 [cloth].)

9. Review­ing infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed in FTR#‘s 427, 428, the broad­cast under­scores the tremen­dous cap­i­tal loot­ed from Asia by Japan dur­ing World War II. Under Oper­a­tion Gold­en Lil­ly, the Japan­ese secret­ed more than $100 bil­lion in the Philip­pines alone dur­ing the war. As dis­cussed in FTR#‘s 290, 426–428, the per­ceived neces­si­ty of pre­serv­ing the exist­ing polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic order in Japan in order to pros­e­cute the Cold War per­mit­ted the Japan­ese oli­garchs to retain their ill-got­ten gains. As was the case with Ger­many, the US atti­tude about the approach­ing Cold War had the effect of solid­i­fy­ing the gains the Japan­ese had achieved by force of arms. In effect, the struc­tur­al eco­nom­ic rela­tion­ships between the Amer­i­can indus­tri­al and finan­cial elite through the car­tels estab­lished with their Japan­ese and Ger­man coun­ter­parts bestowed vic­to­ry upon the Axis in World War II. The out­growth of these events is now unfold­ing, with the Unit­ed States now fac­ing destruc­tion and/or sub­ju­ga­tion by the Under­ground Axis forces that grew from the post-war realpoli­tik. As the cra­dle of democ­ra­cy and a gen­uine­ly mul­ti-eth­nic cul­ture, the US (for all its sins) is some­thing great­ly hat­ed by the forces of dark­ness that were allowed to pre­vail at the con­clu­sion of World War II. Whether or not this coun­try is able to sur­vive the present per­il remains to be seen. “Dur­ing World War II, Japan’s mil­i­tarism became a heady mix­ture of glo­ry and greed as the army and navy embarked upon a binge of con­quest and loot­ing, from which Tokyo could not extri­cate itself. We know a lot about the con­quest, but amaz­ing­ly lit­tle about the loot­ing. In the Japan­ese holo­caust, mil­lions were killed and bil­lions were stolen, but the loot van­ished. One of the great mys­ter­ies of World War II is what hap­pened to the bil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of trea­sure con­fis­cat­ed by the Japan­ese Army from a dozen con­quered coun­tries. The answer involves the impe­r­i­al fam­i­ly, so it is an essen­tial part of this biog­ra­phy. . . .”
(The Yam­a­to Dynasty; Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; Copy­right 1999 by Peg­gy and Ster­ling Sea­grave; Broad­way Books [a divi­sion of Ran­dom House] [HC]; ISBN 0–7679-0496–6; p. 18.)

10. Gold­en Lily stripped Asia of cur­ren­cy, gold, plat­inum, sil­ver, gems, jew­el­ry, art trea­sures and reli­gious arti­facts, includ­ing more than a dozen sol­id gold Bud­dhas, each weigh­ing more than a ton. Accord­ing to Japan­ese who par­tic­i­pat­ed, some $100 bil­lion worth of gold and gems was hid­den at more than two hun­dred sites in the Philip­pines when it became phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble to move the loot to Japan. We have cor­rob­o­rat­ed accounts from eye­wit­ness­es and par­tic­i­pants, includ­ing Japan­ese, and mem­bers of Prince Chichibu’s per­son­al ret­inue.” (Ibid.; pp. 18–19.)

