Chrisforliberty's Blog

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising them…selves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.”
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15 RSV)

“Radical Muslims” is the catchphrase of the age. It is a phrase designed to instill fear which leads to hate, then anger then suffering. Once upon a time, it was barbarians, a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, blacks plotting, women having opinions, etc… The same tactic that has been used to divide and conquer for thousands of years.

Admist chaos, someone always emerges portraying themselves as a restorer, redeemer, bringing a new way that has never been tried before. There is nothing new under the sun.  Egypt is being set up to keep watch over the southern part of the peninsula where the CIA and other intelligence operatives are working to incite violence between Shiites and Sunnis. Expect some more false flag attacks in Yemen, Qatar, the Balkans and Japan within another 6-12 months.  Thus the explanation will be “crisis in the Middle East leads to higher prices” when in fact it is a cover for the further devaluation of the “dollar”.

Mohammed ElBaradei is now being anointed by the corporate media as the possible savior of Egypt.  But even a minimal amount of research will show that he is a Rockefeller/Soros puppet.

It is equally interesting that CNN, Fox News and other portions of the mainstream media are covering this non-stop whereas they practically ignore a presidential candidate like Michael Badnarik or Ron Paul. Why? Because they are aiming for change based on freeing one’s heart and mind. But politics is exactly the opposite.

The main thorn is that Egypt hasn’t established a central bank. So it becomes convenient to get rid of one tyrant whom the global elite has propped up all these decades for one (potentially) that will establish a central bank. The frustration in the streets is real. But they need to be careful about embracing another. If history is any indication, they will unwillingly do so.

The U.S. government (in conjunction with the global elite) have greatly strengthened their military and supported this president in order to keep the oil flowing through their canal to the west.  Sunni and Shite tensions are being heightened all along the southern borders of the Middle East in an effort to cut off the oil flow to the west. He who controls the narrow canals and straits over there–controls the west. The people are sick of this western supported government and want to overthrow it. What will be created in the vacuum? It is likely under a elite funded and backed “Muslim government” (but merely a puppet of the elite), Coptic Christians and Roman Catholics will be persecuted to an even greater extent and the oil flow into our country will trickle–causing unrest in our country similar to this.

Basically the U.S. government has dug our graves while We The People looked the other way for the past century. It is the people themselves who are the true defenders of liberty and they need to not fall into the age old trap of divide and conquer that the elites have used to enslave the people for thousands of years.

We must learn that there is no political solution. Politics basically operates on the mantra of comfort and safety with the condition that you give up your heart, mind and soul. No wonder Jesus gave up political power when tempted.

“NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO CONSCIENTIOUSLY DISCHARGES HIS DUTY WILL DESIRE TO DENY THOSE WHOM HE SERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS HIS OFFICIAL CONDUCT.” William Jennings Bryan, from New York World, 13 August, 1896

It is interesting that the history books either misrepresent the period between 1890-1940 in terms of its socio-economic context or ignore it completely.

Most of our problems on the national scene can be traced to the misdeeds during this period. We can’t hit our opponent if we don’t understand who or what our opponent is.

I’ve written extensively about many of the subtopics connected to this period such as The Federal Reserve’s connection to the The Great Depression, and outlined why it doesn’t matter which party is technically in power. Yes, the Federal Reserve even had a hand in the World Wars and the rise of dictators like Hitler and Stalin. While we are at it, let’s not forget the Rothschild’s connection to all this too.

One of the main opponents to the agenda of John Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan was William Jennings Bryan.  In our modern times, we think of Bryan as only being some sort of right-wing religious zealot (which couldn’t be further from the truth).

Keep in mind that many of the big city newspapers were owned by the same elite cartel that were advocating for an increased role for the Federal government in the daily affairs of the average American. Of course, they were going to commit libel against the most public opponent of the Progressive agenda. It wasn’t the residents of the big cities that Jennings was at odds with, but certain individuals and various special interest groups who just happened to choose the big cities as gathering places.

