2016 Election, Again

Revolts and revolutions usually happen when the screws of oppression get loosened a little and when things are improving – that’s when people get confident enough to fight back.

At the moment the screws are getting tightened and things in general are getting worse. That produces demoralisation and apathy rather than revolt.

White people and social conservatives are much much more passive and demoralised now than at any time in history. The chances of a fight-back have never been smaller. If a fight-back was going to happen it would have happened in the 90s, when political correctness might still possibly have been resisted. But it wasn’t resisted. There was no fight-back.

Sorry Boomer, but the “silent majority” no longer exists. It isn’t the 1980s anymore. Trump lost the popular vote.

Did he? If so, did it matter?


Trump won 30 out of 50 states and almost 90% of counties (2700 Trump, 400 Hillary). If not for a few big cities, where Democrats have done their best to oppress minorities and make them dependent on government, Trump would have openly won the popular vote by a landslide.US counties, 2016 election.

And BTW, there’s a good reason why the leftists wanted a recount in only three states, and they still crapped out on those. The tip of a very big iceberg:


Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half of Detroit Votes Show Signs of Tampering
Votes in Hillary-heavy Detroit may have been counted up to 6 times


Voter integrity groups True the Vote and Vote Fraud.org who both ran voter rolls against results and both came to the conclusion that at least 3 million illegals voted in THIS election.

Moreover, Pew Research (hardly a conservative outfit) and Old Dominion U have had studies since 2012 that show the percentage of illegals that vote is over 22%. CONSERVATIVE studies from numerous groups incuding Harvard claim there are at least 10 million to 15 million illegal immigrants reside in the US. ODU has consistently found 80% go to the DEM ticket meaning that conservatively, 1.8 million voted for Hillary. If you take TTV and VForg numbers – that means 2.4 million voted for Hillary – more than her winning margin.

This doesn’t even account for the other 1.8 million of dead people who are on the voter rolls or – as we saw in the Jill Stein recount – over 35% of the precincts in Detroit showed enormous vote fraud. In Las Vegas in one county 9200 REGISTERED VOTERS had mail returned for lack of correct address – yet 92% voted in the election.


China Yesterday and Today

The main thrust of the conquest of the Americas was by Spain and what transpired was the mass mining and export of gold and silver (at horrific cost to the gunless natives both in illness and being systematically worked to death). This gold and silver was not simply to fill up Spanish coffers. No, it was to be able to open up trade routes with the Chinese Empire and diaspora, the Big Dog in the known world. Early mariners arriving in Indian ports – and later Indonesian and later Chinese – described ports larger than any in Europe, indeed large ports like Mumbai were described as containing more ships than all the ships in Europe. Mind-blowing. But Europe had no goods to offer in trade given that Asian crafts, spices, workmanship was many generations ahead of our own. We had no silks, no food, no other textiles. Portuguese and Dutch used gold and silver to buy spices, silks and furniture from the Chinese to take back to Europe in trade. Probably some Spanish did too (don’t recall those details), but for sure once they found silver and gold in the Americas, that’s what it was used for by the Spanish: trade with China.

Then what happened? The gold and silver ran out, sometime in the early 1700′s (I think). So now this is where it gets interesting. Sometime in the mid 1700′s, an Englishman commissioned an engineer to design and make a special machine (Spinning Jenny) which could make cloth faster and cheaper than by human labor. Why? So that his ships (many of which built in India because they made better ships back then) could undercut Indian cotton manufacturers (mainly housewives) and thus he would have something to trade in Asia given there was no more gold and silver to be had by plundering Spanish ships returning from the Americas. So he would sell the cotton to the Indians – which were a densely populated, sophisticated and rich multi-national continent – in exchange for gold or silver, the main currency of the Chinese-based Empire, and then continue on through Asia buying spices and so forth with that earned currency. That is what the Spinning Jenny was made for: to raise funds with which to buy Chinese product lines.

And THAT was a major catalyst for the industrial revolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

But now Eurasia is coming back, though. It’s a funny thing: if America First polity actually developed, it would allow Eurasia to develop peacefully and in so doing dismantle all its foreign bases, let banking system hegemony go and so on.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can’t get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analyzed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilization right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn’t about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the ‘Anglo-Zionists’ spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

Preface to Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto

by Alexander Jacob

Gottfried Feder was born in 1883 in Wurzburg and studied engineering at the Technical Universities in Munich, Berlin and Zurich. After the completion of his studies he set up a construction company of his own in 1908 under the aegis of Ackermann and Co. and undertook several projects in Bulgaria. From 1917 onwards he taught himself financial politics and economics and, in late 1918, not long after the proclamation of the Weimar Republic by Philipp Scheidemann in November of that year, Feder wrote a manifesto on usury[1] and sent it to the Kurt Eisner government, though he obtained no response. The Treaty of Versailles signed in June 1919 which determined Germany as solely responsible for the war and liable to reparations caused Feder to fear that Germany was now firmly in the hands of the international financiers. In September of that year, Feder established a militant league (Kampfbund) for the breaking of interest slavery and the nationalisation of the state bank. His anti-capitalism was bound also to racialism insofar as the international financiers were considered to be mostly Jews.

Feder’s nationalist efforts drew him into a close alliance with the anti-Communist activist Anton Drexler (1884-1942) and Dietrich Eckart (1868-1923), the editor of the anti-Semitic journal Auf gut deutsch and later, of the National Socialist organ, Volkischer Beobachter. The three together formed, in January 1919, the Deutsche ArbeiterPartei(DAP)[2]. AdolfHitlerjoinedtheDAP in late September 1919 and soon emerged as the leader of the party, which he renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). Hitler too was influenced by the doctrines of the Thule society. had, even before his joining the party, attended Feder’s lectures on economic subjects and wrote later in his Mein Kampf (1925/6) of this occasion:

For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock-exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities …The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital.[3]

In the Foreword to the original 1923 edition of the current work, Der deutsche Staat, Hitler wrote that in this work the National Socialist movement had indeed acquired its “catechism”[4].

In 1920, Hitler, along with Feder and Drexler, composed the ‘25 point Programme’ of the NSDAP. This programme rejected the Treaty of Versailles and called for a reunification of German peoples along with an exclusion of aliens, especially Jews, from national life. In February 1920, Hitler held a rally in which he presented the programme to the German people. Later, in 1927, Feder published a comprehensive version of the programme entitled Das Programm der NSDAP and seine weltcmsckaulichen Grundlagen. In 1923, Feder offered a further elaboration of his national economic views in the present work, Der deutsche Staat aufnationaler undsozialer Grundlage[5], which was re- issued in 1932 in the “Nationalsozialistisdic Bibliothek” series[6].

Feder took part in Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch against the Bavarian government in 1923 but was only fined 50 marks for unlawful assumption of authority since he had acted, for a day, as the new “finance minister”. In 1924, he was elected a representative to the parliament. In parliament, he demanded the confiscation of Jewish property and the freezing of interest-rates, which were key elements of the anti-capitalist programme of the party. In 1926 Hitler entrusted Feder with the editorial direction of a series of books on National Socialist ideology under the title “Nationalsozialistische Bibliothek” (National Socialist Library). In 1931, Feder was appointed chairman of the economic council of the NSDAP. But gradually, under pressure from big industrialists like Gustav Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emil Kirdorf, Hitler decided to distance himself from Feder’s socialist ideas.[7] With Hitler’s strategic alliance with big industrialists and capital, even foreign capital, for his intended war on Bolshevism, Feder lost most of his influence on the party since foreign banks especially would not have supported Feder’s plans for a nationalised interest-free banking system. The loss of interest in Feder’s economic policies among the party members is evidenced in Hans Reupke’s book Der Nationals ozialismus und die Wirtschaft (1931), where the author stated that it was no longer necessary to deal with the “breaking of interest slavery” in “the extreme form in which it first emerged”[8].

Thus, when Hitler assumed power in 1933, Feder was not named Economics Minister but rather only State Secretary in the Economics Ministry. However, Feder published in 1933 a collection of his essays entitled Kampf gegen die Hochfinanz as well as a book on the Jews called Die Juden. In 1934, the influential banker Hjalmar Schact was made Economics Minister since his contacts with the big industrialists made him more useful to Hitler in his rearmament aims than Feder with his stark anti-capitalist doctrines. Feder’s subordination to Hjalmar Schacht was indeed a concrete sign of his fall from grace. After the Knight of the Long Knives in 1934, when left-wing nationalists like Gregor Strasser were assassinated, Feder withdrew from the government. In 1936, he was given a new job as professor at the Technical University in Berlin which he maintained until his death in 1941.

Feder’s Deutsche Staat is indeed one of the most important treatises on National Socialist economics.[9] However, it has a precedent in the Austro-Hungarian Bohemian German, Rudolf Jung’s work, Der Nationale Sozialismus (1919). Rudolf Jung (1882-1945) was a civil engineer from Jihlava (in the current Czech Republic and former Austro-Hungarian Empire) who joined the Bohemian Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (DAP) in 1909. The DAP was founded in 1903 in Aussig (now Usti nad Labem in the Czech Republic) by Germans threatened by the increasing Jewish and Czech influence in the empire. It was renamed Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiter Partei (DNSAP) in 1918. Jung‘s work Der Nationale Sozialismus: seine Grundlagen, sein Werdegang und seine Ziele (1919) was intended as a German nationalist answer to Marx‘s Das Kapital.[10] The work is divided into two parts, the first dealing with ‘The Foundations of National Socialism’ and the second with ‘The Development and Goals of National Socialism’. Jung’s nationalism focusses on social and economic questions and, exactly like Feder, Jung stresses the difference between income derived from real work and that arising from interest.”[11] His strong socialist and anti-Jewish viewpoint is evident throughout this work:

All non-socialist parties are based in the main on “individualism”, i.e. the demand for the greatest possible freedom and lack of constraint of the individual. Economically it is expressed in Manchester liberalism and, further, in Mammonism. The ruthless ruler who is tormented by no pang of conscience is the goal, the weaker man falls thereby under  the wheels. Now, since the Jew is the most ruthless, he can fare best thereby. Thus all non-socialist anti-Jewish orientations unwillingly support the rise of Jewry to world-rulership.[12]

Further, democracy itself is the vehicle of Jewish international capitalism: If we were to sum up, we might say that the entire international democracy whose alleged ideals the major press and parties represent and on whose flag they swear, is nothing but the political crystallisation of the Jewish spirit and, in the final analysis, serves no other goal but the establishment of the world-rule of Jewry.[13]

Another writer who contributed to the exact identification of the Jewish constitution of international high finance was Heinrich Pudor (1865-1943), who also wrote under the pseudonym Heinrich Scham (the German translation of the Latin “pudor”). Pudor was a vegetarian and naturist who, from 1912, published several anti-Semitic pamphlets and books including an extensive series on the international connections between the various Jewish high financiers. [14] Feder refers sympathetically to Pudor in the present work. However, Pudor’s magazine Swastika[15] was banned in 1933 by the National Socialists for its criticisms of the National Socialist leadership and the regime’s surprising toleration of Jews. Further, five issues of the series on Jewish high finance were banned including no. 13, Neues iiber Br. Roosevelt und seine jiidischen und Kommunistischen Verbindungen, and no.49, Judendammerung. “Juden unerwiinscht”. Keine jiidischen Rechtsanwdlte mehr. Ende der Judenfinanz in Deutschland, on account of what a state official, Raymund Schmidt, described as Pudor’s “no longer opportune polemical methods which were indeed exploited by the English recently for the purpose of counter-propaganda.[16]


Feder’s treatise on national economy, like Rudolf Jung’s, is remarkable for its strong moral foundation and its formulation of National Socialism as a movement for social justice as well as for national regeneration. Unlike capitalism with its “soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life” (p.47)[17] and unlike Marxism, which insists that everything should belong to the One, which might be either the State or Mammon controlling it, National Socialism wishes to revert to the mediaeval and Prussian dictum of “suum cuique”, ‘to each his own’, whereby each person will earn as much as he deserves according to his performance of work, with the fullest possible responsibility, as a duty. Economically, this moral doctrine is translated into the doctrine of serving “the public interest” before self-interest. Not profitability but fulfilment of demand is the National Socialistic basis of the economy.

Unlike Marxism, National Socialism will not prohibit private property but respect it as the privilege of the creative and productive Aryan man. On the other hand, the mobile Jewish mind has no deep connection with the land but rather exploits the productions and property of the natives financially through all sorts of legal claims, bonds and mortgages, whereby “property” is turned into a profitable “possession” (p. 18). In order to counter these avaricious strategies of the Jews, the National Socialist state will enforce limitations on the right to property, personal or commercial, so that in all cases the welfare of the whole, the nation, rather than of individuals will be first served. In Feder’s discussion of the party’s programme in Part II, we note that, since the social policy is “the welfare of the whole”, the financial policy of the National Socialist state is accordingly directed against those financial powers who tend to develop “a state within the state” (p.44). As he puts it:

In the last and deepest analysis, it is a matter of the battle of two world-views that are expressed through two fundamentally different intellectual structures – the productive and creative spirit and the mobile avaricious spirit. The creative spirit rooted in the soil and yet again overcoming the world in metaphysical experience finds its principal representatives in Aryan man — the avaricious, rootless commercial and materialistic spirit directed purely to the this-worldly finds its principal representative in the Jew (p.47).

The strength of Germany before the war was due to its unity under Bismarck and its efficient industrial sector. This advantage was undermined by the dependence of the economy on the credit system of the banks and “the inventors and bearers of the modern credit system” are the Jews (p. 54). The mediaeval system of credit was based on the belief (“credo”) of the creditor that his money could be used to greater economic advantage by the debtor whereby the debtor, if successful in his enterprise, may return a share of his profits in gratitude to the creditor. Standardised interest, on the other hand, was forbidden by the Church as usury (p.71). Feder advocates a return to the conception of money as a token of “performed work” or of a product so that money cannot, independently of any work, be hoarded for the purpose of being lent out later at interest.

Feder further points out that it is the stock-market that lies at the basis of the alienation of capital from work:

Anonymisation – the depersonalisation of our economy through the stock-marketable form of the public limited company – has to a certain degree separated capital from work, the share-holder knows in the rarest instances something of his factory, he has only the one-sided interest in the profitability of his money when he has invested it in the form of shares (p.55)

Apart from the indifference of the shareholder to the quality of the goods produced by the company in which he invests, the market in general has diverted production from its legitimate task of fulfilling real needs to that of stirring up – through the Jewish market-crier’s technique of advertising – artificial needs among the public that will bring in greater profits. This fundamental transformation of national economics has been supported in academic circles by Jewish scholars who restrict their economic analyses to descriptions of the current economic system rather than investigating its social and political legitimacy. This sort of intellectual subversion is further continued by the Jewish intelligentsia in the fields of art, entertainment and the press.

The major source of the current distress of Germany is indeed the interest owed to large loan capital. The burden of interest has indebted entire nations to international high finance and forced them to become interest-collectors for the latter which they do by taxing the working people ever harder. Feder rightly calls this false economic process an “international fraud” (p. 86). The power of international finance has however grown so great that it was able to encircle Germany as soon as it perceived that its currency was rising in strength and independence. Once they succeeded in militarily defeating Germany, the international financial powers then enforced further enormous debt burdens on it through the Treaty of Versailles. Feder therefore proposes the cancellation of the payment of the interest on these debts to the Allies (p.97). Indeed, the remedy to the interest burdens of all nations to international finance is the legal abolition of interest (p. 94). And this is simultaneously the solution to the Jewish question itself: The solution of the interest problem is the solution of the Jewish question.

The solution of the interest problem in the sense of our explanations is the breaking of the Jewish world-rule, because it smashes the power of world Jewry – its financial power.

The fullest representation of the socio-economic interests of a nation should be the state, and its industries should be models of efficiency and commercial success. One example of such an industry in Germany is indeed the transport industry and especially the German railways. Unlike Bolshevism, which seeks to control all production, the National Socialist state will, through the establishment of storage and distribution cooperatives under state supervision (p. 17), remove only the avaricious interference of private commerce between production and consumption. As the means of exchange necessary for the exchange of goods, money will be under the control of the state through a nationalised state bank.

Instead of borrowing money from private banks, the state should, in the case of all large public works projects, finance the latter though the issuance of interest-free notes of its own. The Reichsbank’s sovereignty of issuing notes must be regained through nationalisation (p. 72). Freed of interest-burdens to banks, the state will ultimately be able to operate in a mostly tax-free manner (Ch.22, ‘The state without taxes’). Taxes will be restricted to the coverage of non-productive tasks such as the administration of justice, the police system, medical and educational systems, if the commercial enterprises of the state such as the railways post and telegraph, mining and forestry do not present surpluses wherewith to pay for these tasks (p.92). International transactions should be conducted through a clearing system rather like that of the international postal union “without the international finance benefiting two or three times in all these simple mercantile operations and becoming big and fat at the cost of the productive nations” (p. 77).

But the state must be powerful if it is to effect any reforms. Unfortunately, the Weimar Republic has abjectly accepted the monstrous burden of guilt after the war with the result that “the members of the Chosen People can, on these reparations, forever lead a glamorous work-free life in all the countries of the world at the cost of German work.” (p. 19). The crisis faced by Germany after the war was facilitated by parliamentarianism and Mammonism. The “great democratic lie of the capacity of the people for self-government” is to be combated along with the real capitalistic rulers of democracies. Marxism likewise is a sham socialist system that employs the dissatisfaction of those exploited by Mammonism for the benefit of the “handlers for international capital” in order to “divert from themselves the hatred of the exploited” (p. 25).

The majority of the principal Marxists as well as Mammonists are Jews, and so “The Jewish question is becoming a world-question on whose solution the welfare and woe of the nations will be dependent” (p. 26). The solution of this question cannot be through violence since “indeed one cannot kill the plague bacillus individually, one can only eradicate it by cutting off its life necessities from it” (p.26). A suggestion of what might be done to reduce their ill-earned gains is contained in point 1 7 of the party’s programme which envisages creation of legal possibilities of confiscating if necessary land that was acquired in an illegal way or not administered according to the viewpoint of the welfare of the people. This is directed thus mainly against the Jewish land speculation companies (p.47)

Further, a removal of Jews from all public positions will cause no difficulty to the nation since “the real vitally important productive activity in industry and agriculture, in the professions and administration, is almost entirely free of Jews” (p. 38). Concomitant with the removal of Jews from the “national body” is the enforcement of new citizenship laws whereby the citizenship rights will be “acquired” by the citizens and not merely granted to them. Thus only those who pledge themselves to the German community and culture and do not continue an adherence to another nation can obtain these rights (p.39).

