The Rise of the Fourth Reich

by Jim Marrs

  Hitler’s Germany was not only the first nation to use or advance television, rocketry, and computers but also the first to build a national freeway system, to address occupational health issues, restrict the use of firearms, attack the use of alcohol and tobacco, pass laws for the protection of the environment, and wage war against cancer.

  Hitler realized that he needed the support of his wealthy conservative followers, so he directed much of his public statements to them, particularly in the areas of rearmament and foreign policy. But his social programs in many cases were a liberal’s dream come true.

  For example, gun control was already widespread in a pre-Nazi Europe unaccustomed to the freedom to bear arms. Anti–gun control advocates have long pointed out that it was an unarmed population that allowed the Nazis to both gain and maintain power. Ironically, the Nazis used the Weimar Republic’s gun-control laws—intended to restrict private armies such as Hitler’s SA—to keep the population disarmed.

  Hitler and his ilk were against keeping arms in the hands of citizens, especially conquered peoples. Hitler once declared: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

  Still, the Nazis were not content with the stringent gun laws already on the books. In 1938, they strengthened these laws by asserting that only loyal Nazis could own weapons. This was codified in the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938.

  A group opposed to gun control, called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Incorporate (JPFO), has made the shocking but well-supported argument that U.S. gun-control legislation is based on this Nazi law. “JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68),” stated the group on its Web site.

  “The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb ‘gang activity,’ violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? ‘Gun control’ did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals—the Nazis—prevailed.”

  JPFO literature noted: “The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not ‘reliable.’ Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.”

  The assassination of President John F. Kennedy precipitated a cry for gun control in the United States, and the corporate media went into high gear promoting this agenda. Yet, resistance was strong and the idea languished until after the 1968 murders of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4 and Robert F. Kennedy on June 6. Following these shocking deaths, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed in October of that year, after strenuous debate and compromise. Some conspiracy researchers see this as a classic example of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution, and settling for a compromise that still fulfills the original agenda.

  The gun legislation of 1968 stated only licensed dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines, thus ending mail-order sales. It also allowed bureaucrats in Washington to decide what types of firearms Americans could own. The term “sporting” guns was not clearly defined, allowing whole classes of firearms to be banned.

  “Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68—lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law-abiding Americans—drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938,” stated JPFO literature.

  There seems to be some support for this argument, because the architect of the 1968 Gun Control Act was Connecticut senator Thomas J. Dodd, a Democrat who lost to Republican Prescott Bush in a 1956 Senate election but gained the state’s other Senate seat two years later. Dodd had served as a special agent for the FBI in the 1930s and as executive trial counsel for the Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality at the Nuremberg war crimes trials at the end of the war. It may have been during his time in Nuremberg that he became familiar with the Nazi gun laws. A letter from the Library of Congress to Dodd in July 1968 showed that four months prior to his gun-control legislation being passed, he received an English translation of the Nazi Weapons Law based on the original German law document he supplied to the library.

  Dodd died of a heart attack in 1971. In 1980, his son, Christopher J. Dodd, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, won his father’s seat in the Senate. The younger Dodd, a liberal, nevertheless took money from and lent considerable support to corporate miscreants like Enron and Arthur Andersen, indicating his willingness to support the globalists.

  But control of weapons was not the only item on the fascist globalist agenda.

  WHILE EVERYONE KNOWS of the Rockefeller control of oil, most do not know the extent of Rockefeller wealth and influence over modern medicine and drugs.

  According to Eustace Mullins, the last surviving protégé of the famous twentieth-century intellectual and writer Ezra Pound, and author of the 1988 book Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, the drug industry is controlled by a Rockefeller “medical monopoly,” largely through directors of pharmaceutical boards representing Chase Bank, Standard Oil, and other Rockefeller entities. “The American College of Surgeons maintains a monopolistic control of hospitals through the powerful Hospital Survey Committee, with members [such as] Winthrop Aldrich and David McAlpine Pyle representing the Rockefeller control,” he wrote.

  Winthrop Aldrich also served on the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC), which was originated by Dr. Alexander Lambert, the personal physician to Teddy Roosevelt and a president of the AMA. According to Dr. Charles C. Smith, who researched the activities of the committee: “[Dr. Lambert] obviously was to be the needed ‘figurehead.’ Other notable choices were Winthrop Aldrich, president of Chase National Bank; John Frey, secretary-treasurer, AFL; William T. Foster, director of the Pollack Foundation in Economic Research; Olin West, M.D., executive secretary, AMA; and fifteen physicians plus two dentists in private practice. Five physicians from Public Health were chosen, and the director of research for the Milbank Memorial Fund. Representatives from insurance, hospital, nursing, pharmacy sources were appointed and six members from positions. They numbered forty-nine in all. The fulltime staff was headed by Harry H. Moore of Washington, who in 1927 published ‘American Medicine and the People’s Health’ while a member of Public Health Service. His main tenets were the need for a system to distribute medical care and an insurance plan to pay for it.”

  Smith noted that a minority of the committee recommended, among other things, that government competition in the practice of medicine be discontinued and that corporate medicine financed through intermediary agencies, such as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO), should be opposed, because they fail to provide high-quality health care and exploit the medical profession. These recommendations were not followed. “The tenor of the [CCMC] report was such that one can read into it the seeds of everything that led to the health-care system we have today…. So at last we find ourselves, as always, in a health-care crisis,” Dr. Smith wrote in 1984. This health-care crisis continues today.

  Rockefeller control over the medical establishment also was exercised through the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, at one time headed by Dr. Detlev Bronk, already named as a suspected member of MJ-12. “Rockefeller’s General Education Board has spent more tha
n $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs,” commented Mullins.

  Mullins also pointed to the Nazi connections of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the second-largest pharmaceutical company in the world after Pfizer. The history of the Big Pharm giant can also serve as an example of the consolidation of drug companies in recent years.

  Burroughs Wellcome & Company was founded in London in 1880 by two American pharmacists, Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs. Glaxo, a New Zealand firm that originally manufactured baby food, became Glaxo Laboratories and went multinational in 1935. After the postwar acquisition of other companies, including Meyer Laboratories, Glaxo moved its facilities to the United States. Burroughs Wellcome and Glaxo, Incorporate merged in 1995. The new name of the company was GlaxoWellcome.

  In 1830, John K. Smith opened his first pharmacy in Philadelphia. Over the years, Smith, Kline and Company merged with the French, Richard and Company, and changed its name to Smith Kline and French Laboratories in 1929. By 1969, the firm had spread its business worldwide and purchased seven additional laboratories in Canada and the United States. In 1982, it merged with Beckman Incorporate, becoming SmithKline Beckman. With the 1988 purchase of its biggest competitor, International Clinical Laboratories, SmithKline Beckman grew by 50 percent. The latest merger took place with GlaxoWellcome in 2000, and the firm became GlaxoSmithKline.

  According to Eustace Mullins, the original Burroughs Wellcome drug firm was wholly owned by Wellcome Trust, whose director was the British lord Oliver Franks. “Franks was ambassador to the United States from 1948 to 1952,” Mullins wrote. “He [also was] a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, as its principal representative in England. He also was a director of the Schroeder Bank, which handled Hitler’s personal bank account; director of the Rhodes Trust in charge of approving Rhodes scholarships; visiting professor at the University of Chicago; and chairman of Lloyd’s Bank, one of England’s Big Five.”

  Recalling that John D. Rockefeller’s father, William “Big Bill” Rockefeller, once tried to sell unrefined petroleum as a cancer cure, Mullins, who spent more than thirty years researching the “Rockefeller medical monopoly,” commented, “This carnival medicine-show barker would hardly have envisioned that his descendants would control the greatest and most profitable medical monopoly in recorded history.”

  Mullins reported that I. G. Farben and the drug companies it controlled in the United States through the Rockefeller interests were responsible for the suppression of effective drugs until a monopoly could be established. For example, from 1908 to 1936, Farben withheld its discovery of sulfanilamide, an early sulfa drug, until the firm had signed working agreements with the important drug firms of Switzerland, Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy. In one of the largest corporate mergers in history, these two firms joined in 1996 to form Novartis.

  It has been previously detailed how the support of globalists and transplanted European fascists helped put the Reagan-Bush team into power in 1980. Against this background, it is instructive to look at one of the many controversial drugs now being used by millions of Americans—aspartame, an additive sugar substitute found in most diet soft drinks and more than five thousand foods, drugs, and medicines. Aspartame is found in most sugar substitutes, such as NutraSweet, Equal, Metamucil, and Canderel.

  When heated to more than 86 degrees Fahrenheit—keep in mind that the human body temperature is 98.6 degrees—aspartame releases free methanol that breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. One quart of an aspartame-added beverage is estimated to contain about 56 miligrams of methanol. Dr. Louis J. Elsas explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources: “I am a pediatrician, a professor of pediatrics at Emory, and have spent twenty-five years in the biomedical science[s], trying to prevent mental retardation and birth defects caused by excess phenylalanine…. [I] have considerable concern for the increased dissemination and consumption of the sweetener aspartame—1-methyl N-L-a-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine—in our world food supply. This artificial dipeptide is hydrolyzed by the intestinal tract to produce L-phenylalanine, which in excess is a known neurotoxin.” Countering claims that laboratory tests indicated little harm from small amounts of aspartame, Dr. Elsas noted, “Normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine as efficiently as do lower species, such as rodents, and thus most of the previous studies in aspartame effects on rats are irrelevant to the question.”

