Archive | January 25th, 2020

War Profiteering is Real

by SARAH ANDERSON

The prospect of war with Iran is terrifying.

Experts predict as many as a million people could die if the current tensions lead to a full-blown war. Millions more would become refugees across the Middle East, while working families across the U.S. would bear the brunt of our casualties.

But there is one set of people who stand to benefit from the escalation of the conflict: CEOs of major U.S. military contractors.

This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official on January 2. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies’ share prices spiked.

Wall Street traders know that a war with Iran would mean more lucrative contracts for U.S. weapons makers. Since top executives get much of their compensation in the form of stock, they benefit personally when the value of their company’s stock goes up.

I took a look at the stock holdings of the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman).

Using the most recent available data, I calculated that these five executives held company stock worth approximately $319 million just before the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani. By the stock market’s closing bell the following day, the value of their combined shares had increased to $326 million.

War profiteering is nothing new. Back in 2006, during the height of the Iraq War, I analyzed CEO pay at the 34 corporations that were the top military contractors at that time. I found that their pay had jumped considerably after the September 11 attacks.

Between 2001 and 2005, military contractor CEO pay jumped 108 percent on average, compared to a 6 percent increase for their counterparts at other large U.S. companies.

Congress needs to take action to prevent a catastrophic war on Iran. De-escalating the current tensions is the most immediate priority.

But Congress must also take action to end war profiteering. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed capping CEO pay at companies receiving financial bailouts. He argued that CEOs relying on taxpayer funds should not earn more than $400,000 — the salary of the U.S. president.

That commonsense notion should be extended to all companies that rely on massive taxpayer-funded contracts. Senator Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a plan to deny federal contracts to companies that pay their CEOs excessively. He would set the CEO pay limit for major contractors at no more than 150 times the pay of the company’s typical worker.

Currently, the sky’s the limit for CEO pay at these companies — and the military contracting industry is a prime offender. The top five Pentagon contractors paid their top executives $22.5 million on average in 2018.

CEO pay restrictions should also apply to the leaders of privately held government contractors, which currently don’t even have to disclose the size of their top executives’ paychecks.

That’s the case for General Atomics, the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper that carried out the assassination of Soleimani. Despite raking in $2.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is allowed to keep executive compensation information secret.

We do know that General Atomics CEO Neal Blue has prospered quite a bit from taxpayer dollars. Forbes estimates his wealth at $4.1 billion.

War is bad for nearly everyone. But as long as we allow the leaders of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, their profit motive for war in Iran — or anywhere — will persist.

Posted in Middle East, USA, IranComments Off on War Profiteering is Real

GAS CHAMBERS AND OF THE USE OF ZYKLON-B

THE TECHNICAL IMPLAUSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGED HOMICIDAL GAS CHAMBERS AND OF THE USE OF ZYKLON-B

The entire gas chamber story is technically implausible. The official Holocaust narrative is that Zyklon-B pellets were dropped through holes in the roof onto the cold concrete floor. However the boiling point of the hydrogen cyanide (HCN) in Zyklon-B is 26ºC, the evaporation of HCN from Zyklon-B is too slow to kill humans in gas chambers in the way it has been alleged if the gas chamber temperature is below 26ºC. To kill quickly (within minutes), the “gas chamber” needs to be heated to at least 26ºC, but the kind of heating device required was not found in Auschwitz. Moreover the witnesses said it was not used at all, and claimed that the SS man just used to pour Zyklon-B through four holes in the roof. Some Holocaust-accusers explain that by saying that the human bodies in the gas chamber provided the required heating. But that is a very far-fetched “explanation”, since the human body is about 36ºC warm, it is unlikely that the human bodies are able to heat a room of – say- 10ºC in winter to 26ºC.

Execution gas chambers were invented in the USA and used because the intention is to cause painless death. The planning and realization of the execution is, however, anything but simple. The procedure is so risky, so detailed and expensive, that this method is increasingly being abandoned and being replaced by lethal injection.

Modern execution gas chamber doors vs Auschwitz “gas chamber” doors.

A gas chamber must satisfy innumerable requirements. There needs to be a heating system to heat the Zyklon-B pellets. There needs to be a means of diffusing the gas into the chamber. The gas chamber needs to be hermetically sealed to prevent the gas from escaping including the holes in the roof, the doors and any other gaps as well as light fittings. There needs to be an extraction system to remove the gas from the chamber. There needs to be a very tall chimney for the gas to safely be expelled. There needs to be an extremely strong and thick steel door which can withstand the pressure of hundreds of people pushing against it trying to escape. None of these requirements existed or exist today at Auschwitz. None of these requirements were found by Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson, Walter Lüftl, Fredrick Töben, John Ball, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Ernst Zündel, David McCalden, David Cole and others who have carried out a technical inspection of the alleged “gas chambers” – which are admitted as never being a gas chamber.

Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged “gas chambers” totalling some 1693 per week and assuming these facilities could support gas executions it would have required 68 years to execute the alleged number of six million persons.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p133_Leuchter.html

Revisionist research expanded enormously when Robert Faurisson made contact with the worldwide leader in gas chamber technology, Fred Leuchter, during the 1988 Zündel trial and Faurisson asked Leuchter to draw up an expert report on the rooms designated as gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, which at that time still lay behind the iron curtain. He was to determine the capacity of the crematory ovens.

The Holocaust lobby later attempted to bring Fred Leuchter into discredit. They claimed that he had lied about his engineering credentials and had been bribed by the revisionists, quite apart from the fact that he was, of course, smeared as a ‘Nazi’. The Holocaust lobby nevertheless proved itself incapable of a technical rebuttal of the conclusions of the Leuchter report.

The Leuchter report had dealt a heavy blow to the Holocaust legend, other expert reports in support of Leuchter’s conclusions then followed.

Of particular significance is the Rudolf Report, after the German chemist and the evaluation of air reconnaissance photographs (Air Photo Evidence) by the Canadian geologist and air photography exert John C. Ball.

As their last card, the defenders of the orthodox version of the Holocaust then backed the French pharmacist J.C. Pressac, hailed by the media to be a converted revisionist. This is not true: Pressac did, it is true, undertake research work with Robert Faurisson, but never endorsed Faurisson’s conclusions and never published any revisionist work of his own.

His monumental work Auschwitz: The Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers is very important from a documentary point of view. For the revisionists, it represents a true mine of information, which they use extensively. From a scientific point of view, however, the work is worthless, because the author mixes reliable sources with pure fiction in the most irresponsible manner in order to reach the desired result. He does not examine opposite points of view and never cites technical literature.

Whenever Pressac stumbles across a fact which contradicts his hypothesis, he simply ignores it. The entire work appears to have been written by someone who can no longer see the forest for the trees. The same is true to an even greater extent of his second, much shorter book, Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz. La Machinerie du meurtre en mass.

