Tel qu’il se présente avec son cynisme tranquille, ce discours est du plus grand intérêt puisqu’il décrit avec clarté les buts de guerre des U.S.A. dans le monde et particulièrement sa stratégie vis-à-vis de la Russie via l’Ukraine. Malgré les huit ans écoulés, on est frappé par son actualité. Ce n’est, au fond, guère étonnant vu que la stratégie de domination U.S. est toujours la même. Selon Friedman, la suprématie des U.S.A. repose d’abord sur le contrôle de tous les océans.
Le contrôle de la mer et de l’espace est la base du pouvoir US »
« Aucune autre puissance ne l’a jamais fait. Par conséquent, nous arrivons à envahir les peuples et ils ne peuvent pas nous envahir, ceci est une très bonne chose. Maintenir le contrôle de la mer et le contrôle de l’espace est la base de notre pouvoir.La meilleure façon de vaincre une flotte ennemie est de l’empêcher de se construire … »
Malgré cette domination maritime réputée incontestée, l’invasion des peuples et le pillage des pays ne sont pas si simples : il est impossible d’y parvenir ouvertement, directement. Voici pourquoi : « Au moment où les premières bottes touchent le sol la différence démographique est telle que nous sommes en infériorité numérique. […] Donc, nous n’avons pas la possibilité d’aller partout… » Mais on peut s’y prendre autrement selon une méthode bien éprouvée.
Une méthode qui a fait ses preuves : diviser, désorganiser, financer les rivaux, bref, semer le chaos
Suivant en cela la démarche de Brzezinski, le maître de la stratégie impérialiste américaine, Friedman étaye sa réflexion par la comparaison historique du destin des empires romains, britanniques et même nazi. La conclusion de Friedman est sans appel : « Les Empires qui contrôlent directement les territoires échouent. Comme c’était le cas avec l’empire nazi. »Donc la méthode indirecte est bien meilleure : « La politique que je recommande, -dit-il- est celle adoptée par Ronald Reagan envers l’Iran et l’Irak. Il a financé les deux côtés de sorte qu’ils se battent entre eux afin de ne pas nous combattre.C’était cynique, certainement pas moral, et ça a marché. » Il poursuit : « Nous avons la capacité de soutenir différentes puissances rivales afin qu’elles se concentrent sur elles-mêmes, en leur procurant le soutien politique, quelques soutiens économiques, le soutien militaire et des conseillers. Et en dernière option, faire comme avec le Japon, [lapsus] je veux dire au Vietnam, en Irak, en Afghanistan par des mesures de désorganisation. » C.Q.F.D. !
Parmi les nations rivales qu’il s’agit d’affaiblir, la Russie est, sans surprise au premier rang. Elle est la grande obsession des USA. Il ne dit mot de la Chine qui, sans doute, était moins à l’ordre du jour en 2015. Mais ce qui est très intéressant dans le propos de Friedman, c’est que la Russie fait systématiquement couple avec l’Allemagne dont l’économie florissante tient (ou plutôt tenait !) à l’énergie peu chère que lui fournit (fournissait) la Russie (on comprend mieux la raison du sabotage des gazoducs !). Beaucoup plus que l’idéologie, Friedman, toujours pragmatique, prend surtout en compte la puissance économique. C’est bien la suprématie économique qui a fait de l’Amérique du nord, grâce aux retombées juteuses de la deuxième guerre mondiale, une superpuissance et c’est cette suprématie qu’elle entend maintenir coûte que coûte pour perpétuer son hégémonie.
La peur d’une union économique entre Moscou et Berlin : il faut couper la Russie de l’Europe en la séparant de l’Allemagne
C’était déjà la relation entre l’Allemagne et la Russie, nous dit Friedman, qui était au centre des deux grands conflits mondiaux et bien sûr de la guerre froide. C’est cette relation qui a motivé l’entrée en guerre des USA : « … unis [ces deux pays]représentent la seule force qui pourrait nous menacer. Nous devons nous assurer que ça n’arrive pas. ».
Plus loin, il est plus explicite : « Pour les USA, la peur primordiale est le capital russe, la technologie russe. Je veux dire la technologie allemande et le capital allemand avec les ressources naturelles russes et la main d’œuvre russe comme la seule combinaison qui a fait très peur pendant des siècles aux USA. »
Le sabotage des gazoducs en 2022, programmé avant même l’entrée des troupes russes en Ukraine le 24 février 2022, a été le moyen peu subtil mais radical de conjurer la peur d’une telle alliance et d’interdire à l’Allemagne l’accès à une énergie peu chère qui assurait sa prospérité. Tenir l’Allemagne, c’est tenir l’Europe.
Mais Friedman n’étant pas prophète, il ne pouvait pas évoquer le futur exploit maritime U.S. dans la Baltique, ni d’ailleurs deviner que l’Allemagne, (dont il se demande avec insistance, en 2015, comment elle va s’orienter), allait se laisser tondre en 2022 comme un mouton. Mais n’anticipons pas trop. Restons en 2015 et à ce que dit Friedman.
Le cœur de la stratégie de domination des U.S.A. dans laquelle l’Ukraine occupe une place essentielle est donc d’isoler la Russie de l’Europe, essentiellement en la coupant de l’Allemagne. Friedman nous dit très clairement comment les U.S.A. ont procédé d’ores et déjà pour y parvenir :
En utilisant l’Ukraine sur laquelle ils ont la main mise depuis Maïdan (février 2014), en lui fournissant armement et formation militaire en vue d’attaquer la Russie.
En mettant en place « un cordon sanitaire,selon la ligne de la Baltique à la mer noire, composé des pays russophobes » et, au premier chef, de la Pologne. Ce qui signifie que la guerre actuelle entre l’Ukraine et la Russie, ou mieux entre l’Otan et la Russie n’a rien d’improvisée. Elle a été dûment programmée.
La guerre actuelle entre les U.S.A. et la Russie, par Ukraine interposée, a été préparée (au moins) depuis 2015
L’Ukraine, qui sert aujourd’hui de terrain d’affrontement et de chair à canon aux USA, occupe naturellement une place centrale pour la Russie. On sait que l’Ukraine est dans sa majeure partie une terre russe : historiquement la Russie est née à Kiev. Elle est donc une zone névralgique qui nécessairement doit être neutre pour la sécurité de la Russie. Friedman le sait, il le souligne à plusieurs reprises:
« Toute la question à l’ordre du jour pour les russes est :Vont-ils créer une zone tampon qui serait au minimum une zone neutre ?Ou bien l’Occident s’introduira tellement loin en Ukraine et s’installera à 100 de Stalingrad et à 500 km de Moscou ?Pour la Russie, le statut de l’Ukraine représente une menace pour sa survie et les Russes ne peuvent laisser faire.Et la question pour les U.S.A. dans le cas où la Russie s’accroche à l’Ukraine, est : où cela s’arrêtera-t-il ? »
Pour prévenir ou contrer la réaction de la Russie qui, acculée, ne pourra pas manquer de réagir, Friedman évoque les interventions sur le terrain du général Hodges chargé d’armer et d’instruire l’armée ukrainienne et de pré-positionner des troupes en Roumanie, en Bulgarie, en Pologne et jusqu’à la Baltique. Ce sont les pays qui composent le « cordon sanitaire », l’intermarium de la Mer Noire à la Baltique, comme l’avait rêvé, en son temps, le polonais Pilsudski : « C’est la solution des USA ».
Isoler la Russie par un cordon sanitaire composé des pays russophobes
Sur l’armement U.S. fourni aussi bien à l’Ukraine, ouvertement depuis 2015, qu’aux pays du « cordon sanitaire », hors du cadre de l’OTAN, Friedman est tout à fait explicite : « La semaine dernière […] le général Hodges, commandant de l’armée américaine en Europe, s’est rendu en Ukraine pour y annoncer que les formateurs américains viendraient désormais officiellement et non plus officieusement.
Il a remis des médailles aux combattants ukrainiens […] se faisant il a montré que c’était son armée. Ensuite, il est parti annoncer aux pays Baltes que les USA allaient disposer des blindés, de l’artillerie et autre matériel dans les pays Baltes, en Pologne, en Roumanie, en Bulgarie. »
En clair, c’est ce qui s’appelle encercler la Russie, déjà cernée, comme on sait, par de multiples bases militaires de l’OTAN ! La seule inconnue, en 2015, pour Friedman, est l’attitude de l’Allemagne (de Merkel) mais, pour nous, qui savons la suite, l’énigme est levée.
Petites réflexions personnelles pour finir. Le suivisme ahurissant de l’Allemagne et des Européens dans le conflit actuel est sidérant. C’est cet alignement pleutre qui autorise le cynisme décomplexé d’un Friedman. Tout est permis aux USA, l’Europe, vassalisée comme jamais, gobe tout et légitime toutes les agressions ! Impunité garantie ! On peut se demander si la stratégie d’isolement de la Russie, qui, jusqu’ici a les apparences de la réussite, du moins vis-à-vis de l’Europe, n’aura pas des contre-coups fâcheux… pour les USA eux-mêmes, vu le soutien que « l’isolée » a obtenu de la part de l’ensemble des autres nations dans le monde.
L’Europe fanatisée par la propagande atlantiste, est prise, selon l’excellente formule d’Emmanuel Todd, « d’unvertige nihiliste » : cette guerre se fait à la fois contre l’Ukraine qu’on prétend soutenir et qui se fait détruire sur place et contre les peuples européens qui sont en train de payer très cher leur économie en ruine. Un vrai suicide ! Sans parler du traitement médiatique honteux que l’on inflige à la Russie.
La presse officielle européenne dans son ensemble, la française en particulier, s’est complétement déconsidérée : il lui est devenu impossible de tirer des conclusions logiques des faits les plus avérés. Elle préfère la propagande qui nous enlise dans la guerre. Tout glisse sur elle ! Ni le sabotage américain des gazoducs, (perpétré avant même que les troupes russes rentrent en Ukraine), magistralement argumenté par l’enquête de Seymour Hersh, ni le sabotage par les USA et ses laquais européens des négociations de paix amorcées dès le lendemain du 24 février, (selon le témoignage de l’ex-premier ministre d’Israël, Naftali Bennett), n’ont été capables de tirer la presse officielle française de sa dangereuse léthargie !
Uranium tailings in Niger are blowing in the wind and poisoning the water
Note: In late July, a military coup ousted Niger’s president, Mohamed Bazoum. Since then, those who have declared themselves in charge have announced a halt to uranium exports to France. France relies on Niger for around 17% of the uranium that fuels its troubled commercial reactor fleet (with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan the main suppliers). Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European countries have been wrestling with their uncomfortable dependence on Russian-sourced uranium supplies. The Russian mercenary group, Wagner, already has a strong presence in Africa, and one that is now growing.
The grey mountain looms, mirage-like, on the horizon of the uranium mining town of Arlit in Niger.
Except, this is the Sahel, and it’s not a real mountain. It’s a pile of radioactive uranium mine tailings, blowing around in the desert winds and dispersing into the air, soil, waterways and people’s bodies.
The “mountain” is part of a legacy of an estimated 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste left behind by the French mine owner, Areva, now known as Orano, which closed its Arlit uranium mines in March 2021.
A report on Radio France International described the situation this way: “Niger’s northern town of Arlit has been left wallowing in 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste after a uranium mine run by French company Orano (formerly Areva) closed down. People living in the area are exposed to levels of radiation above the limits recommended by health experts.”
This lethal legacy has been confirmed by the independent French radiological research laboratory — Commission de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité — known in international circles simply as CRIIRAD. The lab, and its director, Bruno Chareyron, have been studying the situation around uranium mines in Niger for years. In 2009 his lab measured the radioactive levels of the wastes at 450,000 Becquerels per kilogram.
In a recent video, CRIIRAD describes the waste pile— mostly radioactive sludges — as “a sword of Damocles hanging over the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people.” (You can watch the video below, in French with English subtitles. If you understand French, you can also listen to the CRIIRAD podcast episodes on this topic on Spotify.)
Under its subsidiary, Cominak, Orano exploited mines near Arlit for 40 years. Much of the uranium extracted was used as fuel for reactors in France and other countries in the European Union.
As part of the extraction process, radon gas was released into the air along with fine radioactive dusts, inhaled by the uranium mine workers and local residents. Radioactively contaminated materials ended up in workers’ homes, used to fashion furniture and utensils and even as construction materials for the homes themselves. And yet, no effort was made by Orano to contain this waste. Instead, as the Radio France International report says, “it was simply dumped on the ground.”
Some workers who were treated in the local Areva-run hospital were told their illnesses had nothing whatever to do with the uranium mines.
Diners along the Seine, sitting under their Parisian fairy lights, rarely if ever thought about the workers in Arlit who helped turn those lights on, and who suffered all the negative health consequences while enjoying none of the financial gain. Niger remains one of the world’s poorest countries.
Niger is yet another example of colonialism, its people burdened effectively with a radioactive smallpox blanket. It’s a story and a pattern that repeats itself across the world where people of color toil in uranium mines or other foreign-imposed government or corporate methods of exploitation, working to benefit white western customers thousands of miles away.
And it’s an exploitation that could now be prolonged at Orano’s only remaining uranium mine in Niger — Somair. Earlier this year, Orano and the then Niger government signed an agreement to extend operations at Somair until 2040, 11 years longer than its originally projected closure date. That agreement may now be in doubt under the current political uncertainty brought about by the July coup.
Imouraren in northern Niger, with potentially 200,000 tonnes of uranium deposits, is still also potentially within Orano’s sights, although what would become the world’s biggest uranium mine has been on hold for some time, even before the current coup.
Wind-blown uranium tailings “mountains” in the Sahara desert at the Arlit mine site.
Meanwhile, in Arlit, many live without electricity at all. Or even running water. That water, according to Chareyron, has already been contaminated by the 40 years of waste discharges from the mines —chemicals and heavy metals along with radioactive uranium and its daughter products such as radium and polonium— which have migrated into groundwater. Absent other alternatives, local populations are obligated to keep drinking it.
According to the Radio France International report, “Orano’s Niger subsidiary, Cominak, said that it will cover the radioactive mud with a two-metre layer of clay and rocks to contain the radiation.” But, even though it is a necessary first step to prevent further dispersal into the air, the measure will scarcely be an enduring barrier, given the wastes will be dangerous to human health for hundreds of thousands of years.
But while it is dangerous for Arlit locals to wash their hands in their radioactively contaminated water supply, has Cominak washed its hands of them? In the two years since the mines closed, nothing has happened to safeguard the waste piles.
Almoustapha Alhacen, a former mine worker who heads the local NGO, Aghir’n Man and collaborates with CRIIRAD, told Chareyron that the reason given for inaction is lack of financing.
In reality, the problem is an even bigger one than miserly corporate inaction. Worldwide, points out Chareyron, authorities have yet to figure out how to confine lethal radioactive waste safely over the longterm. The simple answer is that, when it comes to radioactive waste, no one really knows what to do.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.
Headline photo of Arlit, Niger street scene by TZai/Wikimedia Commons.
US and UN humanitarian aid is a grain of sand in the desert they created. With just 1% of US military spending Africa could have a free health and welfare system- and that money would be just invented cash from Dollar hegemony
African states were mostly just lines on the map of colonial conquests, and the colonizers often kept ownership of land and resources.
Local allegiance is usually more to ancient smaller tribal cultures, so it was easy to pick strong men, lend them dollars and set up eternal debt cow interest payments, milking penniless artificially created states forever in total poverty.
Niger for instance, while supplying France with 30% of its nuclear power has less than 20% of its own people with electricity, in rural areas just 9% and FALLING RAPIDLY. worldbank.org. And that electricity has to be imported at a premium……..continued
Radioactive city in the Desert supplied Paris Salons
In November 2009, Greenpeace − in collaboration with the French independent laboratory CRIIRAD (Commission for Independent Research and Information about Radioactivity − criirad.org) and the Nigerien NGO network ROTAB (Network of Organizations for Transparency and Budget Analysis − rotabniger.org) − carried out a scientific study of the areas around the Areva mining towns Arlit and Akokan. The groups found:
In four of the five water samples that Greenpeace collected in the Arlit region, the uranium concentration was above the WHO recommended limit for drinking water.
A measurement performed at the police station in Akokan showed a radon concentration in the air three to seven times higher than normal levels in the area.
The concentration of uranium and other radioactive materials in a soil sample collected near the underground mine was found to be about 100 times higher than normal levels in the region, and higher than the international exemption limits.
On the streets of Akokan, radiation dose rate levels were found to be up to almost 500 times higher than normal background levels. A person spending less than one hour a day at that location would be exposed to more than the maximum allowable annual dose.
Although Areva claims no contaminated material gets out of the mines anymore, Greenpeace found several pieces of radioactive scrap metal on the local market in Arlit, with radiation dose rates reaching up to 50 times more than the normal background levels. Locals use these materials to build their homes. https://www.foe.org.au/uranium-mining-niger
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
To some degree, next week’s Annual Meetings of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) in Marrakech will be focused on the tragic earthquake and flooding damage in Morocco and Libya, respectively – in turn reflecting a lack of durable infrastructure, especially in the latter case after the state was crippled by NATO regime-change excesses in 2011 and Derna’s fragile dams were not maintained. The reconstruction funding needs are enormous, but are the BWIs appropriate allies, given their record?
In late August, the BRICS+ gathering in Johannesburg, South Africa, raised near-universal concern (or even misplacedhope) that some of the world’s most tyrannical regimes are uniting and potentially facing off against the ‘West’ in part because of the BWIs’ heavy-handed loan conditionality.
Five of the six new members are from the Middle East and Horn of Africa, including dangerously-indebted Egypt and Ethiopia, while another new member, Argentina, is under Washington’s austerity thumb. And that perception will probably compel a more active reengagement of BRICS+ regimes by a new down-to-business World Bank President, Ajay Banga, and by International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who reflect a long-standing global-apartheid policy in which only U.S. and European citizens get Bank and IMF leadership, respectively.
Banga’s own decade-old history in Johannesburg’s Soweto township featured a Mastercard partnership with a Bank-owned ‘financial inclusion’ firm (Cash Paymaster Services) that in 2020 was forced into receivership after failing to pay fines for extensive fraud against the state (via a corrupt welfare minister) and millions of the society’s poorest (see ObserverSummer 2023).
Likewise, Georgieva was a top World Bank official before moving to the Fund in 2019, and was mainly remembered for her alleged role in ‘torturing data’ in the Bank’s Doing Business reports on behalf of China’s Foreign Direct Investment programme. The alleged statistical fraud was so severe that she was nearly forced to resign from IMF leadership in 2021. In the same spirit, her IMF managing director predecessors include Rodrigo Rato, who was jailed for financial fraud in 2017, Christine Lagarde who was convicted in a French political bribery case in 2016, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn who resigned after his sexual attack in a New York hotel in 2011 and was prosecuted (although the case was dropped, a civil claim by the victim, a hotel cleaner, was later settled out of court).
