WhatFinger


Changing the meaning of policing

Interpol – Fascist Friends



There are those who are fooled some of the time. There are those who are fooled all the time. And there are those who want to be fooled because it’s easier. Softened by a decade of desensitising PC regulations and definitions used by governments, many are indeed fooled all of the time, but most prefer self-imposed ignorance. Voting for Obama was one indication. Believing Interpol is only an external police database and that the recent EO giving them immunity is ‘nothing’, is another.

Support Canada Free Press


Blast From the Past

It is a long while back, but these were the claims about Interpol in 1977 (lermanet.com as quoted from the Detroit Jewish News, 1977):
  • “A substantial percentage of cases handled by Interpol had no criminal background at all”.
  • Investigators found that in 40% of cases, Interpol could provide very little information.
  • “No government or state body monitors the activities of Interpol. (And that was thirty years ago… nothing has changed).
  • “Interpol has access to American computer banks”.
  • Data from these US computer records are sent to third parties, including communist countries, and shared.
  • “Interpol can carry out police, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement and other functions without effective oversight.”
  • Investigators looked at cases dealt with by Interpol and none of them involved big time criminals or big organisations… so why use them anyway?
  • “Interpol… is a law unto itself, a state above states, not subject to any scrutiny.”
  • “Nazi war criminals are not molested by Interpol.”
Though paid for by taxes, “the organisation has failed in its avowed aims: the successful combat of international crime.” When national taxes are used to pay for membership, one has to ask why.

Interpol’s Nazi history

One also has to ask: if Interpol cases tend not to be of an international variety, why pay them anything at all? It must mean they deal with either relatively minor cases, or cases that could be dealt with by national police forces. The investigators went to meet the famed Dr Wiesenthal, who told them of Interpol’s Nazi history and the way “current practices” (up to 1977) were still Nazi-orientated. It seems Interpol, through the German federal police, initiated a smear campaign against one investigator who examined its roots in fascism. Is this why they didn’t go after Nazi war criminals? And why should we assume Interpol has changed from its Nazi outlook over the past three decades? Interestingly, Rep Edward Beard, at the time, demanded that Interpol’s records be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. This is no longer the case, as we now know. In fact, at that time, according to the National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice, Interpol would not send information back to the USA but was free to disseminate it to all its other members! (NCLE SJ Press Release). Or, to put it another way, material sent abroad to Interpol could not be sent back as a right.

Interpol Let Nazis stay Free

Because Interpol would not chase war criminals a huge number left South America and settled in California and elsewhere in the USA, thanks to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (NCLESJ). The same protection is still being given to illegal aliens from Mexico, causing a huge rise in social benefit payments and crime. Why should a Fascist-inspired organisation want to chase its own kind anyway? And why should a socialist Obama want to reject Interpol when it can hide-away documents and truth for him? In 1975, the News American (march 16th) published an article showing the strong Nazi ties of US police to Interpol. It said Baltimore police regularly sent ‘top secret’ information to Interpol, “whose top leaders, since World War Two, have been former ranking officers in the German Gestapo and the Nazi SS. That information is contained in recently declassified US and German documents about Interpol.” “Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have freely and regularly exchanged confidential information with Interpol since 1947 (by electronic means and ‘exchange of personnel’). If Interpol’s record for dealing with international crime is next to zero, what information was being passed on? It has to be about US citizens, because what would a local police department know about criminals abroad? And if the FBI send Interpol its files, it means “the whole world has this information.” Comforting? Interpol insisted it ‘went out of business’ during the Second World War, and repeatedly told Congress this. But, evidence showing the exact opposite was later provided! Also, a June 1940 Interpol document openly says that the ‘Prague Butcher’, Reinhard Heydrich, ran Interpol during the war. He is the one who ‘masterminded’ the ‘final solution’. He was appointed to head Interpol a few months after Interpol’s 1939 Convention in Berlin, by “the SS and chief of the German police, Heinrich Himmler”. As head of Interpol, he engineered details of the ‘final solution’, with Interpol heads and leading Nazis, including Adolph Eichmann. As part of his role he ordered the burning of synagogues. In 1943, after Heinrich was assassinated and 2 million Poles were killed in retribution, Dr Ernst Kaltenbrunner took over, looking quite splendid in his Gestapo uniform. And so the Nazi tradition continued.

Sudden Riches

Interestingly, Interpol finances “improved dramatically” in 1968 when former SS officer Paul Dickopf became head of the organisation. This came about after “exceptional contributions” were made by unnamed persons in Switzerland, Venezuela and Brazil. Odd how these three countries were also the favoured bolt-holes for escaping Nazis. There are also links between Edgar Hoover and Interpol when it was still Nazi-led. It is also of interest that whilst Interpol never once tried to track down Nazi war criminals, it held large files on Jewish ‘criminals’! I wonder why? It has been said that Interpol’s recent joining with the UN is innocent. Hm. “The whole idea of the Germans with Interpol was to make a Europe-wide police force, the core of which was the Nazis. It would be the Gestapo of the whole world, a secret police.” This was told to Morton Blender (who worked for Beard) during the Nazi war trials and has been deduced by myself and others who recognise ‘creeping socialism’. Now, Interpol has joined forces with another socialist group, the UN. Coincidence? In 1975, Interpol, explaining why it didn’t go after Nazis, said it did not chase after ‘political’ criminals. A Washington critic then said: “What they’re saying is that genocide is political.” It also implies that the Nazi extermination camps were not criminal. Talking about the UN-Interpol connection, Simon said: “This special arrangement gives both organisations broad opportunities to take part in discussions on matters of common interest”. What – like ruling the world? Sounds pretty much like the current UN-socialist agenda! And ‘The UN link, established in 1971, gave Interpol something else – added credibility. For an organization whose roots were planted, and flourished, in Nazi Germany, this was a major step forward.’ (The News American, March 18th, 1975).

Same Today?

How many of these facts continue to operate? Up to date examination suggests many still do. Can we just disregard Interpol’s sordid past, right up to the end of the 1970s? I do not think so. Can we disregard the fact that Interpol had had long association with the UN (and police in the USA since before the war?). Or that it is one socialist organisation coupling with another, the UN? This is blatant joining of Marxism and Fascism, if the documents quoted are correct (which, no doubt, Interpol will oppose), and as shown in my book ‘The Global Green Agenda’. It is absurd for Interpol to claim it is not political, when it refused to tackle its own mates in the SS and Gestapo after the war! And it is absurd in our own time, when Interpol openly says that people who oppose environmental lies are ‘criminals’. “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (James Maddison). In an article entitled ‘Obama and the Global police: More Friendly Fascism?’, John W Whitehead talks about Interpol. (8th January, 2010, HYPERLINK "http://www.rutherford.org" [url=http://www.rutherford.org]http://www.rutherford.org[/url]). “Over the course of his first year in office, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a skilful and savvy politician, saying the things Americans want to hear, while stealthily and inexorably moving forward the government’s agenda of centralized power.” This, of course, is a vital socialist objective, part of national and then international Marxist-Fascist government. Referring to the EO signed by Obama giving Interpol immunity, he said “In one breath, Obama pays lip service to the need for greater transparency in government, while in another, he issues an executive order that will result in even more government secrecy.” It seems to me that when Obama spoke of ’transparency’ he was talking about the socialist definition – muddy brown. The refusal of people to question Obama and the refusal of mainstream media to even talk critically of Obama, says Whitehead, makes it a “Machiavellian mindset”. And it truly is! Obama is the most secretive president (how I hate calling him ‘president’) ever, and yet everyone is falling at his feet. Are they on drugs? Or, just intellectually inept? Whitehead, referring to my and other critical articles about the recent EO signed by Obama, comments “Those who have voiced their concerns about this domestic empowerment by… Obama… have been soundly criticized for fomenting political hysteria. But, there is legitimate cause for concern. This presidential directive could undermine civil liberties and render the Fourth Amendment null and void.” Exactly! The ignorant and deliberately blinkered prefer to see Obama as their Messiah, not as the screaming horde coming to destroy.

Wording of the EO ‘minor’?

Some (working for Interpol or the UN?) critical of my own article, have said the actual wording of the EO says nothing of the kind. I pointed out, in CFP and on radio, that such seemingly minor wording can often be used to invent new laws and rules, by creating precedents. I used to create precedents quite easily as a student of law… I am sure Obama’s top lawyers are more than capable of doing the same! After all, they have hitherto successfully prevented anyone getting hold of Obama’s birth certificate! On this point of seemingly innocuous EO wording, Whitehead also has a similar penchant for seeing what others prefer to ignore: “Aided by some crafty legal editing, Obama has manipulated Reagan’s directive (Ed. Designed to protect the USA and stop Interpol acting illegally) in such a way as to remove those restrictions, so that Interpol now stands apart from domestic law enforcement agencies, its actions and records effectively immune from legal scrutiny.” Of course, this has always been the case anyway, but Obama is the first to give such immunity in writing, against the security and well-being of his own country (that is, if he is American to begin with). “It was a shrewd move on Obama’s part, so shrouded in a legal parsing of semicolons and redactions that it is barely comprehensible to the average citizen.” And that is what I have said. The EO is a blatant example of making legal phrases incomprehensible… unless you have had legal training, in order to begin a longer process of changing laws.

Friendly Fascism

Finally, in his article, Whitehead quotes from ‘Friendly Fascism’ by Bertram Gross. Gross said: “The new Fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal structure and geopolitical environment.” (As I have noted in my own book). “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback, will miss the tell-tale signs of creeping fascism. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic - as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.” Obviously, this kind of fascism does appeal to many Americans, because they voted for Obama and allow his modern SS – Pelosi et al, to ride their horses and dressed in chic black shirts! Only most folks can’t see what they are wearing. He is the worst nightmare for the USA and yet he is held up as a god. If he is a god, he is Athenian, throwing thunderbolts to kill. I am genuinely surprised that fawning voters cannot see the look on Obama’s face. Yes, he can smile. But his usual facial expression is fearsome and grim. It is not the face of a friendly man. His face also shows intense arrogance, as does his posture. Only listen to his words and you are doomed, easily and totally. This was obvious from when he was a Senator, so, really, there is no excuse. There is so much evidence for Obama’s duplicity and his willingness to issue anything he wishes, without the agreement of Congress or the people. (Not that Congress is of much value nowadays). The seemingly innocuous EO has far-reaching ramifications and this will only be discovered as time unfolds. The call is clear – watch your minds and watch your backs, because Obama is not a true president; he is a man bent on ruining the USA and, after that, the world. Some have said he is only a front-man. I agree with that, because he hasn’t got the political weight to do these things himself. Big money is behind the world order idea. Obama is only obeying their instructions. Even so – get him out of the White House or suffer the consequences. Barry Napier runs christiandoctrine.com. The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009. For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com


View Comments

Guest Column Barry Napier -- Bio and Archives

Items of notes and interest from the web.


Sponsored