CURRENT ISSUE | WEB LINKS PAGE | READER"S COMMENTS | BACK TO FLAME HOME PAGE | COMPLETE INDEX OF ALL ISSUES

Co-editors: Seán Mac Mathúna • John Heathcote
Consulting editor: Themistocles Hoetis
Field Correspondent: Allen Hougland

E-mail: editors@fantompowa.net

FULL SPECTRUM GLOBAL DOMINANCE

by John Heathcote

Bush,Allen Dulles and the Nazi fortune

Bush Family Fortune

John Heartfield- anti-Nazi, anti-war artist

Project for the New American Century - full spectrum dominance

Krieg und leichen - die letzte hoffnung der reichen.

War and corpses - the last hope of the rich by John Heartfield, 1932

FULL SPECTRUM GLOBAL DOMINANCE: War Editorial

APPEASEMENT AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF WWII

How the Bush family financed Nazi Germany from the 1920's

Bush and the Boorman link

SOCIALISM & EMPIRE

The birth of American Empire in the First World War

How war is used to stifle the protest of the poor and the progress of democracy

 

Flame editorial 17th March 2003 - War 1

Full Spectrum Global Dominance

Flame notes with sorrow the forthcoming unjust and illegal war on the sovereign state of Iraq and its people. It also rejects the reasons given for war - which have finally been revealed as a clear case of a superpower using military force to change the Government of independent nations.

The USA has attempted to force the other nations of the UN and specifically the Security Council, to accede to their wish for a Resolution permitting the use of force, but the only countries in this "broad coalition" are Britain, Spain and the US.

We are now in the position of the Axis powers in the Second World War; looked on by the rest of the world with a mixture of contempt and fear. In Britain, the Government is decrying France with almost as much enthusiasm as their masters in Washington.

The British people now see Chirac, a once derided tainted political figure, as a man with more "backbone" than our own Prime Minister. The resentment , not against the American people, as George W might say, but against the current regime in particular has risen to the surface; and the greatest failure of US diplomacy may in fact be the long-term loss of their oldest ally.

 

The price will be paid mainly by the long suffering people of Iraq, in blood and burning oil.

It will not be televised, but will be all too real in the Arabian deserts and cities for the suffering people of Iraq, and quite probably for more than a few British soldiers.

The terrible truth of the forthcoming War on Iraq, as nations such as France, Germany and Russia have been forced to confront, is that is undoubtedly the first major step towards the assumption of a uni-polar world dominated by the US.

Using technology first developed during the years after WWII, when the US absorbed and developed the personnel and projects of Werner von Braun and Unit 731, they now have the confidence to abandon all international obligations and treaties, regarding the environment, war crimes and United Nations resolutions.

The only nation to have used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and which has used chemical weapons (such as Agent Orange in Vietnam) and biological weapons (currently in South America) is claiming to be going "reluctantly" to war to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

It is common knowledge in Britain that Donald Rumsfeld in particular, as well as several of the other old "spooks" resurrected in the new Bush regime, were responsible for supplying Saddam with the toxin and disease -based weaponry in the first place.

It is reported on BBC Television (Correspondent, BBC2 17th March 2003) that Israel is now apparently using chemical weapons on Palestinian demonstrators.

Israel is the only nuclear state in the Middle East. The programme mentioned above also claims that American administration in the early 1960's was horrified to discover the French sale of a nuclear plant to the Israeli's and demanded immediate inspections.

The inspectors were cleverly fooled that no weapons grade processing was being carried out; and the US President, furious at the deceit, demanded further inspections.

Fortunately for Israel, the demand was swiftly forgotten following the unfortunate death of John F Kennedy in Dallas soon afterwards, and his replacement by a politician (Lyndon Johnson) prepared to look the other way - US policy ever since.

Bush accuses the Iraqis of bugging the inspectors; in Britain a 28 year-old woman is currently under arrest for revealing US instructions to GCHQ to eavesdrop and monitor the personal communications of UN diplomats and personnel in New York (an action illegal under international law).

We are truly in the World Turned Upside Down, as the amphetamine-fuelled American prophet, Philip K. Dick once foretold.

In this run-up to a war that is being thrust upon the world by a small regime of capitalists at the head of the last superpower-empire; it is worth having a quick review of the history of the last century as a way of reminding ourselves which way is up.

Sometimes it seems as though we are being treated as fools, or children; truly, the veneer of democracy has slipped away to reveal the machinery of power, and its contempt for the opinions of 'the electorate'.

The population of Britain do not believe that war is necessary or justified. They believe in the supremacy of the UN and international law, and know that our government - and indeed, the Queen, British Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief are vulnerable to any war crimes prosecutions launched in the aftermath of war.