11. Return­ing to the post­war events in Europe, the broad­cast reviews the Third Reich’s plans to go under­ground, uti­liz­ing the pro­found con­nec­tions between Ger­man heavy indus­try and finance and their Wall Street coun­ter­parts, includ­ing the Bush fam­i­ly. “The Staff car had left Col­mar at first light for Stras­bourg, car­ry­ing SS Ober­grup­pen­fue­herer Scheid, who held the rank of lieu­tenant gen­er­al in the Waf­fen SS, as well as the title of Dr. Scheid, direc­tor of the indus­tri­al firm of Her­madorff & Schen­burg Com­pa­ny. While the beau­ty of the rolling coun­try­side was not lost on Dr. Scheid, his thoughts were on the meet­ing of impor­tant Ger­man busi­ness­men to take place on his arrival at the Hotel Mai­son Rouge in Stras­bourg. Reich­sleit­er Mar­tin Bor­mann him­self had ordered the con­fer­ence, and although he would not phys­i­cal­ly be present he had con­fid­ed to Dr. Scheid, who was to pre­side, ‘The steps to be tak­en as a result of this meet­ing will deter­mine the post­war future of Ger­many.’ [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s] The Reish­sleit­er had added, ‘Ger­man indus­try must real­ize that the war can­not now be won, and must take steps to pre­pare for a post­war com­mer­cial cam­paign which will in time insure the eco­nom­ic resur­gence of Ger­many.’ It was August 10, 1944. The Mer­cedes-Benz bear­ing SS Ober­grup­pen­fuer­her Scheid moved slow­ly now through the nar­row streets of Stras­bourg. . . .”
(Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 23–24.)

12. “A tran­script of that meet­ing is in my pos­ses­sion. It is a cap­tured Ger­man doc­u­ment from the files of the U.S. Trea­sury Depart­ment, and states who was present and what was said, as the econ­o­my of the Third Reich was pro­ject­ed onto a post­war prof­it seek­ing track. . . .” (Ibid.; p.24.)

13. One of the firms that Dr. Scheid cit­ed as an exam­ple of a com­pa­ny that had been par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful to Ger­many was the Ham­burg-Ameri­ka Line. As dis­cussed in FTRs 273, 346, the Ham­burg-Ameri­ka Line was part of the Bush fam­i­ly’s busi­ness oper­a­tions on behalf of the Third Reich. Note also that the Krupp firm is now part of Thyssen-Krupp, under the con­trol of the Thyssen-Borne­misza fam­i­ly and based in Lugano Switzer­land.
(For more about this, see FTR#‘s 370, 435. See also: ” ‘Bush-Nazi Deal­ings Con­tin­ued Until 1951’—Fed­er­al Doc­u­ments” by John Buchanan and Stacey Michael; The New Hamp­shire Gazette; 11/7/2003 [vol. 248, #3]; and “How the Bush Fam­i­ly Made its For­tune from the Nazis” by John Lof­tus.) ” . . . Dr. Scheid also affirmed, ‘The ground must now be laid on the finan­cial lev­el for bor­row­ing con­sid­er­able sums from for­eign coun­tries after the war.’ As an exam­ple of the kind of sup­port that had been most use­ful to Ger­many in the past, Dr. Scheid cit­ed the fact that ‘patents for stain­less steel belonged to the Chem­i­cal Foun­da­tion, Inc. New York, and the Krupp Com­pa­ny of Ger­many, joint­ly, and that the Unit­ed States Steel Cor­po­ra­tion, Carnegie, Illi­nois, Amer­i­can Steel & Wire, Nation­al Tube, etc., were there­by under an oblig­a­tion to work with the Krupp con­cern.’ He also cit­ed the Zeiss Com­pa­ny, the Leica Com­pa­ny, and the Ham­burg-Ameri­ka line as typ­i­cal firms that had been espe­cial­ly effec­tive in pro­tect­ing Ger­man inter­ests abroad. He gave New York address­es to the twelve men.” (Idem.)

14. The group also dis­cussed pro­vi­sions to con­tin­ue to fund the Nazi par­ty in an under­ground fash­ion after the war. “A small­er con­fer­ence in the after­noon was presided over by Dr. Bosse of the Ger­man Arma­ments Min­istry. It was attend­ed only by rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Hecko, Krupp, and Rochling. Dr. Bosse restat­ed Bor­man­n’s belief that the war was all but lost, but that it would be con­tin­ued by Ger­many until cer­tain goals to insure the eco­nom­ic resur­gence of Ger­many after the war had been achieved. He added that Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists must be pre­pared to finance the con­tin­u­a­tion of the Nazi Par­ty, which would be forced to go under­ground, just as had the Maquis in France.” (Ibid.; p.26.)

