AN "INSIDER" CONSPIRACY?
Evangelicals who are predisposed to think in terms of "conspiracies" - who lend credit to the whispered hypothesis of those who ascribe everything that's wrong with America to the "Secular-Humanist Conspiracy" or to the "Illuminist Plot" might do well to ponder the thought that the "conspirators" may be closer to them than they might realize - that they may constitute the very people they have allied themselves with in their battle against secular-humanism: specifically, their own business allies (men like Nelson Bunker Hunt, J. Howard Pew, Wallace Johnson, Richard De Voss, John Talcott, etc. and companies like Colgate-Palmolive, Ocean Spray, Amway, Hunt Oil, National Liberty Insurance Corporation, etc.). That it's not some nefarious "outside" conspiracy shrouded in impenetrable mist and unfathomable secrecy which is at the root of their misery, but an "inside conspiracy" which they themselves have helped to organize!
Possibly, just possibly, it's not the Tri-Lateral Commission and/or the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that evangelicals should be concerned about, as it is their very own Council on National Policy (CNP) - an elite conservative group founded by Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson[3a], Joseph Coors, and Nelson Bunker Hunt which brings together influential right-wing business figures, religious leaders and political luminaries to affect conservative political, social and cultural change in the country, a group clearly formed in combination with their own leaders!
Now that would be a deception[3b] worth noting!
NEW ATTITUDES BETRAY NEW ALLIANCES
And just how pervasive the alliance between the rich on the one hand, and the church on the other, has become can be measured by the harsh new attitude towards the poor manifested today by so many evangelicals - an attitude which ascribes poverty to "laziness" and "individual failure;" while such an attitude is not particularly reflective of Christ's attitude towards the poor, it certainly reflects the historic attitude of the rich. Evangelicals have somewhere along the line forgotten what Christ said about the poor vis a vis the rich: "And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God ..." And again He said, "Blessed are ye that hunger: for ye shall be filled ..." (Luke 6:20-21) But unto the rich He said, "Woe unto you that are rich! (Luke 6:24) And again He said that it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25)."
In attributing poverty to "laziness" and "individual failure," evangelicals have unwittingly bought into the arguments of their elite "business allies" - allies which have ostensibly joined them in their struggle to "return America to Christ and the church." But what evangelicals have evidently not fathomed is the fact that much of the poverty which has developed in the country since 1972 is directly attributable to the "free trade" (and, ipso facto, anti-union) policies and practices of their own business backers - phony "supporters" who, on the one hand, financially aid the ministries and churches of their evangelical allies, while on the other hand they mercilessly ship American jobs (many of which are held by rank-and-file evangelicals) overseas to Third World sweat shops. Maybe the next time evangelicals hear of large sums of money pouring into their churches and/or ministries from wealthy benefactors, they might do well to ask themselves what all this money is purchasing? What deals - implied or otherwise - might have been struck? What kind of silence on the part of their leaders this money might be buying?
People make a big mistake in believing that such "gift giving" does not create obligations - implied or explicit; that, in the end, it does not create dependence.
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL
A quick perusal of the membership of the Council on National Policy would quickly confirm the fact that there exists this duality of purpose in many, if not most, of the business figures who are involved as "partners" with the Religious Right. What many of these "business allies" are in reality doing is giving with the right hand, while taking with the left - that is to say, what they so generously give to the ministries and churches of the Religious Right, they take from the paychecks of many of those same evangelicals who fill the pews of the churches and ministries the Business Right supports. To put it in the vernacular, what they're doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And make no mistake about it, it is this reason, (i.e., the business community's harsh and austere attitude towards ordinary, every-day working men and women) not "laziness" and "individual failure," which is at the root of today's falling living standards and the appearance - for the first time in U.S. history - of an "American Underclass."
The fact of the matter is, the problem of "underclass" poverty is far too pervasive to be explained away by the old adage that some people are just unwilling to work. Indeed, a recent commentary carried in the Knight-Ridder newspapers by John E. Schwartz and Thomas J. Volgy, authors of The Forgotten American, reports that "... many of the poor simply do not fit the (the evangelical's) stereotype ... More than half are over the age of 30 and nearly three-quarters have a high school diploma or have gone to college. About one-seventh (or more than 14 percent) of them have college degrees."
Evangelicals and their rich business allies, of course, like to point to the Asian community's "work ethic" and "ability to get ahead" to refute these statistics; but what they evidently do not (or are unwilling to) understand is that the Asian community is developing an underclass every bit as rapidly as the black and Latino (and now even white) communities - at least insofar as the last few years are concerned; that just because some Asians have managed to pull themselves up into America's economic elite cannot be construed as a refutation of these facts - many blacks and Latinos have also managed to do the same.
SHIPPING U.S. JOBS OVERSEAS
And "... the reality here (i.e., the business community's passion to ship jobs overseas in order to lower its wage costs and - in the process - destroy their historic and despised adversary, the American labor movement) is plain enough" as Terry Collingsworth and J. William Goold write in Foreign Affairs. Take, for example, a company as "mainstream" as Nike; Nike is now making its famously expensive athletic shoes in Indonesia, where its women workers labor long hours for a meager $38 a month. And what about companies like WalMart, K-Mart and Sears? - all three companies have a history of supporting culturally conservative causes; indeed, much the same causes which the Religious Right also supports. Today, however, all three companies are having their shirts made in Bangladesh by poverty-stricken women toiling 60 hours a week and making less than $30 a month. But do WalMart, K-Mart and Sears pass these savings on to U.S. consumers and, ipso facto, their conservative religious allies? No, not at all! - they sell them in the U.S. at U.S. prices! [The labor cost per shirt is roughly four cents.]
Of course, all these companies assert the need to lower costs in order to remain competitive, but their main competitors are all there in Bangladesh too - enjoying the same windfall of cheap labor and banking the same exorbitant profits.
Jim Hoagland, writing for the Washington Post Writer's Group, says that this kind of philosophy "... is part of the unspoken (and unspeakable) philosophy that lies behind ... (what's going on in today's) leading industrial economies ..." Hoagland explains: "One man's job is another man's ... (return on investment) in the brave new world of the central bankers. Being unemployed (in America) may be bad for you, but cheer up: It's ... good for the markets (and, ipso facto, the multinationals)." Collingsworth writes, "... (Apparently) the defining principle of U.S. trade policy today echoes that famous General Motors maxim (of the 1950s): 'what's good for U.S.-based multinationals is good for Americans'." Collingsworth continues, "That's good news for the investing class, but bad news for everyday American workers."
In other words, when a shirt can be made in Bangladesh for four cents and sold to American consumers for the same price or slightly below what shirts made in the U.S. would have been sold at (i.e., roughly $35 for an average "nice" shirt ), the money made - instead of going to American workers - goes instead to American investors, i.e., those Americans who hold shares in the American multinationals.
The problem here, of course, is that only about 2% of U.S. citizens own significant shares in the multinationals to really profit as investors (i.e., to actually derive a living on dividends); the rest obtain their income from wages of one sort or another. What all this has done is to create a situation where incomes for the upper 2% of the American population (app. 5 million individuals) have skyrocketed in recent years, while at the same time real wages for growing numbers of Americans are declining precipitously (app. one percent a year - or about twenty percent over the last twenty years).
Business spokesmen claim that everything's OK. That the free trade policies and "re-structuring" going on in America's corporate world are producing (or will soon produce) better jobs. But Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina replies that it means nothing of the sort. According to Hollings, the American business community has been making this claim for the last fifteen years, and the fact of the matter is, America's Fortune 500 companies have not added one single net job to the American economy since the early 1980s - when free trade and "re-structuring" really took off.
The effort by business leaders and the "investing class" to defend their free trade and socalled "restructuring" policies - policies which really benefit only a tiny portion of the American electorate - has led them inexorably to embrace the Religious Right and ipso facto the Christian vote. And the reason for this is not all that difficult to fathom: they need allies, allies which they obviously cannot attract based solely on their economic agenda. What they have done is to get Christians to focus away from what is happening to them economically, and to concentrate instead on what is happening to them culturally.
This effort is made all the easier by liberals (mostly Democrats) who insist on pushing gay rights, radical feminism, "militant secularism," abortion on demand, women in combat, affirmative action, unrestricted immigration, minority rights, etc. - in the political market place to an electorate which is really no longer buying this kind of liberalism, a liberalism which many in America's mainstream are beginning to believe has run amuck. In furtherance of this strategy, American business leaders have been pouring money into Religious Right organizations (especially those organizations which are attempting to "take America back" from the "secular-humanists") and in the process helping Religious Right activists ratchet up the Christian community all the more against so-called "liberals." The genius in all this lies in the fact that the anger so generated has blinded most Christians to what the business community has been doing to them economically.