“I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair state of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the state of New York by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three million in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?”                                                                                                                             as quoted from the Democratic Convention in Harper’s Weekly, 18 July, 1896

It should be obvious the Rockefeller-Morgan connections throughout this whole Progressive Movement. What had happened was business had become increasingly competitive in the late 19^th-early 20^th century. Morgan and Rockefeller beginning with railroads and oil attempted to establish cartels. But the free-market spirit and public distrust of monopolies in addition to central banking fouled up these attempts. So they managed to hoodwink the masses using the same language of opposition to monopoly as a way to put over monopoly.

Even the Pure Food and Drug Act signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt (a Morgan crony) was done to put mom and pop food operations out of business and enable the further cartelization of the food industry. Do I really need to elaborate on the consequences of this?

The 1896 presidential election while rarely mentioned today was perhaps in its historical perspective the most important election in U.S. history.

One of Morgan’s protégés was Henry Cabot Lodge.  Lodge basically acted as a middle man for Morgan as backstage negotiations were being conducted with the Rockefeller political machine operating out of Ohio. The main contact for the Rockefeller camp was William McKinley’s campaign manager Mark Hanna.

The basic agreement was that Morgan would throw his support to William McKinley in exchange for certain concessions on establishing a central banking structure in the future.

This pooling of votes would neutralize the support that Bryan had amongst certain elements in the Democratic Party who were opposed to central banking, Silver Republicans and various populist elements in the South and Rocky Mountain states.

The Rockfeller and Morgan camps would often be at odds not so much on the overall goal of implementing statism on the free market, but mostly such differences were simply disputes in the overall jockeying of power; basically a clash of egos and wills.  But certainly when it came to the establishment of a central bank, they were literally walking arm in arm.

Shortly after the 1896 election, the Indianapolis Monetary Commission convened for the purpose of discussing and issuing a report on “currency reform”.

This meeting was publicized as business people getting together for a convention. But it was in fact individuals from the Morgan and Rockefeller camps meeting for the purpose of laying the groundwork for a central bank. They met in Indianapolis so as to create the impression that surely nothing bad would ever come out of America’s Heartland as opposed to the image that the public had of evil bankers meeting in New York City or Washington, D.C.

The go-to-man in Congress for both Morgan and Rockefeller was senator Nelson Aldrich.  While Aldrich may have been the congressional connection, the process that it took to implement both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16^th Amendment was to say the least complex.

Which brings us to our current times. Needless to say, while the specific individuals have since long passed away (and are in hell), their work continues today through the system they left behind and gets ever larger.

So do you know who your enemy is?

For some of you, this comes as no surprise. Do you remember all that talk last winter about the shoe bomber and Michael Chertoff making the rounds on the networks?

Of course, the mainstream media won’t tell you this, but Michael Chertoff is one of the major investors and Congressional lobbyist for OSI Systems which owns Rapiscan Systems. This is the manufacturer of the airport scanners. Chertoff made a heavy investment in them after leaving the White House last year and signed on to become their lobbyist. It all comes down to the handshakes and back pats.

The CEO is Deepak Chopra. He is not the same Deepak Chopra, the writer on Ayurveda, spirituality and ying-yang.  I first read about this particular Chopra around five years ago. Deepak Chopra was also born in India in 1951. His background is in semiconductors and lighting products. He graduated from Punjab Engineering College in Chandigarh, Punjab, India and has a M.S. in Semiconductor Electronics from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. From 1976 to 1987, he was at ILC Technology, Inc. He has also been with Intel Corporation, TRW Semiconductors and RCA Semiconductors in one shape or form. He has been with OSI Systems as CEO and Chairman of the Board since 1987.

You can contact OSI Systems at OSI Systems, Inc. 12525 Chadron Avenue, Hawthorne, CA 90250 Phone: 310-978-0516 Fax: 310-644-7213

The Sidley Austin law firm that is connected to Obama represents OSI Systems in court matters.  Chopra is also traveling with Obama as he goes through India and makes other trips through the Pacific. Why?