  Before 1980, the Federal Drug Administration had refused to approve the use of aspartame. FDA toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross testified to Congress that aspartame caused tumors and brain cancer in lab animals and, therefore, violated the Delaney Amendment that forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. Aspartame also is blamed for the increase in diabetes as it not only can precipitate the disease but also stimulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, which, when interacting with insulin, can cause diabetics to go into convulsions.

  Dr. Betty Martini worked in the medical field for twenty-two years. She was the founder of Mission Possible International, working with doctors around the world in an effort to remove aspartame from food, drinks, and medicine. She gave this account of how pharmaceutical interests overcame claims of public welfare:

  “Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate that manufactured aspartame. For sixteen years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because it’s not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both U.S. prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become secretary of transportation, squelching the cries of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure-triggering drug, aspartame, and then chief of staff under President Bush’s father. Some of these people reached high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years ago.) When [John] Ashcroft became attorney general [in 2001, Larry] Thompson from King and Spalding Attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became deputy under Ashcroft. However, the FDA still refused to allow NutraSweet on the market. It is a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with all antidepressants, L-dopa, Coumadin, hormones, insulin, all cardiac medication, and many others. It also is a chemical hypersensitization drug, so it interacts with vaccines, other toxins, other unsafe sweeteners, like Splenda that has a chlorinated base like DDT and can cause autoimmune disease. It has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG. Both being excitotoxins, the aspartic acid in aspartame, and MSG, the glutamate, people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies, even before it was approved. The FDA has known this for a quarter of a century and done nothing even though it’s against the law. Searle went on to build a NutraSweet factory and had $9 million worth of inventory. Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan’s transition team and the day after [Reagan] took office he appointed an FDA commissioner who would approve aspartame.”

  Searle salesperson Patty Wood-Allott claimed that in 1981 Rumsfeld told company employees “he would call in all his markers and that no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame be approved this year.”

  Dr. Martini noted: “The FDA set up a board of inquiry of the best scientists they had to offer, who said aspartame is not safe and causes brain tumors, and the petition for approval is hereby revoked. The new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, overruled that board of inquiry and then went to work for the PR agency of the manufacturer, Burson-Marstellar, rumored at $1,000 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since. There were three congressional hearings because of the outcry of the people being poisoned. Senator Orrin Hatch refused to allow hearings for a long time. The first hearing was in 1985, and Senator Hatch and others were paid by Monsanto. So the bill by Senator [Howard] Metzenbaum never got out of committee. This bill would have
put a moratorium on aspartame, and had the NIH do independent studies on the problems being seen in the population, interaction with drugs, seizures, what it does to the fetus, and even behavioral problems in children. This is due to the depletion of serotonin caused by the phenylalanine in aspartame.”

  Reagan’s FDA commissioner Hayes initially approved aspartame only as a powdered additive. But in 1983, just before he left his position, he approved the additive for all carbonated beverages.

  Attempting to study or report on aspartame is a thankless task for mainstream academics. Dr. Janet Starr Hull, an OSHA-certified environmental hazardous-waste emergency-response specialist and toxicologist, in 1991 was diagnosed with incurable Graves’ disease (a defect in the immunization system that leads to hyperthyroidism) only to learn through her own research that she had been poisoned by aspartame. She stated: “Many scientists at prestigious American universities will tell you they cannot get grants for continued research on aspartame or Splenda, or their department heads have been told to drop all discussions on the topic. Some will say aspartame research isn’t worth the effort because they cannot get published in American scientific journals. Others claim the research centers constructed by the large corporations, such as Duke University’s Searle Research Center, were designed with managed research as a construction proviso.”

  Illustrating the battle between experts in regard to aspartame was the 2005 research by Dr. Morando Soffritti, scientific director of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy. Soffritti conducted a three-year study on 1,800 rats and concluded that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. His work was peer-reviewed by seven world experts, and in April 2007, Dr. Soffritti received the third Irving J. Selikoff Award from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, where he presented a more recent study that confirmed the cancer-causing potential of aspartame at even small doses. He noted that only a small amount of aspartame can trigger cancer, and babies of mothers who ingested aspartame could grow up to contract cancer. Other research conducted in Spain, such as the “Barcelona Report” by the staff of the biology department of the University of Barcelona, confirmed that aspartame transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living laboratory specimens and spread throughout vital organs. These studies, largely unreported in the U.S. media, confirmed aspartame’s carcinogenicity in laboratory rats.