The defenders of the official version of the Holocaust need not fear any sudden upswing in revisionism, of course, since disputing or even disputing the Holocaust has been made a criminal offence in several European countries. The worst countries are Germany and Austria, where revisionists risk lengthy prison sentences. Even in France, legal proceedings are regularly taken against revisionists, but the authorities are content to levy heavy fines, which ruin the defendants.

rudolphnoholes

The Impossible Gas Chamber
By Robert Faurisson
http://www.historiography-project.com/books/faurisson-on-the-holocaust/auschwitz-photos.php

The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to be Physically Inconceivable
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p312_Faurisson.html

The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion
By Nicholas Kollerstrom
http://codoh.com/library/document/684/

A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html

Tell-Tale Documents and Photos from Auschwitz
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p-67_Weber.html

The Illustrated Auschwitz Lie
http://www.cwporter.com/bild5.htm

The Illustrated Auschwitz Lie 2
http://www.cwporter.com/bild2.htm

How Do 13 Football Stadiums Fit Into A Garage?
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id822.html

Gas Chambers: David Cole’s 46 Questions About the Gas Chambers
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gc46-ORIGI.html

William B. Lindsey

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Germany, Human RightsComments Off on GAS CHAMBERS AND OF THE USE OF ZYKLON-B

Claims that the ‘NAFTA 2’ Agreement is Better are a Macabre Joke

by PETE DOLACK

Photograph Source: U.S. Department of State – Public Domain

Democratic Party House representatives have voted by a wide margin to approve version 2 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Even Rose DeLauro of Connecticut, in the past a strong leader within Congress in the fight against so-called “free trade” agreements, is on board with this one.

Representative DeLauro and other congressional Democrats claim they forced the Trump administration to strengthen the agreement by compelling the insertion of language that allegedly creates “effective and meaningful labor standards and protect[s] worker rights”; supports environmental standards; and “protect[s] access to affordable medicine.” Can this really be true? Or have congressional Democrats reverted to normal form, rolling in the dirt at the feet of Republicans yet again?

Although Democrats and public pressure forced through some improvements, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), or NAFTA 2, isn’t substantially different and remains a document of corporate domination. It would appear that appearances, not substance, drove Democrats in the House of Representatives to approve the deal. That was signaled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said she wanted to show United Statesians that her party can get things done and is not simply opposing President Donald Trump for the sake of opposing him. That was understood to be a gesture to buttress the re-election chances of Democrats who won seats in districts previously held by Republicans.

So Democrats went along to get along, much as they did in approving the massive $738 billion Pentagon budget. In other words, they once again demonstrated that cringing and cowering is their default position. One can imagine the discussion behind closed doors: Yes, that will show Donald Trump we mean business — we’ll support his most desired policy initiative.

Unfortunately, the Mexican and Canadian governments have not shown much more resistance. Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, despite being elected on a Left wave and promising significant change, has so far tended to give in to President Trump’s demands. That tendency was underscored by the almost unanimous approval given the USMCA by the Mexican Senate. Meanwhile, Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been a willing participant in bringing NAFTA 2 to fruition, even going so far as to be a voice for retaining the ability of corporations to use unaccountable tribunals to sue governments, including his own and despite Canada’s regulations being the most frequent target.

What the document says isn’t what it means

So what is really in the USMCA text? Interpretation is what really matters here, as the text, like all “free trade” agreements, is written in dry, technical language that appears to be neutral at first glance. But what the words mean in practice, and how they will be interpreted by tribunals, is not necessarily the same as what the words might appear to say.

A key portion of the document is Chapter 14, the chapter on investment. The chapter’s first page, Article 14.1, defines an “investment” with the standard broad brush — not only is any capital outlay covered but so are all forms of financial speculation, including derivatives. Intellectual property rights and intangible property are explicitly named as well. So the expectation of a profit across the spectrum of business activities is well covered here, and of course the expectation of a profit — in actual practice, the demand for the biggest possible profit regardless of cost to others — is what the owners of capital expect these agreements to help deliver. The secret tribunals used to adjudicate disputes, frequently presided over by corporate lawyers who in their day job specialize in representing the corporations who sue in the tribunals, consistently interpret the language of “free trade” agreements to mean corporations are guaranteed maximum profits above all other considerations.

So is the language of Chapter 14 substantially different? Asking that question is important because Article 14.3 states that in the event of any inconsistency between Article 14 and any any other chapter, Article 14 prevails. The one exception is financial services, covered by Chapter 17, to which we will return. Article 14.4 begins with this passage: “Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.”

That dry language may sound neutral, but it is the exact language that is standard in “free trade” agreements. This is the language that is invoked by multi-national corporations to demand “damages” anytime any law or regulation that upholds health, safety, worker or environmental standards prevents them from extracting the biggest possible profit. This is the language invoked in the secret tribunals that adjudicate these cases to rule in favor of corporate plunder and against regulations.

When you hear “customary international law,” be afraid

That is followed up by Article 14.6, which states “Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.” On the surface, that passage seems neutral, even innocuous. But what is “customary international law”? It is whatever the tribunals that have adjudicated disputes between multi-national corporations and governments say it is. In practice, the many outrageous decisions overturning reasonable health, safety, worker or environmental standards and making corporate profit paramount establishes precedent and thus constitutes “customary” law.

The article goes on to state: “The concepts of ‘fair and equitable treatment’ and ‘full protection and security’ do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights.” Again, what sounds neutral has to been read in context. What need for “additional rights” would be needed when the profits of multi-national corporations are elevated above all other considerations?

We then come to Article 14.8, which states: “No Party shall expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalization (expropriation).” The word “indirectly” is crucial here. Not a reference to a nationalization, which would be a verboten act, an “indirect expropriation” can be any government act that, regardless of intention or general applicability, has the effect of preventing a multi-national corporation from extracting the biggest possible profit. An environmental regulation or a regulation imposing standards protecting human health are two examples of “indirect expropriation,” and under the rules established here would mean that the government being sued would be obligated to strike such regulations from its law and pay “compensation” to the corporation. The article explicitly states that “compensation shall be paid without delay.” (A “Party” is a government that is a signatory to the agreement.)

And what of requiring corporations to act in a socially responsible manner? Here’s Article 14.17 in full: “The Parties reaffirm the importance of each Party encouraging enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate into their internal policies those internationally recognized standards, guidelines, and principles of corporate social responsibility that have been endorsed or are supported by that Party, which may include the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These standards, guidelines, and principles may address areas such as labor, environment, gender equality, human rights, indigenous and aboriginal peoples’ rights, and corruption” (emphasis added).

Note the provisional language, quite unlike the many articles addressing what governments must do for multi-national corporations. In the standard language of trade agreements, rules benefiting capital and erasing the ability of governments to regulate are implemented in trade-agreement texts with words like “shall” and “must” while the few rules that purport to protect labor, health, safety and environmental standards use words like “may” and “can.” The USMCA is no different. It’s the same sleight of hand.

Regulations on banks and Internet giants? Forget about it

Chapter 17, covering financial services, contains the same standard language requiring “treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions … with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.” Again, what appears to be bland language actually means something stronger: In this case, a prohibition against restrictions on predatory banks. Article 17.5 explicitly bans any limitations on the activities of financial institutions and Article 17.6 prohibits any restrictions on taking capital out of a country.

Among other rules, Article 19.11 prohibits any restrictions on “cross-border transfer of information,” which effectively means, for example, that neither Canada or Mexico can protect personal information from U.S. internet companies, a cohort not known for responsible use of personal information. Similar language can be found in Chapter 15, covering cross-border trade in services. This section appears to be modeled on the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA), a notorious “free trade” agreement negotiated in secret among 50 countries, among them all three NAFTA countries, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and purporting to liberalize professional services.

