by Jim Marrs
Obsession with crime and punishment.
Most of these regimes maintained draconian systems of criminal justice, with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear and hatred of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. The United States today has a higher incarcerated population than all European jails combined, and in certain areas, such as Washington, D.C., police presence is at an all-time high. One visitor to Washington in the summer of 2007 asked a police officer why there were so many cops around. He replied, “People would rather have security than freedom.”
Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways: the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population. The cronyism and outright nepotism of the Bush administration has been well documented. Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter, was named as a deputy secretary of state in late February 2002, and within about a week, her husband, Philip Perry, became chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget, where he joined director Mitchell Daniels, whose sister Deborah is an assistant attorney general. “That’s just the beginning,” noted Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank. “Among Deborah Daniels’ colleagues at Justice is young Chuck James, whose mother, Kay Coles James, is the director of the Office of Personnel Management, and whose father, Charles Sr., is a top Labor Department official. Charles James Sr.’s boss, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, knows about having family members in government: Her husband is [Kentucky] Sen. Mitch McConnell and her department’s top lawyer, Labor Solicitor Eugene Scalia, is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia…. Ken Mehlman, the White House political director, regularly calls his younger brother Bruce, an assistant commerce secretary, to get his input.” Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is the father of Michael Powell, who chaired the Federal Communications Commission. An informal survey of 415 historians conducted by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten, or 81 percent, of the responding historians rated Bush’s presidency as an overall failure. One respondent to the survey wrote that Bush “ranks with U. S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Halliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.” Central to this belief were the numerous Bush administration scandals, including the deceit that preceded the invasion of Iraq; the Abu Ghraib mistreatment of prisoners; pre-9/11 intelligence failures; the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, announced by Donald Rumsfeld the day before 9/11; the mishandling of the Katrina disaster, which resulted in the resignation of Bush’s appointee Michael D. Brown as director of FEMA; Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan that shifted 6.2 million low-income seniors whose medications had been covered by Medicare over to private insurers; the noncompetition government contracts to Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former employer; and the substitution of political ideals for science. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement blasting the administration’s politicization of science. Ultimately, this statement was signed by 4,062 scientists, including 51 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies. Buzzflash.com, which styles itself as marketplace for progressives, after listing several debacles and scandals of the Bush administration, said it operated in a “culture of cronyism and corruption.”
Fraudulent elections.
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would, as a rule, be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite. Americans are well aware of the controversies concerning the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. George W. Bush’s first term was decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And it was just as bad in 2004. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in Rolling Stone magazine, stated, “Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted—enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.” Controversy over both elections continues today and in 2008 charges of vote fraud were already being voiced in the state primary elections, primarily over computer voting machines.
Many Americans noticed the similarities between George W. Bush’s unprovoked attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and Hitler’s unprovoked attacks on Poland, the Low Countries, and France. In both cases, the pretext for invasion proved false and reservists were used rather than the option to resort to a military draft.
In early 2008, a study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity documented 935 “false statements” by the Bush administration in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses,” stated the CPI report. Most people would term this telling lies.
“DOES ANY OF this ring alarm bells?” asked Britt. “Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.”
It seems that by comparing Britt’s characteristics of fascism to current events, the argument can definitely be made that globalist fascists are turning the once free and independent United States into a not-so-profitable subsidiary of their global corporate structure—their empire of the rich.
You are free to accept this idea or not. But when secular humanists, conservative Christians, Jews, liberal Democrats, bedrock Republicans, and moderates, not to mention the activist fringe elements, all start issuing the same warning against fascism, perhaps it is time we start paying serious attention. Commentators like Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal have spoken out against the “national security state” from the left. The late Senator Barry Goldwater and evangelist Pat Robertson have spoken out from the right. Even mainstream centrists, like commentator Bill Moyers and attorney Gerry Spence, have warned of the abuses of a “secret government.” When historical figures along with concerned citizens from opposite ends of the political spectrum all say the same thing, it is time to consider the true state of the American union. And perhaps time to stand up and be counted for true freedom—freedom from the corporate state.
The Reverend Erwin W. Lutzer, senior pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, wrote: “We must support our government, but we must be ready to criticize it or even defy it when necessary. Patriotism is commendable when it is for a just cause. Every nation has the right to defend itself, the right to expect the government to do what is best for its citizens. However, if the German church has taught us the dangers of blind obedience to government, we must eschew the mindless philosophy ‘My country, right or wrong.’”
Media critic Michael Parenti observes, “To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical
perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the fuehrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That’s just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them.”
There are those who would argue that it is perhaps unpatriotic or at least not politically correct to speak out on issues involving taxation, immigration, political beliefs, race, eugenics, or criticism of the military-industrial complex.
The term “political correctness,” which has entered today’s discourse, is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Today many believe that definition has grown to include the perceived need to conform to restrictions on speech and behavior set by politicians, corporate leaders, and other self-appointed authorities. This is the same self-imposed restriction that was adopted by too many Germans during the Third Reich. Not only was the man on the street afraid to speak out against the Nazi regime but free speech was denied the intelligentsia. Nazi academic Walter Schultze in 1939 stated that “the reorganization of the entire university system must begin with people who understand that freedom has limits and conform to National Socialist thinking.” Germans in the Third Reich did not know the term “political correctness,” but they well understood the penalties for freely voicing their opinions.
Recent legislation targeting so-called hate speech can easily slip into official punitive action against any speech that arouses the ire of politicians, police, or judges. Jonathan Rauch writing in Harper’s magazine noted that equating verbal violence with physical violence is a “treacherous, mischievous business.” Rauch quoted author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death in absentia by Muslim ayatollahs after writing a book they claimed slandered the beliefs of millions of Muslims. “What is freedom of expression?” asked Salman Rushdie. “Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” Rauch wrote that the public should learn a lesson from Rushdie’s experience. Rauch proclaimed: “The campaigns to eradicate prejudice—all of them, the speech codes and workplace restrictions and mandatory therapy for accused bigots and all the rest—should stop, now. The whole objective of eradicating prejudice, as opposed to correcting and criticizing it, should be repudiated as a fool’s errand.”
Even though the German Nazis preached the unity of the Volk and spoke out against the old divisions of class and education, the leaders operated in an entirely different manner. “In reality, the Third Reich was a network of rival leaders, each with his own followers and his own patronage,” noted George Mosse in his book Nazi Culture. “Hitler kept them competing against one another and in this way was able to control the whole leadership structure.”
Likewise, the globalist rulers of America pit bureaucrats, politicians, academics, corporate leaders, and the public against one another in an agenda of divide and conquer. They maintain control in a society fragmented by combative ideologies and philosophies as well as competing corporate interests. In today’s America it seems the only common denominator is consumerism and debt.
Because of their loss of control over Hitler, the globalists learned well the dangers of allowing any one individual to gain the power over masses of people. Consequently, there has not been one prominent figure in recent American history who has commanded the popular respect and esteem of a majority of the population. Even the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, beloved by so many, never held popular goodwill to the extent of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since World War II, no national leader has gained the stature of Roosevelt, Churchill, or Hitler.
“Hitler’s world has gone forever. But many of the basic attitudes and prejudices which went into his worldview are still with us, waiting to be actualized, to be directed into a new mass consciousness,” prophesied Professor Mosse from the relatively naive year of 1966.
Ladislas Farago, author of Aftermath: Martin Bormann and the Fourth Reich, wrote: “The despicable forces loosed by the Third Reich are not expunged, although, like some virulent virus, they may have changed to other forms and be difficult to identify. They remain malignant and as potentially dangerous as before.” In his 1997 book The Beast Reawakens, Martin Lee wrote, “Fascism is on the march again…. unchecked corporate power has, to a significant degree, stultified the democratic process, and fascist groups in Europe and the United States feed upon this malaise.” These sentiments came from writers unaware of the fascist globalists’ plan being woven around them. Yet, they could sense that Americans could easily fall sway to the pernicious ideology of National Socialism.
THE BIGGEST STUMBLING block to the plans of the globalists has always been the United States, with its tradition of individual freedom, its Constitution that guarantees that freedom, and the fact that so many Americans own firearms to protect their freedoms. But true freedom is a transient quality.
National politicians no longer refer to the “republic,” because modern America has ceased to be one. It is now an empire—a new Reich.
Obviously, there are dissimilarities between Hitler’s Third Reich and the new American Reich. After all, the United States today is a very different time and culture. But it has been demonstrated how the same philosophies and methodologies employed by the same families, corporations, and organizations that at one time supported Hitler’s Third Reich, have now found roots in modern America.
It has been necessary for these fascist globalists to break up the United States into divisions of race, sex, age, generation and culture. This has been accomplished through a degrading of popular culture, downgrading the education process, permitting a steady flow of illegal immigrants, and the fragmentation of the population over issues such as abortion, immigration, nonheterosexual relationships, and foreign policy. Control over a diminished national economy and corporate downsizing has brought undue stress on workers, resulting in the gradual destruction of the nuclear family.
None of this construction of the new American empire has come about suddenly.
The global National Socialists—Nazis—are in it for the long haul. The owners of the multinational corporations, with their membership in secret societies, know their goals will not be achieved overnight, although since 9/11 they seem to have redoubled their efforts, speeding up the timetable. While businessmen deal with yearly quarters, and the average worker lives for his weekly paycheck, these people look ahead fifty years or a hundred, if that’s what it takes. They realize that their program of a global fascist socialism is the only means of maintaining their power and control, the only way—in their view—to maintain the purity of their race and class. They laugh at the concepts of true individual freedom and multiculturalism, for they have no faith in the innate goodness of humankind or its ability for self-government. They have no real faith in God and use religious ideals and concepts merely as another tool for social control.
The struggle against such steadfast will to power and its attendant control will not be easy. Sacrifices and change will have to be made in all areas of society. Lifestyles will have to be altered. But it can be done—hopefully before the United States falls into depression, anarchy, and then a police state. New energy sources and technologies are lurking in the wings. Technological breakthroughs await only the change of attitude on the part of conventional politics, commerce, and finance.
A sea change in the public consciousness is well under way, although it is not reflected in the corporate-controlled mass media. Yet it is happening. Informed consumers are beginning to realize they can vote with their spending. If enough people refuse to buy a certain product—whether it’s a brand of car, gasoline, or something else—or even reject a federal policy proposal, it can force a change of direction in the controllers.
We may do well to recall the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had to deal with a previous “New World Order.” In a 1940 addr
ess, he stated, “The history of recent years proves that the shootings and the chains and the concentration camps are not simply the transient tools but the very altars of modern dictatorships. They may talk of a ‘new order’ in the world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and the worst tyranny. In that there is no liberty, no religion, no hope. The proposed ‘new order’ is the very opposite of a United States of Europe or a United States of Asia. It is not a government based upon the consent of the governed. It is not a union of ordinary, self-respecting men and women to protect themselves and their freedom and their dignity from oppression. It is an unholy alliance of power and self to dominate and to enslave the human race.”
It appears that the “New World Order” is really just the “Old World Order” packaged with modern advertising slickness—new names, logos, and slogans. What once was traditional American conservatism has been molded into fascist forms, beginning with the infusion of National Socialism ideals into the military-industrial complex, which then spread into science, corporate life, the mass media, and even political parties.
This change has been engineered by the globalist elite who hold monopolies over basic resources, energy, pharmaceuticals, transportation, and telecommunications, including the news media. As detailed throughout this work, the same men, families, and companies that first supported communism in Russia funded and supported National Socialism in prewar Germany. With the defeat of the Germans, they simply shifted their attention to the United States. They were abetted by Nazis financed by the stolen wealth of Europe—perhaps including Solomon’s treasure—and utilizing a vast network of worldwide corporations. Thousands of Nazis escaped to both North and South America, their way facilitated by supporters in Wall Street, the Bank of England, and the Vatican.
