- Spitfire List - https://spitfirelist.com -

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

MP3: Side 1 [1] | Side 2 [2]

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

The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece [3] in the Wall Street Jour­nalcall­ing for the breakup of the Unit­ed States, seen as “eco­nom­i­cal­ly ben­e­fi­cial” for those par­tic­i­pat­ing in the process! In con­sid­er­a­tion of the above-not­ed dri­ve for seces­sion from the Unit­ed States,  the broad­cast reit­er­ates that a bank­rupt Unit­ed States could, fol­low­ing polit­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe such as a ter­ror­ist attack with weapons of mass destruc­tion, dis­in­te­grate.

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text are the move­ments of the Lako­ta, the [4]Hawai­ians, the League of the South [5] and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Par­ty [6]–the first two cham­pi­oned by the Haps­burg-led UNPO [7] and the lat­ter two strong­ly con­nect­ed to neo-fas­cist and white suprema­cist par­ties. (Sarah Pal­in’s polit­i­cal career appears to be a front for the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Par­ty.)

Also worth not­ing is the fact that for­mer Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion func­tionary Christi­na Luhn is a major pro­po­nent of the dis­so­lu­tion of the Unit­ed States. As dis­cussed is many pro­grams, the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion was staffed by Helene Von Damm [8], pro­tege of Otto von Bolschwing [9], one of Hitler’s top experts on “Jew­ish Mat­ters” and a post­war employ­ee of the CIA.

After review­ing Friedrich List’s [10] eco­nom­ic blue­print for Ger­man world dom­i­na­tion (for­mu­lat­ed in the 19th cen­tu­ry), the pro­gram reviews the Third Reich’s goals to real­ize List’s design, as well as the post­war Fed­er­al Repub­lic’s real­iza­tion of those goals.

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

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

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of links between Holo­caust Muse­um shoot­er James Van Brun­n’s links [11] to Rea­gan White House offi­cial Todd Blod­gett; review of Nation­al Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitak­er’s role [12] in vet­ting Rea­gan White House appointees; review of the con­ti­nu­ity between SS busi­ness pro­jec­tions [13] for post­war Ger­many and the role in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic played by SS pro­tege Lud­wig Erhard, pic­tured at right.

1. The bulk of the first side of the pro­gram con­sists of a stun­ning op-ed piece in the Wall Street Jour­nal call­ing for the breakup of the Unit­ed States! There are a num­ber of things to high­light in the arti­cle. For one thing, do not fail to note that the var­i­ous seces­sion­ist move­ments are those that have linked to those move­ments cham­pi­oned by the UNPO [14] includ­ing the Lako­ta, (whose ter­ri­to­r­i­al claims cov­er the Bakken [15] for­ma­tion, rich in petro­le­um stra­ta) and the native Hawai­ians. Note also that fas­cist-linked seces­sion­ist ele­ments such as the neo-Con­fed­er­ate League of the South [5] (whose flag is at right) and the Alaskan Inde­pen­dence Par­ty, for which Sarah Palin runs inter­fer­ence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Divid­ed We Stand” by Paul Starobin; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 6/13/2009. [3]

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

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

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

3. Not­ing that seces­sion advo­cate Christi­na Luhn was a vet­er­an of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion, we review some of the Nazi char­ac­ter of that admin­is­tra­tion. Accused Holo­caust Muse­um killer James Van Brunn was linked to for­mer Rea­gan White House aide Todd Blod­gett. In this con­text, it is impor­tant to recall that the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion per­son­nel were select­ed by Otto von Bolschwing [16] pro­tege Helene Von Damm [17].

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

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

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

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

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

4. Again not­ing the lega­cy of the Helene Von Damm/Otto von Bolschwing [18] axis with­in the GOP and the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tions, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that Amer­i­can neo-Nazi Bob Whitak­er [19] held a sen­si­tive posi­tion with­in the Rea­gan White House. Again, avail­able evi­dence sug­gests very strong­ly that Von Damm [20] served as a func­tionary of the Under­ground Reich. Notice the posi­tion of Nation­al Alliance asso­ciate Bob Whitak­er with­in the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Direc­tor of the Office of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, in charge of secu­ri­ty clear­ances, staffing, and that sort of thing. . . .”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A White Future is Com­ing: an Inter­view with Bob Whitak­er” by Kevin Alfred Strom; Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voic­es; 7/3/2004. [12]

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

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

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

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

(The Thou­sand-Year Con­spir­a­cy; by Paul Win­kler; Charles Scribner’s Sons [HC]; 1943; pp. 15–16.) [21]

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

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

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

Ger­many Plots with the Krem­lin by T. H. Tetens; Hen­ry Schu­man [HC]; p. 92. [22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Revealed:The Secret Report That Shows How the Nazis Planned a Fourth Reich . . . in the EU” by Adam Lebor; Mail Online; 5/9/2009. [13]

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

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

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

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

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