The cover story for why TISA is being negotiated is that it would uphold the right to hire the accountant or engineer of your choice, but in reality is intended to enable the financial industry and Internet companies to run roughshod over countries around the world. The text of TISA expanded the definition of “services” to encompass manufacturing and could potentially encompass technology companies like Google and Facebook as providers of “communications services.” The text of USMCA’s Chapter 15 may not necessarily be stretched as far it is in TISA, but a reasonable reading is that this chapter will provide another weapon that predatory banks can leverage to take over financial systems and halt attempts at bringing them under meaningful regulatory control. Citigroup, Microsoft and Google are among the many corporate entities celebrating the USMCA.

Another area of concern is Chapter 11, covering “technical barriers to trade.” This chapter adopts numerous articles from the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and makes WTO standards obligatory. There is also a clause in Article 11.7 that requires equal participation by citizens of other countries when technical regulations or standards are developed. Might this be an invitation for executives and lobbyists for multi-national corporations to demand the ability to shape new regulations? What might be ruled an “unnecessary technical barrier to trade”? Such “barriers” are intended to be eliminated as stated in Article 11.9.

Ending secret tribunals appears to be an empty promise

In “free trade” lingo, when a corporation sues a government, the dispute is to be adjudicated in a mechanism known as an “investor-state dispute settlement.” That bland-sounding bureaucratic phrase means that a tribunal decides the issue. Under NAFTA, and many other “free trade” agreements, the tribunal is the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an arm of the World Bank. One of President Trump’s empty promises was to put an end to the use of these tribunals. Surprise! It’s ain’t so. OK, it’s not a surprise that he lied.

In disputes between the U.S. and Mexico, Article 14.D.3 states that disputes will be settled in the ICSID, but the two sides can agree to have it heard in another forum. Given the one-sided rulings ICSID hands down, suing corporations have little incentive to use another forum. More generally, Chapter 31 sets the rules for settling disputes. There we find Article 31.3, which states, “If a dispute regarding a matter arises under this Agreement and under another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are party, including the WTO Agreement, the complaining Party may select the forum in which to settle the dispute.” Can a corporation suing a government dragoon the government into the ICSID or one of the other two similarly one-sided secret tribunals? The text later in the chapter is ambiguous on that, but does not preclude use of those fora.

Later in the chapter, the text speaks of “panels” without specifying a forum and also mandates, in Article 31.8, that a “roster of up to 30 individuals who are willing to serve as panelists” be created. The panelists are to “have expertise or experience in international law, international trade, other matters covered by this Agreement, or the resolution of disputes arising under international trade agreements.” The exact same “expertise” required under NAFTA and virtually all other “free trade” agreements! In other words, corporate lawyers who specialize in representing corporations in these kinds of disputes are those who have the “expertise” and “experience” to sit in judgment. The same hat-switching will be in force.

So even if ICSID, or the other two secret tribunals, are not used and instead a new panel specific to the USMCA becomes the new forum, the same conditions and same cast of characters, using the same precedents, will be in force. There is no reason to expect any effective difference from NAFTA.

Some better language but that is not necessarily meaningful

As to what potential improvements from NAFTA exist, there are three. One is that hearings will be conducted in public (Article 14.D.8) (although there does not appear to be a requirement that a public notice be made). The second is that a side agreement in force only between Mexico and the U.S. that purports to uphold workers’ rights by prohibiting denial of free association or the right to collective bargaining to the extent that doing so impacts the other country (Annex 31-A). A panel is supposed to adjudicate this issue should it arise, and apply International Labor Organization standards. The U.S. government can sue to enforce this annex, but can anybody imagine the Trump or any other Republican administration suing to enforce the right of workers? For that matter, would a Democratic administration seek to enforce collective-bargaining standards or the right to form a union if a Mexican government, acting on behalf of its industrialists, discourages it from filing?

Democratic supporters of USCMA are taking this provision on faith, but it remains to be seen if there will be any use of this annex or if it can be meaningfully enforced even if a future administration does seek to apply it.

The third improvement is that there is language on the environment that is stronger than in past agreements. Article 24.2 declares that “The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development” and are encouraged to “promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws.” There are several articles in Chapter 24 discussing various specific environmental concerns. But seemingly pro-environment language has not been absent from existing “free trade” agreements and that language has proved to be meaningless window dressing.

Further, Article 24.2 also says “The Parties further recognize that it is inappropriate to establish or use their environmental laws or other measures in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on trade or investment between the Parties.” Here we find a potential giant loophole. Might environmental laws be interpreted to be such a restriction? Unfortunately, there is ample precedent here. A series of rulings culminated in the World Trade Organization ruling that U.S. dolphin-safe labeling is an unfair “technical barrier to trade,” even though the U.S. had weakened its laws in response to the earlier WTO rulings.

Among rulings handed down under NAFTA — rulings that are considered precedents when similar cases are heard — Canada had to reverse its ban on a gasoline additive known as MMT, a chemical long believed to be dangerous to health, because the tribunal ruled the ban a violation of the principal of “equal treatment” even though, had a Canadian producer of MMT existed, it would have had the same standard applied. Canada was also successfully sued over its ban on the transportation of PCBs that conformed with both a Canada-United States and a multi-lateral environmental treaty. The tribunal ruled that, when formulating an environmental rule, a government “is obliged to adopt the alternative that is most consistent with open trade.”

Not only are these types of rulings precedents, but recall, as noted above, that Article 14, which elevates expectations of profits above any conflicting consideration, supersedes all other articles. And to repeat a point made earlier, WTO standards are obligatory. “Technical barriers” to trade as the WTO defines them won’t be exceptions.

A billionaires’ club masquerading as a government

So what can we really expect if the USMCA goes into effect? Given not only the history of “free trade” agreements and the mendacity of the Trump administration, probably the same as experienced under NAFTA. Consider the evidence the Trump administration has offered. Its April 2018 “National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,” a document laying out its trade goals, no less than 137 countries were cited for raising alleged “trade barriers” to be attacked, barriers that include items like laws requiring food imported to be safe.

In July 2017, the Trump administration quietly published its “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation,” which features boilerplate language that in some cases appears to be lifted word for word from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And, not least, is the Trump gang’s infrastructure plan, a macabre joke that mostly consists of massive corporate subsidies and intends the creation of “public-private partnerships,” which are scams under which services are privatized for guaranteed corporate profit while becoming more expensive and less subject to public accountability.

We’re supposed to trust this government? NAFTA has been a “lose-lose-lose” proposition for working people and farmers in Canada, Mexico and the United States. That formula won’t be changing. The Council of Canadians has issued a strong warning about what can be expected:

“Regulatory cooperation in the new NAFTA takes away our ability to set standards and regulations to protect our health, safety and well-being. … [R]egulations cannot be prescribed for ethical or social reasons. The emphasis is on the regulator to prove that a regulation is backed by science, and not on the corporation to prove that their product does no harm. … Regulators have to vigorously defend proposed regulations and are even required to suggest alternatives that don’t involve regulating. They have to provide extensive analysis, including cost-benefits to industry. The new NAFTA encourages the three countries to harmonize, or have similar regulations. This is not about raising standards, but bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator.”

The National Family Farm Coalition, representing organizations in more than 40 U.S. states, said the USMCA “offers little” for family farmers. Coalition President Jim Goodman, a retired Wisconsin dairy farmer, said:

“Climate change is not mentioned and the new treaty does nothing to curb the environmental damage that was part of the original NAFTA. [Coalition] dairy producers do not support dumping excess US milk on the Canadian or Mexican markets, as that will force family dairy farmers out of business in those countries.”

The Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and National Resources Defense Council also recommended against the agreement being approved:

“The deal that the Trump administration produced … would encourage further outsourcing of pollution and jobs, offer handouts to notorious corporate polluters, and prolong Trump’s polluting legacy for years. The deal not only fails to mention, acknowledge, or address the climate crisis, but would actually contribute to it.”

The Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy similarly gave a thumbs-down to the deal:

“[The USMCA] locks in a system of agribusiness exploitation of farmers and workers in the three participating nations, while worsening the climate crisis. … Nothing in the New NAFTA addresses urgent issues plaguing our farm economy: low prices, rising debt and increased bankruptcy. … Measures in New NAFTA that open Canada’s dairy market to increased exports from the U.S. will not significantly reduce the vast oversupply of U.S. milk or raise prices paid to U.S. dairy farmers. Instead, the opening will weaken Canada’s successful supply management program, which has achieved market-based prosperity for its farmers. Added regulatory-focused sections will delay and impede the development, enactment and enforcement of protections for consumers, workers and the environment.”

Sadly, the main union federation in the U.S., the AFL-CIO, has chosen to endorse the USMCA despite its fatal flaws. The largest Canadian federation, the Canadian Labour Congress, does not seem to have taken a position, although it did issue an ambiguous statement in October 2018 saying the deal had “some points of progress.” The Congress specifically cited the eliminating of NAFTA’s notorious Chapter 11 that elevated “investor rights” above all other considerations, but that optimism proved erroneous as it is now clear that provision remains in less direct language.

The governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States have once again put a gun to their own heads. “Free trade” agreements continue to have little to do with trade and much to do with imposing a corporate dictatorship, a lesson once again being imposed.

Posted in USAComments Off on Claims that the ‘NAFTA 2’ Agreement is Better are a Macabre Joke

Hijacking the Struggles of Others, Elizabeth Warren Style

by KATHLEEN WALLACE

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

To say Elizabeth Warren is a political opportunist is not giving her enough credit. She has taken the struggles, as well as the identities of others (women, school teachers, Native Americans, public school supporters, people who are able to tweet with humor, actual humans) and has weaponized these categories until the meaning of it all is lost.

Her tweet about leaving your ghosting boyfriend and getting a dog despite your roommate’s objections should have placed her in the pandering hall of fame, and with that should have included a one way trip to some kind of holding cell for the criminally trite.

Her obvious lies (she’s not even good at them, shaking and being sketchy with a tweaker-looking-body-vibe-thing when she tries to pull them off)—well that bit regarding Bernie Sanders has electrified her twitter feed with images of snakes and has even managed to get #RefundWarren trending. At this rate, maybe she can pull in a negative donation for this quarter. What an achievement. The first female candidate to pull that off! Grrrrl Power! Her political instincts are as feeble as her lies— to have her tell it, she was a selfless public servant most of her career (more like a teacher long enough to mention it, and a corporate lawyer as the subsequent defining profession). Her kids only went to public schools (umm no), she is of native heritage (shouldn’t she have helped a bit at Standing Rock with that 1/16600600606006 ancestry that she is so proud of?) . Oh yes, her father was a janitor (again, what? No). She is but a champion for the veracity challenged. That’s true at least.

Warren is that person you can never rely on–the one that has no defining characteristic other than self-elevation. Over the years, if it benefited her, she backed a few seemingly decent causes, but it was never about doing the right thing. It was all political expediency and shape shifting. She was a Republican during so many tumultuous years—even during the Reagan era that propelled us towards what we are going through now…hell, she was a Republican until her late 40s. But now she has reinvented herself as a populist, but won’t even talk out against Biden, the man from Creditcardlandia. She’s a promiscuous virgin, a carnivorous vegan.

This current trend to take on the struggles of others as your own has been powerful of late. Cops pretend to have coffee cups served to them with pig slurs and Warren puts forth that the very individual who actually urged her to run for president in 2016, changed course and told her women can’t win (despite ample evidence that Sanders has a track record that is decidedly feminist). I think she said Bernie offered her a cup of coffee in their meeting that had written on it something like “Women can’t win, you’re a bitch, how’s menopause treating you, and also your hair is dry and brittle.” (It was a Starbucks Trenta cup so he could go full on misogynist because there was a lotta space to write on–thanks Starbucks, first a war on Christmas, now a war on Women).

So I’d say this is weaponizing a status and taking the struggles of others to pretend they are your own. Stolen valor, really.

For many of us Sanders is a compromise. The changes needed are massive, but he’s the closest thing we’ve got at this point. The hulking size of our nation and the lack of immediacy to those in power over us lends a situation of creating an infantalized population. This is where we are at now. There should be direct accountability and of course we have nothing of the sort. I suspect far in the future, if humans are to survive in any manner, it will go back to some sort of mutual aid, and direct accountability from those making life and death decisions over others, in short, more of a tribal situation. But right now, in our lifetimes, we are tasked with attempting to keep the planet below 150 degrees, to not bake our children before next week.

We have utter nonsense pouring in from the Warren corporate shills and it is wasting our precious time. The recent CNN debate should render that channel irrelevant at best, a direct threat at the worst. Fox comes in with obvious bias, but the CNNs and MSNBCs slip in behaving as if they are reasonable and neutral, assaulting those of us unlucky enough to have to watch them as captives at dental offices. They most certainly help the Warrens and other corporate shills by providing red herring distractions and pleas for incrementalism. This is akin to only turning up your boiling water that you bath in a degree or two every 5 minutes rather than trying to stop the boil. They care about immediate profits and in truth are terribly stupid. Many of us have been raised to be polite and not utter this about others, especially those in power. We look for reasons and conditions for their behavior and choices, but the stark fact is that a lot of these people are ignorant as fuck and want to remain that way—little or no intellectual curiosity and full of base greed. And this will kill us all.

The treachery of Warren towards Sanders is most likely from some back room deal with Biden. He probably told her that he needs help against Corn Pop and while sniffing her hair and unwashed face, (I’m not being snarky without reason, she shared her beauty routine with the media since that’s so pressing in these days of turmoil)……well Biden decided that she would be the one to stroke his leg hairs in the oval office as VP. They are the golden hairs of a golden white man, he says. This is the way of Washington–lots of white men thinking their leg hair is the best, but her instincts were shit to have taken a deal like this. No way in hell is Biden going to win, even if the DNC does manage to prop him up as their candidate. Trump will have a field day with him (Biden of the reasonable Republican fable) and if they do debate, the entire country might have a collective intracranial bleed from the batshittery that will be spoken. Trump will be there, all eyes dilated, snorting and speaking gibberish; Biden will be there, all blood eyed and smarmy, talking about how poor kids can be smart too (the more you know). I cry in a corner even considering such a spectacle. I’d rather see Topsy electrocuted than watch that.

Anyway, it’s not unlikely that Warren will get a challenger for her senate seat due to this Judas move. The Bernie supporters will be generous with political donations if that individual materializes, I’m sure. But I’m guessing she will try something again in terms of reinvention and she will refer to herself as the politician formally known as Elizabeth Warren and try to get a judge show on antennae tv. I won’t watch it even if she hits the gavel and says to leave the ghosting boyfriend and get a dog in the event of a sassy landlord tenant dispute brought before her court. I plan on ghosting Elizabeth Warren and her lying ass.

Posted in USAComments Off on Hijacking the Struggles of Others, Elizabeth Warren Style

IT WAS NEVER A GAS CHAMBER ??

THE “HOMICIDAL GAS CHAMBER” SHOWN AT AUSCHWITZ WAS NEVER A GAS CHAMBER

Hospital opposite ‘gas chamber’? Absurd.

Since 1948, the year of the founding by Polish Communist authorities of the Auschwitz State Museum, millions of tourists — 500,000 visitors per year in the early 1990s — have visited the crematory building of the main camp (Auschwitz I) with its “gas chamber” room. Museum guides present this crematory structure (Krema) and its “gas chamber” as genuine, but skeptical visitors who ask impertinent questions are told, since my own visits of 1975 and 1976, that this is, in fact, a “reconstruction,” which we are further informed is an identical replica of the original. In reality, the whole is neither authentic nor an identical replica of the original. In 1941-42, the Krema was a very conventional crematory facility with, notably, a cool morgue room for temporary storage of corpses, and an incineration block with six ovens. In 1943-44, the six ovens were done away with and the morgue room, along with other parts of the building, were transformed into an air-raid shelter with a surgical operating room serving the nearby SS hospital. – Prof. Robert Faurisson
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p12_Faurisson.html

Existing blueprints show that the alleged gas chamber was in fact a morgue that was later converted into an air raid shelter. Robert Faurisson was the first researcher to find the blueprints of the crematoria I, II and III in the Auschwitz archives, which he published. On the blueprints, the alleged gas chambers are designated as ‘morgues’. He discovered that the four openings in the roof of Krema I, as well as the only door leading directly into the ‘gas chamber’, did not exist at the time of the alleged mass gassings and therefore could only have been pierced through the roof of Krema I since the liberation of the camp. Today, Krema I is presented to tourists as being “partially” reconstructed, but it is in fact nothing more than a gross deception.

State 1 – From 1940 to 1943, it was a Leichenhalle (a cold storage room for bodies, with a washroom, etc.);
State 2 – From June 1944 to January 1945, Luftschützbunker für SS-Revier mit einem Operationsraum (an air-raid shelter for the SS-hospital with an operating room).

The crematorium had been taken out of service on 19 July 1943, whereas the conversion into an air-raid shelter took place in October 1944.

When Auschwitz came within the range of Allied bombers in 1944 and Monowitz was actually bombed on 13 September of that year, the Germans decided to convert the old crematorium, which had been used as a warehouse since it was put out of service, into an operating room equipped with an air raid bunker for the SS hospital. In so doing, they built a new entrance.

Auschwitz was bombed in May, 1943The first airstrike on I.G. Auschwitz carried out by several Allied aircraft took place during the night of May 4, 1943. One watchtower at the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp came under machine-gun fire, and nine bombs fell near the prisoners’ camp without causing any damage. This strike probably was the work of the Red Army’s air force, as the range of the British and American bomber wings in 1943 did not yet extend as far as Auschwitz.http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/luftangriffe_en

KTB_Kattowitz_Ru_In_a
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Pelt/on_LS_Bunker.html

There is one report of SS being killed in an air raid in the order of the commandant of 6 September 1944 of Monowitz: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6038&p=44537#p42551 There was another heavy air attack on Auschwitz-Monowitz on September 13th, 1944, in which 12 men of the SS had been killed: http://meidling-forum.at/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26478&sid=e5d924c11130fb003f0adb2d7201f3b5#26478

Wartime Germany’s Anti-Gas Air Raid Shelters: A Refutation of Pressac’s ‘Criminal Traces’
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n4p-7_Crowell.html

In 1948, the crematorium was once again converted, the Soviets demolished the interior dividing walls, removed the bathroom facilities (there are clear marks on the walls and floors showing where walls had once stood and toilets had once been) and the former morgue was merged with the adjacent room. The Soviets cut four crude holes in the ceiling (the fake “Zyklon-B introduction holes”) and built a fake brick chimney outside without even bothering to connect it to the building. They even left the original doors in place at either end which are flimsy wooden doors with a large glass pane that opens inwards. The “chamber” room is also connected to the crematoria with no door in-between the two rooms. There is also a large window in the “chamber.” The location of the “chamber” was also conspicuous, situated extremely close to the hospital and other buildings. The poison gas would have infected the whole area. It was then alleged by the Soviets, Americans and British that mass murders with poison gas were committed here in 1941-1942.

Crude holes put in by Russians, turning a morgue into a ‘gas chamber’.
tobendoor

This is the door to the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz – Yes, that is a window, and it is unbarred. The door itself is a typical wooden office door, it is not sealed. A visitor asked a guide why the prisoners didn’t break the window and escape, the guide replied that an armed guard was stationed outside the door. That is, they really expect people to believe that this was a “gas chamber”, and, amazingly, people do. The “gas chamber” is actually a morgue room in a crematorium. The problem for the believer is that since there were no plans or architectural drawings for gas chambers and if the rooms that were found were no longer designed nor functioning as gas chambers, with what information was the room “restored”? If the gas chamber was shut down in 1942/43, and not converted back into a gas chamber until after the war by the Soviets, then where were the people gassed during 1943/44?

krema 1 gas chamber hoax
Execution Gas Chamber Door vs Auschwitz

BUILDING A GAS CHAMBER IN A CREMATORY BUILDING IS A REALLY BAD IDEA…

In Krema 1 at Auschwitz an open doorway exists between the room housing the crematory ovens and the room alleged to be a gas chamber. The ovens are only a few a feet away from the alleged gas chamber room. The heat of the ovens were only separated from the room alleged to be a gas chamber by a brick wall. The active ingredient of Zyklon-B is hydrocyanic acid which becomes explosive upon vaporization. Contact between the gas and the heat or flames of the ovens would have caused an explosion. No measures to prevent gas escaping into the adjacent room housing the crematory ovens existed during the war. No one in their right mind would build a gas chamber right next to a crematory. In reality the room next to the crematory alleged to be a gas chamber was never a gas chamber. It was a morgue.

In a large labour camp it is expected that a small number of inmates may die of illness so a crematory with a morgue was necessary just as it was necessary on Ellis Island in the United States. However after the devastating outbreak of typhus at Auschwitz in 1942 which caused thousands of deaths a further four crematoriums were constructed – Kremas II, III, IV and V. It was not possible to bury bodies due to the high water table and the risk of the ground water being contaminated with disease.

The Iconcievable Gas Chamber


The cat, the gas chamber & the explosion
Despite 2000 people being crammed into the main gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which was then filled with explosive cyanide gas. Static electricity created from victims hair (hair cuts followed the gassings in Auschwitz) never created any explosions.

Ottawa Citizen – May 22, 1931

Is Zyklon B Explosive?

fake chimney
soviet chimney

The fake Auschwitz chimney which is not connected to the building.

Below are two images of what is now claimed to be the gas chamber at Auschwitz I: The first was taken in 1945, and the second, as the same building appears today.

I don’t have to point out the obvious addition of the “chimney” . . . .

Krema 1 with no chimney
Krema 1 today
hqdefault

No extraction system

zyk_dees
gaschmbr_dees
rudolphmissong cyanide
faurissoncyanide
faurissonproblem

No blue staining on the walls from Zyklon-B

The fact it was never a gas chamber has been admitted by the Auschwitz museum. Dr. Franciszek Piper, former senior curator and director of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on videotape that the holes in the ceiling that were purportedly used to throw Zyklon-B into the rooms used for “homicidal gas chambers” were added AFTER the war, as was the chimney that is built near to, but NOT even attached to, the supposed “gas chamber” building, a building that was in actuality used as a air raid shelter – to PROTECT the inmates from the Allied bombings.

In 1992 a young Jewish (secular) atheist Holocaust revisionist posing as a believer corners the curator of the Auschwitz Holocaust Museum Dr. Franciszek Piper with some very tough questions about the Holocaust at Auschwitz. He is forced to admit that the “gas chamber” was really built by the Soviets after the war.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LO_xSQOCzw
Transcript: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html

Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals ‘Gas Chamber’ Hoax
http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm

Fake ‘Gas Chamber’
Each year for decades, tens of thousands of visitors to Auschwitz have been shown an execution “gas chamber” in the main camp, supposedly in its “original state.” In January 1995 the prestigious French weekly magazine L’Express acknowledged that “everything” about this “gas chamber” is “false,” and that it is in fact a deceitful postwar reconstruction.
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/auschwitz.shtml

1992: Polish government insists Auschwitz I gas chamber is original
In December 1991, the Daily Post newspaper of Liverpool, England, published the following letter by David Irving:

Eileen Taylor (Daily Post, November 30) implied that I am among those historians according to whom “concentration camps, like Auschwitz’ didn’t actually exist”. Credit me with some intelligence please: any of your readers can see from my biography Hitler’s War, that I print one two-page photograph of Auschwitz and another of Jews being deported from Stuttgart to the East. My position is simply defined: as the Poles themselves now admit, the “gas chambers” on display at Auschwitz were built after the war for tourists to look at.
David Irving, London.
Daily Post (Liverpool, England; 3 a.m. edition), Monday, December 16, 1991, p.14.

The following month the paper published a response to Irving’s letter written by the press attaché of the Polish Embassy in London:

I WAS sure that the statement of Mr David Irving (Letters, December 16) that “as Poles themselves now admit, the gas chambers on display at Auschwitz were built after the war for tourists to look at” was absolute nonsense. Nevertheless, I took the trouble to verify from which source he might have obtained his information. I must say that neither the government officials nor members of political parties and social organisations, journalists, academics, virtually everybody I approached on the subject had ever heard anyone publicly expressing such an absurd opinion.
Janusz Dluzynski,  Embassy of the Republic of Poland, London.
Daily Post (Liverpool, England; 3 a.m. edition), Wednesday, January 22, 1992, p.14.

Jean-Claude Pressac had admitted in his 1989 book that the gas chamber was reconstructed after the war (pages 123 and 150). His book was heralded by the world’s press as being the complete refutation of Holocaust revisionism, but clearly no one from the JC, the Polish embassy in London, nor the plethora of Polish movers and shakers the press attaché claimed to have asked about the issue had bothered reading it.

Eight months after the JC article, a young Jewish-American revisionist named David Cole famously got the curator of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum to admit on camera that the Auschwitz I gas chamber was reconstructed by the communists after the war.

Auschwitz I ‘gas chamber’ (Krema I)
http://www.whale.to/b/auschwitz_gas_chamber.html

Does it really matter that the Soviets built the Auschwitz gas chamber after WWII?
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/does-it-really-matter-that-soviets.html

Dachau 1998 with sign claiming that this room was never used as a gas chamber.

The infamous Dachau gas chamber sign rediscovered
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-infamous-dachau-gas-chamber-sign.html

Dachau
This photo was reproduced for years to spread the gas chamber swindle. We are supposed to believe that the Germans did their best to fool their victims through the installation of shower heads, while the entry door to the gas chamber was marked with gassing times! For this reason the photo was later retouched to get rid of the inscription.
This photo was reproduced for years to spread the gas chamber swindle. We are supposed to believe that the Germans did their best to fool their victims through the installation of shower heads, while the entry door to the gas chamber was marked with gassing times! For this reason the photo was later retouched to get rid of the inscription.

German Officer Forced To Build A Gas Chamber After The War

As a young officer, Gerhart Schirmer was captured in 1945 by the Russians and held in Sachsenhausen which the Russians continued to use as a prison. Although the War and Nazism were over, Schirmer and a few fellow-prisoners were forced to construct a gas chamber and execution room, to show the world what the Nazis had done. He described his experiences in a booklet entitled ‘Sachsenhausen – Workuta, Zehn Jahre in den Fängen der Sowjets’ (Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 1992). When ‘certain groups’ drew the attention of the authorities to the booklet’s contents, it was seized and banned in Germany.

The ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel — 1988
Witnesses for the Defense
Ditlieb Felderer

The alleged gas chamber was located next to the SS Hospital building and the Gestapo buildings. There were two entrances to the alleged gas chamber. (18-4279) The first door, which had a peephole in it, opened into a small vestibule. Anyone looking through the peephole did not see into the alleged gas chamber, but saw only a concrete wall approximately one and a half metres away. (18-4294, 4299) Felderer testified that the peephole had significance in exterminationist literature because the Nazis were supposed to have watched with great pleasure as the people died. (18-4295) Museum officials eventually admitted to Felderer that the entire “gas chamber” at Auschwitz I was rebuilt in various stages to “help” tourists understand what occurred. (18-4298)

Felderer concluded that there had never been any gas chamber at Auschwitz I and that the building had been nothing more than a crematory and morgue, later altered in 1943 to an air-raid shelter with a surgical room. Felderer advised Zündel of his conclusions (19-4356)
http://ihr.org/books/kulaszka/13felderer.html

rudolphtrialvienna

1972: A Somewhat Different Auschwitz TrialContractors of Auschwitz Tried in Viennahttp://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Lueftl294f.html

Engineer’s Deathbed Confession: We Built Morgues, not Gas ChambersWalter Schreiber worked as a senior engineer in the branch office in Kattowitz for the construction activities of his firm and was also responsible for constructions in the concentration camp Auschwitz and its sub-camps.  He was interviewed about Auschwitz in the year 1998 by Dipl.-Ing. Walter Lüftl, who had been President of the Austrian Society of Civil Engineers until 1992.

Lüftl.: Do you know anything about introduction hatches in the reinforced concrete ceilings?

Schreiber.: No, not from memory. But since these cellars were also intended to serve as air raid shelters as a secondary purpose, introduction holes would have been counter-productive. I would certainly have objected to such an arrangement.http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Lueftl294f.html

The reality is that there never did exist and does not exist today in any of the camps an example of a genuine homicidal gas chamber. Since 1992 Robert Faurisson has challenged the Holocaust propagandists to “show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber?” He is asking, if these gas chambers existed than can you show me one? Can you provide me with a technical drawing which demonstrates exactly how these alleged homicidal gas chambers technically functioned? Of course, nobody has answered his request, because they can’t, because were no homicidal gas chambers.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, GermanyComments Off on IT WAS NEVER A GAS CHAMBER ??

Concentration Camp Money ‘Lagergeld’ used to Pay Prisoners for Their Work

Auschwitz1RM
January_February_2001_LRG

Far from being the “death camps” as you have heard so often, places like Auschwitz, Dachau and Buchenwald were not in the business of extermination. They were work camps, critical to the German war effort. But did you know that the Jewish workers were compensated for their labor with scrip printed specifically for their use in stores, canteens and even brothels? The prisoner monetary system was conceived in ghettos such as Lodz, carried to camps such as Auschwitz and Dachau and still existed in the displaced persons camps that were established by the Allies after World War II. Here is the story of the money the court historians do not want you to even suspect existed.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/ccmoney.html
PDF: http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2001-no1-7-9.pdf

Many Jewish Inmates Unable to Work
Many thousands of secret German wartime documents dealing with Auschwitz were confiscated after the war by the Allies. But not a single one refers to a policy or program of extermination. In fact, the familiar Auschwitz extermination story cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.

