Welcome to Thai Cannabis Corporation
TCC is a co-operative, agricultural-based, medicinally and spiritually inspired, research, and development effort.
*To set the International standard for medicinal Cannabis.
*To encourage it’s propagation, distribution,
and it’s use as a tool for healing the human condition.
*To inspire and define the future of humanity.
*To create an agrinomically based economic engine
for the futherance of Thailand’s stated goals
to become the greenest nation on Earth…
Wat Panang Choeng
Ayutthaya, ancient Royal Capital
Monday, November 8, 2010
AFFIDAVIT OF FACT
AND NOTICE OF INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT
TO CULTIVATE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTE HEMP
1. You are hereby given lawful notice that the plant called Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a vital natural-resource for food, clothing, medicine, fuel, and paper; a religious sacrament, as well as being a “Strategic and Critical Material” for “military”, “essential civilian”, and “industrial” purposes as documented in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, & F attached hereto, and as such is “accessible” and “protected” under International Law cited herein.
2. You are hereby given lawful notice of Affiants intent to cultivate, possess, use, distribute and transport the plant known as Hemp (Cannabis genus).
3. Affiant claims the right to carry out the foregoing intent under sanction of the following constitutionally ratified treaties (Pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. VI. Sec. 2):
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, Dec. 16, 1966,
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 12, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, Article II (c), Dec. 9, 1948, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm
4. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, states:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right…
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programs, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
4a. The interpretation for the right to adequate food, as given by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in General Comment Number 12 states:
The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child…has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.
The Committee considers that the core content of the right to adequate food implies:
The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals…Dietary needs implies that the diet as a whole contains a mix of nutrients for physical and mental growth, development and maintenance…Availability refers to the possibilities…for feeding oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources…
Violations of the right to food can occur through…adoption of legislation or policies which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing legal obligations relating to the right to food; SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?Opendocument
4b. Affiant submit’s the following Exhibits as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as an “adequate food resource” and is therefore “accessible” under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12919, the “NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS” order, Section 901 (e) & (l), attached hereto as Exhibit A, “Hemp” is defined as a “food resource” and qualifies as a ‘‘Strategic and Critical Material’’.
According to an excerpt from “Hempseed Nutrition” by Lynn Osburn, attached hereto as Exhibit B, a scientific analysis of hemp seed nutrition reveals that “Cannabis hemp seeds contain all the essential amino acids and essential fatty acids necessary to maintain healthy human life. No other single plant source provides complete protein in such an easily digestible form, nor has the oils essential to life in as perfect a ratio for human health and vitality. Hempseed is the highest of any plant in essential fatty acids.”.
4c. Affiant submit’s the following Exhibits as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as an adequate resource for “clothing”, “military”, “essential civilian” and “industrial” purposes, as well as other necessary resources for attaining an “adequate standard of living” including “paper” and biomass for “fuel” and is therefore further “accessible” under Article 11, Section 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
The transcript of a 1942 USDA film entitled “Hemp for Victory”, attached hereto as Exhibit C, states that “For thousands of years… this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth… For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable…Indeed the very word canvas comes from the Arabic word for hemp…All such plants will presently be turning out products spun from American-grown hemp: twine of various kinds for tying and upholsters work; rope for marine rigging and towing; for hay forks, derricks, and heavy duty tackle; light duty fire hose; thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers; and parachute webbing for our paratroopers…hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. ”.
According to a Popular Mechanics Magazine article, VOL. 69 February, 1938 NO. 2, pp. 238-240, entitled “NEW BILLION-DOLLAR CROP”, attached hereto as Exhibit D, states that “Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane…The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed…All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home- grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms. ”.
According to an Excerpt from "Energy Farming in America," by Lynn Osburn, attached hereto as Exhibit E, “BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months.”
5. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 12, Section 1, states:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
5a. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in their General Comment Number 14, interprets the right to health to mean the following:
The right to health contains both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms include the right to control one’s health and body… and the right to be free from interference… The entitlements include the right to a system of health protection which provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health… The Committee considers that indigenous peoples have the right to specific measures to improve their access to health services and care. These health services should be culturally appropriate, taking into account traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines. States should provide resources for indigenous peoples to design, deliver and control such services so that they may enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals necessary to the full enjoyment of health of indigenous peoples should also be protected… In this respect, the Committee considers that development-related activities that lead to the displacement of indigenous peoples against their will from their traditional territories and environment, denying them their sources of nutrition and breaking their symbiotic relationship with their lands, has a deleterious effect on their health. By virtue of article 2.2 and article 3, the Covenant proscribes any discrimination in access to health care and underlying determinants of health, as well as to means and entitlements for their procurement. SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28symbol%29/E.C.12.2000.4.En
5b. Affiant submits the following Exhibit as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as a “traditional healing practice“, “medicine“ and “vital medicinal plant” that is “necessary to the full enjoyment of health” and therefore is “accessible” and “protected” under Article 12, Section 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
Lester Grinspoon, M.D. and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, in an article entitled “History of Cannabis as a Medicine” published on August 16, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit F, documents the historical, technical and scientific knowledge of Cannabis’s extensive use as a medicine. Grinspoon quotes DEA Administrative law Judge Francis L. Young in a decision rendered on September 6, 1988, which states: “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man…”
6. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 18, Section 1, states:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
6a. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in their General Comment Number 22, interprets the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to mean the following:
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18.1 is far-reaching and profound;
Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community…
The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts. The concept of worship extends to ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations, the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings, and participation in rituals associated with certain stages of life. SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9a30112c27d1167cc12563ed004d8f15
6b. Affiant believes that Hemp (Cannabis genus) is equivalent to the “plant of renown” mentioned in Ezekiel 34:29 and the “tree of life” mentioned in Revelation 22:1-2 of the bible, which state:
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. — Ezekiel 34:29
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit…And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. — Revelation 22:1-2
6c. Affiant believes in accordance with Genesis 1:29-30 of the bible, which states:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food…everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food." — Genesis 1:29-30
6d. Affiant believes that Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a sacred “plant of renown” and “tree of life” given by the Creator to be used for the feeding, clothing, and healing of the nations of the Earth.
6e. Affiant claims the right to manifest his foregoing belief in practice, through the act of cultivating, possessing, using, distributing and transporting Hemp (Cannabis genus).
7. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, in Article II (c), states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
7a. The Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court of July 6, 2000, in Article 6 (c), interprets what elements constitute “Genocide“ through “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, and states:
The term “conditions of life” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.
7b. You are hereby given lawful notice that the plant called Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a critical food staple in Affiants vegetarian diet, as well as being a vital resource for Affiants clothing, medicine, paper, fuel as well other central necessities to Affiants way of life, and is therefore indispensable for Affiants health, adequate standard of living, spiritual practice and long-term physical survival.
7c. Any action against Affiant and his family to confiscate Hemp harvests, blockade Hemp foodstuffs or other resources, any use of coercive measures to deter Hemp cultivation, possession, use, distribution, or transportation, including expulsion from homes or forced relocation into detention camps, will be considered a deliberate attack on Affiant and his families ability to sustain life and therefore an act of genocide pursuant to Article II (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide.
8. You are hereby given lawful notice that Affiant grants you thirty (30) days to rebut the facts stated herein; If you fail to rebut the facts stated in this affidavit within the granted amount of time then Affiant will assume that you are in agreement with said facts, and that you acknowledge Affiants claim of right and intent to act as stated herein, as being valid and lawfully sanctioned.
9. Affiant affirms under the penalty of perjury under all constitutional Laws of the State of California and the 50 States of the American Union, that all that is written in this affidavit is true and correct to the best of Affiants knowledge and understanding.
Signed and Sealed:_____________________________ Dated:___________
Natural Person – In Propria Persona – Conrad Justice Kiczensk
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE
State of California
Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ____________ day of ______________, 20________, by Conrad Justice Kiczenski, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the Person who appeared before me. Witness my hand and official Seal.
The Elkhorn Manifesto
The following article was originally published on kentucky.usmjparty.com which is now an archived website at the following address:
The “Kentucky Marijuana Party” at that time was organized by Robert Paehlke. According to the archived webpage his contact information is as follows:
phone: 859 835-4117
Robert Paehlke is a long time Marijuana activist and believes it is time U.S. citizens rise up against the injustice of marijuana laws.
“We should no longer be silent about this issue and should make our views known by using the political system, and should keep up the fight until it is legalized”
An Open Letter to All Americans
The Real Reason the Government Won’t Debate Medical Cannabis and Industrial Hemp Re-legalization
Documented Evidence of a Secret Business and Political Alliance Between the U.S. “Establishment” and the Nazis – Before, During and After World War II – up to the Present.
Before the Gatewood Galbraith for Governor Campaign in 1991, few Kentuckians knew that the plant that the federal government had demonized for over 50 years as “Marijuana – Assassin of Youth,” was, in fact, Cannabis Hemp, the most traded commodity in the world until the mid-1800s, and our state’s number one crop, industry, and most important source of revenue, for over 150 years.
Today, thanks to the efforts of pioneer hemp researchers and public advocates such as Galbraith, Jack Fraizer, Jack Herer, Chris Conrad, Ed Rosenthal, Don Wirtshafter and others, the federal government’s unjustifiable suppression of our state’s right to develop our most valuable and versatile natural resource, is facing increasing opposition from an informed public. Hemp is now recognized as the number one agriculturally renewable raw material in the world, and perhaps the only crop / industry which can guarantee us industrial and economic independence from the trans-national corporations.
“Shadow of the Swastika” is a follow-up to my earlier work, “Cannabis Hemp: the Invisible Prohibition Revealed,” which I wrote and published in support of the Galbraith Campaign. Since publication of that booklet, there has been growing public acceptance of the evidence that Marijuana Prohibition was created in 1937, not to protect society from the “evils of the drug Marijuana,” as the Federal government claimed, but as an act of deliberate economic and industrial sabotage against the re-emerging Industrial Hemp Industry.
Previous investigations by hemp researchers have been limited to the suppression of free-market competition from the hemp industry, and focused on the activities of three prominent members of America’s corporate, industrial and banking establishment during the mid- to late-1930s:
WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, the newspaper and magazine tycoon.
The expected rebirth of cannabis hemp as a less expensive source of pulp for paper meant his millions of acres of prime timberland, and investment in wood pulp papermaking equipment, would soon be worth much less. In the 1920s, about the same time as the equipment was developed to economically mass-produce raw hemp into pulp and fiber for paper, he began the “Reefer Madness” hoax in his newspaper and magazine publications.
ANDREW MELLON, founder of the Gulf Oil Corporation.
He knew that cannabis hemp was an alternative industrial raw material for the production of thousands of products, including fuel and plastics, which, if allowed to compete in the free-market, would threaten the future profits of the oil companies. As Secretary of the Treasury he created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and appointed his own future nephew-in-law, Harry Anslinger, as director. Anslinger would later use the sensational, and totally fabricated, articles published by Hearst, to push the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 through Congress, which successfully destroyed the rebirth of the cannabis hemp industry.
A prominent member of one Congressional subcommittee who voted in favor of this bill was Joseph Guffey of Pennsylvania, an oil tycoon and former business partner of Andrew Mellon in the Spindletop oil fields in Texas.
THE DU PONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
which owned the patents on synthetic petrochemicals and industrial processes that promised billions of dollars in future profits from the sale of wood pulp paper, lead additives for gasoline, synthetic fibers and plastics, if hemp could be suppressed. At the time, du Pont family influence in both government and the private sector was unmatched, according to historians and journalists.
This publication, however, reveals documented historical evidence that the suppression of the hemp industry was only one key part of a much larger conspiracy in the 1930s, not only by the three corporate interests named above, but by many others, as well.
Congressional records, FBI reports and investigations by the Justice Department, during the 1930s and 1940s, have already documented evidence of this wider plot. A list of the corporations named include Du Pont, Standard Oil, and General Motors, all of which were proven to be conspiring with Nazi industrial cartels to eliminate competition world-wide and divide among themselves the Earth’s industrial resources and commercial markets, for profitable exploitation.
This conspiracy succeeded. It is now obvious that this lack of serious competition in the industrial raw materials market caused our present – and totally contrived – addiction to petrochemicals. Its success is directly responsible for the most troubling problems we now face in the 1990s; serious damage to our environment, concentration of economic and political power into fewer and fewer hands, and the weakening of the rights of individuals and states to determine their own futures.
It is more and more evident that, given the historical record, the structure of the New World Order is being built upon the Foundation of Marijuana Prohibition, and only the relegalization of free-market hemp competition can save us.
R. William Davis
July 4, 1996
To clearly understand the circumstances which existed during the 1930s and 1940s, and are the subject of this booklet, it would be helpful to first put the hemp / petrochemical conflict into historical perspective. The events which took place in the years leading up to World War II were a continuation of a struggle between agricultural and industrial interests that began before the American Revolution, a struggle which has yet to be decided, even today.
AGRICULTURE VS. INDUSTRY
The historical record, at least as it has been presented to us in the public school system, is that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. This is not the whole story. The truth of the matter is that it was also a clash between Northern industrialists and Southern agriculturists, over control of the expansion into the newly opened West.
In 1845, Abraham Lincoln wrote, “I hold it a paramount duty of us in the free states due to the union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself, to let the slavery of other states alone.”
Concerning the Western territories, he said “The whole Nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for homes and free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery be planted within them.”
Lincoln was caught in the middle between the Northern industrialists and the Southern agriculturists, who both wanted to dominate Western expansion because of the wealth it offered. The industrialists knew that the agriculturists depended on slavery because cotton, upon which Southern wealth was based, was very labor intensive and required the inexpensive labor that slavery provided. They knew that if the Western lands were declared “free states” then the Southern agriculturists would be unable to compete, and would be forced to leave Western expansion, and its potential profits, to the Northern industrialists.
Quoting “The Irony of Democracy,” by Thomas R. Dye and T. Harmon Zeigler,
“The importance of the Civil War for America’s elite structure was the commanding position that the new industrial capitalists won during the course of the struggle. . . . The economic transformation of the United States from an agricultural to an industrial nation reached the crescendo of a revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century.
“Civil War profits compounded the capital of the industrialists and placed them in a position to dominate the economic life of the nation. Moreover, when the Southern planters were removed from the national scene, the government in Washington became the exclusive domain of the new industrial leaders.”
The Northern industrialists used this increased capital to build the system of transcontinental railways, linking the Northeast with both the South and West. The labor for this undertaking was from the Northeastern Establishment’s own source of cheap labor – recently freed slaves and poor immigrants from Europe and China – who suffered under living conditions which were often little better than those which existed under the Slave System just a few years before.
It was during the years between the Civil War and the beginning of the Twentieth Century that the Northern industrialists altered the role of the American government. Originally established by the Revolution to protect and preserve the lives, property and freedoms of all Americans from repressive government, it was transformed into an agency to protect the economic future of Northern industrialists.
“[T]he industrial elites,” according to Dye and Zeigler, “saw no objection to legislation if it furthered their success in business. Unrestricted competition might prove who was the fittest, but as an added precaution to insure that the industrial capitalists themselves emerged as the fittest, these new elites also insisted upon government subsidies, patents, tariffs, loans, and massive giveaways of land and other natural resources.”
The struggle between Western farmers and the railroads owned by the Northern industrialists is a good example. To protect their interests, citizens created “the Grange,” an organization which helped to enact state laws regulating the “ruthless aggression” of the railroads. In 1877, these laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the Munn v. Illinois decision. But, a few years later, Justice Stephen A. Field changed the role, and the very definition, of the corporation. He gave a new interpretation to the Fourteenth Amendment that actually gave corporations legal status as citizens . . . as artificial persons.
It was not long after this change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that John D. Rockefeller, the father of the modern-day corporation, created the great Standard Oil Corporation which, by the late 1880s, gained control over 90% of all the oil refineries in America.
The roots of 20th Century American politics can best be illustrated by the 1896 Presidential Election, won by Republican William McKinley by a landslide. The McKinley campaign was directed by Marcus Alonzo Hanna of Standard Oil and raised a $16,000,000 campaign fund from wealthy fellow industrialists, (an amount that was unmatched in Presidential campaigns until the 1960s). The major theme of the campaign, and one that would echo far into the future, was “what’s good for business is good for the country.”
This emerging political and judicial misuse of power in America was feared by Thomas Jefferson who, in 1787, wrote, “I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they remain chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe they will become corrupt as in Europe.”
