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

For The Record  

FTR #616 Going Native, Part 3: Homeland Insecurity

Record­ed Octo­ber 28, 2007
MP3: Side 1 | Side 2

Con­tin­u­ing analy­sis from FTR#550, this pro­gram looks at the use of native, “unrep­re­sent­ed” peo­ples by polit­i­cal ele­ments that don’t appear to be gen­uine­ly con­cerned with the wel­fare of those pop­u­la­tion groups. Specif­i­cal­ly, we look at a strange brew of Tibetan Bud­dhists, Mon­go­lian Bud­dhists, Islamists and Pan-Turk­ists work­ing under the aus­pices of the House of Hab­s­burg in order to pre­cip­i­tate the seces­sion of resource-rich provinces from Chi­na. It is Mr. Emory’s opin­ion that the use of unrep­re­sent­ed, “native” peo­ples by ultra-reac­tionary inter­ests like the Haps­burgs is a cyn­i­cal manip­u­la­tion of these pop­u­la­tions. Rather than sin­cere­ly cham­pi­oning the inter­ests of these groups and pro­mot­ing their wel­fare, sus­te­nance and demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­er­nance, they appear to be using these groups as vehi­cles for the desta­bi­liza­tion and par­ti­tion­ing of larg­er nations—China in par­tic­u­lar. It is for the pur­pos­es of covert desta­bi­liza­tion that the House of Hab­s­burg and its ally the Under­ground Reich appear to be “going native.” One should not fail to note that Native Amer­i­can tribes like the Lako­ta and Native Hawai­ians have been focal points of the Haps­burg polit­i­cal front the UNPO—“The Unrep­re­sent­ed Nations and Peo­ples Orga­ni­za­tion.” One of the most impor­tant points of the broad­cast con­cerns the close col­lab­o­ra­tion between Ger­many, Ger­man polit­i­cal par­ties of the cen­ter, right and left and the Dalai Lama. Direct­ed at weak­en­ing or frag­ment­ing Chi­na, this col­lab­o­ra­tion has enlist­ed the sup­port of the South Tyrolean inde­pen­dence move­ment and used that move­ment as a par­a­digm for fur­ther­ing Tibetan inde­pen­dence from Chi­na. Indeed, the Tibetan and Mon­go­lian inde­pen­dence move­ments and the South Tyrolean sep­a­ratists allied with them are direct man­i­fes­ta­tions of what the Ger­mans call “Volksgruppenrechte”—the rights of eth­nic minori­ties. The super­fi­cial­ly noble appear­ance of this prin­ci­ple should not blind an observ­er to the cyn­i­cal, fascis­tic ends toward which this ded­i­ca­tion to the cause of eth­nic minori­ties is direct­ed. The sec­ond pro­gram (FTR#616) sets forth two oth­er man­i­fes­ta­tions of the Ger­man “Volks­grup­pen­rechte.” Ger­man offi­cials have cit­ed the Holy Roman Empire (all white, all Chris­t­ian) as an appro­pri­ate prece­dent and mod­el for the oper­a­tion of the EU—no “eth­nic minori­ties” need apply, thank you very much. In addi­tion, Ger­man eth­nic think­ing expressed through the Ber­tels­mann foun­da­tion has found favor in cer­tain U.S. mil­i­tary cir­cles, which are propos­ing to redraw the map of the Mid­dle East along “eth­nic lines.” If enact­ed, this out­crop­ping of Volks­grup­pen­rechte will fun­da­men­tal­ly alter life and the bal­ance of pow­er in the Mid­dle East.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Dis­cus­sion of the pos­si­ble use of Native Hawai­ians and oth­er native peo­ples of the Unit­ed States to weak­en or dis­solve the U.S. at some point in the future; the World War II alliance between Nazi Ger­many, its Japan­ese ally and the young Dalai Lama; the Nazi ori­gins of the South Tyrolean sep­a­ratists who hud­dled with the Dalai Lama dur­ing his vis­it to Bolzano [Italy]; review of the roles of Otto von Bolschwing and Hele­na von Damm in infil­trat­ing the Repub­li­can par­ty and turn­ing it into a vehi­cle for the Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of the Unit­ed States.

1. Return­ing to a sub­ject that Mr. Emory dealt with in FTR#’s 547, 548, 549, 550, these pro­grams delve deep­er into the Dalai Lama’s his­tor­i­cal con­nec­tions to the Third Reich and ele­ments of the SS. In addi­tion, the broad­casts set forth more infor­ma­tion about the use of eth­nic minor­i­ty groups to desta­bi­lize and frag­ment larg­er coun­tries. The Dalai Lama has been active on behalf of Tibetan sep­a­ratism and the sep­a­ratist move­ment of Mon­go­lia as well–both sep­a­ratist move­ments are direct­ed at frag­ment­ing Chi­na in such as a way as to per­mit a for­eign enti­ty desirous of exploit­ing China’s nat­ur­al resources with­out hav­ing to reck­on with the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. As will be seen below, this same tac­tic might be used in the future to frag­ment or weak­en the Unit­ed States, as well. Much of the pro­gram mate­r­i­al high­lights the pro­found Ger­man sup­port for the Dalai Lama’s sep­a­ratist efforts, as well as the extent to which the Ger­man tac­tic of “Volks­grup­pen­rechte” has served as the tem­plate for the Dalai Lama’s activ­i­ties. Indeed, the Dalai Lama has drawn sup­port from the South Tyrolean sep­a­ratist move­ment, which seeks to tease this Ger­man-speak­ing minor­i­ty region in North­ern Italy from the Ital­ian nation as a whole. (Seri­ous lis­ten­ers are referred to FTR#’s 547, 548, 549, 550 in order to gain an under­stand­ing of the fun­da­men­tal back­ground mate­r­i­al nec­es­sary for a seri­ous com­pre­hen­sion of the mate­r­i­al.) “The Ger­man chan­cel­lor is rein­forc­ing Berlin’s spe­cial rela­tion­ships to Chi­nese sep­a­ratists, in spite of Bei­jing’s mas­sive protests. The Dalai Lama had talks in the Ger­man Chan­cellery, for the first time, Sun­day, Sept. 23. He is the leader of a self-pro­claimed Tibetan exile gov­ern­ment, with its head­quar­ters in India, which is call­ing for the seces­sion of Tibet from the Peo­ples Repub­lic of Chi­na or at least spe­cial rights in accor­dance with the Ger­man mod­el of ‘auton­o­my.’ The Dalai Lama is a west­ern ally, help­ing to weak­en Bei­jing and ham­per its rise to the sta­tus of world pow­er. For decades he has been enjoy­ing the cross-par­ty sym­pa­thy in Ger­many and is receiv­ing sup­port from con­ser­v­a­tives, lib­er­als and Greens alike. Still his meet­ing with Angela Merkel has been met with crit­i­cism, because busi­ness cir­cles fear retal­ia­to­ry actions on the part of the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment will have a neg­a­tive effect on their busi­ness. Ger­man strate­gies of attri­tion against Bei­jing, their his­tor­i­cal pre­cur­sors in the first half of the 20th cen­tu­ry and the scenes of cur­rent mea­sures, are the themes of a series of arti­cles that german-foreign-policy.com began Mon­day Sept. 24. . . . The role mod­el for the rights of auton­o­my, that the Dalai Lama is demand­ing from Bei­jing, is pat­terned on the Ger­man eth­nic mod­el ‘Volks­grup­pen­rechte’ (the rights of eth­nic minor­i­ty groups). In the North­ern Ital­ian autonomous region of Trenti­no-Alto Adi­ge (South Tyrol) this is in force and has done noth­ing toward end­ing efforts toward seces­sion. Already in 1993 an assis­tant of the Euro­pean Acad­e­my Bozen, in Alto Adi­ge, con­tact­ed the ‘for­eign min­is­ter’ of the Tibetan exile government.[2] This acad­e­my, that has an ad hoc ‘Volks­grup­pen­recht’, Insti­tute was found­ed with the par­tic­i­pa­tion of the for­eign min­istry of Germany.[3] The Dalai Lama per­son­al­ly vis­it­ed Bolzano in 1997. Still dur­ing the 90s, the Tibetan exile gov­ern­ment began con­sul­ta­tions with the Euro­pean Acad­e­my on the ques­tion of ‘Volks­grup­pen­recht’. ‘South Tyrol has def­i­nite­ly the char­ac­ter of a role mod­el for Tibet’ explained the Tibetan exile ruler dur­ing his sec­ond vis­it to Bolzano in 2005. . . . In meet­ing the Dalai Lama, the Chan­cellery is tak­ing a major risk. As one hears in Berlin, Bei­jing is prob­a­bly avoid­ing any con­flict with Ger­many and Ger­man firms, imme­di­ate­ly pre­ced­ing the Olympic Games. The oppor­tu­ni­ty for inten­si­fy­ing sup­port for Tibetan sep­a­ratism with­out risks are there­fore grow­ing. And this, it is said, is quite desir­able. As Roland Koch, the prime min­is­ter of Hesse, is said to have learned dur­ing his trip to Tibet last July, the chances are grow­ing to inten­si­fy the pres­sure on the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of Chi­na and Bei­jing is wor­ried that if the Tibetan dig­ni­tary (72) dies, rebel­lions could break out in Tibet and in oth­er nation­al minor­i­ty areas. Accord­ing to Koch, Chi­nese gov­ern­ment cir­cles are speak­ing of the dan­ger of Tibet becom­ing a ‘pow­der keg’ [9] with seri­ous con­se­quences. ‘If it does­n’t work out good there (in Tibet, the author) it could have reper­cus­sions in Xin­jiang and Inner Mon­go­lia’ rejoic­es the Dalai Lama with the two oth­er poten­tial seces­sion­ist regions in mind: ‘after all, these three autonomous regions stretch over half of the Chi­nese ter­ri­to­ry’. . . .”
(“Strate­gies of Attri­tion (Part I)”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 9/24/2007.)

2. Sup­ple­ment­ing infor­ma­tion about the Dalai Lama’s Nazi con­nec­tions pre­sent­ed in FTR#547, the pro­gram notes that both Ger­many and Japan were allied with the Dalai Lama as ear­ly as 1942! “ . . . Ger­man plans for Tibet became top­i­cal for the last time, dur­ing the Nazi rule. in 1942. Impressed by the Wehrma­cht’s advance on Sovi­et ter­ri­to­ry, Himm­ler ordered the ‘total explo­ration of the Cen­tral Asian vital liv­ing space (‘Lebensraum’)’.[11] When, in the sum­mer of 1942, Japan­ese troops advanced into the region bor­der­ing Tibet, they encoun­tered a Ger­man ally in Lhasa — the Dalai Lama. [Empha­sis added.] The god-king’s camar­il­la was hop­ing to dis­en­gage itself from Chi­nese, Sovi­et Russ­ian and British influ­ence and to eter­nal­ize the Tibetan feu­dal dic­ta­tor­ship. The goal was to cre­ate a ‘Pan-Mon­go­lian Fed­er­a­tion’ — under the lead­er­ship of the Third Reich and Japan. . . .”
(“Strate­gies of Attri­tion (Part II)”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 9/27/2007.)

3. The South Tyrolean People’s Par­ty that net­worked with the Dalai Lama dur­ing his Euro­pean vis­it also has strong Nazi roots: “ . . . Last week, a del­e­ga­tion of North Ital­ian par­lia­men­tar­i­ans held exten­sive talks with the Tibetan self-pro­claimed ‘exile gov­ern­ment’ at its head­quar­ters in Dharam­sala, North­ern India. This is impor­tant for the for­eign pol­i­cy of Ger­many, because ‘South Tyrol’ has many links to the net­works of eth­nic Ger­man ‘Volks­grup­pen’ pol­i­cy. Franz Pahl’s par­ty (leader of the del­e­ga­tion), the Südtirol­er Volkspartei (South Tyrolean Peo­ple’s Par­ty), is a mem­ber of the Fed­er­al Union of Euro­pean Nation­al­i­ties (FUEN), that was found­ed by Nazi ‘Volks­grup­pen’ experts and is today still financed by the Ger­man gov­ern­ment. The FUEN is also sup­port­ed by the Autonomous Region Trenti­no — South Tyrol and the Autonomous Province of Bozen. The ‘South Tyrol’ auton­o­my is pat­terned after con­cepts of the Ger­man ‘Volks­grup­pen’ pol­i­cy and was estab­lished after a series of ter­ror­ist attacks, insti­gat­ed by Ger­man res­i­dents. For­mer ‘South Tyrol’ ter­ror­ists are still shel­tered on Ger­man soil. . . .”
(“Strate­gies of Attri­tion (Part III)”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 10/02/07.)

4. Note that anoth­er “Strate­gies of Attri­tion” paper (IV) has been pub­lished by German-Foreign-Policy.com. It is avail­able at: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56104. The infor­ma­tion in this arti­cle sup­ple­ments and updates the mate­r­i­al in FTR#’s 549, 550, fur­ther devel­op­ing infor­ma­tion about the UNPO and its asso­ci­a­tion with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan sep­a­ratist move­ment and the Mon­go­lian sep­a­ratist. Note that the UNPO is head­ed by Karl von Haps­burg, heir to the throne of the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an Empire.

5. Exam­in­ing the appli­ca­tion of Volks­grup­pen­rechte to Europe, the broad­cast notes that some Ger­man offi­cials are look­ing to the Holy Roman Empire of medieval Europe—“all Ger­man, all the time”—as a work­ing mod­el for the Euro­pean Union. Don’t expect to see eth­nic minori­ties in Europe get­ting the “Dalai Lama treat­ment!” In this con­text, Mr. Emory notes that in the ear­ly 1990’s, Ger­many denied the North Frisians and the Sorbs the right to speak their own lan­guage. (The Sorbs are a Slav­ic minor­i­ty peo­ple in Ger­many and the North Frisians are a Dan­ish eth­nic minor­i­ty in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic. No Volks­grup­pen­rechte for them!) Note that Otto von Haps­burg, the father of UNPO head Karl von Haps­burg, is an enthu­si­as­tic sup­port­er of the view of the Euro­pean Union as “Holy Roman Empire Redux.” Otto von Haps­burg has overt fas­cist sym­pa­thies, as can be seen in the excerpt that fol­lows in para­graph #9. Also of inter­est here is Bernd Neumann’s invi­ta­tion to the Pope to attend the EEC’s 50th anniver­sary cel­e­bra­tion. As dis­cussed in FTR#’s 508, 559, the avail­able evi­dence sug­gests very strong­ly that the cur­rent Pope is answer­able to the Under­ground Reich. “The medieval, Europe-wide Ger­man Reich is a valid mod­el for the union of Euro­pean coun­tries today. So says the Berlin State Min­is­ter for Cul­ture, Bernd Neu­mann. Accord­ing to him, the mem­o­ry of the Holy Roman Empire of the Ger­man Nation reveals ‘an inner his­tor­i­cal con­sis­ten­cy’ with the found­ing and steady expan­sion of the Euro­pean Union. These remarks are a prepa­ra­tion for the fes­tiv­i­ties in Berlin for the fifti­eth anniver­sary of the Euro­pean Eco­nom­ic Com­mu­ni­ty (EEC), to which the Fed­er­al Chan­cel­lor, Angela Merkel, has invit­ed the Ger­man Pope, Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger is a com­mit­ted sup­port­er of the ‘Impe­r­i­al Ide­al’ (Reich­sidee) and is to speak on the ‘spir­i­tu­al foun­da­tions’ of Europe in the Ger­man cap­i­tal. This gov­ern­ment offen­sive to revi­tal­ize the mpe­r­i­al Ide­al will under­line the Ger­man lead­er­ship of the EU and con­firm fears in France, Great Britain and almost all the states of east­ern Europe. Sec­tions of the Ger­man elites are warn­ing against an all-too-pub­lic asser­tion of Ger­man hege­mo­ny. As the Berlin State Cul­ture Min­is­ter Bernd Neu­mann said, the Ger­man Reich of the Mid­dle Ages can ‘from today’s view­point’ serve ‘as a valid mod­el of the func­tion­ing order of a super­state’. . . . The pub­lic ref­er­ences to the struc­tures of the medieval Reich which are evi­dent in Neu­man­n’s posi­tion used to be the province of the extreme right, or con­fined to cler­i­cal-con­ser­v­a­tive cir­cles — at any rate since the Sec­ond World War. This was the opin­ion of the CSU (Chris­t­ian Social Union) politi­cian and grand­son of the Aus­tri­an Kaiser, Otto von Hab­s­burg who made it known at the end of the Sev­en­ties that ‘the Euro­pean inte­gra­tion of our times (...) fol­lows the grand out­line and prin­ci­ples of the Reich, which sur­vived 1806, because they are of last­ing validity’.[3] Sim­i­lar­ly, the Pan-Europa Union, an asso­ci­a­tion of EU sup­port­ers close to the CSU insist­ed that ‘the eter­nal func­tion of the Reich must be renewed in the Europe of tomor­row in the inter­est of the West’.[4] Sim­i­lar­ly, Joseph Ratzinger, the present Pope Bene­dict XVI acknowl­edged that the ori­gins of today’s EU should acknowl­edge ‘a com­mon impe­r­i­al ide­al (Reichsidee)’.[5] In recent years, con­ser­v­a­tive news­pa­pers have opened their columns to new advo­ca­cy for the‘Reich’. . . .”
(“The Order­ing of a Super­state”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 8/29/2006.)

6. The broad­cast sets forth the fas­cist incli­na­tions of Otto von Hab­s­burg, the aging patri­arch of that fam­i­ly and the father of Karl von Hab­s­burg. (Younger lis­ten­ers should note that Rudolph Hess was one of Hitler’s clos­est aides and the last pris­on­er at Span­dau prison.) For more about the Haps­burgs and the UNPO, see FTR#550. “ . . . The final esca­la­tion was reserved for Otto von Hab­s­burg, a CSU del­e­gate to the Euro­pean par­lia­ment and the son of the last Aus­tri­an emper­or; since 1973 he has also been pres­i­dent of the ultra-right Pan-Europa-Union and a mem­ber of the Free­dom for Rudolf Hess Com­mit­tee [Empha­sis added.] . . . .”
(The New Reich: Vio­lent Extrem­ism in Uni­fied Ger­many and Beyond; by Michael Schmidt; Copy­right 1993 by Michael Schmidt; Pan­theon Books [HC]; ISBN 0–679-42578–0; p. 137.)

7. Next, the focus turns to an appli­ca­tion of “Volks­grup­pen­rechte” being pro­posed for the Mid­dle East by some strate­gic thinkers with influ­ence with­in Amer­i­can mil­i­tary cir­cles. Bor­row­ing on ideas float­ed by the Ber­tels­mann foun­da­tion, some U.S. mil­i­tary the­o­reti­cians are propos­ing to redraw the bound­aries of the Mid­dle East to coin­cide with the pop­u­la­tions of eth­nic minori­ties. Note that the Ber­tels­mann Foun­da­tion is close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with the Ber­tels­mann media cor­po­ra­tion, the major focal point of the For The Record series about Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of Amer­i­can media. The pub­lish­ing house of the SS and the largest pub­lish­er of books for the Wehrma­cht dur­ing World War II, Bertelsmann’s patri­arch Hein­rich Mohn was in the SS. Bertelsmann’s offi­cial cor­po­rate historian—Dirk Bavendamm—has pub­lished books as recent­ly as 1998 blam­ing World War II on U.S. impe­ri­al­ism, Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt and “Jew­ish con­trol over the Amer­i­can news media.” That is an inter­est­ing point of view for the offi­cial his­to­ri­an of the com­pa­ny that dom­i­nates Eng­lish lan­guage pub­lish­ing. [For more about Ber­tels­mann, the Third Reich and the ongo­ing Nazi influ­ence at Ber­tels­mann, see—among oth­er programs—FTR#298, as well as the oth­er pro­grams in the series on Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of the Amer­i­can media.] In the con­text of this poten­tial Amer­i­can appli­ca­tion of “Volks­grup­pen­rechte” in the Mid­dle East, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that the Under­ground Reich has gained con­trol of the Unit­ed States, large­ly through the infil­tra­tion of the Repub­li­can Par­ty as a result of the Otto von Bolschwing/Helene von Damm con­nec­tion described in—among oth­er programs—FTR#’s 180, 332, 465. “Amer­i­can mil­i­tary cir­cles are rec­om­mend­ing a re-orga­ni­za­tion of all nations in the Mid­dle East along eth­nic lines. Loss of ter­ri­to­ry and draw­ing new bor­ders will effect Turkey, Syr­ia, Lebanon, Sau­di Ara­bia, Iraq, Iran and Pak­istan among oth­ers. Through the com­plete dis­so­lu­tion of states, new actors will be cre­at­ed in inter­na­tion­al law, along the lines of eth­nic and reli­gious affil­i­a­tion. Accord­ing to this plan, a coun­try, by the name of ‘Free Kur­dis­tan’ will be cre­at­ed, three times the size of Syr­ia, from ter­ri­to­ry tak­en from today’s north­ern Iraq and east­ern Turkey. The remain­der of Iraq will be divid­ed, the cap­i­tal, Bagh­dad, smashed. Iran would lose exten­sive areas of its coast, as well as, ter­ri­to­ry bor­der­ing on Pak­istan, where a ‘Free Baluchis­tan’ is to be found­ed. Mek­ka and Med­i­na, until now locat­ed in Sau­di Ara­bia, will be pro­mot­ed to cap­i­tals of an ‘Islam­ic Sacred State,’ that will extend to the south­ern bor­ders of Jor­dan — dou­bling the sur­face of the Hashemite ter­ri­to­ry (‘Greater Jor­dan’). This eth­nic re-orga­ni­za­tion is depict­ed on sev­er­al US maps, that the his­to­ri­an Dr. Pierre Hillard (Paris) has now pub­lished in France. In his talk with german-foreign-policy.com Hillard deems that ‘Ger­man pol­i­cy plays an impor­tant role in prop­a­gat­ing these ideas’. German-foreign-policy.com pub­lish­es, for the first time in Ger­many, the US car­tog­ra­phy. Rec­om­men­da­tions for a com­plete over­throw of the pre­vail­ing state order were pub­lished in the ‘Armed Forces jour­nal’ (AFJ, June 2006) a mag­a­zine of the ‘Army Times Pub­lish­ing Com­pa­ny’. This enter­prise pub­lish­es at least ten mil­i­tary mag­a­zines (includ­ing ‘Army Times’ and ‘Navy Times’) and is owned by the Gan­nett Media Group (Vir­ginia, USA). In a self-por­trait, the oper­a­tional income of the group, to which the well-known dai­ly, ‘USA Today’ is also affil­i­at­ed, fig­ured at US $7.6 bil­lion in 2005. . . . As the French his­to­ri­an, Pierre Hillard, judges, this eth­ni­cist aggres­sion, car­ried out by west­ern pow­ers, is being deci­sive­ly pro­mot­ed through the for­eign pol­i­cy of Ger­many. Hillard refers to con­tin­u­ous efforts by Ger­man front orga­ni­za­tions, seek­ing to ‘remod­el the Mid­dle East,’ [5] and in this con­nec­tion, men­tions specif­i­cal­ly the activ­i­ties of the Ber­tels­mann Foun­da­tion. The foun­da­tion annu­al­ly orga­nizes forums (‘Kro­n­berg Talks’) on the Mid­dle East, where dis­cus­sions cen­ter around a ‘com­plete trans­for­ma­tion of the polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and reli­gious Insti­tu­tions’ of the Mus­lim resource states — with the objec­tive of ‘cou­pling them to the Euro-Atlantic axis,’ . . . The reap­por­tion­ment of entire state sys­tems is not unknown to Ber­tels­mann. Thus, on the eve of the (1999) aggres­sion against Yugoslavia, the foun­da­tion rec­om­mend­ed ‘the eth­nic prin­ci­ple’ [8] and the mobi­liza­tion of eth­nic groups against Bel­grade — genet­i­cal­ly defined minori­ties with claims to ter­ri­to­r­i­al rights. Ber­tels­mann, in 1996, like­wise pro­posed an eth­nic par­ti­tion plan for Hun­gary, Roma­nia, Rus­sia and the north­ern Cau­ca­sus. Sim­i­lar to the propo­si­tions con­tained in the ‘Armed Forces Jour­nal’ sev­er­al UN mem­ber states are being threat­ened with the loss of their exis­tence, as nation-states. The author at Ber­tels­mann bases him­self on the alleged­ly ‘unnat­ur­al’ draw­ing of the bor­ders and stakes claims to bogus trib­al rights of eth­nic com­mu­ni­ties. . . .”
(“Dirty Lit­tle Secret”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 9/8/2006.)

8. Con­clud­ing the dis­cus­sion with the top­ic of Native Hawai­ian rights, the pro­gram notes that Con­gress recent­ly passed a bill that would give the natives of the 50th state rights sim­i­lar to those of oth­er native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tions. One should not fail to note that the native Hawai­ians have been among the peo­ples on which the UNPO has focused. (For more about the UNPO, see FTR#550.) The pos­si­bil­i­ty that Hawaii and its native pop­u­la­tion could be tar­get­ed for seces­sion from the Unit­ed States fol­low­ing an eco­nom­ic, polit­i­cal or nat­ur­al cat­a­stro­phe is one to be seri­ous­ly con­sid­ered. Might the native Hawai­ians, or the Lako­ta or some oth­er eth­nic minor­i­ty be used by the Under­ground Reich or a relat­ed enti­ty to weak­en or dis­solve a fail­ing Unit­ed States? “Native Hawai­ians should regain some of the self-gov­er­nance pow­ers lost when the islands’ queen was over­thrown more than a cen­tu­ry ago, the House decid­ed Wednes­day. The White House threat­ened a veto, say­ing the leg­is­la­tion that passed by a 261–153 vote would divide Amer­i­cans ‘along sus­pect lines of race and eth­nic­i­ty.’ The bill would give the 400,000 peo­ple nation­wide of Native Hawai­ian ances­try the right to form a gov­ern­ing enti­ty that could nego­ti­ate with the state and fed­er­al gov­ern­ments over such issues as con­trol of nat­ur­al resources, lands and assets. The inte­ri­or sec­re­tary would have to approve that gov­ern­ing body. Native Hawai­ians, who long have sought the bill, insist they deserve many of the self-auton­o­my rights pro­vid­ed to Amer­i­can Indi­ans and Native Alaskans. . . .”
(“House Pass­es Native Hawai­ian Bill” by Jim Abrams [AP]; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 10/25/2007.)


No comments for “FTR #616 Going Native, Part 3: Homeland Insecurity”

Post a comment