It is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young, sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.

But the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4, 1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of 25,000 Jews held in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and that all of the remaining Jewish inmates — some 21,500, or about 86 percent — were unable to work.

This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on “security measures in Auschwitz” by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom “approximately 15,000 are unable to work.”

The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment to other camps. That is the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of Northwestern University, who also says that this was an important reason for the unusually high death rate there.

Jewish scholar Arno Mayer, a professor of history at Princeton University, acknowledges in his 1988 book about the “final solution” that more Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other “natural” causes than were executed.

Inmates Released
More than 200,000 prisoners were transferred from Auschwitz to other camps, and about 8,000 were in the camp when it was liberated by Soviet forces. In addition, about 1,500 prisoners who had served their sentences were released, and returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, it is difficult to believe that the German authorities would have released inmates who “knew” what was happening there.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Concentration Camp Money ‘Lagergeld’ used to Pay Prisoners for Their Work

THE FACTS Auschwitz: A Labour Camp

Auschwitz produced synthetic rubber, medical and armament supplies.

The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now south-central Poland. It was originally constructed to house Polish prisoners of war and political prisoners just as Britain and the United States built internment camps for German, Italian and Japanese civilians and partisans; but quickly became a labour camp to supply the German war effort and consisted of 39 sites. The British Intelligence decrypts revealed that Jews comprised only 39% of the inmates on average with Poles 65% and Russians a mere 3%. Auschwitz I was the original camp and served as the administrative centre for the whole complex. Construction on Auschwitz II (Birkenau) began in October 1941 to ease congestion at the main camp. Monowitz, or Auschwitz III, was a large industrial site where gasoline was produced from coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted to the war economy.

Auschwitz was a major work camp that had forty different industries. The true reason for the existence of the Auschwitz camp is revealed in these little shown pictures of the industrial complex which surrounded the camp – most of it within full view of the interior of the camp itself.

The surrounding work camps were connected to German industry and included arms factories, foundries and mines. They used the prisoners for most of the labour. The largest work camp was Auschwitz III (Monowitz). It started operations in May 1942 and was associated with the synthetic rubber and liquid fuel plant Buna-Werke owned by IG Farben. Eleven thousand labourers worked at Monowitz. Seven thousand inmates worked at various chemical plants. Eight thousand worked in mines. Approximately 40,000 prisoners worked in labour camps at Auschwitz. Some put the number of prisoners who worked at Auschwitz at 83,000. We don’t know the exact number but what is clear is that tens of thousands of prisoners worked for the German war effort in the Auschwitz prison complex.

Inmates were mostly assigned to general work such as building roads and irrigation installations, or to the support of civilian (Polish and German) workers.
Auschwitz Birkenau 1942
Birkenau 1942
Horticulture
Auschwitz workers
Inmates working in the Siemens airplane factory at Bobrek sub‐camp, an airplane factory called Siemens Schuckert Werke.
Inmates at work in Auschwitz III – Monowitz factory.

The Monowitz industrial complex was where most of Auschwitz’s inmates were put to work in a variety of heavy industries, ranging from rubber manufacture, medical supplies, armaments and clothing.

auschmap

The photograph below shows the tailor’s workshop at Auschwitz I, where prisoners would make up clothing for use by the German army.

Garment workshop at Auschwitz. Jean-Claude Pressac claims that these sewing machines were brought along with them by women deportees. The innumerable photographs of the deportation show not one single woman carrying a sewing machine on her back. Pressac’s interpretation is a perfect example of groundless and deliberate misinterpretation.
Buna‐Werke synthetic rubber factory.

Auschwitz was the site of Germany’s newest and most technologically advanced synthetic rubber plant; and Germany was the world’s leader in this particular field of technology. Shortly after the First World War the Germans were cut off from their supply of natural rubber.

Auschwitz was picked because it was a railway centre.
Auschwitz I: Do you build a hospital next (30 metres) to a gas chamber? Does the Camp Commander live 400 yards from the gas chamber?

The Americans had a camp at Auschwitz before the Germans

Typhus and Doughboy

Auschwitz is the German name for Oświęcim, the town in and around which the camps were located.

Following WWI the Americans set up a quarantine, disinfection and work camp at Oświęcim (Auschwitz) in 1919 to combat typhus.

From the 1982 book by By Alfred E. Cornebise:
Typhus and Doughboy: The American Polish Typhus Relief Expedition 1919-1921

“Oswiecim was the choice to act as the receiving station, since it was seventy-five kilometers from Krakow and had excellent railroad connections, open country, and local gardens producing food at reasonable prices. From there also, the peasants refugees could be spread out over the farms in western Galicia to help with the harvest, thereby easing the burden that they were to the country.”

“In the meantime, the camp at Oswiencim, another of Baker’s charges, saw improvements. By early July, it housed some 700 children and about 2,500 prisoners.”

“(Major Willis P.) Baker (United States Army Medical Corps.) then returned to his regular duties at the Quarantine and Refugee Station at Oswiecim and at the State Bacteriological Laboratory in Krakow. His job at the former was to advise regarding the operation of delousers and sterilizers, and to assist in getting transportation, fuel, and medical supplies. He likewise helped to establish a Red Cross hospital there. The refugee traffic was considerable, for a time, some 5,000 to 6,000 persons per day arriving, about three-fourths being transient military personnel.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on THE FACTS Auschwitz: A Labour Camp

HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE

Below is a long list of facts refuting the Greatest Lie Ever Told:

An Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism

Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers… or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

— ‘Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust’ at the Stockholm International Forum, 2000

“One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.”

— “34 reputable historians” published in the prominent French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

“It is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.”

— French ‘historian’ Jacques Baynac, Le Nouveau Quotidien (Lausanne, Switzerland), Sept. 3, 1996, p. 14.

“Mass human cyanide gas chambers have never existed in human history.” The affirmation here is that normal hygiene technology functioned in an ordinary, normal manner in the German labour camps: that is the core essence of what is today meant by “Holocaust denial.”

The three victor nations, Russia, America and Britain, collaborated together at Nuremberg to fabricate the horrorillusion, which would enable the US/UK to gain the post-war moral high ground, even after incinerating the German cities with two million tons of bombs. People were loath to believe that such a thing could have happened – until maybe after Iraq, when we saw how British-American intelligence had fabricated the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) lie without a tremor of conscience. Only then, I suggest, does it start to dawn upon the world that the notion of big human gas chambers was the original WMD hoax.

– Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom Breaking the Spell — The Holocaust, Myth & Reality

“The Holocaust is a deeply anchored belief even in people who know very little about it. We can see that not only does disbelief in the Holocaust myth threaten modern Jewish identity as shaped by political Zionism, but for others it brings into question the credibility of those in authority who told everyone it was true: the state, the churches, the schools, and media of every kind. These sources are the same ones people trust and depend on every day for information. If these trusted authorities are wrong about the Holocaust, what else are they wrong about? What other dishonesties are they promoting?”

– John Weir, The Holocaust as Myth: Betraying the Public Trust

“If the Holocaust were unimportant, we wouldn’t have around 20 countries on this planet outlawing its critical investigation. In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law. This is proof for the fact that the powers that be consider this topic to be the most important issue to keep under their strict control. Those censoring, suppressing powers are the real criminals—not the historical dissidents they send to prison.”

