Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

American Atrocities


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#201 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:15 PM

Why the super-rich should pay super taxes

Tue May 6, 2014 1:27PM GMT

By Paul Buchheit,

 

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, "It's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally...It's a game we play...I see nothing wrong with playing the game because we set it up to be a game."

It's not a game for Americans who need jobs and education and public transportation and infrastructure repair. But public services continue to be cut, while the wealthiest Americans benefit the most from a government they say they don't want. They need government, but they don't want to pay for it.

Here are some reasons why the super-rich should be paying a lot more in taxes.

 

1. $2 of Every $5 Owned Today was Created in the Last Five Years, and Went Mostly to the Richest 10%, Mostly Untaxed

And most of it was accumulated passively, and unproductively, by just waiting out the stock market. As America's wealth increased from $47 trillion to an incredible $80.66 trillion in just five years, the richest 1% are estimated to have added an average of $5 million each to their fortunes. They pay no wealth tax, they can defer their income taxes, and they pay a reduced capital gains tax when they decide to cash in.

 

2. A Beggar Saving for a Hamburger will Pay More Sales Tax than the Entire Financial Trading Industry

There is no sales tax on financial transactions, no matter how speculative, and despite the fact that total trading value is many times more than the world economy. Derivatives trading was a major factor in the economic crash that depleted middle-class homeowner wealth in 2008. The trading volume on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reached $1 quadrillion in notional value in 2012 (that's a thousand trillion). Yet no sales tax is paid.

 

3. It's Not Possible for a Financial Person to be Worth 100,000 Teachers or Firefighters

Defenders of excessive incomes use the "meritocracy" argument. But based on merit, some of the biggest moneymakers may be among the least worthy of us. Consider hedge fund managers who profit from shortages of homes and food, pay a smaller percentage in taxes than people making thousands of times less, and have the opportunity to defer all of their taxes. Or super-wealthy stock owners, like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or the Koch brothers, who take more from society than they give, yet can make up to $10 billion in one year, enough to pay the salaries of a quarter of a million medical technicians, and all of which can be tax-deferred indefinitely.

 

4. Corporations Make Billions by Appropriating Public Research and Federal Assets

Google's business is based on the Internet, which started as the Defense Department's ARPANET; the National Science Foundation funded the Digital Library Initiative research at Stanford University that was adopted as the Google model; and Google Maps came from the massive geographical database of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Pfizer has thrived on government largesse, relying on basic research performed at the National Institute of Health. The company is also starting to profit from the Human Genome Project, which by one estimate will generate economic activity of about $140 for every dollar spent.

Just as our public research has been misappropriated, so has our land. The recent episode with freeloading Cliven Bundy highlighted the takeaway from the public, the sense of entitlement among the rich, and the disdain for a government that is supposed to protect the common good. Yet instead of defending the commons, our government leaders see it as a means of profit. Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity proposed to sell millions of acres of "unneeded federal land." Representative Cliff Stearns even recommended that we "sell off some of our national parks."

 

5. The Great Majority of Tax Breaks go to the Rich

Most of the annual $1.3 trillion in "tax expenditures" (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, and loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. One estimate of total tax expenditures is a nearly incomprehensible $900 billion a year.

For those who believe that the wealthiest Americans already pay most of the taxes, they couldn't be more wrong. Lower-income earners pay a much higher percentage in combined state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes. When all taxes are considered, middle-income and upper-middle-income earners pay about as much as the richest 1%.

A Conservative-Inspired Summary:

Paul Ryan’s great-grandfather started a construction firm, still in operation today, which in the 1950s received government contracts to help build the Interstate Highway System. Ryan attended a public high school and a public university. Part of his tuition was paid with Social Security survivor benefits. His mother, whom he refers to as his "role model," rode public transportation every day to earn a degree at the University of Wisconsin, a public university.

We're all dependent on the government services that we too easily take for granted. The wealthiest Americans receive the greatest benefits, but they insult the rest of us by treating their tax responsibility like a game.

 

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities


  • 0

#202 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 09:10 PM

Police state USA: Call the cops at your peril
Fri May 9, 2014 12:50PM GMT

Paul Craig Roberts

“Live free or die” is the motto of the state of New Hampshire. I hope the residents are prepared to die, because living free is not what they do.

NH is merely a cog within the Amerikan Stasi State, but I am referring to what goes on within NH itself, not the police state existence imposed by Washington. On May 5 attorney William Baer was arrested at a school board meeting at which he went over a 2-minute speaking rule while trying to get some explanation from the Gilford, NH, school board for assigning sexually explicit reading material to his 14-year old daughter’s English class. The evasiveness of the school board angered Mr. Baer, and he spoke out again in support of another parents protests, and was promptly arrested by a goon thug cop.

The school board chairman, Sue Allen, who has no legislative power nevertheless managed to create a law backed by police violence. After all if Bush and Obama can create laws by edict, why not a school board chairman? Under Allen’s edict, if a parent violates the 2-minute rule that Allen imposed, she has the parent arrested. The goon thug cop wasn’t embarrassed to arrest a parent for making a legitimate complaint during the public comment period of a school board meeting.

Remember, we “freedom and democracy” ‘mericans have free speech and protest rights. Actually, don’t remember that, because you no longer have any such rights.These rights are dangerous. They enable terrorists and extremists such as those dangerous people who don’t believe The Government.

This is Amerika today. Mr Baer offered no resistance, but nevertheless was lucky that the goon thug cop did not taser him, pepper spray him, and call for a backup SWAT team to beat him senseless or even murder him.

    Last month wedding guests at at the San Luis Hotel in Galveston, Texas, were set upon without reason by 34 crazed goon thug cops. The guests, including the father of the bride and the bride’s brother were brutally beaten and maced along with many guests including 13 who were arrested for asking, “what is going on?” The brother was so badly injured by the goon thugs that he had to be rushed via helicopter to a hospital.

The mayhem resulted from an off-duty goon thug witnessing a guest walk outside with an alcoholic beverage, thus violating the city’s “open container” law. Instead of advising the guest of the open container law and recommending that he step back inside, the goon thug called the cops who arrived on the scene in mass and enjoyed themselves by beating up the wedding party.

No charges have been filed against the goon thugs for gratuitously beating up wedding guests. The right of cops to beat and murder the citizens who pay their salaries is now a perk of the job. It is necessary in order to keep us safe from criminals and terrorists, descriptions that are ever expanding.

Don’t expect courts to put any restraint on police and prosecutors. Dave Lindorff and Molly Knefel have given accurate accounts of the frame-up of Cecily McMillan by a corrupt prosecutor and a corrupt goon thug. McMillan was convicted on the false charge of assaulting a police office ... . The judge, Ronald Zwiebel, enabled the conviction by preventing the defense from showing the evidence. The gullible and very stupid jurors made certain that injustice was perpetrated. Now a young woman ... faces a seven-year prison sentence for “assaulting” a goon thug.

This is Stasi Amerika today. And it gets worse. In Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, Eileen Battisti, a 53-year old widow, had her $280,000 home seized by Beaver County officials and sold at auction for $116,000 because of an unpaid $6.30 interest fee on the late payment of her school district taxes. A corrupt judge did not insist upon justice for the widow but instead upheld the robbery that benefitted both the county and the purchaser at auction of her home, S.P. Lewis. Lewis offered to sell the widow her home back for $250,000.

To see what cops are really like, read this:

Whatever you do, never call the cops. However bad you might think the situation is, it will be much worse once the goon thugs arrive:

And do not show any compassion for animals. Showing compassion for animals is proof that you are an animal-rights extremist which lumps you in with terrorists. In Albion, Michigan, extremists who feed a stray cat are fined and locked away for three months. Mary Musselman, an 81-year old Alzheimer sufferer was locked away for 90 days for feeding stray cats on her own property. When you see a starving animal, turn your back and walk away. Your inhumanity will be rewarded but your humanity will be severely punished.

Just keep in mind that “we have freedom and democracy” and we are “the exceptional and indispensable people.” Our president told us so. This designation removes you from any responsibility to other humans, much less animals. Don’t lose sight of the fact that Amerikans are so exceptional and indispensable that we have murdered seven entire countries in the new 21st century, and we are just getting started. As it is perfectly acceptable for Amerika to murder countries, how can it possibly matter if a goon thug cop murders you, your pet or your wife or husband or daughter or son?

What is so discouraging is that this article could be hundreds of thousands of pages long. I could sit here writing this article for the rest of my life, adding one incident after another, and not get beyond the tip of the iceberg.

The inhumanity of which Americans are capable and indulge in every day must scare Satan himself.

Parents arrested for protesting the assignment of pornographic reading material to 14-year olds by school boards, elderly and ill people imprisoned for feeding starving animals, pets murdered by police who are supposed to protect the citizens but instead mace them, beat them, body slam them, and shoot them and their pets gratuitously for the thrill of committing violence against life are the reason the public sector is in disrepute.

    The worst people in the country are in our public institutions. This is why there is so little sympathy for the public sector unions now under attack by the Republicans. Americans look at their county commissions, their city councils, their criminal justice (sic) system, their governors, state legislatures, Congress, and the White House, and all that they see is evil and corruption.

There is nothing else there.

Americans who trust the criminal justice (sic) system are completely stupid. A case of mass wrongful conviction that I wrote about years ago finally came to trial last November. Annie Dookham, a Massachusetts state chemist who falsified drug tests, thus sentencing thousands of innocent people to years in prison, destroying their lives and the lives of their families, was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in prison. Dookhan sent thousands of innocents to prison in order to aid prosecutors in attaining high conviction rates and in order to achieve her own rise as a highly productive state employee. The judge noted that Dookham had cost the state millions of dollars in settling wrongful convictions and had shaken to the core the integrity of the criminal justice (sic) system.

State officials say that Dookhan’s fake evidence could have tainted 40,000 cases. Ask yourself, what kind of person would destroy so many people in order to advance herself? And progressives think that the public sector is the answer.

You can ask the same question about the New York State Police and the Texas police who dropped little bags of ground up wallboard in cars stopped at random, conducted illegal searches, and arrested the occupants for drugs. Hundreds of innocents were convicted until finally one brave public defender demanded presentation of the alleged drugs and had the evidence tested. It came back: wallboard. All other public defenders had accommodated the conviction scheme and arranged plea bargains for their clients. You can read about these and other atrocities in my book, coauthored with Larry Stratton: The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

It only gets worse:

Psychopaths and bullies are naturally attracted to the police by the privilege of using essentially unaccountable force. The proclivity to violence is heightened by police training. The emphasis is on killing suspects, not on capturing them. CBS Miami reports that 23 goon thugs fired 377 rounds at two men trapped inside a car.

On May 8 a goon thug in Hearne, Texas murdered 93-year old Pearlie Golden. The elderly woman was shot five times in her front yard.

PCR/AB
Dr Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available. More articles by Dr. Roberts.


  • 0

#203 gaiacomm

gaiacomm

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2544 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 04:18 PM

Hansel...keep up the great work...


  • 0

#204 vladzo

vladzo

    Registered User

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 16824 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 08:36 PM

to gaiacom :::::::::::::::

 

here are the most recent american supplied atrocities.

 

http://engforum.prav...er-in-mariupol/

 

go to that thread and tell me how proud you are of your puki uki mercenaries.

 

vlad


  • 0

#205 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:00 AM

US elbows deep in world terrorism: Rick Rozoff
Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:39AM GMT

Interview with Rick Rozoff

Press TV has interviewed Rick Rozoff, a manager at Stop NATO Network, from Chicago, to discuss the US assassination drone program.

What follows is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: I quote the words of Christopher Haines, he’s the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, and he says the US policy of using drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the Second World War. Do you see it that way too?

Rozoff: It’s a flagrant violation of international law. It is establishing unilaterally by one nation, the United States, the right to kill at will.

    In the common parlance of the Central Intelligence Agency, the US Air Force and other government agencies involved in international drone warfare, the unmanned aerial vehicles being used right now referred to as ‘hunter, killers’ - they bear names like Predator and Reaper, Reaper presumably as in the expression Grim Reaper - that is they’re murderous by intent. They have accounted already for conservatively five to six thousand deaths in the last 10 years, in the last decade.

It’s been a decade of slaughter from the air. You use the word assassin. I think that’s inappropriate. They’re aerial assassins. If they offend international law, they certainly offend human morality.

Press TV: Ok Mr. Rozoff, jump in there. It seems like you want a response [to the previous guest speakers, Mr. Bob Ayers, comment].

Rozoff: Yeah, that’s morally reprehensible. It’s also unfactual. We know for example that one of the five countries which the US has waged drone warfare – you know, Pakistan is the most egregious example where easily 4,000 people have been killed.

To believe that various ages and both genders, to believe they’re all high-profile al-Qaeda commanders is simply ludicrous.

Second of all, they’ve also been used in Iraq in the past, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Yemen, actually in a sixth country we should mention, Libya. Pray tell, which al-Qaeda operatives were hit by US hellfire missiles fired from Predator drones in Libya?

Let me tell you something, those drones were used to attack government sources on behalf of al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, who the US and NATO were operating as an air force for. That’s simply an indefensible position.

I would suspect the people on the ground know best of all who are killed in drone strikes rather than somebody sitting in Nevada, New Mexico or California, who haven’t a ghost of an idea of who they’re ordering to be killed.

Press TV: Is the US ensuring that its drones do not target civilians? –Because I’m going to read out what President Obama said earlier regarding his drone warfare and he declared that before any strike is taken, there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured, the highest standard we can set. And he added that by nearly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people that they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Do you see it that way, Mr. Rozoff?

Rozoff: I don’t dispute that officials in the United States government, the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Joint Special Operations Command, the US Air Force and all the various agencies and branches of government involved in the now decade-long international drone warfare campaign would prefer not to kill civilians. I’m not contesting that point.

There’s a notorious expression from the 1990s, “collateral damage”, that was used in reference to the weapon of choice at that time, you know, two decades ago, which was the cruise missile. And I don’t doubt that the hellfire missile fired from a Predator or now increasingly a Reaper drone is less devastating and is going to cause less civilian death and casualties. Nevertheless, the fact is that they’re not as precise as to key in on somebody who is identified beyond question.

    You know, first of all this ‘actionable intelligence’ expression that is being used by the White House incidentally goes back to Barack Obama’s statements repeatedly during his first presidential campaign in 2008 that, and I’m roughly paraphrasing him, that if the US has actionable intelligence that there’s terrorist activities being planned inside Pakistan, the sovereign nation thereof, and if the government is either unable or unwilling to take action against them, the US reserves the right to bomb targets inside a sovereign nation without even presumably consulting with the government of that nation.

Similar complaints have been registered, as you indicated earlier in this program, by the Yemeni government. And I can certainly assure you the former government of Libya did not authorize the US firing its weapons even at its head of state, if the report most of us are acquainted with is factual, which it is, that a US hellfire missile hit the convoy that Muammar Gaddafi was in, which ultimately led to his brutalization and murder.

To presume that there’s a humanitarian component to drone warfare is simply not true.

I’m not saying that the US goes out of its way to gratuitously kill innocent civilians. I’m not asserting that, but it’s the inevitable result of this sort of military activity.

And this is no excuse in the war crimes tribunal. It certainly won’t be if the US is ever held accountable for its actions.

Press TV: Mr. Rozoff, do you agree [on the previous speaker’s comments]?

Rozoff: Do I agree that al-Qaeda ought to lay down its arms in the best of all possible situations? Certainly!

Let’s keep in mind that we would not even be speaking about al-Qaeda if not for the Central Intelligence Agency’s Operation Phoenix in the 1980s that was instrumental in recruiting extremists from around the Islamic world to be trained in military camps in northwest Pakistan for a war in Afghanistan, amongst whom incidentally was Osama bin Laden, we have to recollect, and many of his chief lieutenants.

    The US is hardly the innocent babe in the woods that my colleague on the other side is trying to portray or implicitly suggesting it is. The US is up to its bloody elbows in supporting terrorist activities around the world including most recently in Libya, but also in the Balkans in the 1990s and Afghanistan in the 1980s, and heaven knows where else currently.

Look, there are people sitting in the United States right now, some of them living rather poshly, many of them with political refugee status, who are making the same claims towards other countries; but what they would like to do is -- the other guest suggests the al-Qaeda operatives hiding out in caves in the federally administrated tribal areas in Pakistan are, I’m talking about Chechen separatists or Dagestani separatists who would like to do to Russia what is claimed al-Qaeda wants to do to the United States -- I don’t believe the other guest would permit Russia to reserve the same right as the United States does which is to launch preemptive strikes inside the United States against targeted terrorists.

Press TV: Mr. Rozoff, I’d like to get your opinion on this, does the inability of the US to capture these so-called terrorists deny them the right to do judicial process?

Rozoff: No, of course not. We have made such an elastic concept of identifying a perpetrator. Incidentally in most instances, I believe in the discussion we’ve had today, it’s the presumed motives of somebody who may be contemplating some action. In other words, somebody is not being judicially processed, is not being tried after an act has been perpetrated.

We are reading the thoughts, if you will, of people who may or may not entertain certain projects that they have no ability to execute. For example, somebody’s station in the very same cave complex that we just eluded to in Afghanistan, you know, can talk about anything they choose to talk about. They can intend to do anything. They can dream about anything, but realistically their ability to put that into practice is another question.

And when do you preemptively kill somebody for what they may be planning or intending? This is how I think the unconscionable elasticity of moral and legal concepts that has permeated the last decade has led us to the point right now that you can even kill somebody in anticipation of their possibly thinking tomorrow about perpetrating an act against us. That’s a horrible misuse of legal philosophy and legal practice.

Press TV: Mr. Rozoff, I give the last comment to you, very quickly if you can. Sometimes we’ve seen that legislation and law is always trying to play catchup with evolving technology. Do you think that the international community has done enough to cover the loopholes to ensure that this drone warfare is done responsibly without violation of international law?

Rozoff: There’s a question about whether targeted assassinations – I know they’re called targeted killing by Harold Koh in the State Department – but the substitution of the word killing for assassination doesn’t get around US law that forbids assassinations internationally.

I just want to bring a couple of things up on the question of the CIA being monitored. This is the very same CIA that ran, as I mentioned earlier, Operation Phoenix in the early 1980s, that armed to the teeth and in other ways assisted Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose two fighting groups incidentally are two of the three groups the United States acknowledges is currently fighting in Afghanistan.

If the CIA activities are so closely monitored and supposedly ethical in nature, then they have traded the very monsters they claim to be fighting in South Asia right now.

I don’t for a moment trust that Congressional and Senatorial oversight, you know, the House and Senate oversight is going to prevent the further commission of egregious acts around the world including killing 14- and 15-year-old boys, and then having US government officials saying they should have selected better parents.


  • 0

#206 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:54 AM

Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels
Global Research, May 15, 2014

This article was first published by Global Research almost ten years ago on 8 June 2004.

While America is at war in Ukraine, supportive of Neo-Nazi proxy regime, this incisive and carefully researched article by Dr. Jacques Pauwels provides us with a historical understanding of the relationship between American corporations and Nazi Germany.

The support of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine is part of a longstanding relationship.  M. Ch, GR Editor, May 15, 2014

In the United States, World War II is generally known as “the good war.”

In contrast to some of America’s admittedly bad wars, such as the near-genocidal Indian Wars and the vicious conflict in Vietnam, World War II is widely celebrated as a “crusade” in which the US fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship.

No wonder President George W. Bush likes to compare his ongoing “war against terrorism” with World War II, suggesting that America is once again involved on the right side in an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil. Wars, however, are never quite as black-and-white as Mr. Bush would have us believe, and this also applies to World War II. America certainly deserves credit for its important contribution to the hard-fought victory that was ultimately achieved by the Allies. But the role of corporate America in the war is hardly synthesized by President Roosevelt’s claim that the US was the “arsenal of democracy.” When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. 1 Corporate America, it turned out, had also been serving as the arsenal of Nazism.

Fans of the Führer

Mussolini enjoyed a great deal of admiration in corporate America from the moment he came to power in a coup that was hailed stateside as “a fine young revolution.” Hitler, on the other hand, sent mixed signals. Like their German counterparts, American businessmen long worried about the intentions and the methods of this plebeian upstart, whose ideology was called National Socialism, whose party identified itself as a workers’ party, and who spoke ominously of bringing about revolutionary change. Some high-profile leaders of corporate America, however, such as Henry Ford liked and admired the Führer at an early stage.

Other precocious Hitler-admirers were press lord Randolph Hearst and Irénée Du Pont, head of the Du Pont trust, who according to Charles Higham, had already “keenly followed the career of the future Führer in the 1920s” and supported him financially.

Eventually, most American captains of industry learned to love the Führer. It is often hinted that fascination with Hitler was a matter of personalities, a matter of psychology. Authoritarian personalities supposedly could not help but like and admire a man who preached the virtues of the “leadership principle” and practised what he preached first in his party and then in Germany as a whole.

Although he cites other factors as well, it is essentially in such terms that Edwin Black, author of the otherwise excellent book IBM and the Holocaust, explains the case of IBM chairman Thomas J. Watson, who met Hitler on a number of occasions in the 1930s and became fascinated with Germany’s authoritarian new ruler. But it is in the realm of political economy, not psychology, that one can most profitably understand why corporate America embraced Hitler.

In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany’s largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman.

The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business. 6 American overseas ventures fared poorly in the early 1930s, as the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard. Production and profits dropped precipitously, the political situation was extremely unstable, there were constant strikes and street battles between Nazis and Communists, and many feared that the country was ripe for a “red” revolution like the one that had brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917.

However, backed by the power and money of German industrialists and bankers such as Thyssen, Krupp, and Schacht, Hitler came to power in January 1933, and not only the political but also the socio-economic situation changed drastically.

Soon the German subsidiaries of American corporations were profitable again. Why? After Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the socio-economic status quo.

The Führer’s Teutonic brand of fascism, like every other variety of fascism, was reactionary in nature, and extremely useful for capitalists’ purposes. Brought to power by Germany’s leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his “enablers.” His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.

This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change — embodied by Germany’s Communists — but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless “mass of followers” (Gefolgschaft), to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and Krupps. Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labour costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labour costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6)

Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Essen increased its profitability considerably because, in Hitler’s state, workers “were little more than serfs forbidden not only to strike, but to change jobs,” driven “to work harder [and] faster” while their wages “were deliberately set quite low.”

In Nazi Germany, real wages indeed declined rapidly, while profits increased correspondingly, but there were no labour problems worth mentioning, for any attempt to organize a strike immediately triggered an armed response by the Gestapo, resulting in arrests and dismissals. This was the case in GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim in June 1936. (Billstein et al., 25) As the Thuringian teacher and anti-fascist resistance member Otto Jenssen wrote after the war, Germany’s corporate leaders were happy “that fear for the concentration camp made the German workers as meek as lapdogs.” 8 The owners and managers of American corporations with investments in Germany were no less enchanted, and if they openly expressed their admiration or Hitler — as did the chairman of General Motors, William Knudsen, and ITT-boss Sosthenes Behn — it was undoubtedly because he had resolved Germany’s social problems in a manner that benefited their interests.

Depression? What Depression?

Hitler endeared himself to corporate America for another very important reason: he conjured up a solution to the huge problem of the Great Depression. His remedy proved to be a sort of Keynesian stratagem, whereby state orders stimulated demand, got production going again, and made it possible for firms in Germany — including foreign-owned firms — to increase production levels dramatically and to achieve an unprecedented level of profitability.

What the Nazi state ordered from German industry, however, was war equipment, and it was soon clear that Hitler’s rearmament policy would lead inexorably to war, because only the spoils resulting from a victorious war would enable the regime to pay the huge bills presented by the suppliers.

The Nazi rearmament program revealed itself as a wonderful window of opportunity for the subsidiaries of US corporations. Ford claims that its Ford-Werke was discriminated against by the Nazi regime because of its foreign ownership, but acknowledges that in the second half of the 1930s its Cologne subsidiary was “formally certified [by the Nazi authorities] … as being of German origin” and therefore “eligible to receive government contracts.” (Research Findings, 21) Ford took advantage of this opportunity, though the government orders were almost exclusively for military equipment. Ford’s German branch plant had posted heavy losses in the early 1930s, however, with lucrative government contracts thanks to Hitler’s rearmament drive, the Ford-Werke’s annual profits rose spectacularly from 63,000 Reichsmarks in 1935 to 1,287,800 RM in 1939.

GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim near Mainz fared even better. Its share of the German automobile market grew from 35 per cent in 1933 to more than 50 per cent in 1935, and the GM subsidiary, which had lost money in the early 1930s, became extremely profitable thanks to the economic boom caused by Hitler’s rearmament program. Earnings of 35 million RM — almost 14 million dollars (US) — were recorded in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6; and Billstein et al., 24) 10 In 1939, on the eve of the war, the chairman of GM, Alfred P. Sloan, publicly justified doing business in Hitler’s Germany by pointing to the highly profitable nature of GM’s operations under the Third Reich.

Yet another American corporation that enjoyed a bonanza in Hitler’s Third Reich was IBM. Its German subsidiary, Dehomag, provided the Nazis with the punch-card machine — forerunner of the computer — required to automate production in the country, and in doing so IBM-Germany made plenty of money. In 1933, the year Hitler came to power, Dehomag made a profit of one million dollars, and during the early Hitler years the German branch plant paid IBM in the US some 4.5 million dollars in dividends. By 1938, still in full Depression, “annual earnings were about 2.3 million RM, a 16 per cent return on net assets,” writes Edwin Black. In 1939 Dehomag’s profits increased spectacularly again to about four million RM. (Black, 76–7, 86–7, 98, 119, 120–1, 164, 198, and 222)

American firms with branch plants in Germany were not the only ones to earn windfalls from Hitler’s rearmament drive. Germany was stockpiling oil in preparation for war, and much of this oil was supplied by American corporations. Texaco profited greatly from sales to Nazi Germany, and not surprisingly its chairman, Torkild Rieber, became yet another powerful American entrepreneur who admired Hitler. A member of the German secret service reported that he was “absolutely pro-German” and “a sincere admirer of the Führer.” Rieber also became a personal friend of Göring, Hitler’s economic czar.

As for Ford, that corporation not only produced for the Nazis in Germany itself, but also exported partially assembled trucks directly from the US to Germany. These vehicles were assembled in the Ford-Werke in Cologne and were ready just in time to be used in the spring of 1939, in Hitler’s occupation of the part of Czechoslovakia that had not been ceded to him in the infamous Munich Agreement of the previous year. In addition, in the late 1930s, Ford shipped strategic raw materials to Germany, sometimes via subsidiaries in third countries; in early 1937 alone, these shipments included almost 2 million pounds of rubber and 130,000 pounds of copper. (Research Findings, 24, and 28)

American corporations made a lot of money in Hitler’s Germany; this, and not the Führer’s alleged charisma, is the reason why the owners and managers of these corporations adored him. Conversely, Hitler and his cronies were most pleased with the performance of American capital in the Nazi state. Indeed, the American subsidiaries’ production of war equipment met and even surpassed the expectations of the Nazi leadership.

Berlin promptly paid the bills and Hitler personally showed his appreciation by awarding prestigious decorations to the likes of Henry Ford, IBM’s Thomas Watson, and GM’s export director, James D. Mooney. The stock of American investments in Germany increased considerably after Hitler came to power in 1933. The major reason for this was that the Nazi regime did not allow profits made by foreign firms to be repatriated, at least not in theory. In reality, corporate headquarters could circumvent this embargo by means of stratagems such as billing the German subsidiary for “royalties” and all sorts of “fees.” Still, the restriction meant that profits were largely reinvested within the land of opportunity that Germany revealed itself to be at the time, for example in the modernization of existing facilities, in the construction or acquisition of new factories, and in the purchase of Reich bonds and real estate. IBM thus reinvested its considerable earnings in a new factory in Berlin-Lichterfelde, in an expansion of its facilities at Sindelfingen near Stuttgart, in numerous branch offices throughout the Reich, and in the purchase of rental properties in Berlin and other real estate and tangible assets. (Black, 60, 99, 116, and 122–3)

Under these circumstances, the value of IBM’s German venture increased considerably, by late 1938 the net worth of Dehomag had doubled from 7.7 million RM in 1934 to over 14 million RM. (Black, 76–7, 86–7, 98, 119–21, 164, 198, and 222) The value of the total assets of the Ford-Werke likewise mushroomed in the 1930s, from 25.8 million RM in 1933 to 60.4 million RM in 1939. (Research Findings, 133) American investment in Germany thus continued to expand under Hitler, and amounted to about 475 million dollars by the time of Pearl Harbor. (Research Findings, 6)

Better Hitler than “Rosenfeld”

Throughout the “dirty thirties,” corporate profits in the US remained depressed, at home firms like GM and Ford could only dream of the kind of riches their branch plants in Germany were accumulating thanks to Hitler. In addition, at home corporate America experienced problems with labour activists, Communists, and other radicals. What about the vicious trademarks of the Führer’s personality and regime?

Did they not disturb the leaders of corporate America? Apparently not much, if at all. The racial hatred propagated by Hitler, for example, did not overly offend their sensibilities. After all, racism against non-Whites remained systemic throughout the US and anti-Semitism was rife in the corporate class. In the exclusive clubs and fine hotels patronized by the captains of industry, Jews were rarely admitted; and some leaders of corporate America were outspoken anti-Semites. 14

In the early 1920s, Henry Ford cranked out a vehemently anti-Semitic book, The International Jew, which was translated into many languages; Hitler read the German version and acknowledged later that it provided him with inspiration and encouragement. Another notoriously anti-Semitic American tycoon was Irénée Du Pont, even though the Du Pont family had Jewish antecedents. 15 Corporate America’s anti-Semitism strongly resembled that of Hitler, whose view of Judaism was intimately interwoven with his view of Marxism, as Arno J. Mayer has convincingly argued in his book Why Did the Heavens not Darken?

Hitler claimed to be a socialist, but his was supposed to be a “national” socialism, a socialism for racially pure Germans only. As for genuine socialism, which preached international working-class solidarity and found its inspiration in the work of Karl Marx, it was despised by Hitler as a Jewish ideology that purported to enslave or even destroy Germans and other “Aryans.” Hitler loathed as “Jewish” all forms of Marxism, but none more so than communism (or “Bolshevism”) and he denounced the Soviet Union as the homeland of “Jewish” international socialism.

In the 1930s, the anti-Semitism of corporate America likewise revealed itself to be the other side of the coin of anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, and red-baiting. Most American businessmen denounced Roosevelt’s New Deal as a “socialistic” meddling in the economy. The anti-Semites of corporate America considered Roosevelt to be a crypto-Communist and an agent of Jewish interests, if not a Jew himself; he was routinely referred to as “Rosenfeld,” and his New Deal was vilified as the “Jew Deal.”

In  his book The Flivver King, Upton Sinclair described the notoriously anti-Semitic Henry Ford dreaming of an American fascist movement that “pledged to put down the Reds and preserve the property interests of the country; to oust the Bolshevik [Roosevelt] from the White House and all his pink professors from the government services … [and] to make it a shooting offense to talk communism or to call a strike.” Other American tycoons also yearned for a fascist saviour who might rid America of its “reds” and thus restore prosperity and profitability. Du Pont provided generous financial support to America’s own fascist organizations, such as the infamous “Black Legion,” and was even involved in plans for a fascist coup d’état in Washington. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 585–6)

Why Worry about the Coming War?

It was quite obvious that Hitler, who was rearming Germany to the teeth, was going to unleash a major war sooner or later. Whatever misgivings America’s captains of industry may initially have had in this respect soon dissipated, because the cognoscenti of international diplomacy and business in the 1930s widely expected that Hitler would spare western countries, instead attacking and destroying the Soviet Union as promised in Mein Kampf. To encourage and assist him in the task that he considered his great mission in life, 20 was the hidden objective of the infamous appeasement policy pursued by London and Paris, and tacitly approved by Washington. 21

Corporate leaders in all western countries, including most emphatically the US, loathed the Soviet Union because that state was the cradle of the communist “counter system” to the international capitalist order of things, and a source of inspiration to America’s own “reds.” Furthermore, they found particularly offensive that the homeland of communism did not fall prey to the Great Depression, but experienced an industrial revolution that has been favourably compared by American historian, John H. Backer with the widely celebrated “economic miracle” of West Germany after World War II.

The appeasement policy was a devious scheme, whose real objective had to be concealed from the British and French publics. It backfired spectacularly because its contortions eventually made Hitler suspicious about the real intentions of London and Paris, which caused him to make a deal with Stalin, and thus led to Germany’s war against France and Great Britain rather than the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, the dream of a German crusade against the communist Soviet Union on behalf of the capitalist West refused to die. London and Paris merely launched a “Phoney War” against Germany, hoping that Hitler would eventually turn against the Soviet Union after all. This was also the idea behind quasi-official missions to London and Berlin, undertaken by GM’s James D. Mooney, who tried very hard — as did the US ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, father of John F. Kennedy — to persuade German and British leaders to resolve their inconvenient conflict, so that Hitler could devote his undivided attention to his great eastern project. In a meeting with Hitler in March 1940, Mooney made a plea for peace in western Europe, suggesting “that Americans had understanding for Germany’s standpoint with respect to the question of living space” — in other words, that they had nothing against his territorial claims in the East. (Billstein et al., 37–44)

These American initiatives, however, did not produce the hoped-for results. The owners and managers of American corporations with subsidiaries in Germany undoubtedly regretted that the war Hitler had unleashed in 1939 was a war against the West, but in the final analysis it did not matter all that much. What did matter was this: helping Hitler to prepare for war had been good business and the war itself opened up even more extravagant prospects for doing business and making profits.

Putting the Blitz in the Blitzkrieg

Germany’s military successes of 1939 and 1940 were based on a new and extremely mobile form of warfare, the Blitzkrieg, consisting of extremely swift and highly synchronized attacks by air and land.

To wage “lightning war,” Hitler needed engines, tanks, trucks, planes, motor oil, gasoline, rubber, and sophisticated communication systems to insure that the Stukas struck in tandem with the Panzers. Much of that equipment was supplied by American firms, mainly German subsidiaries of big American corporations, but some was exported from the US, albeit usually via third countries. Without this kind of American support, the Führer could only have dreamed of “lightning wars,” followed by “lightning victories,” in 1939 and 1940.

Many of Hitler’s wheels and wings were produced in the German subsidiaries of GM and Ford. By the end of the 1930s these enterprises had phased out civilian production to focus exclusively on the development of military hardware for the German army and air force.

This switch, requested — if not ordered — by the Nazi authorities, had not only been approved, but even actively encouraged by the corporate headquarters in the US. The Ford-Werke in Cologne proceeded to build not only countless trucks and personnel carriers, but also engines and spare parts for the Wehrmacht. GM’s new Opel factory in Brandenburg cranked out “Blitz” trucks for the Wehrmacht, while the main factory in Rüsselsheim produced primarily for the Luftwaffe, assembling planes such as the JU-88, the workhorse of Germany’s fleet of bombers. At one point, GM and Ford together reportedly accounted for no less than half of Germany’s entire production of tanks. (Billstein et al., 25,)

Meanwhile ITT had acquired a quarter of the shares of airplane manufacturer Focke-Wulf, and so helped to construct fighter planes. Perhaps the Germans could have assembled vehicles and airplanes without American assistance. But Germany desperately lacked strategic raw materials, such as rubber and oil, which were needed to fight a war predicated on mobility and speed. American corporations came to the rescue.

As mentioned earlier, Texaco helped the Nazis stockpile fuel. In addition, as the war in Europe got underway, large quantities of diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and other petroleum products were shipped to Germany not only by Texaco but also by Standard Oil, mostly via Spanish ports. (The German Navy, incidentally, was provided with fuel by the Texas oilman William Rhodes Davis.) In the 1930s Standard Oil had helped IG Farben develop synthetic fuel as an alternative to regular oil, of which Germany had to import every single drop. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 588–9)

Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and wartime armament minister, stated after the war that without certain kinds of synthetic fuel made available by American firms, Hitler “would never have considered invading Poland.” As for the Focke-Wulfs and other fast German fighter planes, they could not have achieved their deadly speed without a component in their fuel known as synthetic tetraethyl; the Germans themselves later admitted that without tetraethyl the entire Blitzkrieg concept of warfare would have been unthinkable.

This magic ingredient was produced by an enterprise named Ethyl GmbH, a daughter firm of a trio formed by Standard Oil, Standard’s German partner IG Farben, and GM. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 589) 28 Blitzkrieg warfare involved perfectly synchronized attacks by land and by air, and this required highly sophisticated communications equipment. ITT’s German subsidiary supplied most of that apparatus, while other state-of-the-art technology useful for Blitzkrieg purposes came compliments of IBM, via its German branch plant, Dehomag. According to Edwin Black, IBM’s know-how enabled the Nazi war machine to “achieve scale, velocity, efficiency”; IBM, he concludes, “put the ‘blitz’ in the krieg for Nazi Germany.” (Black, 208) From the perspective of corporate America it was no catastrophe that Germany had established its mastery over the European continent by the summer of 1940.

Some German subsidiaries of American corporations — for example the Ford-Werke and Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Essen — were expanding into the occupied countries, riding the coat-tails of the victorious Wehrmacht. IBM’s president, Thomas Watson, was confident that his German branch plant would gain advantage from Hitler’s triumphs. Black writes: “Like many [other US businessmen], Watson expected” that Germany would remain master of Europe, and that IBM would benefit from this by “[ruling] the data domain,” that is, by providing Germany with the technological tools for total control. (Black, 212)

On 26 June 1940 a German commercial delegate organized a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York to cheer the victories of the Wehrmacht in western Europe. Many leading industrialists attended, including James D. Mooney, the executive in charge of GM’s German operations. Five days later, the German victories were again celebrated in New York, this time at a party hosted by the philo-fascist Rieber, boss of Texaco. Among the leaders of corporate America present were James D. Mooney and Henry Ford’s son, Edsel.

What a Wonderful War!

Nineteenfourty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils of Hitler’s triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict “cash-and-carry” basis and then through “Lend-Lease,” President Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely.

By the end of 1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate America’s factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et al., also had branch plants), or in Germany. It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view.

Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible. Henry Ford had initially refused to produce weapons for Great Britain, but now he changed his tune. According to his biographer, David Lanier Lewis, he “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and he suggested that the US should supply both the Allies and the Axis powers with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.”

On 22 June 1941 the Wehrmacht rolled across the Soviet border, powered by Ford and GM engines and equipped with the tools produced in Germany by American capital and know-how.

While many leaders of corporate America hoped that the Nazis and the Soviets would remain locked for as long as possible in a war that would debilitate them both, thus prolonging the European war that was proving to be so profitable, the experts in Washington and London predicted that the Soviets would be crushed, “like an egg” by the Wehrmacht. The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to a standstill.

And on 5 December 1941, the Red Army even launched a counter-offensive. It was henceforth evident that the Germans would be preoccupied for quite some time on the Eastern Front, that this would also permit the British to continue to wage war, and that the profitable Lend-Lease business would therefore continue indefinitely. The situation became even more advantageous to corporate America when it appeared that business could henceforth also be done with the Soviets. Indeed, in November 1941, when it had already become clear that the Soviet Union was not about to collapse, Washington agreed to extend credit to Moscow, and concluded a Lend-Lease agreement with the USSR, thus providing the big American corporations with yet another market for their products.

American Aid to the Soviets…and to the Nazis

After the war, it would become customary in the West to claim that the unexpected Soviet success against Nazi Germany had been made possible because of massive American assistance, provided under the terms of a Lend-Lease agreement between Washington and Moscow, and that without this aid the Soviet Union would not have survived the Nazi attack. This claim is doubtful.

First, American material assistance did not become meaningful before 1942, that is, long after the Soviets had single-handedly put an end to the progress made by the Wehrmacht and had launched their first counteroffensive. Second, American aid never represented more than four to five per cent of total Soviet wartime production, although it must be admitted that even such a slim margin may possibly prove crucial in a crisis situation. Third, the Soviets themselves cranked out all of the light and heavy high-quality weapons — such as the T-34 tank, probably the best tank of World War II — that made their success against the Wehrmacht possible. Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large extent neutralized — and arguably dwarfed — by the unofficial, discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states.

The American share of Germany’s imports of vitally important oil for engine lubrication (Motorenöl) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July 1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible, according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the field of American “fuel for the Führer.” 35 Hitler was still ruminating the catastrophic news of the Soviet counter-offensive and the failure of the Blitzkrieg in the East, when he learned that the Japanese had launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The US were now at war with Japan, but Washington made no move to declare war on Germany.

Hitler had no obligation to rush to the aid of his Japanese friends, but on 11 December 1941, he declared war on the US, probably expecting — vainly as it turned out — that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. Hitler’s needless declaration of war, accompanied by a similarly frivolous Italian declaration of war, made the US an active participant in the war in Europe. How did this affect the German assets of the big American corporations?

Business as Usual

The German subsidiaries of American corporations were not ruthlessly confiscated by the Nazis and removed entirely from the control of stateside corporate headquarters until the defeat of Germany in 1945, as parent companies would claim after the war. Regarding the assets of Ford and GM, for example, the German expert Hans Helms states, “not even once during their terror regime did the Nazis undertake the slightest attempt to change the ownership status of Ford [i.e. the Ford-Werke] or Opel.” 37 Even after Pearl Harbor, Ford retained its 52 per cent of the shares of Ford-Werke in Cologne, and GM remained Opel’s sole proprietor. (Billstein et al., 74, and 141)

Moreover, the American owners and managers maintained a sometimes considerable measure of control over their branch plants in Germany after the German declaration of war on the US. There is evidence that the corporate headquarters in the US and the branch plants in Germany stayed in contact with each other, either indirectly, via subsidiaries in neutral Switzerland, or directly by means of modern worldwide systems of communications. The latter was supplied by ITT in collaboration with Transradio, a joint venture of ITT itself, RCA (another American corporation), and the German firms Siemens and Telefunken.

In its recent report on its activities in Nazi Germany, Ford claims that its corporate headquarters in Dearborn had no direct contact with the German subsidiary after Pearl Harbor. As for the possibility of communications via branch plants in neutral countries, the report states that “there is no indication of communication with each other through these subsidiaries.” (Research Findings, 88)

However, the lack of such “indication” may simply mean that any evidence of contacts may have been lost or destroyed before the authors of the report were allowed access to the relevant archives; after all, this archival access was only granted more than 50 years after the facts. Moreover, the report itself acknowledges somewhat contradictorily that an executive of the Ford-Werke did travel to Lisbon in 1943 for a visit to the Portuguese Ford subsidiary, and it is extremely unlikely that Dearborn would have been unaware of this. As for IBM, Edwin Black writes that during the war its general manager for Europe, Dutchman Jurriaan W. Schotte, was stationed in the corporate headquarters in New York, where he “continued to regularly maintain communication with IBM subsidiaries in Nazi territory, such as his native Holland and Belgium.” IBM could also “monitor events and exercise authority in Europe through neutral country subsidiaries,” and especially through its Swiss branch in Geneva, whose director, a Swiss national, “freely travelled to and from Germany, occupied territories, and neutral countries.”

Finally, like many other large US corporations, IBM could also rely on American diplomats stationed in occupied and neutral countries to forward messages via diplomatic pouches. (Black, 339, 376, and 392–5) The Nazis not only allowed the American owners to retain possession and a certain amount of administrative control over their German assets and subsidiaries, but their own intervention in the management of Opel and the Ford-Werke, for example, remained minimal.

After the German declaration of war against the US, the American staff members admittedly disappeared from the scene, but the existing German managers — confidants of the bosses in the US — generally retained their positions of authority and continued to run the businesses, thereby keeping in mind the interests of the corporate headquarters and the shareholders in America.

For Opel, GM’s headquarters in the US retained virtually total control over the managers in Rüsselsheim; so writes American historian Bradford Snell, who devoted attention to this theme in the 1970s, but whose findings were contested by GM. A recent study by German researcher Anita Kugler confirms Snell’s account while providing a more detailed and more nuanced picture. After the German declaration of war on the US, she writes the Nazis initially did not bother the management of Opel at all. Only on 25 November 1942 did Berlin appoint an “enemy assets’ custodian,” but the significance of this move turned out to be merely symbolic. The Nazis simply wanted to create a German image for an enterprise that was owned 100 per cent by GM throughout the war. (Billstein et al., 61)

In the Ford-Werke, Robert Schmidt, allegedly an ardent Nazi, served as general manager during the war, and his performance greatly satisfied both the authorities in Berlin and the Ford managers in America. Messages of approval and even congratulations — signed by Edsel Ford — were regularly forthcoming from Ford’s corporate headquarters in Dearborn. The Nazis too were delighted with Schmidt’s work; in due course they awarded him the title, “leader in the field of the military economy.” Even when, months after Pearl Harbor, a custodian was appointed to oversee the Ford plant in Cologne, Schmidt retained his prerogatives and his freedom of action. IBM’s wartime experience with Axis custodians in Germany, France, Belgium, and other countries was likewise far from traumatic.

According to Black, “they zealously protected the assets, extended productivity, and increased profits”; moreover, “existing IBM managers were kept in place as day-to-day managers and, in some cases, even appointed deputy enemy custodians.” (Black, 376, 400–2, 405, and 415) The Nazis were far less interested in the nationality of the owners or the identity of the managers than in production, because after the failure of their Blitzkrieg strategy in the Soviet Union they experienced an ever-growing need for mass-produced airplanes and trucks.

Ever since Henry Ford had pioneered the use of the assembly line and other “Fordist” techniques, American firms had been the leaders in the field of industrial mass production, and the American branch plants in Germany, including GM’s Opel subsidiary, were no exception to this general rule. Nazi planners like Göring and Speer understood that radical changes in Opel’s management might hinder production in Brandenburg and Rüsselsheim. To maintain Opel’s output at high levels, the managers in charge were allowed to carry on because they were familiar with the particularly efficient American methods of production. Anita Kugler concludes that Opel, “made its entire production and research available to the Nazis and thus — objectively speaking — contributed to enhance their long-term capability to wage war.” (Billstein et al., 81)

Experts believe that GM’s and Ford’s best wartime technological innovations primarily benefitted their branch plants in Nazi Germany. As examples they cite all-wheel-drive Opel trucks, which proved eminently useful to the Germans in the mud of the Eastern Front and in the desert of North Africa, as well as the engines for the brand new ME-262, the first jet fighter, were also assembled by Opel in Rüsselsheim. As for the Ford-Werke, in 1939 this firm also developed a state-of-the-art truck — the Maultier (“mule”) — that had wheels on the front and a track on the back end. The Ford-Werke also created a “cloak company,” Arendt GmbH, to produce war equipment other than vehicles, specifically machining parts for airplanes. But Ford claims that this was done without Dearborn’s knowledge or approval.

Towards the end of the war this factory was involved in the top-secret development of turbines for the infamous V-2 rockets that wreaked devastation on London and Antwerp. (Research Findings, 41–2) ITT continued to supply Germany with advanced communication systems after Pearl Harbor, to the detriment of the Americans themselves, whose diplomatic code was broken by the Nazis with the help of such equipment. Until the very end of the war, ITT’s production facilities in Germany as well as in neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain provided the German armed forces with state-of-the-art martial toys. Charles Higham offers specifics:

After Pearl Harbor the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells … This was to increase to fifty thousand per month by 1944. In addition, ITT supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London, selenium cells for dry rectifiers, high-frequency radio equipment, and fortification and field communication sets. Without this supply of crucial materials it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea.

No surprise then that the German subsidiaries of American enterprises were regarded as “pioneers of technological development” by the planners in Germany’s Reich Economics Ministry and other Nazi authorities involved in the war effort.

Edwin Black also claims that IBM’s advanced punch card technology, precursor to the computer, enabled the Nazis to automate persecution. IBM allegedly put the fantastical numbers in the Holocaust, because it supplied the Hitler regime with the Hollerith calculating machines and other tools that were used to “generate lists of Jews and other victims, who were then targeted for deportation” and to “register inmates [of concentration camps] and track slave labor.” (Black, xx) However, critics of Black’s study maintain that the Nazis could and would have achieved their deadly efficiency without the benefit of IBM’s technology. In any event, the case of IBM provides yet another example of how US corporations supplied state-of-the-art technology to the Nazis and obviously did not care too much for what evil purposes this technology would be used.

Profits über Alles!

The owners and managers of the parent firms in the US cared little what products were developed and rolled off the German assembly lines. What counted for them and for the shareholders were only the profits. Branch plants of American corporations in Germany achieved considerable earnings during the war, and this money was not pocketed by the Nazis. For the Ford-Werke precise figures are available.

The profits of Dearborn’s German subsidiary rose from 1.2 million RM in 1939 to 1.7 million RM in 1940, 1.8 million RM in 1941, 2.0 million RM in 1942, and 2.1 million RM in 1943. (Research Findings, 136). 45 The Ford subsidiaries in occupied France, Holland, and Belgium, where the American corporate giant also made an industrial contribution to the Nazi war effort, were likewise extraordinarily successful. Ford-France, for example — not a flourishing firm before the war — became very profitable after 1940 thanks to its unconditional collaboration with the Germans; in 1941 it registered earnings of 58 million francs, an achievement for which it was warmly congratulated by Edsel Ford. (Billstein et al, 106; and Research Findings, 73–5)

As for Opel, that firm’s profits skyrocketed to the point where the Nazi Ministry of Economics banned their publication to avoid bad blood on the part of the German population, which was increasingly being asked to tighten its collective belt. (Billstein et al, 73) IBM not only experienced soaring profits in its German branch plant, but, like Ford, also saw its profits in occupied France jump primarily because of business generated through eager collaboration with the German occupation authorities. It was soon necessary to build new factories. Above all, however, IBM prospered in Germany and in the occupied countries because it sold the Nazis the technological tools required for identifying, deporting, ghettoizing, enslaving, and ultimately exterminating millions of European Jews, in other words, for organizing the Holocaust. (Black, 212, 253, and 297–9)

It is far from clear what happened to the profits made in Germany during the war by American subsidiaries, but some tantalizing tidbits of information have nevertheless emerged. In the 1930s American corporations had developed various strategies to circumvent the Nazis’ embargo on profit repatriation. IBM’s head office in New York, for example, regularly billed Dehomag for royalties due to the parent firm, for repayment of contrived loans, and for other fees and expenses; this practice and other byzantine inter-company transactions minimized profits in Germany and thus simultaneously functioned as an effective tax-avoidance scheme. In addition, there were other ways of handling the embargo on profit repatriation, such as reinvestment within Germany, but after 1939 this option was no longer permitted, at least not in theory.

In practice, the American subsidiaries did manage to quite considerably increase their assets that way. Opel, for example, took over a foundry in Leipzig in 1942. It also remained possible to use earnings in order to improve and modernize the branch plant’s own infrastructure, that too, happened in the case of Opel.

There also existed opportunities for expansion in the occupied countries of Europe. Ford’s subsidiary in France used its profits in 1941 to build a tank factory in Oran, Algeria; this plant allegedly provided Rommel’s Africa Corps with the hardware needed to advance all the way to El Alamein in Egypt. In 1943 the Ford-Werke also established a foundry not far from Cologne, just across the Belgian border near Liège, to produce spare parts. (Research Findings, 133) It is likely, furthermore, that a portion of the lucre amassed in the Third Reich was transferred back to the US in some way, for example, by way of neutral Switzerland. Many US corporations maintained offices there that served as intermediaries between stateside headquarters and their subsidiaries in enemy or occupied countries, and that were also involved in “profit funnelling,” as Edwin Black writes in connection with the Swiss branch of IBM. (Black, 73)

For the purpose of profit repatriation, corporations could also call on the experienced services of the Paris branches of some American banks, such as Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan, and of a number of Swiss banks. Chase Manhattan was part of the Rockefeller empire, as was Standard Oil, IG Farben’s American partner; its branch in German-occupied Paris remained open throughout the war and profited handsomely from close collaboration with the German authorities. On the Swiss side there also happened to be some financial institutions involved that — without asking difficult questions — took care of the gold robbed by the Nazis from their Jewish victims. An important role was played in this respect by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, a presumably international bank that had been founded in 1930 within the framework of the Young Plan for the purpose of facilitating German reparation payments after World War I.

American and German bankers (such as Schacht) dominated the BIS from the start and collaborated cozily in this financial venture. During the war, a German and a member of the Nazi Party, Paul Hechler, functioned as director of the BIS, while an American, Thomas H. McKittrick, served as president. McKittrick was a good friend of the American ambassador in Berne and American secret service [OSS, forerunner of the CIA] agent in Switzerland, Allen Dulles. Before the war, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles had been partners in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, and had specialized in the very profitable business of handling American investments in Germany. They had excellent connections with the owners and top managers of American corporations and with bankers, businessmen, and government officials — including Nazi bigwigs — in Germany. After the outbreak of war, John Foster became the corporate lawyer for the BIS in New York, while Allen joined the OSS and took up a post in Switzerland, where he happened to befriend McKittrick. It is widely known that during the war the BIS handled enormous amounts of money and gold originating in Nazi Germany. Is it unreasonable to suspect that these transfers might have involved US-bound profits of American branch plants, in other words, money hoarded by clients and associates of the ubiquitous Dulles brothers?

Bring on the Slave Labour!

Before the war, German corporations had eagerly taken advantage of the big favour done for them by the Nazis, namely the elimination of the labour unions and the resulting transformation of the formerly militant German working class into a meek “mass of followers.” Not surprisingly, in Nazi Germany real wages declined rapidly while profits increased correspondingly. During the war prices continued to rise, while wages were gradually eroded and working hours were increased. This was also the experience of the labour force of the American subsidiaries. In order to combat the labour shortages in the factories, the Nazis relied increasingly on foreign labourers who were put to work in Germany under frequently inhuman conditions.

Together with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and other POWs as well as inmates of concentration camps, these Fremdarbeiter (forced labourers) formed a gigantic pool of workers that could be exploited at will by whomever recruited them, in return for a modest remuneration paid to the SS. The SS, moreover, also maintained the required discipline and order with an iron hand. Wage costs thus sank to a level of which today’s downsizers can only dream, and the corporate profits augmented correspondingly.

The German branch plants of American corporations also made eager use of slave labour supplied by the Nazis, not only Fremdarbeiter, but also POWs and even concentration camp inmates. For example, the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company based in Velbert in the Rhineland reportedly relied on “the aid of labourers from Eastern Europe” to make “considerable profits,” and Coca-Cola is also noted to have benefitted from the use of foreign workers, as well as prisoners of war in its Fanta plants. The most spectacular examples of the use of forced labour by American subsidiaries, however, appear to have been provided by Ford and GM, two cases that were recently the subject of a thorough investigation.

Of the Ford-Werke it is alleged that starting in 1942 this firm “zealously, aggressively, and successfully” pursued the use of foreign workers and POWs from the Soviet Union, France, Belgium, and other occupied countries — apparently with the knowledge of corporate headquarters in the US. 54 Karola Fings, a German researcher who has carefully studied the wartime activities of the Ford-Werke, writes:

[Ford] did wonderful business with the Nazis. Because the acceleration of production during the war opened up totally new opportunities to keep the level of wage costs low. A general freeze on wage increases was in effect in the Ford-Werke from 1941 on. However, the biggest profit margins could be achieved by means of the use of so-called Ostarbeiter [forced workers from Eastern Europe]. The thousands of foreign forced labourers put to work in the Ford-Werke were forced to slave away every day except Sunday for twelve hours, and for this they received no wage whatsoever.

Presumably even worse was the treatment reserved for the relatively small number of inmates of the concentration camp of Buchenwald, who were made available to the Ford-Werke in the summer of 1944. (Research Findings, 45–72) In contrast to the Ford-Werke, Opel never used concentration camp inmates, at least not in the firm’s main plants in Rüsselsheim and Brandenburg. The German subsidiary of GM, however, did have an insatiable appetite for other types of forced labour, such as POWs. Typical of the use of slave labour in the Opel factories, particularly when it involved Russians, writes historian Anita Kugler, were “maximum exploitation, the worst possible treatment, and…capital punishment even in the case of minor offences.” The Gestapo was in charge of supervising the foreign labourers.

A Licence to Work for the Enemy

In the US, the parent corporations of German subsidiaries worked very hard to convince the American public of their patriotism, so that no ordinary American would have thought that GM, for example, which financed anti-German posters at home, was involved on the distant banks of the Rhine in activities that amounted to treason.

Washington was far better informed than John Doe, but the American government observed the unwritten rule stipulating that “what is good for General Motors is good for America,” and turned a blind eye to the fact that American corporations accumulated riches through their investments in, or trade with, a country with which the US was at war.

This had a lot to do with the fact that corporate America became even more influential in Washington during the war than it had been before; indeed, after Pearl Harbor representatives of “big business” flocked to the capital in order to take over many important government posts.

Supposedly they were motivated by sterling patriotism and offered their services for a pittance, and they became known as “dollar-a-year men.” Many, however, appeared to be there in order to protect their German assets. Former GM president William S. Knudsen, an outspoken admirer of Hitler since 1933 and friend of Göring, became director of the Office of Production Management. Another GM executive, Edward Stettinius Jr., became Secretary of State, and Charles E. Wilson, president of General Electric, became “the powerful number-two man at the War Production Board.”

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that the American government preferred to look the other way while the country’s big corporations squirreled in the land of the German enemy? In fact, Washington virtually legitimated these activities. Barely one week after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on 13 December 1941, President Roosevelt himself discreetly issued an edict allowing American corporations to do business with enemy countries — or with neutral countries that were friendly with enemies — by means of a special authorization.

This order clearly contravened the supposedly strict laws against all forms of “trading with the enemy.” Presumably, Washington could not afford to offend the country’s big corporations, whose expertise was needed in order to bring the war to a successful end. As Charles Higham has written, Roosevelt’s administration “had to get into bed with the oil companies [and with the other big corporations] in order to win the war.” Consequently, government officials systematically turned a blind eye to the unpatriotic conduct of American investment capital abroad, but there were some exceptions to this general rule. “In order to satisfy public opinion,” writes Higham, token legal action was taken in 1942 against the best-known violator of the “trading with the enemy” legislation, Standard Oil. But Standard pointed out that it “was fueling a high percentage of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, [thus] making it possible for America to win the war.”

The Rockefeller enterprise eventually agreed to pay a minor fine “for having betrayed America” but was allowed to continue its profitable commerce with the enemies of the United States. A tentative investigation into IBM’s arguably treasonous activities in the land of the Nazi enemy was similarly aborted because the US needed IBM technology as much as the Nazis did. Edwin Black writes: “IBM was in some ways bigger than the war.” Both sides could not afford to proceed without the company’s all-important technology. “Hitler needed IBM. So did the Allies.” (Black, 333, and 348) Uncle Sam briefly wagged a finger at Standard Oil and IBM, but most owners and managers of corporations who did business with Hitler were never bothered at all. The connections of ITT’s Sosthenes Behn with Nazi Germany, for example, were a public secret in Washington, but he never experienced any difficulties as a result of them. Meanwhile, it would appear that the headquarters of the Western Allies were keen to go as easy as possible on the American-owned enterprises in Germany. According to German expert Hans G. Helms, Bernard Baruch, a high-level advisor to President Roosevelt, had given the order not to bomb certain factories in Germany, or to bomb them only lightly; it is hardly surprising that the branch plants of American corporations fell into this category. And indeed, while Cologne’s historical city centre was flattened in repeated bombing raids, the large Ford factory on the outskirts of the city enjoyed the reputation of being the safest place in town during air attacks, although some bombs did of course occasionally fall on its properties. (Billstein et al, 98-100)

After the war GM and the other American corporations that had done business in Germany were not only not punished, but even compensated for damages suffered by their German subsidiaries as a result of Anglo-American bombing raids. General Motors received 33 million dollars and ITT 27 million dollars from the American government as indemnification. The Ford-Werke had suffered relatively little damage during the war, and had received more than 100,000 dollars in compensation from the Nazi regime itself; Ford’s branch plant in France, meanwhile, had managed to wrest an indemnification of 38 million francs from the Vichy Regime. Ford nevertheless applied in Washington for 7 million dollars worth of damages, and after much wrangling received a total of 785,321 dollars “for its share of allowable losses sustained by Ford-Werke and Ford of Austria during the war,” which the company has acknowledged in its recently published report.

Corporate America and Post-War Germany

When the war in Europe ended, corporate America was well positioned to help determine what would happen to defeated Germany in general, and to their German assets in particular. Long before the guns fell silent, Allan Dulles from his observation post in Berne, Switzerland, established contact with the German associates of the American corporations he had earlier served as a lawyer in Sullivan & Cromwell, and as Patton’s tanks pushed deep into the Reich in the spring of 1945, ITT boss Sosthenes Behn donned the uniform of an American officer and rode into defeated Germany to personally inspect his subsidiaries there. More importantly the administration in the US occupation zone of Germany teemed with representatives of firms such as GM and ITT. They were there, of course, to ensure that Corporate America would continue to enjoy the full usufruct of its profitable investments in defeated and occupied Germany. One of their first concerns was to prevent the implementation of the Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau was Roosevelt’s secretary of the Treasury, who had proposed to dismantle German industry, thereby transforming Germany into a backward, poor, and therefore harmless agrarian state.

The owners and managers of corporations with German assets were keenly aware that implementation of the Morgenthau Plan meant the financial death knell for their German subsidiaries; so they fought it tooth and nail. A particularly outspoken opponent of the plan was Alfred P. Sloan, the influential chairman of the board of GM. Sloan, other captains of industry, and their representatives and contacts in Washington and within the American occupation authorities in Germany, favoured an alternative option: the economic reconstruction of Germany, so that they would be able to do business and make money in Germany, and eventually they got what they wanted. After the death of Roosevelt, the Morgenthau Plan was quietly shelved, and Morgenthau himself would be dismissed from his high-ranking government position on 5 July 1945 by President Harry Truman. Germany — or at least the western part of Germany — would be economically reconstructed, and US subsidiaries would turn out to be major beneficiaries of this development.

The American occupation authorities in Germany in general, and the agents of American parent companies of German subsidiaries within this administration in particular, faced another problem. After the demise of Nazism and of European fascism in general, the general mood in Europe was — and would remain for a few short years — decidedly anti-fascist and simultaneously more or less anti-capitalist, because it was widely understood at that time that fascism had been a manifestation of capitalism. Almost everywhere in Europe, and particularly in Germany, radical grassroots associations, such as the German anti-fascist groups or Antifas, sprang up spontaneously and became influential. Labour unions and left-wing political parties also experienced successful comebacks; they enjoyed wide popular support when they denounced Germany’s bankers and industrialists for bringing Hitler to power and for collaborating closely with his regime, and when they proposed more or less radical anti-capitalist reforms such as the socialization of certain firms and industry sectors.

Such reform plans, however, violated American dogmas regarding the inviolability of private property and free enterprise, and were obviously a major source of concern to American industrialists with assets in Germany. 64 The latter were also aghast at the emergence in Germany of democratically elected “works’ councils” that demanded input into the affairs of firms. To make matters worse, the workers frequently elected Communists to these councils. This happened in the most important American branch plants, Ford-Werke and Opel.

The Communists played an important role in Opel’s work’s council until 1948, when GM officially resumed Opel’s management and promptly put an end to the experiment. The American authorities systematically opposed the anti-fascists and sabotaged their schemes for social and economic reform at all levels of public administration as well as in private business. In the Opel plant in Rüsselsheim, for example, the American authorities collaborated only reluctantly with the anti-fascists, while doing everything in their power to prevent the establishment of new labour unions and to deny the works’ councils any say in the firm’s management. Instead of allowing the planned democratic “bottom-up” reforms to blossom, the Americans proceeded to restore authoritarian “top-down” structures wherever possible.

They pushed the anti-fascists aside in favour of conservative, authoritarian, right-wing personalities, including many former Nazis. At the Ford-Werke in Cologne, anti-fascist pressure forced the Americans to dismiss the Nazi general manager Robert Schmidt, but thanks to Dearborn and the American occupation authorities he and many other Nazi managers were soon firmly back in the saddle. 65

Capitalism, Democracy, Fascism, and War

“About the things one cannot speak about, one ought to remain silent,” declared the famous philosopher Wittgenstein, and a colleague, Max Horkheimer, paraphrased him with regard to the phenomenon of fascism and its German variety, Nazism, by emphasizing that if one wants to talk about fascism, one cannot remain silent about capitalism.

Hitler’s Third Reich was a monstrous system made possible by Germany’s top business leaders, and while it proved a catastophe for millions of people, it functioned as a Nirvana for corporate Germany. Foreign-owned enterprises were also allowed to enjoy the wonderful services

Hitler’s regime rendered to das Kapital, such as the elimination of all workers’ parties and labour unions, a rearmament program that brought them immense profits, and a war of conquest that eliminated foreign competition and provided new markets, cheap raw materials, and an unlimited supply of even cheaper labour from POWs, foreign slave labourers, and concentration camp inmates. The owners and managers of America’s leading corporations admired Hitler because in his Third Reich they could make money like nowhere else, and because he stomped on German labour and swore to destroy the Soviet Union, homeland of international communism.

Edwin Black wrongly believes that IBM was atypical of American corporations in flourishing from capitalism’s great fascist feast on the banks of the Rhine. Many, if not all of these corporations, took full advantage of the elimination of labour unions and left-wing parties and the orgy of orders and profits made possible by rearmament and war. They betrayed their country by producing all sorts of equipment for Hitler’s war machine even after Pearl Harbor, and they objectively helped the Nazis to commit horrible crimes.

These technicalities, however, did not seem to perturb the owners and managers in Germany and even in the US, who were aware of what was going on overseas. All that mattered to them, clearly, was that unconditional collaboration with Hitler allowed them to make profits like never before; their motto might well have been: “profits über Alles.” After the war, the capitalist masters and associates of the fascist monster distanced themselves à la Dr. Frankenstein from their creature, and loudly proclaimed their preference for democratic forms of government. Today, most of our political leaders and our media want us to believe that “free markets” — a euphemistic code word for capitalism — and democracy are Siamese twins. Even after World War II, however, capitalism, and especially American capitalism, continued to collaborate cozily with fascist regimes in countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Chile, while supporting extreme-right movements, including death squads and terrorists, in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere.

One might say that in the headquarters of the corporations, whose collective interest is clearly reflected in American government policies, nostalgia has lingered on for the good old days of Hitler’s Third Reich, which was a paradise for German as well as American and other foreign firms: no left-wing parties, no unions, unlimited numbers of slave labourers, and an authoritarian state that provided the necessary discipline and arranged for an “armament boom” and eventually a war that brought “horizonless profits,” as Black writes, alluding to the case of IBM.

These benefits could more readily be expected from a fascist dictatorship than from a genuine democracy, hence the support for the Francos, Suhartos, and other Pinochets of the post-war world. But even within democratic societies, capitalism actively seeks the cheap and meek labour that Hitler’s regime served up on a silver platter, and recently it has been by means of stealthy instruments such as downsizing and globalization, rather than the medium of fascism, that American and international capital have sought to achieve the corporate Nirvana of which Hitler’s Germany had provided a tantalizing foretaste.


  • 0

#207 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 12:36 PM

Proof that Most Politicians and CEO’s Are Certifiably Insane
Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:27

Dave Hodges

May 13, 2014

After writing one of my most recent articles with regard to what typically happens when a currency collapse occurs, due to a currency devaluation, takes down a country’s economy as the Chinese are gobbling up all of our important economic assets, many people wrote to me asking me when is the total collapse going to happen. The short answer is that I have a hard time predicting the actions psychopaths. All of us have a hard time predicting the action of others who are so different from the mainstream of America because most of us do not.

t think like psychopaths. However, I can  state with certainty that when the last mortgage has been stolen and the last pension has been confiscated, then it will be time to collapse the dollar and plunge this country into a hellish nightmare.

Our country should be dubbed, the United States of Psychopathology. Psychopaths are at the root of the world’s problems. They kill hundreds of millions in wars which serves no purpose except to enrich themselves. Subsequently, psychopaths such as the Rockefeller’s and the Rothschild’s recruit already compromised psychopaths to do their bidding in both elected office and as the CEO’s of Fortune 500 corporations as well as key administrative positions.
The Whole Country Is Going Crazy

The United States of America is presently undergoing a mental health crisis. An estimated 26.2% of Americans ages 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. This figure translates to almost 60 million people who have a diagnosable mental illness.  Even though mental disorders are widespread within the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion, which is confined to about 6% of the population, or about 1 in 17 who suffer from a serious mental illness. In nearly half (45%) of those with any mental disorder, they meet criteria for two or more disorders. In the U.S., mental disorders are diagnosed based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-V).

Most (over 65%) of the diagnosed mental health disorders are reactive in nature to a faulty environment and are common to a population being placed under dire stress. As would be expected, anxiety disorders lead the way and can manifest themselves in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (common to veterans in combat), various social phobias, eating disorders (at record levels) and depression (rising at an alarming rate).

Genetic factors are thought to generally play a role in mental illness in about 30-50% of all mental illnesses. However, the bulk of symptoms are maladaptive responses to a negative environment. In other words, the sheep may not be outwardly rebelling, but their unconscious minds are stating that the New World Order is not fit to live in.
Psychopath or Sociopath?

The terms psychopath and sociopath were in vogue 30 years ago in the mental health field. We still see the use of these terms to describe morally deprived people who commit heinous acts of some sort against other human beings. However, on an official level, the terms have been rolled up into one clinical term, Anti Social Personal Disorder (ASPD)..

I contend that most of the mental illnesses that we are seeing in today’s America are reactive to the depraved nature of those that seek power over others. It is becoming quite clear that when we closely examine the mental health of many in power, they exhibit the hallmark traits of people with diagnosable ASPD.
ASPD

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by an individual’s disregard for social rules and cultural norms, impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others. Mental health researchers estimate that approximately 3% of males and 1% of females, aged 18 or over, have ASPD (Lenzenweger, M.F., Lane, M.C., Loranger, A.W., Kessler, R.C., 2007). DSM-IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry, 62(6), 553-564).

    The National Institute of Mental Health diagnoses Anti-Social Personality Disorder by having four of the following seven characteristics:

    ·Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

    ·Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

    ·Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

    ·Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

    ·Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

    ·Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

    ·Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

ASPD Is Fertile Recruiting Ground for Today’s Leaders

If I were a power broker in the emerging New World Order and I needed politicians to carry out my agenda of controlling every person and every resource on the planet, I would seek individuals who have previously earned their stripes as being both mentally ill and highly ambitious individuals who will move to get ahead at all costs. I would seek out people who have the traits of an ASPD individual because I could count on them to pursue power at all costs in the pursuit of the NWO agenda. And when they are caught violating the public’s trust, I would just replace them with another person who exhibits the same exact ASPD traits. And it is ideal if these “public servants” already have a litany of behaviors emanating from their ASPD symptoms that I could use to blackmail them when the need arises. In a nutshell, I have just described the American political scene.

Whereas, 75% of Americans are emotionally stable and 25% are not, I think these are the exact inverse numbers of what we see in Congress and other key elected positions such as the governors of states. I believe that if we did a mental status exam on George Bush I, George Bush II, Bill Clinton and President Obama, we would see all four individuals with completely diagnosable ASPD. Millions have died, who did not have to under these criminally insane leaders. We have lived through three completely avoidable wars in which several million have perished as we whip a little democracy on these countries as we misappropriate these victimized country’s resources.
ASPD in Corporate Circles and Local Politics

When institutions engage in illegal business practices designed to deprive people of their homes, the leaders and their minions of these organizations are exhibiting ASPD. 

Richard Eskow, senior fellow for Campaign for America’s Future, relates how former employees of Bank of America submitted sworn affidavits to a civil lawsuit claiming that “the financial institution purposely stalled, delayed or denied home loan modifications.” They also claimed that the bank enforced foreclosure quotas and gave bonuses to those with the highest foreclosure rate. So will Bank of America pay for these alleged practices?  No because Federal judges are appointed by the criminally orientated mentally ill as well, or they would not be selected.

This parallels what the Federal Reserve is doing. Since September of 2012, the Fed has been purchasing$40 billion dollars worth of mortgage backed securities each month. This is nothing but a modern day version of feudalism in which the Lords are buying up all the land so they can exploit even more serfs who pay tribute to live on  the land that has been stolen from them. 
The Weiner

Then who could ever forget Anthony Weiner? You remember Weiner don’t you? He was forced to resign from Congress for publicly displaying his last name in a text to show what a man he is. Interesting, when one urinates in public and are caught, they must register as a sex offender. Weiner’s actions impacted far more people and gets to politically recycle himself with impunity, again and again. You can bet he will run for something in 2016.

Tiny Tim

Three years ago for Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, received $400,000 for three speeches which he gave to his fellow banksters. And he was paid and is enriching himself with your money! He was charged with tax evasion and he was part o of a cabal from the World Bank that defrauded U.S. taxpayers involving foreign investments using taxpayer money.

“What does it matter?”

    Benghazi is not Clinton’s only treacherous act. Recently, it has been revealed that Hillary fought to keep the al-Qaeda-linked militant group, Boko Haram off of its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for nearly two years despite a history of blowing up Abuha’s UN headquarters and now the abduction of several hundred girls targeted for delivery to child sex slavery rings. Clinton’s refusal to identify this terror group, as being such, transpired despite the urging of Nigeria’s government, the Justice Department and the CIA, FBI  and over a dozen congressmen and senators.

    Please reread the symptoms of ASPD.  Every president in recent history, most of Congress and various “Weiners” such as Clinton, Feinstein, Spitzer and Geithner have ASPD and you are their victims.

Despite all my scandals, I will be the President in 2016!

Feinstein the Kleptomaniac

Senator Feinstein entered the Senate with only a net worth of only about a million dollars. Today, because of her conflicts of interest involving her husband’s business interests and her insider trading, she is now worth $200 million dollars courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, she wants to shut down any justifiable criticism through her relentless proposals to control the internet.

In short, people of America, we are ruled by what used to be called psychopaths and you are their victims on an accelerated basis.

We wonder why things do not change. Why are we continuing to comply with these criminally mentally ill? These psychopaths are literally and figuratively driving the country crazy as proven by our skyrocketing rates of mental illness among the general population.

Isn’t it time that we begin to impose standards of moral conduct such as when you are caught with a prostitute, that you are ineligible to run for public office. Shouldn’t the murder of Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi be enough to keep co-conspirator Hillary Clinton from becoming the President of the United States. Yet, she is the heir apparent in 2016. When one publicly exposes themselves before God and country, shouldn’t this prohibit this person from becoming a mayor?

And to the sheep of America, don’t your children deserve better than to be ruled over by a bunch of perverted psychopaths? These actions are not the exception, they are the norm (see Feinstein, Pelosi, Reed, etc.)


  • 0

#208 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 17 May 2014 - 04:28 PM

Cities All Over America Are Becoming Extremely Cruel To The Homeless
By Michael Snyder, on May 14th, 2014

Have you ever given food to a homeless person?  Well, if you do it again in the future it might be a criminal act depending on where you live.  Right now, there are dozens of major U.S. cities that have already passed laws against feeding the homeless.  As you will read about below, in some areas of the country you can actually be fined hundreds of dollars for just trying to give food to a hungry person.  I know that sounds absolutely insane, but this is what America is turning into.  Communities all over the country are attempting to "clean up the streets" by making it virtually illegal to either be homeless or to help those that are homeless.  Instead of spending more money on programs to assist the homeless, local governments are bulldozing tent cities and giving homeless people one way bus tickets out of town.  We are treating some of the most vulnerable members of our society like human garbage, and it is a national disgrace.

What does it say about our country when we can't even give a warm sandwich to a desperately hungry person that is sleeping on the streets?  A retired couple down in Florida named Debbie and Chico Jimenez wanted to do something positive for their community during their retirement years, so they started feeding the homeless in Daytona Beach.  But recently the police decided to crack down on their feeding program and slapped everyone involved with a $373 fine...

   [ For the past year, the Jimenezes have set up shop every Wednesday on Manatee Island in Daytona Beach, Fla., where they feed hot dogs, chicken, pasta salad and other BBQ staples to about 100 homeless people, WFTV reported. Handing out meals is just one aspect of the ministry the two founded, Spreading the Word Without Saying a Word, to help people living in poverty.

    But on Wednesday, the Jimenezes said that without warning, they and four other volunteers were accosted by police, fined and told that they could be thrown in jail if they continue their program, according to NBC News.

    Each of the six was fined $373 and were given 10 days to either pay up or go to court.

    "We’re going to court," Debbie Jimenez, 52, a former auto parts store manager, told NBC News. "The police don’t like it. But how can we turn our backs on the hungry? We can’t." ]

Don't the police down in Daytona Beach have something better to do with their time?

Sadly, more than 50 major cities have passed laws against feeding the homeless at this point.  It appears that "cleaning up the streets" has become a big point of emphasis all over the nation.

And what the city of Camden, New Jersey just did is even worse than what happened in Daytona Beach.

Camden just bulldozed an entire tent city and dumped all of the belongings of the homeless people living there into the trash...

   [ Hazmat teams showed up at the camps in the early morning to search for syringes. A drug-sniffing dog followed a police officer around the area. And bulldozers tossed trash and discarded belongings into dumpsters before razing the premises.

    Over the past few weeks, flyers had warned people in the tent cities that this was going to happen. Yet it still seemed surreal to many of them that their communities were about to be demolished for good.]

But for most of the people that were living in that tent city, there is no place else for them to go.  The homeless shelters in the area are at max capacity, and so many of them will end up sleeping in the streets without any shelter at all...

   [ Aaron Howe, the "mayor" of a tent city that had 12 tents the night before eviction day, said he had called every shelter in town and not a single place had room for him and his girlfriend.

    "There's no available spots, and the city is saying if we pitch a tent somewhere else they're gonna rip it down," he said. "It's not gonna look good when there's a bunch of homeless on the streets."]

Camden has got to be one of the most mismanaged communities in the entire country.  Why is Camden spending time and money bulldozing homeless communities when it has so many other problems?  For much more on the nightmare that Camden has become, please see my previous article entitled "Camden, New Jersey: One Of Hundreds Of U.S. Cities That Are Turning Into Rotting, Decaying Hellholes".

Other big cities that are a little bit more "progressive" are attempting to get rid of their homeless populations by giving them one way tickets out of town.  Some of the major cities that are doing this include San Diego and San Francisco...

  [  When her Greyhound bus pulled into town 6 months ago, Maria Castillo got off with two bags and dream.

    "Start over, start a new life," said the 42-year-old.

    Castillo had been homeless in San Diego when a social worker offered her a one-way bus ticket to Portland.

    "They said come here because all the opportunities in Portland, Oregon," she said.

    But Castillo said life isn't much better in her new town. She's still homeless. A Unit 8 investigation found several cities from San Diego to San Francisco are providing one-way bus tickets to the homeless.]

As shocking as everything that you just read is, what one lawmaker out in Hawaii is doing tops it all.  In a previous article, I described how a state representative named Tom Brower has actually been using a sledgehammer to destroy shopping carts used by homeless people.  Just check out the following short excerpt from an RT article that was published a few months ago...

  [  In the past two weeks residents in Hawaii noticed what appeared to be a crazed individual carrying a sledgehammer through the streets of Honolulu, a state lawmaker looking to rid the city of homeless people by targeting their belongings.

    State Representative Tom Brower (D) is currently dedicated to dealing out his own personal brand of “justice” by seeking out homeless people and destroying their possessions. Brower estimates that he has used the sledgehammer to smash at least 30 shopping carts, rendering them useless by bashing in the front wheels.

    “I got tired of telling people I’m trying to pass laws. I want to do something practical that will really clean up the streets,” he told Hawaii News Now. “I find abandoned junk, specifically shopping carts, and I remove them.”]

Is this how our society is going to treat those that are down on their luck from now on?

Where is the love?

Where is the compassion?

Why can't we seem to be able to take care of these people?

The federal government sure seems to have plenty of money to waste on other things.  For example, it is being reported that workers at an Obamacare processing facility in Missouri are being paid to do nothing but stare at their computers...

   [ Employees at an ObamaCare processing center in Missouri with a contract worth $1.2 billion are reportedly getting paid to do nothing but sit at their computers.

    "Their goals are set to process two applications per month and some people are not even able to do that," a whistleblower told KMOV-TV, referring to employees hired to process paper applications for ObamaCare enrollees.

    The facility in Wentzville is operated by Serco, a company owned by a British firm that was awarded $1.2 billion in part to hire 1,500 workers to handle paper applications for coverage under the law, according to The Washington Post.

    The whistleblower employee told the station that weeks can pass without data entry workers receiving even a single application to process. Employees reportedly spend their days staring at their computers, according to a KMOX-TV report.]

So we have millions upon millions of dollars to waste on that, but we can't take care of our homeless population?

And without a doubt, the need to help the homeless is greater than it ever has been before.  Right now, there are 1.2 million public school students in America that are homeless.  That number is an all-time record, and it has grown by 72 percent since the start of the last recession.

In addition, there are 49 million Americans that are dealing with food insecurity.  Even in the midst of this so-called "economic recovery", poverty is absolutely exploding.

And it is going to get a whole lot worse.  This is only just the beginning.

What is going to be needed in the years ahead is a tremendous amount of love and compassion.

But instead, it appears that hearts are becoming colder in America with each passing day.

So what do you think the solution is?  Please share your thoughts by posting a comment below...


  • 0

#209 gaiacomm

gaiacomm

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2544 posts

Posted 20 May 2014 - 01:06 PM

Keep up the great work...Hansel


  • 0

#210 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:59 PM

Man Cooked To Death In Scalding Shower As Punishment By Prison Guards

(Police State Usa) A torturous “punishment” session turned fatal for a mentally-ill prisoner, when prison guards forced him to stand in a tiny shower stall while being blasted by scalding hot water until his skin began to shrivel away from his body and he died.  Fellow inmates say he begged for his life before collapsing in the shower.

Darren Rainey, 50, died while incarcerated a the Dade Correctional Institution.  He was serving a 2-year sentence for a victimless crime; possession of cocaine.  At the time of his death, he had only one month to go before his release.

Rainey, who suffered from mental illness, was accused of defecating in his cell without cleaning it up.   The Florida’s Department of Corrections often comes up with cruel and imaginative punishments for prisoners — allegedly ranging from starvation diets to forcing prisoners to fight so the guards could place bets.

Rainey’s punishment was to stand confined in a narrow chamber, being blasted with hot water and steam, and left to suffer there for over one hour.

“I can’t take it no more, I’m sorry. I won’t do it again,’’ Rainey screamed over and over, the Miami Herald discovered from a fellow inmate’s grievance complaint.

The Miami Herald reports that it was DOC Officer Roland Clarke who was on video placing Rainey in the shower at 7:38 p.m on June 23, 2012.  He was found dead at 9:30 p.m.

When Rainey’s body was found, his skin was cooked to the point where it was coming loose from his body, a condition known as slippage.

The facility then did its best to cover up the death.  Sources say that it was alleged that Rainey had a heart attack, yet DOC refused to perform an autopsy. The official cause of death has never been announced.

Conveniently, the camera outside the shower “malfunctioned” right after Rainey was forced in.

The Rainey investigation has remained open since 2012, with no explanation about why it has taken so long.  No one has been charged with the death of Darren Rainey.

“Two years is a very long time to wait to find out why your brother was found dead in a shower,” said Rainey’s brother, Andre Chapman.

When a fellow inmate tried to provide information to police and the media about the Rainey case, he was threatened with punishments of his own.  Numerous other inmate complaints paint a disturbing picture of what justice looks like in Florida’s prisons.

Justice seems to be a fleeting concept in a society where people are imprisoned for non-violent, victimless offenses, and housed by sadistic torturers who themselves belong in a cage.


  • 0

#211 gaiacomm

gaiacomm

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2544 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:53 AM

Keep up the truth, Hansel!!!


  • 0

#212 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 10:22 AM

George Carlin

 


  • 0

#213 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 10:41 AM

George Carlin - Life is Sacred / Kill for God

 


  • 0

#214 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 08:48 AM

Report: Cops Continued Beating Dead, Unarmed Suspect

Adan Salazar
Prison Planet.com
February 25, 2014

The lawyer for a family whose patriarch died after a one-sided confrontation with police says officers may have continued beating the man even after he was already dead.

The attorney’s remarks come as outrageous new raw footage documenting the last moments of the man’s life is released.

The footage shows five exhausted officers pinning a handcuffed man face down to the ground in the parking lot of the Moore Warren Movie Theater in Moore, Okla., while his wife is heard begging police to stop.

Police say the man who died, 44-year-old Luis Rodriguez, was confrontational when they approached to question him concerning a call for a domestic dispute, however, the family’s attorney, Michael Brooks-Jimenez, says Rodriguez was not involved in the initial dispute.

Officers next pepper sprayed, beat, then proceeded to handcuff Rodriguez, possibly after he had already died, Brooks-Jimenez asserts.

“He was not involved in the disturbance. However, when police came, they focused their attention on Luis. Taking him face down onto the pavement, pepper-spraying his mouth, nose and eyes and putting the weight of five grown men on top of him, and then handcuffing him as he was unconscious or already dead,” the Rodriguez family lawyer said.

“Luis committed no crime. He wasn’t armed. No gun. No knife. No weapon of any kind. But Luis was the one who lost his life that night,” Brooks-Jimenez adds.

In the video, fatigued officers cease a five-person dog pile to reveal a limp Rodriguez, whose lifeless body police attempt to prop up to save face.

“Papa! Is he OK?,” Rodriguez’s wife cries out as he’s loaded on to a stretcher. “He doesn’t move. He doesn’t move! You kill him! You kill him! You killed my husband! Please somebody tell me that he’s alive!”

Meanwhile, a few of the participating officers can be overheard lobbing threats, saying she could “get herself in trouble” if she didn’t comply with their orders.

Three of the five officers have reportedly been placed on administrative leave while the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigations look into the matter. As of yet, there is no lawsuit pending and the theater’s surveillance footage has yet to be released. Autopsy results are also pending.

Though the footage is powerful, video evidence showing officers committing essentially murder is no longer necessarily enough for a conviction, as seen recently in the aquittal of two officers involved in the death of homeless man Kelly Thomas.

 

How cheap a human live is


  • 0

#215 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 11:22 AM

Man Arrested 60+ Times For Trespassing At His Own Job

Man Forgotten in Solitary Confinement For Years


  • 0

#216 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 05:31 PM

Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 - 2007)
Friday, December 14, 2007
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...xperiments.html

 

Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs
Saturday, October 02, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Learn more: http://www.naturalne..._Guatemala.html


  • 0

#217 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 05:45 PM

131 Ways for an Infant to Die: Vaccines and Sudden Death
Wednesday, October 30, 2013 by: Neil Z. Miller

(NaturalNews) There are 130 official ways for an infant to die. These official categories of death, sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), are published in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). When a baby dies, coroners must choose from among these 130 categories.

The official causes of death listed in the ICD include nearly every imaginable -- and tragic -- possibility. However, there is NO category for infant deaths caused by vaccines. This is odd because the federal government is aware that vaccines permanently disable and kill some babies -- the very reason Congress established a "death and disability" tax on childhood vaccines more than 25 years ago when the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

Many parents don't realize that when they purchase vaccines for their babies, the cost is taxed and the money goes into a special fund to compensate them if and when those vaccines seriously injure or kill their babies. As of November 1, 2013, more than $2.5 billion was granted for thousands of injuries and deaths caused by vaccines. Numerous cases are still pending. Awards were issued for permanent injuries such as learning disabilities, seizure disorders, mental retardation, paralysis, and numerous deaths, including many that were initially misclassified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Since vaccine-related deaths are officially recognized by the federal government but there is NO official classification for vaccine-related deaths in the ICD, two important questions must be asked:

1) Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with vaccination?

2) Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

Prior to the introduction of organized vaccination programs, 'crib death' was so rare that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and promoted. For the first time in history, most U.S. infants were required to receive several doses of DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio, and measles vaccines. By 1969, an alarming epidemic of sudden unexplained infant deaths impelled researchers to create a new medical term -- sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). By 1972, SIDS had become the leading cause of post-neonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States. In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics, operated by the CDC, created a new cause-of-death category to document deaths due to SIDS.

SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation, including performance of an autopsy and review of the clinical history.[11] Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.[

In 1984, Congress held a hearing on vaccine safety. The suspected link between vaccines and sudden infant deaths was addressed. The following excerpt is from a statement made by a distraught grandmother testifying before the Congressional Committee on Labor and Human Resources:

"My name is Donna Gary. I am a constituent of Senator Kennedy's from Massachusetts. Our family should have celebrated our very first granddaughter's first birthday last month. Instead, we will commemorate the anniversary of her death at the end of this month.

"Our granddaughter, Lee Ann, was just 8 weeks old when her mother took her to the doctor for her routine checkup. That included, of course, her first DPT inoculation and oral polio vaccine. In all her entire 8 weeks of life this lovable, extremely alert baby had never produced such a blood-curdling scream as she did at the moment the shot was given. Neither had her mother ever before seen her back arch as it did while she screamed. She was inconsolable. Even her daddy could not understand Lee Ann's uncharacteristic screaming and crying.

"Four hours later, Lee Ann was dead. 'Crib death,' the doctor said -- 'SIDS.'

'Could it be connected to the shot?' her parents implored.

'No.'

'But she just had her first DPT shot this afternoon. Could there possibly be any connection to it?'

'No, no connection at all,' the emergency room doctor said definitely.

"My husband and I hurried to the hospital the following morning after Lee Ann's death to talk with the pathologist before the autopsy. We wanted to make sure he was alerted to her DPT inoculation such a short time before her death -- just in case there was something else he could look for to make the connection. He was unavailable to talk with us. We waited two-and-a-half hours. Finally, we got to talk to another doctor after the autopsy had been completed. He said it was SIDS.

"In the months before Lee Ann was born, I regularly checked with a friend as to the state of her grandchild's condition. He is nearly a year-and-a-half older than Lee Ann. On his first DPT shot he passed out cold for 15 minutes, right in the pediatrician's office.

"'Normal reaction for some children,' the pediatrician reassured. The parents were scared, but they knew what a fine doctor they had. They trusted his judgment. When it was time for the second shot, they asked 'Are you sure it's alright? Is it really necessary?' Their pediatrician again reassured them. He told them how awful it was to experience, as he had, one of his infant patient's bout with whooping cough. That baby had died. They gave him his second DPT shot that day. He became brain-damaged.

"This past week I had an opportunity to read through printed copies of the hearings of this committee. I am dismayed to learn that this same talk has been going on for years, and nothing has seemed to progress to incorporate what seems so obvious and necessary to keep from destroying any more babies, and to compensate financially those who have already been damaged for life. How accurate are our statistics on adverse reactions to vaccines when parents have been told, are still being told, 'No connection to the shot, no connection at all.'?

"What about the mother I have recently talked with who has a 4-year-old brain-damaged son? On all three of his DPT shots he had a convulsion in the presence of the pediatrician. 'No connection,' the pediatrician assured.

"I talked with a father in a town adjoining ours whose son died at the age of 9 weeks, several months before our own granddaughter's death. It was the day after his DPT inoculation. 'SIDS' is the statement on the death certificate.

"Are the statistics that the medical world loves to quote to say, 'There is no connection,' really accurate, or are they based on poor diagnoses, poor record keeping? What is being done to provide a safer vaccine? Who is overseeing? Will it be the same scientists and doctors who have been overseeing in the past? How much longer does the public have to wait? How are physicians and clinics going to be held accountable to see that parents are informed of the possible reactions? And how are those children who should not receive the vaccine to be identified before they are damaged -- or dead?

"Today is the National Day of Prayer. My prayer is that this committee be instrumental in doing what needs to be done -- and soon. May there not be yet another year pass by with more children afflicted, and some dead, because those who can do so refuse to make the right connection."

Back to Sleep

Throughout the 1980s, sudden infant deaths continued to skyrocket. Parental concerns about an apparent link between childhood vaccines and SIDS reached a fever pitch. Many parents were afraid to vaccinate their babies. Authorities sought to reassure parents that vaccines are safe and claimed that sudden unexplained infant deaths following vaccines were merely coincidental.

In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) came up with a plan to reduce the unacceptable SIDS rate while reassuring concerned moms and dads that sudden unexplained infant deaths were not related to vaccines. The AAP initiated a national 'Back to Sleep' campaign, telling parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep.

From 1992 through 2001, the post-neonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6%. It seemed as though the 'Back to Sleep' campaign was successful and that the real cause of SIDS was due not to vaccinations but from babies sleeping on their bellies. However, a closer inspection of the ICD -- the 130 official ways for an infant to die -- revealed a loophole. Medical certifiers, such as coroners, could choose from among several categories of death when a baby suddenly expired. They didn't have to list the death as SIDS. Although the post-neonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6% from 1992 through 2001 following the AAP's seemingly successful 'Back to Sleep' campaign, the post-neonatal mortality rate from 'suffocation in bed' (ICD-9 code E913.0) increased during this same period at an average annual rate of 11.2%. Sudden, unexplained infant deaths that were classified as SIDS prior to the 'Back to Sleep' campaign, were now being classified as deaths due to suffocation in bed!

The post-neonatal mortality rate from 'suffocation other' (ICD-9 code E913.1-E913.9), from 'unknown and unspecified causes' (ICD-9 code 799.9), and from 'intent unknown' (ICD-9 code E980-E989), all increased during this period as well. In Australia, a similar subterfuge seemed to occur. Researchers observed that when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.

From 1999 through 2001, the number of U.S. deaths that were attributed to 'suffocation in bed' and 'unknown causes' increased significantly. Although the post-neonatal SIDS rate continued to decline, there was no significant change in the total post-neonatal mortality rate. In a recent paper (Malloy and MacDorman) published in Pediatrics, SIDS researchers made the following observation:

"If death-certifier preference has shifted such that previously classified SIDS deaths are now classified as 'suffocation,' the inclusion of these suffocation deaths and unknown or unspecified deaths with SIDS deaths then accounts for about 90 percent of the decline in the SIDS rate observed between 1999 and 2001 and results in a non-significant decline in SIDS."

Other Evidence Linking SIDS to Vaccines

Although some studies were unable to find positive correlations between SIDS and vaccines, there is other evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, as early as 1933 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a paper by Madsen documenting the sudden deaths of two infants soon after pertussis vaccination. The first child developed cyanosis and convulsions 30 minutes after vaccination and died suddenly a few minutes later. The second child developed cyanosis 2 hours after vaccination and then died suddenly.

In 1946, Werne and Garrow published a paper in JAMA documenting the sudden deaths of identical twins 24 hours after pertussis vaccination. The babies had symptoms of shock throughout the night prior to their fatal reactions.

In the 1960s and 1970s Aborigine infants began to mysteriously die at astonishing rates. In some regions of Australia, 1 of every 2 babies succumbed to an unexplained death -- a fatality rate of 50 percent! Kalokerinos solved the riddle when he realized that the deaths were occurring shortly after the babies were vaccinated. Health officials had recently initiated a mass vaccination campaign to 'protect' Aborigine babies; their deaths corresponded with the vaccination program. Kalokerinos realized that these babies were severely malnourished, including a vitamin C deficiency. Their undeveloped immune systems couldn't handle the additional stress of vaccination. Kalokerinos was able to save other babies from the same fate by administering small quantities of vitamin C (100mg per month of age) prior to their vaccines.

In Japan, from 1970 through 1974, there were 37 documented sudden infant deaths following pertussis vaccinations, inciting parents and doctors to reject the shot. In 1975, Japanese authorities reacted to these events by raising the age of vaccination from three months to two years. As a result, the number of vaccine injury compensation claims that were paid out for sudden deaths following vaccination dropped from 37 cases during a 5-year period to just 3 cases during the next 6-and-a-half years (from 1975 through August of 1981). The sudden death rate following vaccination dropped from 1.47 to 0.15 deaths per million doses -- a 90% improvement. In addition, from the early 1970s (a period when 3-month-old infants were vaccinated) to the mid-1980s (ten years after the age of vaccination was raised to 2 years) the Japanese infant mortality rate (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) dramatically declined from 12.4 to 5.0 -- a 60 percent drop!

According to a special task force (Cherry et al) that investigated the Japanese data and published their summary in Pediatrics:

"The category of 'sudden death' is instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age."

Cherry et al also made the following observation:

"It is clear that delaying the initial vaccination until a child is 24 months, regardless of the type of vaccine, reduces most of the temporally associated severe adverse reactions."

There is other more recent evidence that delaying vaccinations until a later age could save babies from severe vaccine-related adverse reactions, including sudden deaths. For example, the Sage journal Human and Experimental Toxicology published a study by Goldman and Miller that investigated more than 38,000 infant reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). (This federally mandated vaccine safety surveillance program collects information about possible adverse reactions from vaccines.) Cases that listed either 'hospitalization' or 'death' were evaluated relative to all infant reports, including those that were non-serious. The hospitalization rate for infants that were vaccinated shortly after birth was an astonishing 20.1% but decreased in a statistically significant linear fashion to 10.7% for infants that were vaccinated just prior to their first birthday. This study also revealed a statistically significant lower mortality rate for infants that were vaccinated between 6 months and 1 year of age when compared to infants vaccinated between birth and 6 months of age.

In 1982, William Torch, MD, director of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine, presented a study at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics showing that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died from SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months -- the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that:

"DPT may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study."

In 1983, Pediatric Infectious Diseases published a study by Baraff et al that analyzed 17 infants that had been vaccinated within 28 days prior to their sudden deaths, which were classified as SIDS. They calculated the expected frequency of SIDS deaths per day and compared that with the actual number of sudden deaths in each of the 28 days after vaccination. A statistically significant number of excess deaths happened in the first week following vaccination (6.75 sudden deaths were expected and 17 actually occurred) -- a 250% increase. The greatest number of excess deaths happened within 24 hours after vaccination (0.96 sudden deaths were expected and 6 actually occurred) -- a 625% increase over statistical expectations.

In 1987, the American Journal of Public Health published a paper by Walker et al, once again confirming an apparent link between vaccination and sudden deaths. Babies died at a rate more than seven times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.

In 1991, Scheibner and Karlsson presented strong evidence of an association between DPT injections and cot death (SIDS) at the Second National Immunisation Conference in Canberra, Australia. They were able to develop a sophisticated microprocessor that was placed under infants' mattresses to precisely measure their breathing patterns before and after vaccination. The microprocessor generated computer printouts in integrals of a weighted apnea (cessation of breathing) hypopnea (abnormally shallow breathing) density (WAHD). The data clearly revealed that pertussis vaccination caused an inordinate increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes continued for months following DPT vaccinations. The lead author of the paper concluded that "vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths."

In 2006, Ottaviani et al published a paper in Virchows Archiv (European Journal of Pathology) documenting the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single injection. After dissecting the brainstem and examining the cardiac conduction system, authors of the study made the following observation: "This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby." They also noted that "any case of sudden unexpected death occurring...in infancy, especially soon after a vaccination, should always undergo a full necropsy study," otherwise a true association between vaccination and death may escape detection.[33]

That same year, another team of scientists (Zinka et al) published a paper in Vaccine documenting six cases of SIDS that occurred within 48 hours following the administration of a hexavalent vaccine. At postmortal examination, these cases showed "unusual findings in the brain" that appeared compatible with an association between hexavalent vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome.

In 2011, Statistics in Medicine published a paper by Kuhnert et al that examined an association between multi-dose vaccinations and death. Authors of the paper demonstrated a 16-fold increase in sudden unexpected death after the fourth dose of a pentavalent shot (five different vaccines in one injection) or hexavalent shot (six different vaccines in one injection).

Today, unsuspecting parents continue to experience the heartbreak of losing healthy children after vaccinations. Here is another unnecessary death labeled as SIDS, as reported by a distraught mother:

"Our beautiful 2-month-old daughter recently died. What was unusual was that earlier on the day that she died, I had taken her to the military base hospital for her two-month checkup. The doctor told me that she was just perfect. Then he said that she needed four shots. I replied, 'Four!'? She assured me that it was completely normal.

"That evening after feeding our daughter, we laid her down to sleep. We checked on her 45 minutes later and discovered that she was dead. I told the police, coroner, and investigators that I thought it was from the shots because she was perfectly fine that day and before the shots. But after three weeks we finally got an answer from the autopsy that it was SIDS. To this day, I believe that her death was caused by the shots. No one can convince me otherwise."

More Vaccine Fatalities Hidden in the Death Tables

'SIDS,' 'suffocation in bed,' and death due to 'unknown and unspecified causes,' are just three of the 130 official cause-of-death categories that might be concealing fatalities that were really caused by vaccination. Several other ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, diseases of the nervous system, unspecified diseases of the respiratory system, and shaken baby syndrome. All of these official categories may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities.

For example, a vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea (Rotarix) was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of this vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a significantly higher rate than non-vaccinated babies -- mainly due to a statistical increase in pneumonia fatalities.[37] (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.)[38] Although these deaths appear to be vaccine related, coroners are likely to misclassify them as pneumonia.

Some infant fatalities that occur shortly after vaccinations are incorrectly classified as shaken baby syndrome. Retinal and subdural bleeding can result from an adult that shook the baby or from vaccine damage. Expert testimony by medical practitioners has exonerated innocent parents of all charges against them.[39] This is just another example of how the true cause of death can be reclassified or hidden within the death tables.

The practice of reclassifying ICD data greatly concerns the CDC "because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths."[40] Thus, medical certification practices need to be monitored to determine how often vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD. More importantly, parents need to be warned that vaccine safety is grossly overestimated when vaccine-related deaths are not being accurately documented.

Vaccine Safety, Informed Consent and Human Rights

There are 130 official ways for an infant to die (as categorized in the ICD), and one unofficial way for an infant to die: following an adverse reaction to one or more vaccines. When vaccine-related deaths are hidden within the death tables, parents are denied the ability to ascertain honest vaccine risk-to-benefit ratios and true informed consent to vaccinations is not possible. When families are urged to vaccinate their children without access to accurate data on vaccine-related deaths, their human rights have been violated. Medical health authorities, pediatricians, and the vaccine industry then become criminal accomplices to each infant death caused by vaccines -- even when vaccines are not officially acknowledged as the cause of death. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety, providing families with true informed consent, and preserving human rights, must be the top priorities.


  • 0

#218 gaiacomm

gaiacomm

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2544 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 12:49 AM

Hansel...keep it coming...your posts are GREAT!!!


  • 0

#219 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:20 AM

haters_zps3b21d895.jpg


  • 0

#220 gaiacomm

gaiacomm

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2544 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:52 PM

Thanks...Hansel


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru