The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush:
From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.
Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine-talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.
… What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.
He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts – from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker [father in law of Prescott Bush]. Thyssen’s partners in crime were the father and [grandfather] of a future President of the United States [George Herbert Walker Bush]. (John Loftus, How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis: The Dutch Connection, Global Research, February 2002, edit by GR)
The American public is not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record has been carefully withheld by the mainstream media.
In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How the Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power, Guardian, September 25, 2004)
The more fundamental question is not whether Prescott Bush helped Adolph Hitler. From a historical perspective, what is important is how the rise to power of Adolph Hitler was supportive of US business interests in Germany.
The Guardian article was published on September 25, 2004 at the height of the US election campaign which led to the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on Tuesday November 2nd 2004.
Deafening silence. The US media provided no coverage of GWB’s family history. Had the American people known that the Bush family had links to Nazi Germany, John Kerry would have won the presidency in 2004 in a landslide.
Similarly, Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency in 1989 against George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, had this been revealed to the American people in the wake of the Nuremberg trials (1945-1949), Bush Senior would never have entered politics and his father Prescott Bush would never have become Senator.
Is there a pattern? Do you have to be a wealthy war criminal to accede to high office?
Prescott Bush had links to Nazi Germany, Bush Senior and George W. Bush had links to the Bin Laden Family…
What must be ensured to protect American democracy is that none of these “awkward truths” which reveal the crimes committed by prominent politicians be the object of media coverage. Needless to say, propaganda is essential to uphold the legitimacy of presidential candidates in the eyes of public opinion.
War Crimes. Crimes against Humanity
Nazi war crimes with the complicity of Wall Street and the Bush family?
US war crimes committed by Bush Junior in Iraq (2003), Bush Senior (the Gulf War, 1991), Is there a relationship?
What was the role of the late senator Prescott Bush in his dealings with Nazi Germany:
While the president’s [George W. Bush] father had dealings with the bin Ladens, his grandfather [Prescott Bush] made a considerable share of the family fortune through his dealings with Nazi Germany. Some have suggested that the Bushes’ assets have their ultimate source, in part, in the exploitation of slave labor at Auschwitz itself.
Loftus argues that this money—a substantial sum at that time—included direct profit from the slave labor of those who died at Auschwitz.
In an interview with journalist Toby Rogers, the former prosecutor said:
“It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.” (emphasis added)
Prescott Bush was by no means unique, though his financial connections with the Third Reich were perhaps more intimate than most. Henry Ford was an avowed admirer of Hitler, and together GM and Ford played the predominant role in producing the military trucks that carried German troops across Europe. After the war, both auto companies demanded and received reparations for damage to their German plants caused by allied bombing. (Bill Venn, A presidential visit to Auschwitz, The Holocaust and the Bush family fortune, WSWS.org, 5 June 2003)
Evidence of the Bush family’s links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior) and George W. Bush entered politics. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):
After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.
While Prescott Bush’s “company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with Nazi Germany.
In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001. (John Buchanan, op. cit)
Up until Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Wall Street was trading with the enemy. In the wake of Pearl Harbor, Standard Oil continued to sell oil to Nazi Germany through the intermediation of so-called “neutral countries” including Venezuela and Argentina.
We wrote earlier that Ford is getting out of the car business in the USA, suggesting that there was an inverse relationship between the price of gas and the size of light trucks, which is what SUVs and pickups are classed as in the rulebooks. But according to Dan Neil, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the reasons are more complex than that.
The original SUV, the Ford Explorer, took advantage of the fact that when the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules were brought in, they did not apply to trucks. This was changed, but they still have an advantage; Neil writes:
In 2011, the industry won a change in the EPA’s calculation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). The “footprint rule”—which refers to the area within the perimeter of the four wheels—calculates a vehicle’s fuel economy as a function of its size. The rule change effectively incentivizes building larger vehicles by holding them to progressively easier standards. As a result, the largest and most profitable vehicles also enjoy the lowest relative costs of compliance. The rule change also constituted a backdoor tariff on more efficient imports, but that’s another story.
Interestingly, so-called “crossover” vehicles that are built like cars (without frames) but are four-wheel drive are also considered light trucks, so they benefit from the footprint rule as well. And now that the EPA is rolling back the CAFE 2015 rules that the auto makers all agreed to when they took their bailout money, Ford doesn’t need the little fuel efficient cars to balance the consumption of the big profitable ones.
Neil notes that EPA secretary Pruitt justifies the rollback of the CAFE standards by saying that there is “consumer demand” for larger vehicles.
Really? Are hills steeper now? Are boats harder to tow? Are families larger, or pieces of 4×8 plywood? The latest generation of supersize vehicles offers little in the way of real-world advantages over its predecessors. In many cases it’s just more unused capacity….Automakers always say they just aim to give the customer what they want, but they never mention the billions in advertising and marketing spent convincing customers what they want. Just like in the 1990s, the industry is pushing larger vehicles precisely because they are profitable.
And because the USA doesn’t have standards for pedestrian safety like they have in Europe, they are also far deadlier; you are three times as likely to die if you are hit by a light truck as you are if you are hit by a passenger car. So between the increased pollution from the fuel consumption, particulates from the tire wear and the pedestrian and cyclist deaths, Ford and the other light truck manufacturers are going to be killing more people in more ways.
Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/cars/more-why-ford-getting-out-car-business.html
The Creepy Business Models of Google and Facebook
April 13, 2018
By Mencken’s Ghost
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent testimony in Congress proved one thing: that members of Congress are so idiotic that they can even make android Zuckerberg look good by comparison.
The idiots missed the fundamental problem with the business models of Facebook and Google: They’re creepy and intrusive.
Let’s start with Google.
To understand the Google business model, imagine going back in time prior to the Internet to do some research at a public library. (Note to millennials: a library is a place where books can be found.)
But this isn’t a normal library. It is a library that is operated in accord with the Google business model.
Upon entering the library, you are asked to show your library card. Then as you proceed to the reference section, a creepy-looking library employee follows close behind. As you open reference books, the creep looks over your shoulder to see what you’re interested in and writes notes on a notepad.
After you leave the library, the creep contacts advertisers to sell them the notes that he compiled on you, along with your home address. The advertisers then begin mailing advertisements to you.
The only difference between this imagined library and the actual Google business model is that all of this is done electronically by the actual business model.
Now for Facebook.
To understand the Facebook business model, picture a large community bulletin board at a meeting place of a large fraternal organization. (Note to millennials: That would be an old-fashioned bulletin board made of cork, in which notices are affixed with thumbtacks.) The board is intended for members of the organization to post photos and items of interest about themselves for the other members to see.
But this isn’t a normal bulletin board. It functions in accord with the Facebook business model.
When no one is looking, a creep in the employ of the fraternal organization takes information about you from the bulletin board and then sells the information to advertisers, along with your home address. The advertisers then begin mailing advertisements to you.
The only difference between this imagined bulletin board and the actual Facebook business model is that all of this is done electronically by the actual business model.
There is not much brilliance behind Facebook and Google business models, but there sure is a lot of creepiness and intrusiveness. The only brilliance is the ability to monetize the snooping and get people to accept it as normal. After all, the software to collect the data and sort it with algorithms is far from being the epitome of human intelligence, as evidenced by the type of people who gravitate to coding. It’s a different matter for the artificial intelligence behind self-driving cars and factory robots, or for the software needed to land a rover on Mars.
The employees and leaders of these firms are full of themselves and think they are on a sacred mission, but in reality, they are in a creepy business of snooping on people and hawking information to advertisers; that is to people who are also in the business of snookering the masses.
Come to think of it, they are no better than members of Congress.
“We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled and that Google draft, publicize, and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology,” reads the letter which was published by the New York Times on Tuesday.
It’s great that Google employees are protesting their company’s Pentagon AI drone research, but that’s hardly the only work Google does for militaries and law enforcement.
What about Google’s work with predictive policing contractors? What about the NSA?https://t.co/8UfdiGVeqc
— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) April 5, 2018
It goes on to describe Project Maven as a “customized AI (artificial intelligence) surveillance engine that uses ‘wide area motion imagery’ data captured by US government drones to detect vehicles and other objects, track their motions and provide results to the Department of Defense.”
It states that although Google Board of Directors member Diane Greene previously told staff that the technology would not be used to operate or fly drones or to launch weapons, it could still be used to assist in such tasks.
The letter also cites the “growing fears of biased and weaponized AI,” while stating that Google is “already struggling to keep the public’s trust.”
“This contract puts Google’s reputation at risk and stands in direct opposition to our core values. Building this technology to assist the US government in military surveillance – and potentially lethal outcomes – is not acceptable,” it says.
Marine Corps Col. Drew Cukor, who is part of the US government team working on Project Maven, said it “focuses on computer vision – an aspect of machine learning and deep learning – that autonomously extracts objects of interest from moving or still imagery.” He added that the only way to develop an AI system to fit the needs of the government is to have “commercial partners” working alongside Pentagon officials.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
“No need for a guardian’s permission. Saudi women are free to start their own business freely,” the ministry’s spokesperson Abdul Rahman Al-Hussein tweeted. He also used a hashtag which translates from Arabic as “No Need.”
Women in Saudi Arabia have traditionally been banned from working outside the home but rules have been relaxed in recent years. To start their own businesses, travel or enroll in classes, they had to ask permission from a male “guardian” – a husband, father or brother.
Hiring women is now a key part of Saudi Arabia’s plan to overhaul the oil-dependent economy, known as Vision 2030. The reform also aims to raise the proportion of Saudi women that are active in the workforce from 22 percent to 30 percent. Female unemployment in the kingdom stands at around 33 percent, compared to an overall rate of 12 percent.
“I believe this new approach will open the door to [women] in our homeland to highlight their talents and ideas and translate them into a realistic business with a worthy financial return,” Saudi law consultant Dima Al-Shareef told the Arab News.
“We are witnessing a new era in the empowerment of Saudi women, in the commercial sphere in particular,” she added.
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia’s passport office announced 140 jobs for women at airports and border crossings. It received 107,000 applications within a week while the job posting has been viewed more than 600,000 times.
Last year, the Saudi king issued a royal decree allowing women to drive cars and attend sports events. The move has been strongly opposed by some of the kingdom’s prominent clerics.
For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section