Any global monetary system has to have India on board since it is the best positioned of any country to weather serious global currency problems. India is a thorn in the side of China and Pakistan. The rheortic of war between China and India has heated up and India and Pakistan have been at odds for over 60 years. The elites in those countries have played international affairs very well to set this up.

But don’t take it too personally. When global security (and war) is big business, there are always going to be vultures. So I guess we better let all our friends and neighbors know about this too since they won’t get it from their usual sources of information.

According to some, banks only loan out depositors’ money. But, in fact, they create what they loan out, based on a system known as ‘fractional reserve banking’. This is explained quite succinctly in the following excerpt from the January 1993 edition of National Geographic Magazine, entitled, The Power of Money by Peter T. White, Assistant Editor. (Pages 83-86)

Bills and coins make up about 8 percent of the U.S. money supply — the rest is in bank accounts, including checkbook money; at this writing the sum total is 3.5 trillion dollars, says the Fed — the Federal Reserve System, which is the central bank of the government of the United States — and that is three billion more than a month ago. This is how that happens. Every business day, after a telephone conference call at 11:15 a.m., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, acting on directives from the Federal Open Market Committee at Fed headquarters in Washington, buys U.S. government securities from major banks and brokerage houses, or sells some — usually U.S. Treasury bills, which in effect are government promissory notes.

Say today the Fed buys a hundred million dollars in Treasury bills from those big securities dealers, who keep a stock of them to trade with the public. When the Fed pays the dealers, a hundred million dollars will thereby be added to the country’s money supply, because the dealers will be credited that amount by their banks, which now have that much more on deposit. But where did the Fed get that hundred million dollars ? “We created it,” a Fed official tells me. He means that anytime the central bank writes a check, so to speak, it creates money. “It’s money that didn’t exist before,” he says. Is there any limit on that ? “No limit. Only the good judgement and the conscience of the responsible Federal Reserve people.” And where did they get this vast authority? “It was delegated to them in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, based on the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. ‘Congress shall have the power .. to coin money, regulate the value thereof …’

Now watch how that Fed-created money lets our commercial banking system create even more. The Fed requires banks to put aside a portion of their depositors’ funds as reserves. Say this reserve ratio is set at 10 percent — then for every $1,000 in new deposits, a bank must keep at least $100 in reserves but can loan out the rest, namely $900. On the bank’s books this loan remains as an asset, earning interest until it is paid off. The customer who got the loan is likely to spend it right away, say for a used car. The car dealer deposits the $900 check in his bank, which then has an additional $900 in reserves and can in turn loan out 90 percent of that — $810. And so on and on, until the original $1,000 put into one bank may enable dozens of banks to issue a total of $9,000 in new loans.

Thus a hundred million dollars injected by the Fed into the commercial banking system could theoretically stimulate the appearance of 900 million dollars in new checkbook money — money that didn’t exist before. And it’s all built on the assumption that the system is sound.

“Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” Lewis v. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S.

“The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System, as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation’s banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash. Recent researchers, however, have also highlighted the vital supporting role of the growing number of technocratic experts and academics, who were happy to lend the patina of their allegedly scientific expertise to the elite’s drive for a central bank. To achieve a regime of big government and government control, power elites cannot achieve their goal of privilege through statism without the vital legitimizing support of the supposedly disinterested experts and the professoriat. To achieve the Leviathan State, interests seeking special privilege, and intellectuals offering scholarship and ideology, must work hand in hand.” Murray Rothbard, Origins of the Federal Reserve

JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.No. 80-5905

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002

March 2, 1982, Submitted

April 19, 1982, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]

As Amended June 24, 1982.

PRIOR HISTORY:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

COUNSEL: Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

JUDGES: Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. n*

* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: POOLE

OPINION: [*1240]

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims [**2] Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976). Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671. “Federal agency” is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under § 2671.

There are no sharp criteria for determining [**3] whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff’d per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955, [*1241] and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. [**4] Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. [**6] 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency’s day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency’s employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status [*1242] of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress’ control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961) [**8] (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In [**9] United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a “public official” under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting “for or on behalf of the Government.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is “substantial federal involvement” in the defendant’s activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S. Ct. 1, 5, 86 L. Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S. Ct. 450, 62 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal [*1243] Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973).

Brink’s Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the “important governmental function” test and concluded that the term “Federal Government” in the Service Contract Act must be “liberally construed to effectuate the Act’s humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government.” Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term “federal agency” for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

(I’ve known since childhood that the official history as portrayed in the school textbooks was false.)

November 09, 2003
By Edwin Black

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a so-called Master Race.

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at “improving” the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed “unfit,” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.

Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena’s Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations — which functioned as part of a closely-knit network — published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people married only other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton’s ideas were imported to the United States just as Gregor Mendel’s principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenics advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In a United States demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early 20th century. Elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton’s eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: Populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socioeconomic and biological kind — and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior — the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 “Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.” Point No. 8 was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a “lethal chamber” or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics,” which argued, “From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.”

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as “bad girls,” diagnosed as “passionate,” “oversexed” or “sexually wayward.” At the Sonoma State Home, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 on women. The state’s two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes’ words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. Hitler’s race hatred sprung from his own mind, but the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the ’20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany’s fascist eugenicists. In “Mein Kampf,” published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. “There is today one state,” wrote Hitler, “in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison Grant, calling his race-based eugenics book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” his “bible.”

Now, the American term “Nordic” was freely exchanged with “Germanic” or “Aryan.” Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler’s Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler’s war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

During the Reich’s early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler’s plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany’s sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe, upon returning from Germany, ebulliently bragged to a colleague, “You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”

That same year, 10 years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions.

By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 — almost $4 million in today’s money — to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 toward creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s complex of eugenics institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the institute, once again, was Hitler’s medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin’s organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades,

American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity.

The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND
DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON
TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller’s endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer’s early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenics press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenics doctor’s journal he edited, that Germany’s war would yield a “total solution to the Jewish problem.”

Verschuer had a longtime assistant. His name was Josef Mengele.

On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, “My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer (Himmler).”

Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them,

he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer’s institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin’s eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenics studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the great institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity — an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense — to no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele’s boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re- established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade “human genetics.” Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946, when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, “It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany . . . I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?” Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenics luminaries and then sent various eugenics publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Verschuer wrote back, “Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation.”

Soon, Verschuer again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950, the University of Münster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics’ genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. Now governors of five states, including California, have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late 20th century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On Oct. 14, the United States’ first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation’s law can stop the threats.

Edwin Black is author of the award-winning “IBM and the Holocaust” and the recently released “War Against the Weak” (published by Four Walls Eight Windows), from which this article is adapted.

(Originally published March, 2009)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Thomas Jefferson

In a free market with only 100% reserves of sound currency banks would be lending their own reserves of capital and setting interest rates based on a true assessment of the risk presented by each borrower.

In contrast, the Fed (which is private) lends out fiat currency and then licenses commercial banks to create more money by loaning out at their artificially low rates. This makes inflation, and easy money and destroys the incentive for banks to freely set interest rates based on actual risk because they just created the money (and therefore don’t have the risk that a lender would who was using their own accumulated savings) and are tied into the artificially low Fed-established interest rates. This process is called fractional reserve banking.

Investment banking firms and investment banking in general has been in the news quite a bit over the past six months or so. How did these investment banks wind up in so much trouble? Home prices increased because the securitization market rapidly increased the amount of capital (which was done through fractional reserve banking) available to the mortgage market and you had mortgage brokers making loans, selling them to investment banks who then sold them to investors. This triggered a speculative boom that led to a consequent demoralizing of business confidence first in housing, then the stock market and has now worked its way into the general economy.  In fact, it was the Morgan/Rockefeller interests that caused the Great Depression.

Here is a question worth asking yourself: During WWI and WWII, who issued the bonds that would enable the financing of the wars?

Paul Warburg, an advocate of the Federal Reserve System was appointed a member of the first Federal Reserve Board by President Woodrow Wilson, serving until 1918. During this same time, Paul’s brother, Max Warburg served as the financial advisor to Kaiser Wilhelm II. So it didn’t matter who technically won the war. In the end, the money changers always win.

Where did investment banking come from? Basically it was the cumulation of a long war between the Rockefeller and Morgan factions in the early 20th century and resulted in the Glass-Stegall Act.

For more, check out “The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers.”

“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control… Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” Congressman Larry P. McDonald, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was ‘shot down by the Soviets’

Do you believe there is a global conspiracy amongst the Jews to take over the world? Do you think every Muslim is “in on it”? Do you think Christian missionaries are going all over the world converting non-Christians because of dictates from the governments of the nations that the Christians (whether they are truly changed in Christ is another matter) come from?

The simple fact is that there have always been those individuals who have been interested in conquering lands, establishing trade relations, military alliances going back thousands of years.  In ancient times, religion was a useful tool to organize society and ensure uninterrupted harmony amongst the masses. All of life was centered around the emperor, king or queen who falsely claimed to be God’s emissary on Earth.  The main motives for inciting a war were mostly for power, to distract the people from internal corruption and scandal and to generally enrich oneself and their friends while claiming it was being done to protect the nation’s interest. Among the Romans, war was a method to keep internal dissension to a minimum and to distract the masses under the banner of patriotism and victory.  All over Europe for thousands of years, the people were enslaved under the guise of liberating or protecting them.

In modern times, the motives for war are the same.  Only in this case, it is a business-government partnership or what we would call fascism which is combined with the tenets of communism.

In a lot of ways, politics is similar to theatre, movie making, carnivals and what not. One movie that never gets old for me is Network. It is art imitating life.

Now let’s take for instance when a presidential candidate or the president visits your city. Do you think they just arbitrarily decided to visit just to take in the sights? Presidents and politicians in general are figureheads. The Chief of Staff tells them where to go, advisors tell them what to think, speechwriters tell them what to say, and consultants tell them what to wear. While the press release may be sent out a few days before the visit, the planning occurred several weeks before. The Secret Service and travel office are sent ahead to scout the location and plan the routes, line the supporters up, and so and so on.

A few people make the decisions and the rest follow. It is true whether you are in a family, school, work, government, etc… While it may not be a big deal for you to get up and back on the field at 7 a.m. because the head football coach said that was when practice was going to begin, where does one draw the line? Where does one start to take personal responsibility in matters of what you buy, whom you buy from, health, your relationship with God or the Gods, etc…? Do you make decisions based on fitting into your society? Self-preservation? Comfort? Or do you make decisions at least based in part on principle? Doing the right thing? Answering to one master?

In a nutshell, if you believe there is a Christian, Jewish or Muslim conspiracy to take over the world, you might want to turn off the TV. If every single Christian, Jew or Muslim wanted to take over the world, that would have been done so centuries ago.  Starting wars for conquest or “civilizing” them as the propaganda claims takes influence and influence requires money and being in high places. Hardly the kind of thing that a person who lives a hand to mouth existence is going to be able to pull off.

What we are dealing with are a few thousand individuals who belong to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission. Bullets will come in handy when putting one in the back of their heads or defending off their henchmen or the masses who just blindly go along with it. But no folks!  There is no Christian, Jewish or Muslim conspiracy to take over the world. We are in fact dealing with an oligarchy that has been in place for several centuries and this oligarchy seeks to maintain the old world of the elites albeit behind the scenes.