Unfortunately, America's Christian community is "buying into" the business community's strategy - an effort which paid off handsomely insofar as the Business Right is concerned when Pat Robertson and other Religious Right leaders embraced NAFTA, a treaty which perpetuates the process of shipping American jobs to third world countries, an activity which - no more than it benefits ordinary Americans - does not help most every-day evangelicals and "blue-collar Catholics;" in the process the Christian community is also unwittingly "buying into" the business elite's right-wing political agenda, almost as if Christianity and right-wing ideology and the "free enterprise system" are one-and-the-same thing.
PRE-DISPOSITION TOWARDS RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGIES
And there can be little doubt as to the business community's right-wing ideological preferences here. These preferences can be easily traced in the psychology of America's business elite from 1919 - when this mindset first surfaced as a recognizable way of thinking - to the mindset which now grips the CNP. Indeed, it runs like a well-worn trail from the Red Scare (1919-1921) through the Isolationist and "America First" movements of the 1930s, the McCarthy era of the late '40s and early '50s straight to the "New Right" of today. Evangelicals would be well advised to study this trail closely, because it gives a strong indication of where evangelicals may be heading if they persist in their present alliance with the Business Right. Unfortunately, the thought that this alliance can be easily broken is a mistaken one; from the very beginning (1919), the two (i.e., the Business Right and the Religious Right) have been partners - a partnership which has brought an untold amount of shame to the Christian community.
Almost thirty-five years ago Professor Daniel Bell, writing for the Columbia University Forum (Fall, 1962), noted that "... in no other ... (free enterprise system) but the American - not in England, not in Germany (since the end of the war), not in France - has the drive (to embrace right-wing ideologies) been so compulsive ... The efforts of a number of corporations, led by General Electric, to go 'directly' into politics by sending out vast amounts of propaganda to their employees and to the public ... (and) by encouraging right-to-work referendums in the states - indicate the mood ... (in these) corporations ..."
After carefully researching the reasons behind the business community's "compulsive" predisposition to "embrace right-wing ideology," Bell concluded that the main reason for it lay in the community's historic dread of, and enmity towards, unions - a fear which was then (1962) harshly manifesting itself in the Kennedy-Blough imbroglio over right-to-work laws; a struggle which Bell believed would "... provide an even greater impetus for corporations to finance right-wing political activity in the coming years." He was right!
Bell also noted with some interest the business community's focus on and fascination with the Religious Right as an ally, and their disposition to enlist members of the Christian community as "foot soldiers" and "grunts" in their war against trade-unionism - an effort which he believed essentially involved two strategies: (1) waving the "bloody shirt" of "atheistic socialism," and (2) contributing large sums of money to their churches and ministries.
Bell wrote (1962), "... a significant number of (these) corporations have been contributing financially to the seminars of ... (Religious) Right evangelists. The National Education Program at Harding College (a small, fundamentalist Christian school) in Arkansas, which prepares films on communism and materials on free enterprise, has been used extensively by General Electric, U.S. Steel, Olin Mathieson Chemical, Monsanto Chemical, Swift & Co., and others. Boeing Aviation and the Richfield Oil Co. have also sponsored many anti-communism seminars on the West Coast."
Typical of the psychology driving the rational of most of these companies was the thinking of the Allen Bradley Co. of Milwaukee, which made machine tools and electrical equipment. The Allen Bradley Co. was an advertiser in the John Birch Society magazine; it also reprinted the testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee of Fred Schwartz, a famous Christian "anti-communist crusader" of that era - a reprint which Schwartz claimed had "... wider distribution than any other government document in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution."
A TWO-WAY STREET
There were, of course, very real reasons inherent in the "world-views"of both communities which impelled them to make common cause against the forces of socialism or, as both would phrase it today, "secular-humanism:" the churches, because they see in secular-humanism an atheistic and/or "New Age" philosophy which they perceive to be inimical to their own "world-view;" and the business community, because it sees secularhumanism as a "front" for socialism and the spread of trade-unionism. And there's something more; there is a certain symmetry - a kind of proportion or equilibrium - between the two communities in which the strength of the one compliments the weakness of the other, and visa versa: specifically, the churches provide the "foot soldiers" and voters the business community sorely lacks, and big business provides the money that the churches often find in short supply.
But from the beginning, the key to the whole tone of the relationship is captured in the phrase, "foot soldiers" vis a vis the Christian community's relationship with business - a fact attested to by almost everyone who has studied the inside workings of this relationship. The "main" player has always been the business community; the "go-fer" - the subordinate in the relationship - has been the Religious Right - and this is as true today as it was when the alliance first surfaced shortly after the Russian Revolution, specifically in the famous "Red Scare" of 1919.
The dynamic between the two communities - that is to say, the "go-fer" relationship of the Christian community vis a vis the business community - was apparent right from the start. The main "mover" behind the Red Scare of 1919-1920 was clearly big business; specifically, the fear businessmen throughout the United States had for what was going on in the Soviet Union. The tool they used to bludgeon organized labor with was Christianity. Historian Richard Hofstadter writes, "Business leaders genuinely feared 'radicalism' of any sort; but they also hoped to make use of the public's fear of communism and anarchism as a weapon against organized labor," specifically by inciting the Christian community's fear of socialism as an atheistic ideology incompatible with a Christian world-view. Employer groups everywhere were urged to use the power of the pulpit against organized labor. "We have ... the pulpit ... through which to sell our message," one particularly powerful business spokesman asserted confidently - "We'll beat them to death with the cross of Christ."
Historian Murray Levin concurs with Hofstadter; he writes "... the business elites were very worried about the growing power and militancy of organized labor, and the (1919-1920) hysteria was excited largely by business leaders in order to curb labor's new aggressiveness ..." In this regard, Levin continues, there can be little doubt that American businessmen played the "... major role in the creation of the political hysteria of 1919." Christians were merely a convenient tool in the hands of wealthy businessmen, most of whom cared little for the message of the gentle Carpenter of Nazareth.
Levin goes on, "American business was beginning to fantasize a powerful socialist thrust emerging in the labor movement." That somehow or other, a conspiracy of forces far greater and sinister than anyone could possibly imagine was at work here. That fantasy was strengthened by the fact that the IWW (International Workers of the World) began advocating One Big Union - the idea that the entire labor movement should form a "grand alliance," regardless of the nature of a particular union's work, in order ultimately to confront American capital with the demand for a socialist commonwealth. This fear surfaced over and over again in discussions throughout the business community; take one such discussion - an extraordinary conversation which took place on August 14, 1919 among a number of industrialists and business tycoons. The backdrop to the conversation, as in almost all such discussions of that era, was the recent events in Russia, the suppression by socialist forces of a one thousand year old Christian civilization, and what it all might mean for the continuation of capitalism in the United States.
Edward L. Doheney, the oil millionaire, led the discussion in his splendid suite aboard the S.S. Aquitania. "The great danger to America," Doheney said, "was socialism - socialism and its offsprings, Communism and Bolshevism." Exploding into a kind of hysteria, Doheney continued, "A majority of the college professors in the United States are teaching Bolshevism ... William Boyce Thompson is teaching Bolshevism and he may yet convert Lamont of J.P. Morgan and Co. Vanderlip is a Bolshevist, so is Charles R. Crane ..." In addition to the paranoia in what Doheney was saying, there was a strain of vicious anti-Semitism included - and, contrary to what most liberals have always assumed, it was not being generated out of the religious community, but rather it was coming largely from business groups with very little help from Christians. Why? - because it was their world, more than even the world of Christianity, that was being threatened by Lenin and his followers; it was their property, their money, their lands, etc. which - in the first instance - was at risk. And if anti-Semitism and the fear of an ominous and sinister, world-wide Jewish plot to take over the world could be used to excite Christians all the more against socialism and trade-unionism, so much the better. But to say that these businessmen were Christians in the true sense of that word is not only untrue, it's farcical. Doheney himself was a crook - the Ivan Bosky of his era - a man later indicted for taking part in one of the greatest financial scandals of this century - the socalled "Teapot Dome" oil fraud which later helped destroy the Harding presidency. Clearly, their interest was in their possessions, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ - and if an innocent community (i.e., the Jewish community) had to be defamed or even destroyed in order to protect these possessions, so be it.
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE SERVICE OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
By late 1920, the business community had succeeded in fanning anti-Semitism into a raging inferno, and the fear of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy quickly seized the imagination of countless numbers of ordinary Americans, and - as with all such cancerous pathologies - some of the perpetrators themselves actually fell ill with the disease, ultimately coming to believe their own lies. By 1922 the fear of "Jewish-Bolshevism" had even seized the imagination of America's greatest industrialist, Henry Ford - and by the time it did so, it was manifesting itself in a particularly loathsome form which was linked to the infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Most leaders of the business community were not taken in by the Protocols; nor were most of them ever convinced that there really existed a world-wide conspiracy of any sort. Nonetheless, business leaders were all too ready to use the Christian penchant towards a belief in conspiracism to enflame the Christian community's fear of socialism, and by doing so to enlist them as "foot soldiers" in their defense.
Moreover, left-wing radicals did little to mitigate Christian apprehension in this direction - all too often playing right into the hands of the business community's efforts to fan the Christian passion against them. Take, for example, the derisive, anti-Christian lyrics of an IWW song and imagine their impact on Christians in 1919: "Onward Christian soldiers! Drench the land with gore; Mercy is a weakness all other gods abhor. Bayonet the babies, jab the mothers, too; Hoist the cross of Calvary to hallow all you do ... God decrees your enemies must all go plum to hell." Still, it was the business community, not the anti-Christian attitudes of the left, which - in the first instance - enflamed Christians against Socialism and trade-unionism, and they did so not out of any real care for the Gospel, but out of fear of socialism and what it might mean for capitalism and their own way of life.
And it's the same today; take the CNP, for example; specifically, Reed Larson of the National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC). Larson is typical of those in the CNP who believe that capitalism (i.e., the "free enterprise system") and anti-unionism, on the one hand, and Christianity, on the other, are indissolubly co-related. Then there's Richard Shoff, owner of Lincoln Log Homes in North Carolina; Schoff is a former Ku Klux Klan leader in Indiana who, like so many of his ilk, equates the white race with Christianity. And there's Jay Parker and John McGoff; both were involved in the 1970s and 1980s in trying to prop up the extreme racial policies of the former South African government. There's also Don McAlvany, a contributing editor to the John Birch Society's weekly, New American; McAlvany once made a statement suggesting that someone might want to kill Desmond Tutu; he quickly retracted the statement, still ... And what about William D'Onofrio, who is a past vice-president of DANK, a pro-Nazi group - the list of examples, unfortunately, seems endless - and all these men are connected in one way or another - directly or indirectly - to the CNP.
HENRY FORD: NOT AN ANOMALY
Getting back to Ford, he was one of those few businessmen who genuinely seems to have been taken in - at least initially - by the Protocols. Many people since have attempted to explain Ford's anti-Semitism and belief in right-wing conspiracism as an aberration unique to him and not at all representative of other industrialists and businessmen of the time; that Ford was simply expressing a narrow cultural upbringing and lack of education. While this may be true insofar as Ford's belief in the Protocols is concerned, it certainly is not true with regard to his belief in right-wing ideologies.
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL
The fact of the matter is, Ford's rightist and quasi-fascist leanings were very much in keeping with the judgments of his business peers. Indeed, the rightist inclinations of the American business community became ever more pronounced as the years wore on, and with the depression and the rise of Roosevelt they reached a fever pitch. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. writes that by 1934 businessmen everywhere were united "... in a sincere conviction that the New Deal (and Roosevelt) was a first step towards a totalitarian (socialist) state" - a belief that "... produced among businessmen a state of anguished, bitter opposition to Roosevelt's Administration."
Ogden Mills, former Secretary of the Treasury under President Hoover, said, "We have to turn back many centuries to the days of absolute autocrats to find so great a power over the lives of millions of men lodged in the hands of a single fallible being."
The family of J.P. Morgan took the business community's loathing of Roosevelt to even greater heights; they refused to allow visitors in their home to even mention Roosevelt's name in Morgan's presence lest it excite his blood pressure.
Time doesn't permit a full listing of all those members of the business community who - like Ford, Mills and Morgan - despised Roosevelt, feared socialism and - as a result -applauded the emergence of Hitler in Germany as a bulwark against what otherwise seemed like the inevitable triumph of socialism in the West (i.e., Western Europe and North America); only some of the most prominent can be mentioned here. For example, the thinking of Alfred P. Sloan, who rose from president of General Motors to chairman in 1937, paralleled in almost every respect the thinking of Ford - though he was a little more discreet in expressing it. Even then, on August 12, 1936 Sloan hosted a gettogether of millionaires and industrialists at Ashville, North Carolina together with John Henry Kirby, a millionaire fascist, and Rev. L.K. Smith, a conservative Christian and famous anti-Semite of that era. The subject of the meeting was "Hitler: A Christian Bulwark Against Atheistic Socialism." Sloan also frequently visited Berlin where he hobnobbed with Goering and Hitler.
Then there's Graeme K. Howard, another "big-wig" at GM (a vice-president); Howard was an outright fascist who wrote a poisonous book, America and a New World Order; the book peddled an ideology which was identical to Hitler's. And there's James D. Mooney, head of GM's European division; Mooney likewise approved of Hitler's fascist ideologies - indeed, so much so that in 1938 Mooney received the Order of the Golden Eagle from Hitler himself. Looking back at it all from the perspective of some fifty years, it seems that GM's top management was permeated with fascists.
And what was going on in GM and Ford is very much reflective of what was happening throughout America's corporate elite. Take another famous wing of America's corporate establishment, the DuPonts - especially Irenee DuPont, the most imposing and powerful member of the famous DuPont clan. He 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 openly advocated a race of supermen, to be achieved by injecting special drugs into children. Moreover, despite the fact that he had Jewish blood in his own veins, his anti-Semitism easily matched that of Hitler's. Indeed, the DuPonts even began financing native fascist groups in America, for example, Clark's Crusaders, which had 1,250,000 members by 1933. Pierre, Irenee and Lammont DuPont - and others like John Jacob Raskob - funded the anti-Semitic and anti-black American Liberty League along with Alfred P. Sloan of GM. The League smeared Roosevelt as a Communist and claimed the President was surrounded by Jews.
SEARS & ROEBUCK
And it wasn't just in the automotive and chemical segments of the American business community where fascist propensities could be easily identified - pro-fascist tendencies were apparent everywhere. Take the retail trade; specifically, Sears & Roebuck. The pro-fascist prejudices of General Robert Wood, Chairman of Sears & Roebuck were legendary in the 1930s (and 40s and 50s). Wood was chairman of the America First Committee, an organization committed to opposing all efforts to aid Allies besieged by Nazi Germany.
As national chairman, Wood made no effort to keep out openly pro-Nazi groups known to have been supportive of Germany, such as the German-American Bund. Moreover, a 1942 FBI report indicated that Wood's "patriotic" group had also actually "accepted financial assistance from Nazi sources."45 And remember, here, we aren't describing the actions of some obscure right-wing "whacko," but the leader of one of the most wellknown retail outlets in the country - Sears & Roebuck; it's difficult to imagine anything as "American" and as "apple pie" as Sears. And Wood, the DuPonts, Mills, Sloan, et al were only the tip of the iceberg.
After Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the United States, the America First Committee didn't go out of business as it officially declared on December 12, 1941. Instead, five days later, a secret meeting of certain key leaders of America First took place in New York to plan for what they assumed (and hoped) would be the Axis victory in Europe. "(T)he Committee has in reality gone underground," FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover warned the White House. It began planning for the day when they would be the Americans with whom the victorious Nazis would negotiate a separate peace.
Finally, when the defeat of the Nazis by the Allied Powers was a foregone conclusion, the America First Committee secretly dissolved itself in 1944.
These and countless others in American business would have found no difficulty in agreeing with William S. Knudsen - again, of General Motors - when he said that Germany was indeed "the miracle of the twentieth century." So widespread was this kind of thinking among American businessmen that U.S. Ambassador to Germany William E. Dodd all but despaired of the community's ultimate loyalty in the upcoming struggle with fascism; he despondently told the New York Times in 1937, "I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close ... American ... (businessmen) are to the Nazi regime ... One (businessman) ... who is a prominent executive of one of the largest financial corporations [in America (i.e., Chase-Manhattan)] told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his ... (socialist) policies."
To people like Pierre, Irenee and Lammont DuPont, Alfred P. Sloan, Henry and Edsel Ford, John Jacob Raskob, Edwin S. Webster, Thomas Harrington McKittrick, Winthrop Aldrich, John Rockefeller, Walter C. Teagle and William S. Farish the real enemy was Bolshevism, not fascism; all of these men were "mesmerized" by Hitler and Nazi Germany.
IMPACT OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO