HOW THE AMERICAN DREAM ENDOWED THE NAZI NIGHTMARE.
Some will say, it's old history, and we Americans have no history. So who cares? Others will try to gather brainspice... Read on, then, should you want to spice your life...
George Herbert Walker And Prescott Bush, and many other American plutocrats, funded and directed the military industrial complex propelling Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Clear enough: in 1923, Germany was completely broke, except for the mysterious Adolf Hitler, yesterday a corporal, now the very rich head of the suddenly immensely wealthy Nazi party. Behind him, in his luxurious Munich hotel, a gigantic portrait of Henry Ford. In the lobby, free copies of the "International Jew". A private army of SS, experienced soldiers armed to the teeth with the latest weapons, was at the ready.
The grandfather of President George Walker Bush (Skull & Bones, 1968) was Prescott Bush (Skull & Bones, 1917), and his great grand father was George Herbert Walker. Prescott Bush and George Herbert (Bert) Walker were directors of the London-affiliated New York banking house of Brown Brothers-Harriman and its various fronts, which funded and directed part of the military-industrial complex behind Hitler and the Nazi revolution.
In 1919, George Herbert Walker had organized W.A. Harriman & Co which merged with the British Brown Brothers in 1931. In 1924, Averell Harriman (Skull & Bones, 1913) and Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist who began funding Hitler in 1923, set up the Union Banking Corp in New York to handle funds supplied to it through Thyssen's Dutch bank for American investment. Prescott Bush, who had been an officer of the W.A. Harriman bank since 1926, was a director of the Union Banking Corp from 1934 through 1943. According to government documents, "all of the shares of the Union Banking Corp., were held for the benefit of members of the Thyssen family".
And so on... Thyssen wrote a book in 1940:"I paid Hitler". The preceding is an extremely small part of the Americano-Nazi story. There were many other parts, all united by the same theme: some of the greediest American plutocrats, on Wall Street and even places such as Detroit, played more than enough of a role to tip Germany into Nazism.
All indications are that Henry Ford, an immensely wealthy car maker, and adulated racist author of "The International Jew", was an early financial backer of Hitler (the subject does not seem to have been as explored as it deserves by scholars). That gave Hitler a private army, great renown, and the capability for a (failed) coup in 1923.
The Hamburg-Amerika Line, seized by the US government as a war trophy in 1919, was given free to friendly US plutocrats (of the type who go in and out of government, "serving" inside, and serving themselves outside, a tradition to this day). It was the largest shipping line in the world, and said capitalists used it to smuggle American firearms to the Nazis while they conducted a civil war inside Germany, in spite of the blockade organized by the Weimar Republik. That American armed civil war killed more than 10,000 anti-Nazis in 1932 alone. It gave us the picturesque sentence uttered by a top Nazi: "When I hear the word "Kultur", I pull out my Browning". (At the time "Browning" was a famous American revolver.)
Prescott Bush managed several war companies directly for Hitler (Hitler was his boss), including the most important, the American-Silesian corporation (even after Hitler had nationalized it). Bush was compensated in 1953, founding the Bush family fortune.
Verily, understanding Hitler without understanding Wall Street and racist American industrialists such as Henry Ford, is a struggle in vain. Wall Street created the super monopoly called IG Farben (of Auschwitz fame). American-Silesian used Auschwitz slaves (even six months after Hitler had declared war on the USA, Bush kept managing the A-S corporation).
IBM had the monopoly of computing in the Reich (see "IBM and the Holocaust"). It was managed from New York in its daily operation, through Geneva, throughout the war. None of the 35 IBM factories in Hitler's Reich was damaged enough to stop operations, because US pilots were given strict instructions to avoid bombing them.
Standard Oil ("Exxon") gave the synthetic rubber and oil processes to Hitler (crucial to turn around the Franco-British sea blockade), Texaco gave Hitler the fuel to conquer Spain, the Ethyl Corporation of America flew in airplane fuel crucial anti knock compounds desperately needed as early as September 1939 while Hitler fought the entire Polish army and 45 French divisions, Nazi armor, magnesium bombs and automatic pilots for Stukas or Ford engines for superiority fighters were all, well, American, and so on.
Oh yes the USA did not send one cartridge to France in May-June 1940, during the Battle of France the Western front deadliest battle (more than 185,000 soldiers killed), but was the first and only country (besides the fascist ones) to recognize the illegal and unconstitutional Vichy regime (established under Nazi occupation). During Nazi occupation, thousands of Nazi-American companies called themselves Nazi, and conquered Europe. As Nazis went up in smoke, they called themselves American, and said they freed Europe. Maybe not a good deed, but sure a good deal.
One can call that set of observations anti-American, if one wishes, but, true, reality is pretty anti-American these days, I must admit. Maybe it should be racially excluded.
Fuller versions of some of this drift are found on my old site, Tyranosopher.
More recent material on other subjects (many pertinent to the present plunge of the US socioeconomy) can be found on:
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
Some will say, it's old history, and we Americans have no history. So who cares? Others will try to gather brainspice... So let them know that the story did not stop there. Satisfied from their Hitler trick, the Empire Builders tried to repeat similar ones. Empire Builders such as the Dulles brothers, lawyers of more than 100 Nazi companies, heads of the OSS and the CIA, and the State Department (and true US president under Eisenhower) employed Nazis such as Klaus Barbie (who tortured to death more than 4,000 French adults) to set up a profitable drug trading system in South America to finance the USA's black operations (by selling drugs to the US population). Barbie was much later arrested in Bolivia by French services, and condemned to life for the deliberate murder of 42 non French small Jewish children (crime against mankind, no prescription). The same Empire Builders created Muslim Fundamentalism, using it to gain control, for a while of many Middle East countries, including Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (in chronological order). We know how this is a gift that keeps on giving.
PA
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
USING EUROPE TO REPLACE THE SHUTTLE
ARIANE 5 IS GOOD ENOUGH.
The Constellation program is a stop gap measure. So why to create it from scratch, at great cost, and technological uncertainty, and not use instead Ariane 5, which exists, is reliable, and has the launch capability?
The reasons for sending human beings in space at this point are borderline (whereas robotic space science is a must, and starved by present US and NASA policies). Space launch, before the space elevator, basically uses a chemical propulsion principle discovered in China about 900 years ago (according to legend the first Chinese rocket engineer, Wan-Hu, died in the first attempted launch; he 94 rockets attached to two kites, and it would have been the first attempt at motorized flying).
It is enlightening to compare European and American space science policies. At this point Europe does a lot of good science (a French space telescope, Corot, is searching for extrasolar planets, for example, well in advance of the similar NASA project).
Ares V seems too large for anything reasonable looking forward for the next 15 years (there is no urgency to rush to Mars, robots will do better for now, including maybe setting up a base there).
Europe has resisted the call of engaging in launching people in orbit, although it has invested a lot in the space station and has the capability with the Ariane 5 and ATV combination. The ATV, the Automated Transfer Vehicle was successfully launched to the ISS in March 2008, and docked to the station for 5 months, bringing supplies, and pushing the station to a higher orbit (to compensate for aerodynamic drag). The ATV was also used to brake and drop the station by a mile to avoid a large piece of Russian space debris. The ISS crew used the ATV for personal hygiene and sleeping (it's large and quiet, which the station is not).
It seems that it should be only natural that Orion be modified to sit on top of a variant of the ATV. Ariane 5 is already scheduled to launch the next US Space Telescope, and increasing Euro-American technological cooperation can only benefit both sides. Ariane Vs and ATVs could be shipped to the USA, as they are to French Guyana now, and, or, made under license in the USA. This is strategically not a problem (the extensive Franco-Americano-British nuclear weapon cooperation is incomparably more sensitive, defense-wise).
France had the good reflex when, after trying to develop the erroneous home grown graphite-gas nuclear technology (the design used for Chernobyl), she bought US technology from Westinghouse (since then transmogrified). There is no shame in getting a little help from one's good friends. That is what trade is all about. Europe has some better systems right now, let the USA use them. In turn Europe could use Orion, and splash in the ocean too (although, with Ariane 5 greater lift, Orion could be equipped with land landing capability, like Soyuz).
Patrice Ayme
The Constellation program is a stop gap measure. So why to create it from scratch, at great cost, and technological uncertainty, and not use instead Ariane 5, which exists, is reliable, and has the launch capability?
The reasons for sending human beings in space at this point are borderline (whereas robotic space science is a must, and starved by present US and NASA policies). Space launch, before the space elevator, basically uses a chemical propulsion principle discovered in China about 900 years ago (according to legend the first Chinese rocket engineer, Wan-Hu, died in the first attempted launch; he 94 rockets attached to two kites, and it would have been the first attempt at motorized flying).
It is enlightening to compare European and American space science policies. At this point Europe does a lot of good science (a French space telescope, Corot, is searching for extrasolar planets, for example, well in advance of the similar NASA project).
Ares V seems too large for anything reasonable looking forward for the next 15 years (there is no urgency to rush to Mars, robots will do better for now, including maybe setting up a base there).
Europe has resisted the call of engaging in launching people in orbit, although it has invested a lot in the space station and has the capability with the Ariane 5 and ATV combination. The ATV, the Automated Transfer Vehicle was successfully launched to the ISS in March 2008, and docked to the station for 5 months, bringing supplies, and pushing the station to a higher orbit (to compensate for aerodynamic drag). The ATV was also used to brake and drop the station by a mile to avoid a large piece of Russian space debris. The ISS crew used the ATV for personal hygiene and sleeping (it's large and quiet, which the station is not).
It seems that it should be only natural that Orion be modified to sit on top of a variant of the ATV. Ariane 5 is already scheduled to launch the next US Space Telescope, and increasing Euro-American technological cooperation can only benefit both sides. Ariane Vs and ATVs could be shipped to the USA, as they are to French Guyana now, and, or, made under license in the USA. This is strategically not a problem (the extensive Franco-Americano-British nuclear weapon cooperation is incomparably more sensitive, defense-wise).
France had the good reflex when, after trying to develop the erroneous home grown graphite-gas nuclear technology (the design used for Chernobyl), she bought US technology from Westinghouse (since then transmogrified). There is no shame in getting a little help from one's good friends. That is what trade is all about. Europe has some better systems right now, let the USA use them. In turn Europe could use Orion, and splash in the ocean too (although, with Ariane 5 greater lift, Orion could be equipped with land landing capability, like Soyuz).
Patrice Ayme
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
THINK, OR YOU SHALL SINK.
FAITH OVERDOSE DOES A MIND KILL.
What needs to be rediscovered, reinvented, and re-disseminated in the USA is thinking. Good, deep, honest, deliberate, well informed thinking. Not feel-good thinking, not wishful thinking, not let's-all-sing-together-we-are-so-beautiful thinking, but causal, rational, hard core thinking. That means that faith should be out as a first choice for mental pre-positioning. Certainly returning to the separation of church and state would help. One could start by phasing out the obviously anti-Constitutional motto of 1956 "In God We Trust", an apparently obvious imitation of Adolf Hitler's motto: "Gott mit Uns" ("God With Us"). German soldiers and SS carried "Gott mit Uns" all over Europe as they invaded. Similarly, G. W. Bush's ultimate justification for invading Iraq was that his "Higher Father" told him to.
When thinking is applied, it will be revealed that plutocracy does not a democracy make. Nor does calling the world's richest men "philanthropists" make them good. Nor being the only country in the universe to use the old imperial system of units does an empire make. And so on.
Happy Winter Solstice (aka the Birth of the Sun, the birthday of Mithra, made, more than a millennium later, into the famous "Sol Invictus" (the Invicible Sun), an official massive Roman celebration, later conveniently transmogrified into Mr. Christ's birthday, when the later Roman emperors decided that all the People needed was the cross...)!
***
P/S: The treaty of Tripoli, a document agreed to by the entire machinery of the US government under the first and second US presidents, Washington and Adams, states that "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." (1796-97). Indeed the de facto motto of the USA dating from 1776 was "E Pluribus Unum" (but had never been officially proclaimed as such).
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
What needs to be rediscovered, reinvented, and re-disseminated in the USA is thinking. Good, deep, honest, deliberate, well informed thinking. Not feel-good thinking, not wishful thinking, not let's-all-sing-together-we-are-so-beautiful thinking, but causal, rational, hard core thinking. That means that faith should be out as a first choice for mental pre-positioning. Certainly returning to the separation of church and state would help. One could start by phasing out the obviously anti-Constitutional motto of 1956 "In God We Trust", an apparently obvious imitation of Adolf Hitler's motto: "Gott mit Uns" ("God With Us"). German soldiers and SS carried "Gott mit Uns" all over Europe as they invaded. Similarly, G. W. Bush's ultimate justification for invading Iraq was that his "Higher Father" told him to.
When thinking is applied, it will be revealed that plutocracy does not a democracy make. Nor does calling the world's richest men "philanthropists" make them good. Nor being the only country in the universe to use the old imperial system of units does an empire make. And so on.
Happy Winter Solstice (aka the Birth of the Sun, the birthday of Mithra, made, more than a millennium later, into the famous "Sol Invictus" (the Invicible Sun), an official massive Roman celebration, later conveniently transmogrified into Mr. Christ's birthday, when the later Roman emperors decided that all the People needed was the cross...)!
***
P/S: The treaty of Tripoli, a document agreed to by the entire machinery of the US government under the first and second US presidents, Washington and Adams, states that "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." (1796-97). Indeed the de facto motto of the USA dating from 1776 was "E Pluribus Unum" (but had never been officially proclaimed as such).
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
MONEY ALLOWS PAID INTELLECTUALS TO FORM INTO A CLASS, AND SERVE THE PLUTOCRACY.
USING PUBLIC MONEY TO FORM A SECRET SOCIETY. HOW INTELLECTUALS ARE ALLOWED TO TURN INTO A NEW CLASS OF STATE PRIESTS, OR IS THAT AS PROSTITUTES FOR THE ELITE?
Recently, only personel of rich universities have been allowed access to scientific and intellectual research product. This is done by requiring the public to pay hefty fees to just have a glance to an article.
It's outrageous that scientific research would be withdrawn from public scrutiny and access. Most scientific research is funded by the PUBLIC. Thus the public ought to be the ultimate owner of the information gathered by scientists. In Britain, for example, the universities are now all public (Oxford and Cambridge are not private anymore). So it is in continental Europe. US universities, even private ones, are hugely financed by taxpayer money in various ways. To grab other people's property for one's profit is thievery. To do it to the public defiles and attacks the REPUBLIC (res Publica).
Besides, science, and intellectual activities are public utilities, thus should provide with public access, just like the high seas, the moon, or the air one breathes.
Should this grabbing of collective resources by a small self-selected elite and rich universities be allowed to go on, it is to be feared that a new priesthood will rise. Meanwhile, most of the public will get ever more ignorant, antiscientific, anti-intellectual, and resentful (of that new priesthood). New Dark Ages would be here. (Apparently, even the present administration has expressed alarm, and took corrective action in some biological areas.)
In a way, allowing only members of rich universities to have access to intellectual product, is similar to what happened at the criminal root of the present financial crisis: a small elite grabs for itself, and its personal enrichment, vast global, public resources.
Indeed, more globally the question is that, if it takes several hundred dollars to look at a just one issue of one journal financed by the public, who has that kind of money? Who has that kind of access? The plutocracy, those at the root of the world financial and economic mess.
As Obama claims that he wants to provide better internet access to the population, one guesses that he means better access to information, and, in particular, to publicly financed information. So he should look at this injustice.
***
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
****
P/S: Here is how Dr. Olivia Judson describes the access to intellectual product problem in the New York Times (Dec. 16, 2008):
"One caveat. I say “access to information is easier and faster than ever before.” With respect to scientific information, this is true for people within universities, but not for those without them. One of the consequences of the scientific journals going digital is that it has become harder for members of the public to get access to original scientific information. It used to be the case, for example, that anyone could get permission to spend a day at the library at Imperial College; once there, they could read any of the journals on the library shelves. Now, subscriptions to the paper editions of many journals have been stopped — the journals are no longer physically there — and only members of the university are allowed access to the online versions. Some journals give free access, at least to back-issues; but many do not. Then, if you are not a member of a university and you want to read some articles, they may cost you as much as $30 each. I think this is a pity. Perhaps not many people want to read original scientific research; but somehow, it seems against the spirit of the enterprise."
Recently, only personel of rich universities have been allowed access to scientific and intellectual research product. This is done by requiring the public to pay hefty fees to just have a glance to an article.
It's outrageous that scientific research would be withdrawn from public scrutiny and access. Most scientific research is funded by the PUBLIC. Thus the public ought to be the ultimate owner of the information gathered by scientists. In Britain, for example, the universities are now all public (Oxford and Cambridge are not private anymore). So it is in continental Europe. US universities, even private ones, are hugely financed by taxpayer money in various ways. To grab other people's property for one's profit is thievery. To do it to the public defiles and attacks the REPUBLIC (res Publica).
Besides, science, and intellectual activities are public utilities, thus should provide with public access, just like the high seas, the moon, or the air one breathes.
Should this grabbing of collective resources by a small self-selected elite and rich universities be allowed to go on, it is to be feared that a new priesthood will rise. Meanwhile, most of the public will get ever more ignorant, antiscientific, anti-intellectual, and resentful (of that new priesthood). New Dark Ages would be here. (Apparently, even the present administration has expressed alarm, and took corrective action in some biological areas.)
In a way, allowing only members of rich universities to have access to intellectual product, is similar to what happened at the criminal root of the present financial crisis: a small elite grabs for itself, and its personal enrichment, vast global, public resources.
Indeed, more globally the question is that, if it takes several hundred dollars to look at a just one issue of one journal financed by the public, who has that kind of money? Who has that kind of access? The plutocracy, those at the root of the world financial and economic mess.
As Obama claims that he wants to provide better internet access to the population, one guesses that he means better access to information, and, in particular, to publicly financed information. So he should look at this injustice.
***
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
****
P/S: Here is how Dr. Olivia Judson describes the access to intellectual product problem in the New York Times (Dec. 16, 2008):
"One caveat. I say “access to information is easier and faster than ever before.” With respect to scientific information, this is true for people within universities, but not for those without them. One of the consequences of the scientific journals going digital is that it has become harder for members of the public to get access to original scientific information. It used to be the case, for example, that anyone could get permission to spend a day at the library at Imperial College; once there, they could read any of the journals on the library shelves. Now, subscriptions to the paper editions of many journals have been stopped — the journals are no longer physically there — and only members of the university are allowed access to the online versions. Some journals give free access, at least to back-issues; but many do not. Then, if you are not a member of a university and you want to read some articles, they may cost you as much as $30 each. I think this is a pity. Perhaps not many people want to read original scientific research; but somehow, it seems against the spirit of the enterprise."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)