The National Socialist state will be a strong state that includes all the German tribes and its power will be concentrated in a strong leader, or autocrat, who embodies “the highest responsibility” (p.22)[18] since the German people have traditionally wanted a strong leader, and monarchs are not always to be relied upon. The leader of the National Socialist state, on the other hand, is not envisaged as a permanent ruler but one chosen only for the re-establishment of order and prosperity of a debilitated nation. After he has accomplished his goals he may step aside to let other rulers take his place under the constitution. Indeed, the National Socialist state may be characterised as a constitutional autocracy (p.31). The constitutional aspect of the state will be used especially to ensure an effective labour law and social insurance (p.23). Obviously, in a German national state, no members of foreign races can assume the leadership of state affairs (p.22).

Feder is aware of the adverse reaction of the international financiers to such autarkic measures but he believes that a transformation of interest-bearing bonds into interest-free bank assets or postal cheque accounts (p. 96) wherewith foreign creditors can be paid will avert the wrath of the latter. He also suggests that boycotts can be overcome through transactions with neutral countries. As for military action, he believes that it is not likely to be pursued by the foreign creditor nations since if the German people saw the French or Jewish tax collector sitting in every tax- and pension office, and if the best cows were taken from the stalls of the farmers by these foreign oppressors – then the anger and indignation would perhaps become soon so strong that one night would sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom and free Germany, (p.97)


We see that, in spite of the lucidity of his economic doctrines, Feder rather underestimated the unforgiving nature of the Mammon that he was striving against. In keeping with Feder’s doctrines, the Nationalist Socialist state officially cancelled the war debt to the Allied nations and sought, from 1933 on, to combat the cumulative deflation by the creation of money and work.[19] Work was created by increasing public works activity, such as notably the building of super-highways, and other construction and agricultural projects. These projects were financed, as Feder had recommended, by the issuance of government bills. The production of armaments especially was spurred by the use of the so-called ‘Mefo’ bills[20] – named after Schacht’s Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Mefo), which served as a government holding company.[21] These bills were used by government contractors for payment of their needs and were valid as a form of currency. As a result of these economic strategies, as Overy notes, “the banks increasingly became mere intermediaries, holding government stock and helping in the job of keeping bills circulating in the way that the government wanted.”[22] Tax levels were simultaneously reduced for farmers, small businesses and heavy industry through the “remission of taxes already paid”.[23] However, Hitler was also dependent in his ambitious rearmament plans on foreign finance, which certainly would not have accepted Feder’s insistence on an abolition of interest.[24] The National Socialist economy was an increasingly state-controlled one that sought to avoid inflation by controlling prices and wages and foreign trade. Autarkic restrictions on imports were offset by bilateral barter agreements. Whether the war that began two years after the 1937 edition of Feder’s work was, as Feder’s view of the role of international finance in the first World War would suggest, another effort to punish Germany’s financial independence under National Socialism or whether it was indeed secretly willed by the international financiers for their own geopolitical ends, the increasing losses suffered by Germany in the course of it certainly provoked Hitler into attempting to “sweep the foreign spectre away with a bloody broom”, as Feder had predicted.

But neither Feder nor Hitler may have foreseen the severity of the revenge – more cruel since more lasting than that after the first World War – that the international Jewish interests would take on Germany after its defeat in 1945. While Feder hoped that other nations of the world will also eventually follow the German example and “mankind, freed of the Jewish oppression, will experience an age of unprecedented prosperity – and, above all, Germany – the heart of the world”, the opposite of that indeed has occurred, since most of Europe has been turned into “a slave, fellaheen, bondman and servant of the all-Jewish world-power” (p. 35). And the heart of Germany itself, drained by a tyrannical psychological control of its population, has virtually stopped beating.


[1] Manifest zur Brechung des Zinsknechtschaft des Geldes, Diessen vor Munchen: Joseph C. Huber, 1919; cf. The Manifesto for the Breaking of the Financial Slavery to Interest, tr. Alexander Jacob, Carshalton, Surrey :Historical Review Press, 2012.

[2] Another major early member was Karl Harrer (1 890-1926), who joined the party in March of 1919. Harrer, like Drexler, was a member of the occultist Thule society in Munich, which was an off-shoot of the Germanen Order founded in 1912 by Theodor Fritsch. Eckart

[3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. James Murphy, London: Hunt and Blacketl 1939, pp 168,171.

[4] See below p. 1 .

[5] This work was translated by E.T.S. Dugdale as The Programme of The NSDAP The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions, Munich, 1932.

[6] For my translation I have used the 1932 edition, vol.35 of the “NationallOzialistische Bibliothek” series.

[7] For the part played by big industries in Hitler’s rise to power see G. Hallgarten, “Adolf Hitler and German heavy industry 1931-1933”, Journal of Economic History, 12 (1952).

[8] H. Reupke, Der Nationalsozialismus und die Wirtschaft, Berlin, 1931, pp.29ff.

[9] The closest to National Socialist economics is the Social Credit movement founded in Britain by C.H. Douglas (1879-1952), whose work Economic Democracy was published in 1920 (see F. Hutchison and B. Burkitt, The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism, London: Routledge, 1997). Douglas influenced Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the thirties (see Kerry Bolton, “Breaking the bondage of interest, part 2”, Counter-Currents, August 11, 201 1, http://www.counter-currents.com/201 1/08/breaking-the-bonilagc-of-interesta-right-answer-to-usury-part-2/

[10] It was on his suggestion that Hitler changed the name of the German branch of the DAP in 1920 to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

[11] Feder’s manifesto on interest-slavery was interestingly published in the same year as Jung”s work on National Socialism.

[12] Rudolf Jung, Der Nationale Sozialismus, Munich, 1922, p. 1 87f.

[13]   J6W.,53f.

[14] The pamphlets that he self-published (in Leipzig) in this series, “Die internationalen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen der jiidischen Hochfinanz’” (The international kindred relationships of Jewish high finance’), between 1933 and 1940 present short historical accounts of the different branches of Jewry in various countries of Europe as well as in America. For instance, the first pamphlet is on Das Haus Rothschild, numbers two to four on Ginsberg und Giinsbeig und Asher Ginzberg, five to eight on Jakob Schiff und die Warburgs und das New Yorker Bankhaus Kuhn, Loeb & Co., nine to ten on Amsterdamer und Oppenheimer Juden, eleven on Franzosische Finanzjuden, twelve on Tschechoslowakische Finanzjuden, fourteen on Rumdnische Finanzjuden, fifteen on Lessing und Moses Mendelssohn und das Bankhaus Mendelssohn & Co. , seventeen on Polnische Finanzjuden, eighteen on Schwedische Finanzjuden, nineteen on Hollandische und belgische Finanzjuden, twenty on Frankfurter Finanzjuden und die I.G. Farben, twenty-one to twenty-three on Englische Finanzjuden, thirty-four to thirty-eight and forty-three to forty -four on Tshechische Finanzjuden and thirty-nine to forty-two on Ungarische Finanzjuden. In addition, he published, in Halle, a similar work on Amerikanische Finanzjuden (1936).

[15] Seebelowp. 118

[16] „nicht mehr zeitgemaBen Kampfmethoden, die sogar von den Englandern in jiingster Zeit zum Zwecke der Gegenpropaganda ausgeschlachtet wurden“ (see Gerd Simon. „Chronologie, Pudor, Heinrich“, http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/gerd.simon/ChrPudor.pdf. p.l9f.)

[17] AI1 page-references are to the present edition.

[18] The “Führer principle” was championed also by Rudolf Jung in his Nationale Sozialismus, p.l77f.

[19] See G. Senft, „Anti-Kapitalismus von Rechts? – Eine Abrechnung mit Gottfried Feders ‘Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft‘“, Zeitschrift fur Sozialokonomie, 106 (1995), pp. 18-32.

[20] According to Henry Liu: “through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German economic miracle,” Asia Times Online, 24 May 2005, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE24Dj01.htm

[21] Hitler’s eagerness to rearm Germany is not surprising in the light of the eastern expansionist and anti-Bolshevist foreign political aims outlined by him already in Mein Kampf, Vol. II, Ch.14.

[22]   R.J. Overy, The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.43.

[23] Ibid, p.3

[24] See the web-log by „Scanners“, „Gottfried Feder und das zinslose Geld“, http://www.utopia. de/blog/umweltpolitik/gottfried-feder-und-das-zinslose. The western financial powers may have partly supported Hitler’s effort to check the westward spread of Bolshevism. For American involvement in National Socialist finance, for example, see Anthony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler, Sudbury: Bloomfield Books, 1976.

