Closing My Amazon Seller Account - After A "Funds Delayed" Fiasco

For the first time in over nine years as a seller on amazon.com I ran into a head twisting, incomprehensible issue to do with getting paid after mailing out one of my recently purchased books. ('The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism').  While in good faith I packed up a near mint copy of the book and mailed it to the purchaser in GA, Amazon said it was unable to pay me because my credit card info (required in one's seller account for some reason, perhaps to confirm  identity) was "invalid".

I then had to initiate a case file and proceeded to respond to these geniuses (via Amazon's message system) that I already used the SAME card - with three examples cited - for book and dvd purchases, which went through without a hitch. I also had to make it clear the card was not 'prepaid" or a debit card. So clearly the problem could not be that the credit card was invalid given the purchases were made!

But Amazon insisted that I had to "update" my card, which eventually - as I saw it  - meant having to totally delete the old card and replace it with a new one.

Evidently the issue - among others involving delayed funds- is not new, not at all,  or unique to me, see e.g. the discussion forum here:

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=163505


Wherein one seller writes:


"Exactly the same issue here. Credit card information is invalid, the help and contact link doesn't refer to any help or contact formular. Additional, our companies credit card has been charged with the 39.99 USD monthly fee but Amazon still says the credit card information was invalid! How ridiculous is this?!? 

And also:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-sellers-complain-of-tied-up-payments-account-shutdowns/


Anyway, I decided that given this sort of fiasco can happen once, it can happen again, and it is simply more trouble than profit to deal with it. Also,  I don 't plan to interject any more credit cards so Amazon can also declare them invalid. Hence, I closed my seller account this a.m.(though the Amazon agent said I will have to wait at least until after Jan. 10 to be paid, because your account has to be closed that long before you can get the delayed funds.

Given the Amazon gateway is now closed for me as a seller, I can still make the following books available to be ordered from this blog site: 1) 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God',  and 2) The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism'  . This will be for a limited time (6 mos.).

Here's how it will work, and bear in mind my prices for those books are a lot less than the remaining Amazon sellers:

You send me - via the moderated comments field- a request for one or more books along with your email address.(No 'secondary' emails, i.e. gmail, or yahoo.com, please!) . The information will not be published, only the information taken. I will then email you with the total price including postage, and you have the option to send away your order to my address (which will be supplied in the email) to make the purchase. For comparison, the price of each of the above books new is $12.00, which is lower than other sellers offer, including on amazon.com.

Sound fair? I hope so because I won't be selling any longer on Amazon!

'Bridge of Spies' - One of Tom Hanks' Better Movies (Some minimal plot spoilers)

As readers may recall I've sometimes raked actor Tom Hanks over the proverbial coals, especially after his once planning a 13- part series on the JFK assassination for 2013 - with the emphasis on Vince Bugliosi's revisionist history tome, 'Reclaiming History', see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/germans-tom-hanks-wasting-his-time-with.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/05/astounding-hubris-of-tom-hanks.html

Fortunately, that planned series was scrapped by HBO, owing to previous Hanks' efforts (e.g. 'The Pacific') not making the ratings expected. Just as well, as the last thing needed is more pro-Warren Commission bunkum by amateur history buffs.

Anyway, Hanks more than redeems himself, certainly as a serious actor, in 'Bridge of Spies'.  He plays the Cold War negotiator James B. Donovan, a one time insurance lawyer pushed into the spotlight of Russian-U.S. relations by being asked by the government to defend a Russian atomic spy, Rudolph Abel. 

The time track flows from 1957, when Abel is first arrested (and after a kangaroo trial overriding Donovan's civil liberties concerns finds him guilty) to three years later when Donovan becomes the central negotiator in trading Abel for recently captured U.S. U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers.

The main body of the film is the intense negotiations to get Powers' release from the Soviets, who insist on getting their own top spy Abel back. Many complications arise especially with the East Germans who captured another American, a grad student named Pryor,  leading Donovan to try for a 'double' exchange - the 2 Americans for Abel. 

My main interest in seeing the film was the  portrayal of the spy exchange, of which I had been unaware in terms of Donovan's career.  What I had been aware of was Donovan's role in  helping to secure the release of the Bay of Pigs  prisoners,  along with Washington lawyer William Attwood - who was also instrumental in the subsequent efforts at rapprochement with Castro's Cuba.

The background for the U2 incident I already knew from released FOIA documents, including that earlier Eisenhower had established 'The President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activity'. The Board concluded that the CIA's clandestine services were "operating for the most part on an autonomous and free-wheeling basis in highly critical areas."

Its primary recommendation was that Ike fire CIA Chief (Allen) Dulles or that he at least accept an administrative deputy to keep tabs on him. Ike's "reward" was sabotage of a hugely important Big Four Summit (Russia, France, Britain, U.S.)  set for May 16, 1960. Richard Bissell, chief of the clandestine services saw to it that the U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers on May 1, 1960 tracked a route over the USSR that ensured it would be shot down. (The U-2 fleet at the time had been dubbed 'RBAF' for Richard Bissell's Air Force, see e.g. Record No. 157-10011-10020, 'Testimony of Richard Bissell',  June 9, 1975, SSCIA, released under the National Archives and Records Administration)

Alas, none of this background - including the impact on the Summit - was provided in the Hanks- Spielberg film, but this was perhaps understandable as they didn't want to complicate the plot too much - or even the background (CIA agents were nevertheless depicted suspiciously in several sequences.) Still, those who lived at the time would recall the main headline was the torpedoing of the critical Summit, not so much Powers' plane being shot down.

 The Agency also lied directly to Eisenhower, telling him that should the plane be shot down neither the pilot or the aircraft would survive. (In a similar fashion, barely over a year later, Bissell would lie to JFK and insist failure at the Bay of Pigs was "impossible"). Eisenhower had declared the cut off date for all U-2 flights as May 1, expecting the flights wouldn't go beyond the last 2 weeks of April. However, Bissell sent Powers up exactly on May 1st, knowing what would transpire by that additional overflight. In the process, Bissell effectively set policy himself (clearly at the behest of Dulles) and with the collapse of the Big 4 Summit, succeeded in destroying détente at that time - and at least for another 25 years. 

Would the film have been more interesting with these other details incorporated? Yes, probably to those of us into deep politics and the history of the deep state - but likely not so much for the average viewer.  Sadly, even the demographic of the viewership we beheld  at this one showing was limited - mainly to those 60 and over. We didn't see a single millennial or even Gen X'er. We hope some of them do get to see the film - especially as it truly nails the paranoid atmosphere of the time. Also, it faithfully captures the 'duck and cover' baloney (pushed on Donovan's younger kids). The biggest laugh? One of the kids filling the bathtub telling his dad they'd need water after "a 50 megaton bomb went off" since all the pumps would be down. NO thought that a 50 megaton blast would make saving water the least of their worries!

If you want to get a really authentic peek inside the Cold War years, and particularly if you weren't alive then, this is a film you really need to see - especially if you're now aware of the background to the U2 incident!

About Damned Time FAA Mandates Registration for Drones!

The days of cowboy drone operators should be nearly at an end - as federal regulators said Monday they would require most recreational drones to be registered in the wake of a growing number of incidents. In addition, the near collisions with commercial aircraft have increased from 238 last year to 969 this year. This above all likely prompted the push now - especially with Xmas coming- to get registration regulations in place.

Thus it is more than past time the FAA and Transportation Dept. move on this given more than 700,000 of the little bastards are projected to be sold for Xmas. Thus, the feds will rush to get the rules in place before a season in which the small aircraft are expected to be popular gifts. The only drones likely to escape the demand for registration are virtual toys with "minimal safety risk".

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said:

“Registering unmanned aircraft will help build a culture of accountability and responsibility, especially with new users who have no experience operating in the U.S. aviation system, It will help protect public safety in the air and on the ground,"

Which is putting  it mildly, especially after recent close encounter sightings with commercial aircraft, as well as the  nuisances buzzing near the White House and another crashing into a child's lawn party. It's about damned time these wretched, out of control machines were seriously regulated. We can't wait for a drone- airplane crash killing hundreds, especially when we are hyper-aware regarding potential terrorist strikes.And I don't think even registration is adequate. Every would-be drone operator should have a pilot's license too - so be forced to pass a pilot's test, requiring up to 40 hours of test flight practice under the belt (as the original FAA rules had proposed).. If they can't handle it, tough shit, no droning!

According to a WSJ piece ('Drones Face New Regulatory Push', Oct. 19, p. B4):, the Transportation Dept. "plans to create a Task Force of more than two dozen government and industry representatives to recommend the specifics of a registration policy - including which drones should be included, how users will register and whether the rules will apply to drones already sold."

Of course, ALL 969 of the commercial  air encounters were a result of "drones already sold" - hence it stands to reason they all need to be registered. Among the data that needs to be included:

- Photo and full name of the user

- Social Security no. or state ID no. of all users

- Full address of the user(s)

In fact, at the time of purchase, each drone user(other than toy versions with minimal range)  ought to be registered just like guns currently.

Foxx said he wanted to have the registration requirement in place by the middle of December, but I don't see why it can't be done earlier. .Foxx said he also expected that those who already own the aircraft would also be required to register within an undetermined period of time. Let's just hope it's within weeks not months or years!

Foxx and Michael Huerta, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, were joined in the announcement by representatives of several organizations involved in the drone debate. They included the Association  for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the Academy of Model Aircraft and the Air Line Pilots Association, who all expressed support for the registration requirement.

The FAA said it receives reports every day of potentially unsafe drone operations and that sightings by pilots of drones doubled this year compared with last year. (Actual stats secured by CBS and the Washington Post showed this to be an underestimate, the sighting reports in fact nearly quadrupled.)  Last month, the FAA said it would also investigate an incident in which debris from a small privately owned drone fell and injured an 11-month-old girl in a stroller on a Pasadena street.

Police found the owner of the drone at the accident site and he said he lost control of the aircraft. But often, it's difficult to identify the owner of a drone, Foxx said..

"Finding the drone has not been as much of a problem as finding the person who was using the drone. The registration is designed to close that loophole,"

It's time we put all the worst drone scofflaws behind bars (preferably at 'SuperMax' as we would  terrorists who'd bring down planes with shoe bombs.  We'd  hold terrorists responsible for bringing down a plane with a shoe bomb or similar device, we ought to do no less for a drone jackass flying his gizmo near an airport..

This registration mandate will ensure we can track all the drone scofflaws and implement sanctions as appropriate including confiscation and heavy fines.

Of course GeeDumbya BUSH Was Responsible for 9/11

Whether, in fact, Donald Trump, aka "The Donna", could have prevented 9/11 as he claimed in a recent interview, is open to debate - given it's purely a hypothetical. The fact is irrespective of what he may have wanted or legislated, lesser officials may have dropped the ball, including in the intelligence agencies.

However, anyone who really knows anything about the background to 9/11 knows Gee Dumbya Bush, Jeb's illustrious brother, was responsible.

In 2011,  in a CBS interview, NY Times investigative reporter Kurt Eichenwald  noted that Bush's White House received numerous ominous warnings as early as May, 2001. These continued to ramp up over the months following, and the Bushies' response was to do nothing.

As Eichenwald put it:

"What I've been able to see are the presidential daily briefs before August 6 of 2001. And they're horrific, and they are - our reports are 'an attack is coming,' 'there are going to be mass casualties.' The worst of them, the Pentagon, the neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, as the CIA was coming in saying, 'al-Qaeda's going to attack,' said, 'Oh, this is just a false flag operation. Bin laden is trying to take our attention off of the real threat, Iraq.' Andso there are presidential daily briefs that are literally saying, 'No they're wrong, this isn't fake, it's real.'

I decided to check some of these claims by going to the official 9/11 Commission Report. I found the following, under the section: ‘The System was Blinking Red’

Page 254:

"Each PDB (President's Daily Brief) consists of a series of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics; CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day. There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. "

On page 255:

"In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. At the end of March, the intelligence community disseminated a terrorist threat advisory, indicating a heightened threat of Sunni extremist terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities, personnel, and other interests."

And further (ibid.):

"On March 23, in connection with discussions about possibly reopening Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, Clarke warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that domestic or foreign terrorists might use a truck bomb—their “weapon of choice”—on Pennsylvania Avenue.That would result, he said, in the destruction of the West Wing and parts of the residence. He also told her that he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda."

Note: Such cells were indeed already in the U.S. doing training runs with mock -simulated aircraft. As for the Saudi 9/11 hijackers themselves, all had been issued temporary visas by the Bushie State Dept. One had a student visa, fourteen had tourist visas, and four had business visas. None of them "snuck" into the country. Further at least six violated their visas.

Further (ibid.):

"In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that “Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack” and “Bin Ladin network’s plans advancing.” In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York.Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using “high explosives.”

Thus, Eichenwald's basis for blaming the Bushies was fully confirmed. Despite that, Nora O' Donnell, forever playing misplaced "Devil's Advocate" - even when it's obvious there no real reason for it, blabbed:

"Then when a lot of people hear this, aren't they going to say, 'This is another example of where, not just the Bush administration, but our intelligence community dropped the ball. They failed to heed the warnings that were in a number of these (documents) that went all the way up to the president of the United States.'"

Eichenwald promptly replied:

"Actually, the counterterrorist center of the CIA did a spectacular job, and that's what really comes down. You know, in the aftermath, the White House and others said, 'Well they didn't tell us enough.' No, they told them everything they needed to know to go on a full alert and the White House didn't do it."

Of course, the most sensational Daily Brief of all was that dated August 6, 2001 and headed: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US . Bush received this while at his Crawford, TX retreat. (He took more vacations than any other president in his first year alone.) And how did Bush respond to this? He gave a quick glance then went to clear some ....bush. But what ought to have made his eyeballs pop out was the short paragraph reading (p. 255-56):

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike."

I also found it interesting to read through the communication exchanges as the hijackings became apparent, especially for American Flt. 11. According to the transcripts in the Report (page 20):

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

The reaction of NEADS (National Emergency Air Defense System), i.e. asking “Is this real world or exercise?” is instructional. Evidently, as came out later, no less than five different military “exercises” were planned and underway, including:

‘Operation Vigilant Guardian’ which simulated hijacked planes in the northeast sector-corridor. This definitely contributed to the confused response on the given day, as evidenced after NORAD received a phone call from Boston Center about a hijacking and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins responded “It must be part of the exercise”.

Thus delaying critical response to the REAL attacks in NYC.

Then there was ‘Operation Northern Vigilance’ – planned months in advance of 9/11 (tracking to when the peak of terror warning were being issued in May, as reported by the 9/11 Report and Eichenwald) and for which jet fighters were removed from the east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada. Thereby, leaving a security hole at the precise date and region which would be most directly affected

As I learned more about these exercises, and the withdrawal of needed air security, the similarity to what transpired in the days before the Kennedy assassination was striking. Researchers learned only in the wake of that executive action that: 1) The Secret Service detail had been changed in the days leading up to the Dallas motorcade, with an inexperienced agent in Kennedy’s car, while the more experienced guy (Cliff Hill) protected LBJ, and 2) The usual Army security detail from Ft. Sam Houston, TX was removed so their presence was nowhere on Dallas’ streets on Nov. 22, 1963. Ordinarily they’d have had building oversight, ensuring no open windows and have had snipers posted themselves as a counter measure.

Were the 9/11 military exercises, planned in advance as a cover or distraction to make effective air defense response more unlikely? The basic answer is we don’t know, although the extent of withdrawn protection makes one suspicious.

Again, no one is saying the Bushies committed the attacks on the day, but they had to know the security bonanza that would fall their way if such attacks could be made to appear by “surprise”. Especially given Bush’s popularity was at an all time low before 9/11. Barely 36%. It shot up to past 90% afterwards as he donned the mantle of "national protector."

Thus, like it or not, Jeb needs to admit his bro was responsible for 9/11.

How Hitler Gamed Capitalists Into Assisting With The Holocaust

Many may not realize or appreciate it, but history is a fragile subject- unlike the hard objectivity of physics where I can define a wavelength of light precisely by its spectral line. Or determine a star's surface temperature from its emission lines.

  In the case of history, we who have studied it at length (often as intensely as we've mastered physics) know we are always faced with revisionists who would change it to their own beliefs and liking - never mind they are manufacturing fantasies. The sad and inescapable fact? At the same time the first historians appeared so did the first history revisionists who had little or no tolerance for facts.

This  revisionism can cover such diverse arenas as the history of Nazi Germany - including Hitler's political background, ideology and associations as well as the assassination of John F. Kennedy - done by the national security state. We've already seen such bollocks from the likes of Larry Schweikart, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/08/48-liberal-lies-how-about-50-tea-party.html

As well as the efforts of the Right to revise AP American history to render it more palatable and positive, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/09/bravo-to-protesting-students-teachers.html

In this post I want to show how and why Hitler gamed German capitalists and the Right to assist him in his abominable aim to build the Third Reich and also to slaughter over 6 million Jews.  We already know there are revisionists out there - not only to do with the origin of the Holocaust, but also Hitler's own political associations. We can especially see in the last case how history has been twisted and defiled to make the totally gullible believe it was "the Left" behind the Nazi experiment (because the Nazi Party was cynically termed the "National Socialists" - ensuring the future lazy -minded would take it literally), when historical facts point to the fascist Right. And this is where we pick it up.

Historian Ian Kershaw in his masterpiece ‘Hitler Nemesis’, observed,  (p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”

He added (ibid.):

“The oppositional forces on the Left, such as the Communists and Socialists were crushed, cowed and powerless”

This was in reference to Hitler dispatching his S.A. thugs in the early 1930s (and later S.S. after "the night of the long knives" in 1934)  to beat and kill Socialists (the REAL ones, not the fake named "National Socialists") as well as communists and labor leaders.  Big German business, much like its current American counterpart  - preferred not to be driven to pay high wages or benefits because unions made them. They wanted instead leverage or political muscle to use against the unions (and socialists which supported them) and Hitler provided it in spades.

This vicious and predatory campaign against socialists and unions was in addition to his reign of terror against Jews which saw them first labeled using yellow stars (sewn on to their clothing) with the word 'Jude', then deprived of their businesses (having them seized), then their homes - as they were dispatched to the concentration camps. (Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Mauthausen, etc.). The monies collected from this appropriation then ended up in Swiss banks.

Kershaw also documents how the pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituted a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler’s gang (actually, originally Ernst Röhm's) NSDAP party. They would regularly - as Kershaw writes- : beat Marxists, socialists, and any leftists on the streets while holding up signs that read: “Tot dem Marxem!” (Death to Marxists!)

Kind of a damned funny way to show kinship with REAL Left Socialists!  Now, if these "geniuses" who insist Hitler "wasn't of the Right" are correct, then WHY beat up on Marxists, Socialists and Commies of the LEFT? Huh? Can these illustrious nabobs answer that? Of course not, because the facts of history contradict their absurd reconstructions.

Unlike too many Americans who've never set foot in Germany, I've been there four times and been able to actually discuss that nation's history with those who lived it - including three former Werhmacht soldiers (Dieter, Werner and Hans)  in 1985, as well as a former Hitler Youth (Kurt., below) who for over 30 years had amassed an archival collection of films on the Third Reich. (Kurt's mother had been threatened with rape when he was 12, unless he joined. He was found by Russian soldiers near Berlin one month later, and sent back home.) Kurt's films from his archives also showed the Reichstag fire, scenes from Kristallnacht and the S.S. thugs stomping pitilessly on trade unionists and real socialists - not the faux Nazi bunch who merely called themselves by the name.

Kurt - former Hitler Youth - showing archival  film of 1938 Nazi (S.S.) terror tactics - seen on my first visit to Germany (Frankfurt-am-Main) in  1978.

Watching Kurt's archival films in July of 1978 included early 1930s footage of hundreds of gangster S.A. (enlisted by Hitler) swooping in on a crowd of union workers really brought home to me what later books I read merely referenced in the abstract. It was also fairly sickening with some of the films showing Socialists and Marxists  beaten  half to death by the Nazi thugs.

THIS was HISTORY, ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED! If the American Right doesn't wish to be associated with this or rejects it as reflecting on their own ideology, I fully understand. But to try to revise history because they abhor the Rightist link to racism and Nazis is both pigheaded, and disingenuous. Take ownership, then move on!

THIS is also why the German capitalists, such as Krupp, Volkswagen, I.G. Farben (infamous for later manufacturing the Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers) etc. threw their lot behind Hitler and provided the political ballast, without which he could never have become 'Der Fuehrer'.  They even helped design the gas chambers for maximum efficiency. Other capitalist businesses made use of the hair shaved off of Jews headed for the gas chambers, at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen etc. - to manufacture carpets. In addition, they used Jews enslaved at the camps as slave labor for their munitions factories etc. Thus, the bodies shown below at Mauthausen concentration camp - taken by liberating Russian troops in May, 1945, had already been shorn ouf the hair and relieved of all gold fillings.


As Dieter, a  former Wehrmacht soldier put it, when I met him and two other former Wehrmacht in May, 1985:

"It was disgusting how far the big businessmen went to support Hitler! Had it not been for them I doubt he'd ever have been Chancellor or even gotten 15% of the vote in the 1932 elections.

Hans, another former Wehrmacht soldier (who had pinned American troops down in the Teuotoburger in  March, 1945 but didn't press the advantage) was more colorful:

"The Big Businessmen just kissed Hitler's ass! They wanted him in power more than a drunken sailor wanted a whore in shore leave!"

Kristallnacht, also known as the Night of Broken Glass, saw a series of coordinated attacks against Jews throughout Nazi Germany in November 1938.The attacks were carried out by Sturmabteilung  in concert with S.S. forces and non-Jewish civilians and were ignored. In all,  91 Jews were killed and around 30,000 were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps.

In most of Hitler's writings he asserts "Marxists are Jews"  (thereby explaining his hatred of real socialists) based on the fact Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital, was a Jew.   In one of his worst tirades, a radio speech on October 15, 1933 (quoted from Konrad Heiden's book, 'The Fuhrer') Hitler bellowed:

"These ruinous and inferior characters have succeeded in arousing a world psychosis!"

This was  also tied to those he perceived as "Jews" in the American press, working in league with communists and Socialists in Europe to spread rumors about Hitler and demonize him. What happened is that the Jews - like ALL Socialists, Communists, and Marxists- were dispossessed of their worldly goods and bank accounts. By 1936 virtually no German Jew (just as no German Socialist, or Marxist) could own a business, or even own a personal bank account. Once this happened most Jews realized their only hope of saving themselves was to try to leave Germany.

All Jewish gun ownership effectively ended on Nov. 11, 1938, when a new law was declared, prohibiting Jews from owning weapons of any kind, including swords, which many Jewish army veterans had kept as mementos from World War I.  Despite numbskull Ben Carson's claims, however, even if the remaining Jews had weapons -guns they'd not have been able to defend themselves against the Nazis. (Also, it is lame to try to tie deprivation of guns to exclusively to "Nazi" governance, when the key and critical distinction was the terrorizing of (real) socialists, trade unions, Jews and communists-  and the establishment of concentration camps for them.)

The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happened when ordinary citizens with small arms went up against a well-equipped force. The uprising in the ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression. But the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust.

Most estimates put German industry profits at more than $1 billion thanks to the holocaust and its ancillary slavery, more over it wasn't just German capitalists who profited.  Major US corporations also had operations in Nazi Germany included Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), IBM, ITT, Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gillette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, Alcoa (Aluminum Corporation of America) and Dow Chemical.

As noted by author Henry C. Sutton in his 'Wall Street  and the Rise of Hitler', American law firms, investment companies and banks were also eager to share in the profits to be made in a country where the working class was terrorized. The other capitalist connections included the Chase Manhattan Bank, J. P. Morgan as well as Dillon, Read and Company, and the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman (together with German capitalists.)  It has been estimated that as of 7 December 1941, capital invested in Nazi Germany by US corporations amounted to approximately USD 475 million, which is about USD 6.7 billion in today’s money. Sadly, most of the American media, and American historians in general don't even want to 'go there', though Kurt showed me several films of bigshot American capitalists, including Henry Ford, praising Hitler and contributing to his war machine.

But the perverse relations of U.S. capitalists to Nazis didn't end there.

 Let us also recall the tie -in of U.S. intelligence to U.S. banking operations (as revealed in Donald Gibson's book, 'Battling Wall Street - The Kennedy Presidency'.  As he observes (p. 72):

"by the early 1960s the Council of Foreign Relations, Morgan and Rockefeller interests and the intelligence community were so extensively inbred as to be virtually a single entity."

Gibson also notes (ibid.) that William Donovan, the original OSS head had long links to Morgan financial and banking interests. Indeed, Donovan "began his intelligence career working as a private operator for J.P. Morgan, Jr."

And one of the most critical findings is (ibid.):

"The global interests of the Morgan and Rockefeller groups (which also had oil interests, e.g. in Standard Oil) led to a natural involvement in the formation and development of the Central Intelligence Agency".

Given all this, it was not a stretch that the banking- underpinned intelligence establishment would soon wish to find a place for ex-Nazi intelligence agents in its structures. As noted by investigative author Christopher Simpson in his book ' 'Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy' for which readers can obtain an excerpted segment here: Ratlines-Blowback   the selection of former Nazis for intelligence use (especially via "Operation Sunrise" among others) wasn't coincidental. We already know that the Nazis had as one of their priorities the disposal of socialists and communists. This appealed to Donovan and the O.S.S. as it later did to CIA chief Allen Dulles because both believed Russia and communism (and by extension, socialism) was the biggest threat to American interests going forward - so engineered the recruitment of Nazi thugs to serve in spy capacities.

Much of this is documented in Simpson's book but even more can be found in Russ Baker's 'Family of Secrets' including the ties of Prescott Bush - George W's grand father- to the Nazi war machine. Readers can also find more information on the Nazi- CIA ties here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html

Excerpt:

In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. Mr. Hoover declared the journalist, Charles Allen, a potential threat to national security.


Capitalists, as a matter of historical fact, had much to do with not only greasing Hitler's war machine but also seeing that the Holocaust was expeditiously carried out and maximal use made of the human resources, including hair, teeth, bones etc, extracted from Jewish bodies before being gassed and cremated.

Don't let any Right winger try to tell you otherwise, or that the Nazis were "socialists" (just by virtue of the name "National Socialist Party") or "leftists".  If they assert any such nonsense you know immediately they are history revisionists - and you need to examine their agenda!

"Increase The Global Birth Rate to Fuel Economic Growth"? A Nutso Idea!

A recent clip of an NBC News interview with a middle-aged German in Berlin didn't draw the response that the interviewer expected. He pointed to assorted migrants standing in line for assistance and told the Berliner: "You know, these people  - these new migrants - could help bring much needed economic growth and also help to support Germany's pension system. What do you say to that?"

The Berliner laughed, then said in highly accented English: "That is rubbish! We already have five million unemployed Germans here in Germany! So how about we get them to work first to support pensions!"

In many instances, this is the same problem for many advanced nations as well as newly minted prosperous ones, including India and China. But still, one sees and reads the siren calls for "more people" to propel economic growth for nations whose GDP is slipping, or "to help support all the burgeoning gray beards".

The late, noted science writer and biochemist Isaac Asimov- in various essays written over decades- never bought this balderdash at all. Indeed, he repeatedly warned of severe constraints on humanity's use of resources, particularly in terms of how population growth impinges on finite resources and sets limits to growth. Asimov was probably also the first to use the term "carrying capacity" which he estimated to be 3 billion humans for this limited world.

Most upsetting to him and others was the pseudo- justification for increasing  birth rates (such as in the U.S.) "to support the elderly and Social Security". This idiotic meme was originally germinated in Ben Wattenberg's 1987 book, 'The Birth Dearth' and is still echoed, regurgitated by many.

For example, in a WSJ piece last month ('How The Birth Dearth Saps Economic Growth', Sept. 24)  Ruchir Sharma lamented at length what he referred to as the "plummet" and "collapse of global population growth" from 2 percent in the decades after World War II  to 1 percent at present. No remote clue that nearly  all the problems plaguing our world, including fouled water, polluted air and soil, melting glaciers, severe crowding - not to mention mass panic migrations (such as claimed over 850 lives this week) arise from overpopulation.

Nor any cognizance of the fact that multiple lines of research have already questioned the UN estimates that project a global population of 10.9 billion by 2100. Especially if women - mainly in the poorest nations and without access to contraceptives-   have even  0.5 more offspring each  (than projected)  that 2100 estimate could turn into 12.3 billion or even 15.8 billion, e.g.



Where will all these people go? What will they do? Well, the fact is most of them - given they are overpopulating areas with limited resources (like Africa), will be trying to escape and migrate to more beneficent regions - with more potential jobs, as well as social supports. The trouble is the areas they wish to move to are already struggling under the burdens of lower economic growth - not because of smaller populations - but because of the ongoing degradation of efficiency and 'pop' in our fossil fuel energy sources. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

Apart from that, these airy fairy "two percenters",  who call for increased global growth to that level,  aren't even remotely aware of what they are asking. A population growing at 2 percent annually doubles every 35 years.  Hence, if we had a global population of 6 billion in 2000 and it were to have kept growing at the 2 percent rate advocated (to support pension systems in the 'graying world') then by 2100 there'd be 40 billion people on Earth! So, uh, you've successfully supported the pensions of maybe 500 million, but now have to support the life needs of 30 billion extra!

This despite the fact that even now, with the Earth supporting 7.3 billion people, and a 1 percent birth rate, we humans are currently consuming the equivalent resources of 1.5 Earths per year, which is clearly unsustainable. In fact, it is now approaching 1.6 Earths per year consumed because of the added humans - more than eighty million per year (1 million added every 4.5 days according to Alan Weisman).

Do these economic growth numbskulls process any of this?   But it gets worse: continuing at the same 2 percent per annum growth rate the population would be 320 billion by 2200 (if humans manage to survive so long with the runaway greenhouse effect) . There is no way, in a practical sense, any technology could cope with that. And then, to add to this idiocy, we have these "longevity" freaks writing and talking about extending the human lifespan to 140.

Haven't they ever heard that there is a good age to die (one scientist recently put it at "75:) , and further humans in a limited resource world were never meant to live that long?

As it is, the population here in the U.S. is growing by almost 1 percent annually because of some of the highest sustained immigration rates in the nation's history. This is not to play into "the Donna's" hands but only to note that any economic egghead that blabbers about adding more to increase that rate "for economic growth"  - given we already have 3.5 million unemployed  and 22 million under-employed  - is a moron.

The same goes for advocating such increases in India or China. Basically, then, calling for higher birth rates to support existing graying populations' pensions is a mammoth Ponzi scheme. Because - at the end of the day - WHO is going to support all those pensions of the millions of extra birthed people? Huh? Are you going to bring in Martians?

In the case of the U.S., the increased population from higher immigration (and this includes immigrants' higher birth rates)  will result in going from 322 million now in 2015, to 400 million sometime after 2050, and to more than 500 million by 2100.  WHERE will all the tens of millions of jobs come from to support even half of this population? Especially as degraded energy sources immediately impacts job creation.

It is easy to spout bull pockey when it comes to economic growth, especially by those who haven't done the math, but we need to hold them accountable and force them to back off. The bottom line is that growing human numbers to support oldsters is not a plan that can work, now or ever.

Instead, how about we put all those millions of unemployed and under-employed people to work? Especially as the U.S. current "labor participation rate" is barely 63 percent.

U.S. Compromises Own Security By Banning Russian Rocket Engines

Russian Soyuz blasts off from Baikonur Cosmodrome on July 2nd - saving the ISS from potential evacuation.

How dumb is dumb, and while we're at it, how childish is childish? The answer is a '10 out of 10' on the extreme dumbo-childish side when a nation's congress and defense establishment reacts with emotions and pique and threatens its own (space) interests, as well as national security. In this case because those bad nasty Russkies are "behaving badly" and have to be taught a lesson by "God's country", 'Murica!

In case people forgot,  the Russians came to the rescue of the ISS crew back on July 2nd  with three tons of food, fuel and other supplies ferried up, mere days after the Elon Musk private commercial rocket (Space-X)  failed miserably. That failed launch not only messed up reception of needed supplies but also caused consternation for more than 60 Colorado science students who had patiently prepared experiments - all of which came to perdition.

How was the Space-X different from the Russian rocket OR to the previous successful military spy satellite launches? This is the 64 dollar question that needs to be addressed. The primary difference is that the military-Pentagon has been using a proven performer in the Russian-produced RD-180 rocket engine (also used for the Soyuz)  which powers the Atlas V that lofts two thirds of all national security satellites.

As noted in a WSJ piece at the time ('National Security After the Space X Explosion', June 30, p. A18) by William Shelton, the U.S. government "encouraged Lockheed Martin to use this engine primarily because of its performance and relatively low cost."

Pretty straightforward, eh?  Well, for anyone of normal intelligence or higher, but evidently not a dumbass Reeptard congress, determined to teach those Russkies a lesson or two. Which makes one wonder who or what our illustrious representatives really are: spoiled, mentally deficient brats or mature and responsible leaders.

You can decide!

Last week the Pentagon, according to a Denver Post story ('Pentagon to ULA - No Russian Engines') the Pentagon refused to grant a waiver allowing United Launch Alliance to bypass a congressional ban on Russian-made engines that the company needs to compete in the national security launch market (as well as ISS resupply)

This refers to last year's congressional legislation that prohibits the use of any Russian-made engines on U.S. rockets.  As a result of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act which became law last December, the RD-180 Russian made engines were banned with the exception of the few remaining in stock. According to Shelton (ibid.):

"The purported rationale is to uphold Russian sanctions and avoid rewarding the country's bad behavior in Ukraine"

Which is totally stupid and irrational, as I also noted last year in terms of NASA halting cooperation with the Russians, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-short-sighted-decision-nasa-suspends.html
As Shelton noted, the U.S. will run out of RD-180 engines well before the new rocket is ready. Would the military be ready to go to Elon Musk's Falcon  9,  1.1 full thrust engine when the RD-180s run out? After the recent performance of the 1.1 prototype for ISS resupply, don't hold your breath.

But there was still an 'out' in terms of a waiver.

Shelton writes:

"In April, the House of Representatives passed a new, slightly revised fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. It contains a clause that allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the ban on the RD-180 for as long as needed if the Secretary deems it in the national interest to do so."

But evidently, the Secretary of Defense - either on his own or with the Obamians' pressure, is as determined to teach them Russkies a lesson as the congressional nitwits, given the waiver wasn't granted.  (And bear in mind this is to support the launch of our own national security satellites, for god's sake!).

As the recent Post article noted "ULA had pleaded with the Pentagon for a waiver that would allow it to use more RD-180 engines to power its Atlas V rocket".  The Centennial, CO company also tried to explain to the Pentagon pinheads that it had 4 engines it could use for national security launches but needed 14 to launch payloads such as spy and communications satellites.

SO this begs the question of why the Pentagon big cheeses would cut off their noses to spite their faces in the national security satellite sphere. Was it THAT important to teach a lesson to the Russians to not mess with Uncle Sam? Especially when Sam lacks the rockets to do the launches himself or even resupply his own on the space station?

Cleverly, a Pentagon spokesperson said it "cannot be in the position of relying on only one source of space launch for critical national security launches ....that must be launched reliably and on schedule"

Fine, so why not use the remaining RD-180s - which has the best record for reliability and safety- for at least four launches? Unless there's another reason afloat - that the eggheads at the Pentagon don't want to rely on any engines that are Russian.

As I said, as dumb as the congressional fools! Who needs realpolitik when idiocy can suffice?