The Evil of Power Politics

When George Bush Junior declared his war on the axis of evil, he was couching into moral language a much more sinister agenda, and for those who believed his motives to be genuine, his support for Israel's excesses appears to contradict the general theme of war on terrorism. Ordinary people do not grasp the cynicism of the power oligarchies ruling our world. The Bush family, along with other American political and industrial movers, have a long history of aiding and abetting terror to further their own ends.

Today America (and Britain) arms both Pakistan and India in order to generate a conflict which will install the United States as an overlord in the region, further securing the influence gained in the oil pipeline protection war against Afghanistan. Whilst Pakistani president Musharraf is sabre - rattling against India, he nonetheless promises to guarantee their supplies of natural gas even if hostilities were to break out. In an added twist, India is presently also increasing military and intelligence cooperation with Israel. There are clear historic parallels to this Asian enterprise in the American involvement in Europe at the beginning of the last century. In an open letter to Americans, which actually is about the prohibition of marijuana, R. William Davis documents the Bush dynasty's involvement in bringing the Nazis to power and keeping them there before and during the war.

"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..."

"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 sfavor familie 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 [1931], 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 ofthe 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 [not the Islamic Party one!, ed.], 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, LG. 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."

The unhappy search for the “gay” Muslim

As anyone who has criticised Zionism, we’ve been accused of being anti-Semitic, and now we are likely to be called homophobic too, for not conceding that homosexuality is a normal condition and simply a matter of choice. However, as our guest writer Alexander Baron points out in his article in this issue, these are smear terms coined to discredit and bereft of any real meaning. People who disagree with homosexuality are not afraid of homosexuals, as the term homophobia would imply, they are disgusted by them. Nor is there anything gay about the unhealthy and unstable lifestyles of members of the vociferous GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual) movement.  
So why do we concern ourselves with them in this issue of Common Sense? All too often have Muslims in the West closed their eyes and buried their heads in the sand vis-à-vis the civilisational diseases surrounding us, hoping and praying that they were somehow immune to them. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and the problem of homosexual propaganda and intimidation must be addressed rather than ignored or laughed off. Young people especially are vulnerable and more susceptible to propaganda. The Muslim youth are confused and unsure of their identity, they have dabbled into rap music and drug culture, they are experimenting with relationships, whilst their elders pretend that all is fine as long as they continue flattering each other at the mosque about the great services they render to the community. Our youth are a welcome prey to ill-meaning people with an agenda.  
In the past “gay rights” campaigners limited themselves to trying to make Muslims feel bad for not understanding and for “victimising” them. Muslim speakers at universities were asked to give an undertaking that they would not say anything considered prejudicial to people with a different “sexual orientation”. In the old one rule for one, another rule for another tradition, non-Muslim speakers were never asked not to offend Muslim sensitivities during their lectures. Muslim bashing remains the acceptable face of anti-Semitism.  
On an international level a similar approach brought repeated attempts to have an unnatural sexual orientation enshrined as a human right. Once this concept were accepted, UN support programmes or any other assistance could then be tied to the condition placed upon the recipient party to safeguard this “human right”. Thus, bullying and bribery remain the most potent means of changing the minds of people who refuse to be convinced by a spurious argument.  
Meanwhile, the movement feels confident enough to target the Muslim community more directly, very much in the same way as they have already broken the resistance of the Catholic Church, for example. The high-profile reporting of homosexual priests portrays Christian opposition to such unnatural practices as hypocritical. If Muslims could be made to “come out”, or be exposed, as homosexuals, the persistent opposition of Muslims as a whole might equally be broken.  
A cursory search of the internet, this hotchpotch of truths, half-truths, and the bizarre shows a growing presence of such attempts. It also shows the increased confidence of those who want to undermine and pervert Islamic teachings. There is, for example, a group called “Queer Jihad”, which used to be run by a Sulaiman X, a self-styled admirer of Malcolm X with Buddhist leanings. His approach was one of pleading for “tolerance” for Muslims who “discovered” that they were gay or lesbian, advocating a non-physical “love” relationship between Muslim members of the same sex attracted to each other whilst acknowledging the opposition of Islamic teachings to such a relationship. He obviously realised that a religion which does not even condone heterosexual casual relationships and insists on marriage as a precondition for intimacy would hardly be lenient towards members of the same sex living in sin together.  
This “pioneer” of the Muslim branch of the homosexual movement has now been replaced by a former Baptist convert to homosexual Islam who has come with his own agenda. From the plea for tolerance of his predecessor this advocate of the homosexual lifestyle has moved to dabbling into the interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith and trying to make the case that homosexuality is Islamically acceptable per se. The people of Lot were not destroyed simply because they were homosexual, but because they tried to force themselves with lust upon others who were not, he argues. It’s the public rape they were guilty of, not the same sex activity amongst each other. He goes further trying to construe from a selection of Hadith that homosexuality was an accepted practice at the time of the prophet, provided that those engaged in it did not intend to marry a member of the opposite sex at a later stage.  
Absurd as all this may sound, it is a poison administered at a time where the new generation of Muslims are no longer well versed in the teachings and source texts of Islam and obtain much of their information from the world wide web. Unless one understands that this is a concerted propagandistic effort by a well-organised and funded movement, not just the “queer” ramblings of a few eccentric and deranged people, there is a real danger that the certainties of faith will be eroded as has happened in the case of other religions.  
The “gay” lobby in this country is powerful enough to force a leadership debate in the Conservative Party. Public sympathy for homosexuals is not as common as the propaganda suggests, but neither is there much sympathy for Muslims. Just as the British National Party joined the convenient bandwagon of anti-Muslim sentiment to pursue its racist agenda, the homosexual movement will find this an opportune time for attacking Islam’s “homophobia”. To withstand this onslaught, we must address the issues in an informed way and avoid being apologetic.