Guess who owns the Federal Reserve?


Richard Moore

Two articles here, one in response to the other, both
worth reading.

A Canadian suggested that the world community should 
'shun' the USA, and explained why.

An American responded, explaining why the Canadian
got it right.

The response comes first, and fits well in the context
of our recent discussions of banking elites.




The Enemy Responds 
By Phil Toler 
Sep 23, 2005, 13:56 

On September 5, 2005, we published an article by Axis of Logic
columnist Paul Richard Harris entitled 'The Enemy Next Door'.
Paul lives in Canada, so who the 'enemy' next door is meant to
be should be obvious.  

We have now received a response from an American, Phillip
Toler, whose essays have appeared previously on Axis of Logic.
Mr. Toler has taken the trouble to respond from the
perspective of one United States resident.

Please read his article entitled 'The United States and the
WTC Three, A Study in Controlled Demolition'. Except for
applying formatting, we have not edited his text in any way;
it appears here exactly as he submitted it. For ease of
comparison, the text of 'The Enemy Next Door' follows Mr.
Toler's work.

- Axis of Logic editorial team 

The United States and the WTC Three, A Study in Controlled Demolition 
By Phil Toler 

    "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is
    absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you
    realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one
    way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not
    have to be told how periods of inflation and depression
    - James Garfield 1881 

Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield
was assassinated.

Paul Harris has hit the nail squarely on the head. Though I
have long been aware of what his essay "The Enemy Next Door"
chronicles in brutal detail, his solemn recitation is still a
painful read. And while one might lament what he has to say,
it would do no good to try to frame this as opinion because it
is nothing but bare-faced fact and history, one that the more
conscious Americans would so love to forget, especially if
they never knew it in the first place.

History shows us that the urge to empire can lead in only one
fatal direction - its dustbin. Just as all the others to go
before, the United States is convinced that now that history
has been eclipsed by the new reality of its leadership, it
will not be subject to mere laws of nature, whether human or
otherwise. But it not only will - the process is well-advanced
as I write.

A tempting metaphor to depict the United States is a hopeless
alcoholic uncle who can print his own money to fuel his
addiction, but it is worse than that. Far better are the first
three steel framed buildings in history to be destroyed by
fire collapsing in free fall on September 11, 2001. On the
surface, they appeared to be the epitome of symbols for
American wealth and know how. They housed businesses that
generated millions of dollars, and scores of government
agencies like the FBI, SEC, and so on. Yet though they enjoyed
a wide no-fly zone around them, it was penetrated by aircraft
supposedly piloted by crazed Arabs which impacted two of the
buildings, and allegedly brought them down in free fall. The
third, WTC 7, fell in exactly the same way though it wasn't
damaged at all.

The conventional wisdom  was created by a passport found near
the buildings that was purported to belong to one of the
'hijackers', as absurd as that seems today, and phone calls
that identified the 'hijackers' as Middle Eastern, which is no
less absurd. Can you tell, for example, an Arab from an
Israeli? By the middle of the afternoon, the jury had returned
a verdict of guilty and the judge pronounced a death sentence,
yet no real evidence was, or has been since, presented.

The resulting chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq have benefited
immensely the so-called neocons who spend as much time in Tel
Aviv as Washington advocating a takeover of the Arab Middle
East, and the oil and "security" related companies who fund
their think tanks and profit off their wars. They even
published a document that called for such an atrocity, but it
is all unmentioned in the 'free' press. Could it have
something to do with the fact that the owners of the 'free'
press sit on the same boards of directors as those of
Halliburton, Bechtol, and the notorious Carlyle Group? The
average American hasn't a clue.

It is this seeming paradox that has the world scratching their
heads in wonder - why can't they figure out what's going on in
their own name? There are a thousand reasons with the top two
being: even if we do know what's happening, there isn't squat
we can do about it, and, just as important, we're too busy
living ersatz lives to care. So the real question is, how did
it come to this?

The key to understanding this outcome is the fact that the
Federal Reserve Bank, which is none of the above, dictates the
amount of US currency in circulation, and therefore its value,
and by extension economic and foreign policy. If this sounds
like a non sequiter, bear with me. Though it is called the
"Fed", it is entirely privately owned. So, you might ask, who
has the power to print money and loan it to the government
with interest that is guaranteed against tax receipts? Peter
Kershaw provides the answer in [his book] "Economic 
Solutions,"  where he lists the ten primary shareholders 
in the Federal Reserve banking system:

    The Rothschild Family - London 
    The Rothschild Family - Berlin 
    The Lazard Brothers - Paris 
    Israel Seiff - Italy 
    Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 
    The Warburgs - Amsterdam 
    The Warburgs - Hamburg 
    Lehman Brothers - New York 
    Goldman & Sachs - New York 
    The Rockefeller Family - New York 

Since they control the U S Federal Reserve Bank, it's pretty
obvious that they control economic policy down to the last
centime.  Perhaps this is why one of Richard Nixon's legacies
was the dissolution of the Breton Woods agreement whereby
member entities that printed fiat money did so as long as it
was backed by gold reserves. Between the Vietnam war, low
taxes, a recession and skyrocketing oil prices, America
withdrew from that agreement, and the Fed fired up the
printing presses. The result was an average inflation rate for
the decade following of 11.35%, which echoes the first decade
after the Fed was established in 1913, 14.97%.

The bottom line on this economic control by private interests
has many ramifications but a great place to start is to
comprehend that what costs $1910.99 today could have been
purchased in 1913 for a single hundred dollar bill. More
ominous are the economic 'cycles' over that interval. When the
dollar inflates, the assets denominated in it increase
accordingly. By lowering interest rates and increasing the
supply of money, or debt, the Fed gins up the value of
everything. At some point, those who call the shots convert
out of the dollar into either a stable currency or a commodity
such as gold, then rapidly decrease the supply of money and
raise interest rates so that the value of assets fall.

For the owners of those assets that do not owe money on them,
at least they can keep them in hopes prices will return to
what they purchased them for. For the others, the bank simply
calls the note and repossesses the assets owed on and if they
are a big enough bank, or well-connected with the Fed and know
the deflation is coming, life is good. For the rest, pure
misery ensues. This alternating cycle manipulation makes
wealth accumulation child's play if you're on the A Team -
otherwise you're on your own.

To finish our economics lesson, consider the fact that banks
are only required by law to have on hand ten per cent of the
amount they loan. This is glibly called 'fractional reserve'
banking. Thus, when the bank gives you $100,000 to go with
your down payment, say $20,000, they've doubled their money
before you even leave the building. If you found out you had
lost your job before you could make the first payment, the
banks $10,000 temporary liability would be handily offset by
the $20,000 they got from you. Plus, they can sell the house
for the $120,000 it is theoretically worth and their total
profit is $140,000!

But let's say you pay it off exactly on time. That $100,000
mortgage loan for 30 years at 5% interest results in a total
principle plus interest income of  $193,255, and it's all
profit. When the loan is made, your account is magically
credited the $100,000 which is offset by the debit to pay the
lien holder of the property that now belongs to your bank.
There is no actual movement of funds from your bank's accounts
excepting the $10,000 in deposits that must be moved into
reserve status until it is replaced by debt repayments or
deposits. Now you know why there's a bank on every corner.

So what does all this have to do with country full of zombies
unable to take control of the government that aggressively
invades other nations that are no threat, something we used to
justifiably vilify Germany for? A lot, actually. We have
isolated the forces that induced the Congress to abdicate
their Constitutional duty to print our currency and regulate
its value, and have found one of them to have boasted : "Let
me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who
writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild uttered these words
in 1790 and his descendents evidently took them to heart.