15. The pro­found con­ti­nu­ity in the cor­po­rate rela­tion­ships between the Japan­ese oli­garchs and their Amer­i­can coun­ter­parts is embod­ied in the fail­ure of class-action suits filed on behalf of vic­tims of the Japan­ese occu­pa­tion dur­ing World War II. In what the Sea­graves describe as the “last bat­tle of the Pacif­ic War,” sur­viv­ing vic­tims of Japan­ese atroc­i­ties, includ­ing Amer­i­can for­mer POW’s sued for com­pen­sa­tion for their wartime suf­fer­ing. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment effec­tive­ly blocked these suits, main­tain­ing that inter­na­tion­al diplo­mat­ic rela­tions took prece­dence over legal ethics and moral­i­ty. “The real issue is con­flict of inter­est. Dur­ing the Clin­ton Admin­is­tra­tion, U.S. Ambas­sador to Japan Thomas Foley was adamant in reject­ing com­pen­sa­tion for POW’s and oth­er slave labor­ers, insist­ing that ‘The peace treaty put aside all claims against Japan.’ His Deputy Chief of Mis­sion, Christo­pher J. LaFleur, echoed this dog­ma at every oppor­tu­ni­ty.”
(Gold Warriors—America’s Secret Recov­ery of Yamashita’s Gold; by Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; Ver­so [HC]; Copy­right 2003 by Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; ISBN 1–85984-542–8; p. 12.)

16. “It was a mat­ter of some inter­est to vic­tims that Foley’s wife was a well-paid con­sul­tant to Sum­it­o­mo, one of Japan’s biggest zaibat­su con­glom­er­ates, heav­i­ly involved in wartime slave labor and a tar­get of the law­suits. The moment Foley end­ed his tenure as ambas­sador and returned to Amer­i­ca, he signed on as a paid advi­sor and lob­by­ist to anoth­er huge conglomerate—Mitsubishi—one of the biggest wartime users of slave labor.” (Idem.)

17. “Of greater sig­nif­i­cance, per­haps, is that Lafleur is mar­ried to the daugh­ter of for­mer prime min­is­ter and finance min­is­ter Miyaza­wa, one of the three Japan­ese who secret­ly nego­ti­at­ed the 1951 treaty with John Fos­ter Dulles. (Miyaza­wa also is con­sid­ered by pro­fes­sor Lausi­er and oth­ers to be the finan­cial over­seer of the M‑Fund.) Con­flict of inter­est does not seem to be an obsta­cle in diplo­mat­ic appoint­ments to Tokyo.” (Idem)