Gottfried Feder

by Mike Strobach of the National Conscience

Born in Würzburg in 1883, Gottfried Feder was a leading German provider of ideas, “the refractive Interest Enslavement” by the world finance capital. Feder was known far beyond the borders of Germany and his ideas and work continues today. As an engineer and economist Feder was first among economic policymakers in the DAP (precursor of the nsDAP) and was a short time later commissioned by Adolf Hitler to design the nsDAP party program (the 25 points of National Socialism)

In the nsDAP party program, Feder’s ideas from his “manifest refraction of interest servitude of money,” were reflected. This “program” is from 1919 (the year of the Versailles diktat and the adoption of the Weimar Constitution) at the focal point of contemporary history. Feder’s approach against the existing financial system and interest arose in its first edition in response to the runaway national debt and the resulting inflation in defeated Germany after the First World War.

With the end of the war in 1918, the Reichsmark had already officially lost more than half of its purchasing power in internal and external relations, which was much higher on the black market inflation index. The end of 1923 then broke the entire German economy and combined with the Weimar Hyperinflation produced by the victors and henchman: Hunger, poverty and a crying misery were the consequences. The Germans were akin to a “dying” people.

To enforce its policy objectives Feder founded in 1919 one of the many battle confederations, this time the (German League of Struggle for the breaking of interest servitude). However contents of his claims were not, as is often assumed, a complete ban on interest, but numerous changes in government economic and financial policy. A major criticism of Feder was the inclusion of high-yield loans by the state while simultaneously dispensing with the state sovereignty of the money making and money distribution.

In another pamphlet Feder in 1919 saw the way the bankruptcy was almost upon Germany. Only ten years after Feder’s first publication of his manifest refraction ideology, in 1929, it came to the complete breakdown of international exchanges. Suddenly the collapse of all currencies of stability and value worldwide occurred. In Germany they gave out in the early 1920s, emergency money. In wake of the global economic crisis, entire industries were transferred into foreign hands. So, for example, the German Opel plants fell to American hands, to name just one example.

In 1923 Feder took part in the Hitler Putsch (March on the Feldherrenhalle in Munich). Nevertheless, he remained a leading figure not only in the nsDAP, but also in the thinking financial circles in Germany. In 1924 he was elected to the National Socialist Freedom Party in the Reichstag; he remained a member until 1936. From 1933 Feder is engaged in freezing the interest rates (in fact it was the abolition of the compounding system). His concept of “the breaking of interest servitude” came under Adolf Hitler as Chancellor to develop, Germany awoke to new life and flourished again.

When Adolf Hitler was appointed on 30 January 1933 by President Paul von Hindenburg with the task of leading the nsDAP government and sworn in as Chancellor, the new Chancellor was clear that the powerful militarily enemies waiting around an encircled Germany for an opportunity with a new war to crush any attempt at liberation of the German people. This has been reflected by the fact that just a day after the Democratic confirmation of Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag, world jewry on March 24, 1933 declared war on Germany. [1]

The winner required by the tribute of Versailles and the privatization of the Reichsbank (paraphrased “independent”) with your(world jews yes you) man in Germany for this project was the Masonic Hjalmar Schacht, the remaining gold reserves of the Reichsbank, were removed “to be stored” by the private jewish Federal Reserve of the USA (FED).

In 1953 Hjalmar Schacht admitted in his autobiography, that he visited the FED in 1927 to inspect the German gold, he casually describes as follows: “A different experience resulted from the fact that the Reichsbank maintained a not inconsiderable gold deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Strong was very proud to show us the safes in the deep basement of the building, and mentioned here: ‘Dr. Schacht, now you will also see where the gold of the Reichsbank is preserved ‘. We walked through the vaults, while the officers searched the storage space of the Reichsbank gold. We waited many minutes until finally came the information: ‘Mr. Strong, we can not find the gold from the Reichsbank ‘. Strong was very upset, but I comforted him: ‘Let’s be good, I believe you, that the gold is there. Even if it should not be there, you are good to me for the replacement. ‘”[2]

It is hardly surprising that it was completely indifferent to Schacht, whether the German gold was gone, as Benjamin Strong, former president of the Private jewish Federal Reserve, was his personal friend and lodge brother. And the gold, of course never, appeared. Just as today, when the FRG-Gold has also disappeared at the Fed in New York.

It was the same Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht, who, in 1914 in the Journal of the lodge “To friendship of the Grand Lodge of Prussia” in the first week of the war published an essay in which he emphasized that “the German Freemasonry have never given room to exaggerated nationalist sentiments”.

Schacht, who contributed significantly to the Reichsbank Act (RBG) in 1924, making sure the so-called Reichsbank Autonomy Law was further replaced on 26 May 1922 in the direction of Rothschild control. The creation of a “by the imperial government independent Reichsbank” was guaranteed by Paragraph 1 of the new RBG. Under the Reichsbank Law Germany had already dictated the Dawes Plan as a contract item. The Reparations Commission decided on 30 November 1923 namely the convening of an expert committee under the chairmanship of financial experts appointed by the FED Charles Gates Dawes, who should decide how one could demand from Germany reparations forever. The Reichsbank was now driven by a 14-member General Council (seven of them foreigners) under the leadership of the United States. The gold standard was monitored by a foreign Commissioner and was in accordance with paragraph 28 of the RBG 40 percent, which is why the German gold had to be deposited “as security” at the FED.

The German henchmen for the financial world, who had to lead the privatization of the German Reichsbank, was, as already mentioned, Hjalmar Schacht, the personal friend of Lord Montague Norman. Lord Norman was the governor of the then Bank of England, who received his instructions directly from the House of Rothschild. “The activities of the British oligarchy were whipped by a cabal of central bankers, led by Lord Montague Norman together with Benjamin Strong [3] of the New York Fed and Hjalmar Schacht of the German Reichsbank.” [4]

Schacht belonged to the then world-elite of the global financial crime. “Benjamin Strong, the first president of the FED, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England and Émile Moreau, governor of the Bank of France, were the most powerful and influential bankers of their time.” [5]

When Hjalmar Schacht was officially designated as one of the four most powerful central bankers of the world, although he represented the “national” bank of a totally robbed, bankrupt, occupied and completely defenseless state, then one can conclude only that the ascribed power within the jewish lodges was exercised against Germany.

The defeated Germany was bled by the Rothschilds winner policy after 1918, in the truest sense of the word. 45 percent of the reparations had in kind (industrial goods, goods, etc.) are provided, 55 percent in foreign currencies, including also – had to be exchanged property. The German people had thus no productive support for an acceptable livelihood anymore. Just for interest and principal, the German Reich had to raise 16 billion gold marks, with which the industry was burdened and overwhelmed. To secure these tribute payments, Reichsbank and German Reichsbahn were transformed into joint stock companies (privatization), and were under the control of FED and City… New York

untitled (136)

As at the end of the 1920s, the National Socialist Freedom Movement becoming stronger and a shift of power towards Adolf Hitler was likely to occur, suddenly Free Mason and friend of the exploiters, Hjalmar Schacht, begins to flirt with the Nationalists. “When he shows up with his wife Louise at a dinner party in 1930, she is wearing, studded with rubies and diamonds, on a chain, a Hakenkreuz. ‘Why not give the Nationalists a chance? You seem pretty sharp to me, ‘ said Schacht to a stunned reporter “. [6] In October 1931 Schacht was making a sensational speech at the meeting of the nsDAP, The DNVP and the Stahlhelm in Bad Harzburg before the “Harzburg Front” In which he launched a polemical attack of his own, and enforced on behalf of Benjamin Strong and Sir Montague Norman privatization of the Reichsbank. In 1932 Schacht began to support the nsDAP openly.

It is not as though Adolf Hitler would not have seen through the game. He knew that Schacht on behalf of the jewish world finance would seek to ensure in a new Germany the continuation of politics by private banks. Hitler knew also that he in a state of total helplessness, should he become Chancellor (Germany had as it were no more armed forces, only a barely armed 100-thousand-man army) he would have to hold out against the Reich’s enemies. So Hitler played the game and made Schacht on March 17, 1933 re-elected president of the Reichsbank.

Of course, the House of Rothschild members appointed by the General Council of the Reichsbank were ousted immediately. The Reichsbank had to realize that “the breaking of interest servitude of money” would commence immediately after Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Schacht remained nothing more than watching idly the liberation of Germany. Germany’s enemies, however, believed to be able to compel Hitler with sanctions to restore the old Monetary Exploitation order again. Schacht should then be active again as before.

But Adolf Hitler ended the destructive influence of the monetary system of the FED and City of New York to Germany by a new barter agreement. The raw material imports in exchange trading increased between 1933 and 1937 of 1.4 billion marks to two billion Reichsmarks, while the finished goods imports by 500 million Reichsmark fell to just under 400 million marks. Trade in Scandinavia, South East Europe and Latin America had intensified and cash settled through clearing and exchange of commodities, which threatened the financial existence of the international power of the New York and London money-lenders.

In this time of military reluctance of the West, who still sat on the return of Hjalmar Schacht to the levers of financial power in the new Germany, Germany was at least as far as upgrading, that would have been a war against Germany involves risks. Under this shield of brilliant foreign policy of Adolf Hitler still in 1933 the dying German people flourished to life. The words of former British Prime Minister Lloyd George on his return from a trip to Germany before the waiting journalists in London in September 1936 will remain forever in your memory. After his daughter exclaimed in the mics, “Heil Hitler”, Lloyd George added as confident: “Yes, certainly, Heil Hitler I say this because he is truly a great man..” [7]

Hitler humbled the hate of the world finance by having Hjalmar Schacht, lead the negotiations for the emigration of the Jews in London in December 1938 in said “inter alia” what became known as the pit-Rublee plan, a contract resulted.

On January 19, 1939, Schacht was officially stripped of his mission that he should exercise for FED and City of New York in secret. He was dismissed as Reichsbank president. Six months later, on June 15, 1939, the Reichstag voted on the new Reichsbank law. In Reich Law Gazette 1939 I, p 1015, 1030 was now stipulated that the Reichsbank was to “ensure the utilization of the available funds of the German economy in nonprofit and economically expedient manner.” “In the form of profitless”, ie without interest.

This policy began in 1933 for the benefit of the German people, now enshrined in law, the final decision of the jewish world finance had fallen in London and New York, to launch a new world war for the destruction of Germany. The rest was from then on only provocation, encirclement, lies and violence, until the official British and French declaration of war on 3 September 1939 against Germany.

End of 1932 saw the German price-adjusted gross domestic product a negative growth of 7.5 percent. Adolf Hitler was born on 30 January 1933 to power and in February 1933 he designed the monetary policy of the Reichsbank, ousted the foreign members of the General Council. This meant that before the end of 1933 the real gross national product (GNP) grew by 6 percent increase.

As early as 1937 Hitler had economic and monetary policy ensure that, despite the imposed sanctions against the Reich, a growth of over 10 percent was achieved. But more importantly, at a 10 percent economic growth rate increase under Hitler’s monetary policy, inflation was at zero percent, and there were no unemployed. Even in wartime, there were no price increases, no budget deficit, but there was growth. [8] Adolf Hitler had therefore left his destroyed people with no debt after the end of the “World War staged by the Democrats”, which was even admitted by BRD Finance Minister Schäuble. Wolfgang Schäuble literally: “For the last time the country was debt free in 1948, after war and dictatorship.” [9] And he is not even ashamed at these words.

Thus could the German people only afford Adolf Hitler, because he made Germany sovereign, because the sovereignty over the labor power and the money was in the hands of the working people and was not subjected to the dictatorship of Wall Street Speculators.

And now we have even worse conditions than in the dark period of the Weimar Republic under the Murder of Versailles. The pain we will feel soon. The chief editor of the Economic week, Stefan Baron, already warned 22 years ago prior to this case: “The Treaty of Maastricht threatened that Germany impose heavier loads than those in the Treaty of Versailles prescribed after the First World War reparations Only. Versailles was a dictation, Maastricht, the government [Kohl] concluded voluntarily. “[10]

Today, when the ECB is run by former Goldman Sachs director Mario Draghi, who provides for the production and use of the Euro-currency, all the conditions are created for the Germans, having to suffer a collapse like 1923 and 1929 again.

The FRG does not have to determine their own destiny, has no say in monetary policy. And that is also celebrated enthusiastically by the henchmen of the international monetary system, forward Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU Minister of Finance).

Today, ECB chief Draghi calls on behalf of Goldman Sachs high inflation in Germany to lift the zero-growth in the euro zone to 1 percent growth. Draghi’s slogan: “Inflation must be found – at any cost only inflation means growth.”. [11] Under Hitler it was 10 per cent growth at 0 percent inflation. Does it not sound like newly launched Versailles-mockery, as the FRG Minister of Finance on 5 September 2012 at the ZDF Heute-Journal said unabashedly: “But I’m quite sure, the Governing Council is aware, the ECB’s mandate is focused on the priority of price stability”.

We know that the world finance has always pocketed most of the money for wars and inflation, so this extermination of monetary policy of the lobby with its instrument ECB is only logical. In this sense, promised BRD Finance, Rothschild’s rolling debt generator, on the edge of monetary conference in 2013 in Washington, wanting to run the command for permanent debt increase without objection in the future. Schäuble was asked the question, when then will Germany have repaid this debt. Subsequently Schäuble: “Hopefully never!” [12]

The formula for prosperity would be so easy for politicians and statesmen, if you only served the people and not the international bankers. The robbery of the people by the world finance using their deadly monetary and financial system must be stopped. The States must be sovereign over the production of their own money. Gottfried Feder explained this published in his “manifest refraction of interest servitude” so wonderful. “Every capital is accumulated labor, Big capital is unproductive in itself, precisely because money itself is a quite barren matter. Of spirit, work and existing or already developed raw materials or natural resources are created values​​, goods produced by labor and only by labor. ”

This principle for the flourishing of human existence was followed under Adolf Hitler, and so he could make from a wreck of world finance a people who again could be “a happy nation.”

Take the example of the House of Rothschild, which still had no money in 1800, but exceeded in the shortest possible time without productive, value-generating activities that a minimum living industry capital several times. These again Gottfried Feder declared to us in his book: “The fortune of the house of Rothschild, the oldest international plutocracy, is now [1919] estimated at about 40 billion. It is known that the old Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt layed the basis for the tremendous wealth of his house around the year 1800 by re-awarding the millions which had been transferred to him from Landgrave William of Hesse for storage, without any of his own appreciable fortune.”

What we are witnessing today, the plundering of the people by the ECB, is just the continuation of what had begun more than 300 years ago in England. After Cromwell had again brought the jews, 400 years after their expulsion back to England, a new era of the monetary system began to be laid. ”

In the chapter on the owner of the shares of the Bank of England (1694-1797) in his book on the history of the Bank, Sir John Clapham, noted the high proportion of Spanish and Portuguese names of sephardic jews which appeared on the list of shareholders in the early years of the English central bank. He noted that these names from 1701 actually constituted 90 percent of the 107 founding members of the Bank of England. Among them were two da Costa, a Fonseca, a Henriquez, a Mendes, a Nuñes, one Rodrigues, a Salvador, a Teixeira de Mattos, a Solomon de Medina. Clapham pointed to a parallel with the Bank of Amsterdam, on incorporation were 25 jews among the owners. M. Hyamson writes in his book, The Sephardim of England, that a certain Jacob Henriquez immediately after the coronation of King George III, in the context of a petition referred to the merits of his father in founding the Bank of England.

With the creation of a private institution as a central bank of the British Empire the money conspirators stood in the truest sense of the word, open to all possibilities. All they had to do in order to deliver half of the globe as tribute was to provide a ridiculous sum to deposit as initial capital of the Bank of England. Only a few years after the founding of the private British central bank, paper money was introduced. The owners of the Federal Reserve could print on paper and lend it to the government, the institutions and the private sector at interest (tribute). Therefore, the taxes increased dramatically in all areas, for from henceforth all had indeed been delivered to any amount of printed paper rate tribute/debt. No one questioned why the state does not even print the paper and therefore spare the people the monstrous tribute load.

To summarize: With the sovereignty over their own money producing Hitler created prosperity and growth, without price increase and without inflation. Today, the world finance manages, with the sovereignty over our money, poverty and inflation but does not want us to see that we must unfortunately soon feel it.

And so the terrible world finance system, the Fed remains intact, we are held, with the help of the biggest lies in human history preventing us from studying Adolf Hitler’s economic policies. Professor Michael Hudson, who teaches at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, explained in no uncertain terms that Wall Street was responsible for the imposition of German historical lies. Hudson: “You can not in Germany teach history as it was, without being fired. … The whole theory of debt policy was then developed by Wall Street. Suddenly you gave the Germans a false story. Consider the German school books, and the propaganda of the banks, month after month, year after year. “[13]

And the highly respected Russian historian and former Soviet Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, Valentin Falin, replied on 16 September 2014 in a panel discussion on Russian state television, on the question of whether he with the official history that is taught in schools and universities in Russia was dissatisfied, he replied as follows: “I am not satisfied in principal with the official version of history, both the 20th and 19th century. … The historian can only successfully tackle their task when they are concentrating on facts, only facts and all of the facts. So we must consider events as a whole, we must look closely when the second world war really began and weather it was a continuation of the first world war in reality.”

by Mike Strobach the National Conscience

By the way, from 30.1% in 1932, the unemployment rate in Germany went to 2.1% in 1938: 0% interest loans were given for residential housing; not only that, the principal debt was forgiven 25% per child born, so after 4 children born the entire loan was cancelled and no more payments were made. There was never a financial crisis in Germany in the 30s. In order to stimulate the economy, it was necessary to have the nerve to invest money that the government did not really have, rather than wait with folded arms and an empty head for the economy to revive by itself.

Before the end of 1933 even, Germany had succeeded in building 202,119 housing units. In 4 years the German people was provided with 1,458,128 new dwellings. All of this was made available by issuing loans to private sector housing at 0% interest. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were constructed each surrounded by a parcel of land 1,000 meters square. In 3 years, 91,000 such farm house were built as part of elevating and reinvigorating the working farming class. Again, all of this would be provided as part of 0% interest loans as an effective means of rebuilding the economy and providing jobs at the same time.