It is important to remember that the American Revolution was a clash between the agriculturists in the colonies, and the British industrialists who controlled the government in England. Almost 100 years later the Civil War was fought as a continuation of the same basic struggle, but with the victory going back to the industrialists.
This began the erosion of the American government “of the people, for the people and by the people.” The buying of the 1896 Presidential Election, by Hanna of Standard Oil and the Northern industrial interests, was the next important step on the long road to the American government “of the corporation, for the corporation and by the corporation.”
A few years later, World War I would forge an even closer relationship between corporations and government in the United States, as well as around the world. Anthony Sampson, in his book “The Arms Bazaar,” notes that “the American companies, led by US Steel and du Pont, were transformed by war orders. US Steel, which had absorbed Carnegie’s old steel company, had made average annual profits in the four pre-war years of $105 million, while in the four war years they were $240 million; and du Pont’s average profit went up from $6 million to $58 million. . . .
“Certainly the arms companies had become much richer through the war, and there were widespread suspicions that they were actually trying to prolong it.”
The bottom line is, of course, victory or profit, and in what proportions? To what lengths would this nation’s top industrial leaders go to secure their share of the profits before and during the next “war to end all war?”
1. American Political Tradition, Hofstadter, p. 109. (As reprinted in The Irony of Democracy, Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, p. 72)
2. American Political Tradition, p. 113. (As reprinted in The Irony of Democracy, p. 72)
3. Irony of Democracy, p. 73
4. Ibid., p. 74
5. Ibid., p. 75
6. Ibid., p. 76
7. Ibid., p. 82
8. Ibid., p. 62
9. The Arms Bazaar, Anthony Sampson, p. 65
The Elkhorn Manifesto Part II
U.S. CORPORATIONS AND THE NAZIS
“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .
“Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.” – William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.
A large volume of documentary evidence exists that reveals that many of the richest, most powerful men in the United States, and the giant corporations they controlled, were secretly allied with the Nazis, both before and during World War II, even after war was declared between Germany and America. This alliance began with U.S. corporate investment during the reconstruction of post-World War I Germany in the 1920s and, years later, included financial, industrial and military aid to the Nazis.
On the pages which follow we will review which prominent Americans and corporations were involved, what aid and comfort they gave our nation’s enemies – treasonable offenses during time of war, and investigations into these matters which produced evidence of a US/Nazi corporate conspiracy to bring a fascist state to America, and eliminate competition in the industrial raw materials market in order to force world-wide dependence on oil-based petrochemicals.
WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST
Hearst, who was so concerned about the American public’s health and safety on the matter of marijuana use, apparently had no such fears when it came to Hitler and the Nazis. According to journalist George Seldes:
“. . . Hitler had the support of the most widely circulated magazine in history, “Readers Digest,” as well as nineteen big-city newspapers and one of the three great American news agencies, the $220-million Hearst press empire.
“. . . William Randolph Hearst, Sr., . . . was the lord of all the press lords in the United States. The millions who read the Hearst newspapers and magazines and saw Hearst newsreels in the nation’s movie houses had their minds poisoned by Hitler propaganda.
“It was . . . disclosed first to President Roosevelt [by Ambassador Dodd] almost on the day it happened, in September 1934, and it is detailed in the book “Ambassador Dodd’s Diary,” published in 1941, and again in libel-proof documents on file in the courts of the state of New York. William E. Dodd, professor of history [at the University of Chicago], told me about the Hearst sell-out . . .
“According to Ambassador Dodd, Hearst came to take the waters at Bad Nauheim in September 1934, and Dodd somehow learned immediately that Hitler had sent two of his most trusted Nazi propagandists, Hanfstangel and Rosenberg, to ask Hearst how Nazism could present a better image in the United States. When Hearst went to Berlin later in the month, he was taken to see Hitler.”
Seldes reports that a $400,000 a year deal was struck between Hearst and Hitler, and signed by Doctor Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. “Hearst,” continues Seldes, “completely changed the editorial policy of his nineteen daily newspapers the same month he got the money.”
In the court documents filed on behalf of Dan Gillmor, publisher of a magazine named “Friday,” in response to a lawsuit by Hearst, under item 61, he states: “Promptly after this said visit with Adolf Hitler and the making of said arrangements . . . said plaintiff, William Randolph Hearst, instructed all Hearst press correspondents in Germany, including those of INS [Hearst’s International News Service] to report happenings in Germany only in a ‘friendly’ manner. All of such correspondents reporting happenings in Germany accurately and without friendliness, sympathy and bias for the actions of the then German government, were transferred elsewhere, discharged, or forced to resign. . . .”
In the late 1930s, Seldes recounts, when “several sedition indictments [were brought by] the Department of Justice . . . against a score or two of Americans, the defendants included an unusually large minority of newspaper men and women, most of them Hearst employees.”
“Thurman Arnold, as assistant district attorney of the United States, his assistant, Norman Littell, and several Congressional investigations, have produced incontrovertible evidence that some of our biggest monopolies entered into secret agreements with the Nazi cartels and divided the world up among them,” states Seldes in his book, “Facts and Fascism,” published in 1943. “Most notorious of all was Alcoa, the Mellon-Davis-Duke monopoly which is largely responsible for the fact America did not have the aluminum with which to build airplanes before and after Pearl Harbor, while Germany had an unlimited supply.”
Alcoa sabotage of American war production had already cost the U.S. “10,000 fighters or 1,665 bombers,” according to Congressman Pierce of Oregon speaking in May 1941, because of “the effort to protect Alcoa’s monopolistic position. . .”
“If America loses this war,” said Secretary of the Interior [Harold] Ickes, June 26, 1941, “it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America.”
“By its cartel agreement with I.G. Farben, controlled by Hitler,” writes Seldes, “Alcoa sabotaged the aluminum program of the U.S. air force. The Truman Committee [on National Defense, chaired by then-Senator Harry S. Truman in 1942] heard testimony that Alcoa’s representative, A.H. Bunker, $1-a-year head of the aluminum section of O.P.M., prevented work on our $600,000,000 aluminum expansion program.”
DU PONT AND GENERAL MOTORS
General Motors is included here because, by 1929, the Du Pont Corporation had acquired controlling interest in, and had interlocking directorships with, General Motors.
Irenee du Pont, “the most imposing and powerful member of the clan,” according to biographer and historian Charles Higham, “was obsessed with Hitler’s principles.” “He keenly followed the career of the future Fuhrer in the 1920s, and on September 7, 1926, in a speech to the American Chemical Society, he advocated a race of supermen, to be achieved by injecting special drugs into them in boyhood to make their characters to order.” Higham’s book on this subject, “Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949,” is highly recommended.
Du Pont’s anti-Semitism “matched that of Hitler” and, in 1933, the Du Ponts “began financing native fascist groups in America . . .” one of which Higham identifies as the American Liberty League: “a Nazi organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews,” and the “love of Hitler”.
“Financed . . . to the tune of $500,000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its Nazi pamphlets. . . .
“The Du Ponts’ fascistic behavior was seen in 1936, when Irenee du Pont used General Motors money to finance the notorious Black Legion. This terrorist organization had as its purpose the prevention of automobile workers from unionizing. The members wore hoods and black robes, with skulls and crossbones. They fire-bombed union meetings, murdered union organizers, often by beating them to death, and dedicated their lives to destroying Jews and communists. They linked to the Ku Klux Klan. . . . It was brought out that at least fifty people, many of them blacks, had been butchered by the Legion.”
Du Pont support of Hitler extended into the very heart of the Nazi war machine as well, according to Higham, and several other researchers: “General Motors, under the control of the Du Pont family of Delaware, played a part in collaboration” with the Nazis.
“Between 1932 and 1939, bosses of General Motors poured $30 million into I.G. Farben plants . . .” Further, Higham informs us that by “the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany.”
Researchers Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, in their book, “Power Inc.,” describe the Du Pont-GM-Nazi relationship in these terms:
“. . . In 1929, [Du Pont-controlled] GM acquired the largest automobile company in Germany, Adam Opel, A.G. This predestined the subsidiary to become important to the Nazi war effort. In a heavily documented study presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in February 1974, Bradford C. Snell, an assistant subcommittee counsel, wrote:
“GM’s participation in Germany’s preparation for war began in 1935. In that year its Opel subsidiary cooperated with the Reich in locating a new heavy truck facility at Brandenburg, which military officials advised would be less vulnerable to enemy air attacks. During the succeeding years, GM supplied the Wehrmact with Opel “Blitz” trucks from the Brandenburg complex. For these and other contributions to [the Nazis] wartime preparations, GM’s chief executive for overseas operations [James Mooney] was awarded the Order of the German Eagle (first class) by Adolf Hitler.”
Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey [now Exxon] in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. [now Ethyl, Inc.] which, according to Snell: “provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel [leaded gas]. During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany’s scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: “The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.”
At about the same time the Du Ponts were serving the Nazi cause in Germany, they were involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the United States government.
“Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors,” in early 1934, writes Higham, “certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d’etat that would overthrow the President with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists . . .” The object was to force Roosevelt “to take orders from businessmen as part of a fascist government or face the alternative of imprisonment and execution . . .”
Higham reports that “Du Pont men allegedly held an urgent series of meetings with the Morgans,” to choose who would lead this “bizarre conspiracy.” “They finally settled on one of the most popular soldiers in America, General Smedly Butler of Pennsylvania.” Butler was approached by “fascist attorney” Gerald MacGuire (an official of the American Legion), who attempted to recruit Butler into the role of an American Hitler.
“Butler was horrified,” but played along with MacGuire until, a short time later, he notified the White House of the plot. Roosevelt considered having “the leaders of the houses of Morgan and Du Pont” arrested, but feared that “it would create an unthinkable national crisis in the midst of a depression and perhaps another Wall Street crash.” Roosevelt decided the best way to defuse the plot was to expose it, and leaked the story to the press.
“The newspapers ran the story of the attempted coup on the front page, but generally ridiculed it as absurd and preposterous.” But an investigation by the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities – 74th Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Investigation of Nazi and other propaganda – was begun later that same year.
“It was four years,” continues Higham, “before the committee dared to publish its report in a white paper that was marked for “restricted circulation.” They were forced to admit that “certain persons made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country . . . [The] committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler.” This admission that the entire plan was deadly in intent was not accompanied by the imprisonment of anybody. Further investigations disclosed that over a million people had been guaranteed to join the scheme and that the arms and munitions necessary would have been supplied by Remington, a Du Pont subsidiary.”
The names of important individuals and groups involved in the conspiracy were suppressed by the committee, but later revealed by Seldes, Philadelphia Record reporter Paul French, and Jules Archer, author of the book, “The Plot to Seize the White House.” Included were John W. Davis (attorney for the J.P. Morgan banking group), Robert Sterling Clark (Wall Street broker and heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune), William Doyle (American Legion official), and the American Liberty League (backed by executives from J.P. Morgan and Co., Rockefeller interests, E.F. Hutton, and Du Pont-controlled General Motors).
THE US/NAZI CARTEL AGREEMENT
“On November 23, 1937,” states Higham, “representatives of General Motors held a secret meeting in Boston with Baron Manfred von Killinger, who was . . . in charge of West Coast espionage [for the Nazis], and Baron von Tipplekirsch, Nazi consul general and Gestapo leader in Boston. This group signed a joint agreement showing total commitment to the Nazi cause for the indefinite future. . . .”
Seldes describes the plotters as “the great owners and rulers of America who planned world domination through political and military Fascism” including “several leading American industrialists, members of the Congress of the United States, and representatives of large business and political organizations . . .”
He obtained the text of the agreement, and published it in his newsletter, “In Fact,” on July 13, 1942. The plan “goes much further than the mere cartel conspiracies of Big Business of both countries,” writes Seldes, “because it has political clauses and points to a bigger conspiracy of money and politicians such as helped betray Norway and France and other lands to the Nazi machine. The most powerful fortress in America is the production monopolies, but its betrayal would involve, as it did in France, the participation of some of the most powerful figures of the political as well as the industrial world.”
STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY (Now Exxon)
“On February 27, 1942,” according to Higham, “Arnold, with documents stuffed under his arms, . . . strode into the lion’s den of Standard at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Just behind him were Secretary of the Navy Franklin Knox and Secretary of the Army Henry L. Stimson.” They confronted Standard official William Farish and “Arnold sharply laid down his charges” that “by continuing to favor Hitler in rubber deal and patent arrangements,” Standard Oil “had acted against the interests of the American government . . . suggested a fine of $1.5 million and a consent decree whereby Standard would turn over for the duration all the patents” in question.
“Farish rejected the proposal on the spot. He pointed out that Standard” was also selling the U.S. a “high percentage” of the fuel being used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force “making it possible for America to win the war. Where would America be without it?”
Blackmail? Yes, says Higham. And effective. Arnold was finally reduced to asking the oil company official “to what Standard Oil would agree. After all, there had to be at least token punishment. . . . Arnold, Stimson, and Knox soon realized they had no power to compare with that of Standard.”
The price Standard Oil “agreed” to pay for its crime? A modest fine of a few thousand dollars divided up among ten defendants. “Farish paid $1,000, or a quarter of one week’s salary, for having betrayed America.”
In New Jersey, charges of “criminal conspiracy with the enemy” were filed against Standard, then “dropped in return for Standard releasing its patents and paying the modest fine.” But Arnold, and his ally, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, weren’t finished with Standard Oil just yet. They approached Senator Truman, chairman of the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program. “With great enthusiasm Give “em Hell Harry embarked on a series of hearings in March 1942, in order to disclose the truth about Standard.”
Between the 26th and the 28th of March, 1942, Arnold “produced documents showing that Standard and Farben in Germany had literally carved up the world markets, with oil and chemical monopolies all over the map,” according to Higham.
Mintz and Cohen describe the confrontation:
“Four months after the United States entered World War II, the Justice Department obtained an indictment of Exxon and its principal officers for having made arrangements, starting in the late 1920s with I.G. Farben involving patent sharing and division of world markets. Jersey Standard agreed not to develop processes for the manufacture of synthetic rubber; in exchange, Farben agreed not to compete in the American petroleum market. After war broke out in Europe, but before the attack on Pearl Harbor, executives of Standard Oil and Farben, at a meeting in Holland, established a “modus vivendi” for continuing the arrangements in event of war between the United States and Germany – although the arrangements interfered with the ability of the United States to make synthetic rubber desperately needed after it entered the war in December 1941. Rather than face a criminal trial, Exxon and the indicted executives entered no-contest pleas – the legal equivalent of guilty pleas – and were fined the minor sums which were the maximum amounts permitted by law. A few days later, on March 26, 1942, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program held a hearing at which Thurman Arnold, chief of the Antitrust Division, put into the record documents on which the [criminal] indictment had been based, including a memo from a Standard Oil official on the “modus vivendi” agreed to in Holland. After the hearing, the committee chairman, Harry S. Truman, characterized the arrangements as treasonable.”
Another source book on this subject of US / Nazi corporate activities is “The Secret War Against the Jews,” by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. Here is their version of the events:
“Before the war Standard of New Jersey had forged a synthetic oil and rubber cartel with the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben,” which “worked well until the United States joined the war in 1941. . . . Next to the Rockefellers, I.G. Farben owned the largest share of stock in Standard Oil of New Jersey. Among other things, Standard had provided Farben with its synthetic rubber patents and technical knowledge, while Farben had kept its patents to itself, under strict instructions from the Nazi government.”
Evidence which Thurman Arnold turned over to the Truman Committee, which Truman would declare “treasonous,” included “Standard’s 1939 letter renewing its agreement, which made it clear that the Rockefellers’ company was prepared to work with the Nazis whether their own government was at war with the Third Reich or not. Truman’s Senate Committee on the National Defense was outraged and began to probe into the whole scandalous arrangement, much to the discomfort of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Suddenly, however, the whole matter was dropped.
“There was a reason for Rockefeller’s escape: blackmail. According to the former intelligence officers we interviewed on this point, the blackmail was simple and powerful: The Dulles brothers [John Foster, later Secretary of State, and Allen, later director of the CIA] had one of their clients threaten to interrupt the U.S. oil supply during wartime.”
When confronted by Arnold on the Standard – Farben arrangement “Standard executives made it clear that the entire U.S. war effort was fueled by their oil and it could be stopped. . . . The American government had no choice but to go along if it wanted to win the war.”