What is it about Washington’s hallowed international financial hallways that makes it so difficult for BWIs bureaucrats to break the pattern of intra-elite corruption? To be sure, the extreme pressure of geopolitics often suffocates financial ethics, for as establishment economist Rudiger Dornbusch remarked in 1998, “The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy offshore,” a problem that won’t go away while Washington both retains veto power over Bank and Fund policies and projects, and props up favoured dictators (see Inside the Institutions, IMF and World Bank decision-making and governance). The recent scandal in which the US exercised its power at the IMF to fast-track a $2 billion loan to Pakistan, in exchange for the latter’s $900 million urgent weapons supply to Ukraine, is only the latest case.
But there is a deeper reason for sustained corruption: Neoliberal ideology.
From North Africa to South Africa, financial deal-making with explicitly-corrupt governments is hard-wired into the Bank and IMF, even while the BRICS’ own ‘alternative’ institution, the New Development Bank, appears to have exactly the same problem in relation to its dozen South African portfolio credits. Additionally, the (still-notional) BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement empowers the IMF because if a country wants to borrow more than 30 per cent of its quota, it must first sign up for a structural adjustment programme – designed at 18th & H Streets NW in Washington DC. The BRICS institutions are not actually alternatives after all, but amplifiers of malgovernance, given the political pressure to conform to both borrower desires – e.g. Vladimir Putincrony capitalism or South African parastatal agencies’ service to the minerals-energy complex – and the inevitable New York credit rating agency squeeze (see ObserverSummer 2020). That, in turn, ironically compelled the New Development Bank to join Western financial sanctions against its own 18 per cent-shareholder in Moscow immediately after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and maintain them even under the 2023 Bank presidency of Putin’s ally, Dilma Rousseff.
Lessons of the Arab Spring Unlearned in Washington
A dozen years ago, IMF and Bank back-scratching patronage appeared on the verge of collapse in North Africa. In 2011, millions of pro-democracy protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria ran up against brutality inflicted by tyrannical, ultra-corrupt regimes. Behind the scenes in each case were World Bank and IMF officials who supported (and often financed) economic injustice, even as austerity put unbearable pressure on society. Most notorious was Strauss-Kahn, who in 2008 was feted by Tunisian tyrant Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The IMF head was given the Order of the Tunisian Republic for his “contribution to the reinforcement of economic development at the global level.” Strauss-Kahn was effusive in return, terming Ben Ali’s economic policy “the best model for many emerging countries….Tunisia is making impressive progress in its reform agenda and its prospects are favorable.”
Codifying Strauss-Kahn’s praise for Ben Ali, two of his economists – Joël Toujas-Bernate and Rina Bhattacharya – enthused in IMF Survey Magazine in 2010 how Tunisia’s dictator had promoted “wide-ranging structural reforms aimed at enhancing its business environment and improving the competitiveness of its economy.” They praised his “prudent macroeconomic management,” an “export promotion strategy,” various free trade agreements and, in finance, moves toward liberalisation that would “transform Tunisia into a banking services hub and a regional financial market.”
In social policy, Toujas-Bernate and Bhattacharya applauded the Tunis authorities for “reforms to labor market policies, the educational system, and public employment services that will serve to facilitate labor mobility and reduce mismatches between demand and supply in the labor market. The implementation of these reforms will be supported by several World Bank Development Policy Loans”. In “reforming the social security system” (i.e. cuts that might “buttress the pension system’s financial sustainability”) and attempting to cut “subsidies of food and fuel products,” Ben Ali won praise for “undertaking reforms to make the tax regime more business friendly” including commitments “to reduce tax rates on businesses and to offset those reductions by increasing the standard Value Added Tax (VAT) rate,” i.e., a profoundly regressive approach to taxation.
The 17 December 2010 suicide-by-immolation of an immensely frustrated informal trader, Mohamed Bouazizi – after his fruit and vegetable stand was confiscated, reflecting Washington’s instructions to squeeze tax receipts from the poor – catalysed the Arab Spring revolt that pushed Ben Ali out just a month later. WikiLeaks revealed how even the US State Department was appalled by the families of Ben Ali and his wife Leila Trabelsi, who controlled half the national economy and who, as Rob Prince put it, were “dominating the IMF-pressured privatisations that have marked the country’s economic transition.” In July 2019, Tunisia’s Truth and Dignity Commission sent memoranda to the World Bank and the IMF, as well as to France, seeking reparations for Tunisian victims of human rights violations, claiming that the IMF and World Bank bear “a share of responsibility” in social unrest linked to structural adjustment policies.
As for Muammar Gaddafi’s reign in Libya, the IMF in October 2010 celebrated the regime for “reducing civil service employment” by a planned 340,000 workers, while recommending “that the retrenchment program be accelerated.” In February 2011, the IMF promoted “an ambitious program to privatize banks” and “commended the authorities for their ambitious reform agenda, and looked forward to the effective implementation of the many important laws passed in the last year, complemented by policies aimed at adapting the labor force to the economic transformation.”
New York Times reporters Pierre Briancon and John Foley observed how, “The fund’s mission to Tripoli had somehow omitted to check whether the ‘ambitious’ reform agenda was based on any kind of popular support. Libya is not an isolated case. And the IMF doesn’t look good after it gave glowing reviews to many of the countries shaken by popular revolts in recent weeks,” including Bahrain, Algeria and Egypt. The Times journalists’ worry was that “the toppling of unpopular regimes will make it difficult for their successors to adopt the same policies. In the future, the IMF might want to add another box to check on its list of criteria: democratic support”.
But because that concept was utterly foreign, neither the IMF nor the Bank seemed to have any idea that promoting neoliberalism in corrupt regimes so openly would generate political instability. A February 2011 World Bank report, Africa’s future and the World Bank’s support to it, claimed that both Tunisia and Libya were ‘low risk’ in a map of “fragile and conflict affected states”, even after Ben Ali was ousted by popular demand and Libya was breaking apart.
And in Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship and military-capitalist regime was borrowing heavily, the IMF’s Article IV Consultation praised Cairo in 2010 for “key fiscal reforms – introducing the property tax, broadening the VAT, and phasing out energy subsidies.” Mubarak’s “fiscal and monetary policies of the past year have been in line with staff’s advice. The authorities remain committed to resuming fiscal consolidation broadly in keeping with past advice to address fiscal vulnerabilities.” There was still need, the IMF argued, for “decisive action” in, “resuming privatisation and increasing the role of carefully structured and appropriately priced Public Private Partnerships.”
From 25 January to 11 February 2011, millions of angry citizens went to the streets and Tahrir Square, forcing Mubarak to resign. He was then repeatedly convicted and jailed for blatant “presidential palaces” embezzlement of state funds, which somehow had gone unnoticed by the IMF and Bank.
But because of counter-revolutionary processes in the subsequent months and years, none of the countries being praised by the IMF and Bank in 2010 witnessed durable democratisation. And while a G8 Deauville Partnership declaration “pledged support for ‘reforms that promote transparency, accountability, and good governance’ in the Arab world,” as leading political scientist Adam Hanieh reported in 2015, the World Bank and IMF “attempted to utilise the post 2011 moment to maintain the essential characteristics of past practice, while employing a language that professes a new course and sympathy with the social justice goals of the uprisings.”
Adherence to neoliberal dogma meant that in the year that democratically-elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi served (2012-2013) before a military coup, the IMF was back to demanding that Cairo drop food and fuel subsidies in exchange for a $4.8 billion loan. Morsi realised if he took such a step it would risk a reboot of the Arab Spring. Even his coup-installed successor, General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi (who in 2018 was later formally elected), received three bailout loans from the IMF. In 2023, the $3 billion requested by the tyrant from the IMF was contingent upon further privatisation and exchange control deregulation.
The story was initially similar in Tunisia, where after Lagarde sweet-talked its new leaders in 2012, IMF conditionality was imposed on loans in 2013 ($1.7 billion) and 2016 ($2.8 billion). But in 2023, as trade unionists opposed the IMF-mandated restructuring of 100 state companies and cuts in social subsidies, the dictatorial President Kais Saied (who in 2021 dissolved parliament and ruled by decree) ultimately rejected another $2 billion IMF bailout due to loss of sovereignty. But Saied’s securocrat regime is appreciated by European Union officials, who doled out generous aid in order to bridge the gap to IMF lending, so as to slow African migrant passage through Tunisia.
South Africa’s Corruption Continues, with More IMF and Bank Funding Than Ever
At the southern end of Africa, the IMF and Bank were extremely generous lenders to the apartheid regime – with proceeds advancing white South African and multinational corporate mining interests – and in 1993, an $850 million Fund loan locked in neoliberal policies that decisively shifted Nelson Mandela’s government away from its 1994 democratic mandate. World Bank economists were crucial in authoring Mandela’s 1996 homegrown structural adjustment programme, as well as biased subsequent research aiming to cover up the resulting inequality, the world’s worst.
In 2010, the Bank’s $3.75 billion Eskom loan for a 4800 MW coal-fired power plant allowed the crucial funding of manufacturer Hitachi’s state-capture of the ruling party, although the Bank’s 2007-2012 President Robert Zoellick was fully aware of that corruption (which was by late 2007 already a scandal) and citizen lobbying against the loan was unprecedented. When Hitachi was successfully prosecuted in 2015 under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bank’s Vice President for Integrity Leonard McCarthy (a controversial South African) illogically claimed that no Bank funds were affected. Moreover, as extreme structural corruption was being unveiled within the South African state – including its fraud-riddled health ministry – the IMF and Bank offered major loans in 2020-2022 ostensibly for Covid-19 relief, drawing protest at the Bank’s Johannesburg office.
Ironically, it was a quarter century ago when the World Bank began regularly fretting over state capture, particularly based on the disastrous Eastern European political transitions. In 2006, then-President Paul Wolfowitz – himself deposed a year later due to malgovernance – gave vocal Bank support to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. And yet, conditions prevailing among some of its most wretched borrowers – especially in Africa – mean that in the course of dogmatically promoting hard neoliberal ‘reforms,’ the Bank and IMF have regularly elided the obvious correlation between state shrinkage and crony empowerment.
At the April 2011 IMF Spring Meetings, during Strauss-Kahn’s last press conference, a journalist asked about the North African uprising: “Do you have any fears that there is perhaps a far left movement coming through these revolutions?” A smug Strauss-Kahn remarked, “Good question. There’s always this risk, but I’m not sure it will materialise.”
Until it does, the system appears impervious to genuine reform.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Patrick Bond, Professor, University of the Western Cape School of Government. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Tunisians demonstrate for peace, freedom of speech and for a secular state ahead of elections for a Constituent Assembly on 23 October 2011, following the Tunisian Revolution. Credit: European Parliament
The original source of this article is Global Research
▪️Wir haben den sogenannten Krieg in der Ukraine nicht begonnen;
▪️Man kann das Gehirn von Millionen von Menschen pudern, aber Sie wissen, was passiert ist: ein natürlicher Krieg im Donbass;
▪️Unsere Gegenparteien im Westen haben ihren Realitätssinn verloren und alle möglichen Grenzen überschritten. Vergeblich;
▪️Die Geschichte des Westens ist eine Chronik endloser Expansion, es ist eine riesige Finanzpyramide;
▪️Wir haben gewarnt, dass dieser Ansatz zu Konflikten führen würde, aber die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre Satelliten haben Kurs auf Hegemonie genommen;
▪️Wir stehen vor der Aufgabe, eine neue Welt aufzubauen;
▪️Dauerhafter Frieden entsteht nur, wenn sich alle sicher fühlen.
„Die Zukunft der Ukraine liegt in der Europäischen Union, in unserer Gemeinschaft der Freiheit“, und «die wird sich bald erstrecken von Lissabon bis Luhansk» ist Außenministerin Baerbock überzeugt. Mit jedem Dorf und jedem Meter, den die Ukraine befreie, ebne sie ihren Weg in die EU, so Baerbock weiter. Ich finde dieses Spiel mit den Hoffnungen der ukrainischen Bevölkerung nur noch zynisch! Der frühere EU-Kommissionschef Jean-Claude Juncker hat leider Recht, wenn er die Ukraine aktuell für „nicht beitrittsfähig“ hält und vor einer raschen Aufnahme in die EU warnt: „Wer mit der Ukraine zu tun gehabt hat, der weiß, dass das ein Land ist, das auf allen Ebenen der Gesellschaft korrupt ist“, so Juncker. Und dieses Land soll nach den Vorstellungen des EU-Ratspräsidenten Charles Michel bereits in sieben Jahren zur EU gehören, wie dieser gestern verkündete? Wie weit will man soziale und rechtsstaatliche Standards denn noch absenken? Der EU «sind die Verbindungen zwischen Oligarchen, hochrangigen Beamten, Politikern, der Justiz und staatseigenen Unternehmen seit Langem bekannt.“ Sie „schaden auch dem Demokratisierungsprozess. Dutzende Milliarden Euro gehen jedes Jahr infolge von Korruption verloren.“ Trotz Bemühungen der EU „untergraben Oligarchen und Interessengruppen nach wie vor die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Ukraine» – so bewertet der Europäische Rechnungshof noch im September 2021 die Situation von Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Ukraine. Dass sich diese Lage nach nunmehr anderthalb Jahren Krieg verbessert haben soll, ist angesichts verbotener Parteien und Fernsehsender wohl kaum zu erwarten. Statt Durchhalteparolen und verantwortungsloser Versprechen braucht die Ukraine endlich Frieden! Statt immer mehr Waffen, die nur dazu führen, dass noch mehr Väter, Söhne und Ehemänner sinnlos ihr Leben an der Front lassen, braucht sie ein Ende des brutalen Stellvertreterkrieges!
Spaltung überwinden statt verschärfen Dass es am 3. Oktober einen «Tag der Deutschen Einheit» gibt, verdanken wir Politikern wie Gorbatschow, die den Kalten Krieg beendet haben und ein «Gemeinsamen Haus Europa» schaffen wollten. Doch das im 2+4-Vertrag verankerte Versprechen einer kollektiven Friedensordnung, in der die Sicherheitsinteressen eines jeden berücksichtigt werden, wurde mit der NATO-Osterweiterung gebrochen und nun erleben wir, wie Europa in einem blutigen Krieg neu geteilt wird und einander feindliche Machtblöcke erneut ein Wettrüsten veranstalten. Wir erleben aber auch eine verschärfte soziale und politische Spaltung: Nicht so sehr zwischen Ost und West — auch wenn die Löhne im Osten nach wie vor geringer, die durchschnittlichen Privatvermögen sehr viel niedriger und soziale Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten eingeschränkter sind als im Westen. Noch stärker wird der soziale Zusammenhalt jedoch bedroht durch die wachsende Kluft zwischen oben und unten bzw. durch den Konflikt zwischen einer abgehobenen grünenaffinen Meinungselite auf der einen Seite, die die Inflation nach oben treibt, soziale Probleme ignoriert und nichts gegen unkontrollierte Zuwanderung unternehmen will, und der Bevölkerungsmehrheit auf der anderen. Im Osten prallen die Gegensätze zwischen grüner Minderheitenpolitik und den Positionen der Mehrheit auch deshalb noch härter aufeinander, weil dort viele Bürger aufgrund ihrer DDR-Erfahrung besonders empfindlich reagieren, wenn ihnen heute gesagt wird, wie sie zu reden, zu heizen, was sie zu essen und welches Auto sie zu fahren haben. Die Grünen stehen wie keine andere Partei für eine Übergriffigkeit, die nicht wenige Ostdeutsche an die DDR erinnern dürfte. Und was vielleicht noch schlimmer ist: Sie stehen inzwischen für eine vollständige Abkehr von jeglicher Entspannungspolitik und treiben damit die Spaltung und den Niedergang Europas voran. Es gibt aber keinen Weg als den zurück zur Entspannungspolitik, wenn wir wieder Frieden in Europa schaffen und politische und soziale Spaltungen überwinden wollen.
Für eine faire Leistungsgesellschaft «Mein Ideal ist eine faire Leistungsgesellschaft, in der der Wohlstand vom persönlichen Fleiß und der eigenen Anstrengung abhängt und nicht von der sozialen Herkunft.»Im Interview mit der Stuttgarter Zeitung, das leider hinter einer Bezahlschranke ist, spreche ich über das Totalversagen der Ampel, über politische Veränderungen, die ich erreichen will, warum der Erfolg einer neuen Partei davon abhängen wird, ob es gelingt, Spinner und Extremisten draußen zu halten, und warum wir natürlich auch regieren wollen, wenn wir eine Partei gründen, denn wir wollen ja die Politik verändern.
When writing of the evils of globalisation, many authors focus on the commercial aspects such as privatisation, with other primarily political components such as the loss of national sovereignty, the destruction of cultures and civilisations and of the family, morality and societies, being perhaps not ignored but not seen or included as integral parts of the same picture. It doesn’t appear widely recognised that one fundamental pillar of globalisation, of our imminent New World Order in fact, is an astonishingly vigorous and vicious attempt to eliminate not only the world’s surplus poor but to depopulate the entire non-white world.This essay is an introduction to the origins of depopulation.
Emma Goldman
Emma Goldman was a Jewish Communist Bolshevik, anarchist, escapee from an insane asylum, conspirator to violence and murder, trouble-maker and nymphomaniac, and not necessarily in that order. From her teen-age days, Goldman studied the Bolshevik anarchists, leading her imagination to images of a social order with freedom of action unrestricted by man-made law. Goldman quickly came to support politically motivated murder and violent revolution, and the assassinations of politically significant individuals, as a tool for social change. She became a firm proponent of violence whenever words failed to do the job, an attitude some historians describe as ‘propaganda of the deed’, i.e. if they won’t listen to us, we will kill them. According to the Jewish Womens’ Website, “Desiring a state of absolute freedom and believing it would never come about through gradual reform, Goldman and her comrades advocated complete destruction of the State.”[1]
Goldman emigrated from Russia as a teen-ager and soon began promulgating various models of society based primarily on the two pillars of political anarchy and promiscuous sex. Her widespread and excessively vocal promotion of these ideals earned Goldman the label of being one of the two most dangerous anarchists in America. However, the same Jewish womens’ website tells us her insistence on “the right to express herself” – primarily through sexual promiscuity, abortion and murder – led her to become a prominent figure in “establishing freedom of speech in America.” A definition of free speech rather at odds with mine. This same Jewish Womens’ website contained its article on Emma Goldman under the banner of “Women of Valor”.[2] No idea why, but that’s how history is spun.
Various apologists have reported that Goldman and her lover Berkman (a kind of political Bonnie and Clyde) were “horrified by violence”, as in the suppression of striking workers. Our dynamic duo responded as would any rational horrified-by-violence beings – they decided to kill the person responsible for the anti-labor violence, then-US President William McKinley.[3][4] The police were never able to link Goldman directly to McKinley’s murder, though the assassin had frequently met with her and claimed to have acted under her instructions. It wasn’t only a US President who was targeted by Goldman and her group. They attempted to kill several other public figures, their plan to bomb John D. Rockefeller’s mansion in New York City failing only because the bomb exploded prematurely, killing a dozen or so anarchists while destroying much of Goldman’s home in the process. One of Goldman’s anarchists named Carlo Valdinoci blew up the front of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s home in Washington, D.C., also blowing himself up in the process when the bomb exploded too early.[5] And some other good tries.[6][7]
Goldman eventually had her citizenship revoked and was deported back to Russia, spending the rest of her life in exile and dying in Canada, alone, poor and friendless, claiming there was “no one who cares whether one is dead or alive”. Nevertheless, one Goldman supporter claimed (though without evidence) that “Thousands of mourners flocked to see her casket, and tributes poured in from every corner of the world.” However, my research suggests that the few mourners actually in attendance were there only to be sure she was really dead, and the only tribute I’m aware of was by the New York Times. As a kind of obituary, the Jewish Womens’ Organisation claims Goldman’s “advocacy of … sexual freedom helped to shape modern American society”, while failing to note that America’s resulting new shape was not necessarily a blessing. The same Goldman-lovers stated her work contributed not only to the development of free speech in America, but showed “the true meaning of patriotism”. No idea how.
Before Goldman died, supporter Peggy Guggenheim and a few friends raised $4,000 for her to get a small cottage in Saint-Tropez on the Cote d’Azur in France, where she spent two years writing her autobiography, imaginatively titled “Living My Life”, which was published in 1931. On this book, A PBS writer made the following observation: “On its publication, The New York Times advised readers “to pay less attention to Goldman’s politics and to read the book as a human document of the most absorbing interest.” Not everyone agreed. One prominent critic attacked the memoir as a “thousand dull pages of fornication and fanaticism”.”[8]
It isn’t only the Jewish Womens’ Website and the New York Times who are busy sanitising and Photoshopping. Wikipedia doesn’t want to be left out of this whitewashing parade, informing us solemnly that Emma Goldman “was an important contributor to several fields of modern political philosophy”, leaving our imaginations to identify those fields and deduce her contribution. Referring to one occasion when a group of her political anarchist colleagues attacked Goldman for her rampant sexual promiscuity, Wikipedia’s deliciously sanitising understatement was that “she was chided by an associate for her carefree demeanor”.[9]
From her relations with her Jewish Bolshevik friends, Goldman’s actual purpose was to foment a Communist revolution in the US, following the pattern these people had laid with their revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Germany, and other countries. But, in the end, Goldman didn’t accomplish as much anarchy as she might have done, mostly because she discovered she was more interested in sex than politics. “I demand the independence of woman, to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases.” And as many at the same time as she pleases; Goldman had a reputation for especially enjoying sex in groups of her anarchist colleagues. Our Jewish womens’ website tells us Goldman was a tireless advocate for the “emancipation” of women, but that’s not exactly how it was. “Viewing marriage through a lens of repressive prostitution”, her emancipation of women focused on their “freedom”, i.e., sexual and reproductive freedom, i.e., rampant and promiscuous sex, individually, serially, and simultaneously, followed by free abortions as a post-hoc birth control method. Emma didn’t hesitate to raise funds for her anarchist activities by working the streets as a prostitute, her husband’s parents considering her so morally destitute, they refused to permit her into their home.
Interestingly, Goldman did not want true emancipation for women, not for voting or political rights, nor even for employment or professional careers, or the ownership of property. To Goldman, the entire concept of freedom, independence, emancipation, womens’ rights, was just a red ribbon wrapping the core issue of sexual promiscuity. Her interest in the emancipation of women was mostly personal, stemming from her own experience of reckless sex, repeated pregnancies, and the repeated need for abortions – which were dangerous and illegal in those days. And thus is woman emancipated. Goldman believed women should enter and leave sexual relationships without restraint, promiscuous sexuality being “crucial to personal and professional fulfillment”, and thus she engaged in “numerous passionate affairs throughout her life”.
As testimony, she wrote to one lover who apparently left her “overwhelmed with sexuality”. “You have opened up the prison gates of my womanhood. All the passion that was unsatisfied in me for so many years, leaped into a wild reckless storm boundless as the sea.”[10][11] And who said communists don’t know how to have fun. The reason I have dwelt on this latter point is that while Goldman left no heritage of value to anarchists, failed miserably as a revolutionary, and surely made no contribution to modern political philosophy, her “carefree demeanor” left an indelible mark on the world since, as fate would have it, who should walk into this veritable Garden of Earthly Delights but a young woman named Margaret Sanger.
Margaret Sanger
Unlike Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger was not a Bolshevik, nor a conspirator to violence or political murder. However, like Goldman, she was an anarchist, an escapee from an insane asylum, a trouble-maker and a nymphomaniac and, like Goldman, not necessarily in that order. The history books seem a bit thin on the original relationship between these two women, but indications are that Goldman’s “carefree demeanor” stoked Sanger’s fires of passion and “opened the gates” of her womanhood, both deeply sharing the common need for contraception in whatever form, and quite possibly sharing considerably more. Goldman’s only apparent contribution to Sanger’s career was in awakening her nymphomania though, as we shall see, that was more than nothing. Having thus established what we might call mutual bonds of fertility, Goldman provided “aggressive support” for Sanger’s sexual and contraceptive crusades, both women being arrested for dissemination of lewd material but both escaping conviction for the behavior underlying that material. Goldman even conducted nationwide speaking tours on Sanger’s behalf, raising awareness of contraception and only heaven knows what else.
Like Goldman, Sanger’s zeal for birth control was in no small part due to her sexually promiscuous lifestyle.[12][13] By the time of her meeting with Goldman she had been having numerous affairs, calling the marriage bed “the most degenerating influence in the social order”, fervently devoting her rampant sexual conduct to regenerating that order. Given her surprised husband’s objections, the two soon separated, her ‘socially regenerating’ conduct then accelerating markedly and drawing considerable public attention. At the same time, and perhaps resulting from the same stoked passions, Sanger began publishing newsletters and distributing sexual materials that were clearly illegal, resulting in her arrest on charges that would most likely have led to a prison sentence of about 45 years.
Discretion being the better part of valor, the day prior to her trial Sanger dumped her children onto her estranged husband and fled to England where fate would intervene yet one more time. Upon arrival in England, Sanger met some men who would inadvertently provide her with the tools that would (unfortunately) change history forever. The record isn’t completely clear on where her relationships began, but the sexologist Havelock Ellis[14], H. G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw were there, as were perhaps most members of their new Fabian Debating Society.
Wells certainly had a passionate affair with her, and Sanger definitely took the initiative with Ellis, these two quite likely passing her around the debating society after that. One writer noted that Wells and Ellis were only part of “a huge stable of men” with which Sanger had affairs. Ellis’ theories on female sexuality helped Sanger to “broaden her perspective” on women fully enjoying sexual relations, though she already appeared to have few or no inhibitions in that regard. However, Ellis in particular expanded her justifications for birth control in more ways than one.
Perhaps the most significant factor of Sanger’s European exile was that the society of these men consisted of radicals, feminists and, most importantly, a veritable flock of Neo-Malthusians who educated Sanger to the dire threat of excess world population and thus greatly refining her sexual rationale. Sanger traded copious free love and information on contraception needs, receiving in return an education of incomparable value. Prior to this time, neither Goldman nor Sanger achieved much traction with their contraception promotions, at least not in a broad public sense, because their efforts were seen realistically as a cover for their own personal proclivities, and which promised benefit only to the poor – who were of little or no interest to anyone. But now Sanger’s mission had suddenly gained an intellectual substructure, a kind of respectable philosophical scaffolding on which she could promote her views. She was now primed to return to the US to promote the entire genocidal gamut of eugenics, contraception, abortion and euthanasia, not for her narrow personal interests but for the purpose of saving humanity from itself.
At the time, abortion was not at all favorably viewed, much less as a casual method of birth control, and was illegal. But here we are, back in the USA, our two little nymphomaniacs lacking the “family planning” services of the not-yet-invented WHO and USAID, yet badly needing regular abortions. What do we do, if we want to carry out an enterprise that is both illegal and highly immoral by the standards of the day, where normal execution would put us into prison and earn widespread moral condemnation? Well, we wrap our intent in a cloak of freedom and human rights, then imprint a biblical bar-code onto it and present it as an enterprise of immense humanitarian value, our actions performed in humility and self-sacrifice for the benefit of the world.
And thus was born Planned Parenthood[15], presented not as birth control for reckless nymphomaniacs, and only secondarily as the “freedom of women to choose”, without exactly specifying what it was they were choosing; the primary thrust was now overpopulation and the desperate need to limit, cull, and otherwise exterminate the world’s surplus poor. Now, Sanger would get everyone’s attention, at least those of the elite who were all Malthusians at heart. Of course, the general population would also get the message but that didn’t really matter because the elite provided the funding and the general population were the target.
And it was then, on her return to the US after her brief European exile, that Margaret Sanger hoisted her true colors and proved that she really was an escapee from an insane asylum. The first thing Sanger did was to get herself remarried, this time to a man named J. Noah H. Slee, a Jewish millionaire owner of a petroleum products company. The historical record tells us Margaret kept the name of her first husband – Sanger – and that after marrying Mr. Slee, she “maintained her sexual independence”. Use your imagination. This was curious because, as you will see, Margaret’s promotional and fund-raising activities cut a wide swath through the bedrooms and office couches of industrialists, bankers, financiers, sponsors of every description, virtually all men, and with whom, by all accounts, Margaret laid the table with more than information. And for 20 years, until he died, Mr. Slee financed her activities, apparently without complaint.
Sanger’s unique combination of atheism, Marxism, Malthusianism, uninhibited sexuality, a contempt for religion, especially Christianity, and an inherent racism that must have always been present, conspired to make her not only offensive but positively evil. Her motives no longer related to liberating women but to eugenics, having somehow reached the philosophical position that through rampant and unrestrained sexuality, followed closely by contraception, abortion, sterilisation and euthanasia, her mission was to assist the human race in the progressive elimination of itself, or at least of that portion her idolising adherent Bill Gates would later determine unfit to live.
At the same time as her sexual promiscuity increased by an order of magnitude, she abandoned morals and ethics, developed a love of vulgarity and a general bad taste, a needless and often counterproductive aggression, and an altogether unwarranted enthusiasm for exterminating people. Upon her return to the US and flying her new colors, Sanger praised Nazi Germany’s sterilisation policies, became violently anti-family and deeply racist to the extent of claiming blacks should not be permitted to contaminate the white gene pool. She also became virulently anti-Christian, claiming in a news article that she enjoyed promoting birth control because it was “calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Church”.
At first, Sanger avoided promoting euthanasia, writing that the community should not send defective progeny to the gas chambers, but soon thereafter (in the same book) rather harshly stating that all charity should cease because it served only to prolong the lives of the unfit and that society required “the elimination of human weeds”.[16]Her views on abortion similarly changed, to the point where she and her organisation were actively sponsoring abortion rights.
At this point, it appears Sanger was insane, though Planned Parenthood try very hard to bury the insanities by claiming “We can’t know what Margaret really meant to say, because she’s dead.” Well, yes we can know what she meant. Her words have the same meaning today they did then. For one, the least nasty part of the new Margaret was that she endorsed selective breeding to produce perfect humans, as she claimed in an article titled, “Birth Control to Create a Race of Thoroughbreds”, longing for a motherhood that would refuse “to bring forth weaklings”, pushing for “more children from the fit, less from the unfit”, those unfit representing “the greatest present menace to civilization”. In one book, Sanger wrote that parents of a defective child should be permitted no more children, and that “Birth control … is nothing more or less than the … weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” In the same book, she deplored multi-child families and wrote, “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society … The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”[17] When reviewing the historical record, it is exceedingly difficult to see why Planned Parenthood, the Jewish Womens’ Society, Bill Gates, or indeed anyone else, would venerate this woman.
Sanger was promoting the use of what she called “birth control” to exterminate the genetically inferior races, which to her meant most of the non-white world. She stated that Jews!, Hispanics, and blacks were “human weeds” who, if they reproduced, “would bring a dead weight of human waste into the world”. She had a stated goal of the extermination of all blacks in the US, and dehumanised the poor as “parasites”, “defectives” and “mistakes”. Sanger wrote, “The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.”[18]In a perfect expression of irony, we might well express those identical sentiments about Margaret herself, though history tells us even the police were sometimes insufficient to suppress Margaret’s carefree demeanor.
In another book, Sanger wrote, “[Eugenics] shows that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” She continued that “Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.”[19] In a widely-promoted public address, Sanger promoted the elimination of entire classes of people, stating that society must “Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class”.[20]
Sanger also proposed that the poor, the “morons and immoral”, and other “inferior types” be placed in concentration camps where they could be re-educated to what she called “better moral conduct”, i.e., have plenty of abortions. She went on to write, “I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty-stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” She wrote, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit … Eugenics without Birth Control [is] a house builded upon the sands.” She was especially harsh on blacks: “The mass of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit”, stating elsewhere that her intent was to exterminate all the blacks in America but hoped that intent would not be discovered by them until it was too late.[21]
The New York Times didn’t like this version of the truth, so the Editors created their own history of Margaret Sanger. In an obituary for Sanger, “Special to the New York Times”, they wrote that Sanger merely “sought to create equality between the sexes by freeing women”.[22] Perhaps I’m slow, but if I understand correctly, the NYT Editors are telling us that (a) killing off all the blacks will make women free, and (b) that aborting all the fetuses in America will make women and men equal. The NYT also informed us that Margaret merely strove to present “her view that family planning is a basic human right”. However, the Editors neglected to contemplate the ‘basic human right’ of all us defectives to live our lives without Margaret’s help. This is an appropriate place to note that the NYT has published glowing obituaries of nearly every human monster in the past 100 years, almost without exception so far as I can tell, perhaps related to the fact that almost all those individuals were Jewish.
They noted Sanger’s “unfailing charm and persuasive wit”, specifying that “Many a policeman escorting her to the station had his ears wilted by Irish invective”, failing to mention this is representative not of charm and wit, but of a foul mouth. And her good friend and Planned Parenthood colleague, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, apparently oblivious to the above, claimed Sanger “convinced America and the world that … conception is a basic human right”. Here again, if conception is a basic human right, why is Guttmacher so determined to make me abort all my unborn children. Perhaps conception and birth are different rights. Guttmacher neglected to mention that avoiding sterilisation and euthanasia, i.e., the right to live, is perhaps even a more basic human right. And if all this weren’t enough, the elite declared Sanger “humanist of the year”, and gave her an award for making “the most conspicuous contribution to the enrichment of life”, without specifying exactly whose lives had been enriched. Or how.
Nevertheless, there was a recent news item that Planned Parenthood, at least in New York, is deleting Sanger’s name from the masthead, due to her finally-coming-to-light views on euthanasia for all us defectives.[23]
A Step Back Into the Past
Before we proceed to discover where this sexually-inspired eugenicide leads, let’s look back into the past for a moment and find its origin. The process began in England with primarily four men: Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton.
In about 1800, UK economist Thomas Malthus published his First Essay on Population,[24] frightening British society with the prospect that food production could never be sufficient to supply a population that would always increase at a faster rate, leaving some portion of society perpetually unfed. He theorised that nature itself managed and executed restrictions on excess population growth, equalising food with population by means of war, pestilence and famine. In his construct, it was the poor (and generally all non-whites) who had been “ordained by nature” to bear the weight of these necessary occasional but recurring genocidal ravages, their inescapable lot in life by virtue of their misfortune to be born in poverty, and further that these impecunious unfortunates had neither the ability to rise above their position nor the resources to do so even were they to have the ability. Malthus essentially separated his world into two new and hitherto undefined races of people: the superior rich and the inferior poor. Then, deriving from the inviolability and ruthlessness of nature’s laws, he claimed it was a counterproductive and even dangerous challenge to nature’s power to feed or otherwise assist the poor, since an improvement in their physical circumstances would result in increased breeding which would then be countered with an increasing harshness when nature found it necessary to rein in that excess population growth. Defiance of nature will inevitably lead to retaliation.
Malthus actually became quite sinister in his recommendations, stating that nature should not be thwarted but rather aided in its task of culling the world’s surplus poor. In his words, “We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.” Malthus recommended encouraging overcrowding and uncleanliness to promote infectious diseases and cause the return of the plague. And above all, he stated we should prohibit medical remedies for their diseases, letting smallpox for instance totally ravage the poor districts and villages without raising a hand to help. This was their just dessert, based on their natural inferiority from a lack of cash.
It may not be widely known, but it was the adoption of Malthus’ theories and policies that led directly to the deliberate starvation of countless millions in Ireland and in India. Moreover, it was the scare from Malthus’ theories that prompted China to implement its former one-child policy, but I would note that the (Jewish) Westerners who pushed China so hard in this direction are precisely the same people today condemning China for having listened to them.
The rich, the elite, the landed gentry, were naturally thrilled to learn of this revelation, to receive scientific validation of their secretly-held belief in their own superiority, in fact to have their always-suspected but now proven natural excellence engraved on stone tablets in the shrine of humanity. They were equally thrilled to be provided with a powerful motive, courtesy of nature and the laws of the universe, to feel no further obligation to assist the poor. Philanthropy was dead. Charity was not only a foolish waste of money but an unwarranted act of defiance against nature itself, one which would bring a harsh retribution against the same objects of that charity. So much good news from one man. Malthus naturally gained a grateful following among the nation’s elite, and in the process created an entirely new and altogether unpleasant economic racism, one much better than the ethnic kind in that in one fell swoop it disposed of perhaps 80% of the population as candidates for culling by the dictates of Mother Nature herself.
At about the same time, Charles Darwin pronounced his new theory of evolution, or what he termed “natural selection” – simply stated, that organisms and beings change, mutate and adapt through time, and those mutations which assist organisms in adapting to their environment, will persist while others die out. Equally, the organisms containing those favorable mutations will tend to survive because they will be better adapted, not so stressed by their environment. Darwin’s scientific and essentially sound theory was then used by Herbert Spencer to concoct a “scientific” basis for Malthus’ anti-human racism, producing in the process what we now call “Social Darwinism”.
Spencer combined Malthus’ theory that the poor existed as a lesser race of human and Darwin’s theory that those who best adapt will best survive, into the proposition that over the millennia some elements of humanity had proven not only more mutable but had intelligently selected the most propitious mutations, and therefore emerged as the elite and rich upper class of society. By virtue of Darwin’s natural selection and their survival of the fittest, the monied elite were revealed to be not only economically and scientifically but now also genetically superior to the poor classes.
Following on Spencer’s heels, Francis Galton provided a further boost to this enticing view of humanity by proclaiming newly-discovered scientific evidence that Darwin’s process of natural selection had indeed resulted in an evolution of the poor, in this case the evolution being retrogressive and downward, and that Mother Nature herself had indeed rendered the poor as inferior and worthless, an evolutionary process perhaps still incomplete. Galton further distinguished himself as a scientist by realising that, just as with plants or animals, the cross-breeding and inbreeding of desirable human traits could serve to assist nature in producing an even more superior product. Galton thus created what today we call eugenics, which he loosely defined as “the science of improving stock by judicious mating”.
Spencer was similarly inclined as Malthus in terms of helping the poor because charity defied “the natural truths of biology” and served only as an “artificial preservation of those least able to take care of themselves”, as we might think of the continuous financing of a bankrupt company, this artificial assistance serving only to prolong suffering and preventing rebirth. In his view, just as nature weeds out the unfit, society must also permit them to die off so as to maintain the health of the remaining elite. In his view, humanity was in the process of evolving, with nature herself protecting those who had money and killing off those who didn’t. Galton, for his part, was distressed by the possibility of the lower classes hampering the natural evolution toward riches of the elite and, since he viewed these things in genetic terms, he viewed the poor as enemies of the state and was one of the first advocates of forcible sterilisation of all but the elite. Both men saw eugenics as an assist to nature, preventing births that were doomed to expire prematurely in any case, and secondarily to improve the human livestock with wholesome breeding practices – in other words, mating money with money.
In his book, Allan Chase wrote so appropriately: “Where Spencer offered ‘revolutionary’ rationales for low wages and subhuman working and living conditions, Galton offered the ‘hereditary’ reasons in the Natural Laws of biology for not wasting sympathy, money, education, and, above all else, health care on biologically low-class types who were destined by the Will of God and/or Nature to be nothing but drains on society and a rapidly proliferating population of hereditary paupers, thieves and parasites.”[25]
Steven Mosher wrote in a delightful, informative, and well-researched article that the British upper class “helped to ensure that their founder’s Essay on Population was a commercial success, appearing in no fewer than six editions from 1798 to 1826. Population horror stories have sold well ever since. Lifespan lengthened and general health improved throughout the nineteenth century, but Charles Darwin gave the Malthusians something new to brood over. Not only were the poor too prolific, but by having all those children – most of whom, to make matters worse, now survived childhood – they were rapidly dumbing down the population. For the prosperous and privileged, who found themselves increasingly outnumbered by the great unwashed, this was the “survival of the fittest” in reverse.”[26]
It is fair to say that the economic racism of Malthus intertwined with Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection left the poor in an unenviable position, but then Spencer and Galton took these building blocks and further merged the nation’s traditional ethnic racism with their version of scientific racism, leaving the world’s white elite with a comfortable certitude that not only the poor but virtually all non-white populations were inherently, scientifically, genetically and morally inferior to them. Such happy epiphanies are rare indeed, so it can’t be a surprise that Spencer’s Social Darwinism and Galton’s eugenics combined forces and swept through the elite of the Anglo-Saxon world with approximately the same unsatisfied boundless passion as Emma Goldman’s sexuality.
Still, we can be surprised at the virulence with which this deplorable philosophy infected the Western white man, and more especially the unconscionable extent to which the Americans mis-applied it and the despicable political and military applications they found for it, applications in full force today. I suppose one other surprise was the contribution of this philosophy to further plumbing the hitherto still-unimagined depths of American racism and contempt for humanity, the original ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Galton still pervading America today. For a better appreciation of the depth of American Darwinist ideology, here is South Carolina’s Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, explaining why it is wrong for the US government to provide food assistance to the poor, and why he would fight against any such legislation:
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person an ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”[27]
Another bright star in the democratic nebula, this one US Congressman Don Young from Alaska, said the solution to the homeless poor was wolves, because they were predators, and that if he could introduce wolves to America’s communities, “you wouldn’t have a homeless problem anymore”.[28] I want to write something here, but I can’t think of anything to say.
Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar, proposed forced abortions and compulsory sterilisation, as well as the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would forcibly control severely-reduced human population levels worldwide.[29] Holdren denies this when he can, but in a textbook he co-wrote in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, this was precisely what he said. If I recall the details correctly, he also mentioned plans toimplant sterilising capsules in people when they reach puberty, and the spiking of water reserves with sterilising chemicals. Being a true Malthusian, Holdren based his theories entirely on the claims that the world’s food supply would always be insufficient, claims repeatedly proven over two centuries to be complete rubbish.
Certainly it was true that the elite in the early part of the last century, as is still true today, had no love whatever for humans or humanity, people like J. P. Morgan, Harriman, Hill, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Baruch, Vanderbilt, Warburg, Bush, Astor, Monsanto, Duke, Scaife, Lasker, Sulzberger, DuPont, and our usual collection of European Jewish banking families, believing and acting as if 95% of humans were infesting vermin who were tolerable only to the extent they could add to one’s wealth, those frustrating this ambition generally receiving contempt and bullets in more or less equal amount. And it was these same individuals, most especially Rockefeller and Carnegie, who were smitten heart and soul with the new ‘science’ of eugenics, and in fact with euthanasia as well. It was Carnegie (or his institute) that recommended locally-operated gas chambers to exterminate the lower classes. It was truly a monstrous philosophy that became exceedingly dangerous when put into action by men of enormous wealth and influence, because almost no one had the power to contradict or obstruct them. The result was that within a few years, in the first decade of the last century, legalised and legislated forcible sterilisations were already occurring, and culminating in at least countless hundreds of thousands and not the few thousand listed in the history books. At first, those who might have been considered criminals, idiots, imbeciles, rapists, the infirm, the institutionalised, were being sterilised against their will. Then, everybody else.
The above essay describes only the beginning of an enormous worldwide program of depopulating the earth, a real and frightening genocide on a global scale that is in silent execution today, an apparently unrecognised but integral part of globalisation. It led not only to the vast program of eugenics taught in American universities, the forcible sterilisations the Carnegie Institute’s gas chambers. It led directly to Henry Kissinger’s US National Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), a viciously aggressive plan to prevent, at apparently almost any cost, the populations of non-Western countries from having children.[30][31][32]
It led to USAID and Reimert Ravenholt sterilising at least 100 million unwitting women, killing tens of millions in the process. It led to hundreds of thousands of American women being rendered permanently sterile and millions of sterilities and deaths in undeveloped countries, from the Dalkon Shield. It led to Robert McNamara’s Project 100,000, where about 500,000 low-IQ individuals were conscripted into the US army and sent to Vietnam, few returning.[33] It led to the WHO using tetanus and polio vaccinations produced by Rothschild’s Sanofi-Connaught laboratories seeded with the female hormone hCg supplied by the US CDC, to surreptitiously sterilise perhaps 150 million women in developing nations without their knowledge and certainly against their will.[34]It became part of the US Biological Weapons program, much evidence suggesting SARS, MERS, and perhaps AIDS were created for this purpose, part of the World Bank’s “private department” with persistent house of horrors rumors. It led to the Zika Virus with Oxitec’s GM “Terminator” Mosquitoes[35], and so much more. If you don’t know the story of ZIKA or of the WHO hCg anti-fertility vaccinations, I urge you in the strongest terms to read these articles.
In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created a GM contraceptive corn, having discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. Their researchers isolated the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies and inserted them into corn plants, creating horticultural factories that make contraceptives.[36][37][38][39] Shortly after the 2001 Epicyte press release, all discussion of the breakthrough vanished. The company was taken over by Biolex and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of spermicidal corn. Epicyte, DuPont and Syngenta (sponsors of the Svalbard Seed Vault) had a joint venture to share and use this technology. Silvia Ribeiro, of the NGO ETC Group, warned in a column in the Mexican daily La Jornada, that “The potential of spermicidal corn as a biological weapon is very high”, and reminisced about the use of forced sterilizations against indigenous peoples.
This is the reason seed companies are suddenly promoting the use of cotton seeds as a primary foodstuff for underdeveloped countries. Cotton seeds are toxic, containing a chemical called gossypol which is an effective male sterilant.[40] The seed companies claim to have removed this toxin to a safe level, but there is no safe level for gossypol. Even very minute doses taken repeatedly (as when used for a basic food) will render an entire male population sterile.[41][42] What the Rothschilds and Sanofi, Bill Gates, the WHO, the World Bank, USAID and UNICEF do for the female populations, the seed companies will do for the male portion. If they have their way, much of the world may one day be uninhabited.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
This document may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
The Jews over the centuries have executed numerous atrocities and crimes against various peoples and sovereign nations. Aside from the wars and revolutions, they have launched numerous food embargoes, economic embargoes, instigated brutal economic recessions, and many other such. This essay covers one such event that has been totally buried by history, by Jewish authors, by Jewish book publishers, the Jewish-owned mainstream media, and buried so well that perhaps only a few people of a million are even aware of its existence. Yet this is one of the more savage attempts at Jewish control of a nation, and has been described as “the singular event that sparked what became World War II.” This event was the 1933 Jewish worldwide economic war on Germany, one that occurred long before there was any such thing as sanctions or reprisals of any kind against Jews in Germany.
“Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained “free” inside Germany – albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges – prior to the outbreak of World War II. Yet, a little-known fact is that before the war began, the leadership of the world Jewish community formally declared war on Germany – above and beyond the ongoing six-year-long economic boycott launched by the worldwide Jewish community when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933. As a consequence of the formal declaration of war, the German authorities thus deemed Jews to be potential enemy agents. “Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the “New Germany”. To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany.”[2]
The background of this event was that Hitler – who was only a member of a coalition and by no means the “leader” of Germany at the time – fully recognised that the bulk of the troubles confronting Germany had been caused by the Jews. Among these were the instigation of WW1 against Germany, Germany’s defeat in WW1 by the conscription of the US into the war, and the brutal and unconscionable provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler fully recognised that Germany’s hyperinflation and the accompanying severe depression were entirely instigated by Jewish bankers to plunder Germany. At the time, Germany’s economy was in shambles, with a very high unemployment rate and little hope for any sort of reconstruction, primarily because the Jews (Rothschild) owned Germany’s central bank and controlled the currency and much of the economy and were much more interested in looting the country than in rebuilding it. In recognition of this, Hitler took some remarkable steps. He killed the Jewish privately-owned central bank, evicted all Jews from the national banking system, evicted all Jews from high government positions, and effectively removed them from any positions where they could continue to do harm to Germany and to prevent its resurrection as a sovereign state. The historical record of Hitler’s subsequent “economic miracle” in Germany is legend and information is easily available. Within only three years after removing Rothschild and the Jews from the banking system and taking control of banking and the currency, Germany was at full employment and the economy was humming again. Hitler’s economic measures were so successful that Roosevelt wanted very badly to copy his formula.
Even more, the US generally was so impressed with Hitler’s economic miracle that Time Magazine named him “Man of the Year”. Of course, Time has since learned its lesson and covers this with an astonishingly hateful diatribe of the same man they so highly honored, telling us now that “”He Continues to Live as a Symbol of Evil“[3]. And of course, Snopes (another Jewish Hasbara troll) “fact-checked” this[4], and tells us that it is a totally false assumption that “Time’s “Man of the Year” designations were intended to signify greatness and approval, and were assigned only to people who had beneficial effects on the world. Snopes tells us further that “Time’s standard for the title has been identifying the person who has “had the greatest impact on the news,” regardless of whether that impact was positive or negative” But that stance constitutes unforgivable dishonesty; Time’s “Man of the Year” was an enormous honor for an outstanding person. And, to round out Snopes series of Jewish lies on the matter, they tell us that in the very same 1938 issue where Hitler was named Time’s “Man of the Year”, Hitler was described as the “greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.” I think this is a good time to abandon any delusions we might hold about independent or honest fact-checking.
Naturally, the Jews objected to their removal from the corridors of power. They held a more or less immediate international conference on Germany, after which they presented Hitler with basically two demands: One was the re-installation of Rothschild’s privately-owned central bank, and the other was the reinstatement of all Jews evicted from their positions of political or other power. Hitler flatly refused, and the worldwide boycott of Germany was the result.
This was a much greater and more sinister enterprise than is generally appreciated, even by those who are aware of the basics. At the time, Germany was able to produce only enough food for about 70% of its population, which meant the country had to import vast amounts of food on a regular basis. And this of course necessitated foreign exchange – foreign currencies for the purchases. The Jewish Economic Boycott was fundamentally directed against German exports, on the basis that if the country’s exports plummeted, the Germans would have no foreign exchange to pay for food imports, and thus perhaps 30% of Germans would slowly starve to death. And that was the plan: make no mistake about this. The intention was to starve to death a huge percentage of the population of Germany. The Jews didn’t publish this intent in the mainstream media, but it was published in lesser journals and it was widely-discussed and understood that this would be the result. And I would argue that it would be totally irrelevant and disingenuous to argue the Jews had no such intentions because, whatever their actual intent, this would be the inevitable result. If Germany’s exports collapsed, the country would be unable to purchase foodstuffs and much of the population would slowly starve to death. No other outcome was possible. Again, make no mistake: this was the intent, and let’s not delude ourselves into believing or thinking the Jews weren’t aware of this outcome. I have written many times before, that it is always a serious mistake in foreign affairs to assume that people don’t know what they are doing.
A photo print of the London Daily Express, headlining the Jews’ economic war on Germany and promoting a worldwide boycott of German goods.
At the time, many large and small retailers (in many countries) were Jewish, most of the large wholesalers were owned by Jews as were most of the large importers and a majority of the ships or shipping lines. The plan was that no Jewish company of any kind (nor any Gentile company over whom the Jews could exercise banking or other leverage) would deal in any German goods of any kind. Moreover, Jews and Jewish-owned banks would refuse to finance any part of the movement of German goods, and Jewish insurance companies would refuse to insure either the goods or the vessels carrying them. Brokers would refuse to trade in shares of German companies. Also, a great amount of the shipping capacity of the time was owned by Jews, and no Jewish ship would carry German goods. Where the Jews didn’t own or control the companies, they would exercise much leverage and pressure on banking and finance, on advertising, on transport, and virtually force Gentile companies to submit to their wishes, much as they do today with “sanctions” and other pressures. The embargo was to be worldwide, and total. Many ads were placed by Jews in media publications, whether Jewish-owned or not, imploring all citizens of every nation to totally boycott all German goods. The justification was presented as cruelty being inflicted on Jews in Germany, when in fact no such thing was occurring. The entire justification for the boycott was founded on lies. It was further presented as retaliation against “Nazi Germany” when “Nazi” had no part whatever to play in this charade, but this was the foundation for all the media stories of the time on this matter.
“According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read “Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.” The article described a forthcoming “holy war” and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:
“The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers. The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people. The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry…. In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.” The article said “worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations,” and reported that “the old and reunited nation of Israel gets in formation with new and modern weapons to fight out its age-old battle against its persecutors.” This truly could be described as “the first shot fired in the Second World War.”
In a similar vein, the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:
“The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses… by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven andpromote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed. The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time…. In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.”[6]
“It was in direct response to this that the German government later announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. The government announced that if, after the one-day boycott, there were no further attacks on Germany, the boycott would be stopped. Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 – four days after the original Jewish declaration of war – saying:
“Thus, the fact – one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject – is that Hitler’s March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. Today, Hitler’s boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the full circumstances leading up to his order are seldom described in even the most ponderous and detailed histories of “the Holocaust”. Not even Saul Friedlander in his otherwise comprehensive overview of German policy, Nazi Germany and the Jews, mentions the fact that the Jewish declaration of war and boycott preceded Hitler’s speech of March 28, 1933. Discerning readers would be wise to ask why Friedlander felt this item of history so irrelevant. The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity – and not the German Jewish community per se – that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.” Germany’s response was a defensive – not an offensive – measure. Were that fact widely known today, it would cast new light on the subsequent events that ultimately led to the world-wide conflagration that followed.”[7]
“The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long-term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable. The boycott, in fact, was quite crippling to Germany. Jewish scholars such as Edwin Black have reported that, in response to the boycott, German exports were cut by 10 percent, and that many were demanding seizing German assets in foreign countries.”[8]The photo above shows a 1933 issue of The New York Daily News, of a Jewish-organised 40,000-strong protest rally.
“The attacks on Germany did not cease. The worldwide Jewish leadership became ever the more belligerent and worked itself into a frenzy. An International Jewish Boycott Conference was held in Amsterdam (organised by the Khazar Jews in The City of London), to coordinate the ongoing boycott campaign. It was held under the auspices of the self-styled World Jewish Economic Federation, of which famous New York City attorney and longtime political power broker, Samuel Untermeyer, was president. Upon returning to the United States in the wake of the conference, Untermeyer delivered a speech over WABC Radio (New York), a transcript of which was printed in The New York Times on August 7, 1933. Untermeyer’s inflammatory oratory called for a “sacred war” against Germany, making the flat-out allegation that Germany was engaged in a plan to “exterminate the Jews”.” He said (in part):
“Germany [has] been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts. We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage….Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the… slaughter, starvation and annihilation… fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children….When the tale is told… the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people…The Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have … seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself. Untermeyer then proceeded to provide his listeners with a wholly fraudulent history of the circumstances of the German boycott and how it originated. He also proclaimed that the Germans were bent on a plan to “exterminate the Jews”.
The Hitler regime originated and are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps and starving and torturing them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.”
Rather inflammatory talk built entirely on fabrications ; the “atrocity porn” for which Jews have become so famous and have used to start many wars, including the hoped-for wars today against Russia, China and Iran.
The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new government. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership – not the Third Reich – that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermeyer was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a “holy war.” This all occurred long before the German government began restricting the rights of German Jews.
“To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Germany’s Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, rejected the suggestion made loudly by Jewish leaders everywhere that the new German government was deliberately provoking anti-Jewish uprisings. The Verein issued a statement that “the responsible government authorities [i.e., the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation,” saying, “we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews.” And even the Zionist Association of Germany issued a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting the allegations made against the German government as “propaganda,” “mendacious” and “sensational”. Nevertheless, the Jewish powers emanating from The City of London were determined to continue the vicious propaganda hate campaign and to launch the economic war against Germany.
In 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. A few days prior to this, a huge rally was organised with 20,000 Jews protesting at New York’s City Hall. They staged rallies outside the German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines, and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City and throughout the US.
A rally that attracted some 40,000 people, organised by worldwide Jewry to boycott all German goods, designed to put pressure on Germany.
The German government complained of the “vilification campaign” against Germany, and referred to “their distorted and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even at lies and calumny, to fight the present German government.” The New York Daily News front page headline hailed the massive anti-German protest rally held in Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. “Despite efforts by the German government to alleviate tensions and prevent the escalation of name-calling and threats by the international Jewish leadership, the rally was held as scheduled. Similar rallies and protest marches were also being held in other cities during the same time frame.”
German poster urging boycott of Jewish shops.
The Jews simply refused to relent, and held simultaneous protests and rallies in more than 70 locations in the US, all based on despicably false and inflammatory allegations against Germany. The Jews even then had sufficient media power that many of these anti-German hate rallies were broadcast not only throughout the US, but worldwide. The story was that “The New Germany” was an evil entity, an “enemy of Jewish interests”, and for these reasons needed urgently to be “economically strangled”. It was only in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany, stating that if the Jewish attacks on Germany ceased, there would be no repeats.
The photo below shows a German Poster calling for a reciprocal boycott of Jewish merchants, in retaliation for the worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods.
The poster reads in part, “German people’s comrades! German housewives! You all know the disgraceful methods that so-called “German” Jews abroad are using to incite against the German people and Adolf Hitler’s national government. If we do not want to give up and sink into deeper misery, we must defend ourselves. We therefore call on you to heed the appeal of our Führer, the German people’s chancellor, for a boycott against the Jews and expect the full support of each person in this defensive action. The placard texts read: “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t shop at Jewish stores!” Others read, “Do not buy from Jewish shops! Do not go to a Jewish doctor! But maintain the strictest discipline. Do not even touch the hair on a Jew’s head. The boycott begins Saturday morning at 10:00 AM.”
A Jewish ad in a 1933 issue of The Leader Post, urging a boycott of German goods.
According to p. 45 of The Jewish War Veterans Story, “the boycott was “kicked off” by a mammoth parade under J.W.V. sponsorship, held in New York on March 23, 1933, on three days’ notice”, and states further that the parade route “was lined with almost a million people. “It is unfortunate that Jews are almost unanimously (and viciously) determined to keep this story buried, and also unfortunate that every part of the Jewish media are unanimously reading from a false script in relating circumstances of this event, twisting a brutal assault on Germany by the International Jews into a kind of punishment for (imaginary) German transgressions. The Internet is flooded only with articles on a “Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses”, but nobody is telling the truth about what really happened, and almost all references are to Germany’s one-day boycott of Jewish businesses, totally ignoring the underlying facts. Wikipedia’s opening sentence: “The anti-Nazi boycott was an international boycott of German products in response to violence and harassment by members of Hitler’s Nazi Party against Jews.” This statement is an outright lie, with no facts to support it.[1] The website My Jewish Learning, tells us: “The New York rally was broadcast worldwide. A crowd of 55,000 overflowed the Garden into the streets outside to hear American Jewish Congress President Bernard Deutsch, American Federation of Labor president William Green, Senator Robert F. Wagner.” It doesn’t bother to mention these were all Jews, and not independent reports or spontaneous gatherings.[2] I once made mention of this event in a comment posted on The Economist, and a virtual flood of Hasbara Jews emerged to ridicule it, denying the event in totality, and claiming among other things that some irresponsible article in a “little English tabloid” had no credibility. But in fact, the Daily Express was very respectable, and was generally presented as the most widely-read newspaper in the world at the time.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
You may be surprised to learn that the city of London and the City of London are two very different things, related to each other mostly by historical accident and geographical proximity, and co-existing today in a rather complicated power system in which the City of London appears gloriously victorious.
First, the City of London, a small area of about one square mile in size, was established as a haven by the Khazar “Jews” during their extermination from Khazaria nearly 1,000 years ago, and was named ‘London‘ at the time. And yes, I know the Romans had been there first. The city of London, with the Bridge and Harrods, and the fish and chips and the people driving on the wrong side of the road, was established much later, adopted the same name, and gradually expanded with population until it completely surrounded the Jewish enclave of the City of London. You can see the positions and relative sizes from the map. When you read about “The Lord Mayor of London”, you are not reading about the chief executive of the city, but about the chief executive of the City. The City of London Corporation, with its square mile directly in the center of London, obviously owns some very expensive real estate, this in addition to a great deal of other property also in the city center, but this amounts to only perhaps $10 billion in total and, as we will see, is trivial.
The City of London is effectively an independent city-state * existing inside greater London.[1][2][3] However, its nature is unique and complicated. It is not so neat and tidy as is the Vatican for example, which is clearly a separate sovereign entity nestled within the city of Rome. Still, the City of London has its own government and police force, makes its own laws and levies its own taxes. It has its own flag, crest, and ceremonial armed forces. I have seen one reference stating that the City also has its own port. I could not find an independent confirmation of this, but it would fit the pattern and the City does have some responsibilities for London ports, so this is plausible. If true, it would be stunning because that would mean that the City could bring in products of any kind including currency, precious metals, cocaine, and also people, without the permission or even knowledge of UK customs and immigration or the UK government.
* In performing a search the other day, I was first met with a notice in capital letters telling me “The City of London is not a sovereign state”, followed by a small avalanche of websites all doing “fact-checking” and “misinformation-debunking” to assure me the City of London was NOT an independent anything. There is hardly a sign more certain that we are onto something important, than when 25 Jewish websites leap up to tell us “There’s nothing to see here”.
The City is the center and home base of the world’s banking and insurance industries. It is the home of the Bank of England (which was supposedly privatised but is still Rothschild-owned), the home of Lloyd’s of London,[4][5] and the literal head office of many of the world’s major banks (some of which you know and many of which you have never heard of). It still contains the home office of the former British East India Company,[6][7][8] which was always a Khazar Jewish company and undoubtedly the greatest criminal organisation in the history of the world – up to that time – and whose archives are still closed to the world for good reason. The City of London is also the home of the oldest Masonic Temple in the world. Our history books tell us that the origins of the Freemasons are lost to history, but that’s not really true. Freemasonry was a Jewish cult that was formalised in the City in the early 1700s.[9]
The legal-political relationship between the City of London and the UK is a bit murky. On one hand, the City is at least theoretically subject (or can be made subject) to at least some UK legislation, although in practice this seldom if ever has happened for reasons I will describe below. On the other hand, the City is so sovereign that the King of England himself is forbidden by both UK and City law to even enter the City of London without first obtaining a “special invitation“, which process is too complicated to bother discussing. The invitation ceremony is not required by law, but the invitation itself is.[10]
Readers may not be aware that democracies can have “flavors”, the UK version being one such with a very distinct flavor. In this case, on the floor of the British Parliament, directly facing the Speaker of the House, is a special chair.[11] Think of it as a kind of throne. The person occupying this chair is a representative of the City of London, attended by six lawyers. His purpose is to monitor all debate in the British Parliament and to scrutinise in exhaustive detail all proposed and drafted legislation to determine any possible effect on the “interests” or operations of the City of London, and to take appropriate action if such interests are affected. The “appropriate action” inevitably results in the legislation being killed. This is not necessarily done by force, but by what we might term “lobbying“, sometimes by extortion, and often simply by an all-pervasive influence on British Politicians.
Lobbying and/or Extortion
There are many news articles available on the kind and extent of the lobbying done by the City to ensure compliance from the UK Parliament. The City’s financial services group spends well over $100 million per year on wining, dining, bribing, and sexually satisfying, UK politicians and regulators. One place for dining is the opulent Guildhall, which even high-level guests describe as “intoxicating” because of the sheer power sitting in that room.
There are well over 100 different City organisations and more than 800 people involved in securing stability, secrecy and a tax-free status for the City’s operations.[12][13] These groups are repeatedly successful in reducing banking and insurance taxes that save them billions. They are also notably successful in killing proposed legislation for any kind of oversight or “watchdog” effort wanting to police not only banking activities but also quoted companies on the London Stock Exchange. They have even successfully killed a pension plan intended for low-paid and temporary workers. I have no idea how or why this proposed legislation would have affected the “interests” of the City, but they felt it did, and the legislation was scrapped.[14][15]
Many believe the City puts its interests above those of the nation, and of course they are correct, evidenced by a long string of such legislative “victories” over Parliament. “For almost 1,000 years, the City of London Corporation has resisted virtually every attempt by monarchs, governments or subjects to rein in its vast financial wealth and influence. Such is the Corporation’s political and economic influence that today some suggest the British state, rather than controlling the Corporation, is in fact subservient to it.“[16] According to the Financial Times, “. . . because the corporation is entitled to special tax and legal privileges, this renders it an offshore island inside Britain and a tax haven in its own right, and gives those who own businesses within its borders a distinct upper hand over everyone else.”[17] But it is also true that the Jews in the City have UK politicians so much in their pockets that even the UK Prime Minister will lobby against any regulation that might handicap the City’s financial crimes.[18] The UK Labor party tried at one time to obtain election within the City, to have the power to repair some excesses from the inside, but failed.[19]
The City, Tax Havens, and Money Flows
The City of London is indeed a “tax haven”. This is not particularly germane to our main topic so I won’t dwell on it other than to state that the Jewish bankers who run the City do so in conjunction with almost all the world’s tax havens, with money flowing through those labyrinths in ways to disguise forever the source and ownership of funds. It is not a secret requiring quiet discussion that nearly all the world’s narcotics money comes home to the City to be laundered by the Jewish banks, notably the HSBC but others too. Equally, it is widely acknowledged that dictators, oligarchs, legal and illegal arms dealers, bank robbers, jewel thieves, sex slavery kingpins, and criminals generally will naturally funnel their money to the Jewish banks in the City for laundering, for anonymity, and for privacy and security. For hundreds of years, the City has been the safe depository of Jewish funds obtained from slave trading, tax farming, looting, opium and narcotics trafficking, and also the temporary haven for funds when Jews were expelled from various countries over the centuries.
To be sure, not all the money flowing through the City is from illegal criminal activity. About half of the daily $4 trillion in normal foreign exchange trading flows through the City’s Jewish banks, as do nearly 50% of the world’s derivative trading and 70% of Eurobond trading. And the London Stock Exchange is still the fourth-largest in the world, with much of this processing being legitimate and thus providing a good cover for the balance.
However, due to the unique relation between the City of London and the UK, the tens of trillions of dollars that flow into and out of the Jewish banks in the City each day do not appear in UK capital flows or transaction records and there is thus no way to know how much money enters, passes through, and leaves the City, nor is there any way to know the source or application of those funds. Whatever the original intent of the financial design of the City by its Jewish owners, one clear result is that the entire design is tailor-made for the benefit of organised crime of every nature. Currencies, gold and precious metals, financial certificates, are run through an enormous labyrinth of tax havens and then simply disappear into the black hole of the City’s Jewish banks, the secrecy fully-protected by the City’s “unique relationship” with its host country.
“Behind it all lies the City of London, anxious to preserve its access to the world’s dirty money. The City of London is a money-laundering filter that lets the City get involved in dirty business while providing it with enough distance to maintain plausible deniability . . . a crypto-feudal oligarchy which, of itself, is. . . captured by the international offshore banking industry. It is a gangster regime, cloaked with the “respectability” of the trappings of the British establishment. . . . guaranteed protection. No matter just how nakedly lawless their own conduct.”[20] “The City is often now described as the largest tax haven in the world, and it acts as the largest center of the global tax avoidance system. An estimated 50% of the world’s trade passes through tax havens, and the City acts as a huge funnel for much of this money.”[21] Here is an important website that contains many links related to the City of London and its use of tax havens to launder money.[22]
The Hydra
The hydra was one of the most fearsome monsters in Greek mythology, a multi-headed snake descended from a long line of terrible beasts, possessing deadly poisons and with the power of regeneration. A rather accurate description of the City of London today and its Jewish Khazar denizens, at least by some measures. The City of London is also the mother of all tax havens and is unquestionably the home of all the world’s dirty money today.
Here are several references that describe the City of London as “A Global Spider’s Web of Deceit“[23], one by the UK Guardian claiming that “Shrinking the City is the only way to stop the world’s criminals flourishing in the UK“[24], and two others of interest.[25][26]
George Monbiot wrote an excellent article for the UK Guardian[27] where he quoted Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands, stating that “the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority.“ His last comment may not be entirely true although it does work that way in practice. Monbiot says further that “the Corporation acts as the superior body” (superior to the UK Parliament), and that part is definitely true. Monbiot begins by writing, “[The City is] the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable.”
Monbiot cites Clement Attlee’s lament that “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” He continues that “The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons.” All of that is very true, and the power of the Jews within the City have made impossible any effective regulation of global finance, American firms like AIG and Lehman Brothers simply moving to the City of London to carry out their off-balance-sheet criminal machinations that bankrupted so many people. American and other firms have often utilised the “services” of the City to evade the financial laws of their own governments. The City is, in real terms, a vast criminal enterprise run by gangsters.
It doesn’t seem widely-known that immediately prior to its financial collapse Lehman were selling their corporate bonds “backed by the full faith and credit of Lehman Brothers”, to unsuspecting investors who had no idea the bankruptcy was already virtually in motion. I don’t know where all these bonds were sold, but I know that billions of dollars of them were disposed of in Hong Kong, the money from these sales apparently disappearing into the bowels of the City of London.
Joseph Stiglitz also railed against the Jews in the City, telling UK legislators, “. . . these people are just using your rule of law to protect money they have stolen in other countries . . . From a global point of view, you are aiding and abetting theft.”[28] A British MP said that the City of London is “a magnet for dirty money”.[29] At the same time, the government’s Anti-fraud Minister resigned because the Jews in the City had once again killed legislation to combat economic crime by the City, saying that “nobody [in the UK government] cared about stopping kleptocrats, oligarchs and organised crime lords stashing their loot in the UK.” And another article telling us how the City remains a safe haven for all the world’s dirty cash.[30] Here is another interesting article from the UK Guardian, with a 5-step guide telling how the Jews in the City can help you get away with stealing millions.[31]
One indication of this is the UK’s Official UK Companies Register that is littered with fake names, because no identity checks are required. One corporation is registered, for example, in the name of “Holy Jesus Christ”, with his stated occupation as “creator“, his nationality as “Angelic” and his country of residence as “Heaven“. Another is in the name of “Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler“, with a City sales firm in the name of “Donald Duck“, and so on. The UK government claims it hasn’t the resources to police the corporate registry, but the truth is they permit it to continue because it serves nicely the purposes of the gangsters in the City.[32] Controlling legislation was proposed, but the Jews in the City had it killed.
An article in the Eurasia Review called the City of London ”A Parasites’ Paradise, Or The Best Criminal Sanctuary Money Can Buy”.[33] “London has become the center of global financial capital by engaging in long term large scale active collaboration with multi-billion-pound drug, arms, people smuggling and sex-slave cartels. The [Jews in the City] specialize in laundering funds from the Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Nigerian narco-kings. . . white slavers have their “private bankers” at prestigious City banks . . . kleptocrats, lifelong billion-dollar tax evaders, fleeing from their pillaged homeland.” It continues that “The City Boys” welcome “every gangster / oligarch”. It continued by stating, “The London Sanctuary for the world’s richest plunderers and parasites offers unprecedented services, especially protection from extradition and criminal prosecution at the site of their crimes.”
“Nowadays, . . . the City of London is an anachronism of the worst kind. The Corporation, which runs the City like a one-party mini-state, is an unreconstructed old boys’ network whose medievalist pageantry camouflages the very real power and wealth which it holds. The City of London Corporation ranks as a political power without rival in Britain, possibly in the world. It has used its power to exert enormous political influence to resist regulation and extract tax exemption. It has fostered criminality by ensuring that the City ranks amongst the least accountable of financial centers on the face of the earth.” The TaxJustice website calls the City of London “A state within a state; the most powerful self-interested political lobby in the world.”[34]
There is much more, including the Rothschild Bank’s financing of Zionism and the atrocities continuing in Palestine since prior to the founding of Israel, all through and under the auspices of the Jews in the City of London.[35][36][37] Also, Sinhalanet had an article you might find interesting, in which it is claimed that “three corporations run the world: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City”,[38] and that together they control politicians, economies, and 80% of the world’s wealth.[39]
The King of England Meets His Master
North Americans seldom pay much attention to news details in the UK and might not be aware of the recurrent brief media campaigns about “Should the Monarchy be Abolished?” These normally emerge abruptly without warning or apparent cause, listing all the usual issues of a monarchy being an anachronism, the British Royal Family being a useless appendage to government, a needless expense, and so forth. They disappear equally suddenly, all the UK media silencing their peeps at the same time. These little campaigns are not accidents; they are “reminders” or, in some cases, a warning, by the gnomes controlling the City of London that they have the power to work the UK public into a frenzy on command and also the influence to introduce and push through Parliament a vote that would indeed disband the monarchy. This would leave the “King” and all his princelings not destitute or homeless, but alone, shunned, and unemployed.
Look at the photo of (then) Prince Charles and Evelyn de Rothschild, with smug Rothschild poking Charles in the chest. That is a very aggressive gesture, and not something one would do to a superior. Can you picture yourself walking up to your boss or the Chairman of the Board, poking him in the chest and saying, “I have something to tell you”? Definitely not. We would do this only to a distinct inferior, and someone we were bullying, almost treating with contempt. The gesture is not only to accentuate a point but is a kind of threat, one we might imagine a policeman making when issuing an order. From the photo, the relation between these two men is quite clear. We can’t know the topic of conversation but Rothschild is essentially telling Charles “this is how it is, and you don’t have to like it”.
But why wouldn’t Rothschild poke that little twerp in the chest? Charles is nothing to him, a convenient nuisance, a bit of a public shield, but no more. Rothschild has wealth that Charles can barely fathom, and power exceeding that of Charles by orders of magnitude, including over the UK Parliament and UK public opinion. Both men know Rothschild could dethrone the “King” at any time, that Charles as a Royal exists only at the Jews’ pleasure. Charles, the supposed “King of England”, can’t even enter Rothschild’s home or place of business without a specific invitation. How subservient can you be? It is the several Rothschilds, Sebag-Montefioris and others similar who are considered the real “royalty” of England, Charles, Andrew, Edward, being puppet-caricatures.
Who Owns the City?
Well, the entity is described as “The Corporation of The City of London” but, since this is a privately-owned company, we have no shareholder list. I am told there are 13 Jewish families who are central to this enterprise, the Rothschilds being the first among these. The City may well operate as a corporation in some senses, but could be more accurately described as a typical organised-crime family who are Lords of their own mini-state and effectively operate with virtually absolute impunity throughout the world. This impunity resolves primarily from their financial power, but secondarily from the political power and influence obtained by that financial power. It is hardly a secret that national governments like the US, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and others are fundamentally and essentially Jewish-controlled states, with that control emanating from the City of London.
If we think of Jeffrey Epstein and his sex-entrapment enterprise that flourished for decades, it makes sense that the City of London would have been the source of the planning and financing. Epstein’s operation was definitely Jewish and worldwide, and there is no other candidate body in the world with an interest in controlling the politicians of all nations, at least not by that dirty means. If we think of the world’s mass media which is largely and increasingly Jewish-owned, and which is vitally necessary for the propaganda to control the standard narrative, it makes sense that increasing media control would arise primarily from this same source. This would clearly account for the development of the social and Internet media, almost dictating the necessity for the creation of a Google, a Facebook, a Wikipedia, an Instagram, a Telegraph, and the takeover of Twitter.
There is something else here, dealing with the intelligence agencies, primarily the CIA and Mossad although MI5 would almost surely fit into this. I have a copy of a document that was released by the CIA under a FOIA request. It is not a CIA document and it is not clear why it would have been in the possession of the CIA. The document is not redacted, but the original author is not identified. The salient point of this document indicates the existence of a group somewhere within the CIA that operates independently, acting under the auspices and authority of the CIA but with its own purpose and agenda unrelated to the remainder of the organisation. The document maddeningly lacks precise details but the implication is that this group does not report to any part of the CIA and that its activities may not even be known by the CIA executive. I had read of, or heard rumors about, such a group before, but this was the first bit of documented evidence of it.
Edward Snowden, in an article titled “The CIA is not your friend“, made reference to this as well. He wrote that after the creation of the CIA, “Within a year, the young agency had already slipped the leash of its intended role of intelligence collection and analysis to establish a covert operations division. Within a decade, the CIA was directing the coverage of American news organizations, overthrowing democratically elected governments (at times merely to benefit a favored corporation), establishing propaganda outfits to manipulate public sentiment, launching a long-running series of mind-control experiments on unwitting human subjects . . . and interfering with foreign elections.”[40][41]
This is a very large topic with so many interwoven threads that even a very long article could scarcely do it justice, but I wanted to raise one point about the secrecy, the agenda, and the lack of a CIA reporting chain. As one example, it had been reported in several places that neither the US Congress nor the White House had any knowledge of the “CIA’s” MK-ULTRA program. I covered this in much detail in a previous article on MK-ULTRA.[42] During Congressional hearings on an unrelated matter, one witness brought a colleague who began testifying on a bizarre mind-control program that was unknown to that date, which led to the exposure of MK-ULTRA – and the rapid destruction (so they said) of all related documents. The important point is that this enormous and horrific program, spanning decades, escaped external attention. MK-ULTRA was entirely a Jewish program. I have a list of the top 30 lieutenants of MK-ULTRA, from Gottlieb down, and all are Jews. This is not in dispute, and in fact I believe that of the top 50 or 60 people, only two or three at the most are not Jews. The question is how it would happen that an internal group of the “American CIA” would have had such a determined interest in such a horrific program and would have staffed it entirely with Jews.
A similar concern arises from the Congressional hearings conducted on the exposure of the “CIA’s” program, again spanning decades, of assassinating some 150 world leaders and senior politicians. Upon examination of the evidence of all those assassinations, it is by no means clear that many, or even most, of them would have been of any benefit to the US government. In fact, like the worldwide gold thefts conducted by the US Treasury Department in the 1930s, or the hijacking of Iraq’s oil today, it is easier to believe these were carried out on behalf of the “secret government” to the benefit of, and masterminded by, the City of London. Looking back on so many world events, it is by no means certain that any part of the US government would have had any interest in, or seen any benefit in, those activities. I can only speculate here, but if we assume all those activities, programs and events were carried out at the instruction of the gnomes in the City of London, everything seems to make sense, like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly together to make an overall picture.
We can recall that Jeffrey Epstein was spared from his first arrest because “he is intelligence” and “above your pay grade“. But as I pointed out above, there is no way the US CIA would have created a worldwide sex-entrapment scheme with or without the knowledge of any part of the US government. There would simply be too great a lack of both interest and benefit to any part of the US, and the only conclusion I can see is that it must have originated in the City of London where it would fit perfectly into the overall picture. In a similar context, the Boer Wars make no sense if we attribute them to Britain, yet England did send in her army to commit astonishing crimes and atrocities with no benefit whatever to England. But when we understand that this was done on order from the Jews in the City of London to take over all South Africa’s gold and diamond mines for a Rothschild, then all the pieces fit and everything makes sense.
Again, there are perhaps hundreds of articles and many books about the CIA importing heroin and cocaine and generally trafficking in drugs. Now, I have no illusions about the chastity of the CIA, and I’m sure many of their staff are sufficiently evil to do just this. But it doesn’t compute. It certainly is possible, but it doesn’t make sense that the “American CIA” would, entirely on its own account, become so deeply involved in international drug-running. But the Jews in the City of London cut their teeth on narcotics trafficking; in fact, this was the source of much of their initial fortunes. The Khazar Jews have always been among the world’s biggest drug dealers. Thus, if we attribute the drug trafficking to this central “private” core in the CIA that reports to the City of London, all the pieces fit together and everything makes sense. This would even explain why the HSBC is repeatedly fined so heavily in the US for laundering drug money; this is what the HSBC was created to do 150 years ago, and its headquarters are in the City. Even the small pieces fit perfectly.
Think again of the “CIA” assassination program. There is no way that the CIA by itself, rogue group or otherwise, would decide to kill 150 Presidents, Prime Ministers and other high government officials which, in the most part, would have no benefit whatever to the US. And no CIA group, rogue or not, would take it upon themselves to kill the Secretary-General of the UN, again with no apparent benefit to the US. But if we insert into this equation the political hegemony ambitions of the Jews in the City of London, the pieces again fit snugly together.
It is true this is speculation on my part. I cannot supply proof of these assertions. I have simply cobbled them together from logic and circumstantial evidence.
Caution is Advised
Certainly, these people are ruthless. There is no shortage of evidence that they will destroy anyone who challenges them and will kill anyone who threatens to expose or frustrate their plans. And this doesn’t apply only to Gentiles. They are equally ruthless to their own. You have read what they did to Dominique Strauss-Khan[43]. It is important to note that this man was the Managing Director of the IMF and almost surely the next President of France, and yet he was very much an outsider, far from the center of power. As I mentioned in my article, he confided to his wife and others that “they are out to get me“. To use such terminology, we can understand these were not people who were close to him, but who were at the same time far above him, and he was clearly hoping he might be sufficiently insignificant they might just ignore him. He was wrong.
Jeremy Corbyn was similar. Former leader of the UK Labor Party, Corbyn earned the enmity of the Jews in the City and they destroyed him. He was permanently tainted as an anti-Semite, and absolutely trashed for his disobedience to the Jews and his good intentions toward the British people. The Labor Party state firmly that Corbyn will never again cross their doorstep because he is now “too toxic”.
There was another matter, with newspaper headlines some years back of “Amschel Rothschild Commits Suicide”. This man, a 6th-generation banking Rothschild, was slated to take the reins from his cousin Sir Evelyn Rothschild, as chairman of N.M Rothschild & Sons. His body was found by a chambermaid in a Paris hotel room. But there was nothing about this that made any sense. The first policeman on the scene told reporters that Rothschild was found with a rope around his neck attached to a bathroom fixture upon which he supposedly “hung himself“, but the policeman said he tugged on the rope and the entire fixture detached from the wall. He said there was no way the man could have hung himself because the fixture could support no weight, that the rope had been tied there afterward. That policeman quickly disappeared and the story was totally scrubbed from the Internet. I saw an email copy from Rupert Murdoch, instructing all his newspapers to state this “as a suicide, if you mention it at all“.
The official stories that followed, were all nonsense, too pathetic to even be termed lies. The UK Mirror was typical, saying “. . . it seemed the real noose around Amschel’s neck was his fortune of £18million”, that “huge riches and influence have not always brought great happiness”, and that of his great fortune “You could describe it as a gilded millstone”. His “great fortune of £18million”? That would buy two Ferraris, one Bugatti, and leave enough loose change for a bucket of Häagen-Dazs ice cream, but this “gilded millstone” led to such depression the man hung himself. Another story was that the man was depressed at the death of his mother, and so he hung himself. Others, and there were many, were equally stupid. Of all people, the Rothschilds would have had the influence to put nearly the entire Paris police force on the case and hunt every clue to the ends of the earth. But they didn’t. They simply told many foolish lies and buried it.
I do not know what really happened, but I have to say that when reading the initial police report and then the frenetic cover-up stories, my instinctive reaction was that this had to have been “a family hit“. We will never know. And it might not have been the first. Can you imagine committing suicide by slitting your own throat? Why not? The Rothschilds do it. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “Nathaniel Rothschild, second son of the first Lord Rothschild committed suicide by cutting his throat. The specific reasons for the deed are not revealed.“[44] Nor are the reasons revealed for the stupidity of the method. Of all the options available for killing myself, cutting my own throat would not be my first choice. Here are some media reports. Decide for yourself.[45][46][47][48][49]
Where Do We Go From Here?
Nowhere, so far as I can see. Many readers like to see a solution offered. There is one. If King Charles could collect sufficient courage and a single-minded resolve, he could deal with it. He could commandeer the UK media and explain the situation to the people in a way that they could understand. If he were to do that, he would surely have the support of the entire country, and also of the military. Now, the UK army is admittedly nothing much, but even they have the military might to launch an all-out assault on an unprotected one square mile of urban landscape. Gather all the missiles and artillery, and completely demolish the City of London. Leave no stone resting upon another, and kill anything that moves. If the head and brain of the hydra are thus killed, the body would slowly die too. But this is a dream.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
Germans were Evil; Americans and Jews were Angels; the Japanese didn’t exist
By
Larry Romanoff
A 17-page copy of the confessions of a commander of the notorious Japanese germ warfare unit to U.S. investigators after World War II has been released in northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province on August 2021.Group photo of Unit 731. Source
It needs to be pointedly noted that, during the trials of war criminals at Nuremburg, the Germans who had participated in various experiments repeatedly quoted the US as their source. For everything from the practice of eugenics to various human experiments, the Germans were simply copying what they had seen and learned in the US. While this fact is not secret, an important detail always omitted from the historical record is that Traub received all his training at the Rockefeller medical institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Thus, the Germans rightfully asked why these same practices were praiseworthy in America but criminal in Germany. Yet the common narrative of American virtue and German evil has been so heavily propagandised to Americans and to the world that the people of most nations – including those of Germany itself – hold Nazi Germany as the poster boy of experimentation evil when history makes it abundantly clear the title belongs to the Americans and the Jews. Whether in the evils of human experimentation or the brutal extermination of millions in concentration camps, the Germans never did anything to the extent done by these other two.
International Jewry and the Jewish media, have done their best to ensure that much of the world is aware of the medical experiments – whether real or imagined – conducted by the Nazis. Germany has been excoriated in the Western (Jewish) media for 70 years for various kinds of human experimentation on everything from malaria to eugenics. The Jewish narrative is still directed to heaping abuse and guilt on sins committed two and three generations ago, Germans as a people still being regularly trashed as demons for these experiments. As we will see, the US and Western Allies, and the Khazar Jews, were far more guilty than the Germans, and further that a great many of the horror accusations leveled against Germany were simply outrageous fabricated propaganda stories without an ounce of truth to them. As an example, one Jewess, Stephanie Pappas, writing in Live Science, [1] told us, “One woman had her breasts tied off with string so SS doctors could see how long it took her baby to starve, “according to an oral history collected by the Holocaust Museum”. The mother eventually injected her child with a lethal dose of morphine to keep it from suffering longer.” What rubbish.
I will deal with this at length elsewhere, but I will say here there are so many ridiculously obscene stories fabricated by the Jews about German cruelties and abominations, stories that were the product of pathological and hateful imaginations, and that never had a shred of supporting evidence, everything from German soldiers crucifying Canadian soldiers on barn doors to skewering babies on bayonets like shish kababs. This propaganda program was pathologically repugnant then, and even more so today since the stories never end. And it appears the denigration of Germany and Germans will never cease. In 2016 we were suddenly treated to lurid stories of the ‘discovery’ that Hitler had only one testicle and a tiny, twisted mini-penis. Such pathetic, juvenile stupidity. In a later volume, I will provide many of examples of tales of German barbarity that were all proven to have been fabricated by the Jewish propaganda machine, with not a gram of truth in any of them.
We have been inundated for decades with sordid tales of German interrogation methods or treatment of POWs, most eventually proving to have been false propaganda. The infamous “Bryce Report” that purported to detail first-hand witnessing of thousands of atrocities committed by the Germans, mysteriously “lost” all its documentation when a formal examination was ordered, leaving nothing but empty accusations. I have noted elsewhere that the British, during the Boer War and other interventions in Africa, would tie a man by the ankles to the back of a Land Rover-type vehicle and drive around the countryside until the man’s body had disintegrated. Or, they would wrap a man tightly in barbed wire and kick him around the prison compound like a football until he eventually succumbed to the intense pain and the loss of blood. They were not “interrogating” anyone; they just did it for fun. Some Nazis may well have been callous in their actions, but for pure evil nobody can match the Americans, British, Japanese, or the Jews, yet we hear nothing about this. I am not attempting to excuse any German sins of the past, but to note that (1) there is no credible evidence to support most accusations against the Germans, and (2) there is an enormous trove of evidence that documents astonishing atrocities by the Americans, Japanese, and Jews, all of which has been very deeply buried and erased from the world’s consciousness. We have no lack of evidence that the US, the UK, Israel, Japan, and other Western nations, as well as many members of the Jewish diaspora, committed far greater sins than did Nazi Germany. In every case, the victors simply re-wrote the history books and took control of the microphone, leaving the German people badly deluded about their role in a tragic and reprehensible history. Naturally, nearly the entire world shares that delusion, all based on who has control of the microphone.
In the treatise, “Medical aspects of Biological Warfare“, [2] published in 2007 by the Surgeon-General’s Department of the US military, the senior editor wrote the following:
“In contrast to Japanese efforts during World War II, German offensive biological weapons program never materialized. Studies of experimental infections using prisoners were done primarily to study pathogenesis and develop vaccines and sulfonamide antibiotics, rather than to develop biological weapons. Hitler reportedly issued orders prohibiting biological weapons development. With the support of high-ranking Nazi party officials, however, German scientists began biological weapons research, but their results lagged far behind those of other countries.”
One example was German experiments to discover methods of revitalising those who had recently died of exposure from immersion in freezing water, perhaps airmen who had been shot down over the North Atlantic. The Germans did in fact discover effective methods of this apparent reincarnation, methods which are today part of common medical practice. But nobody seems to want to tell us that, like the entire eugenics program, these were just more series of tests the Germans copied from the Jewish physicians who were doing similar but much worse experiments in the early 1940s at the University of Cincinnati Hospital and at Harvard. And no high-minded ambitions here; these frolics were for the stated purpose of studying “the effects of frigid temperatures on mental disorders”.
And we have no shortage of documented evidence of biological and chemical warfare development and deployment by Israel, including attempts to develop race-based bio-weapons to use against the Arabs and, and the Jews’ deep involvement in Project Coast, designed to kill and sterilise Rhodesian blacks. We have MK-ULTRA, the Tuskegee and Guatemala syphilis travesties, the litany of Jewish human experimenters from Loretta Bender to Saul Krugman. We have massacres and slaughters from the Russian Revolution, massive “civilian pacifications” in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Iraq. We have repeated famines and food embargoes that killed many tens of millions. We have phosphor bombs, DIME explosives, depleted uranium weapons, torture, and so much more. None of this is any better or morally superior to actions we attribute to Nazi Germany, and it is not difficult to document that the world’s human travesties owe far more to the Jews than to the Germans. So once again, let us stop pretending. I will provide much more detail later in this series of books.
The name “Fort Detrick” can be seen on the cover of a report about Unit 731’s anthrax test on live humans. /Xinhua. Source.
The cover of one of the three human experiment autopsy reports Sheldon Harris discovered at the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground Library. They were provided to the Americans by Unit 731 scientists as a bargain for war crime immunity. “A” refers to anthrax. The report was originally kept at Fort Detrick, whose investigators conducted extensive investigations with Unit 731 scientists. [Photo provided to China Daily] Source
However, for our purposes here, the machinations with Japan after the Second World War are of immense importance, far more than anything involving Germany, and in fact , involving the Jews much more than the Germans.
Operation Paperclip – The Fourth Wave
Human Experimentation, Torture, Terrorism, and Biological Warfare
Much of the picture of the pursuit and development of this portion of inhumanity, involves Germans only incidentally, primarily because of Operation Paperclip. Briefly, the Americans, acting as the “Bankers Private Army” for International Jewry, fleeced Germany to the bones after WWII, confiscating literally everything that could be stolen in the fields of science, medicine, military, commerce, manufacturing, and much more. The Americans quickly learned they hadn’t the ability to understand German progress in so many areas. As one example, they confiscated around 100 samples of the German V-2 rockets, but couldn’t figure out how to assemble them, nor could they understand the principles on which the rockets worked. They attempted rounding up and incarcerating in concentration camps all Germans who appeared to have knowledge of these matters, but then discovered that simple “de-briefing” was unlikely to produce meaningful results. From this, the Americans forcibly transferred many thousands of Germans to the US, often on only a day’s notice, to have these scientists and others permanently available when needed. The alternative, if such were presented, was threats of execution for unspecified “war crimes”. The interest in the Germans was for their outstanding scientific and military knowledge, as well as their design and manufacturing skills. There was actually very little imported from Germany in terms of knowledge of what we might call “human experimentation”, even though this is the area that receives all the media attention. This is part of what some choose to call “the great scientific exodus” to America during and after World War II, but this exodus was not quite according to the myth created for the gullible American public.
After the war, the US government transplanted many thousands of Germans to the US, primarily for their industrial and scientific knowledge, Werner von Braun being one of the more famous for having nearly single-handedly creating the entire US space program. But buried in these post-war forced emigrations were about 10,000 Japanese doctors and scientists who were virtually all war criminals fleeing certain prosecution and very possibly death for their crimes. It was the Japanese, not the Germans, who excelled in obscene human experiments and biological warfare, and it was this that made the Japanese such treasured immigrants for the US military machine.
I have dealt elsewhere with Operation Paperclip that related to the theft of German corporations, property, assets, inventions, patents, and IP. [3] I will deal here with the remainder of these waves of immigration / forcible transfersfrom Germany and Japan to the US, which also fall under the Paperclip umbrella. These involved not secrets of military or commercial benefit but those related to politics, espionage and the dark side of terrorism, torture, and world domination. One portion involved the Americans’ determination to build a European espionage and black ops network to obtain political control of Western Europe. It included the recruitment of a vast espionage network, led by a man named Reinhard Gehlen, that included a substantial ‘black ops’ capacity with a specialty in attracting and training domestic terrorists. Operation Gladio, which produced decades of US-sponsored terrorism in Europe, was a direct result of this portion of Paperclip, and consisted in large part of Jews.
The other even more sinister and deadly category was the Americans’ pathological interest in interrogation and torture, in chemical and biological warfare, and in human experimentation, which led to the importation of thousands of individuals from Japan, specifically for the purpose of transferring to American minds the world’s collection of documented perversion in these areas. For many decades, these imported ‘experts’ served their American masters on secret projects at Fort Bragg, Fort Detrick, the CDC, and many American universities and hospitals. As one author noted, “The US military was not slow to apply much of this knowledge, using their newly-gained experience in biological weaponry against civilians in Greece, Korea and Viet Nam.” These programs never stopped. They briefly reared their heads in public during Korea and Vietnam, during the exposure of the US military’s so-called “University of the Americas”, and yet again during the Iraq war and in the torture prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It is worth noting that much of this “research” occurred while George H. W. Bush was head of the CIA. Another direct result of Paperclip was the CIA’s vast MK-Ultra program that included brainwashing, torture, with a terrible litany of human abuse that endures to this day.
Many historical commentaries tell us that some Nazi war criminals, such as the German physician Josef Mengele, escaped to South America after the war, but that was never true. Mengele and others in this category were imported to the US during Operation Paperclip to perform the same kind of medical research in America they had performed in Germany and Japan. In the case of Mengele, it was only due to the discovery and revelation of his real identity that he became a political liability to the US government who then transferred him to Brazil and financed him in several business endeavors. The story of Mengele (and others) escaping from Germany to South America is a total fiction that was fabricated by the Americans as a plausible cover story to hide their actions.
Operation Paperclip was as massive a logistical enterprise as that of any major war campaign, involving enormous pre-planning and coordination that included literally dozens of government agencies and departments, ancillary groups like the Library of Congress, hundreds of US corporations, and countless thousands of individuals. Today this operation is generally identified as a post-war immigration/transfer to the US of German scientists and technicians, primarily those with useful commercial and military knowledge and skills, but it began in a different place and expanded far beyond this limited historical version. As in virtually every other area, American history has been revised, rewritten, deleted, and sanitised to prevent the truth from escaping into the world at large.
As a result of Operation Paperclip, The US Army’s Chemical Corps at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland and its Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick were staffed with an abundance of highly qualified medical and scientific personnel, their so-called “Medical Research Laboratories” containing hundreds of foreign Ph.D.’s and MDs, but also including many more hundreds of scientific and professional personnel drawn from leading American universities like Harvard Medical College, the University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University, Princeton, Cambridge, Duke, Columbia, Cornell, and Stanford. As noted elsewhere, the CDC was also active in this area, having received many of the imported scientists from both Germany and Japan. The military not only seconded these people to its staff but employed thousands more who performed their research with military or CIA funding while remaining in the private sector at various universities, hospitals, and private research firms.
In many cases, the military had initiated secret contracts with mental institutions and psychiatric clinics to perform a wide variety of clandestine experiments on patients that involved drug testing as well as exposure to biological pathogens, all with the intent of devising weapons for the military that could be deployed on mass populations, and with more limited application for use by the CIA that could be targeted at individuals to cause disability or death. From this enormous catalogue of interests there arose a kind of formal relationship between the CIA, Edgewood, and Fort Detrick’s SOD that was originally given the name of Project MK/NAOMI, initially focused on the development and deployment of biological weapons but that saw some major portions spun off to focus on other specific interests – the main one being human programming and mind control.
President Truman signing the Atomic Energy Act in 1946. Meanwhile, 1,600 Nazi scientists were being recruited into the U.S. Source
US President Harry Truman agreed in late 1946 to authorise Operation Paperclip as “a program to bring selected German scientists to work on America’s behalf during the Cold War”, but he specified that the program exclude war criminals or those considered as security risks. The US military, the CIA, the Departments of State and Commerce, all simply ignored Truman’s instructions, if indeed his instructions were sincere and not merely intended as deception for the mass population. They deleted incriminating files, produced forged documents and references, and simply lied, to bring these individuals into the US. It was in fact a conspiracy by the US military and the Departments of State and Commerce to ignore Presidential directives and bypass multiple American laws to achieve objectives decided entirely by the puppet-masters of the deep state (the Khazar Jews), and without the knowledge of the nation’s elected government.
In a great many cases, these “imports” were effectively ‘hired into’ the US military and hidden on domestic military bases to avoid public scrutiny and government oversight. The Americans resurrected a long list of murderers, gangsters, war criminals as good Christian soldiers and famous Americans, but all this information has been deleted from the official narrative and no longer exists as part of the historical record. The stories still exist as what are essentially popular historical novels which fade from attention over time, with the knowledge being lost. In 1988, Christopher Simpson wrote a book titled, “Blowback, America’s recruitment of Nazis“, [4] in which he noted that:
“… the existence of U.S. operations employing ex-Nazis has remained a carefully kept secret in the West. There has been a certain convergence of powerful interests, rather than the great conspiracy that some critics have alleged, that has kept this story buried. The American government, for example, has not been inclined to publicize the men and women involved in sensitive “national security” missions. Many U.S. documents concerning these programs have been systematically purged from the files and destroyed, and the majority of the records that remain are still classified above “secret.” Most of the men who put together the U.S. program-including the CIA’s former chief of clandestine operations Frank Wisner and his boss, CIA Director Allen Dulles-are dead. Most of those who are still alive refuse to talk.”
Simpson also wrote of the most dangerous wave of German and other European immigrants, the large-scale programs that brought many thousands of individuals to the US as rewards for participating in US-sponsored ‘black ops’ in Europe and also to train others in these skills to be utilised against the USSR. Simpson noted that the CIA secretly financed many European Right-Wing Fascist organisations that were clearly extremist in ideology, and spent millions of dollars within the US in “advertising and staged media events”, presenting these people as simple European “refugees and freedom fighters” deserving American support. This was not a small program; there were tens of thousands of these individuals imported to the US, virtually all experienced right-wing political activists with serious criminal intent and, as Simpson noted, “blessed with the patronage of the CIA”. Unfortunately, Simpson and many others focused on immigrants from Germany rather than from Japan where the true story lay of biological warfare and human experimentation.
There exist several apparently unrelated items that are necessary parts of the US Biological Warfare puzzle, this being Operation Paperclip, the partnership with Japan, the creation of Fort Detrick as a bio-weapons and human experimentation center, and the creation of the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control). These events coincide perfectly in time with the US military’s explosive interest in human experimentation.
Readers may be aware of Shiro Ishii and his Unit 731 in Harbin, China, where his group performed the most hideous human experiments imaginable, including live vivisections. [5] Few seem to know that the reason there were no war crimes trials for the Japanese is that General Douglas MacArthur made a deal with Ishii that the Japanese would all be immune from war-crimes prosecution if (1) all documents and records on biological warfare and human experimentation were turned over to the US and (2) Ishii and his entire troop of thousands would be relocated to America. This is what transpired, with the Japanese given new identities and housed on US military bases, Ishii himself being a professor and a supervisor of biological research at the University of Maryland until his death decades later.
In the official Western narrative of human experimentation during World War II, the focus by the Western educational system, the Western media, Israel, and the Jewish lobbies, is entirely placed upon Germany, erasing from our history the much worse atrocities committed by Japan – and which knowledge was fully accessed and advantaged by the Americans. A detailed reference is in order to correct the historical focus. If nothing else, we need to expose the pathological interest the Americans had in human experimentation and biological warfare by the end of WWII.
When Japanese troops invaded North-East China (Manchuria) in 1932, Dr. Shiro Ishii, a prominent Japanese physician and army officer began his notorious biological warfare experimentation program in a sector near Harbin disguised as a water-purification unit, then known as Unit 731. He began with various poisonous gases including mustard gas, then used aircraft to distribute cotton and rice husks contaminated with the bubonic plague, in various parts of Central China. His unit captured Chinese who were offering resistance to the Japanese occupation, using them for unlimited medical atrocities including live vivisection. [6][7]The New York Times reported one instance [8] of a Japanese physician describing his experience there:
“I cut him open from the chest to the stomach and he screamed terribly and his face was all twisted in agony. He made this unimaginable sound; he was screaming so horribly. But then finally he stopped. This was all in a day’s work for the surgeons, but it really left an impression on me because it was my first time.”
Ishii would first have his teams infect the victims with anthrax, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, dysentery, syphilis, the bubonic plague, and other pathogens, then dissect them while still alive to examine the results, followed by cremation of the evidence. The US military’s Surgeon-General’s Department estimated that 580,000 Chinese were killed in this manner, with atrocities committed by some of Japan’s most distinguished physicians.
In the treatise, “Medical aspects of Biological Warfare“, [9] published in 2007 by the Surgeon-General’s Department of the US military, one American military historian contributed the following:
“Prisoners, including women and children, became the subjects of grisly experimentation, and were cremated in the camp incinerator usually late at night. Chemical warfare experiments were conducted in a gas chamber with an observation window. Unit 100 focused on developing biological weapons for sabotage operations. Although animals and crops were the focus of most of the research, numerous human studies were also conducted, similar to those conducted by Unit 731. Unit 1644 supported Unit 731’s research efforts with bacterial agent production and flea cultivation. Eleven Chinese cities were allegedly attacked during “field trials” using infectious agents. As a result of the Japanese biowarfare program, 580,000 people are estimated to have died in China.”
Ishii was known to be very ruthless. He used to oversee dreaded experiments by himself. Some of his ruthless experiments included exposing victims to frostbite, leading to gangrene, followed by the amputation of limbs without anesthetic, until only the head and the torso of the victim remained. The remaining body, still alive, would be injected with bubonic plague, and dissected without any anesthetic, to observe how the disease spread across the body. The body was then left to rot outside the facility and then buried in mass graves.” [10]
The atrocities committed by Ishii and his staff are almost impossible to fathom. Here is a brief synopsis from one good source:
Funded by the Japanese government, Ishii had more than 150 buildings constructed across a huge compound covering over 2 square miles and able to house up to 400 victims. This prison camp was known as Unit 731. His victims included men, women, pregnant women, elderly, children, and even infants. Unit 731 had a freezer that could be set to 50°F below zero. Hands and arms were frozen to create frostbite; some frozen limbs were thawed to study the rotting of human flesh. Other victims were dehydrated to the point of death. Prisoners were shot in the stomach so that Japanese surgeons could practice removing bullets. Legs and arms were amputated without administering anesthesia. People were injected with seawater to determine if it could be used as a substitute for saline solution. Parts of livers were removed to determine how long one could live with only a partial organ. Some had their limbs amputated, with Japanese researchers reattaching the body parts in novel ways. For example, a stomach would be surgically removed, and then the esophagus would be attached directly to the intestines. Subjects were placed into centrifuges and spun to death; prisoners were torched with flame throwers or exposed to phosphorus or chloride gas. To test the effects of shrapnel, prisoners were chained to stakes in open fields and grenades were exploded at varying distances from the victims. [11]
Another item that very much interested the Americans was Ishii’s experience in biological and entomological (insect) warfare. Unit 731 developed dispersion techniques for germ warfare via bio-warfare weapons, which were operationally tested on civilians in Chinese cities. Bio-warfare weapons containing bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax, and other deadly diseases were dropped by low-flying airplanes on innocent residents of these cities. In addition, Unit 731 bred plague-infested fleas in their labs and devised “flea bombs” and other devices designed to spread germs and parasites, which were dropped on Chinese military personnel and civilians throughout World War II. The US was desperate not to have Ishii’s knowledge of biological weapons fall into the hands of Russia, including the results of his myriad medical experiments on humans. The US also wanted to supplement its own germ warfare program knowledge base with the results of the biological warfare experiments conducted at Unit 731, and thus made the offer and agreement with Ishii and the Japanese government. [12]
At the end of the war when it became clear Japan was losing and would have to evacuate China, Ishii ordered all the remaining Chinese in custody to be killed and their bodies burned, then destroyed with explosives the entire Unit 731 compound to hide all traces of his experiments. The Japanese also disposed of more than two million chemical and biological weapons by either burying them or dumping them into Chinese rivers. These weapons are still being uncovered in China today.
The destruction was no sooner accomplished than General Douglas MacArthur, who was then Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan, made a secret deal with Ishii and the entire staff of Unit 731 to transfer to the US military all records of the biowarfare and vivisections for US military study, in exchange for a complete cover-up of all evidence and testimony of the existence of these activities, and a promise of immunity from war-crimes prosecution. On 6 May 1947, MacArthur wrote to Washington that “additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as ‘War Crimes’ evidence.” Some Japanese were arrested by Soviet forces for their biological crimes against Russians, and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949 but, to cover their own tracks, the Americans dismissed all surviving victim testimony and Russia’s war-crimes trials of Japanese as “communist propaganda”. [13][14]
Ishii turned over to the US military on one occasion alone more than 10,000 pages of his “research findings”, after which the Americans re-wrote Japan’s history books, which is why neither the Japanese nor the world know of the massive atrocities committed in China, and which is where the American military gained much of its expertise and know-how in chemical and biological weapons and the methods of human experimentation it would later apply so freely in Korea and Vietnam and to American citizens.
Not only did the US government and military provide Dr. Ishii and his staff total immunity from prosecution, they imported the entire group to the US, all secretly stationed on US military bases and at the CDC, all on the US Army payroll. In fact, Dr. Ishii was for years a frequent guest lecturer at the US military’s bio-warfare school at Fort Detrick, and given a lucrative post as full professor and supervisor of biological research at the University of Maryland until he died decades later. Oddly, the University appears to have no knowledge of this. Many of Ishii’s staff enjoyed lucrative careers in the US, including roles in the National Medical Association, National Institute for Health (NIH), the National Cancer Center, the CDC, and of course Fort Detrick. Others had high-level positions at American pharmaceutical companies.
There is one other matter to consider. Place yourself for a moment in the position of an investigator of war crimes, and you have discovered a group that has committed numerous atrocities. At what point in your investigation would you consider granting immunity to these criminals? Would you do that at the start of your investigation when you still had no full idea of the range of their crimes, or would you wait until you had made a complete discovery? Obviously, you would wait until the end, until you were reasonably certain you had uncovered everything. So, at what point would the US government and military decide to grant full immunity to Shiro Ishii and his group? Obviously again, only when they were reasonably certain they had discovered everything.
The reason this is important is that when the Americans made their decision to grant full immunity and immigration to the US, it was only after they had been made fully aware of the range and extent of inhuman atrocities those Japanese had committed. And that means the Americans were not at all disappointed with what they had found, but wanted those people in their employ and under their supervision so that they could learn more. Now, ask yourself why they would want to learn this knowledge if they were not intending to use it? What does that tell you about the Americans? What does that tell you about the University of Maryland that they would want these people on their teaching faculty? What does it tell you about the management of Fort Detrick, of the CDC, the NIH, and other American institutions and health organisations and universities, that they would also want these people on their staff? What does it tell you about the US government and military?
One of the surviving declassified documents which is now stored in the US National Archives in College Park, Maryland, was a report of Aug 1, 1947 prepared by J. B. Cresap, a US Navy intelligence officer, for circulation within the State, War, and Navy Departments. The report, titled “Interrogation of certain Japanese by Russian prosecutors”, contains appendices with full documentation of many Japanese war crimes. But it contains something even more startling: the unequivocal conclusion of the report, stating, “The value to the US of Japanese BW (biological warfare) data is of such importance to national security as to far outweigh the value accruing from ‘war crimes’ prosecution.” There is no way to misunderstand that statement. There is further documentation consisting of directives from Washington to MacArthur that declared “information obtained from Ishii and associates on BW will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as ‘war crime’ evidence.” The situation cannot be made more clear.
The immunity deal granted to Dr. Ishii and his staff was kept secret for decades, but this could not have been accomplished without the active assistance and participation of the Jewish media who exercised an absolute censorship on the topic. Details began to leak in the late 1980s, and a documentary named “Japanese Devils” [15] was published in 2001, which is when all parts of the world – including the Japanese themselves – learned about Unit 731 and what had occurred there.
It was only in 1995 that the US military finally admitted it had offered immunity, secret identities to disguise their origins and functions, and good jobs with high salaries, to these Japanese scientists and physicians in exchange for all their data on biological warfare research and human experimentation. These people were recruited not only by the military, but by the CDC, the US State Department, military intelligence, the CIA, and the US Department of Agriculture, all for work on “secret government projects”.
Ishii’s participation in Project SHAD and Project 112
Author Sheldon H. Harris researched the history of Japanese Biological warfare and the American cover-up extensively. Harris and other scholars found that U.S. intelligence authorities had seized the Japanese researchers’ archive after the technical information was provided by Japan. The information was transferred in an arrangement that exchanged keeping the information a secret and not pursuing war crimes charges. The arrangement with the United States concerning Japanese WMD research provided extensive Japanese technical information in exchange for not pursuing certain charges and also allowed Japan’s government to deny knowledge of the use of these weapons by Japan’s military in China during World War II. [16] German scientists in Europe also skipped war crimes charges and went to work as U.S. employed intelligence agents and technical experts in an arrangement known as Operation Paperclip. [17][17a]
The U.S. would not cooperate when the Soviet Union attempted to pursue war crimes charges against the Japanese. General Douglas MacArthur denied the U.S. Military had any captured records on Japan’s military biological program. “The U.S. denial was absolutely misleading but technically correct as the Japanese records on biological warfare were then in the custody of U.S intelligence agencies rather than in possession of the military”. A formerly top-secret report by the U.S. War Department at the close of World War II, clearly stipulates that the United States exchanged Japan’s military technical information on BW experimentation against humans, plants, and animals in exchange for war crimes immunity. The War department notes that, “The voluntary imparting of this BW information may serve as a forerunner for obtaining much additional information in other fields of research.” Armed with Nazi and Imperial Japanese biowarfare know-how, the United States government and its intelligence agencies began conducting widespread field testing of potential CBW capabilities on American cities, crops, and livestock. [18][19][20]
It is known that Japanese scientists were working at the direction of the Japan’s military and intelligence agencies on advanced research projects of the United States including America’s covert biomedical and biowarfare programs from the end of World War II through at least the 1960s. It is well-documented that Japanese scientists were involved in many of the sections of Project 112, and were present in many of the bio-warfare facilities. Here is one such report about the Rocky Mountain Arsenal [21]
“In addition to the results of human experimentation much valuable data is available from the Japanese experiments in animal and food crops. The voluntary imparting of this BV information may serve as a forerunner for obtaining much additional information in other fields of research. The desirability of avoiding war crimes involvement. Since it is believed that the USSR possesses only a small portion of this technical information, and since any “war crimes” trial would completely reveal much data to all nations, it is felt that such publicity must be avoided in interests of defense and security of the US. It is believed also that “war crimes” prosecution of Ishii and his associates would serve to stop the flow on much additional information of a technical and scientific nature.” [21a]
The Jewish Black Hand
There is something else here, of extreme importance, illustrated by a fax sent by Eli M. Rosenbaum, Director, Office of Special Investigations, US Department of Justice, to Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[22] Both are Jews.
Rosenbaum of the OSI tells the Rabbi at the Simon Wiesenthal Center that “All Japanese military and civilian personnel who were involved in [these] Axis-sponsored acts … are ineligible to enter the United States.” Rosenbaum claims his Department has added “…tens of thousands of names to the interagency border control watchlist [which] is an outgrowth of this Office’s unprecedented investigative effort … In all, the names of more than 60,000 suspects have been added to the watchlist at OSI’s behest.” However, he then says, “Unfortunately, despite years of work by this Office, we have been able to identify fewer than a hundred suspected Japanese participants in World War II-era crimes against humanity (primarily individuals implicated in the “Unit 731” medical atrocities and in the so-called “Comfort Women” mass rapes).” Rosenbaum then goes on to state “There are two reasons for this unfortunate situation”, these being that the US military somehow forgot to microfilm or otherwise retain copies of the Japanese records which were in their possession, and that the Japanese government apparently “failed to grant meaningful access to OSI despite U.S. Government entreaties over the years.”
This is an explosive document, but we need to read between the lines a bit, and to connect a few dots, to make full sense of this. For those who have read my article on The Power Behind the Throne, it will be apparent that Jews were largely in control of the Department of Justice and certainly in full control of the OSI (the Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations), and that this was clearly an office established by the Jews to hunt down and persecute any and all Germans who had in the past exhibited any disaffection for the Jews. This office was not, as popularly-believed, established to find war criminals, but to persecute Germans, who were all classed as “Nazis”. This term has been given an abominable connotation, but being a member of the Nazi party was not different in nature than being a member of the Republican or Democratic parties in the US. Rosenbaum’s “60,000 suspects” were therefore entirely Germans who were “suspected” of having been “anti-Semitic” and who could now be pursued forever for this “sin” under the power of the US Department of Justice.
The Jews (and therefore the US Department of Justice) had no interest in pursuing or punishing the Japanese for their atrocities in China because the Jews had much less affection for the Chinese than they did for the Japanese. They simply didn’t care. Rosenbaum’s excuses for the lack of names of Japanese war criminals are obviously false. To claim that the US diligently produced more than 60,000 names of bad Germans (who in real life did very little that was bad), but somehow neglected to obtain the names of a great many Japanese (who in real life committed well-documented and astonishingly deranged atrocities), is a very stupid lie. Further, the US government was in 100% control of Japan after the surrender, and it is inconceivable that they would be unable to obtain these records from the Japanese if they wanted them, and “begging entreaties” would not have been necessary. But regardless of this, it is well-documented that Douglas MacArthur had all the names since he brokered the agreement with Ishii and the Japanese Government for immunity, and further that all these people were in fact transferred to the US as employees of the new US Military human experimentation departments.
We need to ask ourselves why the Jews would have been so deeply involved in the matter of war crimes. This was properly none of their business. It was the job of the victorious Allies to identify and pursue criminals and to prosecute war crimes. Why would Jews (although under the cover of the US Department of Justice) be leading the hunt? And why would the OSI be confiding all this confidential detail to a civilian Jew who had no sensible right to this information, being unrelated from every perspective? The Simon Wiesenthal Center is not in any sense a War Crimes Commission; it is the Jews’ “German-Prosecution Commission”. And that’s all it is. Rosenbaum’s claims were entirely fraudulent, but by writing the above letter, Rosenbaum is creating a paper trail to help the Jews cover their tracks. This fax is a kind of proof that permits the Jews (and the OSI) to say later, “We wanted to persecute all war criminals but the only names we could get were of Germans. We didn’t persecute Japanese war criminals because the Japanese government wouldn’t give us their names.” Clever.
We could also legitimately ask why the Jews didn’t obtain the Japanese information from the Russians who tried repeatedly to present their evidence to the Tribunals but were rejected. This was the reply in December of 1946: “We do not consider that the evidence now available is sufficient to justify an assurance that any of the accused can be associated with this activity by any of the criteria adopted by the Court with reference to atrocities and prisoners of war offenses.” [23] American prosecutors discussed the issue openly, and the topic was by no means a secret in Washington. It seems quite clear from the historical record that the Americans and the Jews mutually agreed to immunise the Japanese and prosecute (and persecute) only the Germans.
There is more background to this than might first appear. During the era of World War II, we tend to associate Jews almost exclusively with Germany, mostly because we have been inundated by the Jewish media and publishing industries for 70 years about the Jews’ bad treatment at the hands of the Germans. But the Jews were heavily involved in Japan, perhaps even more so than in Germany, since at least the early 1900s. Remember that it was the Jew Jacob Schiff who engineered (and financed) Japan’s aggressive war against Russia in 1905, intended to weaken Russia for the planned Jewish Bolshevik Revolution. Recall too, that Nagasaki expelled all the Jews from the city in the 1930s and that the country of Japan expelled all the Jews immediately prior to World War II.
It doesn’t seem to be widely known, but it was a Jew, Bernard Baruch (promoted as the most powerful man in the US) who was the controller of the entire US project to develop the atomic bomb (widely known at the time as “The Jewish Hell-Bomb”). It was Baruch who chose Oppenheimer to lead the project and who selected Leslie Groves to construct all the facilities, and it was Baruch who personally chose Japan and Nagasaki as the targets for the first atomic bombs. Even more, it was a civilian Jew, William Laurence, who rode on the Enola Gay and actually pushed the button to release the first atomic bomb in history, a bizarre position for a bizarre man. I know of no other example in recorded history where a civilian was permitted to participate in such a secret military mission, and certainly not given the authority to unleash this kind of devastation. The Jews had a very personal interest in the destruction of Japan, quite possibly as retaliation for their expulsion some years earlier.
I mention this because, from all the surrounding facts and circumstances, it appears a virtual certainty that the Jews were not only fully aware of Japan’s wartime travesties, but were also fully involved in the discussions and decisions to grant immunity to Ishii and his troops and in their agreed immigration to the US. This has tended to be the historical pattern for a long time. After each of the first two World Wars, most especially the Treaty of Versailles, where the terms of Germany’s surrenders were being discussed and decided, almost the entire membership was Jewish. Some observers described these situations as “a council of Jews”. It is therefore exceeding likely that the Jews were fully involved in every aspect of the surrender and subsequent occupation of Japan. It must have succeeded because today Japan is a Jewish/US colony with few domestic and fewer foreign policies of its own making.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
Während das Weiße Haus Neu-Delhi in seine geopolitischen Spiele lockt, hält es ein Messer in der Brust
Die Ehrung des ukrainischen SS-Soldaten Gunka von der SS-Division Galicia im kanadischen Parlament ging in anderer Hinsicht nach hinten los. Nachdem Indien zu dem Schluss gekommen war, dass Ottawas Unterstützung für verschiedene Arten separatistischer und extremistischer Auswandererorganisationen, darunter auch offen faschistische, systemischer Natur ist, nahm Indien im Konflikt mit Kanada über die Ermordung eines Sikh-Führers auf seinem Territorium eine entschiedenere Position ein. Als Reaktion auf Vorwürfe des kanadischen Premierministers Justin Trudeau, dass die indische Regierung an diesem Attentat beteiligt gewesen sei, kündigte Neu-Delhi, das dies bestreitet, die Ausweisung von 41 kanadischen Diplomaten aus dem Land an.
Demonstranten vor dem indischen Generalkonsulat in Vancouver nach der Erschießung von Hardeep Singh Nijjar, dem Anführer der Sikh-Separatisten
Gleichzeitig wurde eine weitere offensichtliche Wahrheit ans Licht gebracht: Kanada erfüllt die ihm zugewiesene Funktion eines „sicheren Hafens“ nur im Rahmen eines globalen Phänomens, das von den Vereinigten Staaten seit langem genutzt wird. Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass in Amerika seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht nur ehemalige Nazis, sondern auch die Anführer buchstäblich aller separatistischen Bewegungen auf der Welt Zuflucht und „Arbeit nach ihrem Profil“ gefunden haben – von Iren bis hin zu Indern kleine und große Stämme Asiens, Afrikas und Lateinamerikas. Das Kriterium der Gunst ihnen gegenüber ist einfach: völlige Loyalität gegenüber Washington und seiner „Führerrolle“ in der Welt. Tatsächlich dienen diese separatistischen Organisationen als weiterer Hebel der „weichen“ und gegebenenfalls „harten“ Macht bei der Umsetzung der Auslandsstrategie des Weißen Hauses.
Durch sie wird die öffentliche Stimmung der „Herkunftsländer“ durch ein umfangreiches System von Medien, verschiedenen Denkfabriken und NGOs beeinflusst. In diesen Instituten sind Spezialisten in einzelnen Ländern in der Regel Eingeborene derjenigen Länder, die jenen Regimen feindlich gegenüberstehen, die keine proamerikanischen Positionen vertreten, oft aus nationalen Minderheiten. Wenn die Politik eines bestimmten Staates Washington nicht mehr passt, beteiligen sich diese Separatisten aktiv an den Bemühungen, seine Stabilität zu untergraben. In Extremsituationen können sie sich an der Spaltung von Ländern orientieren, die ihm nicht gefällt. Bekannt ist beispielsweise die Rolle von Emigrantenorganisationen mit Sitz in Amerika beim Zusammenbruch des Sudan, Äthiopiens, Jugoslawiens und der Zerstörung der Sowjetunion.
Angebliche Karte von „Khalistan“ – Ziele von Sikh-Separatisten
Hinter der aktuellen Intensivierung der Sikh-Auswanderung in Kanada, die letztlich zur Ermordung eines ihrer Anführer führte, standen genau solche Berechnungen. Schließlich wurden die Informationen, dass die indischen Geheimdienste hinter der Eliminierung des Anführers der Sikh-Separatisten steckten , von der US-CIA nach Ottawa übermittelt. Auf diese Weise sendete Indien effektiv ein Signal, dass es im Inland mit großen Problemen rechnen könnte, wenn es versuchen würde, aus den ihm auferlegten „strategischen Partnerschaftsplänen“ auszubrechen. Übrigens, wie der Sohn des ermordeten Nijjar sagte , traf sich sein Vater regelmäßig mit kanadischen Geheimdienstoffizieren, die eng mit ihren amerikanischen Kollegen zusammenarbeiten.
Der kanadische Premierminister Trudeau mit Sikh-Führern bei einer Kundgebung, und sogar für LGBT
Durch das kanadische Stellvertreterinstrument schien Washington Indien in die Schranken zu weisen und es zu zwingen, nicht zu viel von sich selbst zu verlangen. In einem ähnlichen Szenario nutzen die Vereinigten Staaten beispielsweise, allerdings ohne separatistischen Kontext, die anti-Erdogan-türkische Organisation Fethullah Gülen mit Sitz in Pennsylvania. „Sauerstoff“ ist dafür entweder geöffnet oder geschlossen, abhängig vom Verhalten des türkischen Präsidenten R. Erdogan selbst.
Artikel, die separatistische Gefühle in Indien schürten, erschienen in der US-Presse sogar während des „Unterschriftsbesuchs“ von Premierminister N. Modi dort. Vor allem die New York Times beklagte die „Beschneidung“ demokratischer Freiheiten unter ihm und schrieb : „Indien ist unter Modi für mehr als 200 Millionen Angehörige religiöser Minderheiten besonders gefährlich geworden: Bürgerwehren unter seinen rechten Anhängern schüren Spannungen.“ Indien eine verfassungsmäßig säkulare Demokratie aufzuzwingen, die die dominierende Rolle des Hinduismus übernimmt. Aus diesem Grund können die Leidenschaften jederzeit hochkochen – insbesondere bei indischen Muslimen.“ Führende amerikanische Quellen auf dem Gebiet der Außenpolitik identifizieren N. Modi mit „Hindu-Nationalismus“, der angeblich darauf abzielt, etwas zu schaffen„Akhand Bharat – ein größeres ungeteiltes Indien – in dem Neu-Delhi eine ‚kulturelle Konföderation‘ über ein Gebiet aufbauen würde, das sich von Afghanistan bis Myanmar und von Sri Lanka bis Tibet erstreckt.“ Im Programm des indischen Premierministers steht nichts dergleichen, doch solche Äußerungen mobilisieren zahlreiche schismatische Kräfte gegen ihn. Kritiker der übermäßigen Werbung für Indien in den Vereinigten Staaten sagen, dass die Zusammenarbeit mit Indien „strikt darauf ausgerichtet sein sollte, China entgegenzuwirken“. Und US-Beamte „ müssen verstehen, dass Indien im Grunde kein Verbündeter ist.“
Vorbereitungen für den Empfang von Narendra Modi im Weißen Haus
Die jüngsten Ereignisse sollten Neu-Delhi natürlich noch einmal dazu veranlassen, darüber nachzudenken, wie aufrichtig die Vertreter des Weißen Hauses sind, die den Indern nur Vorteile versprechen, wenn sie dem Beispiel der Vereinigten Staaten folgen. Es gibt gute Gründe zu der Annahme, dass Indien dort vor allem als Instrument zur Führung eines hybriden Stellvertreterkrieges mit China gesehen wird, worüber Diplomaten schweigen, Experten aber offen sprechen. Es wäre jedoch naiv zu glauben, dass sich die indische Führung nicht aller Fallstricke bewusst ist, die der amerikanische Lobpreis in ihre Richtung mit sich bringt. Neu-Delhi hat sein eigenes Spiel und vielleicht ist es im Heimatland des Schachs sogar noch komplexer als amerikanisches Poker. Vor allem einige Experten in Amerika äußern offen Zweifel daran, dass Washington den „indischen Elefanten“ so einfach in die gewünschte Richtung lenken kann.
Laut der britischen Ausgabe des Economist, der den ehemaligen „Diamanten“ von London weiterhin genau beobachtet, „glaubt Neu-Delhi nicht wirklich an Allianzen.“ Ein konstantes Merkmal der indischen Außenpolitik – von der Ära von Jawaharlal Nehru bis zum heutigen Bekenntnis zur Blockfreiheit – ist eine tiefsitzende postkoloniale Angst, erneut einer reicheren Macht ausgeliefert zu sein.“ Allein dieser Faktor lässt nach Ansicht der Briten bereits Zweifel am Ausmaß der prowestlichen Voreingenommenheit Indiens aufkommen. Tatsächlich sieht sie Amerikas Bemühungen, die Beziehungen zu stärken, „eher als wirtschaftliche Chance denn als strategische Chance, obwohl Neu-Delhis Wunsch, die Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsbeziehungen zu vertiefen, tatsächlich wächst.“ Indische Analystengeben zu , dass sie im gestiegenen Interesse des Westens an ihrem Land vor allem ein „günstiges geopolitisches Umfeld“ sehen, das ihm helfen wird, sich „erfolgreich in globale Lieferketten zu integrieren“.
Ashley Tellis, eine führende amerikanische Expertin für Indien, die einst eine wichtige Rolle bei der Annäherung der Vereinigten Staaten an Indien spielte und heute beim Carnegie Endowment arbeitet, veröffentlichte in Foreign Affairs einen Artikel mit dem charakteristischen Titel „Amerikas gescheiterte Wette auf Indien “ . ” Darin dämpft er Washingtons Hoffnungen, dass Neu-Delhi sein wichtigster Sicherheitspartner werden könnte. Seiner Meinung nach will Indien von den USA nur Schutz vor möglichen aggressiven Aktionen Pekings gegen sich selbst, denkt aber nicht einmal an einen offensiven Kampf gegen das Land im Interesse Amerikas, an dem letzteres in erster Linie interessiert ist.
N. Modi und V. Putin
Neben der Zurückhaltung Neu-Delhis, sich im Namen Washingtons auf einen hybriden Stellvertreterkrieg mit China einzulassen und sich dadurch in eine „asiatische Ukraine“ zu verwandeln und langjährige enge Beziehungen zu Russland zu zerstören, hat die indische Führung noch andere Gründe für ihre Unzufriedenheit mit dem Weißen Haus. Indien zum Beispiel widerspricht dem Beharren Amerikas auf der Beibehaltung strenger Sanktionen gegen Myanmar und Iran, während es Pakistan nachgibt, wo Massenverhaftungen, Verschwindenlassen und Folter zur Norm geworden sind. Sie missbilligt auch die Feindseligkeit der USA gegenüber der säkularen Regierung Bangladeschs, die islamistische Kräfte bekämpft und ausnahmsweise normale Beziehungen zu Neu-Delhi aufgenommen hat.
Joe Biden und N. Modi vor dem Hintergrund des „Rades von Samsara“ – dem Kreislauf von Geburt und Tod
Beobachter glauben, dass die Vereinigten Staaten Herausforderungen seitens ihrer Partner nicht gewohnt sind. Ihre traditionellen Bündnisse im Stil des Kalten Krieges positionieren die USA als „Zentrum“ und ihre Verbündeten als „Speichen“. Doch mit dem ewigen indischen „Rad von Samsara“ wird das nicht funktionieren. Sogar Kurt Campbell, der die Asienpolitik des Weißen Hauses beaufsichtigt, gab zu: „Indien hat einen einzigartigen strategischen Charakter und den Wunsch, ein unabhängiger, mächtiger Staat zu sein.“ Die ihnen von den Vereinigten Staaten zugewiesene Rolle als Klientel ist weit entfernt von ihrem Wunsch, eine weitere Großmacht zu werden, was an sich schon ein ernstes Konfliktpotential in den künftigen amerikanisch-indischen Beziehungen birgt.
Der Friedensstifter 