17. There is no such thing as a per­fect his­tor­i­cal anal­o­gy. Nonethe­less, the cur­rent and pre­car­i­ous sit­u­a­tion of the Unit­ed States can best be under­stood by exam­in­ing the work of the Fifth Col­umn in the sub­ver­sion of France pri­or to, and dur­ing, World War II. (This is dis­cussed in greater detail in FTR#‘s 372, 412, as well as Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M61, avail­able from Spit­fire.) Joined with the Nazi elite by struc­tur­al eco­nom­ic rela­tion­ships, and fas­cist/an­ti-semit­ic ide­ol­o­gy, the French pow­er elite delib­er­ate­ly sub­vert­ed France in World War II. The US is fac­ing sim­i­lar sub­ver­sion by the Bush/Underground Reich ele­ments, in league with the Arab oil pro­duc­ing states. It is worth not­ing in this con­text, that a key ele­ment in the French Fifth Col­umn were the French steel-pro­duc­ing mag­nates, joined in a car­tel with their Ger­man coun­ter­parts. (See FTR#372.) At the Amer­i­can end of that car­tel was the Bush fam­i­ly. The UBC/Thyssen inter­ests joined the Bush­es with the De Wen­dels (French) and the Rochling, Thyssen and Flick inter­ests in Ger­many. It is worth not­ing also that the Bor­mann group has the most pro­found con­nec­tions with the petro­le­um indus­try. (See—among oth­er programs—FTR#‘s 305, 341, 385.) “The activ­i­ty of the Fifth Col­umn will not be con­sid­ered by his­to­ri­ans a spe­cial phe­nom­e­non of French pub­lic life, but as an inte­gral part of Fas­cism. The Fifth Col­umn has appeared wher­ev­er Fas­cism has tried to gain a foothold. It was at work in Spain, Aus­tria, and Czecho­slo­va­kia before it turned up in France, and there are Fifth Columns in the Unit­ed States, India, and Latin Amer­i­ca. By the Fifth Col­umn I do not mean only spies and licensed trai­tors. The Fifth Col­umn includes all who, by accept­ing fas­cist doc­trines or meth­ods, become the con­scious or uncon­scious accom­plices of a for­eign pow­er. Trea­son and com­plic­i­ty have their degrees and nuances. The Gen­er­al Staff of the Fifth col­umn con­sists prin­ci­pal­ly of ambi­tious men who try to seize pow­er by destroy­ing or par­a­lyz­ing the demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem. The body of the Fifth Col­umn is com­posed of peo­ple who think they are sav­ing their coun­try from the ‘com­mu­nist men­ace’ or from ‘British impe­ri­al­ism,’ and who do not even know in whose favor their actions are oper­at­ing. Through hate of the Poplar Front, good French­men, or men who con­sid­ered them­selves such, served Hitler gra­tu­itous­ly by doing work to which they would nev­er have con­sent­ed, had they had been offered pay­ment. Why? Because they detest­ed the Repub­lic and democ­ra­cy more than they loved France. They accept­ed the idea of the defeat as a nec­es­sary evil which per­mit­ted them to rid France of the demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem and to keep in pow­er, in the neigh­bor­ing coun­tries, the Fas­cist dic­ta­tors whom they con­sid­ered sole­ly capa­ble of main­tain­ing order in Europe. They after­wards became uncon­scious col­lab­o­ra­tors of these dic­ta­tors. They thought they were doing their duty in let­ting Hitler free France from the ‘Judeo-Mason­ic’ influ­ence, and Europe from the Com­mu­nist per­il. These peo­ple who had nev­er read Marx, con­sid­ered the ‘Marx­ist dan­ger’ more imme­di­ate than the Hit­ler­ian. They pre­ferred the risks of an entente with a vic­to­ri­ous Hitler to the risks of a demo­c­ra­t­ic vic­to­ry that would cause the col­lapse of the Fas­cist dic­ta­tors in Europe. Con­sid­er­ing Hitler in Ger­many, Mus­soli­ni in Italy, and Fran­co in Spain as knights of an anti-Bol­she­vist cru­sade, they became pre­cur­sors and lat­er par­ti­sans of ‘col­lab­o­ra­tion with Hitler’s New Order.’ ”
(Tri­umph of Trea­son; by Pierre Cot; Copy­right 1944 [HC]; Ziff-Davis; pp. 62–63.)

18. “Enough evi­dence has been pub­lished already to prove that France was stabbed in the back by those who saw in Hitler the new St. George who would slay the Com­mu­nist drag­on. When Pierre Lazareff, for­mer edi­tor-in-chief of Paris Soir (the French news­pa­per with the widest cir­cu­la­tion), reports roy­al­ists as say­ing: ‘We need the defeat to wipe out the Repub­lic;’ when Elie Bois, for­mer edi­tor of the Petit Parisien (the most influ­en­tial polit­i­cal news­pa­per), reports great indus­tri­al­ists as admit­ting to him, dur­ing the win­ter of 1939–1940, that a plot had been orga­nized to replace the demo­c­ra­t­ic regime by a ‘gov­ern­ment of author­i­ty’ and that this plot pre­sup­posed a Nazi vic­to­ry; when Ana­tole de Monzie writes, in a book passed by the cen­sor of the Vichy gov­ern­ment, that mar­shal Petain said in Feb­ru­ary, 1940: ‘They will appeal to me in the third week in May’; when Genevieve Tabouis tells of the work accom­plished in the Parisian salons by the Fifth Colum­n’s ‘brigade mondaine’; when Hen­ri de Ker­il­lis, for­mer offi­cer and nation­al­ist deputy, expos­es the inroads of the Fifth Col­umn in the con­ser­v­a­tive and mil­i­tary cir­cles which he knew; when Hen­ry Tor­res reveals to us what was going on in the offices of the offi­cial pro­pa­gan­da . . . we have every rea­son to accept their affir­ma­tions, which tal­ly so per­fect­ly with the events.” (Ibid.; p. 63.)

