by Jim Marrs
The Fourth Reich in America, it seems, is guided by “instincts,” just as during Hitler’s Reich.
ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE between the Third Reich and the Fourth is the lack of emphasis on flag ceremonies and repetitious pledges. In Nazi Germany, a school day did not pass without these ceremonies of the state.
But in multicultural and globalized America, although schoolchildren still recite the Pledge of Allegiance and raise the U.S. flag, any formal ceremony has dropped away. Today, hardly any American—child or adult (with the possible exception of some Girl and Boy Scouts)—knows or observes proper flag protocols.
If the Pledge of Allegiance is used in schools, it is generally spoken over the loudspeaker. Students can recite along or not, as they will. If they can obtain a note from their parents, they are not even required to stand. Patriotic allegiance to one’s nation is not conducive to the globalists’ agenda of borderless countries under the control of multinational corporations.
Today, such nationalistic trappings have been replaced by ubiquitous corporate logos and slogans. More and more educational programs are being underwritten—and guided—by corporate officials. President Bush’s secretary of education Margaret Spellings hosted the 2006–07 Siemens Competition in Math, Science, and Technology. In May 2006, she told attendees of the first National Summit on the Advancement of Girls in Math and Science in Washington, D.C., “I recently met with George Nolen, president and CEO of Siemens Corporation, and I look forward to working with him on President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative.”
Business leaders began to realize that education had failed to keep up with the corporatism of America. Prudential CEO Art Ryan complained that hiring high school graduates today is a high risk. “They can’t do many of the things you would like them to do. But have high schools changed to reflect that economy? I would argue not enough.”
Another rising concern in education that can be traced back to corporate intrusion is the rise of advertising in schools. According to a debate posted on the official NEA Web site, teachers have complained that getting kids to buy products, feel good about a corporation, or adopt the viewpoints of an industry on an important issue is not the purpose of education and that promotional sponsored education materials blur the line between education and propaganda and lead to distorted lessons.
Manny Lopez, a fourth-grade teacher at the International Community School in Oakland, California, warned, “Upon entering our schools, advertisers would dictate the placement of their billboards, banners, and lightboxes. The highly visible areas normally reserved for students’ artwork, bulletin boards, and school/community message centers would be taken over. It would only be a matter of time before advertisers would attempt to have a hand in the curriculum, molding a school into a corporate image.” Retired Georgia teacher Elizabeth Gould wrote, “[Advertising] gives students a warped sense of the world. They think everything is up for sale—ethics, morals, children.”
Arguing in favor of school advertising, Kathleen McMahon, a fourth-grade teacher at Alice Costello School in Brooklawn, New Jersey, said, “In an ideal world, schools would have all the money they need to fund programs and buy equipment, but we’re not living in Utopia. Public and private colleges accept money from plutocrats every day.”
Gary Ruskin, writing in Advertising Age magazine, urged advertisers to exercise self-restraint or face future legal restrictions. He noted, “Advertisers are being expelled from schools in droves. Channel One, the in-school advertising service, was removed last school year from Nashville, and will soon be kicked out of Seattle. New restrictions on the marketing or sale of soda or junk food in school have been approved in places such as California, Texas, New York City and Philadelphia.”
CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT WITH education is not a new idea. In the late 1800s, a group of Chicago businessmen became concerned that education in Germany and Austria was moving ahead of American education. “Unlike American schools, German classrooms divided kids into two tracks: one for those destined to become managers and the other for those destined to be their employees,” explained Elizabeth Weiss Green writing in U.S. News & World Report.
But even in the 1800s, thoughtful persons questioned the propriety of business guiding education. “Education would then become an instrument of perpetuating unchanged the existing industrial order of society. Who, then, shall conduct education so that humanity may improve?” questioned John Dewey, the American philosopher, psychologist, and education reformer.
In mid-2007, billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad announced they had pooled $60 million to finance a campaign to emphasize education in the 2008 elections. However, the pair’s ideas for improving American education were immediately criticized, because the three tenets of their campaign were: making teachers’ salary increases dependent on student test scores, keeping students in class with more days and longer hours, and setting federal curriculum standards based on input from corporate leaders.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM IN the Germany of the 1930s made a strong appeal to its youth. The Nazis fully realized that if the younger generations could be brought to their worldview, the future of National Socialism would be assured. “Fascism in all countries made a fetish of youthfulness,” commented George L. Mosse, author of Nazi Culture. “What a contrast this offered to the elderly politicians haggling in parliaments, or to the fossilized bureaucracies which ran the nations (and the political parties) of Europe.”
Modern America also has witnessed conflict between the younger and older generations. The genesis of this generational conflict began with the rock-and-roll music of the 1950s and grew full-blown with the Vietnam War, when families were split along lines of age. The young embraced the antiwar movement while the older generations, tempered by the propaganda of World War II, supported the war policies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Here again was a reflection of Nazi Germany, where Hitler’s promises of a more prosperous future held considerable sway with the younger generations. “The young were set off against the old,” observed Mosse, “and the distinction that was made between the old and young nations was operative within the Volk itself. When Hitler damned the bourgeoisie, he was inveighing against the older generation, brought up under the [First and Second] Empire.”
This generational conflict, caused by control over popular culture such as music, films, art, etc., was merely another use of the divide-and-conquer tactic.
American journalist and educator Milton Mayer was both Jewish and of German ancestry. He traveled in Europe before the war and tried unsuccessfully to gain an audience with Hitler in 1935. Seven years after the war ended, Mayer traveled in Germany, searching to understand what had made the average German blindly follow National Socialism.
“I never found the average German,” he recounted in a 1955 book, “because there is no average German. But I found ten Germans sufficiently different from one another in background, character, intellect, and temperament to represent, among them, some millions or tens of millions of Germans and sufficiently like unto one another to have been Nazis.
“I found—and find—it hard to judge my Nazi friends,” he wrote. “I liked them. I couldn’t help it…. I was overcome by the same sensation that had got in the way of my newspaper reporting in Chicago years before. I liked Al Capone. I liked the way he treated his mother. He treated her better than I treated mine.”
Mayer recounted the story of one unnamed German academic, a language teacher, and his experience as Hitler’s Third Reich grew in prominence. In light of modern America, it is worth repeating.
This teacher said that after 1933 no one seemed to notice the ever-widening gap between the government and the people. “This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occup
ied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”
As a scholar, this man was consumed with “meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires…. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time. The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?”
He said to live in this process required not noticing it. “Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”
Pastor Martin Niemoeller spoke for men like this academic when he said: “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” A great part of this hesitancy to resist encroaching fascism was not due to fear, according to the academic Milton Mayer, but to genuine uncertainty that anyone else was seeing the things as he did. In Nazi Germany, people who questioned the motives behind government policies were deemed alarmists. In America today, they are called conspiracy theorists.
“[I]n small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent…. It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait,” explained an unnamed teacher quoted by Mayer. “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked…. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between, come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.” He said that the person who is aware suddenly sees the world in a new way. “The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done—for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing…. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.”
Of particular concern to Americans who look beyond the advancing fascist agenda is the question of who will come to their rescue? Nazi-occupied Europe, and even many Germans toward the end of the war, looked hopefully to the Allied nations for their liberation. If America, today the world’s foremost empire—a new Reich—falls under fascist domination, where can Americans look for deliverance?
CHAPTER 15
PSYCHOLOGY AND PUBLIC CONTROL
WHILE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO EDUCATION, IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that in Nazi Germany, while labor was extolled and glamorized, the power of labor unions was all but abolished. All labor matters were combined into the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, or German Labor Front, a monolithic Nazi organization created by Hitler to replace the old labor union system.
Again, the agenda of the corporate globalists was at work to curtail any meaningful power within the working class. However, despite early labor support based on pro-labor Nazi slogans and propaganda, the workers soon realized that the promised labor-professional equality was a myth, and labor problems continued to plague the Nazi government right through the end of the war.
In light of the continuing problems in Nazi Germany, the globalists declined to create a labor-controlling mechanism with modern America. Instead, they began a successful program of buying corrupt labor leaders, making deals with the crime syndicates that controlled certain unions, and crippling labor through federal legislation pushed through Congress with corporate money. The Reagan and both Bush administrations were particularly antiunion.
One example of this occurred in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration crushed collective bargaining by air traffic controllers, who desired increased air safety through better working conditions rather than just higher wages. Another example came in mid-2002, when a labor dispute between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) caused a stack-up of cargo ships along the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle, which threatened to cut deeply into the 2002–03 holiday season profits. The strike was broken in October, when President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act, a controversial 1947 union-busting law that was passed over President Truman’s veto. Under this law, an eighty-day “cooling off” period can be ordered during a “national emergency.”
Although Bush’s action received scant attention in a media focused on the impending invasion of Iraq, one official of ILWU, Jack Heyman, termed Bush’s intervention “a historic juncture in the labor movement.” Heyman added, “By invoking Taft-Hartley against the longshore workers, Bush is effectively declaring war on the working class here and the Iraqi people simultaneously.”
It has already been demonstrated how many U.S. government and corporate policies have been instituted by firms and organizations created and controlled by America’s wealthy elite globalists.
The globalists also created the myth that the Rockefellers represent the apex of America’s wealthy elite, a description the Rockefellers have done little to discourage. The long-standing idea that American oil magnate John D. Rockefeller was driven solely by greed obscured the fact that he was financed by outside sources. According to Eustace Mullins, the Rockefeller combine has never been an independent power. It was this Rockefeller myth of a homegrown elite that distracted attention from the international globalists and allowed the American public to accept the family as the nation’s preeminent power. “[T]he Rockefeller oil trust [became] the ‘military-industrial complex,’ which assumed political control of the nation; the Rockefeller medical monopoly attained control of the health care of the nation; and the Rockefeller Foundation, a web of affiliated tax-exempt creations, effectively controlled the religious and educational life of the nation,” wrote Mullins.
“The Rockefeller Syndicate operates under the control of the world financial structure, which means that on any given day, all of its assets could be rendered close to worthless by adroit financial manipulation,” noted Mullins, who observed that patriarch John D. Rockefeller was able to gain almost total control over U.S. oil with financing from the National City Bank of Cleveland, named in congressional reports as a branch of the Rothschild banking empire. According to Mullins, “This is the final control, which ensures that no one can quit the organization. Not only would he be stripped of all assets, but he would be under contract for immediate assassination. Our Department of Justice is well a
ware that the only ‘terrorists’ operating in the United States are the agents of the World Order, but they prudently avoid any mention of this fact.”
In pointing to the awareness of the Justice Department, Mullins, like authors John Loftus, Gary Allen, Mark Aarons, and others, was fully aware of the lack of detection or prosecution of Nazi war criminals who came to America, or of any serious prosecution of prominent corporate miscreants. Examples of the machinations of foreign financial powers in the United States, including the secret societies behind the War Between the States, may be found in my book Rule by Secrecy.
While it is true that the families that originated the wealthy elite in America—the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Schiffs, and the Warburgs—have in recent years lost much of their previous influence, their giant global enterprises today remain as powerful as ever, maintaining all the functions for which they were first organized. This mechanism today has been brought under the control of the fascist globalists, who created both communism and National Socialism using the wealth brought from Europe by the Nazi ratlines.
“Since he set up the Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller has functioned as a sort of international courier for the World Order, principally concerned with delivering working instructions to the Communist bloc [now the Russian Federation], either directly, in New York, or by traveling to the area,” Mullins argued.
