Typical Gher

Episode 16 Mongol Culture Before Genghis Khan

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

In 1215 the Battle of Beijing, in which Genghis Khan’s grandson Kubla Khan conquered China, totally reshaped global history, Armstrong uses this lecture to explore Mongol life prior to the great Mongol warrior’s rise to power.

Mongol nomads originated in the modern country of Mongolia near Burghan Khaldur. Claiming descent from the Huns, their language (Altaic) was similar to Turkish, Korean Japanese and languages used by the Tatars.

Organized by kinship clans, Mongols had a relatively egalitarian society which held  which kurutai (huge gatherings of related clans) to make major political decisions.

Because they had no written history, most of our information about Mongol culture comes from outside sources and The Secret History of the Mongols, published anonymously about 100 years after Genghis Khan died.

His actual birthplace of Genghis Khan was a closed secret area for eight centuries, only opened by the Soviets in the 1980s.

Living in portabe ghers, Mongol nomads migrated frequently to find pasture for their horses and other animals (camels, sheep, goats and yaks). Their diet consisted mainly of meat and milk, occasional supplemented by bleeding their horses when food was scarce.

Children learned to ride horseback at age four, and it was typical for clan leaders to own four horses.

Practicing a form of animism, they prayed to the spirits of rivers, mountains and forests, as well as a supreme god who manifested as open sky.

With no traditional craftsman, they traded (or raided) for tools, weapons and luxuries. Metal stirrups were especially prized. A few individuals were skilled in manufacturing wooden weapons, which were typically left behind in battle because carrying them made mounted Mongol warriors slower and less agile.

When Mongol tribes were attacked, it was typical for all the males to flee on horseback (encouraging the raiders to give chase). If fighting age men were absent from a settlement under attack, it was typical for the raiders to grab all the valuables and leave women, children and the elderly unharmed.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/12392969/12393002

Kit Klarenberg

September 27th marked the 25th birthday of Google. In commemoration, the technology giant issued a statement, thanking its users for their “curiosity” over the past two-and-a-half decades.

CEO Sundar Pichai said it was “an enormous privilege to reach this milestone, and we haven’t done it alone.” He credited his company being “what it is today” due to its employees, partners, and “most importantly, all the people who use our products.”

In reality, Google is what it is today – indeed, exists in the first place – due to funding and sponsorship from the CIA and NSA. That history has not only gone untold by the mainstream media, it has been systematically suppressed by the company, its founders, and the spying agencies involved over the past 25 years.

Plausible Deniability

In the early 1990s, the US intelligence community launched a daring initiative. In conjunction with leading universities and firms in California’s burgeoning Silicon Valley, spying agencies sought to perfect a means of tracking the activities of groups and individuals on the then-embryonic world wide web.

Simultaneously, a supercomputing revolution was rapidly pullulating, and the US surveillance state wasn’t prepared to sit idly by. The CIA and NSA among others wished to direct and influence the upheaval for their own ends, creating an online milieu facilitating their desire to collect and understand vast quantities of data on private citizens. In addition to laying the foundations of modern global surveillance, this collaboration helped launch a number of major companies of modern prominence. Among them, Google.

So it was in 1993, the US intelligence community launched Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS), a research and development program. The project was pitched to leading computer scientists at leading universities, including CalTech, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, in a whitepaper setting out the challenges the agencies faced, and what they hoped to achieve:

“Changing demands require the IC [Intelligence Community] process different types as well as larger volumes of data. Consequently, the IC is taking a proactive role in stimulating research in efficient management of massive databases and ensuring IC requirements can be incorporated or adapted into commercial products. The challenges are not unique to any one agency…Community Management Staff has commissioned a Massive Digital Data Systems Working Group to address the needs and to identify and evaluate possible solutions.”

To achieve these goals, the agencies, under the auspices the National Science Foundation (NSF), provided over a dozen grants worth several million each to teams at different universities. The goal was to identify and sort the ‘digital fingerprints’ of individuals and groups online, linking and ranking their queries in order of importance, deciphering any meaningful patterns that emerged from the data morass, and tracking their future digital trails.

If successful, any architecture grant recipients created in their universities would be passed to the private sector for scaling up. A vast number of tech companies of modern prominence got their ‘break’ in this manner. Ever since, the NSF has provided up to 90% of all federal funding for university-based computer-science research annually.

Talking Nerdy

One MDDS grant was allocated to a computer-science research team at Stanford. Its primary objective was crafting techniques for query optimization, using an approach known as ‘query flocks’. This was a specific allusion to the syncopated movement of birds in flight. The CIA and NSA believed groups of humans would behave the same way online – and wished to identify anyone who failed to.

The Stanford team was already on the US intelligence community radar, having previously received a research grant from the NSF and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which aimed to build a voluminous, searchable digital library via the internet. Among their number were two graduate students who’d made huge, pioneering advances in the field of webpage ranking and user query tracking, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

Research produced under both grants in time formed the very raison d’etre of the pair’s brainchild, Google – finding specific information from a vast data set. It was also exactly what the CIA and NSA hoped to create.

Throughout Google’s initial development, Brin regularly reported on the project’s progress to Dr. Rick Steinheiser and Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham. Neither were connected to Stanford. Steinheiser worked directly for the CIA\s internal Research and Development department, while Thuraisingham was an employee of US defense contractor MITRE Corp, leading research and development efforts for the NSA, CIA, US Air Force Research Laboratory and US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. She has written:

“Google founder Sergey Brin was partly-funded by this program while a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton, developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser and Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”

Lying via Omission

The allegation that the CIA assisted in the creation of Google in some way or other is almost as old as the company itself. As are the company’s vehement denials of such a relationship. In 2006, it was widely reported Google had a long-standing relationship with US intelligence agencies, receiving funding from the community along the way. A company spokesperson said the claim was “completely untrue.”

Moreover, the company’s officially sanctioned history makes no reference to the MDDS grant, despite acknowledging the NSF/DARPA grant. Likewise, Stanford’s Infolab entry on Google’s origins omits MDDS entirely, merely stating the “development of the Google algorithms was carried on on a variety of Computers, mainly provided by the NSF-DARPA-NASA-funded Digital Library project at Stanford.”

For its part, the NSF’s own article ‘On the Origins of Google’ similarly refers merely to DARPA. Meanwhile, a research paper authored by Brin and Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, an oft-cited account of how the pair created Google, makes no mention of MDDS whatsoever.

Were it not for Thuraisingham’s testimony, little public record of the MDDS grant awarded to Brin and Page would exist. One supporting source is Professor Jeffrey D. Ullman’s naming of Google as a product of the project’s research in a 2000 report:

“Last year, we mentioned two startups that developed from research under this and predecesor grants, Junglee Corp., bought by Amazon.com in 1998, applied information-integration technology to the Web. Google is a search engine company whose growth has brought it to the first rank, and is growing faster than any of its competitors. Its core technology, which allows it to find pages far more accurately than other search engines, was partially supported by this grant.”

Another is a 1998 research paper, naming Brin and Page as authors. It lists some of their most significant work to date, and refers to Brin as “partially supported by the Community Management Staff’s Massive Digital Data Systems Program, NSF grant.”

Neverending Story

The War on Terror was a veritable feeding frenzy for defense contractors, with the sector profiting to the collective tune of trillions. However, it wasn’t the only industry cashing in. Major household names in tech today, including Amazon, Google and Microsoft, all reaped billions from selling their tech and services to the Empire’s perpetual war machine. For example, Google’s Maven program used artificial intelligence to make drone strikes deadlier.

Via https://substack.com/notes/post/p-137545471

By Paul Homewood

Not A Lot of People Know That

Driving an electric car should be a win-win, saving money and the planet. So David* was shocked when the insurance on his Tesla Model Y came up for renewal, and Aviva refused to cover him again, while several other brands turned him away.