How Hitler launched a social revolution – Leon Degrelle


1) judea Declares War on Germany (Daily Express, London, 24. März 1933, S. 1)
2) “76 Jahre meines Lebens”, Kindler + Schiermeyer, 3. Aufl. 1953, S. 331
3) Benjamin Strong war maßgeblich an der Gründung der FED beteiligt. Er war Präsident von Banker’s Trust und wurde 1914 zum ersten Präsidenten der Federal Reserve Bank of New York (damals die FED) bestellt. Strong war getrieben von dem Verlangen, die Verbündeten der USA im Krieg gegen das Deutsche Reich zu unterstützen. Strongs Anliegen war es, die USA zur dominierenden Finanzmacht in der Welt zu machen, indem er mit der FED in die internationale Politik eingriff.
4) BRITISH FINANCIAL WARFARE: 1929; 1931- 33, HOW THE CITY OF LONDON CREATED THE GREAT DEPRESSION, von Webster G. Tarpley, December, 1996 (questionable zionist if you ask me)
5) James Turk, GoldMoney, sott.net, 30.06.2012
6) Spiegel.de, 10.11.2006
7) A.N. Wilson, HITLER, 2012. “A short biography”.
8) “Das Defizit im Staatshaushalt war minimal und lag selbst 1938 in der Zeit massiver Kriegsvorbereitungen, gemessen am Sozialprodukt, niedriger als heute. Zur Zeit der Kriegswirtschaft … lag die Produktion 1944 trotz Bombenkrieg und Rohstoffmangel höher als 1939. Diese Zahlen, die im Rest der Welt keine Entsprechung hatten, sind so aufregend, dass ihre Gründe aufgedeckt werden sollten … Können wir auf Erfolgsrezepte nur deshalb verzichten, weil Adolf Hitler sie angewandt hat?” (WirtschaftsWoche, Nr. 29/1991, S.110) Quellen für die Zahlen bezüglich Wachstum und Preisstabilität unter Hitler: WiSta 3/2009.
9) Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.10.2013, S. 4
10) Wirtschafts Woche 42/9.10.1992, S. 3
11) sueddeutsche.de, 05.06.2014
12) Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.10.2013, S. 4
13) RT (boom and bust), January 16, 2014


West & its Arab Stooges Are Terrified of a Genuinely Independent Yemen

By Dan Glazebrook

In his superb new book, Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us About the World, Professor Isa Blumi shows how the war on Ansar Allah (the Houthis) now underway is but the latest in 100 years of futile attempts to crush Yemen’s indomitable resistance.

Read more
Saudi-led coalition forces approaching Hodeidah international airport, June 13, 2018 © Nabil HassanUS senators urge Pentagon to fully disclose its role in Saudi-led war in Yemen

The latest chapter of this resistance began in the year 2000, when Yemenis of the northwest region in and around Sa’adah province found their ancestral homelands under threat from two sources: the Saudis, and the IMF.

In 1934, a treaty was forced on Yemen in which the historic Yemen province of Asir was annexed by Saudi Arabia. But whilst it was agreed the new border would be marked out (with stones), it was also agreed that the peoples of the region would be able to freely move across this border. This arrangement ended when a new treaty was signed in 2000, which replaced the stone border with walls, fences and checkpoints, and prevented the free passage of locals.

Just like the illegal Israeli wall, whose construction began at the same time, the Saudis were using ‘border enforcement’ as a means of separating indigenous people from their agricultural (and other) resources – and, also like Israel, they decided to create a “buffer zone” 10km deep into Yemeni territory in the process. Blumi notes that the zone conceded to the Saudis (not to mention the extra land that was then stolen) contained “some of the best farming and grazing land in Yemen, with considerable water resources available”.

At the same time, President Saleh was busily privatizing what land was left, in line with the demands of the IMF’s “structural adjustment”program. Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi emerged as the spokesman of the budding resistance movement that this theft provoked, and which soon claimed 3000 armed men for its cause. Its popularity was assured – after all, this was literally a life-and-death struggle over the right to subsist. The struggle led to the so-called ‘Sa’adah wars’ of 2000-2009, although, as Blumi points out, “The nature of the struggle soon expanded beyond Sa’adah itself, reviving old Yemeni irredentist claims to Najran, Asir and Jizan lent out in 1934 to Saudi Arabia.” Five rounds of armed struggle, ceasefire, and (failed) negotiations followed, but “with each confrontation with locals, the state created a larger group of antagonists who gravitated around the charismatic leadership of al-Huthi.”

Despite his ruthless crackdowns, President Saleh was utterly unable to repress the movement, which merely grew from strength to strength. With the protests of 2011, the resistance – now known as Ansar Allah – became even more of a significant voice for those Yemenis angry at decades of their country being looted by imperial interests under the guise of ‘neoliberalism,’ and facilitated by Saleh. Saleh, in power since 1978, had, says Blumi, overseen the transformation of the Yemeni state from a “mechanism for protecting rural Yemen from global capitalism” to a conduit for channeling Yemen’s wealth into the coffers of Western financial institutions.

Yet ultimately, even Saleh was not considered efficient enough at turning over his country’s resources to the West. Not only had he failed to subdue the spirited resistance in Sa’adah, but he had started to push back on some of the more obscene Western demands – such as a call by corporate lobby groups in 2010 for foreign investors to be exempt from tax altogether – correctly fearing that his rule might not survive such an orgy of obsequiousness.

But what really frightened the West was the growing levels of investment in Yemen by China, who had, since the early 2000s, pumped billions into developing Yemeni oil, infrastructure and fishing. The danger here, as everywhere, was that the existence of alternative sources of investment would give Yemen some leverage – and even independence – in its relations with Western corporate interests.

Yet the leading role of Ansar Allah, with their consistent focus on resisting Yemen’s political and economic subordination, derailed any attempts to turn the protest movement into a liberal charade. If Yemen’s immense resources were to be turned into liquidity for global capital at the rate required – and in the wake of the financial crisis, this had become all but an existential requirement – some deft maneuvering would be needed.

Enter Hadi – “the empire’s man,” as Blumi puts it. Vice President under Saleh for almost two decades, Hadi was a reliable regime stooge, but without Saleh’s growing impertinence. Ordained by the priesthood of global capital, his official mandate was to embark on a process of reconciliation and prepare the country for elections. Instead, he made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood which allowed him to sideline the country’s two main popular movements – Ansar Allah in the north, and Hirak, the separatist movement in the South, and proceeded to steamroller the country into membership in the WTO.

This process required the usual – and long discredited – “shock therapy” of unrestrained privatization. Hadi immediately privatized 11 of the 12 main sectors of the economy, with 78 of 160 “subsectors” listed for immediate “liberalization.” At the same time, he exposed Yemen’s private sector to instant “free market” competition from global multinationals, costing thousands of jobs. In other words, says Blumi, Hadi “proceeded to literally sell off Yemen to Saudi and Qatari interests…Under no legal or electoral pressure, Hadi’s interim government was the ideal vehicle to plunder Yemen.”

By 2014, when his so-called ‘mandate’ ended, the country had had enough, and Ansar Allah’s entry into Sanaa was met with little resistance. Since then, the movement has controlled territory comprising 80 percent of the population. The fact that it has been able to withstand over three years of devastating war, waged by a ten-country coalition directed and armed by the world’s most formidable military powers, should alone demonstrate that it is this extraordinary movement, not the so-called ‘President,’ who cannot even set foot in his own country, who have the real claim to legitimacy.

Putin goes ‘off-script,’ slams US ‘forces’ undermining Russian-American relations

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:20 P.M.) – Russian President Vladimir Putin went “off-script” while addressing a meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of the Russian Federation at the Ministry of Foreign affairs in Moscow on Thursday, severely criticising “forces” in the United States seeking to undermine Russian-American relations at their own expense.

“Going off script and speaking personally, I’d like to say a few words,” the Russian president said.

“We see that there are forces in the US which are prepared at the drop of a hat to sacrifice Russian-American relations for the sake of their internal political ambitions in America,” he said.

“They are prepared to sacrifice the interests of their own businesses” and “the interests of their allies in Europe and the Middle East,” as well as “their own national security,” Putin said.

“These people are neither despicable or pathetic,” he said referring to famous Russian satirists. “The opposite, they are quite powerful and strong if they can peddle, sorry for my expression, various hard to swallow stories to millions of people,” he concluded.

During his speech, Putin also stressed the need to “develop relations with the European Union” despite current political tensions. He also said that any country looking to try and include Ukraine or Georgia in the NATO sphere of influence “should think of the possible consequences of this irresponsible policy” because Russia would “respond in kind to any aggressive steps that directly threaten Russia.”

Putin goes ‘off-script,’ slams US ‘forces’ undermining Russian-American relations…

The speech comes days after Putin and US President Donald Trump held bilateral talks in Helsinki. Trump has faced harsh criticism back home after appearing to side with Russia instead of the FBI over Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections.

“Trump Calls Off Cold War II”

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Beginning his joint press conference with Vladimir Putin, President Trump declared that U.S. relations with Russia have “never been worse.”

He then added pointedly, that just changed “about four hours ago.”

It certainly did. With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency.

He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment.

In a tweet prior to the meeting, Trump indicted the elites of both parties: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway.

Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling.

NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense.

And there will be no Cold War II.

