Tag "#Nazism"

Uncategorized 0 Comments

When You Kill 10 Million Africans, The World Forgives And Forgets

He ran an empire so vast and cruel that it rivaled – and even exceeded – the crimes against humanity committed by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. But because this man killed Africans, the world has swept his crimes under the carpet and his victims remain voiceless. 
Most people have no idea of who is pictured above, but you should. The sight of this man should cause a similar revulsion to that of seeing Stalin or Hitler, as this man was behind a genocide that resulted in the killing of over 10 million people in the Congo.
Meet King Leopold II of Belgium.
Most of people never learned about him in school, and have also most likely never heard about him in the media either. This is because he’s not included in the popular narrative of oppression (which includes things like U.S. slavery and the Holocaust).

King Leopold II is part of an ongoing history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, and genocide in Africa that would clash with the popular social narratives taught in our school system today. It doesn’t fit neatly into school curriculums where, paradoxically, it is looked down upon to make overtly racist statements. However, it’s quite fine not to talk about a genocide perpetrated by European capitalist monarchs that killed over 10 million Congolese.
Belgium’s King Leopold II ran a personal empire so vast and cruel, it rivaled – and even exceeded – the crimes of even some of the worst dictators of the 20th century.
When Leopold II ascended to the throne in 1865, he ruled with the kind of gentle hand that Belgians wanted from their king after the democratization of the country in the wake of the multiple revolutions and reforms. He had great ambitions of building an overseas empire, and was convinced, like most statesmen of his time, that a nation’s greatness was directly proportional to the resources it could extract from those colonies.

He disguised his business transactions as “philanthropic” and “scientific” efforts under the banner of the International African Society and used slave labor to extract Congolese resources and services. His reign was enforced through work camps, body mutilations, torture, executions, and his own private army.
The empire was known as the Congo Free State, and Leopold II stood as its undisputed slave master. For almost 30 years, rather than being a regular colony of a European government, Congo was administered as the property of Leopold II for his personal enrichment.
The world’s largest plantation, registering at 76 times the size of Belgium, possessed rich mineral and agricultural resources and lost nearly half of its population by the time the first census counted only 10 million people living there in 1924.
Interestingly, when we learn about Africans and their history in the U.S., we learn about a caricatured Egypt, the HIV epidemic, the surface level effects of the slave trade, and if you went to a good school perhaps something about South African Apartheid. We also see lots of pictures of starving children on commercials, safaris on animal shows and we see pictures of vast savannahs and deserts in films and movies.
What we don’t learn about is the Great African War or Leopold’s Reign of Terror during the Congolese Genocide. Leopold II essentially turned Congo into his own personal part-plantation, part-concentration camp, part-Christian ministry, and yet history fails to retell the lessons of his tyrannical endeavor.
It seems that when you kill ten million Africans — you aren’t called ‘Hitler’, your name never comes to symbolize the living incarnation of evil, and your picture doesn’t produce fear, hatred, and sorrow — rather your crimes are simply swept under the historical rug and the victims of colonialism/imperialism remain forever voiceless.

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.Email: baxter@yournewswire.comFollow: @baxter_dmitry Latest posts by Baxter Dmitry (see all)

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Are Major Corporations The Right’s Friends?

If you go to an Amerikan University, and get brainwashed in a Economics course; you’d walk away with the misapprehension that corporations were the enemies of the beneficent state. That major corporations sought to undermine governments and

Dating at least back to Nazi Germany, supplying the state monopoly has always been a boffo racket. Hugo Boss…No wonder the Nazis always looked better in the old war movies. And it wasn’t just the National Socialists. Armand Hammer was the Russian Connection long before that became a thing to Antifa.

Armand Hammer, the 87-year-old chief executive officer of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, was recently hailed by the editor of Pravda for his role in setting up the November summit meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachov. Since his early- 1920s cavorting about Soviet Russia with the blessings of V.1. Lenin, Hammer, the “maverick” billionaire, has been the principal “back channel” for American access to the top levels of the Kremlin hierarchy.

And why was Hammer so able to set up meetings with Soviet Nomenklatura?

Who was Hammer? He was a personal friend of V.I. Lenin. He was known as Lenin’s “path” to America’s financial resources. He was the first of a long line of Western businessmen to participate in KGB-controlled joint ventures in the Soviet Union. He was the son of Julius Hammer, a founder of the Socialist Labor Party and later the Communist party USA and who served time in Sing Sing for performing illegal abortions. Armand Hammer was called the “Capitalist Prince” by the KGB. He dutifully served the Soviets for seven decades and became the first — and only — “American capitalist” to be awarded the Order of Lenin.

So how did this capitalist running dog make his fortune? Doing business with Man of The People Vladimir Lenin.

Journeying to Soviet Russia in 1921 to give medical aid to that country’s famine victims, he was personally persuaded by Vladimir Lenin to turn his business talents to account there instead. In 1925 he obtained a concession from the Bolsheviks to manufacture pencils for the Soviet Union, and his firm soon became the largest supplier of cheap, reliable pencils in the country. His business ventures were bought out by the Soviets in the late 1920s, and Hammer returned to the United States in 1930 laden with innumerable paintings, jewelry pieces, and other art objects formerly owned by the Romanov imperial family and sold to him by the cash-hungry Soviets. In the 1930s Hammer sold the majority of these valuables and embarked on such profitable post-Prohibition business ventures as whiskey making and the manufacture of whiskey barrels, as well as cattle raising.
Hammer retired in 1956 but was approached that year by a friend who suggested that he finance two wildcat oil wells being drilled in Bakersfield, Calif., by the near-bankrupt Occidental Petroleum Corporation. Hammer financed the wells, which unexpectedly struck oil, and he quickly increased his holdings in Occidental, becoming the firm’s chief executive officer and chairman of the board in 1957. By the mid-1960s, under Hammer’s management, Occidental’s gross annual income was more than $650,000,000, and profitable oil ventures in Libya (which were later nationalized) and diversifications into chemical manufacturing had boosted Occidental’s gross income to more than $2,000,000,000 by 1970.

Today, these people are not openly Soviet or Nazi in their business dealings. However, they are still not in favor of anything resembling a truly “Open Society.” They are buying into the governmental monopolies on force and natural resources the exact same way Hugo Boss and Armand Hammer did. They can strip a lot more surplus out of customer that has someone else’s money as a budget line. Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett don’t want to compete any more than The Golden State Warriors or the New England Patriots want to compete. They are in the business of making the fight unfair.
Warren Buffett hates pipelines that ship oil because he owns a huge railroad full of railroad tankers. Elon Musk makes solar collectors for a portion of his living. The Paris Accord knocked conventional energy sources off the market in the US. Zuckerberg hates “fake news.” Other people’s “Fake News.” He loves fake news propagated by Faceberg. The Golden State Warriors didn’t lock up Kevin Durant to make the NBA more fun and competitive. His presence gave them a talent monopoly like land reform gave Stalin a land monopoly. The New England Patriots won’t trade their awesome back-up QB or stop illegally deflating footballs. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about his self-actualization. They don’t want to see him on the other sideline on Sunday afternoon. These business men are the same.
They hate capitalism when it pays capital to anybody other than them. They hate opportunity when someone other than them enjoys any of it. When Armand Hammer was a pencil-pusher, he loved how Lenin could erase all his competition. Hugo liked Hitler fine. He considered him, dare I say it; Like.A.Boss. The big shot tycoons that install Goldman Sachs Party Men throughout the USG are major league SJWs. Social Justus Warriors. Because they believe it should be Just Us that get the benefits. And when they think of Us, we on the Alt-Right are never going to be considered them.
The very rich are different from us. They already have built their wall. It is your wall that is immoral. They don’t want President Trump to ever cut someone like you in on the racket.

Uncategorized 0 Comments

America Is Barreling Toward Political Anarchy, Not an Organized Fascist State

Fascism requires a program and unity of purpose.

So many of us were wrong, myself included, about Donald Trump. We saw in the jut-jawed, brow-furrowed Mussolini-like posturing, in the blatant narcissism, in the reckless disregard for truth, the anger and incitement to hatred, the declamations that he would fix everything single-handedly on Day One of his presidency, his disdain for democracy and hints that he would lock up his opponents — we saw in all of these things incipient fascism.After the inauguration, I began reading Victor Klemperer’s chilling diaries on the rise of Nazism, I Will Bear Witness, and Sebastian Haffner’s memoir of the early days of Hitler, Defying Hitler. The analogies were all too close. Others on these pages have made similar observations. We were on the verge of something unprecedented, something horrifying. We were on the verge of authoritarian government headed by an ignoramus and possible psychopath. We were on the verge of the end of democracy.And then, last Friday, with the demise of the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare and replace it with… well, with a massive tax giveaway to the rich, we discovered — I discovered — that I was fearing the wrong thing. It’s not Trump’s ability to marshal the forces of repression that should terrify us. It’s his inability to marshal forces to conduct even the most basic governance. Trump really is a presidential Joker. He knows how to wreak havoc, but he doesn’t seem to know how to do, or seem to want to do, much else.This isn’t to discount the fascistic dangers inherent in Trump. We all know that he has an authoritarian temperament. He likes the binary and berates the latter in the pairs: winners and losers, majorities and minorities (never mind that he won a minority of the popular vote), rich and poor, powerful men and feckless women, bullying America and every other country. He prefers muscle to negotiation, despite his much vaunted, and now much tarnished, skill at dealmaking. He loves strongmen and considers himself one of them.His desire, doubtless, was to Putinize this country with the help of his Republican lackeys. Or perhaps the better analogy is that he wanted to turn the country into one giant episode of The Apprentice, in which everyone vied for his favor. With seigniorial hauteur, he, King Donald, would point thumbs-up or thumbs-down.So here is the good news. Whatever his dreams of dominance and his possible aspirations to one-man rule, he simply does not have the aptitude or the discipline to realize them. We saw that last week. He thought he could bully, charm, finesse, arm-twist and threaten his way to victory, but no one was buying it — in part, I think, because he tried to make it all about his power, not the power of Congress, and he was already on such thin ice before the Obamacare debacle that he didn’t have much suasion with them.Why abet him, those Republican misanthropes may have thought, when at some point, they knew they might have to distance themselves from him? In any case, some of those legislators realized that Trump and his aides were way out of their depth. Hitler was able to parlay his minority into implacable power because he organized a rigid, disciplined crew of sociopaths on a mission. Trump has the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.So that’s the good news — sort of. To have an authoritarian state, you have to possess not just the impulse to authoritarianism but the talent for it, which is more than saying, “It’s going to be great,” or “Believe me,” or telling opponents how “sick” and “sad” they are.Now for the bad news. Two diametrically opposed impulses seem to have been warring in Trump for quite a while — that authoritarian tendency to rule, and a tendency to create misrule. If Trump isn’t a fascist, or at least a successful one, he is something nearly as bad: Donald Trump is a solipsistic anarchist.Of course he wants to accrue power, which may be what misled us into thinking he was a potential fascist. It’s just that he doesn’t seem to know how to do anything with it other than to promote himself and puff his ego, which means that everything crumbles around him. And of course, like most strongmen, he wants to do harm to the less powerful — to wit, immigrants and the poor — but it may be no accident that even his attempts at strong-arming turn out to have the opposite effect: chaos.The truth may be that chaos is more his métier than tyranny. As much as he says he hates losing, we may have actually caught a glimpse of the real Trump, the one sitting at his desk, smug and seemingly self-satisfied after his terrible defeat on Friday. This Trump may have thought he won by losing. No, he hadn’t won the congressional vote. But he had sown disarray, certainly within his own party and gradually throughout the health care system, especially once he joins judicial challenges to curb Medicaid expansion, as he undoubtedly will. The anarchistic tendency prevailed over the authoritarian one. Things fell apart. He wasn’t necessarily an unhappy Joker.This is what many of the pundits, myself included, may have missed in the whole Obamacare repeal-and-replace saga. We thought there was some ideological obsession on the right with repealing Obamacare because it was a government program, because it helped people whom Republicans believed undeserving (the poor), and because it was a signal achievement of the Obama administration: not necessarily good reasons but at least reasons. And we thought Trump, who seemed to have no ideological commitment to anything, wanted to repeal it because it would be a demonstration of his muscle as well as a way to unman Obama. And we may have thought that after repeal, Republicans wanted a new plan that would basically defund Medicaid to injure the poor and further enrich the wealthy with the billions of dollars in proceeds. In short, we may have thought there was some vaguely coherent direction to the anti-Obamacare enterprise.What we didn’t realize going in is that not only was Trump totally clueless about the substance of the bill, apparently looking only for a victory, any victory, to claim, but also that Republicans, for all their professions of having been hatching a conservative alternative to Obamacare for seven years, had no plan at all — and, I would submit, no real desire for one.They couldn’t have done more to sabotage their bill if they had tried, and I have a sneaking suspicion that is exactly what they were doing, some subconsciously, others quite consciously. Repeal? Absolutely. Replace? Not so much. The attempted Trump/Republican alliance, then, was a case of one anarchist making common cause with a whole gaggle of anarchists, neither of whom had the slightest interest in reforming health care, only in creating disorder and then hoping to benefit from it, both politically and financially. It shouldn’t have come as any surprise what the outcome would be. Anarchists don’t work well together.Just think about it for a moment. The Republican replacement was really a non-insurance bill, by which I mean it flew in the face of the most fundamental principle of insurance — the healthy pay for those who aren’t. It is the sort of community of interest that is anathema to conservatives who believe it is every man for himself.The upshot is that you cannot have “conservative” insurance. It isn’t tenable. When you have freedom of choice with every person getting to choose whether to be insured or not, and with those who are insured getting to choose what they want to have covered, you do not have a viable insurance system. You have anarchy. Anarchy was built right into the Republican plan.And that is the other thing I think a lot of pundits and political observers missed over the past eight years and even longer. Republicans never had a viable plan, not just about health care, but about anything, be it tax reform or energy or education. That is why their only remedies are less regulation and more tax cuts.There is a good reason for this, and it isn’t incompetence, though there is plenty of that, too. Republicans may talk tough. They may tout the idea of conservative, market-driven solutions to our problems, but somehow, serious solutions never get presented because, frankly, Republicans don’t have any interest in them.When you come down to it, Republicans are really anarchists dedicated to undermining government in the furtherance of an economic state of nature where the rich rule. What we saw these past few weeks was not the failure of Republicanism, as so many pronounced on Friday, but its logical and inevitable conclusion. Republicans are great at opposing things, destroying things, obstructing things, undoing things. They are really, really terrible at creating things because they have no desire to do so.And now they have an anarchist-in-chief, someone who shares their government phobia, if not their conviction, and whose real crime in Republicans’ eyes wasn’t that he couldn’t secure the passage of a bill, but that he managed to reveal their mess in full public view. As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in an open letter to Trump this past Sunday, “It took W. years to smash everything. You’re way ahead of schedule.”There is, however, a method to this madness. Anarchism isn’t nihilism. By undoing government, anarchism undoes the only protection most Americans have against the depredations of the Trumps of this world and against the often cruel vicissitudes of life, like health crises. Take away government, and you strip away those protections. But take away government, and you also enable Trump and his fellow plutocrats to further enrich themselves because there would no mechanism to stop them. This has long been the Republican way: greed disguised as a fear of government overreach. Joker Trump and his Republican cronies are bent on deconstructing government to leave the rest of us defenseless against them.Where that leaves us is a coming flurry of legislative activity that will almost certainly amount to nothing. And it won’t be because of some civil war within the GOP. It will be because the GOP, our very own anarchist party, really doesn’t want anything to happen.Again, Republicans and their presidential anarchist ally can undo things, as they have done with environmental protection. And that is surely no small matter. But tax reform? Forget it. No reform, just huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Infrastructure spending? Not a chance. Another go at health care reform? Yeah, sure. No action, no sweat. Anarchy is their policy.So, no, we are not barreling toward fascism. Fascism requires a program and unity of purpose. We are instead careening toward the first industrialized state of anarchy. Trump promised to blow things up; now he has. The question is whether anyone can put America back together after he and the Republicans are finished with it. 
 Related StoriesWhy It’s Fantasyland to Assume Trump Is Going to Leave in a Scandal Anytime SoonToo Good to Be True? Michael Flynn’s Offer of Testimony for Immunity Sends Up a Lot of Red FlagsLord of Misrule: Don’t Be So Sure the Demise of Trumpcare Is a Defeat for Donald Trump