We have already seen one Cabinet resignation, of the Leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, over this issue ( 17th March).

The British people resent our country and it's defence forces being risked for an American power-play, which will undoubtedly result in death and carnage beyond the sterile imagination of military planners and career politicians.

It is reported that even the British intelligence services resent being corralled into such a 'reckless', (to use the word of Clare Short, another British Cabinet Minister) venture.

They neither believe that Saddam has any substantial WMD's, or any links with Al-Quaida, or that the US has any moral basis for war.

They are also aware that if our Government is involved in an attack on a sovereign country, killing any amount of civilians, that country, or its agents, will feel justified in attacking us (the civilian populations of the UK, US or Spain).

The Middle East will not be the only area which is inflamed by the conflict; popular opinion against the US action has already spread far beyond the "Arab street" or Muslim communities.

Other peoples and nations will inevitably be drawn into the conflict ; the Kurds, for instance, face massacre by bopth the Iraqis and the Turks; we can be sure that they will be offered no help to maintain their fragilr independence by the US and its 'allies'.

There are perhaps three or four central reasons why the world does not trust the principles or judgement of George Bush and the current US regime.

The first is the suspicion that his administration is made up of ruthless businessman who see the world purely as potential profit, and are prepared to use American military might to secure all economic opportunity.

This is because of the involvement of Bush and Vice-President Cheyney in Haliburton, the Carlisle group and various other oil and defence corporations. Also the involvement of Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, in initially arming Saddam's regime with WMD's (and we know the British Government was doing the same, albeit on a smaller scale).

Then there are the stated aims of , amongst others, the Project for the New American Century - set up by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others in 1997. Blatantly in support of the idea of 'full-spectrum global dominance', it's motto is 'After Bagdhad, Bejiing'.

It forsees a world in which the relationship between one state and another is no more important than their relationship with the US.

The easier this war is to win, the quicker we will see the onset of the next. Remember, this is a War without End. The pack of cards may well fall like this. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and then possibly Libya and Syria. Meanwhile, the State of Israel will rid itself of the Palestinians and Bedouins, the original inhabitants of the land, and finish the great work of 'ethnic cleansing'.

Pity the poor, small countries like Cuba, which do not allow the US to walk all over them - Bush is currently pushing for the abandonment of more treaties, governing the use of "tactical nuclear weapons".

 

No-one has any illusion that a President appointed by the Supreme Court has any real care for democracy at home or abroad. Meanwhile the popular opinion across Europe (including the UK), and the rest of the world has finally shown its resentmentment of US hegenomony.

Perhaps, as well, the idea of religious fundamentalism is easier for the free-thinking people of the world to tolerate when it is not being imposed by the worldÕs last superpower.

The imposition of the WTO, GATT, the IMF and World Bank as the only determinants of international and national economic policies has been used by the US for a covert takeover of the world economy, and the doctrine of materialistic capitalism and the "free-market" - freedom doesn't mean what it used to.

Now Britain is being pulled in the wake of an Empire that owns and controls us.

Unlike the countries of the ex-Soviet Union, the Britis have no separate language; and our culture has been subsumed by US film and TV.

Britain is now in the position that it was for the four centuries after the first Roman soldiers stepped ashore two thousand years ago and replaced our pagan culture with hollow dreams of Empire.

APPEASEMENT AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF WWII

John Heartfield

A prominent Nazi spokesman stated, "In the fulfillment of his task, the Fuhrer perceives himself as God"s instrument." Heartfield mocks this by showing the puppet Hitler in the hands of Fritz Thyssen, a leading Industrialist and head of Germany"s largest steel trust. Thyssen joined the Nazi Party in 1931. http://burn.ucsd.edu/~resist/

In Britain we have been bombarded with propaganda decrying the policy of appeasement; using the emotive word applied to those in the 1930's who stood against the war on Hitler's Germany.

The comparison of George Bush Jnr to Winston Churchill has caused even more raised eyebrows in Britain and the rest of Europe..

It is worth remembering a number of salient facts about WWII, if we are going to make such comparisons.

Hitler's Germany - like Iraq - was funded and re-armed after the First World War, with a vast amount of dollars invested by American corporations.

The example of the Ford Company, its use of slave labour and receipt of profits throughout the war into Swiss accounts were mirrored by many other US corporations.

Amongst the main economic advisors and investors in pre-war Germany, who not only worked with Hitler's regime, but had been involved in the initial founding and financing of the Nazi party, was a certain Prescott Bush, grandfather of the US President.

With the bankers Harriman and Brown - both still respected finance houses - he offloaded $50 million worth of shares in Nazi Germany to the American people.

His interests in the coal and steel works of East Silesia paid great dividends when the German Government invaded Poland and appropriated the territory. Just before the Polish Government issued a report decrying the wages and conditions of the workers in mines owned by "American companies". The profits expanded considerably when the Reich set up "work-camps" for 'indolent races' and 'undesirables' - one near a small Polish village now known to the world by the name of Aushwitz.

Grandad Bush did get prosecuted for Trading with the Enemy in 1943 - but not before heÕd salted away enough funds made out of slave labour and conflict promotion to set the family up for the next thousand years.

Below are the opening paragraphs of an article published by John Loftus, a former U.S.Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor, the President of the Florida Holocaust Museum.

He is the author of numerous books on the CIA-Nazi connection including The Belarus Secret and The Secret War Against the Jews, both of which have extensive material on the Bush-Rockefeller-Nazi connection.. .

From 1945 until 1949, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen - the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine-talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.

For four long years, successive teams of inquisitors tried to break Thyssen"s simple claim to possess neither foreign bank accounts nor interests in foreign corporations, no assets that might lead to the missing billions in assets of the Third Reich.

The inquisitors failed utterly.

Why? Because what the wily Thyssen deposed was, in a sense, true.

What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.

He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents - stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts--from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker.

Thyssen's partners in crime were the father and father-in-law of a future President of the United States.

The allied investigators underestimated Thyssen's reach, his connections, his motives, and his means. The web of financial entities Thyssen helped create in the 1920's remained a mystery for the rest of the twentieth century, an almost perfectly hidden underground sewer pipeline for moving dirty money, money that bankrolled the post-war fortunes not only of the Thyssen industrial empire...but the Bush family as well.

It was a secret Fritz Thyssen would take to his grave. . . .

It should be noted that the Thyssen group (TBG) is now the largest industrial conglomerate in Germany, and with a net worth of more than $50 billion dollars, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. TBG is so rich it even bought out the Krupp family, famous arms makers for Hitler, leaving the Thyssens as the undisputed champion survivors of the Third Reich.

Where did the Thyssens get the start-up money to rebuild their empire with such speed after World War II?

The enormous sums of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942 is the best evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer for the Nazis. Remember that Union Banks" books and accounts were frozen by the U.S. Alien Property Custodian in 1942 and not released back to the Bush family until 1951.

At that time, Union Bank shares representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of industrial stocks and bonds were unblocked for distribution.

Did the Bush family really believe that such enormous sums came from Dutch enterprises? One could sell tulip bulbs and wooden shoes for centuries and not achieve those sums.

A fortune this size could only have come from the Thyssen profits made from rearming the Third Reich, and then hidden, first from the Nazi tax auditors, and then from the Allies.

In 1951, Prescott Bush and his father in law each received one share of Union Bank stock, worth $750,000 each. One and a half million dollars was a lot of money in 1951.

But then, from the Thyssen point of view, buying the Bushes was the best bargain of the war.

He finishes the article with these prescient comments;

The bottom line is harsh: It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920"s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason.

The Bush's bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity.

Bush and the Boorman link

For conspiracy theorists the link with the past is never far away.

The footnotes to a biography of the Bush family include these interesting observations.

  • 18. One of Dubya's last cabinet appointments was Robert Zoellick, who was appointed U.S. Trade Representative shortly before Bush took office. ("Bush's Trade Chief Rated as Smart, Smooth Negotiator" by Jonathan Petersen; Los Angeles Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)
  • 19. An excerpt from FTR-186 highlights Zoellick's role as a key foreign policy adviser to Bush during the campaign. ("Bush Questions Aid to Moscow in a Policy Talk" by R.W. Apple, Jr.; New York Times; 11/20/99.)
  • 20. Underscoring the probability of strong ties between the Bush camp and the Bormann group, the program sets forth Zoellick's participation in the German Marshall Fund of the United States. (Idem.)
  • 21. Set up as a P.R. front for German heavy industry, the German Marshall fund is, in effect, a Bormann front group. (Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Manning; pp. 261-262.)
  • 22. Zoellick was one of the principal figures in the launching of NAFTA, as well as the Bush/Baker State Department point man in the negotiations that led to the reunification of Germany. ("Bush Seeking To Overhaul Policy Making" by Joseph Kahn and Frank Bruni; New York Times; 1/6/2001; pp. B1-14.)
  • 23. Handling German reunification, Zoellick must have worked closely with Gunther Strassmeier, Helmut Kohl's former chief of staff and the architect of German reunification. Strassmeier is the father of Andreas Strassmeier, a key figure in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation. (The Beast Reawakens, by Martin A. Lee; hardcover, Little Brown & Co., pp. 352-3, ISBN 0-316-51959-6.)
  • 24. Zoellick also helped to midwife the World Trade Organization. (Robert Bruce Zoellick; by Joseph Kahn; New York Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)
  • 25. A James Baker protege, Zoellick worked with Baker in the Florida recount machinations. ("Bush's Trade Chief Rated as Smart, Smooth Negotiator" by Jonathan Petersen; Los Angeles Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)

In fact, in the 1990's Jeb and George both received the profits from the trust fund set up by their grandad .

It is impossible that they did not know from where the money had come.

Principles seem to be only for those without power, morals for those without money.

 

SOCIALISM & EMPIRE

John Heartfield

The birth of American Empire in the First World War

How war is used to stifle the protest of the poor and the progress of democracy

Socialism - The idea that society is organised around the mutual interests of all that make it up; that every human being deserves to be given the best possible life; and that any produce surplus to the basics are used for the equal good of all in society.

Empire is the mobilisation of the wealth and population of a country by its ruling class to increase their profits by appropriating the land and wealth of another people. No Empires are ever built on unpopulated territory

The 20th century began with over half the world coloured red.

The colour of blood spreading across the map was that of the British Empire, which standing apart from the European mainland like an ocean fortress, had managed to become pre-eminent amongst the Western powers in their attempt to colonise the entire world.

Perhaps the fact that Britain had always had to negotiate with other Empires throughout its history gave it the edge in the pursuit of commercial profit and the spread of territory, more through the corruption of local governments and leaders than pure brute force.

It has been said that the British Empire was built in a fit of absent- mindedness; the result of successful piracy and wily diplomacy.

The real success in enduring terms was the propogation of the language and the culture, and all those values with which the British people like to feel they are associated; values that stood in direct opposition to all the violence, vainglory and imperial ambition of our rulers.

The humanism which founded the Anti-Slavery Society in South London,was the same that inspired the Cable Street Riots in the 1930's against fascism; which sent fathers, brothers and sons to fight and die, like their fathers and brothers before them in the fields of Europe.

Massacred on the shore at Dunkirk awaiting rescue by hundreds of tiny boats whilst the factories in Frankfurt and on the Ruhr turned out more profit for the US corporations.

At this point we skip back to when the map was still scarlet and the British Navy ruled the world.

The still-new Germany, born out of the old Holy Roman Empire's many small, independent city-states, and now under the control of the Prussian Junkers, a militaristic aristocracy descended in fact and spirit from the Teutonic Knights, perhaps ChristendomÕs darkest crusaders.

They had carved a small empire in the Eastern Europe, committing cultural genocide on the native populations in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania; enslaving them and appropriating their land as vast estates on which the people would now be serfs.

This Germany looked around and saw that the two great European powers, Britain and France, had effectively carved up the third world between them. Even tiny Belgium had its ÔcolonyÕ in the Belgian Congo, run by their King Leopold as his personal fiefdom; where slavery was often enforced by mutilation of women and children.

And the only way that Germany would be able to achieve such an Empire would be to build a Navy which would ultimately be able to challenge the greatest navy on Earth. The fact that the King-Emperor of Britain was a cousin of the Kaiser of the Germans was indicative of what lay behind the nature of Empire.

Empire is the mobilisation of the wealth and population of a country by its ruling class to increase their profits by appropriating the land and wealth of another people. No Empires are ever built on unpopulated territory. That is why Russians still live in Siberia - if they werenÕt there, the Americans would move in.

Ultimately, the 'blood sacrifice' that is called on to defend an Empire is that of the serfs, the workers, the ones who never profit in any material way from the imperial adventure. Like British 'Tommys' or US 'grunts', most common soldiers are drawn from the lowest social levels of society - and generally left to return there after service.

The First World War was the dying throes of European Empires.

At the peak of their success, when the British, in particular, seemed unassailable, they were overtaken by greed and hubris.

It is no coincidence either that the natives had become restless.

The initial overthrow of feudalism in France in 1779 was halted by the intervention of European monarchies; what resulted was the same change that was affected in Napoleon - a lean Republican became a corpulent imperialist.

His legacy though, was to overthrow feudalism, and introduce the idea, if not the reality of equality before the law, for which he was never forgiven by the patriarchy, the aristocrats - the real inheritors of Europe.

The American Republic was next to break free of the spell of heirarchy, inspired largely by humanist liberals, atheists and revolutionaries from Britain and France.

A major problem perhaps was the paradox of a Republic built on slavery; especially in a country where most of the immigrants who had taken the land were escaping the serfdom and industrial slavery of Britain, Ireland and Europe.

In the hundred years after the French Revolution, the poor in Britain and Europe suddenly found the template they needed to lift the curse of inherited class and wealth off the backs of the people.

By learning how to organise more effectively than their masters, by rejecting the superstitions of power that had kept them in fear, by recreating the culture and finding the voice that a thousand years of the Roman Empire and kings and princes had taken away; the people of Europe seemed to be moving towards some more egalitarian society.

In Britain, women were campaigning for a vote, and a united Ireland had been promised by the British Government. Both Russia and Germany were in the throes of social turmoil.

In industrialised Europe, the factory owners needed a workforce at least literate and numerate to man the machines and once you have educated someone, it is very hard to staop them from asking questions.

The clamour of questions was interrupted by the slaughter of the First World War, which destroyed what was left of the ancient world in Europe, save some tourist attractions, and the rare mountaintop monastery.

In terms of capital generated and profit from conflict, the First World War was like Empire to the power of a thousand.

By 1918, the European civilization was shattered beyond recognition. The Austro-Hungarian Empire disappeared, the Russian Empire had been replaced by the Soviet Union; France and Germany were bankrupt, and the British Empire was in terminal decline.

Despite the great deathtolls, if you had more money than you could ever spend, and you made some wise investments, you could end up with even more bullion in the Bank of Switzerland; the 'house' in the Great game.

As so happens with Empire, as the Europeans tore themselves apart on the fields of Flanders, that unknown international quantity, the USA decided to play its imperial hand into the vaccum of exhausted power. The United States entered the war at just the right time to provide the balance, tip the scales.

They had watched "old Europe" tear itself apart, and like the scavenging wolves on the edge of the battlefield, they moved in to dismember the corpse.

Various conspiracies surround the US entry into WWI. The mysterious sinking of the Lusitania, with its hundreds of children aboard; rumours that a German telegram was intercepted offering Mexico back the States that America appropriated the previous century - Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas - if they entered into a war on the US as Germany's allies; it is also rumoured that the Balfour Declaration on the founding of the State of Israel was a part of the price demanded by the Americans of the British Government.

Germany in 1918 had voted for a Socialist Government which instantly deposed the Kaiser and sued for peace - despite its army not having been comprehensively beaten.

The immediate result was a massive blockade by the victorious powers (Churchill alone in the British Government demanded that it was lifted - perhaps forseeing the dreadful consequences), and the subsequent starvation of the German people. (Parallels with Iraq today.)

The Junkers and the capitalists who had profited from the previous five years were able to buy the guns and hire the men, from the returning demoralised, defeated troops and challenge the democratically-elected communist and socialist governments springing up in the new German Republic. (One member of these Freikorps was a young, slightly deranged corporal with a toothbrush moustache.)

Soon, 'order' was restored, and an uneasy alliance between these forces, the rich and the people, was formed with "liberal" capitalist government.

The Depression, perhaps the greatest ever financial sleight of hand, sent the liberal German democracy back into the vaccum from which it had so recently emerged - and who was there to pull the people together, set up real Homeland Security with a pre-emptive policy of regime change in other states (Spain) and a solution for the bust economy with defence spending which turned his nation into a military superpower?

Why, none other than that corporal, now being promoted by the friends of Prescott Bush as the new saviour of Germany.

And which nation had the surplus capital necessary to invest in rebuilding that great economic powerhouse of a united Germany?

France was a wasteland, and Britain had burnt its credit, and impoverished the coffers in its last, great imperial war.

Its population was tired; of the forelock-tugging servility demanded by its class system, the harshness and injustice of its penal system; the industrial serfdom the poor had been forced into since the first factories and workhouses took advantage of the landless peasants.

Even the German royal family that arrived a few generations before the conflict to provide a distraction for the huddled masses whilst the aristocracy reversed the result of the Civil War, kept their heads down and changed their name. They abandoned their cousins in Russia to their fate, hoping to escape the same drama being enacted in a village outside London.

The two sides having fought to a virtual standstill; the Americans had made a vital difference.

They were the force that tipped the balance and had wisely entered the war at a time when they could gain the most for the least loss.

The USA, which had been running on profit since the land was taken, and slavery became the source of labour; had vast amounts of capital that needed to find investment, and surplus product to sell.

Better than nibbling away at the fringes of the European Empires, picking up what scraps they had left, was to eat out the heart of Europe itself and turn it into the building block for a new Empire with its capital in Washington.

CURRENT ISSUE | WEB LINKS PAGE | READER"S COMMENTS | BACK TO FLAME HOME PAGE | COMPLETE INDEX OF ALL ISSUES