We are not going to let Putin’s annexation of Crimea or aid to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine prevent us from working on a rapprochement and a partnership with him, Trump is saying. We are going to negotiate arms treaties and talk out our differences as Ronald Reagan did with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Helsinki showed that Trump meant what he said when he declared repeatedly, “Peace with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

On Syria, Trump indicated that he and Putin are working with Bibi Netanyahu, who wants all Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias kept far from the Golan Heights. As for U.S. troops in Syria, says Trump, they will be coming out after ISIS is crushed, and we are 98 percent there.

That is another underlying message here: America is coming home from foreign wars and will be shedding foreign commitments.

Both before and after the Trump-Putin meeting, the cable news coverage was as hostile and hateful toward the president as any this writer has ever seen. The media may not be the “enemy of the people” Trump says they are, but many are implacable enemies of this president.

Some wanted Trump to emulate Nikita Khrushchev, who blew up the Paris summit in May 1960 over a failed U.S. intelligence operation — the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Urals just weeks earlier.

Khrushchev had demanded that Ike apologize. Ike refused, and Khrushchev exploded. Some media seemed to be hoping for just such a confrontation.

When Trump spoke of the “foolishness and stupidity” of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that contributed to this era of animosity in U.S.-Russia relations, what might he have had in mind?

Was it the U.S. provocatively moving NATO into Russia’s front yard after the collapse of the USSR?

Was it the U.S. invasion of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have that plunged us into endless wars of the Middle East?

Was it U.S. support of Syrian rebels determined to oust Bashar Assad, leading to ISIS intervention and a seven-year civil war with half a million dead, a war which Putin eventually entered to save his Syrian ally?

Was it George W. Bush’s abrogation of Richard Nixon’s ABM treaty and drive for a missile defense that caused Putin to break out of the Reagan INF treaty and start deploying cruise missiles to counter it?

Was it U.S. complicity in the Kiev coup that ousted the elected pro-Russian regime that caused Putin to seize Crimea to hold onto Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?

Many Putin actions we condemn were reactions to what we did.

Russia annexed Crimea bloodlessly. But did not the U.S. bomb Serbia for 78 days to force Belgrade to surrender her cradle province of Kosovo?

How was that more moral than what Putin did in Crimea?

If Russian military intelligence hacked into the emails of the DNC, exposing how they stuck it to Bernie Sanders, Trump says he did not collude in it. Is there, after two years, any proof that he did?

Trump insists Russian meddling had no effect on the outcome in 2016 and he is not going to allow media obsession with Russiagate to interfere with establishing better relations.

Former CIA Director John Brennan rages that, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki … was … treasonous. … He is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

Well, as Patrick Henry said long ago, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

Trump and NATO bureaucracy

JPEG - 82.3 kbConvened at the residence of the US ambassador in Brussels by President Trump, the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, was told off in public for his incapacity to maintain the political coherence of the Alliance.

Contrary to mainstream thinking, the NATO summit did not set the United States against the other members of the Alliance, but President Trump against the intergovernmental senior administration. For Thierry Meyssan, the problem is not whether or not we appreciate the personality of the tenant of the White House, but whether we support him because he is the elected representative of his people, or if we prefer the system’s bureaucrats.

Since 20 January 2017, the arrival at the White House of a believer in productive capitalism has shuffled the international order to the detriment of financial capitalism. Imperialism, which until now had always been blindly defended by US Presidents to the point where we identified it with US foreign policy, is now based on bureaucracies, and in the front line are the administrations of NATO and the EU.

Donald Trump, acting as he said he would during his electoral campaign, is very predictable. However, his capacity to change the system is absolutely unpredictable. So far, he has not been assassinated like John Kennedy, nor forced to resign like Richard Nixon [1], and continues on his path, one step forward, one step back.

The Western powers have forgotten this, but in a Republic, the unique role of elected representatives is to control the administrations of the states they govern. However, progressively, a form of « pensée unique » has taken hold of them all, transforming the elected members into senior civil servants and the states into administrative dictatorships. The conflict between President Trump and his predecessors’ senior civil servants is simply a tentative to return to normality. It is also a titanic battle comparable to that which opposed the two French governments during the Second World War [2].

Scalded by the NATO summit of 25 May 2017, during which Donald Trump imposed the addition of the war against terrorism to the objectives of the Alliance, and by the G7 summit of 8 and 9 June 2018, where Donald Trump refused to sign the final Declaration, the NATO administration attempted to preserve the objectives of imperialism.
- First of all, it signed a joint Declaration with its counterparts from the European Union on the evening before the summit, [3]. By doing so, it guaranteed the link subordinating the EU to NATO, instituted by Article 42 of the Treaty of Maastricht. This Declaration was signed by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. Tusk is of Polish origin, born of a family which worked in secret for NATO during the Cold War, while Luxembourg citizen Juncker is the ex-representative responsible for the secret services of the Alliance in his country (Gladio) [4]. The European senior civil servants know that they are in danger since ex-special adviser to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, came to Italy to support the creation of an anti-system government with the clearly-announced intention of dynamiting the European Union.
- Secondly, the NATO administration imposed the signature of the first draft of the Joint Declaration at the start of the summit and not at its end [5]. There was therefore no discussion of the Alliance’s anti-Russian doctrine.

Aware of the trap that had been set for him, President Trump decided to surprise his civil servants. So while all the participants expected a speech about the minimal financial contribution by the Allies to the common war effort, Donald Trump questioned the very foundation of the Alliance – protection against Russia.

Convening the Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, at the residence of the US ambassador in the presence of the Press, he observed that Germany nourished its economy with gas from its Russian « friend » while at the same time asking for protection against its Russian « enemy ». By pointing out this contradiction, he relegated the question of finance to second place, which, nonetheless, he did not abandon. Above all, a week before his meeting with President Vladimir Putin, he rendered null and void the long indictment against Russia contained in the Declaration at the beginning of the summit.

Contrary to the comments in the Press, this remark by President Trump was aimed less at Germany than at Stoltenberg himself. It underlines the negligence of the senior civil servants who administrate NATO without ever questioning NATO’s raison d’etre.

The confrontation between the White House and Brussels continues [6].

On one hand, NATO has just endorsed the creation of two joint command centres (at Ulm in Germany and Norfolk in the USA)… and the increase of its personnel by 10%. Meanwhile, the European Union has just created the « Permanent Structured Cooperation » (a capabilities programme which enjoys a budget of 6,5 billion Euros) and France has added the « European Intervention Initiative » (an operational programme). Contrary to the speeches about European independence, these two structures are submitted to the Treaty of Maastricht, and are therefore at the service of NATO. They add to the complexity of European bureaucracy, to the great satisfaction of its senior civil servants.

On the other hand, President Trump has discreetly opened discussions with his Russian counterpart with a view to withdrawing both Russian and NATO troops from their front-line positions.

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

[1] Richard Nixon was certainly forced to resign because of his responsibility in the Watergate affair. But this only existed by the will of the informer « Deep Throat », namely Mark Felt, one of J. Edgar Hoover’s assistants.

[2] Because of the World War and France’s defeat, the National Assembly, meeting in the spa town of Vichy on 10 July1940, proclaimed « the French state », de facto cancelling out the Republic. This change of régime had been supported for a long time by anti-parliamentarian groups and parties. From this moment on, France was represented by two rival governments – the legitimate government of the Republic, in exile in London, and the legal government in Vichy. In August 1944, the government of the Republic was reinstalled in Paris by de Gaulle, while the state government continued in Sigmaringen, Germany, until April 1945.
The confusion between the French Republic and the French state is still current today, to the point where it is used indiscriminately to speak of the President of the Republic with the formal title of « head of state » and the title « head of the state ».

[3] “Joint Declaration on EU-NATO Cooperation”, Voltaire Network, 10 July 2018.

[4] « La guerre secrète au Luxembourg », par Daniele Ganser; « Luxembourg : Jean-Claude Juncker refuse de démissionner pour le Gladio »; « Gladio-Luxembourg : Juncker contraint de démissionner », Réseau Voltaire, 4 et 10 juillet 2013.

[5] “NATO Opening Summit Declaration”, Voltaire Network, 11 July 2018.

[6] Brussels is the headquarters of both NATO and the EU.

The Globalist Elite Fears Peace, Wants War

authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The announced meeting between Trump and Putin has already produced a good result by revealing the hypocrisy of the media and politicians. The meeting has been branded as the greatest danger to humanity, according to the Western globalist elite, because of the danger that “peace could break out between Russia and the United States”.

Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. The following so stretches credulity that sources will have to be cited and an exact quotations given to be believed.

A case in point is the following title:

“Fears growing over the prospect of Trump ‘peace deal’ with Putin”.

The Times does not here fear a military escalation in Ukraine, an armed clash in Syria, a false-flag poisoning in England, or a new Cold War. The Times does not fear a nuclear apocalypse, the end of humanity, the suffering of hundreds of millions of people.

No, one of the most authoritative and respected broadsheets in the world is fearful of the prospect of peace! The Times is afraid that the heads of two nuclear-armed superpowers are able to talk to each other. The Times fears that Putin and Trump will be able to come to some kind of agreement that can help avert the danger of a global catastrophe. These are the times in which we live. And this is the type of media we deal with. The problem with The Times is that it forms public opinion in the worst possible way, confusing, deceiving, and disorienting its readers. It is not by accident the world in which we live is increasingly divorced from logic and rationality.

Even if the outcome of this meeting does not see any substantial progress, the most important thing to be achieved will be the dialogue between the two leaders and the opening of negotiation channels for both sides.

In The Times article, it is assumed that Trump and Putin want to reach an agreement regarding Europe. The insinuation is that Putin is manipulating Trump in order to destabilize Europe. For years now we have been inundated with such fabrications by the media on behalf of their editors and shareholders, all part of the deep state conglomerate. Facts have in fact proven that Putin has always desired a strong and united Europe, looking to integrate Europe into the Eurasian dream. Putin and Xi Jinping would like to see a European Union more resistant to American pressure and able to gain greater independence. The combination of mass migration and sanctions against Russia and Iran, which end up hurting Europeans, opens the way for alternative parties that are not necessarily willing to Washington’s marching orders.

Trump’s focus for the meeting will be to convince Putin to put even more pressure on Europe and Iran, perhaps in exchange for the recognition of Crimea and the ending of sanctions. For Putin and for Russia it is a strategic issue. While sanctions are bad, the top priority for Moscow remains the alliance with Iran, the need to further strengthen relations with European countries, and to defeat terrorism in Syria. Perhaps only a revision of the ABM treaty and the withdrawal of these weapons from Europe would be an interesting offer for Putin. However, reality shows us that the ABM treaty is a pillar of Washington’s military-industrial complex, and that it is also Eastern European countries that want such offensive and defensive systems in their own countries, seeing them as a deterrents against Russia. Are they victims of their own propaganda, or are billions of dollars pouring into their pockets? Either way, it does not really matter. The most important point for Moscow will be the withdrawal of the Aegis Ashore ABM systems as well as military ships with the same Aegis system. But this is not something that Trump will be able to negotiate with his military leaders. For the military-industrial complex, the ABM system, thanks to maintenance, innovation and direct or indirect commissions, is a gravy train that too many interests intend to keep riding.

From the Kremlin’s point of view, the removal of sanctions remains necessary for the restoration of normal relations with the West. But this would be difficult to achieve, given that Moscow would have little to offer Washington in exchange. The strategists at the Pentagon demand a withdrawal from Syria, an end to support for Donbass, and a cessation of relations with Iran. There is simply too much divergence to reach a common position. Moreover, Europe’s sanctions against Russia benefit Washington, as they hurt the Europeans and thereby undermine what is a major trading competitor to the US. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) can be looked at in the same light, blocking US allies from doing business with Iran.

Putin will keep faith with his commitments to Syria and with his allies, unwilling to betray his word even for the recognition of Crimea. On the other hand, as already mentioned, the priority remains the removal of the ABM; and while Crimea is already under the control of the Russian Federation, Syria remains an unstable territory that risks propelling Islamist terrorism to Russia’s soft underbelly in the Caucasus. For Moscow, involvement in Syria has always been a matter of national security, and this certainly remains the same now, even with Donald Trump’s unrealistic offers.

It should be kept in mind that Putin is aiming for a medium- to long-term strategy in the Middle East, where Iran, Syria and the entire Shiite arc serves to counter Saudi and Israeli aggression and hegemony. This strange alliance has emerged as the only way to deter war and dial down the heat in the region, because the crazy actions from Netanyahu or Mohammad bin Salman are deterred by a strong Iranian military. Preventing a confrontation between Iran and Saudis/Israelis also means not making Tehran appear weak or isolated. Such considerations seem beyond the strategists in Washington, let alone in Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

While it is difficult to achieve a positive outcome from the meeting between Trump and Putin, it is important that there is a meeting in the first place, contrary to what The Times thinks. The media and the conglomerate of power that revolves around the US deep state fear diplomacy in particular. The same narrative that was proclaimed weeks before and after the meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un is being repeated with regard to Trump’s meeting with Putin.

Washington bases its power on force, both economic and military. But this power also rests on the posture assumed and image projected. The United States and its deep state considers negotiating with opponents to be wrong and counterproductive. They consider dialogue to be synonymous with weakness, and any concession is interpreted as surrender. This is the result of 70 years of American exceptionalism and 30 years of Unipolarity, has allowed the US the ability to decide unilaterally the fate of others.

Today, in a multipolar world, the dynamics are different and therefore more complex. You cannot always employ a zero-sum mentality, as The Times does. The rest of the world recognizes that a dialogue between Putin and Trump is something positive, but we must not forget that, as in Korea, if diplomacy does not bring significant progress, then the hawks surrounding Trump will again be in the ascendant. The tasks for Rouhani, Putin and Kim Jong-un are complex and quite different from each other, but they share in common the belief that dialogue is the only way to avoid a catastrophic war. But apparently, peace is not the best possible result for everyone.

Trump’s military drops a bomb every 12 minutes, and no one is talking about it

by Lee Camp

We live in a state of perpetual war, and we never feel it. While you get your gelato at the hip place where they put those cute little mint leaves on the side, someone is being bombed in your name.

While you argue with the 17-year-old at the movie theater who gave you a small popcorn when you paid for a large, someone is being obliterated in your name. While we sleep and eat and make love and shield our eyes on a sunny day, someone’s home, family, life and body are being blown into a thousand pieces in our names.

Once every 12 minutes.

The United States military drops an explosive with a strength you can hardly comprehend once every 12 minutes. And that’s odd, because we’re technically at war with—let me think—zero countries. So that should mean zero bombs are being dropped, right?

Hell no! You’ve made the common mistake of confusing our world with some sort of rational, cogent world in which our military-industrial complex is under control, the music industry is based on merit and talent, Legos have gently rounded edges (so when you step on them barefoot, it doesn’t feel like an armor-piercing bullet just shot straight up your sphincter), and humans are dealing with climate change like adults rather than burying our heads in the sand while trying to convince ourselves that the sand around our heads isn’t getting really, really hot.

You’re thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.

Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly out of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that’s not a typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn’t get into the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President George W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the international community.

Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen—countries the U.S. was neither at war with nor had ongoing conflicts with. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk that went something like, “Wait a second. We’re bombing in countries outside of war zones? Is it possible that’s a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) … Nah. Whichever president follows Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some sort) and will therefore stop this madness.”

We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it’s first waking up in the morning.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack Obama there were “563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. …”

It’s not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific violation of international law and global norms. It’s also the morally reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we’re doing and what the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report” warned us about. (Humans are very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we’d listened to “1984,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of the National Security Agency. If we listened to “The Terminator,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of drone warfare. And if we’d listened to “The Matrix,” we wouldn’t have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of plastic waste. … But you know, who’s counting?)

There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon’s daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention it, the underlying sentiment was, “Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while he’s OK’ing endless destruction. He’s like the Steve McQueen of aerial death.”

And let’s take a moment to wipe away the idea that our “advanced weaponry” hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it, “According to the C.I.A.’s own documents, the people on the ‘kill list,’ who were targeted for ‘death-by-drone,’ accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone strikes.”

Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five points just for spelling your name right.

But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush—it was child’s play. DeGraw again: “[Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by 30,000 bombs and 2 countries.”

You have to admit that’s impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.

However, we now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.

Trump’s military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.

He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that’s behaving like Lil Wayne crossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back, and are like, “What the f*ck did you just do? I was gone for like, a second!”

Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour—every hour of every day. That averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.

And which is more outrageous—the crazy amount of death and destruction we are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump’s flaws. They say he’s a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally accurate)—but they don’t criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them killing 98 percent non-targets.

When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget—as we saw with the $21 trillion—and you have a president with no interest in overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then you end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running out of bombs.

Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those innocent civilians from … farming? Think of all the goats that will be allowed to go about their days.

And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be “unaccountable.”

Journalist Witney Webb wrote in February, “Shockingly, more than 80 percent of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.’s own documents have shown that they are not even aware of whom they are killing—avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming all those in the strike zone as enemy combatants.”

That’s right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they’re enemy combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. … Want me to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.

This is not about Trump, even though he’s a maniac. It’s not about Obama, even though he’s a war criminal. It’s not about Bush, even though he has the intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven’t told a Bush joke in about eight years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I’ll get back into that.)

This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.

Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has gained some traction. Let’s get another one started: #121BombsADay.

One every 12 minutes.

Do you know where they’re hitting? Who they’re murdering? Why? One hundred and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away—in your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size popcorn at the movie theater.

We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response, there’s nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against humanity.

Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor, and activist. Dubbed by Salon as the “John Oliver of Russia Today,” Camp is the host of RT America’s first comedy news show Redacted Tonight, which tackles the news agenda with a healthy dose of humor and satire. Lee’s writing credits are vast, having written for The Onion, Comedy Central and Huffington Post, as well as the acclaimed essay collections Moment of Clarity and Neither Sophisticated Nor Intelligent. Lee’s stand-up comedy has also been featured on Comedy Central, ABC’s Good Morning America, Showtime’s The Green Room with Paul Provenza, Al-Jazeera, BBC’s Newsnight, E!, MTV, and Spike TV.

This article was originally published by Truthdig.