19. In order to ful­ly grasp the nature of the sub­ver­sion that the Bush administration/Underground Reich fac­tion is under­tak­ing, the broad­cast high­lights Pruss­ian mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cian Karl Von Clause­witz’s the­o­ries on “total war.” (For more about Von Clause­witz, see FTR#‘s 366, 396.) In his for­mu­la­tions about “total war,” Von Clause­witz advanced the notion that war, pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics could be under­stood as ele­ments of a con­tin­u­um. War is seen as an exten­sion of pol­i­tics and vice ver­sa. War and eco­nom­ics are inex­tri­ca­bly linked. As Tac­i­tus not­ed, “pecu­nia nervus belli”—“money is the sinew of war.” “Karl Von Clausewitz–Prussian gen­er­al whose writ­ings, espe­cial­ly On War, advo­cat­ed the con­cept of total war, in which all the ene­my’s ter­ri­to­ry, prop­er­ty, and cit­i­zens are attacked. . . . By means of a lengthy dis­cus­sion of a vari­ety of sit­u­a­tions like­ly to con­front the mil­i­tary leader, Clause­witz tried to devel­op in his read­er a the­o­ret­i­cal­ly found­ed mil­i­tary judge­ment, capa­ble of weigh­ing all per­ti­nent fac­tors in a giv­en sit­u­a­tion. He stat­ed that strat­e­gy should aim at three main tar­gets; the ene­my’s forces, his resources, and his will to fight. . . .”
(Ency­clo­pe­dia Bri­tan­ni­ca; 1997 edi­tion; p. 361.)

20. ” . . . On War has had a pro­found influ­ence on mod­ern strate­gic con­cepts. Its most sig­nif­i­cant sin­gle con­tri­bu­tion is the doc­trine of polit­i­cal direc­tion in mil­i­tary mat­ters. In main­tain­ing that ‘war is noth­ing but a con­tin­u­a­tion of polit­i­cal inter­course with the admix­ture of dif­fer­ent means,’ he denied that war is an end in itself. . . . By the mid­dle of the 20th cen­tu­ry, when new long-range weapons sys­tems had appeared, the sig­nif­i­cance of Clause­witz’ strate­gic con­cepts relat­ing exclu­sive­ly to land war­fare declined although many of his basic ideas remained as valid as ever.” (Idem.)

21. For munic­i­pal­i­ties and states, the eco­nom­ic effects of the “war on ter­ror” have been very grave indeed. “For cash-strapped U.S. cities and states, this week’s height­ened nation­al threat alert lev­el has reignit­ed con­cerns about costs along­side fears of a new ter­ror attack. From over­time for police offi­cers to extra patrols at key facil­i­ties and bor­ders, cities nation­wide must spend tens of mil­lions of dol­lars each week for the addi­tion­al secu­ri­ty mea­sures, mon­ey some local offi­cials say they do not have.”
(“Cash-Strapped Cities Grap­ple with Secu­ri­ty Costs” by Car­o­line Drees [Reuters]; 12/22/2003; p. 1.)

22. “It’s enor­mous­ly frus­trat­ing,’ said Randy King, spokesman for the city of Har­ris­burg, Penn­syl­va­nia, a state cap­i­tal of 49,000 peo­ple near the Three Mile Island nuclear pow­er plant. ‘All of it costs mon­ey, lots of mon­ey, and there’s no fed­er­al reim­burse­ment,’ he said.” (Idem.)