– Germar Rudolf, Logic and Reason Can and Will Destroy the Holocaust Establishment

“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”

– Robert Faurisson, The revisionists’ total victory on the historical and scientific level

1. The only thing at Auschwitz resembling a human gas chamber was constructed in 1946 by Stalin.

2. Not a single diagnosis of death by cyanide poisoning is on record for any German labour camp.

3. No trace whatever remains of the millions of bodies allegedly gassed in the German labour camps.

4. None of the war generals after the war who wrote their memoirs made any allusion to human gas chambers or indeed to any intention to exterminate an ethnic group.

5. The Red Cross made normal, routine visits to Auschwitz during the war, and its published reports made no allusion to any ongoing human gassing there.

6. No authentic documents attesting to “The Holocaust” exist anywhere.

7. The Bad Arolsen archives list everyone who lived and died in all the German labour camps. The question naturally arises as to what is the total number recorded in this tremendous archive. Clearly the managers of this archive are not at liberty to tell of this or they would be jailed for so awful a crime.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE

Biden, Buttigieg and Corporate Media Are Eager for Sanders and Warren to Clash

by NORMAN SOLOMON

Corporate Democrats got a jolt at the end of last week when the highly regarded Iowa Poll showed Bernie Sanders surging into first place among Iowans likely to vote in the state’s Feb. 3 caucuses. The other big change was a steep drop for the previous Iowa frontrunner, Pete Buttigieg, who — along with Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden — came in a few percent behind Sanders. The latest poll was bad news for corporate interests, but their prospects brightened a bit over the weekend when Politico reported: “The nonaggression pact between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is seriously fraying.”

The reason for that conclusion? While speaking with voters, some Sanders volunteers were using a script saying that Warren supporters “are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”

At last, mainstream journalists could begin to report the kind of conflict that many had long been yearning for. As Politico mentioned in the same article, Sanders and Warren “have largely abstained from attacking one another despite regular prodding from reporters.”

That “regular prodding from reporters” should be understood in an ideological context. Overall, far-reaching progressive proposals like Medicare for All have received negative coverage from corporate media. Yet during debates, Sanders and Warren have been an effective tag team while defending such proposals. The media establishment would love to see Sanders and Warren clashing instead of cooperating.

For progressives, the need for a Sanders-Warren united front is crucial. Yes, there are some significant differences between the two candidates, especially on foreign policy (which is one of the reasons that I actively support Sanders). Those differences should be aired in the open, while maintaining a tactical alliance.

Sustaining progressive momentum for both Sanders and Warren is essential for preventing the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination from going to the likes of Biden or Buttigieg — a grim outcome that would certainly gratify the 44 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Biden, the 40 billionaires and their spouses who’ve donated to Buttigieg, and the oligarchic interests they represent.

It would be a serious error for progressives to buy into corporate media portrayals of the Sanders and Warren campaigns as destined to play a traditional zero-sum political game. The chances are high that by the time the primaries end this spring, Sanders and Warren — as well as their supporters — will need to join forces so one of them can become the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in mid-July.

In the meantime, during the next few months, top corporate Democrats certainly hope to see a lot more headlines like one that greeted New York Times readers Monday morning: “Elizabeth Warren Says Bernie Sanders Sent Volunteers ‘Out to Trash Me’.”

(Sanders tried to defuse what he called a “media blow up” on Sunday, saying: “We have hundreds of employees. Elizabeth Warren has hundreds of employees. And people sometimes say things that they shouldn’t.” And: “Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine. No one is going to trash Elizabeth Warren.”)

Keeping eyes on the prize this year will require a united front that can strengthen progressive forces, prevent any corporate Democrat from winning the party’s presidential nomination, and then go on to defeat Donald Trump.

Posted in USAComments Off on Biden, Buttigieg and Corporate Media Are Eager for Sanders and Warren to Clash

Jewish teacher fired over anti-‘Israel’ comments in US, as concern grows over ‘weaponizing anti-Semitism’

Jewish teacher JB Brager posted pro-BDS comments online

There are growing concerns over the “weaponization of anti-Semitism” following the firing of a Jewish teacher by an elite New York City prep school for expressing remarks critical of Israel.

JB Brager, who had been a history teacher at the private school for 18 months, is believed to have been forced out after controversy had boiled over in the aftermath of a lecture at the school.

The controversy began in November when a speaker at the school, Kayum Ahmed, a lecturer at Columbia University Law School and a director at the Open Society Foundations, made comments observing the recurring historical theme of the way in which victims of oppression become victimisers.

Ahmed said that “xenophobic attacks are a shameful part of South African history, but in some ways, it reflects the fluidity between those who are victims becoming perpetrators.” In his comments analysing what looks to be a pattern of history, he went on to cite the injustice perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians.

“The Jews suffered in the Holocaust and established the state of Israel. Today they perpetuate violence against the Palestinians that are unthinkable … so again, the victims of the Holocaust and violence have become perpetrators of violence against Palestinians,” said Ahmed. His comments were recorded on video and shared by pro-Israel groups.

Embracing Palestine: How to Combat Israel’s Misuse of ‘Anti-Semitism’

Ahmed’s comments attracted the ire of pro-Israel activists. Their reaction to the remarks made during a school lecture triggered a response by Brager, who posted three tweets. “When institutions of ‘learning’ bow to political pressure to disavow historical reality, what can educators do within that institution?” asked Brager, who identifies as Jewish.

Local news agency the Riverdale Press reported that Brager backed the BDS campaign tweeting: “I support BDS (boycotts, divestments, sanctions) and Palestinian sovereignty, and I have for my entire life.” She also rejected Israel’s practice of racism saying “I refuse to reaffirm the value of ethnonationalist settler colonialism.”

A letter to Fieldston trustees protesting Brager’s firing accused the school of “weaponization of anti-Semitism”. The letter seen by MEMO, expressed “outrage” at Brager’s firing. “We see clearly that Fieldston administrators Jessica Bagby and Nigel Furlonge are not interested in addressing anti-Semitism or protecting Jewish community members, but in signaling to conservative Jewish donors that the school will punish dissenters from those donors’ views,” said the letter, which had been signed by 150 people.

The letter claimed that the controversy was another instance in the “weaponization of anti-Semitism” which “is the subject of a pitched battle within Jewish communities.” It named prominent American pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League for “attacking tens of thousands of young, progressive, and Orthodox Jews as ‘anti-Semites’.”

READ: Trump demonstrates again why Zionism is anti-Semitism

The school’s decision was described as “despicable” and of having “lent its strength to the side of this intra-community battle that supports Trump policies, endless wars, Islamophobia, and anti-Black racism.”

According to Mondoweiss, Brager’s sacking is the second time in two years that a Jewish history teacher has been forced out of a private New York high school due to anti-Zionist statements. In 2018 long time history teacher Joel Doerfler is rep orted to have left the Riverdale Country School after administrators cancelled his class on the history of the conflict because of his questioning of the official narrative.

Their concerns were echoed in December by the author of a controversial definition of anti-Semitism who spoke out over its misuse and warned of its “chilling effect” on free speech. American attorney Kenneth Stern, who drafted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition of antisemitism,” warned that “rightwing Jews were weaponizing” it to supress criticism of Israel.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish teacher fired over anti-‘Israel’ comments in US, as concern grows over ‘weaponizing anti-Semitism’


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING