My transcript of a recent episode of a public access show, 
originating in Chicago, called "Broadsides". This episode 
featured independent researcher Sherman Skolnick, and author Mark 
Sato. Note that in the following I neither necessarily agree nor 
disagree with some or all of the views expressed.
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
[Sounds of Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture"]
Good evening. Welcome to our program, "Broadsides". I'm Sherman 
Skolnick. Our regular moderator, Cliff Kelley, is late. He may 
join us before we're finished tonight.
And I'm joined by our regular panelist, Mark Sato, an author and 
And tonight, our program is about "Global 2000: Earth First! for 
the 'Master Race'".
Uh... Do I gather, Mark, that this is a program that sort of 
follows up, that says America and others are following up on 
Well, you explain.
Well first of all, if the Earth First!, which is a movement afoot 
these days, the push of which is to control population of the 
earth. Because, according to the "Earth Firsters", there are too 
many people on the earth, and the alleged "carrying capacity" of 
the earth is being pushed beyond its limits. And therefore, a lot 
of people have to "leave" the planet, somehow, in order for there 
to be living space for whoever is left! Presumably, a "master 
race". And of course, the Nazis had a term for it, it's a German 
term, *lebensraum* -- which means "living space"! So...
Which is a term that *did* apply to Germany because it was a 
small country with a large, with a sizeable population.
Well... It wasn't *that* sizeable.
But anyway, they *thought* they were running out of room, 
because, you know, the "master race" needs lots of bunnies and 
deer to make them feel better. And so, if you have "too many" 
people, the bunnies and deer run away, and the "master race", the 
people of the "master race" feel very sad!
And so that's one of the problems that is with us today in the 
Earth First! movement, which is, there are too many people on 
this planet. And we gotta get rid of some of 'em.
Well, over the years, wars have rid the planet of people. I mean, 
I don't know if they went into the ground or left the planet, but 
they're gone! Every generation, the young people feel they're 
immortal and they start agitating. And the ultra-rich suddenly 
decide they want to have a quarrel with the ultra-rich, the 
aristocracy, of some other country. And before you know it, they 
play martial music, they wave the flag, and before you know, 
they're all marching and they're off on the troop trains. And 
then the body bags come back. And so we're rid of a whole... I 
mean, don't these wars arrange sort of "naturally" or otherwise 
for the "elbow room" thing -- *lebensraum*?
Sure they do! And that's part of the program -- or maybe I should 
say the "pogrom" -- of the "master race" that we have today. 
Which is that part of their arsenal is, is war! They *do* use 
Well what are ya talkin' about?
Well let's, let's go...
You're not talkin' about the common people. You're talking about 
the aristocracy, right?
Well, people who consider themselves "the aristocracy". Sure.
Well *we* think they're the aristocracy. What do they think?
Well... yeah. Well they think...
They're the ruling elite or...
..Well they've got no qualms about considering themselves "the 
elite" and "above everybody else"...
Well what are we talkin' about? The Rockefellers, the Marshall 
Fields, the Rothschilds...
Right. At this point in time, sure. All the super-rich people of 
the earth who feel that their wealth, or their lineage, or 
whatever it is, entitles them to...
Have they figured out how many people the planet can hold? And 
what happens if the planet has too many people?
Well that's...
..sail off into space, being too heavy or something?
They've already "figured out" how many people the planet can 
hold. And they claim we've gone beyond the limit!
Well what's the limit?
We've gone *beyond* the limit! Well, that gets into a topic 
that's a little bit, a little bit more advanced.
But first, what I'd *like* to talk about is, basically, that this 
idea has been around for a long time. And the man for whom all 
the population control... It's kind of the "god" of the 
population control...
The godfather!
The godfather of the population control people is this guy named 
Malthus. And that is where the term, "Malthusian" came from, 
And what Mister... Uh, Reverend, actually, Malthus was, was an 
agent of the British East India Company. And what he did was he 
spread the gospel of the British aristocracy that there were too 
many people on the earth, and therefore...
How long ago was this?
This was back in the late 1800s [CN -- Sato possibly means "late 
18th century"; Malthus lived from 1766 to 1834.], that Mr. 
Malthus was spreading his particular poisonous gospel. And one of 
the things I'd like to really talk about [that] he said, which 
kind of, uh they typify his philosophy: "All children who are 
born, *beyond* what would be required to keep up the population 
to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made 
for them by the death of grown persons. If we dread the too 
frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should 
assiduously encourage the other forms of destruction." (Such as 
war, and disease, and things of that nature.)
And then he said, "In our towns," (that is, in places where there 
are a lot of people gathered), "we should court the return of the 
plague." (The bubonic plague, he means.) "But above all, we 
Wait a minute! Are you reading from some late-night comedy show?
This is his, this is his philosophy! That he wanted...
He wanted the bubonic plague to come back!?
Right. There are too many people. Obviously, we've gotta get rid 
of 'em quickly. And one of the most efficient ways of doing that 
was through the bubonic plague. That was their most recent 
experience with getting rid of a lot of people in a hurry.
[Continues reading:] "...but above all, we should reprobate 
specific remedies for ravaging diseases...." (That is, we should 
no longer give people medicine! In other words, we should not try 
to cure them when they're sick, or when they have problems.) 
"...and restrain those benevolent but much-mistaken men who have 
thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes 
for the total extirpation of particular disorders."
In other words, all the research that's being done to eliminate 
disease from the earth is foolish, in Reverend Malthus'...
You know, I think, I begin to think this Malthus, the ghost of 
Malthus are still around. Because I've talked to some doctors who 
claim that when the doctors' patients get over 65, medicare, in 
so many words, says, "Don't send us in the bills on this thing!" 
In so many words, like Malthus, "Let 'em 'croak'! I mean, get rid 
of 'em!" The minute they get 65.
Well that's kind of...
So in other words, they've got a few "Reverend Malthuses" in 
medicare and in some of the...
Well that's the idea behind euthanasia, the euthanasia movement. 
People are too old. You know, have you ever seen the movie, 
"Solyent Green" where they turned all the old people who are a 
little "too old" into little green chips for, for food. 'Cause 
the earth was running out of food, obviously the...
What happened to this guy Malthus? Did someone decide that he was 
a surplus and got rid of him? [laughs] That would have been 
poetic justice!
Well, unfortunately, he spawned a whole series of little "Junior 
Malthuses" who are, who have carried on his tradition! And one of 
the most famous of those, of course, was Adolph Hitler. [CN -- 
But who was Hitler fronting for?] Whose ideas of eugenics, that 
is, "racial hygiene", were what caused him to decide that Europe 
should be rid of, of the Jews and a lot of other people that were 
considered "undesireables" by the...
..the gypsies, physical so-called "defects", uh cripples and so 
on. He wanted to get rid of all of 'em.
Uh some authors contend that the Harriman family, Averill 
Harriman, whose name "popped up" over a series of decades, was in 
favor of euthanasia.
That is correct. As a matter of fact, the Harrimans were part of 
a group of bankers who sponsored the 1932 International Eugenics 
Conference in New York. And at that conference, a lot of the 
ideas of Malthus -- and some more advanced ideas on how to get 
rid of people, quickly, from the face of the earth -- were 
But weren't the idea behind eugenics supposedly to have more (I 
don't know what to call it), a "master race", more superior 
people, by certain types of breeding? In other words, eugenics 
and euthanasia weren't exactly synonymous. In other words, 
through eugenics they wanted, supposedly, more clever people...
Well you would wipe out the "undesireable" elements in the so- 
called "gene pool". The "gene pool" being a representation of all 
the millions and billions of different kinds of genes that people 
carry around with them on the earth today.
Some... I don't know what the professional people are that -- 
what are they? "Geneologists"? I don't know what... You probably 
know what the ones that study that are called.
O.K. Haven't some in that field [genetics], have said that the 
different races are better off to have a larger [gene] pool, 
because the, for example the inbreeding of the British royal 
family has caused a lot of problems that not always gets 
published. That insanity grows in their family and the present 
royal family...
Quite true. Quite true, yes.
..has got some of their members "tucked away" someplace. And it 
was only one of the grocery magazines that pointed out that Queen 
Elizabeth (whatever her name is, over there) has got two cousins 
who uh, she insisted that they change their name in the "nut 
house" because... In other words, insanity goes from inbreeding. 
So having a large pool of genes, in the view of some that know 
about genetics, is actually better!
Yes. That's true. But... Uh and these people are aware of that! 
So why could they want to build a "master race"?
Well, they... You see, they believe that despite the fact that 
having a *variety* of genes in the gene pool is very good, they 
still would like to get rid of a lot of people. Because there's 
just "too many" people.
Now you mentioned the royal family. Let me give ya a quote from 
Prince Phillip, who was the Duke of Edinburgh. And he favored 
animals over people! And what he said was, "Every new acre 
brought into cultivation" (that is, under farming) "means another 
acre denied to wild species." In other words, he was against it. 
He was against, he was against more farming. He wanted there to 
be more wildlife, because he didn't like people. So...
O.K. But the point is, though, Hitler and what he stood for was 
promoting eugenics. In other words, he was more or less "pruning 
out" people. And the ones he didn't want -- the Jews, the 
gypsies, invalids, or whatever -- he sent 'em to concentration 
camp. Those that could work, he worked 'em to death. And the 
other ones died. And historical revisionists would have you 
believe that they didn't die because they were gassed (although I 
think that they were)... But in any case, we call that...
They were just... No matter how they did it, they exterminated a 
lot of people. They did do that.
Yeah, right. In other words, millions of people disappeared.
But notice the problem here: the Catholic church promotes uh, 
"full speed ahead" on population. Which, it "bugs" me in a way. 
Because um, Pope John Paul I, according to the book by David 
Yallop called *In God's Name*, John Paul I was gonna revise their 
birth control opposition in that, to spawn children that you 
cannot feed is itself a sin. And to that extent they were gonna 
modify the Catholic church's program. Because you know, when the 
Pope comes visiting to the western hemisphere, he travels through 
all these heavily Catholic countries -- Mexico, Central America, 
South America -- and in so many words he says, "Full speed 
ahead." You know, "Manufacture as many children as you can!" 
Because he's against, you know, birth control. And the result is, 
that their only cash crop is *dope*. And so, I mean, nobody 
candidly comes right out in front and says, "Well. Everything 
south of the United States is based on dope." They don't grow 
anything that's that worthwhile other than, you know, I mean 
marijuana, the uh, and so on.
What about that? Is there some contradiction between what the 
Pope is doing and what the eugenics people are doing? I mean 
what, what's...
Of course there's a dichotomy.
Yeah, well what about it? What's a dichotomy?
The division. In other words, on one side you have people who 
want to get rid of most of the people on the face of the earth. 
And on the other hand you have people who want there to be *more* 
people on earth. And in the case of the Vatican, they would like 
there to be more people...
More Catholics!
..because, it means more Catholics! More money in the plate!
O.K. but notice: David [Yallop] -- His book came out in 1983 and 
it seems to be well-documented. And he took the position that, 
after 33 days, they poisoned John Paul I because of his policies. 
And he [Yallop] proved that there *was* such a policy and that's 
why they killed him [John Paul I]. Of course, the Michael Sindona 
scandal, the Mafia and the Vatican Bank had somethin' to do with 
the death of John Paul I. But the thesis of his book is that they 
poisoned him after 33 days as the Pope because he wanted to 
modify the uh, the birth control opposition of the Catholic 
Listen. The Catholic church is not noted for being the greatest, 
clever people of the 20th century! I mean it was only up until 
1806 that you could be thrown out of the church for alleging that 
the earth was not flat.
It's not?
I mean... Well, all right. In other words, there *was* the flat 
earth committee.
Now up 'til 1806, the Catholic church was the flat earth 
committee. You could be expro... Not expropriated, but... What's 
the word?
Excommunicated or re-communicated or *whatever*, for saying that 
the world is round!
So in other words, there is a dichotomy. You're saying that 
there's some that wanted to limit the population, and the others 
wanted uncontrolled population.
Right. Right. But the people who want to control population -- 
they just think that there's too many people and they're sucking 
up all the earth's resources.
And the Hitler movement was part of that?
They were part of it.
Now. And of course, the whole idea was sponsored by the U.S. and 
British bankers, the Harriman family being foremost. One of their 
progeny, George Herbert Walker Bush, is *also* a population 
control freak. Despite...
Is he?
Oh yeah. Despite... He's one of the leading promoters of 
population control legislation...
Well later in this program we're gonna discuss what *he* did to 
"control" population. I mean, something bloody, brutal, and...
But you know, getting back to the Nazis. Just in case people 
think that the Nazis were *only* trying to get rid of what *they* 
considered to be people who were infirm or less than "genetically 
whole". A Berlin attorney named Ludwig Fluugen(sp?) said that 
"great talent is associated with defects or weaknesses in other 
organs. I call these persons, 'superiority afflicted'." In other 
words, they're afflicted with superiority! Not with 
Well under Hitler's program, a lot of those that were hunchbacks 
or cripples, whatever, would've been eliminated. And throughout 
history, some of the great scientists were uh, "irregulars". In 
other words (you know what I mean), they were either too short or 
they limped or they had a hunchback. Or whatever. But under 
And in addition...
Under Hitler's program they would've had only blonde, 6-foot high 
But that wasn't really the only real problem, Sherman. The real 
problem was that these people were *intellectually* superior, and 
therefore, able to have great influence in the community. They 
didn't want those people around, telling people, "Hey. These 
Nazis are out of their minds!" *That* was one of the big 
So you're saying that the 6-foot high, blonde-haired, teutonic 
German types, that were found dead on so many battlefields in the 
Second World War, were not the intelligentsia, the very clever 
Well they got rid of them at home! *Before* they ever got to the 
battlefield. They had... Sherman, that's very common in many 
dictatorships, where the dictator has to get rid of the 
intelligentsia, because they're the only ones who can influence 
the people against the dictatorship!
All right, so what was Hitler's point? What was Hitler trying to 
do: weed out the thing and make a "master race"?
Well... Yeah.
Well what... This is, this is gonna fall hard on some people: 
isn't that the same point that the FBI does? The FBI had a 
program, which was brought out...
It's a "pogrom", Sherman.
Yeah! It was brought out by an FBI agent named Freedman (maybe he 
was the only Jew in the FBI), but he pointed out that his 
supervisors have more or less reached the conclusion -- he 
testified before Congress -- that blacks are "inferior" and 
therefore, even if they get elected, they should be "framed", 
removed from office by "frame ups", and if that didn't work, the 
implication was to "knock 'em off"! Poison them, kill them.
So in other words, there are Nazi mentalities in the United 
Yeah, that's getting a little ahead of us. Yeah. But that's 
essentially correct.
In other words, the [unclear] mentioned theory of the FBI higher- 
ups is on this same Nazi principle, right? [Unclear] means like, 
"neanderthal". In other words, higher-ups in the FBI...
Yeah. In other words, the FBI theory is that the Afro-Americans 
are "inferior", they're neanderthals, they don't belong here, and 
they shouldn't be in office. And therefore, "frame" 'em, jail 
'em, or if necessary, poison them.
That's the same philosophy of...
It's a Hitler philosophy!
..of the Hitler philosophy, but *also* of the people who are 
promoting population control today!
And to give you an example: after the Nazis kind of "went 
Well that's your theory that they went away.
I don't think they went away at all.
Well, they were...
I think they're still here!
..they were, allegedly, defeated.
But, of course, they *didn't* go away, precisely because the 
people who sponsored the idea of eugenics didn't go away.
..a eugenics society in the United States promoting this?
By and large, the idea of eugenics has floated over to the 
environmental people.
Pollution control and...
Pollution's about the same thing?
Yeah. Pollution control means population control, because the 
more people you have the more pollution you have, and the more 
danger we all face because there's "too many" people on the face 
of the earth!
And the aristocracy, a few years ago, through one of their secret 
society meetings -- the Bilderbergs or Trilateral Commission, 
whatever -- say, "Hey. All you in the aristocracy! Promote 
environmental. We gotta have..."
Where'd they have their conference? In Brazil or something? They 
had some big conference: "Promote the Environment".
Just recently they had the Cairo Conference.
O.K. So, but what you're saying is, this is just another word for 
That's right.
SKOLNICK: "weed out" what they feel are "inferior" people.
Now most of the environmentalists are, consider themselves 
liberal. And they would be horrified of this idea that you would 
*pick* the, for the most part, the people of color to get rid of 
because there's "too many" people on the face of the earth. But 
that, by and large, is what they *really* are saying, despite 
their perhaps, ignorance...
Well they have the media on their side.
..the real meaning of their movement.
I mean, they have the media on their side. Because, I mean, who 
do ya see as what I call "anchor faces", anchor people? "Blonde- 
haired dummies", as I call 'em. With a few token Oriental- 
Americans and a few... Like Linda Yu, over here, who's connected 
with the Chinese royal family...
Well they are indeed, Sherman, they are indeed tokens. Because 
the modern science... I don't really wanna call it "science". But 
the modern philosophy of eugenics is, was fathered by Bertrand 
What about him?
Well Bertrand Russell, who was a British (and I hesitate to use 
the word "philosophy")...
I thought he was for peace? That's the only time I heard of 
Bertrand Russell, I heard he was...
Well... Bertrand Russell was *for* peace -- as in, "rest in 
peace" -- for most of the people of the earth. He said, "The 
white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The 
asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, 
before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers 
stable without help of war and pestilence." And of course, he 
*did* mean to impose war and pestilence on the asians and the, 
what he called "negroes". "Until that happens, the benefits aimed 
at by socialism can only be partially realized." (He was a 
socialist.) "And the less prolific races will have to defend 
themselves" -- Wait a minute -- "will have to defend themselves 
by methods which are disgusting, even if they are necessary."
I... He either mis-used the term socialism, in applying to 
himself... But there is a certain...
Never mind, Sherman. That's a *whole* different thing. Let's not 
get off on that tangent. Don't worry about... Don't worry about 
Mr. Russell's mis-using the word, because he wants to mis-use the 
entire planet! So don't worry about that little item.
So, in other words, he was for "peace" from the standpoint of 
"rest in peace". Well all right.
Right. Now the progress of Mr. Russell's ideas wound up in a 
report called "Global 2000".
Which is the title of this show.
Which is the title of this show. This big report, which was 
authored under the auspices of the Jimmy Carter administration. 
And of course, he is running around the world promoting the 
ideals of Global 2000.
I thought he was a born-again something.
Well... That's what he says. But anyway...
He's evidently not a born-again geneticist.
SATO: comes the number you were looking for, Sherman. "Global 
2000 proposes that the population of the earth be lowered to 2 
billion." Now of course...
By what means?
Well they don't say, exactly. But they want to lower it [to] 2 
billion by the year 2000! That's why the report's called "Global 
2000". There's 5.6 billion people on the face of the planet right 
now. Which means that they're gonna have to get rid of 3.6 
billion people!
Well there's two ways you can do it.
In six years!
Well, no. There's two ways: they can start a nuclear war which 
endeavors to "knock off" a lot of people. I don't know where the 
aristocracy is gonna go; they're gonna go off in a missile to the 
moon or something.
Well, Sherman...
[...contention for who will speak...]
Wait, wait. Before you go on! You shoot these things off, and 
then let me get a chance to...
Six years! They want to "knock off" that many...
They want to "knock off" that many people. But guess who says 
that it's a great way to do it?! What you just said, atomic war 
-- Robert S. McNamara, the former head of the World Bank, says 
that's, you know, "Nuclear war is great."
He's not a dummy. He was among what they called the "Wiz Kids"...
Of course he's not a dummy! And he knows what he's talking about! 
He knows how to wipe people off the face of the earth with a 
bunch of nuclear weapons. And he'd like to do it.
Well. I don't...
Because he says that the single biggest obstacle to progress on 
this planet is that there are "too many" people in the developing 
countries. So we can't have progress on the rest of the planet 
unless those people get "jettisoned" off the planet!
O.K. But let me understand this. In what way does the eugenics 
differ from genocide?
It doesn't!
It's about the same thing.
It's the same thing!
In other words, it should be "eugenics/genocide".
Genocide. And in a way, it's even more than genocide. It's like 
"geneticide" because they want to kill the bad genes...
You know, it's very odd. Because the ultra-right wing does a very 
odd thing: they use their newspapers to fight any treaty that has 
to do with genocide. And they twist it out of shape and says, 
"Well it's *bad* for the people."
Well that's because the "Genocide Treaty", as it's called, is 
really not about genocide.
Yeah, O.K.
That's a misnomer. It really doesn't apply.
But in other words, these eugenics, this genocide -- who is it 
directed against? Against people of color?
It's directed *mostly* at people of color. But it's really, not 
really necessarily a racial thing. It's more of a class thing. 
Let me give you an example.
A class thing.
Let me give you an example.
In December of '74, there was a National Security Study 
Memorandum, number 200, which was authored by Henry Kissinger -- 
formerly known as "Heinz" Kissinger, because he's actually a 
German. A German *zafardi*(?), by the way. And it was called, 
"The Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. 
Security and Overseas Interests." And it was about the national 
security of the United States.
Now understand: whenever somebody says, "national security", 
they're talking a treasonous thing. Because whenever people talk 
about "national security" of the United States, they're saying, 
"*We* want to discuss something that is so horrendous that nobody 
in their right minds would discuss it..."
By the way, you brought up one angle of the Second World War, the 
European angle, the Holocaust and so on...
Wait, wait, wait. Before you go back...
And that was genocide.
Right. Before you go back, let me finish this, let me finish 
This National Security Memorandum expressed the fear that 
population growth in the Third World "will threaten U.S. 
strategic raw material supplies." In other words, too many 
people, say, in certain countries, in Latin America, would 
*threaten* the ability of the United States to access those 
strategic raw materials.
Now. What right we have to dictate how we get our strategic raw 
materials is of a little bit of interest. But anyway, the 
countries that Kissinger targeted for this "problem" of 
overpopulation were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, 
Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, 
Ethiopia, and Columbia. He wanted "to inhibit the wishful 
thinking that economic development will solve the problem of 
overpopulation." In other words, there is *no* economic 
development that would help; we must get *rid* of the people.
But come back to my point. The Second World War, in... to put it 
in its simplest form, was a form of genocide...
That's correct.
..directed against the, whatever you wanna call 'em, the 
"unwanted" of Europe...
..And, you know, it is now becoming evident, fifty years, you 
know, after the Second World War, that 6 months before they 
dropped their genocide bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6 months 
before that, Emperor Hirohito was already negotiating through 
Switzerland to end the war. And our side didn't want to end the 
So all this hoopla that they've made in the "history" books that 
"we dropped the atomic bomb because the Japanese were gonna fight 
to the death and we were gonna lose a million troops storming 
their homeland" -- we Americans rejected a genuine effort to end 
the war...
Now don't say "we Americans". The *elite* who were controlling...
Yeah, right. That doesn't include the rest of us...
That's right.
..that were alive at the time.
We had no say...
The common people.
Yeah, you're right. But the point is, notice the genocide 
application: they *had* the atomic bomb early enough; they 
could've dropped it on Hitler! On Germany. They didn't do it. 
See, 'cause that didn't fit their genocide. They dropped it on 
the people of color -- which would be the Japanese. And you know, 
you know what...
To this day, they don't talk about Nagasaki. I mean, Hiroshima -- 
they dropped *another* bomb on Nagasaki!
I mean, so we now know, fifty years later, it was unnecessary. 
They could've ended the war. And all this stuff in the "history" 
books, that *that* ended the war, is false.
That is correct.
In other words, it was strictly genocide. Why? Because the 
burgeoning population of the eastern world, the Japanese, was 
disturbing the ultra-rich of this country in some way. I mean, 
they were wanting to broaden out their markets, they needed oil, 
this and that. We strangled 'em, and after we strangled 'em on 
metal and oil, they rose up and they bombed Pearl Harbor -- which 
was a natural thing! I mean, you strangle somebody, he's gonna 
resist, or "croak"!
[CN -- Not to say, by any means, that the Japanese were all 
angels during WWII. In my view, Skolnick is essentially correct. 
However another motive for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
was that these politicians and these "scientists" had a new toy 
that they were dying to try out. Also, Skolnick's view of the so- 
called "strangling" of Japan by the U.S. is one-sided: Japan was 
also an imperialist power, in its turn "strangling" other 
And so the "history" books -- they've left some things out. 
They've left out the genocide angle in all this.
Right. And so, what your example really points up is that Robert 
McNamara's insistence that nuclear war is a "good" way to get rid 
of people is a... we should take that very seriously because he 
is from the same group of people who would be *quite* willing to 
bomb the crap out of everybody on the face of the planet, simply 
because they need to get rid of some people!
And that's the *only* reason. That's all the reason they need.
Listen. Is the bottom line, is it your view from researching all 
this, that these devils really and seriously, in the remaining 
few years of the 20th century, would do this "Global 2000" and 
want to get rid of "x" number of people?
By nuclear war. By famine. By disease -- AIDS is one of the ways 
in which they have decided to get rid of a lot of people.
Do I gather that they have "written off" Africa as undesireable?
That's what I just said: AIDS is one of the ways in which they're 
gonna try and get rid of people. And that... AIDS is a weapon 
that has been pointed...
Most at Africa.
..most dreadfully, at Africa. Yes.
Yeah they talk about these other famines caused by civil wars. 
But the main thing that's killing off Africa is AIDS. And it's 
not from green monkeys...
No, we engineered AIDS in this country.
At Fort Meade, or wherever.
That's right. We engineered AIDS: both HIV-I and HIV-II...
In Maryland. That was the mad doctors of...
..were engineered in this country.
..the Central Intelligence Agency, at least *I* believe, that 
created AIDS. And I wouldn't say it was a thing that got out of 
control. It may have been intentional...
No, it wasn't a thing that got out of control. It was 
intentionally introduced into Africa, HIV-II, was intentionally 
introduced into Africa for the purpose of wiping them out! 
*Because*, [sarcastically] <>
O.K. But call...
And they threaten our "national security" interests.
You were the one that did a big research project that we used on 
an earlier program, maybe a year or more ago, about AIDS, that 
basically it -- since the homosexuals were considered "not 
desireable" for the Army, I mean, [sarcastically] <>
That's right. Well, one more "national security" risk. They were 
considered a "national security" risk. And therefore...
So, in other words...
SATO: was allowed to get rid of... HIV-I was introduced...
..into the homosexual community.
..AIDS, in its simplest form, is a genocide attack on certain 
There is no question about it.
But they allege (if you believe the media at all) that it is 
targeting heterosexuals in some way or another. So it...
Well, O.K.
SKOLNICK:, the "mad doctor" thing got out of hand.
No, no, no.
..they intended it to "wipe out" the gay community.
No, no. It didn't -- yes, wipe 'em out. But also...
>From a national...
..You see...
SKOLNICK: standpoint: "They're not suitable to be in the Army 
-- get rid of 'em! Kill 'em all!"
You see, it *has* gone into the heterosexual population. But 
*how* has it gone into the heterosexual population?
One of the other *key* groups that HIV-I is attacking are 
intravenous drug users. They were also a target.
So there's a contradiction, a dichotomy there. 'Cause there is 
the CIA and the aristocracy bringing *in* the dope. Then after 
they get 'em hooked on dope, you're saying, "Well. Now we're 
gonna kill 'em!" [laughs]
There will *always* be a market for dope.
There's a contradiction there!
No, no. There will always be a market for dope. They're not 
worried about that, one little bit.
So they'd just as soon kill them off, and...
This very bizarre thought occurred to me. I don't know how it's 
gonna fly, but just let me try to fly it: Hitler, in its simplest 
form, was more fair on the genocide thing than *these* guys. He 
didn't start with the biological thing. I mean, he rounded up the 
"undesireables", put 'em in concentration camps -- uh, next to 
I.G. Farben's facilities for artificial gasoline and all that 
kind of stuff.
Yeah! And worked 'em to death, and killed off those that he 
didn't work to death.
In some way he was more (what is the word?)... the word "fair" 
isn't it. He was more "straight in front" [i.e. "up front"].
*Now* they're saying, "Oh! This strange disease 'showed up' 
that's killing the people." And we don't have a devil! We can't 
point the [unclear] and says, "Hey! That's where it's comin' 
from." You see what I'm saying? In other words, Hitler was a 
known devil. Where are the known devils? Where *is* the 
Euthanasia Society? Where is the Eugenics Society? What's their 
address? Do ya know it?
They're in the Chase Manhattan Bank.
Well that's the, that's the proper place for them to be! [laughs]
It's largely, largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and 
other, similar foundations set up by the super-rich.
In other words, they're not prepared to come right out in front 
and say, "Hey. We're against these people. We set off this 
epidemic bomb, this AIDS thing. We're gonna get rid of all these 
people. And if ya don't leave, we're gonna ship ya to some 
godforsaken island in the Pacific and starve ya to death." 
In other words... I don't mean to laugh or joke, but in other 
words, the entire thing is, is evil. And what? And they're 
promoting books and stuff that they're gonna work the population 
down, or...
Well, of course. Yeah. There's a lot of different ways that...
..line 'em up and machine gun 'em to death.
There's a lot of different ways that they're subtly killing 
people, which don't appear to be genocidal. I mean, usually when 
people think of genocidal things, they usually think of war 
So that the introduction...
At least *purposeful* genocide.
All right. So that the ultra-rich, then, have introduced dope, on 
a big scale, into the United States. Why? First of all, they want 
to enrich themselves. But secondly, they have genocide in mind, 
That's right.
Because I...
To give you an example: they are perfectly aware that narcotic 
drug use is very dangerous. Thirty-one percent of all New Yorkers 
who were murdered last year were murdered because of drug use!
Do you believe it's a...
So it's a very dangerous thing -- not only that they're using 
drugs, but also it tends to make them become dead. I mean...
But tell me if this generality is suitable: that sometimes the 
(what is the word?), some of the better-educated people in the 
black community somehow get onto the drugs. Is that a generality 
that makes any sense?
Well it makes sense...
..way to get rid of 'em.
Well, here. Here's an interesting question: why is it that these 
drug dealers, whose (at the lowest level, anyway), whose main 
idea is, "I wanna make some money!" All right? "I wanna make some 
money, dealing drugs." *Why* do they go to the poorest 
communities to try and make money? Does that make sense?
No, they're not sellin' it there. They're sellin' it to 
Well then, how...
..who come to a certain corner.
Sherman, now they are, finally. They are now. But what you just 
said before -- "They go into a black neighborhood and they sell."
To kill 'em.
*Why* would a profit-seeking entrepreneur, drug dealer, want to 
go into the *poorest* neighborhoods -- a black neighborhood, an 
hispanic neighborhood -- and sell drugs!? That doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense, does it? *Unless* their philosophy is exactly 
like the British was, back when they introduced opium into China 
for the purpose of...
To subdue 'em.
..for the purpose, not necessarily of profit -- although they 
*did* make a profit, because they rolled over the Chinese economy 
-- but it was to control the Chinese.
It is that...
Through the opium dens...
It is that purpose which is causing the introduction, wholesale, 
for this century, into the black communities and hispanic 
communities of narcotic drugs. That's what *I* see it as. It is a 
form of eugenics. It is a form of getting rid of people, 
purposely, using narcotics *as* *a* *weapon*.
What you're saying, which is borne out by the census reports... 
And that there seems to be an *attack* on black males between the 
age of, what? Fifteen to thirty-two?
Go younger: as soon as they get out of the womb -- *if* they come 
out of the womb -- from that time, they are targets.
What bothers me is, that occasionally the media tells you the 
truth, but not in a proper context. For example, they interview 
some people... They interviewed some kids in Roseland that were 
eleven years old, twelve years old, in this recent flare-up there 
[i.e., circa November, 1994, the story of the eleven year old 
alleged gunman who, in turn, was murdered in Chicago]. And some 
of these young people said, "I..." (in so many words), "I live 
from day to day. And I don't know if I'll get killed on the way 
to school or..." In other words, they're actually...
Always at risk.
Yeah. They're always at risk. As if...
But you see the problem is, the media has you believe that it's 
just another black causing the risk, when it's the introduction 
of dope into the black community that's causing the genocide.
*And*, along with the introduction of guns -- which always 
follows the drugs. And so you have this lethal combination of 
drugs and guns which is introduced into the community.
But in other words, is the thesis of your research that the 
United States has taken over where Hitler left off?
Not the United States, necessarily.
Is it the American aristocracy?
Yes. The American and the British aristocracy, which has taken 
this over.
Who *have* no country. I mean, their country...
Their "country" is *money*. That's their "country".
Well now notice this (which I don't think this is a digression), 
but in this recent Gulf War there was something about that that 
really bothered me. The media played it up and... First of all, 
the media was forbidden to ever show bodies. So all ya saw were 
their tanks blown up on highways, their trucks and all that. But 
you never... You weren't allowed to see any bodies! You couldn't 
have any wire service, any "photo pool" or whatever, photograph 
bodies and show *you* that on the evening "news".
"Nobody died."
Well wait a minute! Something happened there...
It was a "wonderful" war.
..Something happened there which, there was a documentary -- but 
it was only shown in one place in Chicago. And I think our 
moderator [Cliff Kelley] saw it.
At the close of this short war, our side killed 100,000 young 
Iraqis under a flag of surrender.
Hey. I consider myself a good American. I've lived in Chicago all 
my life... uh, I'm not proud of this. With the yellow ribbons and 
the marching, and victory parades.
And some of the pilots said, "It was like shooting fish in a 
There's only one other time in all of history when one side 
killed the other side under a flag of surrender, and that was in 
the Battle of the Bulge during the Second World War. And the 
German army, in a moment of desperation, killed about 60 or 70 
Americans with their hands up...
So we got that beat, don't we?
*One-hundred* *thousand*! And most Americans don't know about it. 
When I mention this, they says, "Has it been on the evening 
'news'?" I says, "No. It's not allowed!"
Imagine. 100,000 Iraqis, under a flag of surrender, were 
And of course, that's on *top* of the hundreds of thousands, the 
millions, who were killed during the Iran-Iraq War of the '80s, 
which lasted for nine years.
And we *now* understand...
Which was *our* provocation and the provocation of the Israeli 
And we now understand (fifty years later) that the great atomic 
bomb destruction of Japan was unnecessary. The Hiro... Hirohito 
wanted peace through Switzerland, six months before. We rejected 
it. So I mean, there's been genocide going on again and again and 
Right. And it's going on right now in Africa...
The AIDS thing.
Not just the AIDS thing, but all the, the wars of attrition, the 
famine, and the disease that's going on right now. The war in 
Rwanda has cost 500,000 dead. Upwards of 500,000.
By the way...
*Plus* the ones who are still dying.
I don't wanna go into the whole Rwanda thing. But the thing that 
the press never mentions about Rwanda is that the French 
colonialists, the ones that, over the decades, instigated the 
"tribal" thing... Notice: French troops came in there...
[CN -- Skolnick does not expand on this reference. I have as my 
source a local radio show of good credibility, "News From 
Neptune", that the two warring tribes in Rwanda were created 
arbitrarily by the French colonialists, during their occupation. 
In other words, the two "tribes" that were slaughtering each 
other were an artificial creation. I forget how exactly the 
French divided them; it may have been according to height.]
But the British, the British intelligence knocked the plane...
..out of the air. Um, oh gosh. I'm gonna have to...
With the two presidents that died.
Yeah. Juvenal [unclear] was assassinated in a plane crash which 
was arranged by British intelligence for the purpose of starting 
this war!
[CN -- The slaughter in Rwanda began after a plane, carrying the 
leaders of the two "tribes", crashed. Sato (LaRouche says this 
also) is saying that the plane was sabotaged in order to 
instigate the subsequent war and horrible slaughter.
By the way, you may be wondering: Why didn't those slaughtered 
Rwandans defend themselves? Answer: They had no guns.]
Now the right wing -- to their credit, at the moment -- from 
their paper [CN -- Uh-oh, could Skolnick perhaps mean *The 
Spotlight*?] (which I don't always agree with their politics) 
have been playing up that there's something odd going on in 
*this* *country*. That we're facing, possibly, martial law.
By the way, I once addressed a political science class at 
Northeastern Illinois... At DeKalb. Northern Illinois University 
[CN -- My alma mater]. And guess how they spelled "martial law"?
Never mind.
They didn't know how to spell it.
But the point is, what are all these foreign troops doing on 
American soil now? In other words, are they planning some 
genocide against we, more common Americans? And who do they have 
in mind?
I think that relates to the questions that were asked soldiers. 
In May of this year, they asked American GIs, this year [1994], 
whether they would *shoot* Americans, under certain given 
And so they were disqualified. And the ones that said, "Yes"...
..proceeded to the next step in the project?
..Well, no. Obviously they have a problem. Especially if...
*Who* has a problem?
GIs. If they are sent into a... Let's say they're sent into an 
African-American community and they're told, "This community is 
out of control. Go in there and impose martial law. And if 
anybody moves, shoot 'em."
Now there's quite a large minority of the GIs, in this country, 
who are African-American. Now...
They're trying to get 'em out! They're trying to whittle them 
down, out of the army!
Now, now, now, Sherman. Nevertheless -- Hey. They're not gonna 
whittle 'em down in six years, Sherman. There's gonna be plenty 
of 'em in the army at the time at which they're going to promote 
and provoke problems in African-American communities and send 
troops in there for the purpose of gunning down as many people as 
they can.
Well, notice this...
O.K.? Wait a minute, Sherman!
And so, when they ask black GIs, "Will you shoot Americans?", 
they really know that, you know, anybody who's got half a brain 
understands what the question really means. It means, "Will I 
shoot my brother, in his own community, in his doorway?" That's 
what it really means.
But notice: some of us view the Vietnam War in very cynical 
terms. In the '60s, from all these civil rights marches [by] Dr. 
King and others, there were rising expectations...
By the way, Sherman. Before you get into that, I'd just like to 
make one very important point about these African-American GIs 
*in* a situation in which they would be required (unless they 
wanted to be hung) to shoot their brothers -- and that is that, 
the situation in Roseland that you mentioned has caused the FBI 
to go into the Roseland community, to be, to mingle with the 
The gestapo!
Yeah, the gestapo. mingle with the police. And this is a first strike, in the 
black communities in Chicago, to start provoking the African- 
American [unclear] into...
Federal police.
Wait a minute. Sherman. Quiet.
..into a situation in which there will be the requirement that 
American GIs, and black GIs, be sent into this community for the 
distinct purpose of wiping out their brothers!
On the excuse that there's...
..there's trouble.
There's dope that the CIA brought in.
There's dope, there's guns, which has been brought in by the 
British and American...
All right. But notice this genocide problem, that this is an 
ongoing thing.
During the Vietnam War, the black population of the United States 
was eleven-and-a-half percent. But they constituted twenty-six 
percent of those that were in the jungles in Vietnam. Blacks. 
People of color.
Now what was the problem at that time, and from a cynical 
standpoint? Dr. King and others, because of the marching, was 
getting the blacks with rising expectation: equal employment, 
"they're gonna have a house", "they're gonna have a job", and so 
on. And how did LBJ [President Johnson] deal with this? With the 
body bags. He sent 'em over there to be slaughtered! That's how 
he dealt with their rising expectations.
*And*, here's the "national security" question, the so-called. 
When Dr. King, in April of '67 made a speech, what'd he say? He 
says, "*I* am going to go to Vietnam to tell black GIs not to 
slaughter yellow-skinned people in somebody else's civil war." So 
he was implying the genocide angle right there. And of course, a 
year to the day, they slaughtered him.
On "national security" reasons!
Sherman, you make, you made an even *more* important point at the 
outset: that is...
..yellow people...
No, no, no.
..that King was trying to hold out hope for economic development 
of the African-American communities. *That* is *verboten*. You 
cannot do that.
What'd they say in this National Security Study Memorandum 
written by Henry Kissinger? They said, "*Forget* about economic 
development." Now what is the biggest problem in the African- 
American communities today with regard to economic situations? 
Lack of jobs! Now. They're not gonna *get* any jobs! Why? Because 
Clinton has passed, has rammed through, GATT and NAFTA. And we 
have turned the American economy from an economy with 250 million 
consumers, into an economy, into a *world* economy, where there 
are 5.6 billion consumers, many of whom are earning 19 cents an 
hour. And we're gonna ask the African-Americans who don't have 
jobs to compete with 19-cents-an-hour labor? It ain't gonna 
So you see, Sherman... The problem today is that GATT and NAFTA 
have completely foreclosed any hope for education, for jobs, in 
the African-American community. It is *done*. It's over with.
So they're using, insofar as... Well, Mexico was [unclear] 
But you see, Sherman, that is *why* they have to be panicked 
about what's going to happen in the African-American communities 
when people finally figure out that there *is* *not* gonna be any 
more education, there's *not* gonna be jobs. It's 19 cents an 
All right, let's see if this fits in with your thesis there: 
Mexico is principally Indians. People of color. And therefore, 
this whole NAFTA thing, to use them as cheap labor: does that fit 
into your genocide theory in some way?
Sure. NAFTA now... And the people in the State Department want to 
lower the population of Mexico from over 60 million to under 20 
Hey folks, there's a group out there called "Chiapas", which is 
gonna start provoking civil war like crazy in Mexico. And they're 
going to cause a *tremendous*, devastating war in Mexico which 
wipes out over 40 million people.
O.K. So wait a minute. So this uh, your thesis is that this 
putting an FBI task force -- according to the September 8th, '94 
issue of the *[Chicago] Tribune*, which is right on the front 
page: "FBI Task Force Joins City Police to Fight Gangs". That's 
their excuse! But *actually*, they're putting the gestapo into 
the inner city...
..for the purpose of making sure that there is a point at which 
the African-American community explodes, and they have to send in 
their troops and kill everybody...
Before we run out of time: you also feel that these attacks on 
black celebrities are not accidental.
No. They're not accidental at all. They have money, they have 
influence. The FBI wants to get rid of 'em.
O.J. Simpson. Michael Jordan's father. Michael Jackson.
Because they're [unclear], according to the FBI; they're not 
"worthy" of having any position of influence or wealth.
O.K. And since they are now quite wealthy, if they ever became 
political -- I'm not saying that O.J. Simpson was or is 
political, or Michael Jackson was or is political -- but *were* 
they, in a time of the American gestapo running out of control, 
they might say something and have to be heard worldwide... among 
white people, among people of color. You couldn't shut them up. 
If they held a press conference, it'd be covered.
So they're discredited. They're "murderers", they're "child 
Or they're just murdered, period.
Yeah. In other words, because they're well-known they don't want 
them as spokesmen for the Afro-American community. Is that the 
They don't want them as spokesmen for *anybody*.
So, well what you're saying is, whether Mel Reynolds, the 
congressman, is or is not a sleazebag as accused, it's 
interesting that of *all* the crooked congressmen that they could 
think about, they centered on him. That's not accidental, right? 
They could find some other congressmen that are equally as 
crooked as him.
Assuming that he's crooked.
Well yeah. But that comes down to, "Take a whole handful of darts 
and just throw it at the [unclear], and anybody you hit..."
All right, before we run out of time, what suggestion do you 
have? You've laid out a very somber thing there. How do we get 
into the next century?
In my view, there aren't a whole lot of solutions, simply 
Well, before we run out of time, give us some.
There are certain African-Americans who wish there to be 
reparations to the African-Americans because of slavery. That is 
not practical for a lot of reasons. It's...
Oh I'm for it if the ultra-rich pay for it!
Sherman, that's impractical.
..shouldn't tax the rest of us. The ultra-rich: let them pay!
They're not gonna do that unless you "string 'em up".
"String" who up?
The super-rich.
The Rockefellers.
Yeah. That's not gonna happen.
So the only thing *I* would suggest is a strike. A mortgage 
Well, we're running out of time.
..A rent strike.
We're running out of time. And we thank everybody for listening. 
We've worried a lot of 'em. People secretly think that maybe we 
represent the Tylenol and aspirin industry with these programs 
[laughs]. We *do* worry people! But we hopefully cause you to 
Thanks for listening, and watch us again on "Broadsides". Good 

 Brian Francis Redman    "The Big C"
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"