Orgy in Red, White & Blue
The Americans display flags. The Stars and Strips are waving everywhere in the USA. Chauvinism? Dangerous patriotism? Likely not. It is the wish for identity.
Berlin, Germany
November 5, 2001
http://www.taz.deby Bernhard Poetter
The photograph made many cover stories: in the middle of the ruins of the World Trade Center, fire department personnel hoisted the American flag. The picture is achieving a symbolic significance similar to what is likely the most famous photograph from the Second World War, in which the US soldiers put their flag on Iwo Jima. And as always in times of war, the USA is engulfed in a sea of flags: the Stars and Stripes are in front yards and government offices, on cars and t-shirts, hanging from bridges and antennas, in front of schools and churches. The US flag has become a hot selling item.
Viewed from Germany, this orgy in red, white and blue raises misapprehension and mistrust. Evaluations from "embarrassing" to "Hollywood glitz" are issued from a country that has no pet name for its own flag other than "black-red-gold." Any one of us that hangs out a flag is, a the minimum, a rightwing radical. The flag-waving in the USA is regarded by many as a general mobilization by the people. And we know, above all, that "Patriot" is American for an air defense missile.
For good reason the rest of the world accuses the USA of ignorant arrogance when it comes to its judgment of foreign cultures. Yet European and especially the German sensitivities go in the same direction. Because he who flogs the American need to gather round their flag in times of crisis has already committed the first mistake of cultural ignorance: projecting oneself on others.
With little exception, the people who live between New York and Los Angeles do not understand how Europe functions, where dozens of countries with dozens of ethic groups cohabitate in a tight space and who have waged wars for centuries. On the other side, many Europeans cannot comprehend the USA because they gauge by their own standards and they fail to see "culture." As a matter of fact, that is exactly where the central problem lies in the USA: the lack of a binding, obligatory identification by which, with nothing else, one can classify oneself as a citizen of society and of the country. For these cultural roots, Europeans naturally rely on a centuries-old, often negative litany of values: common history, tradition, kinship and religion. The USA is lacking any sufficient measure of theses. When the United States wants to reassure itself in times of crisis, its people reach for - the flag. The fact that many political and cultural symbols of the USA are falsely decoded by Europeans and Germans is all the more surprising as many, especially western, Germans claim to "know the country" [of the United States] because of their Americanophilist socialization and many trips to the USA. Some have practically grown up on the "streets of San Francisco" or in "Dallas."
Separated by an ocean and 300 years of different history, there are also other things that seem unusual to us. Those gun laws look crazy to us - they're a reaction to the oppression of the English king back in colonial times. Same thing with the phobia about a strong central government that levies taxes - one of the reasons for the colonies to shed themselves of England. When the US State Department chastises the Federal Republic because the Scientology cult is under surveillance here, the Germans are surprised - and forget that religious freedom was one of the motivating factors that drove the first white settlers into North America. The high costs of kindergartens and universities there seem unjust to us - and we forget that because of this the individual income tax in the USA is significantly lower. As spoiled Europeans we gnash our teeth before the US immigration agents and let them ask us foolish question - and don't notice that after we arrive there is hardly any more monitoring, while at home we are used to required reports and being ID'd. We laugh about a system in which the candidate with fewer votes wins - and forget that our history of parliamentarism has been in existence for only half the last century, that we were plunged into barbarism against which our mothers and fathers had to defend themselves and from which the Americans had to liberate us. Finally, we shake our heads at the American fixation on economic matters. We don't see that in a nation without a close social network, everybody has to fight to keep their head above water - by hook or by crook.
"Why don't the Americans change that?" we ask. That is not so often meant to begin a discussion as it is a purely theoretical observation. We are so sure that our system which is the best - just like the Americans are. They are just as stubborn and irreconcilably resigned to the fact that they have the best society on earth. In times of crisis they don't doubt in their economic system, their bankrupt social state or their gun laws, nor in the social fabric that holds the USA together. But what is that [fabric]? "The business of America is business," said President Calvin Coolidge in 1925. As a matter of fact, the endeavor for profit wends its way through American society like a common thread. But a national identity does not arise as a result of the greatest profit nor from the highest stocks; on the contrary, those increase the differences between the rich and the poor. US trend researcher Jeremy Rifkin has pointed out that the market economy can only function if identity and trust first exist in society. That means nation-building must come before profit.
The "American Spirit" is not founded on tradition, politics or economy. The cohesiveness of the USA is found in other forms at which the Europeans would rather turn up their noses: the Hollywood culture machine creates productions that show an American (and recently a globalized) identity. Because he recognized the power pictures have for politics, Senator McCarthy took an extra hard look at Hollywood in his search for "un-American activities" back in the 1950s. But the culture industries of populism, life-style and sports also supply the USA with the myths and dreams required for national consciousness. The red, white and blue glue is also found uniformly in schools and on highways, in the ever more monotonous architecture of the cities and in McDonald's branches, which offer standardized hamburgers in Florida that look the same as they do in Alaska.
What really holds the patriotism of the country together is a continent full of individualists. The Star Spangled Banner is one of the less visible (and in the National Anthem less audible) symbols of the unity of 278 million people, who could hardly be more different in terms of interests, origin, class, race or religion. The flag is the generally acknowledged symbol of a civil religion with which the USA's political elite state their way of doing business, thus assuring themselves of popular agreement. The saints of this secular country is the community. Their symbol is the Flag. Those who publicly burn it destroy what is more than just fabric for most American, they are attacking the unity of the entire country. Nevertheless, burning the flag is permitted by the Supreme Court as freedom of speech.
Naturally US military and politician use the flag for narrow-minded shows of patriotism. In the USA, the focus on one's own society often turns into a dance around the Golden Calf and intentionally and unintentionally clouds problems in one's own country and in the world. Today the words of Heiner Geissler apply equally on both sides of the Atlantic, "When the flag flies, the mind follows the call the bugle." Nevertheless the flag-bearing Americans these days strive for something more than chauvinism and the yearning for retribution. The Star Spangled Banner is a characteristic trait, it is a wish and a will, as shown by both critics and renegade conservatives: in "Easy Rider" Peter Fonda played a flipped-out hippie who wore a flag on his motorcycle helmet and on his gas tank. Showing the flag this way does not at all translate into German. Imagine Dieter Kunzelmann and Kommune 1 decked out in black, red and gold.
The USA and Scientology
In the Name of Freedom
Washington, USA
May 11, 2001
taz, translated from
Le Monde diplomatique Nr. 6443 of May 11, 2001
into German by Bodo SchulzeA dispute over religious freedom is poisoning diplomatic relations between Washington and Europe. In the name of individual rights, the United States grants immunity from prosecution to groups which portray themselves as minority faiths and whose activities courts have repeatedly objected to. These cults, which have developed from a brew of the "new right," neoconservatism and anti-communism, seek to hammer the ultraliberal ideology and its values into the heads of the people and proclaim themselves to be the common binding foundation for all societies.
by Bruno Fouchereau, Journalist
Some time back the cult issue was regarded solely as a "unsettling social phenomenon," but in recent years it has grown into an "urgent problem of public safety." The primary cause of this re-evaluation lay in several spectacular events: the mass suicides of the Solar Templists in 1994 and 1995, the poison gas attack by the Aum sect in the Tokyo subway of March 1995, and the collective suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult in Los Angeles in 1999. France, Belgium, Spain and Germany subsequently tightened up their prosecution arrangements. In the majority of these cases the legislators' decision was based on parliamentary committees of inquiry into the risk from certain groups and into the methods of brainwashing which their members were subjected to. The leading roles in stepping up state procedure against these cults were played by France and Germany.
Yet practically everywhere in the European countries, official government offices were installed in order to observe the cult scene. In 1996, France passed a series of laws for stronger protection of psychically dependent people. The administration under Minister President Lionel Jospin set up an Interministerial Mission to Combat Cult Presence (MILS) under the leadership of Alain Vivien. In Germany a number of measures were taken, mainly against the Scientology Organization. In connection with a report of the Federal-States work group on Scientology, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution explicitly warned the federal government and the people about this cult. Bavaria even decided on a 15-point list of measures which included monitoring contact with Scientology by civil service applicants. (1) In view of these stepped-up procedures in Europe, all observers of the scene reckoned on a counter-offensive from the cult-multi[national]s, who in France alone possess an estimated fortune of several hundred million franks. The attack came from the United States. (2)
On January 27, 1997 the administration in Washington solemnly condemned Germany's measures against the Scientology organization. Several days later the U.S. State Department published its "Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor" (BDHRL)(3) annual report on the world human rights situation. In it Germany was vigorously attacked and put on the list of countries which abused human rights, right behind China. The report was timed so as to support the Scientology Organization's publicity campaign, which included organizing demonstrations in various countries, putting protest advertisements into the international press and calling upon the EU Human Rights Commission. In order to "calm tempers," the U.S. State Department issued a statement in March 1997 which said, "We did criticize the Germans, but we do not support the Scientology campaign against Germany." This statement was the least that could have been expected from the U.S. administration.
When Congress passed a new law on religious freedom in the world, the BDHRL established a new department, the "Office of International Religious Freedom." With a fully empowered ambassador at the top who had five state department officials under him, the new group has a representative in each U.S. embassy. The first chief of the agency was named Robert A. Seiple, an ex-Marine whose favorite saying was, "The individual rights of freedom apply everywhere because they are a gift from God." (4) Seiple told the Naples Daily News (5) how very much his faith had helped him in all his personal tribulations, namely in his 300 combat missions in Vietnam where he served as an officer in the Marine infantry.
However Seiple did not obtain his office on account of his war experiences. For eleven years he sat at the head of ultraconservative World Vision Inc., a heavily financed Christian welfare association with millions of members all over the world, which finances development projects in Latin America and Asia. (6) In September 1998, the first report of the "Office of International Religious Freedom" appeared (7). In it France, Germany, Austria and Belgium were accused of serious violations against religious freedom. Even the report of the French parliamentary committee of inquiry of 1995 was regarded as persecution in blind rage. The representatives were accused of pursuing a politic of religious alienation insofar as the organizations named in the report were said to be prosecuted not for any illegal activity, but solely because of their beliefs.
At the invitation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the sub-organization of the OSCE "Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights" (ODIHR) arranged a seminar in Vienna on March 22, 1999 in which the French sect politic was vehemently attacked. In a natural progression of the U.S. State Department's criticism, the American diplomats and senators took on the role of accuser. The situation almost led to a diplomatic debacle. A similar scenario was staged in a hearing by the "Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe," an independent U.S. federal agency with its headquarters in Washington. Three witnesses were invited who revealed terrible things: they said that France was on its way to becoming a new Vichy-state, that the French Minister President was under the influence of anti-religious organizations, and that children were being taken from their parents. The report of the hearing, published in June 1999, demonstrated what a powerful concern the U.S. American Senators had for basic rights in Europe. (9) For instance, they accused the French government of misapplying the tax law as an instrument of a new Inquisition.
The French anti-cult agency MILS and the Parisian Foreign Ministry, based on an analysis of the financial structure and the money flows of the Scientology Organization, reported that they were clearly dealing with a private commercial corporation which raked in huge profits and which was therefore properly subject to the tax law. The parliamentary report of inquiry, on which lawyers, sect specialists and the police had cooperated, listed 180 allegedly religious organizations which, after thorough investigation, could be classified as totalitarian because they used psychological terrorism to keep their adherents in line. Court judgments were in effect against most of these organizations. Furthermore, the French administration took the effort to clear away untruths and misunderstandings. For instance France had been accused of refusing to acknowledge some minority groups as religion. The reality of the situation, based on a 1905 law which mandates the separation of church and state, is that France does not acknowledge religion for any group at all.
But despite all those efforts, the dialogue remained pointless. The annual report, published September 9, 1999 by the U.S. Office for International Religious Freedom, attacked the European countries more vehemently than ever before. On December 8, Hubert Védrine, the French Foreign Minister, wrote to his American colleague Madeleine Albright, "The act of your government baselessly making an issue out of the methods of operation of French government agencies while high officials of your and my administrations have dialogue in process throws a shadow on the very promising outcome of those discussions." Shortly thereafter the diplomatic dialogue on the issue was broken off and, to date, has never again been taken up. The last U.S. State Department report, published March 2 of this year, indeed took into account the French laws of 1901 and 1905, silently clearing away their past mistakes, but again made accusations as caustic as any before.
Key figures and concerted actions
Taken by themselves, the history and the Constitution of the United States do not explain why the U.S. government so persistently supports various cults. As previously mentioned, the "Office for International Religious Freedom," a part of the "Office for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor," resides in the U.S. State Department. In addition to that there is a "Commission for Religious Freedom" which was founded in Washington by members of the U.S. Congress. On top of that comes thirdly the "United States Commission for Religious Freedom," which reports directly to the White House. According to information from its director, Steven T. McFarland, his organization perceives itself as a "watchdog" insofar as it "monitors the work of the other commissions so that they do not stray from the right path."
To the question of whether he had read the report of the French National Assembly, Steve T. McFarland had to say no, and this was because the French language was not a strong point with him, as he added apologetically. Neither did the report from the MILS French anti-cult agency, nor the information from the French Foreign Ministry nor the notes from the French Embassy in Washington find a readership in the government offices responsible. All officials who could be reached in these three agencies had to admit that they had not read these texts, neither the originals nor the translations. McFarland excused this with the reassurance that he regarded as absolutely credible the information which had been forwarded to him from the American intelligence service, the embassy in Paris, academic experts and the non-governmental organizations critical of France. When he was confronted with a series of despatches from the American Embassy in Madrid (10) from which it could be clearly seen that the "Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor" had intervened in Spain for the purpose of delaying a magistrate's investigative proceeding against the Scientology organization, McFarland refused to make any comment.
The names of the intelligence service agents from whom the U.S. commission culled its information could not be discovered for obvious reasons. A glance at the internet page of the U.S. Embassy in Paris was therefore all the more informative. There, for one example, the services of lawyer Kay Gaejens were recommended, who is himself a professed member of the Scientology Organization. And when the National Assembly conducted a public hearing in February 2001 about the problems of psychological manipulation techniques, the U.S. Embassy, although not invited, sent two of its staff in the company of a leading member of the French Scientology Organization. Also questions are posed about the witnesses who appeared in support of the U.S. commission. The leader of the Vienna seminar of March 1999 was none other than Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne, one of the founders of the Catholic fundamentalist "Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni"(11), which maintains close contact with the neo-fascist "Travail Famille Propriété" cult in France. Massimo Introvigne's words are to be found in numerous publications of the Scientology Organization, and he appeared as a witness for them at a trial in Lyon.
Another key figure is Willy Fautré, who wears the badge of chairman of the Belgian "Droit de lHomme sans Frontière" organization, a name which should not be mistakenly assumed to be acknowledged by the International Federal of Human Rights Associations. For a long time Fautré was a correspondent for the "News Network International," a U.S. American press agency which is known for its militant anti-communism and its opposition to abortion. In addition to that Fautré is a member of the Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (HFHR), whose publications are cited in detail in the U.S. commissions' reports.
The last crown witness mentioned in the alleged violations against religious freedom by the French government is Pastor Louis Démeo of the "Institut Théologique de Nîmes." This institute is part of the "Greater Grace" cult, whose headquarters in in Baltimore, Maryland. Greater Grace commands over 3,000 mission branches in Latin America, several hundred in Africa and a handful in eastern Europe. the Institute of Nîmes functions as a staging platform for the eastern European countries. Greater Grace, whose methods have been met with vehement protest even in the United States, can effortlessly be described as a "traveling companion" of the Scientology Organization.
Stacy Brooks, chairman of the Lisa McPherson Trust (12), the most important U.S. American aid organization for Scientology victims, was herself a member of the organization for 15 years. She worked as an official for David Miscavige, Hubbard's heir and currently the Scientology guru. She remembers the director of Greater Grace, George Robertson, very well, "He is in close contact with the managers in Scientology. When the cult cannot itself intervene in certain matters because of image problems, it asks Robertson for help. He is their most important liaison with the Evangelical movement." It was under his management that Greater Grace and Scientology were able to sue and ruin the Cult Awareness Network, founded in 1970 - and then buy it up. (13)
The influence which the Scientology movement and its adepts are able to exert in the USA is also demonstrated under an entirely different circumstance. Since 1993, the cult has been acknowledged by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a religious community, thereby giving it tax exemption. For 25 years that office had rejected all applications from Scientology, and this had been legally validated by all the U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court. The change of mood in 1993 gave the Scientology organization access to millions in savings and provided it with a PR instrument to the extent that it gained access to the U.S. government.
The New York Times revealed the details of this turn-about in 1997. According to that paper Scientology had waged a regular war against the tax agency, including on the legal level by bogging down the agency with over fifty law suits. But that was not enough. They also hired detectives to spy on the private lives of high officials in the tax agency. One of these private investigators told the New York Times in March 1997 that he worked for Scientology for 18 months between 1990 and 1992. From his office in Maryland he gathered information on officers who missed appointments, who drank too much, or who maintained extra-marital affairs. Tax exemption occurred at the explicit instruction of the director of the income tax department, circumventing the normal decision-making channels.
Annual profits of 300 million dollars, sophisticated techniques of intimidation and infiltration and finally the IRS acknowledgment as a religions community brought the Scientology Organization influence at the highest decision levels of the U.S. American state. Stephen A. Kent of the sociological institute of the University of Alberta, Canada investigated the lobbying strategies of various cults and religious groups in Washington. His detailed analysis showed the degree to which the Scientologists - as did the Moon cult before them - exerted influence upon members of the House, the Senate and the White House. To that end the Scientology Organization hired a public relations corporation which specialized in lobby work for which it received 725,000 and 420,000 dollars in 1997 and 1998 respectively.
A number of actors and actresses, invariable Scientology members, donated over 70,000 dollars to Hillary Clinton for her senatorial election campaign; Tom Cruise handed over 5,000 dollars to Albert Gore, and John Travolta together with other Scientologists, arranged a banquet the proceeds of which went to the Democratic Party - admission: 25,000 dollars. Finally, an attorney for the Scientologists donated 20,000 dollars to the democratic election. The influence of the Moon cult has also grown remarkably. Since just recently Democrat Hillary Clinton's sneering comments have been permitted to appear weekly in the conservative and widely-distributed Washington Time, which belongs to the Moon cult.
To all appearances the Moon cult and the Scientology Organization have been making arrangements together for a long time. In any case, since the mid-1990s both organizations have coordinated their efforts at religious freedom in the USA and in Europe. Their joint operation in eastern Europe is documented, published on the internet, by an exchange of letters between the managements of the Moon cult and the Scientology Organization. This partnership has also more or less officially included other cults, and Moon and Scientology have also found support for some time in the fundamentalist Protestants in the USA. For instance several ultra-conservative senators and the U.S. State Department have warmly received a number of Moon greats as well as guru Sri Chinmoy of a cult by the same name. The Institute, whose headquarters in Washington is located right next to the White House, announces that it embraces an "integralistic" Catholicism and is involved in promoting regard for the rights of the Scientology Organization, the Moon cult, and other so-called "minority religions" in Europe.
Finally the ultra-conservative, anti-gay and anti-abortion "Institute on Religion and Democracy"(IRD)(15) is also mentioned, which for twenty years has been making appearances for fundamentalist-Protestant reform of democratic institutions all over the world. Therefore it is not surprising that IRD President Diane L. Knippers sits in the choir of France-slanderers, "France is a model for the other European democracies. It absolutely has to give up its anti-religion politics and reinstate the guarantee to practice belief." In the very next sentence she then involuntarily reveals what binds together these, at first glance, very diverse groups and cults, "Today we are working for religious freedom for the same reason as people once did against communism. A human society cannot develop if it lives in a lie. Atheism and communism can only produce lies. Spirituality is a guarantee of civilization because spirituality and faith produce honest people. Without honesty there is no trade, and without trade no civilization." [Note: all quotes in this article are non-literal quotes. They have been taken from English to French to German back to English.]
The fight for "spiritualization of the world" serves the same purpose as those of the lobby groups which are attempting to put American values into effect on the path to globalization. (16) In globalizing markets and American values, according to the "Institute on Religion and Democracy," the United States uses the Bible. This mystic-imperialistic worldview is shared by all fundamentalist groups in the USA: they feel they make up the ideological framework of all forces which have the urge to champion religious freedom. Just to name two examples: John R. Bolton, member of the U.S. Commission for Religious Freedom, was previously the vice president of the ultraliberal "American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research." In the old Bush administration, Bolton served in the President's office as an advisor for international trade issues. Nina Shea, also a member of this commission, reported, "Our primary goal consists of worldwide implementation of the new liberal order."
This logic of domination, whose beginnings go back to the Reagan administration in the early 1980s and which one could almost describe as "interactive," is being emphasized in a concurrent attempt to implement universally valid standards of law. By this, market globalization is to be brought to closure. But there is still resistance against it. Among other places, that goes for the market of education where the cults and communications groups oppose a common enemy: a basic ideological position which has its historical roots in France - the principle of laicism. The attacks on French cult politics is therefore directed at something much more basic: the laic character of the French Republic.
What the cults intend to gain in this battle is obvious. If they succeed in getting their foot inside the door of European education, when they gain the right to operate their own schools, as they have in the United States, without any state control, then they will have assured themselves of a stable and comprehensive base of recruitment. These institutions would then be directly involved in the coining of the culture and the psychology of the individual.
With the background of this cultural-political goal one can indeed not think of a standard united front made up of corporations from the communications industry, but clearly far-reaching connections are evident with the producers of the programs and their content in the film and computer industry. It is known that ABC, CNN and associates maintain close contact with the fundamentalist lobby groups.
In closing, several remarkable coincidences are pointed out: Bill Gates' first biographer, David Ichbia, is a Scientologist; the same goes for Guy Jensen, one of his closest staff members, and "Executive Software," a key corporation of the Microsoft empire, openly describes itself as oriented to Scientology. Who knows: maybe next Big Brother will come to us in our homes via the video screen.
Footnotes (1) See www.innenministerium.bayern.de/scientology/. (2) This is not particularly surprising, as 90 percent of cults come from the USA and have their headquarters there. (3) The agency, founded in 1990, works with all U.S. intelligence agencies and has the mission of assessing the situation of democracy and rights of freedom in all the countries of the world. It produces reports by subject and country for the administration and also does work for the House and the Senate. (4) Interview with the author. (5) Naples Daily News of January 1999 (Naples, Florida), quoted from Stephen A. Kent, "Consultation on Religious Persecutions as a US Policy Issue", Trinity College, Hartford/Connecticut. (6) Also the publications of the "Interhemispheric Ressource Center" and the December issue of the World Vission magazine of 1991. See also http://www.pir.org/gw/wv.txt. (7) The report of the "Commission of International Religious Freedom" is found onwww.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/drl_reports.html. (8) The "Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights" was founded in 1990, an application "Charta von Paris fuer ein neues Europa," as a sub-organization of the OSCE in order to monitor the elections in Europe. In addition, it also took on the goal of preventing conflicts in its list of missions at the Budapest summit of 1994. Influenced by former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini and Alfonse dAmato, the ODIHR is also involved in issues of religious freedom (http://www.osce.org/odihr/index.php3). (9) Hearing on the subject of "Religious Freedom in Western Europe: Religious Minorities and Growing Government Intolerance", Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, June 8, 1999, http://www.csce.gov/hearings_briefings.cfm. (10) The author obtained copies of this telex from an internet page which received the U.S. despatches by anonymous mail, see http://parishioner.org/spain.html. (11) See http://www.cesnur.org/. (12) See http://www.lisatrust.net/. (13) See the Los Angeles Times, September 9, 1999 (http://www.latimes.com/). (14) See http://www.religionandpolicy.org/. (15) See http://www.ird-renew.org/. (16) Stephen A. Kent, "The French and German versus American Debate over, New Religions', Scientology, and Human Rights", Marburg Journal of Religion 6 (1), Januar 2001, http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/kent2.html.Le Monde diplomatique Nr. 6443 vom 11.5.2001, Seite 1,20-21, 90 Documentation, Bruno Fouchereau
http://www.taz.de
"What _We_ Can Do about the Drug Problem"
by President Bill Clinton and the editors of Scientology's "Freiheit" magazine[Comments in brackets -- Here's Bill Clinton's article for Scientology's "Freiheit" magazine, 2 pages. The primary reason it is posted here is because of denials that it existed at all, and that if it did, that it created any kind of endorsement by the President for Scientology. It is important that the different contexts and format be available for comparison so that the reader can make up his or her own mind as to whether President Clinton was actually lending his endorsement to a format which obviously favors Scientology. This magazine was distributed by Scientology in the courtroom in November 1997 in Germany. Before this article was printed in the German "Freiheit," it was also printed in the Swiss "Freiheit" and the French "Liberté," spanning a period of six months. ]
[This is a snip from the German issue of Freiheit.]
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
What we can do about the drug problem
[picture of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C.]
An article from BILL CLINTON,
President of the United States of America,
exclusive for FREIHEIT[Next to a picture of CLINTON]
Since the 1980s, in the primary issues of FREIHEIT in the United States, as well has in numerous special issues the problem has been investigated of legal and illegal drugs in America and that has been reported in the ongoing series "The Drugging of America." Huge sums of money are expended in the "war against drugs." But the bitter reality of the people who have been destroyed by drug misuse requires that we look for effective solutions to the problem. And we have found the most effective solutions in the programs which are conducted and supported by the Scientology Church. In order to initiate the discussion about the decrease of drug distribution, FREIHEIT has recently asked a number of leading American politicians to present their personal view on this vital problem.The following article was put at FREIHEIT's disposal by President Clinton and was originally published in the U.S. edition of November 1996. Although Germany and the USA differ in various views, they are the same in the effects of drugs on society throughout the entire world, they are the same on illiteracy, the rising crime rate and irresponsibility. Therefore we also share the views of President Clinton with our German readers.
[The above was from the German Freiheit. The following is from the Swiss issue of Freiheit:]
*******Begin White on dark printing***********
- VIEWPOINT -What we can do regarding the drug problem
Exclusive for Freiheit
*******Ende White on dark printing***********
[passportpicture BC, no white house]FROM BILL CLINTON
President of the United States of America
Special article for "Freiheit"Since the 1980s, the American main issue of FREIHEIT (Freedom) has been researching and reporting on the problem of legal and illegal drugs in articles like "America on Drugs" and numerous others.
Huge sums have been expended on the "War against Drugs." The bitter reality of life, which is destroyed from the misuse of drugs, forces us to look for effective solutions. Effective solutions can [be] found in the programs which are promoted by the Scientology Church.
The following article was put at FREIHEIT's disposal by President Clinton for the purpose of expressing his views on this central theme. The article , which was first published in the U.S. edition FREEDOM in November 1996, appears here for the first time in German for FREIHEIT's readers in Switzerland.
Then it starts with: Drugs are as much a threat to our security as any outside enemy is today...[The above was the Swiss introduction. Next is the President's contribution to Scientology, and below the next set of comments are the President's words as he addressed them to General McCaffrey.]
---
Drugs are as much a threat to our security as any outside enemy is today. They are a leading cause of crime and violence. They add literally billions of dollars to health care costs every year. There is a new CDC report that says that drugs are the cause of at least half of all the new HIV infections in the United States. And drugs are imperiling our nation's most precious resource, our children.
As I said in the State of the Union, if we ever expect to reduce crime and violence in our country to the low level that would make it the exception rather than the rule, we have to reduce the drug problem. We know it is a difficult battle. We know that overall drug use and crime are down in every segment of our society except one - our young people. And that makes the battle more difficult and more important.
The glamorization of drugs and violence is a big reason for this. That's why I worked so hard for the V-chip and the television rating system. That's why we need to stop the glorification of drugs in our popular culture. And for those who say we should throw in the towel and just make drugs legal I say, not on my watch. That would be a mistake.
Over the last two decades we have made significant progress in this effort. Just in 1979, more than 22 million Americans used illegal drugs. Five million used cocaine. Today less than 12 million Americans are regular drug users, and the number of cocaine users has dropped 30 percent in the past three years. But the problem is still too great, and again, it is perplexing and troubling as it affects our juvenile population.
In the last three years we have tried to take many concrete steps to protect our children and their future. We're working to get hard-core drug users off the street, to make sure they can't commit crimes, and to get them into treatment. We're bringing prevention to our schools by teaching our children that drugs are wrong, illegal, and dangerous. We've put more police on the street, and that is a major cause of the decline in the crime rate.
Earlier this year I signed a directive requiring drug testing of federal arrestees. We are doing all we can to stop drugs at their source, before they get to our borders.
But I know that we have to do more - as does Barry McCaffrey, the Director of National Drug Control Policy. There's no one more capable to lead this effort than General McCaffrey. He has always taken a comprehensive view towards problem solving, and he knows that our efforts in the struggle against drugs will require a combination of treatment, prevention, education, enforcement and interdiction.
But he cannot do it alone.
He's going to need a larger force than he has ever commanded before indeed, a larger force than he and his colleagues who have come from the Pentagon to join him today have ever commanded before. He's going to need every American doing his or her part if we are going to succeed.
It means with our families, with parents talking firmly and clearly with their children; with our communities, our houses of worship, our schools, our employers, our national and community groups. We must ensure that our parents, our teachers and all Americans send a strong message to our children that drugs are wrong, drugs are illegal and drugs can kill you. The fight against drugs must, in the end, be a citizens campaign because every citizen has a direct stake in the outcome.
As I have said many times in different contexts, when we are divided as a country we defeat ourselves, but when America is united we never lose. I believe we can be united in this cause, and I believe we can win this great enduring struggle for our character, our soul, and the future of our children.
FREIHEIT 49
[In order to fully appeciate the layout of the article, a scan is provided in which you can see the fact that President Clinton's speech is overshadowed by the words of the Scientology editors.
Scan of original German 1
Scan of original German 2
As of June 21, 2000, proof that the above was actually the words of Clinton can be seen if you go to http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/3/6/2.text.1 It can be seen that the above article was specially tailored for an "exclusive" article for Freiheit magazine from a presidential speech available at that url, and cited here as a publicly available government document. There has been unsubstantiated speculation as to whether Freiheit was authorized to use the President's words in connection with its promotion of Scientology's drug program (for which Scientology charges more than a thousand dollars and which has never been proven to work), but due to lack of any proof to the contrary and unless President Clinton tells us otherwise, no evidence has been found which would refute Freiheit's "exclusive" claim about this article. In addition, it has been stated, erroneously, that the article was written exclusively for Freiheit by Clinton, but that is obviously not the case.
Comment -- it's strange how a little fundamentalist Christian church in New York can lose its tax exemption for printing a negative comment about President Clinton during an election. It's also odd that when Scientology Hamburg had construction permit difficulties with the city of Hamburg last December, the U.S. State Department intervened on Scientology's behalf (See 991227d.htm.) But an obviously public endorsement for Scientology, like the above, using his picture, name and the capitol of the United States has gone unnoticed.]
Source of the following: http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1996/3/6/2.text.1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 6, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR
GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY
AS DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
The Roosevelt Room
10:45 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. I want to
say a special word of welcome to Mrs. Jill McCaffrey, and to all of
General McCaffrey's family who are here. To Attorney General Reno
and Secretary Shalala, and our FBI Director Louis Freeh. To
Senator Biden and Congressman Zeliff, and to all the distinguished
members of the government and the military who are here.
I would like to begin with a simple and heartfelt thank
you to General McCaffrey for accepting this call to lead our
nation's battle against drugs. Service to our country runs in his
family. In fact, we have three generations of McCaffrey service in
attendance here today, as you saw standing with me.
The General's father, Bill McCaffrey, who is here with
his wife Mary, is a retired Lt. General who saw combat in World War
II, Korea, and Vietnam. Two of his three children are pursuing
careers in the military. His son, who is also here, drove all night
from Fort Bragg, which is a testimony to the fact, General, that the
physical training is still adequate to the task. (Laughter.) He is
an Army Captain stationed at Fort Polk in Louisiana. His daughter,
Tara, is an Army National Guard nurse. His other daughter, Amy, is
a graduate student at Central Washington College.
The McCaffrey family is a shining example of what is
right with America. We are fortunate to have their service and
their presence here today.
General McCaffrey has faced down many threats to
America's security, from guerrilla warfare in the jungles of Vietnam
to the unprecedented ground war in the sands of Desert Storm. Now
he faces a more insidious, but no less formidable enemy in illegal
drugs.
Drugs are as much a threat to our security as any
outside enemy is today. They are a leading cause of crime and
violence. They add literally billions of dollars to health care
costs every year. There is a new CDC report that says that drugs
are the cause of at least half -- one half -- of all the new HIV
infections in the United States. And drugs are imperiling our
nation's most precious resource, our children.
As I said in the State of the Union, if we ever expect
to reduce crime and violence in our country to the low level that
would make it the exception rather than the rule, we have to reduce
the drug problem. We know it is a difficult battle. We know that
overall drug use and crime are down in every segment of our society
except one -- our young people. And that makes the battle more
difficult and more important.
The glamorization of drugs and violence is a big reason
for this. That's why I worked so hard for the V-chip and the
television rating system. That's why we need to stop the
glorification of drugs in our popular culture. And for those who say
we should throw in the towel and just make drugs legal, I say, not
on my watch. I don't believe in that. That would be a mistake.
Over the last two decades we have made significant
progress in this effort. Just in 1979, more than 22 million
Americans used illegal drugs. Five million used cocaine. Today
less than 12 million Americans are regular drug users, and the
number of cocaine users has dropped 30 percent in the past three
years. But the problem is still too great, and I say again, it is
perplexing and troubling as it affects our juvenile population.
Drug use among people 18 to 34 is down. Casual drug use among
people under 18 is up. That may be why the crime rate is down
overall in our country, but random violence among people under 18 --
our children and our future -- is still up.
Tomorrow General McCaffrey and I will have the
opportunity to address this, along with others in the
administration, at our National Conference on Youth and Violence.
And this is a good way to kick it off, with his service.
In the last three years we have tried to take many
concrete steps to protect our children and their future. We're
working to get hard-core drug users off the street, to make sure
they can't commit crimes, and to get them into treatment. We're
bringing drug prevention to our schools by teaching our children
that drugs are wrong, illegal, and dangerous. We've put more police
on the street, and that is a major cause of the decline in the crime
rate.
Two months ago I signed a directive requiring drug
testing of federal arrestees. We are doing all we can to stop drugs
at their source, before they get to our borders. Just yesterday our
U.S. Customs officials began seizing all imports of the sedative
Rohypnol, which has been associated of late with date rape.
But General McCaffrey and all of us know that we have
to do more. We have to do much more. There's no one more capable
to lead this effort than Barry McCaffrey. He is America's most
highly decorated combat veteran. He earned two Distinguished
Service Cross Awards for extraordinary valor in Vietnam. He also
earned two Silver Stars for heroism and three Purple Hearts. He
served two tours in Vietnam, where he was severely wounded by enemy
gunfire. He led the now famous left hook maneuver that crushed the
Iraqi army in Desert Storm. And for the last two years he's been on
the front lines of our efforts to stop drugs at their source in his
role as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command
based in Panama.
As part of our counter-narcotics team, he displayed
decisive leadership in strengthening the efforts in Latin America,
including forming one of the most successful international
coalitions against drugs that has ever existed in that region. In
addition to his heroism on the battlefield, General McCaffrey has
distinguished himself as a man of ideas -- a brilliant man of ideas,
especially the one that Justice Ginsburg thought so much of that she
mentioned a few moments ago.
He has always taken a comprehensive view towards
problem solving, and he knows that our efforts in the struggle
against drugs will require a combination of treatment, prevention,
education, enforcement and interdiction. Teamwork and coalition
building are not just words to him, he has done it. Teamwork and
coalition building literally saved his life and the lives of his
soldiers. There is no doubt that he has the talent, the courage and
the vision to take up this fight.
But he cannot do it alone. As I said in the State of
the Union, he's going to need a larger force than he has ever
commanded before -- indeed, a larger force than he and his
colleagues who have come from the Pentagon to join him today have
ever commanded before. He's going to need every American doing his
or her part if we are going to succeed. It means that we have to
begin with parents talking firmly and clearly with their children;
with our communities, our houses of worship, our schools,
our employers, our national and community groups. The fight against
drugs must, in the end, be a citizens campaign because every citizen
has a direct stake in the outcome.
General, I want you to have the tools you need. For
the last three years I have challenged Congress to do its part. In
each of those years Congress has appropriated less than I asked for
counter-narcotics efforts in the Department of Defense and other
agencies. America must never send its troops into battle without
adequate resources to get the job done.
That's why, today, I am directing General McCaffrey to
take the first step to make sure that we are adequately armed to
fight this battle. As your first act of duty I direct you to
prepare a plan to amend the 1996 Fiscal Year budget through
reallocating $250 million from the Department of Defense budget so
that it can be added to our counter-narcotics efforts. I will
submit the plan to Congress this month. I'm also directing you to
examine the Fiscal Year '97 budget to determine if a similar
reallocation is needed.
We have to get after this. We have to get General
McCaffrey off to a good start. I believe that he will get our
country off to a good start. Our national security, the well-being
of our children are at stake. We can create a safer, more drug-free
society. We can do this if we work together.
As I have said many times in different contexts, when
we are divided as a country we defeat ourselves, but when America is
united we never lose. I believe Barry McCaffrey will help to unite
America, and I believe he will help us to win this great and
enduring struggle for our character, our soul, and the future of our
children.
Thank you again, General McCaffrey, for laying down
your four stars to reach for the stars. We appreciate you. Your
country is grateful. And I ask you now to come and say what's on
your mind. (Applause.)
GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Mr. President, thank you for those
enormously moving words. I must tell you bluntly that although, as
you know, it was very painful for me to leave the U.S. Army, which
I've been part of since age 17, some 36 years ago I took the first
oath of office on the plains at West Point -- I am proud to be part
of this effort and proud to serve in your administration, dealing
with these enormous threats to the American people.
And I also need to tell you that this is probably the
best day of my mother's life. (Laughter.) You know, you give up
trying to impress your wife after a few years. (Laughter.) They
know only too much about you. But mother finally knew I was doing
okay when a year ago I was decorated by the French government with a
high honor, which is a great source of pride to me, over in the
French Embassy here in Washington. And I must admit, though, the
Ambassador kissed me on both cheeks during that presentation.
(Laughter.) I think we've now gotten a step up from that.
I do thank you, and I will give you every amount of
energy and good judgment and cooperation with your officers of
government that I can muster.
Justice Ginsburg, thank you. It was a tremendous honor
for you -- to have you participate in the ceremony, officiate and
administer the oath of office, and it adds a note of legitimacy to
underscore that we understand that this struggle has to be carried
out with absolute respect for the law and an understanding on our
own constitutional liberties that make us the great democracy we
are. So I thank you for being here.
I'd really be remiss if I didn't note the leadership
role that Congress has played. The President has already announced
that this war has been going on a long time. There's been a lot of
creative energy. And certainly, Senator Biden, sir, you and your
colleagues on the committee -- Senator Hatch, in particular --
played an enormous role in putting together not only the office
which I now am charged with running, but also understanding the
dilemma and providing the leadership required. And I thank you for
being here in particular.
Congressman Zeliff and Congressman Rangel just came by
to make a special visit to the White House, which I very much
appreciate. The two of you have played an enormously important
role, and I look forward to your wisdom and your cooperation in this
effort. The President told me there would be no time out for a year
from this effort. This is a bipartisan issue and I look forward to
working in cooperation with you.
Secretary and Attorney General Reno, I thank you for
being here. And some of the senior officials of law enforcement of
our government -- Judge Freeh, thank you for your presence; and, in
particular, Director Constantine -- Administrator Constantine. A
tremendous police officer, a man of great integrity and good
judgement, and I appreciate your presence here today. Under
Secretary of the Army Joe Reeder, a friend, I thank you for
participating today also.
Let me also, if I may note, that this is going to be
not my struggle, but our struggle. The President has told me to
work in cooperation with the senior office of government, and I
particularly appreciate Secretary Shalala being here. And from
State, Timothy Worth, I thank you, sir. You've been a great friend
and mentor and you've been a great architect of this international
coalition that we've worked on. Your presence means a lot to us.
I don't see Under Secretary Walt Slocombe, a good
friend, who has been such an important part of the defense effort.
And, certainly, Admiral Bob Kramek, the absolutely brilliant
Commandant of the Coast Guard who has been the interdiction
coordinator and has done a lot of the work in building our current
Andean Ridge and Caribbean strategies. I thank you, Bob, for being
here today.
Let me also thank some of the White House team that put
all this together. Leon Panetta, sir, you have pulled together all
the assets we needed to get me launched, and I thank you for your
support. Mack McLarty, you've been such a tremendous influence in
the Latin American region in general. I thank you for your
friendship. Dick Clark, Rahm Emanuel, Tracy Thorton, Elaine
Kamarck, Jack Quinn, Kitty Higgins -- all of you who have come
together to assemble the tools we think we needed to do our job.
There are three very important distinguished guests
here today. Vic Oboyskie, Bob Scully and Jim Pasco represent the
thousands of police officers and officials across the nation. This
whole effort in the drug menace clearly includes absolute support
and respect for the law and the police officials who are charged
with enforcing it. And so I appreciate your presence today and look
forward to working with you.
Two final names, if you'll allow me to mention them --
John van Alstyne, Major General of the United States Army and our
Joint Staff; my Chief of Staff during the Gulf War, personal friend,
remarkable human being Colonel Mick Zais -- I thank you both for
being here also.
And then, finally, Janet Crist -- and I won't go
through the whole team of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, but Janet's come over from the State Department, Mr.
President, to act as chief of staff and help get us and me
organized.
I think I don't need to really talk at any length. Let
me just underscore -- I told the President that the one thing I was
sure I could bring to the table in this whole effort was optimism.
I think one of the challenges that we all face as Americans or as
those of us who are privileged to be officers of government, one of
the challenges is to understand that we can deal with this problem.
Now, I say that not as an expert on the drug issues,
but as a member of the Armed Forces that watched us go through a
decade of agony in the '70s, when we were overwhelmed by problems of
alcohol abuse and illegal drugs and the effect it had on our health,
our discipline, our spirit -- our spirit, our physical conditioning.
It was a nightmare -- the violence it engendered. And it took us a
better part of seven years to come to grips with that.
The analogy to American society is imperfect. The
tools we have in the Armed Forces, in many cases, are clearly
inappropriate for our free society. But the beautiful young men and
women that we serve with in uniform are the sons and daughters that
come from around this country. So I just go into saying that
there's a chance here, it seems to me, to maintain the momentum that
many of you here as guests have already established. And I really
look forward to being your partner and your servant in this effort.
Mr. President, thank you very much for this great
honor. (Applause.)
END 11:02 A.M. EST