New low: Western Establishment picking on the handicapped

New Low: Western Establishment picking on the handicapped.


by Don Hank

NATO and Washington typically attack countries that can’t fight back. Symbolizing this is the disgraceful banning of the Russian para-Olympic team.

How low can you go?

And to show you how deep the Russophobia goes, I just heard this news reported on Deutsche Welle and the anchor mentioned only that the Russians are upset about this. They did not report any reaction by the West.

How do we interpret this?

Well, folks, by this kind of reporting, we are subliminally being told by our media that Westerners are not supposed to feel sorry for handicapped Russians, because they are Russian and therefore don’t deserve our sympathy. It would be unpatriotic to show sympathy to “weaker” races. That remark is not an exaggeration, not in the least. The more I analyze the Russophobic behavior and statements by the msm and politicians, the more I am convinced that anti-Russian attitudes are a blatant form of naked racism. Hitler also despised the Slavs, particularly the Russians, on the basis of race.

We are expected to be hard-hearted toward these poor souls who worked and trained so hard with major handicaps like lost limbs or partial paralysis, just because they speak Russian. If you think this is an exaggeration, remember that the US-backed Kiev government banned the use of the Russian language in public signs and discourse in the East of Ukraine where many groups have for decades spoken only Russian.

After all, by current Western standards, Russians are nothing but inferior beings who don’t deserve to live.

I see no difference between the West’s treatment and attitude toward the Russians and the way the Third Reich treated the Jews. Absolutely none. And I have lived in both countries.

I am beyond outraged.


What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

They’re just as dead…

by Don Hank


Germany is finding out what cosmic justice is (if you are a Christian, you call it divine justice).

Back in 2011, Germany pledged 100 million euros to support the Arab Spring. Angela Merkel was from the government and was here to help.

It may have been supported with all the best of intentions, but the Arab Spring started wars that immediately got out of control and brought terror, chaos and mass emigration to the Middle East, which is still ablaze now, 4 years later. The people who warned this would happen were very effectively silenced by the German government, which is very good at this sort of thing, having practiced at it since the 30s.

Thus, the promised democracy didn’t materialize and thousands upon thousands died.

Germany, undaunted, and always wanting to be the hero that saves the day, offered the immigrants refuge in Germany. Just as the Kanzlerin had forgotten that it was her and her allies’ support for the Arab Spring that brought them there, Angela Merkel carelessly forgot to tell them there would be a limit to the number of them taken in.

During the first days of the immigrant wave, she spoke via news sources, scolding and threatening with legal consequences all the countries that refused to open their doors as she had done, suggesting to the world that they were selfish scrooges while she was a morally superior Joan of Arc.

Then all of a sudden, reality slapped Angela in her angelic face: German capacity was overburdened.

So she found herself obliged to do what some of the other, more realistic, nations had done – the ones she had scolded for doing what she was now doing. She closed Germany’s borders.

But so what? Germany is the biggest exporter in Europe and the 2nd biggest in the world after China, thought Merkel. We’ll let them in once we get a little richer. And then we’ll…

OOOOOPPPS!!! Volkswagen, one of the main drivers of German exports was spotlighted by the EPA as a fraud, having lied about emissions from VW diesels! It will cost the company up to $18 billion dollars!

Today, VW stocks are down 25% and that could be just the beginning.

There’s more than one moral here (but a euro says Frau Merkel will not learn any of them):

1– Respect the sovereignty of other countries. Trying to export democracy – especially to a country that already has a democratically elected government and respects its minorities (think Syria) – will have unexpected consequences, such as causing untold harm to the country you wanted to “help” and bringing ruin to your own country.

2 – Don’t let success go to your head. You could go from rags to riches overnight. So don’t set yourself up as the savior of the world with infinitely deep pockets.

3 – If you are helping others, don’t throw stones at those who are not doing what you are doing. They might just be smarter than you. There are a lot of immigrants who made it to Austria or Hungary, for example, but not quite to Germany and are seriously PO’d as they contemplate the closed border; and some other countries who bowed to pressure from Merkel to open their borders and let in immigrants are now stuck with a lot of disgruntled immigrants insisting to go to Germany, where they are no longer wanted by the Chancellor whose heart was bigger than her brain.

Merkel has a problem that she wouldn’t have if she had had a little foresight and common sense.

The German nation killed a lot of people in the Third Reich by being mean and selfish.

Now they are killing them with kindness in the Fourth.

They’re just as dead either way, Angela.

Frau Kanzlerin, can the world ask you a favor?

No more favors, please.

Thank you!

Don Hank


Is a Christian nation always a theocracy?

By Don Hank

Many of us – myself included – got our wish when Scott Brown was elected. We thought that would save America from Obamacare. As things turned out, it gave us one more pro-abortion false conservative who now talks more and more like an open-borders amnesty advocate (many voted for him thinking he was pro law and order). Where did we go wrong, Friends?

Well, most conservatives pay a little lip service to the spiritual side of social, economic and political problems.

On the other hand, some conservatives think the spiritual component is not just part of the equation, but is in fact the overarching component without which none of the others is worth a tinker’s darn. On the other hand, a few conservatives and not a few libertarians think God is irrelevant or absent and has no part in the discussion. They often exhibit a certain hypersensitivity to this subject, sometimes bordering on aggressive and offensive, but at any rate, emotional.

Come to think of it, we all get emotional about this regardless of our opinions.

People who insist that America must be a Christian nation are sometimes called Dominionists, and that is taken as pejorative, particularly by libertarians, who spend a lot of time worrying about the specter of a theocracy emerging.

The question is: can America survive as a secularist nation? Can it survive as an atheistic nation? Libertarian Ayn Rand, whose following seems to be growing, thought so. Yet, it is hard to point to a state that has existed in the past or still exists today, that is based on atheistic or secularist libertarianism. Further, atheism has been the hallmark of communism, an ideology the killed over 100 million people. Is that relevant?

This is a timeless topic and the subject of a debate that will not doubt rage on into the next century, unless one or the other side manages to muzzle the other.

What intrigues me is that all totalitarian states, including the Third Reich have strived extremely hard to overcome or even ban, all Christian influences. Look how hard the Left tries in America to erase our Christian heritage.

So, ironically, it is not Christians, but rather their detractors, who have focused on Christianity as a watershed factor in social, economic and political issues.

That is one important reason why spirituality is still a recurring theme.

But there is also something else that some conservatives have not come to terms with:

Having read the history of Christian socialism and heresy, I confess to understanding why people are fearful of religious fanaticism and the specter of a total theocracy.

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine away the benign influence of Christianity in America.

Cicero opined that the laws of the State should be based on natural law. Likewise, America’s founders spoke of Nature’s law and tied it in with spiritual law, saying our rights were given to us by God.

I happen to agree with them. But even if I didn’t, I can’t imagine being annoyed with people who do and trying to silence them.

If you have an opinion, you are welcome to post it here.

If you choose to post, please, in addition to whatever else you write, let us know where your stand personally and why, using this scale:

1    I believe religion has no place in decisions relating to economic, political and social issues  

2    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life but it plays only a minor role

3    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and it plays a secondary but not dominant role

4    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and ultimately God decides our fate depending on our behavior

5         Other

You can, for example, say “I choose 2” or “I am a 3” or whatever.

At this particular juncture, I see my job not as convincing you one way or another. My job is to help make sure one side never manages to get a muzzle on the other.

Don Hank

PS: Please, if you post, do not tell us about your commercial web page or your wonderful new pharmaceutical product. Also, while I agree that Obama has not adequately proven his natural born status, if you feel really strongly about that, may I suggest you post on the relevant pages already out there. Thank you.

Slave or Human, Republic or Empire

I have found a new hero, historical author Jürgen Elsässer.


“And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course.”

Please read this essay, all of it. If you’re short on time, print it up and read it over your lunch hour. Read it often. Every Westerner, American, Brit, Australian, German, everyone who still yearns to be free, MUST read his essay “Human or Slave, Republic or Empire.”

It’s that important.

I found the original German text on line at and cleaned up the translation a bit to make it easier and more enjoyable for you to read.

But when you’re done, please just hit on the link to give the site “Current Concerns” the much deserved credit for finding and posting this absolutely wonderful essay. (You can also tell them they are welcome to my edited version. It may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction).

Don Hank

Human or Slave, Republic or Empire?

From the Holy Roman Empire to the “Brave New World Order”

by Jürgen Elsässer

To paraphrase a familiar saying, the Swiss are from Venus, the rest of the Europeans are from Mars. Venus, the planet of love. And this takes me to the story of the Swiss jurist who said, “oh yes, we also have conflicts in Switzerland.” And then she spoke of the last big conflict, the Sonderbundskrieg, eighteen hundred something, with one hundred casualties. Well, says one from the rest of Europe, like me, what a wonderful world this Switzerland! A good planet to move to.

Party capital Berlin

I cannot report from Switzerland now, but I will report from the empire. Maybe not directly from the heart of the beast, as Che Guevara said, but rather from the rectum of the empire, Berlin, the party capital of Europe, as our mayor put it, who likes to tout the city with the slogan “poor but sexy.” This Berlin is indeed one of the big laboratories of the new world order where they are about to produce what one might be tempted to call the “new man”. What we can watch developing in Berlin full-size is the collapse of a society and the loss of humanity in society.
By contrast, Switzerland is a functioning society with mutual respect and feelings where people meet at eye level. But Berlin is a quagmire for humanity. There are also historic reasons for this development. As a city, Berlin has grown much too fast. Other capitals in Europe took centuries to grow. Berlin has been thrown into the imperialist era since the time of Bismarck and then became the capital of the Nazi horror in a very short time. And all this, of course, created a certain mentality, long before the New World Order. Maybe you know this joke, from the olden days: A Berliner is in Vienna. He is looking for the Prater Ferris wheel and he asks a local harshly, without greeting: “Hey, where is the Prater?” And the Viennese answers: “Come on, can’t you be a bit more polite?” Snaps the Berliner: “I’d rather get lost!”
So this has been Berlin mentality for a long time. The most friendly people in Berlin are the Turks, maybe not all of them, but at least if you visit Turkish shops. But the standard Berliners, they simply shoot down everything; their tongue is a machine-gun. And this rough mentality that was already in place now gets sucked up into the crowd psychology maelstrom of the new world order. This maelstrom is hyper-individualism. Party capital of the continent. People no longer work in Berlin. There is no industry left. Berlin’s main income is the party industry. That is, via Easy Jet and similar companies, hedonistic youths from Spain or maybe Greece fly to Berlin for a night or a weekend club hopping and leave behind a trail of destruction in town. This is one of the main sources of income for Berlin.
The ideology that shapes the city is worship of the unbridled individual. In contrast, any form of collectivity or humanity is held to contempt. Take the family: Family is considered an institution of coercion, family is out. Family is the nucleus of fascism. Then there are associations: the shooting associations breed the killing frenzy. Men meeting regularly over a beer are fascist groups. The church and religion: really bad, just think of the witch burnings, inquisition and all that. And nations or ethnicities? Here we have the equation: Nation = nationalism = fascism; they are all the same. Any Berlin college student can recite this in one breath.
All these forms of collectivity are disparaged or generally suspected of fascism. Against this dark backdrop we have the shining individual who must realize his full potential in every way. The perspective of this trend is an individual as an atom, surrounded by the total market. Isolated, because all forms of community and social coherence will have been destroyed. And the isolated individual’s only remaining partner will be the computer via the internet. This is where you get entertainment, this is where you get sex, this is where you get information. And on the other side of the screen there is Big Brother supplying all your needs.

Huxley’s “Brave New World”

It was seventy or eighty years ago, I think, that Aldous Huxley described this development very well in his book “Brave New World”. And I have drawn from it, integrating it into my book “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (The Nation State and Globalization). There I wrote about Huxley’s “Brave New World”:
“The new order brought peace. Abolishment of parliamentarianism and democracy, introduction of genetic breeding of humans, impulse standardization through sleep hypnosis, luxury and affluence for the alphas and betas in charge, full employment and contentedness for the hard-working deltas and epsilons, free sex, movies with real feelings and comforting soma-ecstasy for all. Those who grow old die the gentle death of euthanasia.
In Huxley’s words: “The world is in equilibrium now. People are happy. They get what they want and they desire nothing they cannot get. They are well. They are secure, always healthy, have no fear of death. Passion and age are unknown to these happy people. They are no longer attached to mothers and fathers, have neither wife nor child nor lover for which they might have strong feelings. Their very standardization is so that they can hardly behave other than they should behave.”
So much for “Brave New World” in Aldous Huxley’s prophecy. How did we get to this point then, this “Brave New World”? The world had been shaken by a huge economic crisis, by terror attacks through anthrax and a Nine-Years’ War afterwards. Huxley writes: “The Nine-Years’ War, the great economic collapse, there was only a choice between world supervision and destruction. Liberalism was killed by anthrax.” In Huxley’s utopia this world supervision, world government, is the preliminary stage to this general standardization of man. And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course. This is a very important point when talking about destruction of humanity and other forms of community or social life: For the protagonists of the new world order, the main target is the nation state, because the nation state provides an institutional framework for the minor forms of humanity. The nation state protects the family and fosters marriage and family. The nation state looks to an education of the people, provides for children from all classes to be educated together, at least for a few years, secures that the language is cherished, that a certain form of sexuality is cultivated. Thus, the nation state fosters a development where human beings are not alone, but where we can develop in mutual exchange – and this is how human abilities and human emotions can grow.
But this nation state is in danger all around the world, especially since September 11, 2001 when a terror attack like that in Huxley’s book shook the world – not with anthrax but by other terroristic means. And now we have the economic crisis and we have this discussion about whether to abolish all these little republics with all their nationalisms and atavisms and replace them with supervision by the “Greats” through “good governance”, instead of by us citizens.

Fugger, Death and Devil

This development is driven by international financial capital. When I speak with people today and say that the development of the EU might result in a “Fourth Reich,” and when people shake their heads in disbelief and say: “You don’t really mean that there will be something like the ‘Third Reich’ again, do you?”, I reply: “When I speak of a ‘Fourth Reich’, I am not thinking of the ‘Third Reich’, but of the first one, the medieval German Reich.
What we currently see is a regression into the Middle Ages. The original German Reich, the so-called “Holy Roman Empire”, was not a centralized power, brought into line like the Nazi state where the SS was in charge from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals. That’s how it was in the “Third Reich.” In contrast to this, the First Reich, the “Holy Roman Empire” was a completely amorphous entity reaching from the Baltic Sea to Sicily, at least in the best of times, but it was in no way unified, even lacking a capital. You cannot even call it an Empire of the “German Nation” because it was actually a multiethnic state, torn between the various ethnic groups speaking different languages, in various dynasties, with constantly fluctuating power structures and frontlines inside it.
The First Reich did not work too badly at first. There was some progress in the 10th, 11th, 12th, maybe also in the 13th century, and some even speak of the Golden Middle Ages. But this structure entered into a crisis about the 15th and 16th century with the rising of financial capital. This is where things got out of control.
The financial capital in the “Holy Roman Empire” was centered around the Fugger Trust: the Fuggers, originally from Augsburg, originally textile manufacturers, textile merchants, textile producers, succeeded in rising to the level of a financial trust by virtue of the merchant superpower Venice and their good relations with the Vatican. The first step was the colonization of Tyrol, the occupation of Tyrolean natural resources and precious metals, and then they were off to Hungary. And these natural resources are used by the Fuggers to erect a minting monopoly and to deal in monetary policy and use this base to finance the German emperors. The emperors of the time, especially Maximilian I and Karl V, came to power exclusively through the billions in support from the house of Fugger. The Fuggers bought the emperors. And then we have the expansion of the German Empire, ruled by Habsburg at the time, towards Spain. And matrimonial politics created the Habsburg-Spain axis. And the need for more credits or to pay back loans to the Fuggers forced the emperor to go to the other continent, South America. This is the moment when the German Kaiser says: “The sun will never set on my empire”. This leads to one of the worst chapters of humanity, the looting of Latin America. We are told that the Spanish are responsible for this blood bath. But the Fuggers participate behind the scenes. The Spanish had to raise the money for the Habsburg Emperors, so that they could pay off the Fuggers. Thus, the driving force of this expansion is the seizure of power with financial capital in the Roman Empire of that time.

Pirates and Confederates

Finally, even the Reformation and the wars associated with it can be seen as a consequence of this development. What forces actually drove Luther to start the Reformation? There were reformers before who were less successful. But what increased the number of Luther’s followers enormously was the grassroots outrage regarding the practice of indulgences: a monk, Tetzel, sent by the pope to preach in towns and sell indulgences allowing people to buy forgiveness from sins, even those not yet committed, by giving money to the Pope. But who organized this? It was the Fugger investment bank. It was an ingenious business idea of the Fuggers. And this business idea threw the whole Reich into turmoil. And it contributed to the wars associated with the Reformation.
Getting back to the exploitation of Latin America, the slaughter of the Incas and Aztecs: The captured gold was brought to Spain. Then a new rival enters the game: the rising sea power England starts raiding the Spanish corvettes full of gold. Today we see movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean” with Johnny Depp and we think these were adventure stories with wild swashbucklers. These pirates, however, were no small criminals but rather instruments of the English striving for global power. Sir Francis Drake, Her Majesty’s pirate, raided Spanish ships in royal missions, without Parliament’s knowledge. The gold meant for the Fuggers thus ended up in London. In this process, the Spanish empire and the Fugger empire collapse and the rise of the new global power England, later Great Britain, begins. The first thing this power uses its money, its capital, its raided gold for is to expand the scope of business: More ships are outfitted and business is shifted to a new footing, less primitive than with the Spanish, with the entry into slave trading. Slaves in great numbers are bought in Africa, dragged onto ships and taken to South America, to the colonies – for the benefit of England and with huge profits.

And at this time when we have the contrast between Habsburg plus the Spanish plus the Vatican, the Catholic powers on the one hand and the new rising power of England on the other hand, we have the worst wars in Europe, the religious wars. The Thirty Years’ War in Germany, which killed off one third of the population; the wars in England, Anglican kings against the Catholic Scots and Irish; all the campaigns in France. All these were religious wars only on the surface. In the background we find the rival forces of financial capital.

In these bloody times, when the Golden Middle Ages were giving way to the Dark Middle Ages, Switzerland fights for its independence and founds a democratic republic. This is a historic landmark. And what we see at that moment is an attempt to roll this back. A regression to the Middle Ages subjecting the whole continent again to the power of the financial capital. What was special at the time was that the German Empire was disintegrating as a whole, because not only Switzerland was seceding, but the Netherlands were also becoming independent of Spanish-Habsburg rule. But the latter became independent only to plunge into imperialism themselves. Only Switzerland succeeded in shaking off feudalism without becoming imperialistic. This development is so unique it deserves much more attention.

The Monster Banks

The upshot of all this history – Fugger, Karl V, Latin America’s gold, Sir Francis Drake – is: The gold of the Incas and Aztecs is in London and the Bank of England is based on this foundation. This is the prototype of a very dangerous type of bank which still exists today: a national bank owned by private individuals, but functioning as a state bank which lends money to the state. This means that the state always has to approach this Bank of England, this private bank, to borrow money and that it is a perpetual debtor to these private owners of the bank bearing the respectable name Bank of England.
Exactly in this style – nominally a national bank, de facto a private bank – the US Federal Reserve Bank was founded on the eve of World War I. And to this date, both the Bank of England and the Fed are the institutions that have taken possession of an entire monetary system which gives them the power to create and lend money without public control.
I could go on forever about the development of financial capital. But this is why people write books. [2] So I will only tell you the end of the story. We see the end of the story after September 11, 2001, when the US Federal Reserve proceeded to prodigiously inflate the money supply. Between September 11, 2001 and 2005 it issued more additional dollars than in the previous 200 years of American economic history. That was only until 2005 – at this point the publication of the money supply trend was discontinued by the Bush administration.
According to unofficial estimates, debts of private households, companies, private banks and the State – that is the total debt of all branches of the economy – grew from US$ 50 trillion to 60 trillion. So we have a total US debt of US$ 60 trillion of which 10 trillion was added during the last 15 months. US$ 60 trillion are 60,000 billion. These debts were paid by paper money or electronic money without any real backing, created by these private bank monsters. Actually, this increase in the money supply is so inflationary it is surprising that this currency, the dollar, is still accepted for payment any­where.
It seems crazy, but there is a plausible reason: The US government can, unlike the government of any other debtor state, promise the dollar investors to use military force against anyone at any time at any place to press him to accept the worthless paper snippets with “Dollar” printed on them as payment for goods. Their credit ratings on the international capital market increased when they managed to get a country like Iraq, which probably owns the second larges oil reserves in the world, under their control. On the other hand, the more unstable the situation in Iraq, the more nervous the reaction of the dollar creditors is. A US sinking deeper and deeper in debt with the paper money hoax becoming more and more obvious will cause them to compensate even more desperately for their economic problems through military successes. And the more we will see a tendency to break up the still existing and intact nation states like Switzerland to suck out the last resources and to throw them into the debt cycle to close gaps. In other words, the greater the deficit in this cycle becomes, the greater the tendency for war and the risk of a regression into the Middle Ages.

1 Speech held at the conference “Mut zur Ethik” on the topic “Sovereignty of the people or imperialism – what is true democracy?”, 4 to 6 September 2009 in Feldkirch/Austria
2 The speech has been inspired by the speaker’s latest books:  J. Elsässer (editor), “Gegen Finanzdiktatur. Die Volksinitiative – Grundsätze, Konzepte, Ziele” (Kai Homilius, July 2009),
J. Elsässer, “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (Manuscript, April 2009)