Jim Marrs On The Rise Of The Fourth Reich

Last Sunday, Alex Jones did an extensive interview with Jim Marrs, journalist, historian, and author of "The Rise of the Fourth Reich".

Marrs, whose excellent book "Crossfire" provided the framework for Oliver Stone's seriously flawed film about the assassination of JFK, has been on my radar for a long time, and he's made some outrageous claims, most of which (as far as I can tell) have turned out to be quite correct.

According to his publisher, Harper-Collins:

While the United States helped defeat the Germans in World War II, we failed to defeat the Nazis. At the end of the war, ranking Nazis, along with their young and fanatical protégés, used the loot of Europe to create corporate front companies in many countries, including the United States of America. Utilizing their stolen wealth, men with Nazi backgrounds and mentalities wormed their way into corporate America, slowly buying up and consolidating companies into giant multinational conglomerates. Many thousands of other Nazis came to the United States under classified programs such as Project Paperclip. They brought with them miraculous weapon technology that helped win the space race but they also brought their insidious Nazi philosophy within our borders. This ideology based on the authoritarian premise that the end justifies the means—including unprovoked wars of aggression and curtailment of individual liberties—has gained an iron hold in the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

For the first time Jim Marrs has gathered compelling evidence that an effort has been underway for the past sixty years to bring a form of National Socialism to modern America, creating in essence a modern empire—or "Fourth Reich"!

There's a lot more to the story, of course. Here's a quick sample:

In the ‘30s the National Socialists gained the support of the middle class Germans and middle commercial Germans because they portrayed themselves as conservatives. And they got the bulk of the commercial people behind them, and then by the time these people figured out that these are not the people we want leading, it was too late. And I see the same thing happening today. [...]

[Bush is] destroying the checks and balances in the federal government, and bringing everything into the Executive, which of course is again following the Nazi methodology. This is what Hitler did. He signed emergency decrees, one after another, until finally he just took total power and anybody that tried to stand up against him then was a “terrorist” against the government. And that’s important for people to understand. What the Nazis did, when they killed dissidents, when they killed homosexuals, when they killed gypsies, when they killed trade unionists, when they killed the Jews, this was all under the color of law. [...]

[T]hey talk about the dumbing down of America. Well, it’s not that we’ve gotten dumber. It’s the fact that we have been drugged dumber. [...]

[O]ne of the big issues today that people are genuinely concerned about is the increase in teen suicides and school shootings. We’re all concerned about that. And yet if you go back, the only thing the mass media, the corporate media can talk about is gun control, take guns away. Well, hey, a lot of people listening here in Texas, if you’re over 40 or 50 you remember a time when we all had guns and nobody ever shot anybody. The problem is not the guns. The problem is the drugs, the Prozac, the Ritalin, the drugs [...]

I.G. Farben back in 1800 was actually marketing an antidepressant under the name heroin until finally enough people said, don’t do that. In the aftermath of WWII, a U.S. chemist named Charles Eliot Perkins was sent to Germany to try to reconstruct the I.G. Farben combine there, and he came back and wrote that the German chemist had worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control that was submitted to and adopted by the German general staff. And this plan was to control the population of any given area through mass medication of the drinking water supplies, namely using sodium fluoride. So they put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of the concentration camps to keep the inmates passive and nonresistant.

Today two-thirds of the water supply in this country is now fluoridated. Think about this. One of the most over-prescribed drugs today is Prozac, which is 94 percent fluoride. [...]

[I]f you go back you’ll find virtually every school shooting involves someone who’s either on these psychotropic drugs or just coming off of them, which apparently is even worse. And yet the media will not talk about that. Why? Because in 2007 the pharmaceutical corporations that can be tracked back to IG Farben and the Nazis spent $3.7 BILLION dollars on consumer advertising.

I definitely think you should check out this interview.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Ebb Tide III: Use The Force, Jim!

In previous installments of "Ebb Tide" (here and here) we've been talking about manure disguised as reporting, and dodging the obvious questions that keep coming up: How low can it go? and Are we there yet?

Here's an undated press release from Newswire featuring quotes from James H. Fetzer [photo], which may go a long way toward answering both questions:

Internet Access to Iran Severed: Expert fear [sic] a Super Bowl attack

Multiple reports that internet cables connecting Iran to the rest of the world have been “cut” are raising suspicions in the minds of experts on 9/11 that something serious may be in the works. According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, “Prior to 9/11, the FBI—our own FBI—shut down Arab Muslim web sites (whatreallyhappened.com/fbishsut) [sic]. Some of us fear that internet access may have been deliberately severed to isolate Iran and make it difficult to communicate in response to a ‘false flag’ attack in the United States, possibly during the Super Bowl, an attack upon Iran, or both.”

Did I miss a false flag attack during the Super Bowl? Must have happened during a commercial. I always mute them. Surprising not to see anything about it on the news, though. Damned liberal media!

That's not a link embedded in the text, so don't bother clicking it. And it's not a functional URL either, so don't paste it into your browser either. As a decoration, it is very attractive, though.

But I want to know: Who -- other than James H. Fetzer -- is (or was) worrying about an attack during the Super Bowl?

“False flag” attacks are conducted by a government against targets, including its own citizens, in order to blame an enemy and justify taking action against it. The BBC is among the sources reporting these cables have been cut (“New Cable Cut Compounds Net Woes,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7222536.stm), but others are easily accessible via google [sic]. One of these cables is near Alexandria, Egypt. Another is near Dubai. “That cables in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persial [sic] Gulf should happen to be severed in close proximity without a common cause defies belief,” observed Fetzer, a philosoper [sic] of science. “That there now appear to be four interruptions cannot be just a matter of chance. This has to be deliberate. The ominous question is, ‘Why?’”

The embedded URL in this paragraph worked as a link in the original. I couldn't bring myself to correct the spelling errors, though. And ominous questions abound, like: Who wrote this? and Can't he quote anybody but James H. Fetzer?

The thought did cross my mind -- briefly -- that perhaps there really is a Gulf called the Persial Gulf somewhere, so secret that only philosopers know about it. But what's a philosoper? Again, it could be a secret. How am I to know? I'm better off with easier questions, like "What's a Gulf?"

Happily, one of my questions is answered in the next paragraph, as the author finally quotes somebody other than Jim Fetzer. So who cares if it's a Star Wars character?

An analysis now making its way across the internet is being attributed to Sio Bibble [see photo -- WP], who concludes, “A communications disruption can mean only one thing—invasion.” On his scenario, American military radio chatter during the game could provide cover for other communications taking place. “03:00 and the troops are up, file into the mess to get a cup of coffee, sandwich and watch the game,” Bibble writes. “Meanwhile, an Israeli sub in the Gulf goes to Battle Station alert. The game starts, the troops go wild, they get pumped with adrenalin and into combative psychic. 10 minutes into the game, a micro-nuke goes off in the stadium. The aforementioned sub commander gets the signal and launches his surface to surface missiles at various Iranian sites and several American ships.”

“The sailors on the ships are stunned by what they see on the TV screen,” he continues, “then the Claxton horn goes off as American ships start taking hits. The ships go live, the Iranians go live. American sources declare a surprise Iranian attack as three American ships sink in the Gulf. The smoldering Super Bowl is blamed on Iran, Mom and Apple Pie need to be defended.”

The smoldering Super Bowl?? Ten minutes into the game? To cover an invasion of Iran?

This Sio Bibble doesn't sound very credible, even for a Star Wars character, does he?

It's time for a second opinion, and Guess who comes to the rescue?

According to Fetzer, no matter how fantastic this might sound to those who have never studied 9/11, it is an appealing alternative for an administration that has run out of options and whose leader is widely regarded by the American public as the worst president in history. It could reverse his standing at a single masterstroke.

“To most Americans, this is going to sound far-fetched,” said James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (911scholars.org) and co-host of “The Dynamic Duo,” an internet talk show he shares with Kevin Barrett, a noted 9/11 activist. “Those of us who study 9/11 on the basis of the objective principles of scientific reasoning have found powerful proof that virtually everything we have been told about 9/11 by the administration is not true. The question has to be asked, ‘Who benefits?’ The result has been the loss of civil liberties, wars of aggression in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution. Bush signs statements to circumvent Congress and governs like a dictator.”

Billions upon billions has gone in the form of no-bid contracts to favored companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. “There are many studies that support the conclusion that 9/11 was ‘an inside job’,” Fetzer said. These include The New Pearl Harbor (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report (2005), and Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007) by David Ray Griffin, Inside Job (2004) and The Terror Conspiracy (2006), by Jim Marrs, and 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA (2005) by Webster Griffin Tarpley. “But if 9/11 was an inside job, as more and more evidence suggests,” Fetzer said, “it would be very naïve to ignore the very serious prospect of having a reprise to reverse the sagging fortunes of the Bush administration and to enhance support for hawkish candidates for president.”

... and so on.

Screw Loose Change says this is "beyond bizarre" and I certainly agree about that -- I'd agree even if I hadn't read all the way to the end of the piece, and found the name of the author: one James. H. Fetzer.

It couldn't be the same guy, could it?

I don't know what to say. I don't know what anyone could say.

What can you say about a former philosophy professor who can't spell "philosopher", a student of geopolitics who can't spell "Persian"? Where does this Fetzer character live? and do they not have spell checkers there yet?

What can you say about a writer of "news releases" who quotes -- without any hint of deliberate irony -- an internet poster using a name from Hollywood fiction; a self-described scholar who makes wild speculation while referring to himself and unnamed others as experts; an alleged student of the art of rhetoric who quotes himself extensively -- in the third person?

At least he has the good sense to quote somebody else once in a while.

I'm tempted to present The Stupidest or Most Deceitful Political Analysis of the Year Award right now and get it over with ... but there are other candidates who deserve to be recognized. And maybe one of them might win!! Sure is hard to imagine, though...

9/11: Are These People Crazy?

This post is a Table of Contents for a series of posts featuring short videos of people talking about what they saw, heard, felt and knew about 9/11. In each case the same question arises.

David Ray Griffin Says 'The 9/11 Commission Report Is A National Disgrace' -- Is He Crazy?

Joe Cassaligi Says: 'The Building Collapsed To Dust' -- Is He Crazy?

Jim Marrs Says: 'The World Trade Center Was Pulverized' -- Is He Crazy?

Witnesses Describe WTC Explosions -- Are They Crazy?

Scott Forbes Says Power in WTC was Down on Weekend Prior to 9/11 -- Is He Crazy?

Jim Fetzer Says The WTC Blew Up From The Top Down -- Is He Crazy?

U.S. Army General Albert Stubblebine Asks 'What DID Hit The Pentagon?' -- Is He Crazy?

Mike Ruppert Says 'The Bush Administration Planned 9/11' -- Is He Crazy?

Webster Tarpley Says 'Terrorism Is Now The Myth Of The 21st Century' -- Is He Crazy?

Jim Marrs Says: 'The World Trade Center Was Pulverized' -- Is He Crazy?

I have said many times -- too many times -- that those who control the vocabulary commonly used to describe an event can control the public's perception of that event. And I get annoyed when seekers of "9/11 Truth" repeat the official phrase, "the twin towers collapsed".

In my slightly frozen view, it was obvious from television coverage of the day, and it is still obvious from the videos of the event available online, that the twin towers did not collapse so much as they disintegrated.

Jim Marrs chooses a different word when he says, "The World Trade Center was pulverized."

Who's right? I suppose it depends on what the words mean:

collapsed: fell down or caved in
disintegrated: reduced to particles or fragments
pulverized: reduced to dust or powder

Some people say Jim Marrs is "crazy". Are they right about this? And if not, who are they protecting?

Watch him speak, listen to what he says, and then make up your own mind whether Jim Marrs is crazy or not.

As Marrs says near the end of this video,

If we are gonna call ourselves a free people, we'd better start demanding some truthful answers.