So if who writes the laws is trumped by who controls the
currency, Americans will have lost control of our ship of
state for almost 100 years. That means that virtually all
elections since then have been manipulated. This means that
bankers have tilted the playing field to their advantage for
almost a century, and perhaps that explains the fact that a
pre-Fed quarter costs five dollars today. They've incited the
wars, dictated the peace treaties, and collected interest plus
principle often times from all parties to the conflicts. And
the people have fed their sons, daughters and taxes to the
dogs of war, all the while thinking God and Country had
something to do with it. And to this day, only a handful of us
are aware of these facts. That must mean the bankers have had
a great deal of success in controlling the information flow
for the last century, as well. Perhaps this explains the
dismal job a Federalized public school system so famously
metes out to its victims, the students and to a large degree
the teachers, all under the thumb of politicized

It might also explain the garbage that dominates the output of
Hollywood's movie and television industries. It certainly
explains why it takes two incomes to raise a family on even a
modest scale. And since the government has been controlling
the drug trade for a century and using the profits to finance
off-the-book black operations to bludgeon anyone that
threatens to horn in on the take, or worse, threaten the
supply, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan, we see the hand of
the bankers at work, yet again. This list could go on and on,
but Paul is right in demanding some responsibility on our
part, and I have no mea culpa for that, because, after all, we
were given a Constitutional Republic, and the founders told us
constant vigilance would be necessary to maintain it. Well, my
fellow Americans, we flat blew it.

What we did, folks, was sell our souls to the devils in the
banker's suits. We settled for life-sapping, one-dimensional
jobs to appear prosperous. We became mesmerized by sports and
entertainment and the 'stars' they produced creating our own
American royalty. And as the content of these entertainments
became ever more degraded, we allowed the corrosion to rot the
fabric of social responsibility right out of us. So now we
smugly drive around in our massive SUVs with flags fluttering
repeating ad nauseum via cell phone that we're the greatest
country in the world. The founding fathers would have no way
to conceive how we could have allowed their blood and hard
work to turn into a fascistic war machine intent on
subjugating the world, all the while spouting platitudes about
how honorable our intentions are.

Like the collapsed WTC towers, the American experiment was
imploded behind a cloak of deceit, and we took a big fat bribe
to look the other way. I'm ashamed for all of us, and I, for
one, offer my deepest apologies to Paul and the rest of the
world for our National Disgrace.

© Copyright 2005 by 


Originally published by Axis of Logic, September 5, 2005 

The Enemy Next Door 

The 'shunning' of an individual is the act of deliberately
avoiding association with him or her. The historical
punishments of ostracism and exile were forms of shunning.
Today, shunning in an official, formalized manner is practiced
by only a few religions, although it continues to be practiced
informally in every sort of human grouping or gathering.

Shunning aims to protect a group from members who have
committed acts seen as harmful to the shunning organization,
or who violate the group's norms.

- Adapted from the Wikipedia 

For many religious groups, shunning might be seen as the
ultimate act by disconnecting an individual from the group.
Historically, the practice is sure to have been initiated for
extraordinarily flimsy reasons from time to time - but as a
social agent to ensure civil behaviour, it is a powerful tool.
It serves a function similar to the amputation of a right hand
in Islam.

In more modern times, occasions arise when one or several
countries choose to 'shun' another nation as a way of trying
to influence a change in the behaviour of that nation. Think
of the United States' embargo on Cuba, sanctions levied
against bad actors by the United Nations (like Libya, Iraq),
the Canadian sanctions against South Africa, eventually
adopted by most of the British Commonwealth. That last example
is a model of what can be accomplished with international
condemnation; although the world's sanctions against Apartheid
cannot claim full credit for the turnaround in South Africa,
it was a powerful incentive to those who sought to bring about
changes there.

This is an article about the United States of America. From
the outset, let me admit that there is tremendous credit due
to the US for a wide variety of social, humanitarian,
artistic, scientific, intellectual accomplishments. But this
small group of people, ruled by an even smaller group of
thugs, is truly the epitome of the 'tail-wagging-the-dog'
syndrome. The US comprises a small fraction of the world but
it sees all the rest of the world - and, for emphasis, ALL the
rest of the world - as its servant, its supplier of cheap
goods and labour, its warehouse, its flea market, the place to
play with its guns.

Both Canada and Mexico can reasonably think of the United
States as our best friend. But it is also clearly our worst
enemy. Indeed, I will argue here that the United States is the
enemy of ALL nations. It's a little tougher for Canada and
Mexico because the Beast lives next door, but also a little
easier because at least they haven't sent in the troops.

Now, we've all heard the rebuttal that 'not all Americans are
like that', and that is certainly true. The US has at least as
many decent humans as any other nation, more than some. But a
country premised on 'we the people Š' cannot shirk the
responsibility for what they do as a group. The actions of the
US are the actions of the whole population, by definition Š
the US constitution does not begin with 'we, some of the

Many outside the US have waited patiently for them to outgrow
their juvenile delinquency, but they show no sign of maturing.
We have waited patiently for the good citizens of the US to
corral the bad, but they persist in failing to do so. And now
that they are acting out again and threatening the peace and
security of the entire planet, it is high time that the rest
of us took matters into our own hands.

The rest of the world should join hands and shun the United

America , the country, really does believe it is better than
anyone else. That America is entitled to as much of the
resources and riches of the planet as it wants and it doesn't
matter whomever else might have to suffer or go short. That
all other nations are enemies if they don't march to the
American drum in virtually any arena you might care to
mention. That it has the right, indeed the obligation, to
enforce its will wherever it sees fit by whatever means it
wants. That it has the right to invade sovereign nations as a
way of deflecting attention from some domestic political
scandal or if there is some new weapon that needs a good field
testing. That killing of foreign civilians doesn't really
count because they're always in season and there's no quota.
That somehow a bullet-ridden and trigger-happy American
society is in every way superior to any other place on earth.

Astonishingly, Americans seem to have a hard time grasping
that other folks might be a little annoyed about all that.

Bombs and Bullets 

Consider their military adventures. The United States claims
to be a nation of peace lovers and officially it has been at
peace since the end of the Second World War. Except, that is,
for their attacks on:

    China (1945-46) 
    Korea (1950-53) 
    Guatemala (1954, 1967-69) 
    Cuba (1959-60) 
    Belgian Congo (1964) 
    Vietnam (1961-73) 
    Cambodia (1969-70) 
    Grenada (1983) 
    Libya (1986) 
    El Salvador (1980-92) 
    Nicaragua (1981-90) 
    Panama (1989) 
    Iraq (1991) 
    Somalia (1993) 
    Bosnia (1995) 
    Sudan (1998) 
    Yugoslavia (1999) 
    Afghanistan (2001-02) 

plus a grudge match currently underway in Iraq (since 2003) 

Plus "police action" in Colombia re: drugs (ongoing), an
insurrection in Chile (1973) and numerous other covert
bombings conducted by, or under the direction of, the CIA 

From 1945 to the early years of the 21 st  century, the US
attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments and to
crush more than 30 populist movements fighting against
insufferable regimes. In the process, they bombed about 25
countries, killed several million people, and condemned many
millions more to lives of agony, poverty and despair. Oh yes,
and they're presently sabre-rattling against Iran and, maybe,
North Korea. [Forgive me if I've forgotten any military
excursion here; it's hard to keep track.]

Most of this activity took place during a time when the United
States was allegedly in a defensive posture. In reality, the
United States has never been in a defensive posture. It's
short history is one of expansionism; first through movement
to the west coast, then economically in the rest of the
Americas (where the profits can be derived without the
overhead of actually running the countries).

At this point, thanks to George W. Bush's September 2002
document entitled 'The National Security Strategy of the
United States of America' (NSS), we know with certainty that
the United States intends to rule the world. They will act
unilaterally to attack wherever and whenever they wish and
they have already demonstrated that they mean it. Given their
propensity for field-testing their high-tech weaponry, should
they really be surprised that most other nations fear them?
And is it rational for them to think that those who fear them
are going to like them?

But it isn't quite as simple as worrying about American bombs.
Because they don't drop them everywhere. There are actually
some places that the US considers to be alright. Canada for
one, although they often think we are cheeky buggers who
they're one day going to have to squash. Britain for another,
although one wonders if the US only thinks well of them
because of the recent lapses of British common sense in
supporting Bush's military adventures.

Let's Make a Deal 

Ask any country that's ever entered into a trade agreement
with the United States how well it worked out for them. The US
bargains with a fisted glove, despite George Bush's remarks in
the second paragraph of the NSS: "In keeping with our heritage
and principles, we do not use our strength to press for
unilateral advantage." He couldn't even get past the second
paragraph without lying.

The fact is, the financial instruments that operate the world
- the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund - are all tools of American
diplomacy (I use the term loosely since diplomacy is not a
strong suit for America, never has been). Oil, that most
precious commodity, the thing that seems to attract American
military excursions like flies to a corpse, is priced in US
dollars giving the United States an unprecedented trading
advantage over every other nation. The Yankee buck is used as
the currency standard in most parts of the world despite its
shaky foundations and the tremulous state of the American
economy. By default, then, the currencies of the rest of the
world are subservient and unstable because of their
measurement against the flaky dollar.

The list of agreements entered into by the US that they have
ignored, abrogated, or violated is long; and it has grown
exponentially in recent years. Without even looking beyond the
borders of North America, the US record of honouring its
commitments is appalling. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have been sad
examples of the way the US bullies its 'partners'. It
routinely ignores rulings of the dispute resolution panels
that it doesn't like, it slaps unjustified tariffs against its
partners and dares them to do something about it. It fully
expects the other partners to live with and adhere to the
agreed upon rules, but it has no intention of doing so itself.

Naturally, these examples should serve as warnings to anyone
else foolish enough to think they can enter into equal
agreements with the US. It should be clear to all that no
trade agreement with the United States is ever predicated on
the 'win-win' principle, but only on the premise that all the
chips will end up on the American side of the ledger. It is
almost pathological that the US cannot abide the idea of both
sides winning something because that means something was left
on the table that they could have grabbed.

On the horizon is the Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and
despite the obvious failings of FTA and NAFTA, other North and
South American countries have given serious consideration to
entering into trade agreements with the United States. Some
have already foolishly signed on the dotted line.  They need
only look at the record of the way America adheres to its
bargains with its closest neighbours to realize that the
United States considers the rest of the world to be nothing
more than its supplier of cheap raw materials and labour, and
the place that it wishes to dump its surplus and its crap.

Playing well with others 

One of the most sensible things ever created by the countries
of the world is the United Nations. Its problems and
weaknesses are huge, but most stem from four things: the
foolish concept of the Security Council; the American belief
that the sole function of the UN is to service the domestic
and foreign interests of the United States; the failure of the
US to live up to its commitments to the UN; and the US
determination that nothing the rest of the member nations want
or think is relevant if it doesn't suit the United States.

If the US was being given a grade school report card for its
United Nations activities it would be given the lowest grade
possible and the teacher would surely note that the US does
not play well with its peers. Indeed, the United States does
not seriously consider that it has peers. There is a good
chance the teacher might think the US needs professional
intervention to deal with its obvious psychopathic tendencies.

Currently on the table is a draft agreement for United Nations
reform and renewal. It is well-recognized internationally that
the UN has shortcomings and members from many nations have
worked long and hard to prepare a draft proposal for
addressing those weaknesses. The United States has made some
700 changes to the document that they insist will be necessary
before they will agree to the rest. The parts they are willing
to leave in place are the vague 'lets play nice' homilies that
are unenforceable and make no commitments; the parts they want
changed or removed provide a solid roadmap to showcase the
disagreements the US has with the rest of the world on almost
every imaginable global issue.

Think back again to President Bush's statement: "In keeping
with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength
to press for unilateral advantage." It is difficult to credit
that there is anyone, anywhere, including within the United
States, that could make that statement with a straight face.
Where the US is unable to win agreement from other countries,
it threatens. It starts off with gentle remonstrance but the
stakes very quickly rise to trade and even military threats:
it takes guts to stand up to the US and only a few countries
have the clout or temerity to do so (China and Cuba,
respectively, come easily to mind).

But the reason these difficulties arise in the first place is
there is no room in the eyes of the United States for
compromise. President Bush again: "Either you're with us, or
you're with the terrorists." This narrow black-versus-white
approach (an appropriate metaphor for the US) allows for no
compromise, it permits no neutrality. It is the classic
schoolyard bully approach to problem solving.

As a further example, consider the American attitude to such
concepts as the International Court of Justice. The US refuses
to be a part of it because they will not put themselves in the
position where someone else has the power to judge them or the
activities of their citizens. They believe that international
law governs everyone but them: they were quite prepared to
judge the Third Reich at Nuremburg and Manuel Noriega (after
he finished being useful to them) and Saddam Hussein, and so
on, but they refuse to accept that anyone, anywhere, has the
right to judge them or one of their citizens.


The United States prides itself on being free. Its citizens
have come to believe that this includes them although any
outsider can easily see that the only freedom in the US is the
freedom of the elite to get richer and richer. The US operates
on the principle of 'free enterprise for the poor and
socialism for the rich' in an astounding display of
law-of-the-jungle mentality. The rich and the elite of the US
enjoy the biggest and best of everything while the lower
castes fend for themselves.

This is a nation with wealth and privilege beyond measure, yet
it houses vast numbers of poor and downtrodden who are left to
wallow on their own. A timely example is in front of the world
as we all watch with horror and consternation the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. It is clear that the US was unprepared for
this disaster despite having all the resources imaginable,
despite having plenty of notice that this event was about to
occur, despite having years of warning that it would occur
some day. It is not lost on anyone that the slow and feeble
response of the Bush administration to this catastrophe is
coloured by who the victims happen to be.

The US was founded on the principle of democracy, the
republican form of democracy, but it has been many years since
it practiced democracy or even believed that it should. We all
know its elections are unfair contests of rich against rich,
often with unscrupulous polling practices to ensure the right
person wins. And we all know that once elected, the winners
are ensconced for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets
and those of their backers.

Yet the United States strides around the world with the
alleged aim of installing 'democracy', by force if necessary,
even if the people affected would rather not have it. There is
a proselytizing fervour to the missionary zeal with which the
US pledges to 'free' the rest of the world. It cannot be
stated more clearly that the US interest in other nations is
solely as providers of cheap raw materials and labour, and as
market places. They are quite content to accept the rule of
dictators in those nations who are willingly serving US
interests (Saudi Arabia, for instance).

The US notion of 'democracy', at least within the current
administration, is surely Orwellian, avoiding anything that
would allow for a genuine rule of the people. In nominal
democracies today there is a huge gap between the ruling
elites and the general populace. In this neo-liberal world,
leaders regularly betray campaign promises and the public
interest in order to serve the needs of the corporations who
ensured their election victories. Nowhere has this reached
such a high art form as in the United States.

Democracy has steadily eroded in the United States,
accelerated by the present administration. The Patriot Act and
its successor have castrated the constitutional protections of
the rights of individuals; the courts have been filled with
pliable right-wing judges, threatening judicial independence
and constitutional rights; corrupt election practices are
rampant and the checks and balances system has been seriously

Killing the rest of us

The United States is a dirty place. Despite its millions of
square miles of open space, it has allowed industry to turn
large swaths of the environment into cesspools. Rivers and
streams are polluted, food sources are contaminated with both
inadvertent and deliberate chemical additives, in many places
the air gives a foul stench. While the US is certainly not
alone in the world in this regard, the sheer volume of
pollution that is produced by this conspicuous consumption
society is staggering.

American administrations, particularly the current one,
blithely ignore the evidence that even school children can
grasp. Scientists the world over, excepting those few on the
payrolls of the polluters, have been issuing dire predictions
at least as far back as Rachel Carson's 1962 warning in her
book 'Silent Spring'. But no, global warming isn't really
happening; or if it is, it has nothing to do with any human
activity. It is an interesting dichotomy that the scientists
are heeded by leaders so long as they are saying things the
leaders want to hear, ignored otherwise.

But the rest of the world knows. That's why it struggled to
produce what became known as the Kyoto Protocol after many
attempts and many years of diplomacy. It is a horridly flawed
agreement; but it is a first and critically necessary step to
cleaning up our environment while there is some potable water
and some breathable air remaining. The American response: the
rest of the world can be damned, no one is telling us what to

Most of the world has reluctantly agreed that planting
landmines is a nasty practice. While they may have had some
military value in the days when troops rode horses or walked,
their only value now is for containment of non-combatants. By
far the greatest number of landmine victims in recent years is
the population left behind when the armies go off to play
elsewhere. The soldiers never remove the landmines so they
remain buried, waiting for some unsuspecting peasant or child
to die, or blow off a leg or two.

And so the world agreed to stop using them, to stop
manufacturing, to remove all they could locate. The American
response: they refused to sign on to anti-landmine treaties,
they refused to remove those they have buried, they have
recently decided to start manufacturing them again which can
only mean that they intend to use them. The rest of the world
be damned.

The United States has touted the need to control nuclear
weaponry. However, if any further evidence was actually
needed, their recent proposals to the United Nations draft
agreement for reform make crystal clear that nuclear control
is only for others. They have no intention of disarming, or
reducing the nuclear stockpile, but everyone else should. And
it is imperative that no additional countries gain nuclear
weapon capability. The capability and right to obliterate
mankind should rest entirely with the White House. The rest of
the world be damned.

American soldiers have dropped depleted uranium (DU) on enemy
combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and even
though it doesn't have the bluster and showmanship of a
mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb. It is one of the
ironies of history: the United States went to war against Iraq
in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was full of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) but finally they were forced to admit they
were wrong and just couldn't find those weapons. So the US has
deployed its own WMDs in Iraq, in the form of the DU cluster

The United States has a long history of manufacturing,
storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the Second
World War, there is clear evidence of use by the United States
of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of
WMD. Still, most of us who point fingers at the Americans are
most familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and
napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although the
Americans also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and

These products are actually herbicides, developed during the
1940s, and were used in Vietnam as defoliants to strip away
the grasses and trees in order to deny the enemy hiding
places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their
extensive use in Vietnam compromised the health of many who
came in contact with them, including American forces; and they
were used in far greater concentrations than would be usual.

Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in
Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and
killed by incineration. And this was not the first or only use
of this material: napalm bombs were dropped on Japan by Allied
troops during World War II and used in flamethrowers against
Germany in that same war. Later, it was used by United Nations
forces during the Korean War before reaching the apex of its
popularity during the Vietnam conflict. Although its use was
banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did
not sign the agreement. The rest of the world be damned.

The U.S. claimed to have destroyed all its supplies of napalm
by 2001 but that is a matter of semantics rather than fact;
current evidence seems to verify that they have used it as
recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent
on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of
Marine Air Group 11:

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately
there were people there ... you could see them in the
[cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way
to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological

The United States has denied using napalm but only because
they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed
the product the 'Mark 77 firebomb'. Its victims will surely
appreciate the clarification.

While the United States remains the only nation to actually
drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four
occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has
actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in
Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I & II - through the use of
depleted uranium.

The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements,
treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S.
military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those
international treaties, and its own laws, the United States
continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge
that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all
species, including our own. The rest of the world be damned.

Evil Empire 

Many will remember President Ronald Reagan referring to the
former Soviet Union as the 'evil empire' but this is surely
the chutzpah of the kettle calling the saucepan black.

There should be no misunderstanding about the seriousness of
depleted uranium: it meets the U.S. definition of a 'weapon of
mass destruction' and while the United States is prepared to
invade sovereign countries on the basis they 'might' have WMD
themselves and they 'might' be willing to use them, the
Americans actually are using them. And they use them in
complete disregard for the people and nations on which they
are dropped, even in disregard of the health of their own and
allied troops. On that basis, there is some serious question
as to whom has really earned the title 'Evil Empire'.

Today, the US is the most powerful nation on earth in every
sense of the word, except moral. The moral authority of the
United States comes from the barrel of a gun. It is feared
worldwide, even by its friends, and dismayed that others don't
unconditionally love it.

Most Americans claim to believe that the United States has
been a monumental success. But perhaps it needs the eyes of
people outside its borders to see clearly what it has become,
that what it purported to be was rarely achieved. Americans
have deluded themselves and fail to see the disaster they have
wrought and the nightmare that is to come.

The United States is in decline, a society in an advanced
state of decay. Its great experiment at participatory
democracy no longer excites its people, who stay home on
election days in vast numbers. Its love of freedom has been
used over and again as the excuse for military engagement on
the soil of many other countries and countless deaths among
those foreign citizens. Its pursuit of personal freedom at all
costs has resulted in a violent and morally bankrupt society.
In its quest for power, it has blundered across the world with
the self-assurance of the Godly and with complete lack of
concern for other people's wishes and needs, or lives.

The United States has relentlessly chased after the ability to
annihilate its enemies with firepower beyond belief and has
convinced itself that it is right and just to do so.


On January 6, 1941 a speech given by President Franklin
Roosevelt, known as the Four Freedoms Speech, stated:

"We look forward to a world founded upon four essential
freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression
everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person
to worship God in his (or her) own way-everywhere in the
world. The third is freedom from want Š everywhere in the
world. The fourth is freedom from fear Š anywhere in the

Pretty simple. And it sounds pretty reasonable. But it was
really a desperate attempt by FDR to save face since the
founding principles of his presidency had so utterly failed.

In 1933, at his first inauguration, he espoused what he called
his Good Neighbour Policy. It contained seven simple but clear
proposals for how the US could fit into the world community
without lowering its own standards and expectations.  

Principle One : The first step toward being a good neighbor is
to stop being a bad neighbor.

Principle Two: Our nation's foreign policy agenda must be tied
to broad U.S. interests. To be effective and win public
support, a new foreign policy agenda must work in tandem with
domestic policy reforms to improve security, quality of life,
and basic rights in our own country.

Principle Three: Given that our national interests, security,
and social well-being are interconnected to those of other
peoples, U.S. foreign policy must be based on reciprocity
rather than domination, mutual well-being rather than
cutthroat competition, and cooperation rather than

Principle Four: As the world's foremost power, the United
States will be best served by exercising responsible global
leadership and partnership rather than seeking global

Principle Five: An effective security policy must be
two-pronged. Genuine national safety requires both a
well-prepared military capable of repelling attacks on our
country and a proactive commitment to improving national and
personal security through nonmilitary measures and
international cooperation.

Principle Six: The U.S. government should support sustainable
development, first at home and then abroad, through its
macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid policies.

Principle Seven: A peaceful and prosperous global neighborhood
depends on effective governance at national, regional, and
international levels. Effective governance is accountable,
transparent, and representative.

By the time of the Four Freedoms Speech, FDR knew he was not
going to sell to the American people the notion that they
should be part of the world community. The arrogance and
hubris that drove the building of America had long ago
precluded the notion that anyone else had relevance or was
entitled to their place in the sun. The United States must
rule, although it wasn't until after World War II that they
began to export their military might to make sure they would

Say Goodbye to Hollywood

The world no longer needs the United States. It is time the
world ignored the United States and went about its business
without this bully. For much of its history the US has
practiced a form of isolationism (note its very late entry
into World Wars I & II). It is time the rest of the world
practiced reverse isolationism and locked the US out of the
world community so it can do harm only to itself.

The US is in serious danger of collapsing on itself; moving it
outside the realm of relations with other nations is the only
way to ensure that other nations come to no harm when the US
finally implodes.

And like a miscreant child sent to its room to think about
what it has done, there is the possibility that the US will
realize it has misbehaved and pledge itself anew to being a
better person. But until it does, it should be shunned.

© Copyright 2005 by 
Paul Harris is an Axis of Logic editor and columnist, based in Canada.  
He can be reached at •••@••.••• 
Read the Biography and additional articles by Axis Columnist, Paul Harris 



If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland

"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"

List archives:

    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
Informative links: