The Peril of €300 Million for Biomedicine in Berlin

The Peril of €300 Million for Biomedicine in Berlin


Germany goes full circle from IG Farben to Bayer, BASF, Hoechst and Cassella.

Germany has combined its largest biomedical research and development facilities into one super company that is set to gain at minimum €300 million within the next five years. The Berlin Institute of Health (bhi) is now an undisputed leader of European medicine. This past November, key decision makers were on hand in Dusseldorf to spread this announcement at the world’s largest medical trade fair, medica.

The goal of bhi is to court the world’s top-flight scientific and medical minds and use its influential role with federal and state governments, along with university and private research and development.

“Germany has a globally recognized biomedical sector, and it will only improve due to the institute’s innovative models to train medical talent,” said Dr. Sandra Bütow, chemical and health expert at Germany Trade & Invest.

A longtime friend working in the international medical field recently returned from his 16th trip to medica and expressed to me the stunning growth of the event, particularly in the field of international cooperation and partnerships. As we toured his state-of-the-art facility, he made mention of how the shrinking of Germany’s population is forcing the country to increasingly look east and south, establishing and expanding market share. This strategy has grave historical associations.

In attendance at medica were Germany’s corporate giants of modern history’s darkest chapter, namely Bayer, basf and Hoechst. Originally, these companies were one, under the name of IG Farben. The company was formed in the mid-1920s by chemical firms that had already been working together since the First World War. It grew to become the fourth-largest chemical conglomerate in the world.

However, IG Farben carried dark secrets of involvement with the Nazi regime and subsequently became partner to crimes during World War ii. The Allied forces took possession of it in the mid-1940s and divided it into four separate companies by the early 1950s: Bayer, basf, Hoechst and Cassella.

Unthinkably, the Allies issued the IG Liquidation Conclusion Law in January 1955. This annulled Article 10 of the Allied Occupation Law that had prevented mergers among the new companies and employment of managers convicted in the Nuremberg trial against IG Farben.

During that same year, and after conviction of war crimes at Nuremberg, board member Friedrich Jähne was rehired as chairman for the directors’ board of Hoechst.

The following year, after his conviction of war crimes by the tribunal, former board member Fritz ter Meer was appointed chairman for the directors’ board of Bayer.

Bayer, basf, Hoechst and Cassella went on to employ many more key white-collar executives who had been at posts within IG Farben in support of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi government in oversight of technologies of death.

“Bayer, basf and Hoechst paid out dividends of 10 percent each in 1956. Cassella was taken over by Hoechst in 1970, so that just 20 years after the “dispersal,” only the “big three” of the German chemicals industry remained. These were the same three companies that had taken part in the “Interessen-Gemeinschaft” agreement of 1916 and initiated the creation of the IG Farbenindustrie combine in the year 1925. Just 20 years after the re-creation of Bayer, basf and Hoechst, “each company was … bigger than IG at its zenith” (Wollheim Memorial).

The IG Farben offspring of Bayer, basf and Hoechst refused compensation claims. Not until the late 1990s, in U.S. courts, where survivors of forced labor filed law suits against them, did the IG Farben triplets and other German companies loosen their wallets under the shroud of worldwide media attention and potential sales declines, banding together under what became the German Economy Foundation Initiative.

Fifty-three years after their seizure, in August 1998 these corporate Holocaust progenitors established the International Commission on Holocaust Insurance Claims (icheic). It was to establish, finalize and repatriate personal Nazi-era insurance claims. icheic stopped accepting new applicants at the end of March 2004. By December 2006, final decisions had been made on all preexisting claims.

A shocking intelligence document the Trumpet drew attention to back in 1999—intelligence report number EW-Pa 128, dated Nov. 7, 1944—recounted the following: “After the defeat of Germany, the Nazi Party recognizes that certain of its best-known leaders will be condemned as war criminals. However, in cooperation with the industrialists it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important members in positions with various German factories as technical experts or members of its research and designing offices.”

The same year, we reported this shocking course of German corporate history: Hoechst first merged into Aventis SA, and within five years once more into Sanofi-Aventis, whose headquarters and largest facility remains in the town of Höchst.

Bayer is also headquartered in the German city of Leverkusen, boasting hundreds of corporate concerns worldwide with double-digit billions in revenues.

basf remains headquartered in Ludwigshafen, with some 200 international production facilities, and, as with its corporate relatives, boasts revenues and profits in the double-digit billions.

The lesson of history repeating itself is made plain to all with eyes to see.

The late Herbert W. Armstrong warned those with ears to hear in the very same year IG Farben was seized by the Allies. In May 1945, to an audience of World Tomorrow listeners, during the San Francisco United Nations conference, he said: “Men plan, here, to preserve the peace of the world. What most do not know is that the Germans have their plans for winning the battle of the peace. Yes, I said battle of the peace. That’s a kind of battle we Americans don’t know. We know only one kind of war.”

Mr. Armstrong’s 1945 warning continued, “We don’t understand German thoroughness. From the very start of World War ii, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War iii!”

As we look through the lens of time at the phenomenal strides made by German business, we see that the United States has already lost that battle. It lost the battle of the peace between World Wars i and ii, and again is losing the battle of the peace following World War ii into the foothills of World War iii.

As founder and editor in chief of the Trumpet, Gerald Flurry has worked to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Armstrong to warn of the final resurrection of a medieval Holy Roman Empire, whose engine is in Germany and whose master resides in Rome (Daniel 2, 8; Revelation 13, 17, 18).

Can we not see there is mortal peril in the funding of €300 million for biomedicine in Berlin? Germany has come full circle from the dark past of IG Farben, to a dark present of dominance of its siblings of Bayer, basf, Hoechst and Cassella.

British Prime Minister Misleads the Nation on Debt

British Prime Minister Misleads the Nation on Debt


British Prime Minister David Cameron misled the nation by claiming his government is paying off Britain’s debt, in a three-minute party election broadcast shown on itv on January 23.

“So though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress,” he said. “We’re paying down Britain’s debts.”

This simply isn’t true.

According to the government’s forecasts, Britain’s national debt is set to rise from £770 billion (us$1.25 trillion) in 2010, shortly before this government took office, to £1.36 trillion when Parliament stands down for elections in 2015.

That’s an increase of roughly £600 billion. Or £10,000 (us$16,000) for every man, woman and child. This is not paying down the debts in any way.

“What Cameron said is not an exaggeration,” wrote the Spectator’s editor, Fraser Nelson. “It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office.”

Here’s the video:

The discussion about debt in the broadcast wasn’t just a picky point. A large chunk of time was spent asking people how much they thought the deficit had shrunk. They all talked about changes of just a few percentages, before it was revealed that the deficit had been cut by 25 percent.

It sounds impressive. It’s deliberately deceptive.

When the government says it’s cutting the deficit, most think it’s reducing the debt the country owes. That’s not true. Debt is the total amount of money the government owes. Deficit is the amount of money the government borrows each year. It is the rate at which the debt grows. (For a more detailed explanation, see “Britain’s Fiscal Cliff.”)

By boasting that the government is cutting the deficit by 25 percent, those politicians are just saying that the debt isn’t growing quiet as fast as it used to be.

Exploding debt is one of the biggest problems Britain and America face. Yet our leaders refuse to be honest about it. For more on this vital subject, see Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry’s recent video “We Don’t Have a Spending Problem.”

America Thrusts Wives and Moms Into Combat

America Thrusts Wives and Moms Into Combat


It’s official: Women are no longer ‘barred’ from the front lines.

Why are liberals so confounded eager to throw women into deadly warfare?

America’s military lifted its ban on women serving in combat positions this week. The move could open more than 230,000 jobs in front-line combat and elite commando units to women.

Thus, the feminist dream to see women viciously tortured and killed alongside men advances.

This is a policy change years in the works. Operating under the no-women-in-combat ban, the military has been expanding the number of “non-combat” positions for some time. That designation has served essentially one purpose: to open up more jobs to women. The line separating combat from non-combat is arbitrary and in flux: The harder the lobbying to expand opportunities for women became, the narrower the definition of “combat” got.

Now, the charade is dropped. And why? Are hoards of women soldiers demanding that combat positions be opened to them? No.

The truth is that for years, while “non-combat” jobs opened to women that were obviously more combat-related, the number of positions available far exceeded the number of women applying for and accepting them. Women don’t want those jobs. Though there exists an exceptional minority, women who enlist are generally more likely to think negatively about the harsh demands of military duty. They tend to view it as a short-term choice, a stepping stone to a better life as a civilian with a family. For example, whereas getting married tends to make a man more stable, solidifying his careerist goals in the service, it has the opposite effect on a woman. Attrition rates are consistently many times higher among women than men. And Army surveys show that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women strongly oppose policies aimed at thrusting women into combat.

So who pushed for this policy change? It was basically an aggressive minority of lobbyists and high-placed feminist civilian leaders, along with a few hard-core careerist military women. These politically correct ideologues are driven to prove that women can do anything men can do—no matter the costs to the military, to America’s security, or to the women themselves.

These costs are exceedingly well documented—and consistently ignored, shouted down or buried. The average woman is almost 5 inches shorter, with nearly 40 fewer pounds of muscle and 6 more pounds of fat, than the average man. She has less than half of his upper-body strength, 20 percent less aerobic capacity, and lighter, brittler bones. She cannot run or jump as far; last as long; grip as well; push, pull, lift or carry as much.

The military has dealt with this by implementing separate conditioning standards for women, by lowering standards generally or eliminating some altogether. Britain’s military is watching America thrusting women into combat and saying it wants no part of it: Officers warn that lowering physical standards is ample proof that female infantry is a bad idea.

Though civilian leaders love to speak of the “new warfare” being a tidy, push-button, technology-driven business, reality has never matched that fiction. War is brutal, physical, demanding and deadly. Politicians can easily overlook that fact in the midst of relative peace. But their eagerness to plunge women into the nightmare of warfare is, in fact, disregard for women masquerading as support for women.

Some female soldiers recognize this—too late—and are not impressed. As one of them said, “Those feminists back home who say we have a right to fight are not out here sitting in the heat, carrying an m16 and a gas mask, spending 16 hours on the road every day and sleeping in fear you’re gonna get gassed.”

Women face greater danger than men in most combat situations. Physical limitations make them likelier to be injured, captured or killed. This reality also endangers the men who are forced to fight alongside them. (Elaine Donnelly says bluntly, “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a 5’2”, 110-pound woman.”) And when women are captured, experience has shown that they are treated far worse—unimaginably worse—than male prisoners of war. Though feminists lobby hard against rape generally, they “bravely” insist that, since women are duty-bound to serve as combat soldiers, rape in war cannot be stopped. Jessica Lynch, a poster child for women in combat, was allegedly beaten, raped and sodomized in captivity.

Shame on those decision-makers who would purposefully subject women to such abuse—only to serve their own twisted ideology!

Consider soberly: The military agency that trains pilots in survival, evasion, resistance and escape as prisoners of war actually includes a component to desensitize male soldiers to the screams of their women cohorts.

Of course, these same men are then expected to treat women soldiers with utmost respect and dignity, in keeping with all of the sensitivity training they have had forced upon them.

In the “brutish,” non-politically correct world of yesteryear, the strong were obligated to serve the weak. A traditional-thinking male seeks to protect a woman. An honorable man shields a female from danger and hurt. This attitude, to the feminist, is contemptible. And on a gender-integrated theater of combat, it introduces a host of complications. A leader is expected to view that woman not as a woman, but simply as a soldier—a grunt whom he must be able to send into harm’s way. In the up-is-down moral climate of today’s military, his reluctance to pitch her into the lion’s den is considered backward!

America’s leaders are trying to convince us that we cannot win our wars without our wives and mothers on the front lines. They see that as a sign of the nation’s progressiveness.

At the same time, when we see Islamic extremists sending women out as suicide bombers, we rightly view that as a sign of their barbarity, and their moral and spiritual depravity.

This is a terrible experiment. The Bible prophesies—in places like Leviticus 26:14-21—that it’s going to fail cataclysmically.

EU Publishes Plan to Regulate Press

EU Publishes Plan to Regulate Press


The European Union wants to be able to regulate the press and even fire errant journalists, according to a report by the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, published January 22. The report is designed to be a guideline to be used in drafting new regulations.

The report says that all nations should set up “independent media councils.” The report states: “Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status.” These councils “should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.”

The High Level Group was set up by European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes last year.

There’s no doubt that the press needs improving. But that regulation must come from a moral public discerning what they choose to buy and read. The idea of the EU regulating what can and can’t be said is scary. As Conservative MP Douglas Carswell said: “This is the sort of mindset that I would expect to find in Iran, not the West. This kooky idea tells us little about the future of press regulation. It does suggest that the European project is ultimately incompatible with the notion of a free society.”

Freedom of speech is not a European value. Authorities are constantly trying to pump their propaganda into schools. Now they want to pump it into the papers too.

Future unrest sparked by mass unemployment in Europe will give EU officials further temptation to regulate what newspapers say.

Europe is on its way to becoming an undemocratic superstate. Restricting the press is an important part of this trend. For more information on this, see our article “Democracy and the Palace of Europe.”

Daniel 11:40 About to Be Fulfilled

Inaugural Address: Decade of War Ending?

President Barack Obama took the oath of office for his second term on Monday. Standing before nearly 700,000 people, he placed his hand on two Bibles and pledged to guide America through an “uncertain” future.

President Obama: “We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully—not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

President Obama: “A decade of war is now ending.”

Despite what President Obama said, America’s war on terrorism remains far from victory. Radical Islam has spread farther than before the war on terrorism began. Iraq, Afghanistan and much of the Middle East bow to Iran—not democracy. America now retreats from war. Its foreign policy consists of nothing more than treaties and alliances. Yet history proves that war is never won by negotiation.

The Bible prophesied of the disappearance of America’s “man of war.” As President Obama calls more troops home, watch the countries we leave behind fall into the hands of our enemies.

To learn more, read “Why We Cannot Win the War Against Terrorism” by Gerald Flurry.