July 13, 1944, Ralph W. Gallagher, attorney for Standard Oil, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government’s seizure of the contested patents. “On November 7, 1945, Judge Charles E. Wyzanski gave his verdict,” according to Higham. “He decided that the government had been entitled to seize the patents. Gallagher appealed. On September 22, 1947, Judge Charles Clark delivered the final word on the subject. He said, “Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationships with I.G. Farben after the United States and Germany had become active enemies.” The appeal was denied.”
One aspect of this Standard – I.G. Farben relationship, revealed in testimony during the Patents Committee hearings, chaired by Senator Homer T. Bone in May 1942, is of interest to those who seek direct evidence of a conspiracy by big oil companies to suppress development of synthetic substitutes to petrochemical products such as industrial chemicals, aircraft lubricants and fuel, all of which can be made from hemp:
“On May 6th, John R. Jacobs, Jr., of the Attorney General’s department, testified that Standard had interfered with the American explosives industry by blocking the use of a method of producing synthetic ammonia. As a result of its deals with Farben, the United States had been unable to get the use of this vital process even after Pearl Harbor. Also, the United States had been restricted in techniques of producing hydrogen from natural gas and from obtaining paraflow, a product used for airplane lubrication at high altitudes. . . .”
On August 7th, “Texas oil operator C.R. Starnes appeared to testify that Standard had blocked him at every turn in his efforts to produce synthetic rubber after Pearl Harbor. . . .”
On August 12th, “John R. Jacobs reappeared in an Army private’s uniform (he had been inducted the day before) to bring up another disagreeable matter: Standard had also, in league with Farben, restricted production of methanol, a wood alcohol that was sometimes used as motor fuel.” (16)
The restriction against methanol production apparently did not apply to the Nazis, however. “As late as April 1943,” Higham reveals, “General Motors in Stockholm [Sweden] was reported as trading with the enemy. . . . Further documents show that, as with Ford, repairs on German army trucks and conversion from gasoline to wood-gasoline production were being handled by GM in Switzerland.”
The use of hemp as a source of methanol was known to the Nazis, revealed in the pamphlet “The Humorous Hemp Primer,” published in Berlin, also in 1943. This document, recently re-published in the 1995 edition of “Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes,” by veteran hemp conspiracy researcher Jack Herer, states that:
“Crops should not only provide food in large quantities, they can provide raw materials for industry. . . . Among such raw materials of especially high value is hemp . . .
“The woody part of this large plant is not to be thrown out, since it can easily be used for surface coatings for the finest floors. It also provides paper and cardboard, building materials and wall paneling. Further processing will even produce wood sugar and wood gas. . . .
“Anyone who grows hemp today need not fear a lack of a market, because hemp, as useful as it is, will be purchased in unlimited amounts.”
The Nazis obviously considered hemp a vital war material that could be used to produce methanol, or “wood gas,” at the same time, in 1943, that Du Pont-controlled General Motors in Switzerland was “converting from gasoline to wood-gasoline production.” This, taken into consideration along with the earlier statement that Standard Oil-I.G. Farben had “restricted production of methanol” and the GM-Standard Oil-I.G. Farben joint venture, Ethyl, Inc., whose profitability depended on the production of lead-tetraethyl for oil-based petrochemical gasoline – in direct competition with the alternative methanol, or “wood gas,” certainly opens new avenues of investigation into the existence of a conspiracy against hemp as an alternative, and competing, industrial raw material, by these very same corporations which sold America out to the Nazis for profit and control of world resources and markets.
“Just after Pearl Harbor,” writes Seldes, “the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Thurman Arnold, issued a sensational report of the sabotage of the national [war production] program, the first report naming the practices which were later to be referred to as the treason of big business in wartime. Said Mr. Arnold:
“Looking back over 10 months of defense effort we can now see how much it has been hampered by the attitude of powerful basic industries who have feared to expand their production because expansion would endanger their future control of industry.
“Anti-trust investigations during the past year have shown that there is not an organized basic industry in the United States which has not been restricting production by some device or other in order to avoid what they call “ruinous overproduction after the war”.”
By “ruinous overproduction,” of course, they meant free-market competition. So, to question the existence of an industrial conspiracy against competition, during the 1930s and 1940s, is pointless. It has long been totally documented by volumes of evidence, available in the public record. And among this list of convicted corporate conspirators are murderers, racists, pro-Nazi collaborators, blackmailers and American Fascists who plotted at least one armed take-over of the U.S. government. And the list is not yet complete.
THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Henry Ford, writes Higham, “admired Hitler from the beginning, when the future Fuhrer was a struggling and obscure fanatic. He shared with Hitler a fanatical hatred of Jews.”
“Ford’s book “The International Jew” was issued in 1927. A virulent anti-Semitic tract, it was still being distributed in Latin America and the Arab countries as late as 1945. Hitler admired the book and it influenced him deeply. Visitors to Hitler’s headquarters at the Brown House in Munich noticed a large photograph of Henry Ford hanging in his office. Stacked high on the table outside were copies of Ford’s book. As early as 1923,” when Hitler heard that Ford was planning to run for President, he “told an interviewer from the “Chicago-Tribune,” “I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help”.”
As late as 1940, Ford Motor Company “refused to build aircraft engines for England and instead built supplies of the 5-ton military trucks that were the backbone of German army transportation.”
The Ford Motor Company was also aware of the potential of hemp as an alternative industrial resource, devoting many years research to the subject.
In a 1989 ABC Radio broadcast, Hugh Downs reported that in the 1930s, “the Ford Motor Company also saw a future in biomass fuels. Ford operated a successful biomass conversion plant that included hemp at their Iron Mountain facility in Michigan. Ford engineers extracted methanol, charcoal fuel, tar, pitch, ethyl acetate, and creosote – all fundamental ingredients for modern industry, and now supplied by oil-related industries. . . . Henry Ford’s experiments with methanol promised cheap, readily-available fuel.”
As reported in “Popular Mechanics” in December, 1941, Ford’s research represented “an industrial revolution in progress . . . a revolution in materials that will affect every home.”
So, it is possible, even likely, that Ford and General Motors conversion “from gasoline to wood-gasoline production” for Nazi Germany, as earlier reported by Higham, involved at least some consideration of hemp as a resource, if not actual production of “wood-gas” from hemp. After all, Ford had already committed several years and significant research dollars to the subject.
The implication of methanol fuel patents, hemp industry research and production facilities, all in the hands of this cabal of Nazi-allied American corporations, during a proven period of anti-competition conspiracies, and wartime blackmail against the U.S. government, should provide additional support for the hemp conspiracy theories. The fact is that Nazi Germany recognized hemp as a vital war material – one which, just before America’s entrance into World War II, was positioned to compete in the free-market against the products controlled by the Pro-Nazi American corporations. Unrestricted expansion of United States industrial hemp production threatened not only the profits of these treasonous corporations, but the degree of their control over America’s production of vital war materials.
This view of hemp, not as a “dangerous drug” but as a vital war material, was acknowledged by the Kentucky Legislature a little over 100 years before the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In 1841, according to Professor James F. Hopkins, author of “A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky,” published by the University of Kentucky Press in 1951:
“When the farmers of Woodford County [KY] assembled in October, 1841, to consider a program of hemp production for the navy, they only went as far as to express an opinion that the government should employ a rope spinner in Kentucky for the purpose of converting the fiber into yarns, which could be transported much more cheaply and safely than the bulky raw material. The Committee on Agriculture of the Kentucky House of Representatives inquired into the matter early in 1842 . . .
“Both houses of the General Assembly sent to the Senators and Congressmen from Kentucky a request that they use their “best exertions” to have established in the state one or more agencies for the inspection and manufacture of hemp for the navy. A select committee of Congress, appointed to consider the resolutions from Kentucky, reported three resolutions of its own: that the navy be directed to construct a factory at Louisville “for the purpose of depositing and manufacturing . . . such hempen fabrics of domestic water-rotted hemp as the public service may require”; that inspectors be appointed to test the fiber that might be offered for sale; and that, after due notice to the public, purchase of the necessary amount of fiber be made at the factory. The Committee contended that its plan would build up during peacetime a source of hemp which would be vitally important in case of war, encourage American agriculture and manufactures, and decrease the unfavorable balance of trade.”
[NOTE: For many years we Kentuckians have had a good deal of our heritage and history buried beneath a thick layer of propaganda from a source of power and control in this country which knows neither honor nor justice. Now, we are learning the truth. Our history as a state built upon the foundation of a long- and dishonestly- outlawed industry endures.]
INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
Even after Pearl Harbor, ITT was working for the Nazis, reports Higham: “. . . the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells used to kill British and American troops.”
ITT also “supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London,” and other devices as well, without which “it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea.”
In 1938, “following a series of meetings with Luftwaffe chief Herman Goring, [ITT founder and chairman Sosthenes] Behn encouraged ITT’s Lorenz subsidiary to purchase 28 percent of the Focke-Wulf firm, manufacturer of the bombers that were to sink so many Allied ships during the war,” according to researcher and author Jim Hougan.
Anthony Sampson, in “The Sovereign State of ITT,” reports on what is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the US/Nazi corporate partnership, war reparations:
“. . . ITT now presents itself as the innocent victim of the Second World War, and has been handsomely recompensed for its injuries. In 1967, nearly thirty years after the events, ITT actually managed to obtain $27 million in compensation from the American government, for war damage to Focke-Wulf plants – on the basis that they were American property bombed by Allied bombers.”
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission was responsible for this payment to ITT, and other U.S. corporations as well.
Bradford Snell reports that “After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing. By 1967 GM had collected more than $33 million in reparations and Federal tax benefits for damages to its warplane and motor vehicle properties in formerly Axis territories . . . Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne.”
ALLEN DULLES: ARCHITECT OF THE US-NAZI NETWORK
Contemporary history records Allen Dulles as one of America’s top spymasters, from his early days in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II, to his position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1950s and early 1960s (until President John F. Kennedy fired him over the Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961), and finally to his membership on the controversial Warren Commission, which investigated President Kennedy’s assassination. Until recently, his pivotal role in promoting a U.S. corporate relationship with the Nazis was little known. Loftus and Aarons describe the post-World War I role of Allen, and his brother, John Foster, in the following terms:
“We first turn to Dulles’s creation of international finance networks for the benefit of the Nazis. In the beginning, moving money into the Third Reich was quite legal. Lawyers saw to that. And Allen and his brother John Foster were not just any lawyers. They were international finance specialists for the powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. . . .
“The Dulles brothers were the ones who convinced American businessmen to avoid U.S. government regulation by investing in Germany. It began with the Versailles Treaty, in which they played no small role. After World War I the defeated German government promised to pay war reparations to the Allies in gold, but Germany had no gold. It had to borrow the gold from Sullivan & Cromwell’s clients in the United States. Nearly 70 percent of the money that flowed into Germany during the 1930s came from investors in the United States, many of them Sullivan & Cromwell clients. . .
“Foster Dulles, as a member of the board of I.G. Farben, seems to have had little difficulty in getting along with whoever was in charge. Some of our sources insist that both Dulles brothers made substantial but indirect contributions to the Nazi party as the price of continued influence inside the new German order. . . .”
NOTES: U.S. CORPORATIONS AND THE NAZIS
1. Facts and Fascism, George Seldes, p. 122
2. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, p. 167
3. Even the Gods Can’t Change History, Seldes, pp. 140-144
4. Facts and Fascism, p. 68
5. Ibid., p. 262
6. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 162-165
7. Ibid., p. 166
8. Power, Inc., Morton and Mintz, pp. 497-499
9. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 163-165
10. The Plot to Seize the White House, Jules Archer, Hawthorn Books, 1973 (Quoted from It’s A Conspiracy, National Insecurity Council, EarthWorks Press, 1992, pp. 179-184)
11. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 167-168
12. Facts and Fascism, pp. 68-70
13. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 45-46
14. Power, Inc, pp. 499-500
15. The Secret War Against The Jews, Aarons and Loftus, pp. 44-65
15. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 61-62
16. Ibid., pp. 49-52
17. Ibid., p. 176
18. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer, pp. 127-130
19. One Thousand Americans, Seldes, pp. 142-143
20. Trading with the Enemy, pp. 154-156
21. Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, p. 734
22. Popular Mechanics Magazine, Vol. 76, No. 6, Dec. 1941
(The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 1995 edition, p. 199)
23. A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky, Professor James F. Hopkins,
University of Kentucky Press, 1951
24. Trading with the Enemy, p. 99
25. Spooks, Jim Hougan, pp. 423-424
26. The Sovereign State of ITT, Anthony Sampson, p. 47
(Power, Inc., pp. 500-501)
27. GM and the Nazis, by Bradford C. Snell, Ramparts Magazine, June 1974, pp. 14-16 (Democracy for the Few, Michael Parenti, pp. 91-92)
28. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 55-60
The Elkhorn Manifesto Part III
THE NEW WORLD (DIS)ORDER
“Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power.
As mentioned earlier, the secret U.S./Nazi corporate alliance during World War II was the result of substantial American investment in post-World War I Germany. In order to protect these investments, and the accumulating profits, the U.S. multinational corporations remained an important part of the Nazi war machine until the final defeat of Germany in 1945. What effect did the end of World War II have on this faction of American Nazi collaborators?
In this section we will review the evidence, much of it from recently de-classified documents, which this pro-Nazi faction, rather than facing charges of high treason, became an integral part of the United States national security apparatus, extending its fascist influence in both foreign and domestic policies and, in effect, creating what has been referred to as America’s “Invisible Government.” The excuse, of course, was Communism.
THE BUGGING OF WALL STREET
Aarons and Loftus’ research, which documents the Dulles brothers’ pro-Nazi activities, did not go unnoticed. “Before his death, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg granted one of the authors an interview. Justice Goldberg had served in U.S. intelligence during World War II. Although he said little in public, he had collected information on the Dulles boys’ activities over the years. His verdict was blunt. ‘The Dulles brothers were traitors.’ They had betrayed their country, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.”
Much of what is now known about the activities of the Dulles brothers and other American Nazi collaborators in banking and industry came as a result of a top-secret joint U.S.-British intelligence program known as the Ultra Project. “Prior to the United States’ entry into the war,” write Loftus and Aarons, “Roosevelt permitted British intelligence to wiretap American targets.
“According to our sources in the intelligence community, the area of coverage included a good bit of the New York financial district, several floors of Rockefeller Plaza, part of the RCA Building, two prominent clubs, and various shipping firms. . . .
“The wiretap unit reported to Sir William Stephenson, a Canadian electronics genius better known by his code name, “Intrepid.” From his headquarters in the Rockefeller building, Stephenson’s job was to identify U.S. companies that were aiding the Nazis.”
“Several months before the United States declared war,” continue Loftus and Aarons, “Bill Donovan invited Allen Dulles to head up the New York branch of the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI), President Roosevelt’s new intelligence agency and the precursor to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Its primary mission was to collect information against the Nazis and their collaborators. In other words, Dulles was asked to inform on his own clients in New York. . .
“Roosevelt had approved his selection as head of the COI Manhattan branch because he wanted Dulles where the British wiretappers could keep an eye on him. . . .
“One floor below Dulles was Stephenson’s wiretap shop. Inside Dulles’s operation was one of Roosevelt’s spies, Arthur Goldberg . . .” who, “confirmed . . . that Dulles’s appointment was a setup. . . .
“Roosevelt was giving Dulles enough rope to hang himself. From Stephenson’s Manhattan wiretaps, it is known that Dulles was continuing to work with his German business clients, who wanted to remove Hitler and install a puppet of their own who would make peace with the West while forging an alliance against Stalin. It was to be a kinder, gentler Third Reich, favorably disposed to American financial interests. . . .
“The wiretap evidence against Dulles originally was collected by a special section of Operation Safehaven, the U.S. Treasury Department’s effort to trace the movement of stolen Nazi booty towards the end of the war. Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau had set up Dulles by giving him the one assignment – intelligence chief in Switzerland – where he would be most tempted to aid his German clients with their money laundering.”
Roosevelt had one thing in mind: “The sudden release of the Safehaven intercepts would force a public outcry to bring treason charges against those British and American businessmen who aided the enemy in time of war.” Among the targets were Allen Dulles, Henry Ford, and other U.S. industrialists.
The plan failed, however, due to Dulles being “tipped off . . . that he was under surveillance” in time to cover his tracks. One possible source of the leak was Vice President Henry Wallace, “who constantly shared information with his brother-in-law, the Swiss minister in Washington during the war.”
“Wallace,” the authors reveal, “gave many details of his secret meetings with Roosevelt to the Swiss diplomat.” The problem was that, at the time, the Nazis “had recruited the head of the Swiss secret service.”
It is, perhaps, no coincidence that Roosevelt dropped Wallace during the 1944 election, choosing instead Senator Harry S. Truman as his new running mate.
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY
“After the Nazis” 1943 defeat at Stalingrad,” write Loftus and Aarons, “various Nazi businessmen realized they were on the losing side and made plans to evacuate their wealth. The Peron government in Argentina was receiving the Nazi flight capital with open arms, and Dulles helped it hide the money. . . .
“The Guinness Book of Records lists the missing Reich bank treasure [estimated at $2.5 billion dollars] as the greatest unsolved bank robbery in history. Where did it go? . . . .
“According to our source, the bulk of the treasure was simply shipped a very short distance across Austria and through the Brenner Pass into Italy. Dulles’s contacts were waiting at the Vatican. The German-Vatican connection was how Allen Dulles and the Nazi industrialists planned to get away with it. . . .”
The effort was successful, according to the authors, who state that the “vast bulk of the wealth of the Nazi empire” which “disappeared before the end of World War II” reappeared “within a decade in the hands of the same men who financed Hitler’s war against the Jews. Allen Dulles’s clients were not defeated, only inconvenienced.” The authors identify two of Dulles’s accomplices as James Jesus Angleton and his father, Hugh Angleton. The Angletons were members of X-2, the OSS counterintelligence branch in Italy, in 1943.
Like Dulles, Hugh Angleton was financially involved with Axis powers. He was the European representative for National Cash Register in Italy before the war and business associate of Dulles. When World War II broke out, the authors write,
“. . . Angleton was crushed financially as all his investments were in enemy hands. “Like Dulles’s clients, he wanted his money back. Like Dulles, Hugh offered his services to the OSS.” With high-placed contacts in Mussolini’s Interior Ministry, Hugh was accepted and “promoted rapidly in U.S. intelligence. He became second in command to Colonel Clifton Carter, the OSS commander in Italy at the end of World War II.”
Perhaps the most controversial information which is now emerging with the release of recently declassified documents concerning World War II, is the role of the Vatican, both in its pre-war German investments, and its role in helping Nazi war criminals escape justice after the war. Concerning the Vatican-German investments, Loftus and Aarons are quite clear:
“That the Vatican encouraged such investments and even donated money to Hitler himself cannot be denied. A German nun, Sister Pascalina, was present at its creation. In the early 1920s she was the housekeeper for Archbishop of the Vatican-Nazi connection . . . Eugenio Pacelli, then the papal nuncio in Munich. Sister Pascalina vividly recalls receiving Adolf Hitler late one night and watching the archbishop give Hitler a large amount of Church money.”
In addition, Eugenio Pacelli “later convinced the Vatican to invest millions of dollars in the rising German economy, money from the Vatican’s land settlement that ended the Pope’s claim of sovereignty over territory outside the walls of Vatican City. It was Pacelli who negotiated the Concordat with Germany and then had to deal with the consequences of his own mistakes when he became pope on the eve of World War II.
“The Vatican and the Dulles brothers had the same problem. Once their money was in Hitler’s hands, how would they get it back?”
The authors interviewed “a former colonel in U.S. Military Intelligence who specialized in tracing enemy assets. He claimed that only a tiny portion of the Reichbank’s gold ingots actually reached the Vatican Bank, while the rest was held in cooperative banks in Belgium, Liechtenstein, and especially Switzerland.” It was only necessary to transfer the paperwork on the gold, not the gold itself. Since, by that time, Dulles knew his telegraph communications were being monitored by the British wiretap operation in New York, he instead used couriers to “ensure absolute secrecy in moving the foreign currency and the ownership documents out of Switzerland . . . special agents of the Vatican who had diplomatic immunity to move back and forth across both Nazi and Allied lines. . . .”
“. . . . The Vatican’s eminence grise for Balkan intelligence, the Bosnian-Croat priest Krunoslav Draganovic, was involved in transporting large quantities of Nazi booty, especially gold bullion, from Austria to the safety of the Holy See with the help of the Dulles-Angleton clique in Rome. Some of the booty was transported in truck convoys run by British troops. Other shipments were carried in U.S. Army jeeps provided to Father Draganovic so that he could conduct “pastoral visits” on behalf of the Vatican.
“Another ardent Nazi propagandist and agent, Slovenian bishop Gregory Rozman, was sent to Bern with the help of Dulles’s friends in U.S. intelligence. Declassified U.S. intelligence files confirm that Bishop Rozman was suspected of trying to arrange the transfer of huge quantities of Nazi-controlled gold and Western currency that had been discreetly secreted in Swiss banks during the war. For a few months the Allies prevented Rozman from gaining access to this treasure, but then the way was mysteriously cleared. In fact, the Dulles-Vatican connection had fixed it, and before too long the bishop obtained the loot for his Nazi friends, who were hiding in Argentina.
“Such instances turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. It has long been acknowledged that it was Allen Dulles who tipped off General Patton about the buried German treasure that lay in the path of the U.S. Third Army. Patton explicitly urged General Eisenhower to conceal as much of the gold as possible, but his advice was refused.
“Our sources claim that Dulles and his colleagues exerted a great deal of influence to ensure that Western investments in Nazi Germany were not seized by the Allies as reparations for the Jews. After all, much of “Hitler’s Gold” had originally belonged to the bankers in London and New York. The . . . captured Nazi loot went underground. . . .
“In the cause of anticommunism, and to retrieve its own investments in Germany, the Vatican agreed to become part of Dulles’s smuggling window, through which the Nazis and their treasure could be moved to safety.”
On April 12th, 1945, Roosevelt died, and Truman became President. May 7th, Nazi Germany surrendered after the suicide of Adolf Hitler. September 2nd, Japan surrendered.
World War II finally ended, but at the cost of more than 35,000,000 lives, over half that amount civilians. The death toll for the United States was 294,000.
The Elkhorn Manifesto Part IV
A PLEDGE BETRAYED
“Dulles and some of his friends volunteered for postwar service with the government not out of patriotism but of necessity,” according to Loftus and Aarons. “They had to be in positions of power to suppress the evidence of their own dealings with the Nazis. The Safehaven investigation was quickly stripped from Treasury . . . and turned over to the State Department. There Dulles’s friends shredded the index to the interlocking corporations and blocked further investigations.
“Dulles had this goal in mind: Not a single American businessman was ever going to be convicted of treason for helping the Nazis. None ever was, despite the evidence. According to one of our sources in the intelligence community, the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps had two large “Civilian Internment Centers” in Occupied Germany, code named “Ashcan” and “Dustbin.” The CIC had identified and captured a large number of U.S. citizens who had stayed in Germany and aided the Third Reich all through World War II. The evidence of their treason was overwhelming. The captured German records were horribly incriminating.
“Yet Victor Wohreheide, the young Justice Department attorney responsible for preparing the treason trials, suddenly ordered the prisoners’ release. All of the Nazi collaborators were allowed to return to the United States and reclaim their citizenship. At the same time, another Justice Department attorney, O. John Rogge, who dared to make a speech about Nazi collaborators in the United States was quickly fired. However, the attorney who buried the treason cases was later promoted to special assistant attorney general.
“Dulles and his clients had won. The proof is in the bottom line. Forty years after World War II, Fortune magazine published a list of the hundred richest men in the world. There were no Jews on the list. The great fortunes of the Rothschilds and Warburgs had been diminished to insignificance by the Depression, the Nazis, and World War II.
“Near the top of the list were several multibillionaires who had been prominent members of Hitler’s inner circle. A few even had served time in Allied prisons as Nazi war criminals, but they were all released quickly. The bottom line is that the Nazi businessmen survived the war with their fortunes intact and rebuilt their industrial empires to become the richest men in the world. Dulles’s clients got away with it. President Roosevelt’s dream of putting the Nazis’ moneymen on trial died with him.”
England also failed to see justice done, according to the authors: “The British authorities in Germany ordered the U.S. Army to release all of the VIP British Nazis and hand over the evidence against them. Even before Roosevelt’s death, Churchill had already begun to withdraw from his commitment to prosecute Nazis.” The reason?” Too many British industries might be seized as Nazi fronts. Too many upper-class collaborators might have to be prosecuted. The Germans were defeated, and the Soviets were now the enemy.
“Funding for British war crimes investigations suddenly dried up. Nazi bankers such as Herman Abs were released from prison to work as economic advisers in the British zone of Germany. The history of British “efforts” to punish Nazis after the war is aptly summarized in Tom Bower’s book, “The Pledge betrayed”. . . .
“The pattern was repeated all over the remnants of the Third Reich. Despite direct orders from President Truman and General Eisenhower, I.G. Farben, the citadel of the Nazi industrialists, was never dismantled. Dulles’s clients demanded, and received, Allied compensation for bomb damage to their factories in Germany. Only a few of the top Nazis were executed. Most of the rest were released from prison within a few years. Others, would go virtually unpunished. No one ever investigated the Nazi sympathizers in Western intelligence that had made it all possible.”
As we have seen, the American industrialists who did business with the Nazis were in no way inconvenienced by war crimes trials, and even received compensation for damages to their Nazi war plants. Some Nazi industrialists were charged and convicted by the Nuremberg war crimes trials but, in their book, “The American Establishment”, authors Leonard and Mark Silk observe that in the late 1940s “the United States and its leaders faced an agonizing moral problem in coming to terms with those German industrialists who had willingly done business with the Nazis and who were now just as willing to do business with the Americans in the reconstruction of Germany. The problem was dramatized when those German industrialists who had been convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg were all released from Landsberg prison in early 1951, their sentences commuted by the American High Commissioner [of German Occupation], John J. McCloy.
“. . . . Whatever the motivation,” the authors continue, “the blanket release of the convicted industrialists was taken within Germany – and by them – as a sign that businessmen were not to be seriously blamed for their involvement in matters for which others were hanged or suffered long imprisonment.”
The motivation for the mass release of imprisoned Nazi war criminals is described in the book, “The New Germany and the Old Nazis,” by T.H. Tetens, an expert in German affairs.
Tetens observes that in “1950, when Washington showed its eagerness to create a new German army of 500,000 men, the SS [at that time reorganized into a neo-Nazi front group called HIAG, which stands for "mutual assistance," a so-called veterans organization], together with the old Wehrmacht officers, started an all-out campaign for the immediate release of all war criminals. It was a superbly organized blackmail action, enjoying wide support from the public, from all parties, and carried toward success by Dr. Adenauer’s astute maneuverings.
“The Chancellor suggested an inconspicuous way to solve the problem with “parole,” “sick leave,” and other roundabout methods. The more the U.S. High Commission in Germany showed leniency, however, the stronger the pressure became: either “all so-called war criminals are released or there will be no German army.” American diplomats followed Dr. Adenauer’s plan to feed the nationalistic monster piecemeal. Every few days we quietly released one or two more from prison – the Krupps, the I.G. Farben directors, and dozens of former Wehrmacht Generals. On friendly advice from Washington, the British and the French, extremely reluctant, had to follow suit. When the supply dried up, there remained behind bars only the SS, the mass murderers from Dachau, Belsen, and Buchenwald, and the toughs from the Waffen SS who had massacred American, British, and Canadian prisoners of war. This put High Commissioner John McCloy in a most embarrassing position. . . .”
Tetens explains how Chancellor Adenauer helped High Commissioner McCloy and the U.S. State Department avoid this embarrassment: Adenauer “suggested the formation of a review board, with three German members sitting in and having equal voice in making recommendations. The whole procedure was to be shrouded in secrecy, and it was decided that the names of those released should not be revealed to the public. In this way the last few hundred “poor devils”, those SS mass killers and sadists, were quietly set free within two or three years.”
Christopher Simpson, in his extensively documented book on the subject of U.S. recruitment of Nazis, “Blowback,” goes into more detail of the backgrounds of those released:
“The beneficiaries of this act included, for example, all of the convicted concentration camp doctors; all of the top judges who had administered the Nazis’ “special courts” and dozens of similar cases. In addition, “McCloy’s clemency decisions for the Landsberg inmates set in motion a much broader process that eventually freed hundreds of other convicted Nazi war criminals over the next five years. . . . By the winter of 1950-1951 the most senior levels of the U.S. government had decided to abrogate their wartime pledge to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. . . . in the interests of preserving West German military support for American leadership in the cold war. While nazism and Hitler’s inner circle continued to be publicly condemned throughout the West, the actual investigation and prosecution of specific Nazi crimes came to a standstill.”
One case merits special attention: Sepp Dietrich, “the organizer of the Fuehrer’s bodyguard. Dietrich carried out Hitler’s personal murder assignments” and, Tetens continues, “was in charge of the liquidation of the Jewish population in the city of Kharkov. During the Battle of the Bulge his troops committed the Malmedy massacre, killing more than 600 military and civilian prisoners, among them 115 American G.I.s. He was sentenced to death, and the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. In 1955 he was one of the last ‘poor devils’ quietly released from prison and greeted by the Bonn government with the homecoming pay of 6,000 marks.”
In a “New York Times” article published February 1, 1951, one prominent American expressed support for the reduction of sentences for those responsible for the mass murder of the 600 unarmed prisoners of war at Malmedy, describing the decision as “extremely wise.” The American was Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican from Wisconsin.
Tetens observes that, despite the wide-spread fear by “the French, the British, and the smaller European countries” of a re-militarized Germany, “the outbreak of the Korean War (June 1950) brought a total change. The provisions which banned all military and veterans’ organizations lost all their meaning and were no longer enforced. Western Germany was allowed by the Allies to set up its own General Staff, camouflaged under the name Blank Office. Supported by Bonn and tolerated by the United States, a nation-wide network was created to reactivate the experienced officers and the man power of the old Wehrmacht. The short period of 1950-51 must be marked as the time when Hitler’s old officers, SS leaders, and [Nazi] party functionaries returned to power and influence.”
Tetens’ comment that the Nazi’s return to power in Germany was “tolerated by the United States” was a historical understatement. By the time Tetens’ book was published in 1961, hundreds of convicted Nazi war criminals had already been smuggled out of Germany to avoid prosecution at the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, recruited by, and on the payroll of several U.S. government agencies, including the Army CIC, the OSS, and the Office of Policy Coordination within the State Department.
Over the past fifty years, it is now documented, these Americanized fugitive Nazi war criminals have been involved in, and in many cases in charge of, many U.S. government covert operations — international weapons smuggling, drug cartels, Central American death squads, right wing anti-communist dictatorships, LSD mind control experiments — the Republican National Committee’s Ethnic Heritage Councils, and the Presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush.
THE GEHLEN ORGANIZATION
Probably the most influential Nazi to come to work for the United States intelligence agencies during the Cold War was named Gehlen.
“Reinhard Gehlen,” writes author Christopher Simpson, “Hitler’s most senior military intelligence officer on the eastern front, had begun planning his surrender to the United States at least as early as the fall of 1944.” Of “several hundred” high-ranking Nazi officers who switched sides at the end of World War II, Gehlen “proved to be the most important of them all.
“In early March 1945 Gehlen and a small group of his most senior officers carefully microfilmed the vast holdings on the USSR in the . . . military intelligence section of the German army’s general staff. They packed the film in watertight steel drums and secretly buried it in remote mountain meadows scattered through the Austrian Alps. Then, on May 22, 1945, Gehlen and his top aides surrendered to an American Counter-intelligence Corps [CIC] team.”
According to Tetens: “. . . [Gehlen] immediately asked for an interview with the commanding officer . . .” and offered the United States “his intelligence staff, spy apparatus, and the priceless files for future service.”
Gehlen was sent to Washington and his offer was taken. “The Pentagon-Gehlen agreement,” states Tetens, “in practice guaranteed the continuation of the all-important Abwehr division of the German General Staff. Hundreds of German army and SS officers were quietly released from internment camps and joined Gehlen’s headquarters in the Spessart Mountains in central Germany. When the staff had grown to three thousand men, the Bureau Gehlen opened a closely guarded twenty-five-acre compound near Pullach, south of Munich, operating under the innocent name of the South German Industrial Development Organization. . . .
“Within a few years the Gehlen apparatus had grown by leaps and bounds. In the early fifties it was estimated that the organization employed up to 4,000 intelligence specialists in Germany, mainly former army and SS officers, and that more than 4,000 V-men (undercover agents) were active throughout the Soviet-bloc countries. Gehlen’s spy network stretches from Korea to Cairo, from Siberia to Santiago de Chile. . . . When the Federal Republic [of West Germany] became a sovereign state in 1955, the Bureau Gehlen was openly recognized as the official intelligence arm of the Bonn government.”
How important was the Gehlen Org, as it became known, to the history of the Cold War? Simpson’s research documents that it was perhaps the most significant element of all:
“. . . . The Org became the most important eyes and ears for U.S. intelligence inside the closed societies of the Soviet bloc. “In 1946 [U.S.] intelligence files on the Soviet Union were virtually empty,” says Harry Rositzke, the CIA’s former chief of espionage inside the Soviet Union. “. . . . Rositzke worked closely with Gehlen during the formative years of the CIA and credits Gehlen’s organization with playing a “primary role” in filling the empty file folders during that period. . . .”
“Gehlen had to make his money by creating a threat that we were afraid of,” says Victor Marchetti, formerly the CIA’s chief analyst of Soviet strategic war plans and capabilities, “so we would give him more money to tell us about it.” He continues: “In my opinion, the Gehlen Organization provided nothing worthwhile for the understanding or estimating Soviet military or political capabilities in Eastern Europe or anywhere else.” Employing Gehlen was “a waste of time, money, and effort, except that maybe he had some CI [counter- intelligence] value, because practically everybody in his organization was sucking off both tits.”
By “sucking off both tits” Marchetti is referring to the fact that Gehlen’s elaborate operation was penetrated by Soviet spies at the very time it was our most important source of intelligence upon which the Cold War was based. In fact, the Communists had infiltrated Nazi intelligence long before Gehlen switched sides.
“In each generation,” write Aarons and Loftus,”Soviet intelligence created “anti-Communist” emigre front groups, ostensibly to foment revolution and topple Bolshevism. The front groups attracted support from the West. Considerable financial assistance was supplied and close ties forged with various Western intelligence services. This enabled the Communist double agents running the front groups to co-opt the legitimate emigre opposition, splinter their leadership and provoke them into premature and poorly organized rebellions which were easily defeated. More importantly, the false front groups were a vehicle for long-term Soviet penetration of Western society. . . .”
The authors identify one of these groups as the Narodny Trudovoi Soyuz (NTS), or the People’s Labour Alliance. The NTS represented itself as a group of anti-communist “moles” inside the Kremlin and, in the 1920s, recruited a Communist agent named Prince Anton Vasilevich Turkel. Turkel, who actually worked for Soviet Military intelligence (GRU), went on to penetrate French, Japanese, Italian, British, German, and even the Vatican intelligence services before the end of World War II.
“After World War II, Turkel worked for West German intelligence (the Gehlen Org), collaborated with many of the spy services of NATO, including the American Military Intelligence Service (MIS – for offensive intelligence), the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC – for defensive purposes), the ultra-secret State Department Office of Policy Co-ordination and the Central Intelligence Agency. . .”
“Just before World War II began,” according to the authors, “an Austrian Jew named Richard Kauder created a secret intelligence network, code named MAX.” Kauder, using the name of [Max] Klatt – Turkel’s intelligence chief ["Unholy Trinity," Aarons and Loftus, p. 166] – “worked exclusively for Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the German spy chief who collaborated with the Vatican and the British to topple Hitler during the war [the group known as the Black Orchestra].”
The Nazis thought the Max network was made up of “so-called Fascist Jews” who “were willing to spy against the Soviet Union, not for the glory of the Third Reich but to save themselves and their families from the concentration camps.” The Max network was supposed to have had “the only communication link to a secret network of “White” Russian Fascists inside the Kremlin [Turkel’s NTS], who had supposedly infiltrated Stalin’s military headquarters prior to World War II.” But, the authors continue, “the Max network was not made up of Fascist Jews. They were, in fact, Communist Jews who risked their lives inside the heart of the Third Reich’s intelligence service.”
The Max network actually misled the Nazis, feeding them false intelligence on the capabilities and intentions of the Soviet Union, leading “the Nazi divisions into a series of death traps on the Eastern front.” The Max double-agents were responsible for the Nazis defeats at Stalingrad, “the giant battle of Kursk where Hitler’s tank divisions were slaughtered. The final sting,” continue the authors, “was to mislead Germany into believing that the Red army was on the verge of collapse in 1944, when in fact the Soviets were preparing for the most massive onslaught of the war.
“It would not be an exaggeration to say that the “Fascist Jews” of the Max network did more to defeat the German army than all the Western intelligence services combined. Seventy percent of all Hitler’s divisions were destroyed on the Eastern front, largely as a result of the misleading intelligence supplied by Max.”
When Gehlen was recruited by the United States, Allen Dulles ordered the ex-Nazi spymaster to “revive the Max network.” Gehlen already had plans to do just that, intending “to make Turkel’s Max network the centerpiece of his new West German intelligence agency. As soon as a Republican president was elected in the United States, Dulles intended to take over the CIA and make Gehlen and Turkel the heart of his anti-Soviet network. The Soviets, of course, were delighted as they watched Dulles and Gehlen attempt to plant a Communist spy ring in the heart of Western intelligence. . . .
“. . . [E]ventually, in 1956, the Allies decided that the whole thing had been a giant Soviet-controlled operation. Dozens of operations, hundreds of agents, thousands of innocent civilians had been betrayed. . . .
“. . . [T]hree years after Dulles became head of CIA in 1953, his pet “Fascist,” Turkel, broadcast the CIA codes to start the Hungarian uprising prematurely. Thousands of innocent Hungarians rushed on to the streets of Budapest to start the revolution. Instead of American paratroopers dropping supplies, they found Soviet tanks waiting in the suburbs.”
By 1959, the collapse of Dulles’s spy network was almost total: “U.S. Military Intelligence admitted to the National Security Council that it did not have a single network of couriers or safe houses left in Communist territory, apart from East Germany. Dulles’s Nazi “freedom fighters” had sold him out.”
It was Harry Rositze who best described the attitude of the United States military-intelligence establishment after the end of World War II: “Any bastard as long as he was anti-Communist.” Rositze, the “former head of secret operations inside the USSR” for the CIA, was correct.
We have seen that many Nazis – including those who committed atrocities – returned to positions of power and influence inside Germany after the war. Unknown until fairly recently was the extent of Nazi recruitment by U.S. intelligence agencies and political organizations, in the 1940s and 1950s.
Perhaps the most publicized program of Nazi recruitment is that of Project Paperclip, which involved the collection of Nazi rocket scientists and facilities, all of which were later incorporated into the U.S. Space Program. Klaus Barbie’s employment by the U.S. State Department in the 1940s is another well-known incident. Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyons, France, was known as the “Butcher of Lyons” and was sought by the French Government for atrocities committed against French Resistance fighters captured by the Nazis. Barbie was recruited as a U.S. intelligence “asset” in 1947 by one branch of the State Department’s Counter-intelligence Corps (CIC), while another branch, the Operation Selection Board, a joint U.S./British project, was trying to put him in prison for war crimes.
Eventually, according to Aarons and Loftus, “Barbie’s employment (and protection) by the Americans began to reach French newspapers and politicians at least as early as 1948. They, in turn brought increasing pressure on the U.S. government through publicity and eventually through official notes requesting Barbie’s extradition from Germany. That, in the final analysis, is why the CIC chose to provide Barbie with a new identity and safe passage to Argentina in 1951, while thousands of other ex-Nazis who had been “of interest” to the CIC at one time or another have simply lived out their lives in Germany. If the CIC had dumped Barbie when the French government began requesting his extradition, he would have had plenty of compromising things to say about the CIC. . .”
But when Barbie was eventually captured by Bolivian authorities in the early 1980s, and returned to France to face charges of war crimes, the U.S. government was forced to conduct an investigation into the Barbie affair. The official position? “. . . [T]his investigation concluded that the United States had indeed protected Barbie in Europe and engineered his escape but that Barbie was the only such Nazi who had been assisted in this fashion.”
As documented previously, this statement was false. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Nazis were employed by the several U.S. agencies, from the CIC to the CIA, and used in covert operations overseas, as our first line of defense against Communism. Others, equally as guilty of wartime atrocities, were brought into the United States for domestic political purposes. This aspect of the U.S.-Nazi connection is well-documented, and deserves closer attention by the mainstream press.
One of the first researchers to reveal the connections between the U.S. government and the Nazis, was a lady named Mae Brussell of Carmel, California. Her career as a conspiracy researcher and host of the weekly radio program “World Watchers International” began with the Kennedy assassination. “In ferreting out every morsel from the Warren Report,” writes Jonathan Vankin, author of the book “Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes,” “supplementing her research with untold amounts of reading from the “New York Times” to “Soldier of Fortune,” Brussell discovered not merely a conspiracy of a few renegade CIA agents, Mafiosi, and Castro haters behind Kennedy’s death, but a vast, invisible institutional structure layered into the very fabric of the U.S. political system.
“Comprising the government within a government were not just spies, gangsters, and Cubans, but Nazis. Mae found that many of the commission witnesses — whose testimony established Oswald as a lone nut” — had never even spoken to Oswald, or knew him only slightly. The bulk of them were White Russian emigres living in Dallas. Extreme in their anti-Communism, they were often affiliated with groups set up by the SS in World War II — Eastern European ethnic armies used by the Nazis to carry out their dirtiest work.
“Brussell also discovered an episode from history rarely reported in the media, and not often taught in universities. Those same collaborationist groups were absorbed by United States intelligence agencies. They hooked up with the spy net of German General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s Eastern Front espionage chief.”
“This is a story of how key Nazis . . . anticipated military disaster and laid plans to transplant nazism, intact but disguised, in havens in the West,” wrote Mae Brussell in 1983. She didn’t author too many articles, but this one, “The Nazi Connection to the John F. Kennedy Assassination” (in “The Rebel,” a short-lived political magazine published by “Hustler” impresario Larry Flynt), was definitive, albeit convoluted.
“It is a story that climaxes in Dallas on November 22, 1963, when John Kennedy was struck down,” Brussell’s article continued. “And it is a story with an aftermath — America’s slide to the brink of Fascism.”
Mae Brussell quit broadcasting her radio show in Spring of 1988, after receiving a death threat from a “man who is said to have identified himself as “a fascist and proud of it.”
The last project she worked on, before her death from cancer on October 3, 1988, writes the author, “was a study of Satanic cults — within the U.S. military. The hidden fascist oligarchy had progressed far beyond the need for patsies like Oswald. They were now able, Brussell asserted, to hypnotically program assassins.
“Satanic cults are the state of the art in brainwashing. With drugs, sex, and violence, they strip any semblance of moral thought. They are perfect for use in creating killers. The United States military, Brussell found, was using them.”
NOTES: THE NEW WORLD (DIS)ORDER
1. One Thousand Americans, George Seldes, p. 5-6
2. The Secret War Against the Jews, Loftus and Aarons, p. 71
3. Ibid., pp. 73-74
4. Ibid., pp. 75-76
5. Ibid., p. 77
6. Ibid., p. 78
7. Ibid., pp. 79-80
8. Ibid., pp. 82-83
9. Ibid., pp. 84-85
10. Ibid., pp. 85-86
11.Tragedy and Hope, Prof. Carrol Quigley, p. 827
12.Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 100-102
13. The American Establishment, Leonard and Mark Silk, p. 249
14. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, T.H. Tetens, pp. 99-102
15. Blowback: America”s recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War, Christopher Simpson, pp. 191-192
16. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, p. 103
17. Ibid., pp. 112-113
18. Blowback, pp. 40-41
19. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, pp. 42-43
20. Blowback, pp. 54-55
21. Unholy Trinity, Mark Aarons and John Loftus, pp. 151-152
22. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 135-136
23. Ibid., pp. 151-152
24. Blowback, p. 159
25. Ibid., pp. 187-189
26. Ibid., pp. 192-193
27. Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes, Jonathan Vankin, pp. 101-104
The Elkhorn Manifesto Part V
RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON
In this section we will explore the Nazi connections of Richard Nixon. To do so we must return to the years just after the end of World War II and, of course, a man named Dulles.
The irony of Nixon’s political career ending with a cover-up can only be appreciated with the knowledge that this turbulent career also began with one. Loftus and Aarons state that:
“According to several of our sources among the “old spies,” Richard Nixon’s political career began in 1945, when he was the navy officer temporarily assigned to review . . . captured Nazi documents.” The documents in question revealed the wartime record of Karl Blessing, “former Reichsbank officer and then head of the Nazi oil cartel, Kontinentale Ol A.G. “Konti” was in partnership with Dulles’s principal Nazi client, I.G. Farben. Both companies had despicable records regarding their treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. After the war Dulles not only “lost” Blessings Nazi party records, but he helped peddle a false biography in the ever-gullible “New York Times.”
The authors’ sources reveal that not only did Dulles help cover up his Nazi client’s record, he “personally vouched for Blessing as an anti-Nazi in order to protect continued control of German oil interests in the Middle East. Blessing’s Konti was the Nazi link to Iben Saud [King of Saudi Arabia] and Aramco [the Arabian- American Oil Company]. If Blessing went down, he could have taken a lot of people with him, including Allen Dulles. The cover-up worked, except that U.S. Naval Intelligence scrutinized a set of the captured Konti records.”
According to the “old spies,” Allen Dulles made a deal with the young navy officer who was reviewing the Konti files – Richard Nixon. Nixon would help Dulles bury the Konti files. In return, Allen Dulles “arranged to finance [Nixon’s] first congressional campaign against Jerry Voorhis.”
Dulles’s support for Nixon paid off in 1947 when, as the freshman congressman from California, he “saved John Foster Dulles considerable embarrassment by privately pointing out that confidential government files showed that one of Foster’s foundation employees, Alger Hiss, was allegedly a Communist. The Dulles brothers took Nixon under their wing and escorted him on a tour of Fascist “freedom fighter” operations in Germany, apparently in anticipation that the young congressman would be useful after Dewey became president.” [He would be useful anyway, despite the fact that incumbent President Truman won reelection in 1948, defeating Dewey.]
After Truman’s victory, write the authors, “Nixon became Allen Dulles’s mouthpiece in Congress. Both he and Senator Joseph McCarthy received volumes of classified information to support the charge that the Truman administration was filled with “pinkos.” When McCarthy went too far in his Communist investigations, it was Nixon who worked with his next-door neighbor, CIA director Bedell Smith, to steer the investigations away from the intelligence community.
“The CIA was grateful for Nixon’s assistance, but did not know the reason for it. Dulles had been recruiting Nazis under the cover of the State Department’s Office of Policy Coordination, whose chief, Frank Wisner, had systematically recruited the Eastern European emigre networks that had worked first for the SS, then the British, and finally Dulles.
“The CIA did not know it, but Dulles was bringing them to the United States less for intelligence purposes than for political advantage. The Nazis’ job quickly became to get out the vote for the Republicans. One Israeli intelligence officer joked that when Dulles used the phrase “Never Again,” he was not talking about the Holocaust but about Dewey’s narrow loss to Truman. In the eyes of the Israelis, Allen Dulles was the demon who infected Western intelligence with Nazi recruits.
“In preparation for the 1952 Eisenhower-Nixon campaign, the Republicans formed an Ethnic Division, which, to put it bluntly, recruited the “displaced Fascists” who arrived in the United States after World War II. Like similar migrant organizations in several Western countries, the Ethnic Division attracted a significant number of Central and Eastern European Nazis, who had been recruited by the SS as political and police leaders during the Holocaust. These Fascist emigres supported the Eisenhower-Nixon “liberation” policy as the quickest means of getting back into power in their former homelands and made a significant contribution “in its first operation (1951/1952).”"
The authors point out that “over the years the Democrats had acquired one or two Nazis of their own, such as Tscherim Soobzokov, a former member of the Caucasian SS who worked as a party boss in New Jersey. But in 90 percent of the cases, the members of Hitler’s political organization went to the Republicans. In fact, from the very beginning, the word had been put around among Eastern European Nazis that Dulles and Nixon were the men to see, especially if you were a rich Fascist . . .”
This relationship between Richard Nixon and the Nazis developed because both he and Allen Dulles “blamed Governor Dewey’s razor-thin loss to Truman in the 1948 presidential election on the Jewish vote. When [Nixon] became Eisenhower’s vice president in 1952, Nixon was determined to build his own ethnic base.
“Vice President Nixon’s secret political war of Nazis against Jews in American politics was never investigated at the time. The foreign language-speaking Croatian and other Fascist emigre groups had a ready-made network for contacting and mobilizing the Eastern European ethnic bloc. There is a very high correlation between CIA domestic subsidies to Fascist “freedom fighters” during the 1950s and the leadership of the Republican party’s ethnic campaign groups. The motive for under-the-table financing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to offset the Jewish vote for the Democrats.
“In 1952 Nixon had formed an Ethnic Division within the Republican National Committee. “Displaced Fascists, hoping to be returned to power by an Eisenhower-Nixon “liberation” policy signed on” with the committee. In 1953, when Republicans were in office, the immigration laws were changed to admit Nazis, even members of the SS. They flooded into the country. Nixon himself oversaw the new immigration program. As vice president, he even received Eastern European Fascists in the White House. After a long, long journey, the Croatian Nazis had found a new home in the United States, where they reestablished their networks.
“In 1968 Nixon promised that if he won the presidential election, he would create a permanent ethnic council within the Republican party. Previously the Ethnic Division was allowed to surface only during presidential campaigns. Nixon’s promise was carried out after the 1972 election, during [George] Bush’s tenure as chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Croatian Ustashis became an integral part of the campaign structure of Republican politics, along with several other Fascist organizations.”
The authors describe Nixon’s pro-Nazi activities in no uncertain terms: “Nixon himself personally recruited ex-Nazis for his 1968 presidential campaign. Moreover, Vice President Nixon became the point man for the Eisenhower administration on covert operations and personally supervised Allen Dulles’s projects while Ike was ill in 1956 and 1957.”
One of the Nazis recruited by candidate Nixon was Laszlo Pasztor, described by Aarons and Loftus as “the founding chair of Nixon’s Republican Heritage Groups council” who, “during World War II . . . was a diplomat in Berlin representing the Arrow Cross government of Nazi Hungary, which supervised the extermination of the Jewish population.
“[A]fter Nixon won [the 1968 Presidential Election], he approved Pasztor’s appointment as chief organizer of the ethnic council. Not surprisingly, Pasztor’s “choices for filling emigre slots as the council was being formed included various Nazi collaborationist organizations.” The former Fascists were coming out of the closet in droves.
“The policy of the Nixon White House was an “open door” for emigre Fascists, and through the door came such guests as Ivan Docheff, head of the Bulgarian National Front and chairman of the American Friends of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . . an organization dominated by war criminals and fugitive Fascists. Yet Nixon welcomed them with open arms and even had Docheff to breakfast for a prayer meeting to celebrate Captive Nations Week.”
“During Nixon’s “Four More Years” campaign in 1971-1972, Laszlo Pasztor again played a key role in marshaling the ethnic vote. No longer a marginal player on the fringes, now he held a key position as the Republican National Committee’s nationalities director. . . .
“The Republican leadership cannot claim ignorance as a defense. [Syndicated Columnist Jack] Anderson’s famous expose of Nixon’s Nazis appeared in “The Washington Post” at the same time as the November 1971 convention. Among those mentioned was Laszlo Pasztor, “the industrious head of the GOP ethnic groups, [who] was never asked about his wartime activities in Hungary by the four GOP officials who interviewed him for his job.” It was too embarrassing for Nixon to admit that Pasztor had been a ranking member of a Fascist government at war with the United States.
“. . . . It is one thing to promote obscure Eastern European Fascist movements in the Republican party. It is quite another to let the German Nazis have a major influence. After 1953, the Republican administration changed the rules, and even members of the Waffen SS could immigrate to the United States as long as they claimed only to have fought the Communists on the Eastern Front.”
The Republican/Nixon attraction to Nazism was also observed by Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, authors of the book, “High Treason,” dealing with the Kennedy Assassination. Groden and Livingstone write: “Nixon surrounded himself with what was known as the Berlin Wall, a long succession of advisors with Germanic names: We recall at the top of his “German General Staff” as it was also known, Haldeman, Erlichman, Krogh, Kliendienst, Kissinger (the Rockefellers’ emissary) and many others.
“The selection of German names was no accident. Many of the brighter staff people close to Nixon came to him from the University of Southern California, and the University of California at Los Angeles, where there were fraternities that kept alive the vision of a new Reich. America has for a long time harbored this dark side of its character, one of violence and the Valhalla of Wagner and Hitler.
“But Gordon Liddy was the one in whose mind “Triumph of the Will” was the most alive. Some of these men would watch the great Nazi propaganda films in the basement of the White House until all hours of the night, and drink, in fact, get drunk with their power, with blind ambition, as one of them wrote.”
“According to several of our sources in the intelligence community who were in a position to know,” continue Loftus and Aarons, “the secret rosters of the Republican party’s Nationalities Council read like a Who’s Who of Fascist fugitives. The Republican’s Nazi connection is the darkest secret of the Republican leadership. The rosters will never be disclosed to the public. As will be seen in Chapter 16 dealing with George Bush, the Fascist connection is too widespread for damage control.
“According to a 1988 study by Russ Bellant of Political Research Associates, virtually all of the Fascist organizations of World War II opened up a Republican party front group during the Nixon administration. The caliber of the Republican ethnic leaders can be gauged by one New Jersey man, Emanuel Jasiuk, a notorious mass murderer from what is today called the independent nation of Belarus, formerly part of the Soviet Union. But not all American ethnic communities are represented in the GOP’s ethnic section; there are no black or Jewish heritage groups. . . .
“The truth is that the Nazi immigrants were “tar babies” that no one knew how to get rid of. Dulles had brought in a handful of the top emigre politicians in the late 1940s. They in turn sponsored their friends in the 1950s. By the 1960s ex-Nazis who had originally fled to Argentina were moving to the United States. . . .”
It is clear that, even before the break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters on June 17, 1972, the Republicans were on the brink of having their pro-Nazi activities over the past four decades become a matter of mass-media attention. After the Watergate Break-in, as the Congressional Hearings began to reveal the slush-funds, money-laundering, illegal corporate campaign contributions, the political sabotage of the 1972 Presidential election process, the involvement of ITT and the Nixon Administration into the assassination of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, and many other aspects of Nixonism, the floodgates of truth were about to open. Only one thing averted this wholesale learning of the truth by the American people: Nixon’s resignation and subsequent pardoning by his hand-picked successor, Gerald Ford.
NOTES: RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON
1. The Secret War Against the Jews, p. 221
2. Ibid., pp. 221-222
3. Ibid., pp. 222-223
4. Ibid., pp. 122-123
5. Ibid., pp. 224-225
6. Ibid., pp. 297-298
7. Ibid., pp. 298-299
8. High Treason, Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, pp. 417-418
9. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 300-301
GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
Like Richard Nixon, George Bush was a strong anti-marijuana/hemp president, escalating the so-called “war on drugs” begun by Nixon. And, like Nixon, George Bush was deeply involved with supporting the Nazis in the Republican’s closet. In fact, support for the Nazis was a Bush family tradition which goes back more than six decades and, once again, to Allen Dulles.
Loftus and Aarons write: “The real story of George Bush starts well before he launched his own career. It goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. . . .”
THE BUSH-DULLES-NAZI CONNECTION
“George Bush’s problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert “Bert” Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .
“Walker was one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler’s infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.
“Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles’s firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .
“Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany. According to “The Splendid Blond Beast,” Christopher Simpson’s seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialized in investments in Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a dominating figure in the American establishment. . . .
“The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company’s American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. “Bert” Walker was Union Banking’s president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman’s company at 39 Broadway in New York.
“In 1926 Bert Walker did a favor for his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favor families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker’s specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler’s political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. . . .
“In , Harriman & Company merged with a British-American investment company to become Brown Brothers, Harriman. Prescott Bush became one of the senior partners of the new company, which relocated to 59 Broadway, while Union Banking remained at 39 Broadway. But in 1934 Walker arranged to put his son-in-law on the board of directors of Union Banking.
“Walker also set up a deal to take over the North American operations of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, a cover for I.G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the United States. The shipping line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money for bribing American politicians to see things Hitler’s way. The holding company was Walker’s American Shipping & Commerce, which shared the offices at 39 Broadway with Union Banking. In an elaborate corporate paper trail, Harriman’s stock in American Shipping & Commerce was controlled by yet another holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, run out of Walker’s office. The directors of this company were Averill Harriman, Bert Walker, and Prescott Bush. . . .
“. . . In a November 1935 article in Common Sense, retired marine general Smedley D. Butler blamed Brown Brothers, Harriman for having the U.S. marines act like “racketeers” and “gangsters” in order to exploit financially the peasants of Nicaragua. . . .
“. . . A 1934 congressional investigation alleged that Walker’s “Hamburg-Amerika Line subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States.” Walker did not know it, but one of his American employees, Dan Harkins, had blown the whistle on the spy apparatus to Congress. Harkins, one of our best sources, became Roosevelt’s first double agent . . . [and] kept up the pretense of being an ardent Nazi sympathizer, while reporting to Naval Intelligence on the shipping company’s deals with Nazi intelligence.
“Instead of divesting the Nazi money,” continue the authors, “Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets. The lawyer he hired had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was Allen Dulles. According to Dulles’s client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman was on June 18, 1936. In January 1937 Dulles listed his work for the firm as “Disposal of Stan [Standard Oil] Investing stock.”
“As discussed in Chapter 3, Standard Oil of New Jersey had completed a major stock transaction with Dulles’s Nazi client, I.G. Farben. By the end of January 1937 Dulles had merged all his cloaking activities into one client account: “Brown Brothers Harriman-Schroeder Rock.” Schroeder, of course, was the Nazi bank on whose board Dulles sat. The “Rock” were the Rockefellers of Standard Oil, who were already coming under scrutiny for their Nazi deals. By May 1939 Dulles handled another problem for Brown Brothers, Harriman, their “Securities Custodian Accounts.”
“If Dulles was trying to conceal how many Nazi holding companies Brown Brothers, Harriman was connected with, he did not do a very good job. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, word leaked from Washington that affiliates of Prescott Bush’s company were under investigation for aiding the Nazis in time of war. . . .
“. . . The government investigation against Prescott Bush continued. Just before the storm broke, his son, George, abandoned his plans to enter Yale and enlisted in the U.S. Army. It was, say our sources among the former intelligence officers, a valiant attempt by an eighteen-year-old boy to save the family’s honor.
“Young George was in flight school in October 1942, when the U.S. government charged his father with running Nazi front groups in the United States. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being in effect held for enemy nationals. Union Banking, of course, was an affiliate of Brown Brothers, Harriman, and Bush handled the Harrimans’ investments as well.
“Once the government had its hands on Bush’s books, the whole story of the intricate web of Nazi front corporations began to unravel. A few days later two of Union Banking’s subsidiaries — the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation — also were seized. Then the government went after the Harriman Fifteen Holding Company, which Bush shared with his father-in-law, Bert Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, and the Silesian-American Corporation. The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush’s empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort.” (1)
“Try as he did,” continue the authors, “George Bush could not get away from Dulles’s crooked corporate network, which his grandfather and father had joined in the 1920s. Wherever he turned, George found that the influence of the Dulles brothers was already there. Even when he fled to Texas to become a successful businessman on his own, he ran into the pirates of Wall Street.
“One of Allen Dulles’s secret spies inside the Democratic party later became George Bush’s partner in the Mexican oil business. Edwin Pauley, a California oil man, was . . . one of Dulles’s covert agents in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations . . . a “big business” Democrat. . . .”
Among the key posts held by Pauley were: treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, director of the Democratic convention in 1944 and, after Truman’s election, Truman appointed him the “Petroleum Coordinator of Lend-Lease Supplies for the Soviet Union and Britain.”
Just after the end of World War II, “in April 1945 Truman appointed Pauley as the U.S. representative to the Allied Reparations Committee, with the rank of ambassador,” as well as “industrial and commercial advisor to the Potsdam Conference, “where his chief task was to renegotiate the reparations agreements formulated at Yalta.” As one historian noted, the “oil industry has always watched reparations activities carefully.” There was a lot of money involved, and much of it belonged to the Dulles brothers’ clients.”
At the same time, report Loftus and Aarons,
“the Dulles brothers were still shifting Nazi assets out of Europe for their clients as well as for their own profit. They didn’t want the Soviets to get their hands on these assets or even know that they existed. Pauley played a significant role in solving this problem for the Dulles brothers. The major part of Nazi Germany’s industrial assets was located in the zones occupied by the West’s forces. As Washington’s man on the ground, Pauley managed to deceive the Soviets for long enough to allow Allen Dulles to spirit much of the remaining Nazi assets out to safety. . . .
“Pauley, a key player in the plan to hide the Dulles brothers’ Nazi assets, then moved into another post where he could help them further. After successfully keeping German assets in Fascist hands, Pauley was given the job of “surveying Japan’s assets and determining the amount of its war debt.” Again, it was another job that was crucial to the Dulles clique’s secret financial and intelligence operations.”
After Pauley retired from government work he went back to being an independent oil man. Loftus and Aarons state that: “In 1958 he founded Pauley Petroleum which: . . . teamed up with Howard Hughes to expand oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.
“Pauley Petroleum discovered a highly productive offshore petroleum reserve and in 1959 became involved in a dispute with the Mexican Government, which considered the royalties from the wells to be too low.
“According to our sources in the intelligence community, the oil dispute was really a shakedown of the CIA by Mexican politicians. Hughes and Pauley were working for the CIA from time to time, while advancing their own financial interests in the lucrative Mexican oil fields. Pauley, say several of our sources, was the man who invented an intelligence money-laundering system in Mexico, which was later refined in the 1970s as part of Nixon’s Watergate scandal. At one point CIA agents used Pemex, the Mexican government’s oil monopoly, as a business cover at the same time Pemex was being used as a money laundry for Pauley’s campaign contributions. As we shall see, the Mexican-CIA connection played an important part in the development of George Bush’s political and intelligence career. . . .
“Pauley, say the “old spies,” was the man who brought all the threads of the Mexican connection together. He was Bush’s business associate, a front man for Dulles’s CIA [Allen Dulles was CIA director then], and originator of the use of Mexican oil fronts to create a slush fund for Richard Nixon’s various campaigns. . . .
“Although it is not widely known, Pauley, in fact, had been a committed, if “secret,” Nixon supporter since 1960. It should be recalled that Nixon tried to conceal his Mexican slush fund during the Watergate affair by pressuring the CIA into a “national security” cover-up. The CIA, to its credit, declined to participate. Unfortunately, others were so enmeshed in Pauley’s work for Nixon that they could never extricate themselves. According to a number of our intelligence sources, the deals Bush cut with Pauley in Mexico catapulted him into political life. In 1960 Bush became a protege of Richard Nixon, who was then running for president of the United States. . . .
“The most intriguing of Bush’s early connections was to Richard Nixon, who as vice president had supervised Allen Dulles’s covert planning for the Bay of Pigs [invasion]. For years it has been rumored that Dulles’s client, George Bush’s father, was one of the Republican leaders who recruited Nixon to run for Congress and later convinced Eisenhower to take him on as vice president. There is no doubt that the two families were close. George Bush described Nixon as his “mentor.” Nixon was a Bush supporter in his very first tilt at politics, during his unsuccessful run for the Senate in 1964, and turned out again when he entered the House two years later.
“After Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, he ordered a general house cleaning on the basis of loyalty. “Eliminate everyone,” he told John Ehrlichman about reappointments, “except George Bush. Bush will do anything for our cause.” . . . According to Bush’s account, the president told him that “the place I really need you is over at the National Committee running things.” So, in 1972, Nixon appointed George Bush as head of the Republican National Committee.
“It was Bush who fulfilled Nixon’s promise to make the “ethnic” emigres a permanent part of Republican politics. In 1972 Nixon’s State Department spokesman confirmed to his Australian counterpart that the ethnic groups were very useful to get out the vote in several key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Republican National Committee exactly coincided with Laszlo Pasztor’s 1972 drive to transform the Heritage Groups Council into the party’s official ethnic arm. The groups Pasztor chose as Bush’s campaign allies were the emigre Fascists whom Dulles had brought to the United States. . . .
“. . . Nearly twenty years later, and after expose’s in several respectable newspapers, Bush continued to recruit most of the same ethnic Fascists, including Pasztor, for his own 1988 ethnic outreach program when he first ran for president.
“According to our sources in the intelligence community,” state the authors, “it was Bush who told Nixon that the Watergate investigations might start uncovering the Fascist skeletons in the Republican party’s closet. Bush himself acknowledges that he wrote Nixon a letter asking him to step down. The day after Bush did so, Nixon resigned.
“Bush had hoped to become Gerald Ford’s vice president upon Nixon”s resignation, but he was appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN. Nelson Rockefeller became vice president and chief damage controller. He formed a special commission in an attempt to preempt the Senate’s investigation of the intelligence community. The Rockefeller Commission into CIA abuses was filled with old OPC [Dulles’s Office of Policy Coordination] hands like Ronald Reagan, who had been the front man back in the 1950s for the money-laundering organization, the Crusade for Freedom, which was part of Dulles’s Fascist “freedom fighters” program.”
In 1988, Project Censored, a news media censorship research organization, awarded the honor of “Top Censored story” to the subject of George Bush. The article revealed “how the major mass media ignored, overlooked or undercovered at least ten critical stories reported in America’s alternative press that raised serious questions about the Republican candidate, George Bush, dating from his reported role as a CIA “asset” in 1963 to his Presidential campaign’s connection with a network of anti-Semites with Nazi and fascist affiliations in 1988.” (4)
NOTES: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
1. The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 357-361
2. Ibid., pp. 362-364
3. Ibid., pp. 365-371
4. The 1993 Project Censored Yearbook: The News That Didn’t Make The News – And Why, Project Censored; Dr. Carl Jensen, Director., pp. 230.
The Elkhorn Manifesto Part VI CONCLUSION
If, before you finished reading this publication, you ever wondered why the U.S. federal government refuses to consider the medicinal and industrial value of cannabis hemp, despite widespread and growing support from the public, medical experts, industry leaders, and a growing number of state legislators across this nation – you now have the answer.
For the past several generations, Americans have been systematically deceived about the true nature of cannabis hemp. Many Americans have died – victims of political murders. Millions have been imprisoned, their children and their property taken away, their futures destroyed. The history of my own state – Kentucky – and others as well, have been “sanitized,” rewritten, our heritage deleted, our citizens defrauded and impoverished to bury the truth.
And if, before you finished reading this publication, you ever wondered why the U.S. federal government would train and finance Central American death squads; or why, while waging the so-called “war on drugs,” the U.S. federal government would operate cocaine and heroin smuggling operations around the world, bringing in tons of drugs to places like Mena, Arkansas; or why the U.S. federal government would “spread democracy” throughout the world by assassinating democratically elected politicians – both at home and abroad – replacing them with right-wing dictators and training their secret police in the latest techniques of torture, terrorism, and mind control; or why the U.S. federal government would conduct deadly medical and radiation experiments on unsuspecting citizens – including pregnant women, the mentally impaired, and children – you now have the answer.
The last question is “what are we going to do about it?”
BIBLIOGRAPHY (By section)
* The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics – Second Edition, By Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler – Duxbury Press, CA. 1972
* The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed – By Anthony Sampson – The Viking Press, NY. 1977
U. S. CORPORATIONS AND THE NAZIS
* Facts and Fascism – By George Seldes (Assisted by Helen Seldes) – Sixth Edition – In Fact, Inc., NY. 1943
* Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 – By Charles Higham – Delecorte Press, NY. 1983
* Even the Gods Can’t Change History: The Facts Speak for Themselves – By George Seldes – Lyle Stuart, Inc., NJ. 1976
* Power, Inc.: Public and Private Rulers and How to Make Them Accountable – By Morton Mintz & Jerry S. Cohen – Viking Press, NY. 1976
* The Plot to Seize the White House – By Jules Archer – Hawthorn Books, 1973
* It’s A Conspiracy!: The Shocking Truth About America’s Favorite Conspiracy Theories – By Michael Litchfield/The National Insecurity Council – EarthWorks Press, CA. 1992
* The Secret War Against The Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People – By John Loftus and Mark Aarons – St. Martin”s Press, NY. 1994
* HEMP & the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes – By Jack Herer (Editors: C. Conrad, L. & J. Osburn, E. Komp, and J. Stout)
* H.E.M.P. (Help Eliminate Marijuana Prohibition), CA. 1995
* One Thousand Americans – By George Seldes – BONI & GAER, NY. 1947
* Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in a Free Society – By Peter McWilliams – Prelude Press, CA. 1993
* A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky – By Professor James F. Hopkins – University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. 1951
* Spooks: The Haunting of America – The Private Use of Secret Agents – By Jim Hougan – First Bantam Edition – William Morrow and Co., NY. 1979
* The Sovereign State of ITT – By Anthony Sampson – Stein and Day, NY. 1973
* Democracy for the Few – By Michael Parenti – Fourth Edition – St. Martin”s Press, NY. 1983
THE NEW WORLD (DIS)ORDER
* Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time – By Carroll Quigley, Second Printing – Wm. Morrison, NY. 1974
* The American Establishment – By Leonard Silk & Mark Silk, First Discus Printing – Avon Books (by arrangement with Basic Books), NY. 1981
* The New Germany and the Old Nazis – By T.H. Tetens – Random House, NY. 1961
* Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War – By Christopher Simpson – Weidenfeld & Nicolson, NY. 1988
* Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and Soviet Intelligence – By Mark Aarons & John Loftus, First U.S. Edition – St. Martins Press, NY. 1992
* Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Crimes: From JFK to the CIA Terrorist Connection – By Jonathan Vankin – Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., NY. 1992
RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON
* High Treason: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the New Evidence of Conspiracy – By Robert J. Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, Berkley Edition – Berkley Books, NY. 1990
GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
Censored: The News That Didn’t Make the News – And Why – By Carl Jensen – Shelburne Press, Inc., NY. 1993
Kentucky Marijuana Party Mission Statement
The KYMJP seeks to remove all penalties for adults 21 and over who choose to consume cannabis in a responsible manner.
“We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us.”
“We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference.”
We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged.
We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once.
We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims.
We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally so long as it is not sold untaxed.
We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year. Cannabis has never caused one.
The Kentucky Marijuana Party
Posted on April 8, 2015 | By Vivian McPeak
Note: I invited Joy Beckerman to guest blog on this important issue. The opinions expressed are her own. – Vivian
MYTHS & REALITIES OF CROSS-POLLINATION
by Joy Beckerman
Oh, the irony. On the one hand, marijuana and hemp activists have been tortured for decades by the DEA’s exceedingly absurd stance that marijuana growers will use industrial hemp fields to camouflage their marijuana plants; and on the other hand, there has recently arisen the hysterical stance by some populations of outdoor marijuana growers that marijuana and industrial hemp fields must be kept extraordinary distances apart in order to avoid cross-pollination. To be sure – whereas the DEA stance is unequivocally non-factual and has no basis in reality, the cross-pollination hysteria is actually grounded in truth, albeit recently a distorted and emotionally-based version of the truth. Greed inspires irrationality. Let’s have an intelligent conversation based in fact because there is no need for hysteria and cross-pollination is a common agricultural issue with a common agricultural solution…and one that would never require a distance of anywhere in the realm of 200 miles between plant species types. We don’t see the State of Kentucky in an uproar. Make no mistake, Kentucky’s Number One cash crop is outdoor marijuana while Kentucky simultaneously is the country’s Number One industrial hemp producer (both feral [i.e. leftover/wild] and deliberate, now that it is legal to cultivate there).
No doubt it will be helpful to found our discussion on a necessary botany lesson, especially since the most common misunderstanding about the “difference” between marijuana and industrial hemp is that “hemp is ‘the male’ and marijuana is ‘the female.’” In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. “Cannabis” is the plant genus, “sativa” is Latin for “sown” or “cultivated” (and is included in many scientific plant species names), and the “L.” we often see associated with Cannabis sativa merely stands for the surname initial of Carl Linnaeus, the Swiss botanist who invented taxonomy. Cannabis sativa is a member of the Cannabaceae family. Within the Cannabis sativa plant species, we have the drug type known as “marijuana” and we have the oilseed and fiber type known as “industrial hemp.”
Both plant types – marijuana and industrial hemp – can be dieocious, which is to say they can be either exclusively male or exclusively female; and they can also be monoecious, which is to say they can have the staminate (i.e. the male pollen-producing part) and pistillate (i.e. the female ovum-producing part) on the same plant. However, marijuana is a high-resin crop generally planted about four feet apart for its medicine or narcotic rich leaves and buds, whereas industrial hemp is a low-resin crop generally planted about four inches apart for its versatile stalk and seed. The different kinds of marijuana are classified as “strains” and the different kinds of industrial hemp are classified as “varieties” and “cultivars.”
Industrial hemp is non-psychoactive with a higher ratio of CBD to THC, thus smoking even several acres of it will not result in achieving a high; conversely, only a memorable headache is achieved, regardless of Herculean effort. Marijuana flower production and industrial hemp production cultivation processes are distinctly different. Finally, there is no such thing as a plant or plant species known as “Cannabis hemp” and “hemp” is not a synonym for “marijuana,” “pot,” or “ganja,” etc. Botanists have argued for ages over whether a separate plant species “Cannabis indica” exists, and that age-old debate is not being addressed here.
The significant difference between the two types that effects cross-pollination and legitimately frightens marijuana growers is that hemp plants go to seed fairly quickly and would thus pollinate any marijuana plants growing in the same field or in a nearby field. This is botanically analogous to field corn and sweet corn, one of which is grown for human consumption, and one of which is grown for animal consumption. Corn producers take great measures to prevent any cross-pollination between their field and sweet corns; including growing the different varieties of corn at different times or making sure there is sufficient distance between the different fields. Either way, these corn producers do what is necessary to ensure that pollen carrying the dominant gene for starch synthesis is kept clear of corn silks borne on plants of the recessive (sweet) variety.
Cross-pollination of hemp with marijuana would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plants. While hemp farmers are not going to want marijuana cross-pollinating with their hemp and increasing their hemp’s THC content, it would be entirely more disastrous for the marijuana grower if hemp were to cross-pollinate with their marijuana due to the cost of producing and value of selling medical and adult-use marijuana. The concern is real. The concern is valid. But the concern does not merit the level of hysteria that appears to have arisen in Washington. We must take a note from Kentucky.
Industrial hemp is primarily pollinated by wind, and most pollen travels approximately 100 yards, give or take. Bees, of course, can also pollinate hemp; and bees travel up to three miles from their hives. It is also true that, depending on the weight and size of any plant pollen, combined with other natural conditions, wind-borne pollen can technically travel up to 2,000 miles away from the source. Yes, it’s true, up to 2,000 miles. And also it would be beyond ridiculous to give serious agricultural consideration to this extreme factoid for entirely obvious reasons.
Cannabis case in point: Kentucky. Kentucky may not have legal outdoor marijuana grows, but you’d better believe that – like every other state in the nation – there’s a whole lotta marijuana being deliberately cultivated outdoors; and on quite a grand scale in Kentucky, which state learned centuries ago that Cannabis grows exceedingly well in that climate and soil. Kentucky was always been the heart of our nation’s industrial hemp farmlands, thus Kentucky is covered with more feral hemp than any other state. This issue of marijuana and hemp cross-pollination is old news and no news at all to the marijuana growers of Kentucky, who experience and demonstrate no sense of hysteria like that which has risen up in Washington.
Global industrial hemp leader and professional industrial hemp agrologist Prof. Anndrea Hermann, M.Sc, B.GS, P.Ag., who has been a certified Health Canada THC Sampler since 2005 and is the President of the U.S. Hemp Industries Association, has assisted with creating and reviewing hemp regulations in Canada, the European Union, South Africa, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, and several U.S. States. Anndrea refers to this issue of cross-pollination as the “Cannabis Clash” and “Cannabis Sex 101.” So what is the answer? What is a safe distance between marijuana and hemp fields?
The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), which is the global agency to which most developed countries subscribe for agricultural purposes, has completed its draft industrial hemp seed certification regulations, which rules include a range from a minimum distance of three (3) feet to a maximum distance of three (3) miles between different pedigrees and cultivars of industrial hemp. This is the same with Health Canada’s industrial hemp regulations. But we are talking about safe distances between two plant types – marijuana and industrial hemp. Absent intense research and collection of hard data that will be interesting to conduct as we move forward and funding becomes available, experts agree that a distance of ten (10) miles between hemp and marijuana fields is exceedingly appropriate to avoid cross-pollination. Or as Anndrea Hermann would say, “a nice, country road drive!”
This is not a complicated issue or a new issue. This is basic agriculture. Marijuana and industrial hemp are best friends and this is no time for them to start picking unnecessary fights with one another. Ten miles, folks; ten miles!
Joy Beckerman is the President Hemp Ace International LLC, and the director of the Hemp Industries Association, Washington Chapter
Cynthiana farmer Brian Furnish has a successful tobacco and cattle operation but wants to make life better for his family and many other Kentucky farmers who once depended on tobacco for their living.
“I’ve seen what’s happened with the decline of tobacco,” said Furnish. “Central and eastern Kentucky need a new crop. If we can build an industry around hemp here, it’ll be beneficial to growers.”
Furnish is also the chair of the Kentucky Hemp Industry Council, a 16-member group from around the state and nation that represents various stakeholder in hemp’s future, from farmers and crop processors to industries and retailers that want to process and sell hemp products. Hemp’s fiber and oil can be used in a multitude of goods, including food, paper, building materials, beauty products and much more.
Kentucky is entering its second year of industrial hemp pilot projects. The first round in 2014 produced a wealth of data about production methods, seed varieties, harvesting, processing techniques and uses for harvested hemp.
“We’re looking to conduct a wide scope of pilot projects in 2015,” said Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, a strong advocate for hemp and a Republican candidate for governor.
“There are more agriculture processors in Kentucky today making an investment in the state, signing contracts and hiring people. This is something we’ll be able to look back at and say ‘This was a good decision,’” said Comer.
Comer says one company that showed an early interest in developing the state’s hemp industry is Dr. Bonner’s Magic Soaps, a company selling hemp formulated soaps, organic bars, lip balm and body care products, according to its website. The company donated $50,000 to aid the hemp council’s work in promoting a future for hemp in Kentucky.
Comer says hundreds of others have applied for permits to participate in this year’s hemp pilot program. “There’s no shortage of farmers who want to grow hemp,” he said.
Lexington attorney Jonathan Miller is legal advisor for the hemp council.
“We would like to resume our leading role as the industrial hemp capital of the globe,” he said.
Miller and others have lobbied Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration to try to regain full legalization of hemp, which was banned 75 years ago, along with its intoxicating plant cousin, marijuana.
In the last year, no hemp has been commercialized in Kentucky. It remains in the experimental stage.
Pages: 1 2
Hemp Foods and Body Care Retail Market in U.S. Achieves 21.2% Growth in 2014
WASHINGTON, DC — The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), a non-profit trade association consisting of hundreds of hemp businesses, has released final estimates of the size of the 2014 U.S. retail market for hemp products.
Data from market research supports an estimate of total retail sales of hemp food and body care products in the United States at $200 million. Sales of popular hemp items like non-dairy milk, shelled seed, soaps and lotions have continued to skyrocket against the backdrop of the new hemp research provision in the Farm Bill, and increasing grassroots pressure to allow hemp to be grown domestically on a commercial scale once again for U.S. processors and manufacturers. The HIA has also reviewed sales of clothing, auto parts, building materials and various other products, and estimates the total retail value of hemp products sold in the U.S. in 2014 to be at least $620 million.
The sales data on hemp foods and body care, collected by market research firm SPINS, was obtained from natural and conventional retailers, excluding Whole Foods Market, Costco and certain other key establishments, who do not provide sales data — and thus it underestimates actual sales by a factor of at least two and a half. According to the SPINS data, combined U.S. hemp food and body care sales grew in the sampled stores by 21.2% or $14,020,239, over the previous year ending December 31, 2014 to a total of just over $80,042,540. According to SPINS figures, sales in conventional retailers grew by 26.8% in 2014, while sales in natural retailers grew by 16.3%. Indeed, the combined growth of hemp retail sales in the U.S. continues steadily, as annual natural and conventional market percent growth has progressed from 7.3% (2011), to 16.5% (2012), to 24% (2013), to 21.2 in 2014.
“The HIA estimates the total retail value of all hemp products sold in the U.S. to be at least $620 million for 2014,” says Eric Steenstra, Executive Director of the HIA. “Eleven new states have passed legislation and new businesses are rapidly entering the market now that American farmers in a handful of states are finally beginning to grow the crop legally. Challenges remain in the market and there is a need for Congress to pass legislation to allow farmers to grow hemp commercially in order for the market to continue its rapid growth,” continues Steenstra.
When the 2013 farm bill was signed into law in February of 2014, the hemp amendment to the farm bill, Sec. 7606 Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research, defined industrial hemp as distinct from marijuana in states where hemp is regulated under authorized hemp pilot programs. This was an historic moment in the longstanding effort to legalize hemp as the act asserts that industrial hemp is not psychoactive, having less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis and therefore presenting no drug value.
The bill further allows for states that have already legalized the crop to cultivate hemp within the parameters of state agriculture departments and research institutions. In 2014, 1831 acres of hemp were licensed in Kentucky, Colorado and Vermont. Many licensees were unable to obtain seed in time to plant due to DEA seed import requirements. We estimate that approximately 125 acres of hemp crops were planted during 2014.
In January of 2015, The Industrial Hemp Farming Act was introduced in both the House and Senate, H.R. 525 and S. 134 respectively. If passed, the bill would remove all federal restrictions on the cultivation of industrial hemp, and remove its classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.
Currently, 21 states may grow hemp per Sec. 7606 of the Farm Bill, including California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
KENTUCKY — Kentucky Hemp is coming back. Fiber, seed, fuel, oil, and artisan products are simmering in the recently revived hemp industry.
Research and debate about bringing hemp back has circulated since the 1990s, when other countries like Canada and Australia re-legalized hemp production. Finally, last year, the 2014 Farm Bill provided a framework for U.S. state agricultural departments and universities to plant hemp seed on U.S. soil as long as individual state law allows it.
Now, Kentuckians are turning their research and theories into a promising hemp industry.
“We don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” said Josh Hendrix of the newly formed Kentucky Hemp Industries Association (KYHIA). “We haven’t had a hemp industry for over 70 years.”
He says research is necessary to reduce risk to farmers. His organization and others, who have participated in hemp trials, are testing for the best seeds to plant, and the best way to harvest and process hemp crops. Part of KYHIA’s mission is to disseminate its research and provide education about the hemp industry.
Hemp production was deterred in the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Then, in 1970, the Controlled Substance Act coupled hemp with the drug, marijuana, making hemp illegal as a narcotic. Hemp does not hold the drug’s THC properties, but the plant is from the same genus, cannabis, and looks similar.
Before 1937, 98% of hemp seed used in the U.S. came from Kentucky. Now, they have no seeds. Hemp trials have used seeds imported from other countries.
“2014 was a celebratory year, just to get seed in the ground,” said Hendrix. “2015 has seen a nice expansion, with 326 applications.”
Kentucky farmers can submit applications to the Kentucky Department of Agriculture to participate in the hemp revival. They must provide production plans to be approved, and pass a background check to appease the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
Kentucky U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, along with two Oregon senators, submitted a bill on January 8, 2015, to decouple hemp from marijuana, and remove hemp production from DEA enforcement.
“We don’t know if or when it might become a legal crop,” said David Williams, of the University of Kentucky. “We also do not know how large an industry the market will support. We extrapolate based on data from other markets, but we cannot know exactly what the market will be in the U.S.”
A Promising Market
Kentuckians have deep roots with the hemp plant, and have grand plans for bringing the industry back. Industries, like tobacco and coal, are facing hard times, and hemp may offer both profitable alternatives.
Hemp advocates, like Hendrix, also see hemp as a crop to sustain dwindling family farms, and increase young and new farmers. Artisans can use hemp for cloth, beauty products, teas, and countless other items. The organic market for hemp is also highly profitable and growing.
Seventh generation family farmer, Andy Graves, grows conventional grains like soy, wheat, and corn. His generation is the first in his family to not grow hemp. The Graves family was the top hemp seed producer when hemp was legal, and is set on renewing that legacy.
“The market is so big,” Graves said. “We haven’t even scratched the surface.”
Graves is also the CEO of Atalo Holdings, Inc. The group contracted 5 farms to grow hemp in 2014 and for 2015 they’ve expanded to 26 farms. Atalo has three subsidiaries: Hemp Oil Kentucky, Kenex, and Kentucky Hemp Research and Development — each focuses on seed, fiber, and research and development, respectively.
Oil from seed, Graves said, has a quick return. Once Atalo has a revenue stream from oil, it will invest in fiber operations. Fiber operations have a higher barrier to entry because of the cost of new machinery.
Hemp seed can be harvested using the same equipment as conventional grain. As far as processing, Graves said that seed pressing equipment that is currently used for chia and sesame seeds can also be used for hemp. He will add chia and sesame to his portfolio as well.
Graves is using the most popular hemp seed for oil: Finola, from Finland. Atalo has guaranteed a no loss crop by securing a deal with Hemp Oil Canada to buy any seed Atalo cannot sell.
Atalo has been approved for 356 acres of hemp, and is hoping for up to 500. 10-12 acres will be devoted to organic hemp seed production. Their research and development subsidiary aims to be an educational asset to the hemp industry in the U.S., Graves says.
Hendrix, Graves, and Williams all emphasize that they are building a new industry from the ground up. It will take research and time, but, Hendrix believes they have “the right people, the right place, and the right time” to build the industry and create jobs.
The Hemp Capital of the U.S.
Other groups germinating in the Kentucky hemp industry include The Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association, which focuses on biomass and high capacitance graphene nano-sheets; and Sunstrand LLC, which focuses on industrial fiber. There are many others cropping up. Stay tuned, says Graves, new developments are breaking on Kentucky soil.
The laws may not be set yet, but hemp advocates in Kentucky are confident that their state will soon be known for more than bourbon, and re-claim their name as the ‘Hemp Capital of the U.S.’
Kentucky farmer Andy Graves recently brought his father to see the latest crop on the family farm. Moments before the 89-year-old saw the plants, he could smell them.
“When my dad walked back to see the first fields, his eyes just lit up,” Graves says. “He said the smell was so distinct. There’s no other smell like hemp.”
Hemp, a variety of the cannabis plant, once grew by the acre on the Graves’ family farm, but disappeared after authorities outlawed the crop along with its sister species of marijuana. Even though it contains nearly none of the chemical that gives marijuana its intoxicating agent, hemp has been illegal for decades in the U.S.
But Graves, who planted a small crop last year, was the first of a handful of American farmers allowed to do so under a government research program. Although his latest crop is nothing compared with the 500 acres that once stood during his grandfather’s time, it represents the beginning of a long-awaited economic revolution.
“The business that we’re talking about today is so far and above the business my father saw and knew,” Graves says.
Hemp was once a mainstay for American farmers such as those in the Graves family, but has been outlawed for generations under regulations fearing marijuana cultivation. After decades of advocacy, a boost from the growing national interest in cannabis, rapid legalization and recent bipartisan support from lawmakers, hemp could be coming back in a big, and lucrative, way.
Most people associate hemp with braided bracelets and itchy shirts worn by college students who sip organic green tea in dormitory common rooms across the country. But hemp’s biggest advocates nowadays are more interested in economics than in philosophy.
“The economics alone are enough to convince anyone,” says Eric Steenstra, executive director of the Hemp Industries Association. Despite the fact that hemp farming is illegal, the U.S. is the world’s biggest consumer of it, importing $580 million worth in 2013, with predicted double-digit percentage growth, according to Steenstra.
Hemp is legally grown in 30 countries around the world. Most of the world’s supply comes from Canada, Steenstra says. After farmers and universities started researching hemp in 1994, Canada authorized industrial production in 1998 — and it’s been paying off.
Canadian farmers are selling hemp for CAD80 cents (64 cents) per pound, while canola sells for roughly CAD18 cents (14 cents) per pound, even though the input costs are roughly the same, according to CBC News.
The marijuana used for smoking and the hemp used for other purposes are both varieties of the same cannabis plant, but different in terms of their chemical makeup and the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is responsible for inducing a high, they contain.
Canada and the European Union define hemp as containing less than 0.3 percent THC, while marijuana can contain anywhere from 10 percent to 30 percent. Generally, about 1 percent THC is considered the threshold for marijuana to “have intoxicating potential.”
When harvested, hemp can be used in a variety of ways. The seeds can be processed to create a nutrient-rich oil or a protein-rich meal, while the stalks can be turned into fiber that can be used in products such as fabric or paper.
Opponents of hemp legalization say the plants look too similar to marijuana plants used for other activities, and would give criminals an opportunity to cultivate illegal drugs in plain sight. U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, recently told Politico that the “confusion and potential commingling lends itself to an easier path for illegal marijuana growth across the country.”
However, a recent report by the Congressional Research Service outlines a few key differences. Marijuana is cultivated to stay short and bushy to facilitate as many flowers, or buds, as possible, and the plants grow close together. Hemp farmers give their plants more space and encourage them to grow tall and produce one long stalk with just a few leaves.
Above: Hemp plants are cultivated to grow much taller and thin, unlike marijuana plants meant to produce buds, or flowers. Wikimedia Commons
This approach was the most common one used for the tens of thousands of tons of hemp grown every year by American farmers once upon a time.
American farmers have been growing hemp since the late 1800s, according to the Congressional Research Service, citing the Hemp Industries Association. But state governments did have a problem with people growing the flower for psychotropic reasons and sought to restrict its recreational use.
In the 1920s, it was among a handful of regulated drugs in many states. The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act noted that “there is little or no connection between the use of hemp drugs and crime, and that consuming it in moderation “very rarely” led to violence.
The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act defined hemp, along with marijuana, as a narcotic. Although it did not criminalize its production, it did require that all farmers only grow it for medical or industrial use, and register before growing it. They also had to secure a special tax stamp.
Above: Image of a Marihuana revenue stamp $1 1937 issue from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing Wikimedia Commons
Regardless, production still flourished. In 1943, the U.S. grew 75,000 tons of hemp fiber on a little more than 146,000 acres, and Popular Science estimated the crop size would more than double the next year.
In fact, it was a big part of the World War II effort. In 1942, a U.S. government film urged farmers to grow “hemp for victory,” after outlining how the plant had once been used for everything from the ships at sea to covered wagons of the pioneers, while typically being imported from abroad. But since sources in the Philippines and other parts of Asia were “in the hands of the Japanese,” “American Hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as our industries.”
According to the above video, “patriotic farmers” planted 36,000 acres of seed hemp at the government’s request in 1942, with plans for more.
Production continued into the next decade, but soon petered out. By the 1950s, the federal government had imposed mandatory jail time for possession of illegal cannabis. And in 1970 came the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which included cannabis as a Schedule 1 substance, a category defined as “drugs with a high potential for abuse,” which also included heroin and LSD.
But that didn’t stop Americans from buying hemp products. Advocates have been lobbying to bring hemp cultivation back to the U.S. for decades, and things finally seem to be picking up steam.
“It’s becoming ever more ridiculous,” says David Bronner, CEO and president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a longtime advocate of hemp legalization. “Nobody brings up opium when they eat a poppy-seed bagel; this is a very similar situation.”
Above: Bronner: David Bronner tends to his industrial hemp as he stages a protest inside a steel cage, in front of the White House in Washington June 11, 2012. Bronner was protesting federal policy that prevents U.S. farmers from growing industrial hemp. Bronner is CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
Bronner gained notoriety in 2012 when he locked himself in a metal cage outside the White House and proceeded to process a handful of hemp plants into enough oil to spread on to a piece of bread. According to the Washington Post, police had to cut him out of the cage with a chainsaw, and he was then charged with possession of marijuana.
But things are slowly changing.
“We’ve had a lot of allies doing a lot of hard work,” Bronner says. “Plus, as marijuana itself is being rescheduled, the debate is moving forward.”
As of February, marijuana is legal for use in some form in 23 states, including two, Colorado and Washington, that allow for recreational use among adults, with Alaska and Oregon planning to join them this year. The past few years have seen marijuana brought to the forefront of policy narratives and public discussion, which has been helping raise hemp’s profile.
In 2013, a majority of Americans polled by Gallup said they were in favor of marijuana legalization for the first time ever, and their sentiments keep going strong.
“They should be separate conversations, but they are influencing each other,” Bronner says.
He’s one of many who have been advocating local production of hemp for decades now. And over the past few years they’ve gotten more and more people on board — including a few politicians.
The 2014 Farm Bill, aka the Agricultural Act of 2014, included a provision to allow some people to begin growing industrial hemp, provided it is for “purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research,” and complies with state law.
This means that a handful of universities and small groups of farmers, including Graves, have grown their first crops this year. With special permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, of course.
But that seems to be just the beginning. And the cause has been gaining traction.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who introduced his first bill on the subject in 2007, has been leading a bipartisan movement to remove hemp from the legal definition of “marihuana.”
This January, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore, introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015, and Rep. Thomas Massiel, R-Ky., introduced a companion bill with 50 co-sponsors on both sides of the political aisle.
“Allowing farmers throughout our nation to cultivate industrial hemp and benefit from its many uses will boost our economy and bring much-needed jobs to the agricultural industry,” Paul said in a press release last month.
And farmers such as Andy Graves certainly hope that’s true. While he knows the economic benefits of hemp, he’s also quick to point out that he takes a spoonful of the nutritious oil every day.
The family farm used to grow tobacco, but its owners ultimately decided against it more than 15 years ago.
“We realized that we were promoting the use of a product that could kill you,” he says. “Hemp, on the other hand, is nothing but good.”
Posted: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:00 am
In 1914, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst mounted a yellow-journalism crusade to demonize the entire genus of cannabis plants. Why? To sell newspapers, of course, but also because he was heavily invested in wood-pulp newsprint, and he wanted to shut down competition from paper made from hemp – a species of cannabis that is a distant cousin to marijuana but produces no high.
Hearst simply lumped hemp and marijuana together as the devil’s own product, and he was not subtle about generating public fear of all things cannabis. As Mother Jones reported in 2009, Hearst’s papers ran articles about “reefer-crazed blacks raping white women and playing ‘voodoo satanic’ jazz music.”
Actually, while hemp had been a popular and necessary crop for decades before the crackdown on all cannabis plants, marijuana was largely unknown in America at the time and little used, but its exotic name and unfamiliarity made it an easy target for fear mongers. The next wave of demonization came in 1936 with the release of an exploitation film classic, “Reefer Madness.” It was originally produced by a church group to warn parents to keep their children in check, lest they smoke pot – a horror that, as the film showed, would drive kids to rape, manslaughter, insanity and suicide.
Then Congress enthusiastically climbed aboard the anti-pot political bandwagon, passing a law that effectively banned the production, sale and consumption of marijuana and by default hemp. Hearst finally got his way, and the production of cannabis in the U.S. was outlawed. Signed by FDR on Aug. 2, 1937, this federal prohibition remains in effect today. Although it has been as ineffectual as Prohibition, the 1919-1933 experiment to stop people from consuming “intoxicating liquors,” this ban, for the most part, continues despite its staggering costs.
Until recent years, prohibitionists had been able to intimidate most reform-minded politicians with the simple threat to brand them as soft on drugs. But finally, with the help of some reform-minded activists and the general public, our politicians are starting to come to their senses on cannabis.
At the state level, 32 states have legalized medical marijuana in some form or another. And Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon have legalized recreational uses of marijuana. While these are huge steps, what is truly remarkable is what has taken place in Congress just in the last year.
Tucked deep in the 2013 Farm Bill was a little amendment introduced by Representatives Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado, Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, and Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. The amendment allows universities, colleges and State Agriculture Departments to grow industrial hemp for research in states that have made it legal to do so. California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia already have laws on their books to allow for this.
The most recent step forward to come out of Congress was in the last-minute federal spending bill in December. Democratic Rep. Sam Farr and Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, both from California, included a provision in the bill to stop the DEA and DOJ from going after states that legalize medical marijuana. They can no longer conduct raids on licensed marijuana outlets that service patients who use marijuana to treat everything from the side effects of cancer treatments to epileptic seizures. The marijuana farmers are now safe to cultivate the plant, and the patients themselves are now safe from prosecution for possessing it.
Marijuana Policy Project and Vote Hemp are two organizations that are working tirelessly with the public and our lawmakers to change the laws and regulations surrounding cannabis. To learn more about how these groups are making a difference and to help get involved, connect with them at www.mpp.org and www.VoteHemp.com.