23. “On Sun­day, the U.S. Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty raised the col­or-cod­ed ter­ror alert lev­el to ‘high’ orange from ‘ele­vat­ed’ yellow—the fourth such move this year. Lift­ing the lev­el trig­gers a raft of auto­mat­ic addi­tion­al fed­er­al secu­ri­ty pre­cau­tions, and serves as a guide­line for cities and states. ‘We need to rec­og­nize that every time the gov­ern­ment ratch­ets up the threat lev­el, we force the state and local gov­ern­ment offi­cials to make a choice,’ said ana­lyst David Hey­man at the Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies.” (Idem.)

24. In FTR#407, we exam­ined the strug­gle between the Euro­pean Air­bus con­sor­tium and Boe­ing over the pric­ing of air­frames in dol­lars vs. Euros, as well as the impli­ca­tion of SARS for the air­line busi­ness. The recent ter­ror alerts have deep­ened the hem­or­rhag­ing expe­ri­enced by the air car­ri­ers. It will be inter­est­ing to see what the long-term results of this hem­or­rhag­ing will be. Will the Ger­man gov­ern­ment-assist­ed Lufthansa ben­e­fit? Will the Air­bus con­sor­tium ben­e­fit? Will air­frames be priced in Euros? “The rash of hol­i­day flight can­cel­la­tions, secu­ri­ty actions and ter­ror­ism warn­ings are going to com­pel many U.S. com­pa­nies to reassess whether to send employ­ees abroad in com­ing weeks, not only out of fear of attack but because of the incon­ve­nience of can­celed and delayed flights, busi­ness trav­el experts said Fri­day.”
(“Ter­ror Scares Hit Air­lines” [New York Times]; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 1/3/2004; p. B2.)

25. In this con­text, it is impor­tant to note as well that ham­per­ing the abil­i­ty of Amer­i­can busi­ness per­son­nel to trav­el abroad will, ulti­mate­ly, hurt the abil­i­ty of US busi­ness to oper­ate effec­tive­ly in the glob­al mar­ket­place. “Kevin Mitchell, chair­man of the Busi­ness Trav­el Coali­tion, said book­ings could drop 10 to 15 per­cent after the lat­est inci­dents. That would be par­tic­u­lar­ly bad news for the air­lines, which have lost busi­ness travelers—who usu­al­ly pay the high­est fares and account for a dis­pro­por­tion­ate share of air­lines’ profit—since the indus­try’s peak in the year 2000, well before the Sept. 11 attacks. Dwin­dling busi­ness trav­el was a big rea­son that the air­lines had their low­est-ver rev­enue last year.” (Idem.)

26. “Air­lines hope that inter­na­tion­al trav­el to the Unit­ed States will rise 5 per­cent dur­ing 2004, to an esti­mat­ed 42.2 mil­lion arrivals from abroad, accord­ing to the Trav­el Indus­try Asso­ci­a­tion, a trade group. That would have been the first increase since 2000. More­over, the car­ri­ers were par­tic­u­lar­ly opti­mistic about the win­ter trav­el sea­son, which they expect to improve from last year, when book­ings were depressed by the SARS out­break and the loom­ing war with Iraq. But the indus­try’s out­look dimmed as more flights were can­celed Fri­day.” (Idem.)

27. “By Fri­day, sev­en flights bound for the Unit­ed States had been can­celed, includ­ing three by British Air­lines, which also can­celed a sched­uled trip to Riyadh, Sau­di Ara­bia, from Lon­don. The can­cel­la­tions were in addi­tion to jet escorts by mil­i­tary fight­er planes with­in the Unit­ed States, and the emer­gency land­ing of an Air France flight in New­found­land, where the plane, pas­sen­gers and bag­gage were searched.” (Idem.)

28. “The moves came a week after the gov­ern­ment ele­vat­ed its ter­ror alert to high, rais­ing the prospect that an expect­ed increase in trav­el between the Unit­ed States and oth­er coun­tries this year may be thwart­ed. ‘Quan­ti­fy­ing the effect on peo­ple’s will­ing­ness to fly, or the over­all cost to air­lines at this point is near­ly impos­si­ble,’ said Chris Tar­ry, an ana­lyst in Lon­don.” (Idem.)