When David did secure a new deal, the annual cost rocketed from £1,200 to more than £5,000.

“My insurer was Aviva from July 2022 to July 2023, but when it was coming up for renewal, I received a letter stating that they would not be covering the Tesla Model Y any more,” David says. “I am a member of a Tesla UK owners forum, and lots of other people seem to be having the same issue.”

In the Facebook group, members share stories of horror renewal quotes, with increases ranging from 60% (up to £1,100) to a staggering 940% (a jump from £447 to £4,661, according to a screengrab shared by one driver).

“I spent weeks on every comparison site as well as trying individual insurers and specialist brokers, but either they wouldn’t cover the car or the quotes were £5,000 or more,” says David, whose only change in circumstance was three points on a licence.

Privilege, Vitality, Axa and the specialist broker Adrian Flux were among the brands he found were “unable to insure him at this time” before he nailed down a policy with Direct Line, albeit at a price.

“The best quote I could get was from Direct Line at £4,500,” he says, adding that the total cost exceeded £5,000 once the interest for paying monthly was included, “because who has got that kind of money in one go?

But it is not only owners of Model Ys – which with a starting price of about £45,000 was the bestselling electric car in the UK last year – who are finding that, like the government, insurers are wobbling about the cost of net zero.

Alex Gerlis, who bought a Smart EQ Forfour last year, had insurance from John Lewis Finance but, before the mid-August renewal date, it advised him it would not be able to offer a renewal because it was not insuring electric cars

It comes as all motorists face soaring insurance costs, with prices said to be at an all-time high. A recent cost of living bulletin from the Office for National Statistics revealed that the price of car insurance – which for many Britons is one of their biggest household bills – is up by 52.9% in the last 12 months.

However, this average masks bigger increases for electric car owners, according to Confused.com. Its figures, derived from quotes, show that insurance premiums for electric vehicles are 72% – or £402 – higher than this time last year, at a typical £959. Meanwhile, for petrol and diesel car drivers, the increase is 29%, or £192, taking the figure to £848.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

Via https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/10/02/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs/

By Paul A. Philips

Another manipulation or illusion of scientific claim is the use of so-called science by opinion poll. For example, during the COVID heydays, I saw a newspaper clipping in the window of a convenience store showing an opinion poll claiming that 75% of people thought that masks should be worn. This had no validity because science is not about opinion poll, it’s only interested in facts. Did these people in support have any idea of the ineffectiveness or counter-productiveness of wearing masks? – See link referring to question 7.

In another opinion poll, is eco-alarmism indoctrination at work when the results showed that over 50% of teenagers consider it will be the end of the world during their lifetimes?

Above – Corporate in-house research claims cereal had a greater nutritional value than beef. Abuses of science?

Abuse # 4. Scientific Research Governed by Public Relations

There are a number of cases where university scientific research is controlled and dictated by major corporate and government public relations offices. Research funding from these sources can be over 10 times the normal (highest bidder).

Take for instance nutrition research. This may be grossly misleading and biased favouring the corporation’s product: A corporate-sponsored published research paper claimed that its sugar laden diabetes threatening processed cereals Lucky Charms and Cheerios had a greater nutritional value than beef and eggs. Is this rating system grossly misleading? You decide. Article link here.

Abuse # 5. Data Manipulation

Corporate-sponsored pseudoscience has data manipulation down to a fine art to suit a favourable outcome.

[…]

Via https://www.inewparadigm.com/5-abuses-of-science-for-power-profit-and-political-gains/

Sketch depicting the migration of abiotic oil upwards from the mantle into reservoirs contained by non-porous rock.
Source: The Atlas Report

There are two basic theories for the origin of crude oil: biotic and abiotic.

The origin of petroleum or natural gas may seem like a strange debate to have but determining whether this fuel is a fossil fuel or not is important.

If these fuels are truly fossil fuels, then they are limited in supply and alternative energy resources would need to be created at some point.

If they are not fossil fuels and are created through some form of abiogenesis – a natural process from non-living matter – then the need to develop alternative fuels is diminished.

The biotic theory is that oil and gas drilled out of the earth come from the remains of plants and animals trapped underground millions of years ago.  These “fossil fuels” took aeons to form and we are using them up far faster than they can be replenished.

This fossil fuel theory is, however, just that – a theory. There are many features of the fossil-origin theory which still apparently puzzle some scientists.  So, what if the whole theory is wrong?

The abiotic theory is an opposing view that has substantial evidence to back it up.  This theory goes back centuries and includes as its prominent champions Dimitri Mendeleev, best known for inventing the periodic table.

While the chemistry is quite complex, environmental chemist Tristan Coleman wrote, the principle behind the abiotic oil idea is actually quite simple.

Carbon present in the magma beneath the Earth’s crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane and other hydrocarbons, with many chemically complex intermediate stages. Certain mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon-based rocks act as non-depleting catalysts to speed up the process.

Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure, it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane as well as hydrocarbons containing up to ten carbon atoms. Such experiments have been undertaken last century by Russian scientists as well as more recently in the US, and even more recently in Sweden.

The conditions in the Earth’s mantle would be sufficient for these small hydrocarbons to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil, for example. Moreover, the limited oxygen present in the Earth’s magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning up despite the intense heat and pressure.

The hydrocarbons of abiotic origin then migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.

Evidence Supporting Abiotic Theory

Some people have been deeply interested in oil and its origins but their advocacy of abiotic theory has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed aeons ago in massive pools deep within the earth’s core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth’s layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil fuel paradigm upside down.

Russian and Ukrainian Geologists

A 1996 paper by Dr. J. F. Kenney titled ‘Special Edition on The Future of Petroleum’ points out how predictions made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum “have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance.”

The hypothesis that petroleum originated from biological matter (fossils) “has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth,” Kenney wrote.

In his paper, Kennedy quoted Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, a strong proponent of abiotic theory and Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, as saying:

The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins.

The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200 [million] metric tons of recoverable oil and 100 [billion] cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty per cent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine.

Vladimir Kutcherov is a Swedish-based Russian geologist and a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm.  In 2009 he was a co-author of a paper published in the journal Nature Geosciences.

The idea that oil comes from fossils “is a myth … we need to change this myth,” Kutcherov said. “All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits.”

Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimated that 60% of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin. He said companies should drill deeper to find it.

Kitchka said oil may be found in all sorts of geological structures such as volcanic rock or deep-sea thermal vents where companies aren’t looking today.

Eugene Island

On Eugene Island, Louisiana, in 1995, it was reported that the oil fields were – perplexingly – refilling themselves after being depleted. The findings of Dr. Jean K. Whelan, part of a US Department of Energy exploration program, seem to support the abiotic theory to explain this. She found that the oil likely came from great depths, as abiotic proponents say.

In 1999, The Wall Street Journal reported:

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly – some say almost inexplicably – Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

The Great Oil Conspiracy

The late Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold championed the abiotic theory. He said that oil contains organic compounds not because it is derived from fossils but because giant colonies of deep-earth bacteria feed on deep hydrocarbon pools way down in the mantle.

He believed that the hydrocarbons we use come from chemical stocks that were incorporated into the Earth at its creation. Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, Gold said that the Earth is hugely well endowed with these hydrocarbons – hundreds of times more so than most geologists, oil companies or OPEC leaders believe. The general belief in scarcity that drives up gas prices and causes fears of inflation, Gold argued, is a mirage that has served vested interests among oil producers for decades.

Further reading:

• L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is not a fossil fuel; it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth, The Exposé, 29 September 2023
• Did the Bilderberg Group orchestrate the 1973 oil crisis? The Exposé, 5 September 2023
• The Energy Non-Crisis, Lindsey Williams, 19 March 1980

In 2012, author and writer Jerome Corsi published a book titled ‘The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American’.

In the book, he explained that the Nazis knew that oil is abiotic and that they had been making synthetic oil out of coal. They developed what’s known as the Fischer-Tropsch Process, equations which explained that the earth makes oil under intense pressure and heat deep within the earth on an ongoing basis, even today.

In an interview with Crosstalk America shortly after the release of his book, Corsi said that the Fischer-Tropsch equations explained that the earth at deep levels forms oil naturally. “It’s nonsense to think that oil is fossil fuel,” he said.

In the video above, Corsi explained that the biotic (fossil fuel) theory began by claiming that oil originated from dinosaur matter.  Then its advocates moved on to claim that oil came from matter from ancient forests. “Once that theory began to be abandoned, people said: ‘Oh, it’s plankton and other deeper biological material’ … this whole idea there’s kerogen, which is a pre-oil gummy-like substance that is in sedimentary rock that’s forming the oil, is nonsense.  It’s not the way chemistry works,” he said.

The Nazis realised that under intense pressure and heat, conditions which are in the mantle of the Earth, minerals that contain hydrogen and minerals that contain carbon in the presence of catalysts, such as iron oxide, will release hydrogen and carbon.  This will lead to the formation of hydrocarbon molecular chains that develop into the products we know as crude oil or natural gas.

“This is an ongoing process. It goes on all the time. It’s natural to the earth. And, in fact, our solar system abundantly produces various forms of hydrocarbons,” he said.

The “Peak Oil” theory is also nonsense, Corsi said. This theory started, Corsi said, when a Shell Oil chemist “took a napkin and drew a bell curve, a Hubbert’s curve, and said, basically, that we have a lot of oil, then we peak in the use of oil, then it runs out. But those predictions have never come true.”  Note that Corsi said this in 2012.  Also note that in 2020, AP News spuriously labelled him a “conspiracy theorist.”

Peak Oil, a hypothetical point when global oil production maximises and enters an irreversible decline, has been the holy grail of resource economics for decades.

According to Britannica, the first person to advance the Peak Oil theory publicly was Marion King Hubbert, an American geoscientist who worked as a researcher for the Shell Oil Company from 1943 to 1964 and taught geophysics at Stanford University and other institutions. In 1956, Hubbert presented a paper in which he depicted US petroleum production on a bell curve which predicted production peaking between 1965 and 1975 and then declining.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2023/10/01/great-oil-conspiracy-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel/

Yuri Rubtsov

The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out as a means to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany and its ability to control political processes in Central Europe.

[…]

The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference.

Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”,which then recommended H. Schacht in consultation with Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England.

In December, 1923, H. Schacht became Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial elites. 

In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with the stabilization of the German Mark.

To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan.

While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country.

The Weimar Republic

By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for:

“the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”

The consequences of this were not slow to appear.

This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”.

The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent  to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt [were indebted] , and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country would suffer complete bankruptcy.

Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country.

The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.

The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.

US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign

“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller’s “Standard oil”.

Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric”) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”.

“General Motors”, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”.

Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of  “Volkswagen”.

In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest  industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel Trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc.  were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.

As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks.

It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attaché of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances that Hitler was first introduced to German-American businessman Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, endorsed by significant financial support, while securing him ties and communication with prominent personalities of the British establishment.

Hitler was prepared in politics, however, whereas Germany under the Weimar Republic reigned, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the 1929 financial crisis.

Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the America’s stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of the Anglo-American financial establishment commenced.

The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the flow of “financial oxygen” to the Weimar Republic.

But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben”and Industrialist Emil Kirdorf (who was a firm supporter of Adolf Hitler), the Nazi party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated.

The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.

1932 Secret Agreement: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Nazi Party 

On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler and Franz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.

This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.

A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolph Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.

It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.

The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling elites in relation to the new Nazi government was very sympathetic.

When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments.

Moreover, after his  visit to the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht became once more head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the U.S. President and the big bankers on Wall Street, America allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.

In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with Montagu  Norman, Schacht also sought a British loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and cessation of payments on old loans.

Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 1930’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England.

Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the   Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which Times Magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”.

As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, America’s Standard Oil [owned by the Rockefellers] in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany  secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.

Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney”, “Douglas”, “Curtis Wright”, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard oil” invested – 120 million, General Motors- $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318

Jeremy Kuzmarov

Internationalist 360°

On September 9^th, The Economist ran a remarkable story entitled “Ukraine’s Assassination Programme: Its Agents Have Become Expert in Dark Revenge.”

It spotlighted how the Ukrainian Security Services (SBU)’s Fifth Directorate and Special Operations Forces (SSO) are running an assassination program across regions of Ukraine occupied or reintegrated into Russia and in Russia itself, and that some SBU agents are starting to believe that these programs have gotten out of control.

An unnamed SBU counter-intelligence officer is quoted as saying that it made him uncomfortable that “marginal figures” were being targeted in operations that were designed “to impress the president rather than bring victory any closer…clowns, prostitutes and jokers are a constant around the Russian government. Kill one of them, and another will appear in their place.”

The same officer noted that Ukraine’s assassination campaign was being “driven by impulse rather than logic,” and “risked exposing sources and the extent of Ukrainian infiltration into Russia,” adding that “our security services shouldn’t do things just because they can.”^[1]

These comments provide an incredible admission of an out-of-control assassination program, subsidized in effect by U.S. taxpayers, that is engaging in wanton violence and killing.

A historical parallel can be found with the CIA’s Vietnam Phoenix Program, an assassination operation designed to liquidate civilian officials supportive of the National Liberation Front (NLF), which also got out of control and was used to resolve private disputes.

The Economist, predictably, did not mention the CIA, though we know from Vasily Prozorov, a former SBU officer who defected to Russia, that the SBU was advised by the CIA since 2014, and that CIA employees have come to the SBU’s central office to plot secret operations.

A Ukrainian hit list on the Myrotvorets website is also now advertising itself as a CIA project based in Langley, Virginia, the location of the CIA’s headquarters.

The Myrotvorets site was launched just after the February 2014 Maidan coup backed by the U.S.

Former SBU Director Valentyn Nalyvaichenko said that Ukraine’s leaders decided that their policy at that time of imprisoning supposed Russian collaborators was “not achieving enough. Prisons were overflowing, but few were deterred. We reluctantly came to the conclusion that we needed to eliminate terrorists.”^[2]

Many of these “terrorists” were actually patriots who supported the legitimately elected government of Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014), who was deposed in an illegal coup backed by far-right nationalists that worshiped pro-Nazi figures like Stepan Bandera.

They also favored close political-economic and cultural relations with Russia, which had been firmly established over generations. Many were involved in peaceful protests against the post-coup order that were violently suppressed or supported legal political parties that were banned.^[3]

In eastern Ukraine, the “terrorists” supported the renegade Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, which were established after the people living in those republics voted for their autonomy in referenda. They voted that way because they did not accept the Maidan coup and were outraged by the passage of draconian language laws that were an affront to their culture.^[4]

The rights of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk were recognized under the Minsk peace accords, which representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics signed and which Russia supported, though which Ukraine viewed largely as a ruse to buy time to build up Ukraine’s military capacity to wage war, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted.

On August 31, 2018, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, was murdered, in a café where he was eating, after a bomb was set off by the death squads profiled in The Economist. (Zakharchenko’s bodyguard also died and 12 people were severely injured in the blast.)

A former mine electrician who staunchly supported the Minsk accords, Zakharchenko had been a compromise figure between the left-leaning and anti-establishment forces that led the Donbas uprising and the more conservative, pro-capitalist forces backed by the government of the Russian Federation.

Zakharchenko’s assassination coincided with that of other notable Russian-backed commanders in the Donbas, such as Mikhail Tolstykh (aka Givi), who was murdered by a flamethrower while he was working in his office, and Arsen Pavlov (aka Motorola), whose 2016 murder in an apartment complex bombing was falsely blamed on Russia in Western media outlets.^[5]

Yevhen Yunakov, the mayor of the town of Velykyi Burluk in the Kharkiv region, was another victim murdered by the SBU in a car bombing. The Economist reported that Yunakov was “one of dozens of people targeted in clinical operations” who were “shot, blown up, hanged, and even on occasion poisoned with doctored brandy.”^[6]

Ukrainian General Kyrylo Budanov was quoted in The Economist piece stating, “if you are asking about [creating a version of] Mossad. We don’t need to. It already exists.”^[7]

These comments provide a stunning rebuke to the pristine image that Ukraine has tried to cultivate given the ruthless reputation of Mossad, which has assassinated more people than any other intelligence service in the Western world—save perhaps the CIA with its drone and torture programs.

The parallel between Ukraine and Israel is that both countries feel they can get away with illegal practices because of the military backing and support that they get from the United States. A further parallel is that both are coming to be viewed more and more as pariah states among politically conscious citizens of the world—as they have both crossed over onto the dark side.

U.S. Intelligence Official Admits to Black Propaganda Operation Against Putin

The exposure of Ukraine’s assassination program in the mainstream media comes amidst the backdrop of the failure of Ukraine’s spring-summer counteroffensive, which has resulted in the demoralization of Ukraine’s army.

Maverick investigative reporter Seymour Hersh recently interviewed an intelligence official with access to up-to-date intelligence who said “it’s all lies,” in reference to claims of incremental progress in the counteroffensive. “The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going.”

The same official said that while believing Vladimir Putin’s decision to start the war was “stupid,” the Biden administration’s decision to wage a proxy war in response was “also stupid. And so now we have to paint him [Putin] black, with the help of the media, in order to justify our mistake.”.

These latter comments acknowledge the existence of a black propaganda campaign against Putin by the CIA along with British intelligence that the media has been central to.

CovertAction Magazine has previously reported on this campaign, which fits the pattern of past demonization campaigns targeting U.S. adversaries like Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicholas Maduro, Daniel Ortega and many others.

The accomplishments of the above leaders were all suppressed in the propaganda campaigns and supposed evil played up.

Putin fits the standard as a leader who has stood up to U.S. interests by strengthening national control over Russia’s economy following an era of foreign exploitation and looting under his predecessor Boris Yeltsin.

Putin has also increased the central authority of the Russian government and projected Russian power outwards, coming to the defense of the beleaguered people of Eastern Ukraine that were attacked by the Ukrainian military, with U.S. and UK backing following the 2014 coup that they orchestrated.

As I have analyzed elsewhere, the black propaganda campaign against Putin compares to that adopted against the German Kaiser during World War I, which helped whip the American public into a frenzy that led them to support U.S. intervention in the Great War—with dubious consequences that included the death of an estimated 100,000 American soldiers.

The current campaign against Putin has been so successful that many elements of the so-called left have embraced it and supported U.S. weapons supplies and covert military intervention in Ukraine.

However, the lies surrounding this campaign and delusions underlying U.S. policy in Ukraine are beginning to crumble.

More and more people are waking up to the Vietnam-like disaster that has been steadily unfolding—replete with Phoenix style terrorist operations that expose the true dark nature of the Ukrainian regime the U.S. has helped to prop up.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2023/09/30/ukraine-assassination-program-bears-parallels-with-the-vietnam-phoenix-program-and-israeli-mossad-operations-targeting-palestinians/

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy holds a news conference just after the House approved a 45-day funding bill at the Capitol in Washington, Sept. 30, 2023 ©  AP / J. Scott Applewhite

RT