29. “But accord­ing to Robert Mann, Jr., an indus­try con­sul­tant in Port Wash­ing­ton, N.Y., the psy­cho­log­i­cal dam­age could not be dis­count­ed. ‘From an indus­try­wide lev­el, this throws cold water on rev­enue growth,’ he said.” (Idem.)

30. In FTR#‘s 407, 412, 415 and 435, we exam­ined the fact that Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were the Repub­li­can Par­ty’s point men for both the Islamist con­nec­tion to the GOP and for the dras­tic slash­ing of tax­es. The poten­tial­ly dev­as­tat­ing results from the eco­nom­ic poli­cies of this admin­is­tra­tion should be care­ful­ly con­sid­ered. These poli­cies have been exe­cut­ed in tan­dem with the wag­ing of a war engen­dered (in part) by the very Islamists involved with the Norquist/Rove-spon­sored Islam­ic Insti­tute. Bush is the only major world leader who has ever attempt­ed to slash rev­enues while wag­ing war. It is Mr. Emory’s view that the goal of this polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic gam­bit is the phys­i­cal and/or eco­nom­ic and/or polit­i­cal sub­ju­ga­tion and/or destruc­tion of the Unit­ed States. “Pecu­nia nervus Bel­li.” (For more about the eco­nom­ic impli­ca­tions of 9/11, see—among oth­er programs—FTR#‘s 344–346, 365–367, 372, 378, 396, 407, 412, 413, 415.) The pro­gram high­lights a col­umn by New York Times eco­nom­ics writer Paul Krug­man, in which he warns of the dan­ger fac­ing the US econ­o­my. “Argenti­na retained the con­fi­dence of inter­na­tion­al investors almost to the end of the 1990’s. Ana­lysts shrugged off its large bud­get and trade deficits; busi­ness-friend­ly, free-mar­ket poli­cies would, they insist­ed, allow the coun­try to grow out of all that. But when con­fi­dence col­lapsed, that opti­mism proved fool­ish. Argenti­na, once a show­piece for the new world order, quick­ly became a byword for eco­nom­ic cat­a­stro­phe.”
(“Rubin Gets Shrill” by Paul Krug­man; The New York Times; 1/6/2004.)

31. “So what? Those of us who have sug­gest­ed that the irre­spon­si­bil­i­ty of recent Amer­i­can pol­i­cy may pro­duce a sim­i­lar dis­as­ter have been dis­missed as shrill, even hys­ter­i­cal. (Hey, the mar­ket’s up, isn’t it?) But few would describe Robert Rubin, the leg­endary for­mer Trea­sury sec­re­tary, as hys­ter­i­cal: his abil­i­ty to stay calm in the face of crises, and reas­sure the mar­kets, was his great­est asset. And Mr. Rubin has for­mal­ly joined the coali­tion of the shrill.” (Idem.)

32. “In a paper pre­sent­ed over the week­end at the meet­ing of the Amer­i­can Eco­nom­ic Asso­ci­a­tion, Mr. Rubin and his co-authors—Peter Orszag of the Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion and Allan Sinai of Deci­sion Economics—argue along lines that will be famil­iar to reg­u­lar read­ers of this col­umn. The Unit­ed States, they point, out, is cur­rent­ly run­ning very large bud­get and trade deficits. Offi­cial pro­jec­tions that this deficit will decline over time aren’t based on ‘cred­i­ble assump­tions.’ Real­is­tic pro­jec­tions show a huge buildup of debt over the next decade, which will accel­er­ate once the baby boomers retire in large num­bers.” (Idem.)

33. “All of this is con­ven­tion­al stuff, if anath­e­ma to admin­is­tra­tion apol­o­gists, who insist, in flat defi­ance of the facts, that they have a ‘plan’ to cut the deficit in half. What’s new is what Mr. Rubin and his co-authors say about the con­se­quences. Rather than focus­ing on the grad­ual harm inflict­ed by deficits, they high­light the poten­tial for cat­a­stro­phe.” (Idem.)

34. ” ‘Sub­stan­tial ongo­ing deficits,’ they warn, ‘may severe­ly and adverse­ly affect expec­ta­tions and con­fi­dence, which in turn can gen­er­ate a self-rein­forc­ing neg­a­tive cycle among the under­ly­ing fis­cal deficit, finan­cial mar­kets, and the real econ­o­my. . . . The poten­tial costs and fall­out from such fis­cal and finan­cial dis­ar­ray pro­vide per­haps the strongest moti­va­tion for avoid­ing sub­stan­tial, ongo­ing bud­get deficits.’ In oth­er words, do cry for us, Argenti­na: we may be head­ing down the same road. . . .” (Idem.)

35. The Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund is warn­ing of the grave con­se­quences of the Bush/Norquist/Rove eco­nom­ic poli­cies as well. “With its ris­ing bud­get deficit and bal­loon­ing trade imbal­ance, the Unit­ed States is run­ning up a for­eign debt of such record-break­ing pro­por­tions that it threat­ens the finan­cial sta­bil­i­ty of the glob­al econ­o­my, accord­ing to a report released Wednes­day by the Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund.”
(“I.M.F. Says U.S. Debts Threat­en World Econ­o­my” by Eliz­a­beth Beck­er and Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times; 1/8/2004.)

36. “Pre­pared by a team of I.M.F. econ­o­mists, the report sound­ed a loud alarm about the shaky fis­cal foun­da­tion of the Unit­ed States, ques­tion­ing the wis­dom of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s tax cuts and warn­ing that large bud­get deficits pose ‘sig­nif­i­cant risks’ not just for the Unit­ed States but for the rest of the world. The report warns that the unit­ed States’ net finan­cial oblig­a­tions to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 per­cent of its total econ­o­my with­in a few years—‘an unprece­dent­ed lev­el of exter­nal debt for a large indus­tri­al coun­try,’ accord­ing to the fund, that could play hav­oc with the val­ue of the dol­lar and inter­na­tion­al exchange rates.” (Idem.)

37. “The dan­ger, accord­ing to the report, is that the Unit­ed States’ vora­cious appetite for bor­row­ing could push up glob­al inter­est rates and thus slow glob­al invest­ment and eco­nom­ic growth. ‘High­er bor­row­ing costs abroad would mean that the adverse effects of U.S. fis­cal deficits would spill over into glob­al invest­ment and out­put,’ the report said. . . .” (Idem.)

38. ” . . . But in the report, fund econ­o­mists warned that the long-term fis­cal out­look was far grim­mer, pre­dict­ing that under­fund­ing for Social Secu­ri­ty and Medicare will lead to short­ages as high as $47 tril­lion over the next 70 years or near­ly 500 per­cent of the cur­rent gross domes­tic prod­uct in the com­ing decades. . . .” (Idem.)

39. Von Clause­witz was a Pruss­ian by birth. The broad­cast con­cludes with a look at a group of aging SS offi­cers’ chris­ten­ing of Osama bin Laden as an “hon­orary Pruss­ian.” These SS men are asso­ciates of Ahmed Huber, a direc­tor of Al Taqwa. (Al Taqwa is heav­i­ly inter­sect­ed with the GOP’s eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion and the Rove/Norquist Islam­ic Insti­tute.) “By his [Ahmed Huber’s] account, a group of aging SS offi­cers and mem­bers of Hitler’s per­son­al guard who meet every few weeks in the Ger­man state of Bavaria for beer and con­ver­sa­tion recent­ly bestowed the title ‘hon­orary Pruss­ian’ on Bin Laden. They praised his ‘valiant fight’ against the Unit­ed States, Huber said. One of the mem­bers called Huber after the meet­ing to tell him that hence­forth they had decid­ed to call the Al Que­da leader ‘Herr von Laden,’ Huber said.”
(“Unlike­ly Allies Bound by a Com­mon Hatred” by Peter Finn; Wash­ing­ton Post; 4/29/2002; p. A13.)