WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
https://ia800302.us.archive.org/9/i...volution/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution.pdf
or
https://archive.org/stream/WallStre...ion/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution_djvu.txt
WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER
https://ia801901.us.archive.org/20/items/WallStreetAndTheRiseOfHitler/suttonhitler.pdf
or
https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetAndTheRiseOfHitlerByAntonySutton/Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler - By Antony Sutton_djvu.txt
The Naked Capitalist (The Naked Series Book 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Capital...34828951&sr=8-2&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
The Naked Communist (The Naked Series) (Volume 1)
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Communi...34828951&sr=8-3&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
The Naked Socialist
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Sociali...34828951&sr=8-5&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
Those Democrats and Their Private Jets
"THERE are objects or possessions that scream "I'm better than you" - items that remind the average Joe of a cultural and economic divide that cannot be crossed. It's a $10,000 bottle of wine, a Hummer, a real Rolex. This year's conspicuous object seems to be the private jet.
Once, this prized possession was associated with corporate executives and reclusive stars. Or with congressmen on a junket. There was nothing political, or at least nothing partisan, about them. But since October, when John Edwards was tweaked for flying on planes borrowed from Archer Daniels Midland and other companies, they have become what conservatives have portrayed as symbols of liberal hypocrisy, much as the Volvo was a generation ago. The argument is: these people pretend to be "of the people" or at least "for the people" but they are elitists who fly far above the rest of us.
When the leftist film maker Michael Moore used his publisher's plane on a recent book tour, for example, critics lambasted him for enjoying the corporate high life. The Hollywood activist Laurie David, the wife of Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," was labeled a "Gulfstream liberal" in an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly for condemning S.U.V. owners while flying around in private planes.
Arianna Huffington, a financial backer of anti-S.U.V. commercials, has also borne the brunt of criticism for traveling in a jet; and a supermarket magnate, Ron Burkle, is perhaps as well known for his eight-bedroom 767 as he is for the more than $1.5 million that he has given to the Democratic Party since 2000.
Republicans, of course, avoid the hassles of commercial flight at least as often as Democrats. The former chairman of Enron, Kenneth Lay, even flew on private planes to his company's bankruptcy hearings. But no one accuses Republicans and their wealthy supporters of hypocrisy, of being "Gulfstream conservatives.'' "Democrats get hit with a double whammy," said Bill Blomquist, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. "It's not just expensive and indulgent. It's also somehow against the principles of the party."
David Horowitz, a conservative purveyor of the hypocrisy accusations, says that the attitude is "everyone should ride bicycles, but we'll take the jets."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/weekinreview/15dame.html
China's Rich Lists Riddled With Communist Party Members
"Membership has its privileges, particularly in China where it’s proving to be a prerequisite for climbing the social ladder. The Forbes China 400 Rich list revealed a record number of 146 U.S.-dollar billionaires this year, compared to 128 in 2010. The growing ranks of the mega-rich in China are unsurprising in an economy that doubles in size every eight years. However, the fact that over 90% of the 1,000 richest people tracked by the Hurun Report are either officials or members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a troubling sign. A closer look at how wealth is actually created and distributed in China completely dispels the notion that its authoritarian model is beneficial for the majority of Chinese people.
In 2001, then-President Jiang Zemin stunned many observers when he announced that the CCP would welcome entrepreneurs as members for the first time since the Partys founding in 1921. What has been less apparent is Beijing’s efforts to reassert control over the economy from the mid-1990s onwards–a policy that was a direct result of countrywide protests that had threatened the Party’s grip on power in 1989.
The most important and lucrative sectors of the economy have been reserved for state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) through preferential policies and support that leaves private domestic firms at a heavy disadvantage. For example, during much of the past decade, around two-thirds of the countrys formal finance (mainly bank loans) was reserved for SOEs at discounted rates, rising to an astounding 90% from 2008 to 2010 before settling back to its current 80%.
The result has been the rise of the corporate state consisting of around 150 central and 120,000 local SOEs, controlling the lion’s share of the countrys wealth. About four million privately owned corporations, and tens of millions of small, informal businesses have been left to fight for the scraps. Consider the amazing statistic that the 150 centrally managed SOEs owned two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country, while their revenues amount to about half of the revenues generated by all Chinese firms each year.
Although many SOEs are publicly listed, the government still retains at least half and up to two-thirds of the equity in those companies. SOEs are under the control of the ministerial-level State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). The boards of directors and senior management are appointed by the SASAC in consultation with the CCPs Department of Organization. Not surprisingly, over two-thirds of board members, and three quarters of senior executives of SOEs are either CCP officials or members.
The problem with this state-led approach is that entrepreneurs and other businesspeople need the support of the Party, or better still, CCP membership to get ahead. This means that the country is divided into a relatively small group of well-connected insiders benefiting disproportionately while around one billion people have little prospect of sharing in the fruits of the country’s economic growth. A rarely noted fact is that 80% of China’s poverty reduction actually took place during the first ten years of reform from 1979 to 1989–before the Chinese corporate state reasserted its grip on the economy.
Since the rise of the corporate state, China has gone from being the most to the least equal society in all of Asia in terms of wealth distribution. By any internationally accepted measurement, inequality in China is worse than India, the U.S., and possibly even countries such as Brazil. The net incomes of over 400 million people have stagnated over the past decade, and absolute levels of poverty have actually increased over the same period. While SOEs have increased their revenues by 20 to 30% each year, mean household income has increased by a paltry 2 to 3%.
Almost all of Chinas richest people have made their money in state-dominated sectors, such as property and construction, resources, other heavy industries and telecommunications. This could be through preferential access to the best land (often seized illegally from citizens) for property developers, privileged access to below market rates of capital, or special access to raising capital or equity in listed SOEs. In almost all cases, those benefiting are CCP officials or members. It’s no wonder that there are now 85 million card-carrying CCP members with another 80 to 100 million on the waiting list to join."...
http://www.forbes.com/2011/09/14/china-rich-lists-opinions-contributors-john-lee.html
$40bn Putin 'is now Europe's richest man'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1573354/40bn-Putin-is-now-Europes-richest-man.html
The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought
Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
"Putin is believed to be worth between $40 and $70 billion, Bloomberg notes.
GDP per capita: $14,000"...
...Kim Jong Un, Leader of North Korea
"According to the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, Kim Jong Un has stored some $4 to 5 billion in bank accounts in other people's names around the world. The newspaper refers to reports by South Korea's intelligence services for its account.
GDP per capita: $1,800"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/richest-world-leaders_n_4178514.html
Fidel Castro lived like a king in Cuba, book claims
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
Castro the commie hypocrite who lives like a billionaire: He's posed as a man of the people. But a new book reveals Cuba's leader has led a life of pampered hedonism and a fortune as big as the Queen's
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ife-pampered-hedonism-fortune-big-Queens.html
Robert Mugabe eats a zoo for 'obscene' 91st birthday party
...Held a week after his birthday, the celebrations were described as "totally unethical" by wildlife conservationists, and "obscene" by members of the opposition.
"All the money that has been collected to bankroll this obscene jamboree should be immediately channelled towards rehabilitating the collapsed public hospitals, clinics and rural schools in Matebeleland North province," said MDC spokesman Obert Gutu."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...for-obscene-91st-birthday-party-10077805.html
Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
..."Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.
California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.
Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.
In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena's Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations -- which functioned as part of a closely-knit network -- published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics,
and propagandized for the Nazis.
Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863,
Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people married only other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported to the United States just asGregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenics advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.
In a United States demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early 20th century. Elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: Populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socioeconomic and biological kind -- and less or none of everyone else.
The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior -- the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.
Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Sectionof the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point No. 8 was euthanasia.
The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a "lethal chamber" or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, "Applied Eugenics," which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." "Applied Eugenics" also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."
Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At the Sonoma State Home, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or labia.
In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.
Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.
Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, but the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.
During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In "Mein Kampf," published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."...
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php
HAROLD GILLIAM
San Francisco
U.S., German eugenics
"Editor -- As an expert on German eugenics, I must object to Edwin Black's misleading claim in "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection" (Insight section, Nov. 9) that American eugenicists formulated the ideology that produced Nazi eugenics.
s I show in my forthcoming book, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), German eugenicists were promoting many of the same ideas before the Americans did (though the American eugenicists succeeded in getting these ideas translated into law first).
The Germans formed the first eugenics organization and founded the first eugenics journal in the world. American eugenicists were probably more influenced by German eugenicists than vice versa.
Black is right, however, to point out the parallels between the ideas of the American eugenicists and the Nazis."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/LETTERS-TO-THE-EDITOR-2548640.php
..."Lombardo sketched out his two-hour presentation, "Eugenics: Lessons From a History Hidden in Plain Sight."
As he explained it, it was around the turn of the last century when scientific thinkers, notably Sir Francis Galton, cousin of evolutionist Charles Darwin, began arguing that allowing the unfit to have children might weaken the human herd and should be controlled by law.
After Indiana passed a pioneering statute allowing state officials to sterilize those deemed unfit to breed, California enacted an even stricter eugenics law. California made it legal for state officials to asexualize those considered feeble-minded, prisoners exhibiting sexual or moral perversions, and anyone with more than three criminal convictions.
As Lombardo explained, by using the term "asexualization" instead of "sterilization," California's law went beyond ordering vasectomies in men or tubal ligations in women. California made it legal to castrate a man or remove the ovaries from a woman, permanently preventing reproduction.
Lombardo said California's asexualization statute passed unanimously in the state Assembly, drew only one dissenting vote in the state Senate and was signed into law by Gov. James M. Gillett in 1909.
It was amended at least twice, in 1913 and 1917, to shift the focus of California's eugenics program away from the castration of prisoners and toward the sterilization of insane asylum inmates.
"If you look at the numbers of people from 1909 through 1950 sterilized in California, it's something on the order of 19,000, evenly split between men and women," Lombardo said. "My guess would be most of those were not castration but were vasectomies or tubal ligations, which are a lot cheaper, faster and safer..."
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/State-s-little-known-history-of-shameful-science-2663925.php
https://ia800302.us.archive.org/9/i...volution/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution.pdf
or
https://archive.org/stream/WallStre...ion/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution_djvu.txt
WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER
https://ia801901.us.archive.org/20/items/WallStreetAndTheRiseOfHitler/suttonhitler.pdf
or
https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetAndTheRiseOfHitlerByAntonySutton/Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler - By Antony Sutton_djvu.txt
The Naked Capitalist (The Naked Series Book 2)
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Capital...34828951&sr=8-2&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
The Naked Communist (The Naked Series) (Volume 1)
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Communi...34828951&sr=8-3&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
The Naked Socialist
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Sociali...34828951&sr=8-5&keywords=the+naked+capitalist
Those Democrats and Their Private Jets
"THERE are objects or possessions that scream "I'm better than you" - items that remind the average Joe of a cultural and economic divide that cannot be crossed. It's a $10,000 bottle of wine, a Hummer, a real Rolex. This year's conspicuous object seems to be the private jet.
Once, this prized possession was associated with corporate executives and reclusive stars. Or with congressmen on a junket. There was nothing political, or at least nothing partisan, about them. But since October, when John Edwards was tweaked for flying on planes borrowed from Archer Daniels Midland and other companies, they have become what conservatives have portrayed as symbols of liberal hypocrisy, much as the Volvo was a generation ago. The argument is: these people pretend to be "of the people" or at least "for the people" but they are elitists who fly far above the rest of us.
When the leftist film maker Michael Moore used his publisher's plane on a recent book tour, for example, critics lambasted him for enjoying the corporate high life. The Hollywood activist Laurie David, the wife of Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," was labeled a "Gulfstream liberal" in an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly for condemning S.U.V. owners while flying around in private planes.
Arianna Huffington, a financial backer of anti-S.U.V. commercials, has also borne the brunt of criticism for traveling in a jet; and a supermarket magnate, Ron Burkle, is perhaps as well known for his eight-bedroom 767 as he is for the more than $1.5 million that he has given to the Democratic Party since 2000.
Republicans, of course, avoid the hassles of commercial flight at least as often as Democrats. The former chairman of Enron, Kenneth Lay, even flew on private planes to his company's bankruptcy hearings. But no one accuses Republicans and their wealthy supporters of hypocrisy, of being "Gulfstream conservatives.'' "Democrats get hit with a double whammy," said Bill Blomquist, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. "It's not just expensive and indulgent. It's also somehow against the principles of the party."
David Horowitz, a conservative purveyor of the hypocrisy accusations, says that the attitude is "everyone should ride bicycles, but we'll take the jets."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/weekinreview/15dame.html
China's Rich Lists Riddled With Communist Party Members
"Membership has its privileges, particularly in China where it’s proving to be a prerequisite for climbing the social ladder. The Forbes China 400 Rich list revealed a record number of 146 U.S.-dollar billionaires this year, compared to 128 in 2010. The growing ranks of the mega-rich in China are unsurprising in an economy that doubles in size every eight years. However, the fact that over 90% of the 1,000 richest people tracked by the Hurun Report are either officials or members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a troubling sign. A closer look at how wealth is actually created and distributed in China completely dispels the notion that its authoritarian model is beneficial for the majority of Chinese people.
In 2001, then-President Jiang Zemin stunned many observers when he announced that the CCP would welcome entrepreneurs as members for the first time since the Partys founding in 1921. What has been less apparent is Beijing’s efforts to reassert control over the economy from the mid-1990s onwards–a policy that was a direct result of countrywide protests that had threatened the Party’s grip on power in 1989.
The most important and lucrative sectors of the economy have been reserved for state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) through preferential policies and support that leaves private domestic firms at a heavy disadvantage. For example, during much of the past decade, around two-thirds of the countrys formal finance (mainly bank loans) was reserved for SOEs at discounted rates, rising to an astounding 90% from 2008 to 2010 before settling back to its current 80%.
The result has been the rise of the corporate state consisting of around 150 central and 120,000 local SOEs, controlling the lion’s share of the countrys wealth. About four million privately owned corporations, and tens of millions of small, informal businesses have been left to fight for the scraps. Consider the amazing statistic that the 150 centrally managed SOEs owned two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country, while their revenues amount to about half of the revenues generated by all Chinese firms each year.
Although many SOEs are publicly listed, the government still retains at least half and up to two-thirds of the equity in those companies. SOEs are under the control of the ministerial-level State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). The boards of directors and senior management are appointed by the SASAC in consultation with the CCPs Department of Organization. Not surprisingly, over two-thirds of board members, and three quarters of senior executives of SOEs are either CCP officials or members.
The problem with this state-led approach is that entrepreneurs and other businesspeople need the support of the Party, or better still, CCP membership to get ahead. This means that the country is divided into a relatively small group of well-connected insiders benefiting disproportionately while around one billion people have little prospect of sharing in the fruits of the country’s economic growth. A rarely noted fact is that 80% of China’s poverty reduction actually took place during the first ten years of reform from 1979 to 1989–before the Chinese corporate state reasserted its grip on the economy.
Since the rise of the corporate state, China has gone from being the most to the least equal society in all of Asia in terms of wealth distribution. By any internationally accepted measurement, inequality in China is worse than India, the U.S., and possibly even countries such as Brazil. The net incomes of over 400 million people have stagnated over the past decade, and absolute levels of poverty have actually increased over the same period. While SOEs have increased their revenues by 20 to 30% each year, mean household income has increased by a paltry 2 to 3%.
Almost all of Chinas richest people have made their money in state-dominated sectors, such as property and construction, resources, other heavy industries and telecommunications. This could be through preferential access to the best land (often seized illegally from citizens) for property developers, privileged access to below market rates of capital, or special access to raising capital or equity in listed SOEs. In almost all cases, those benefiting are CCP officials or members. It’s no wonder that there are now 85 million card-carrying CCP members with another 80 to 100 million on the waiting list to join."...
http://www.forbes.com/2011/09/14/china-rich-lists-opinions-contributors-john-lee.html
$40bn Putin 'is now Europe's richest man'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1573354/40bn-Putin-is-now-Europes-richest-man.html
The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought
Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
"Putin is believed to be worth between $40 and $70 billion, Bloomberg notes.
GDP per capita: $14,000"...
...Kim Jong Un, Leader of North Korea
"According to the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, Kim Jong Un has stored some $4 to 5 billion in bank accounts in other people's names around the world. The newspaper refers to reports by South Korea's intelligence services for its account.
GDP per capita: $1,800"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/richest-world-leaders_n_4178514.html
Fidel Castro lived like a king in Cuba, book claims
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
Castro the commie hypocrite who lives like a billionaire: He's posed as a man of the people. But a new book reveals Cuba's leader has led a life of pampered hedonism and a fortune as big as the Queen's
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ife-pampered-hedonism-fortune-big-Queens.html
Robert Mugabe eats a zoo for 'obscene' 91st birthday party
...Held a week after his birthday, the celebrations were described as "totally unethical" by wildlife conservationists, and "obscene" by members of the opposition.
"All the money that has been collected to bankroll this obscene jamboree should be immediately channelled towards rehabilitating the collapsed public hospitals, clinics and rural schools in Matebeleland North province," said MDC spokesman Obert Gutu."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...for-obscene-91st-birthday-party-10077805.html
Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
..."Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.
California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.
Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.
In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena's Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations -- which functioned as part of a closely-knit network -- published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics,
and propagandized for the Nazis.
Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863,
Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people married only other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported to the United States just asGregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenics advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.
In a United States demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early 20th century. Elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: Populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socioeconomic and biological kind -- and less or none of everyone else.
The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior -- the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.
Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Sectionof the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point No. 8 was euthanasia.
The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a "lethal chamber" or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, "Applied Eugenics," which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." "Applied Eugenics" also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."
Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At the Sonoma State Home, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or labia.
In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.
Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.
Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, but the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.
During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In "Mein Kampf," published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."...
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php
HAROLD GILLIAM
San Francisco
U.S., German eugenics
"Editor -- As an expert on German eugenics, I must object to Edwin Black's misleading claim in "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection" (Insight section, Nov. 9) that American eugenicists formulated the ideology that produced Nazi eugenics.
s I show in my forthcoming book, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), German eugenicists were promoting many of the same ideas before the Americans did (though the American eugenicists succeeded in getting these ideas translated into law first).
The Germans formed the first eugenics organization and founded the first eugenics journal in the world. American eugenicists were probably more influenced by German eugenicists than vice versa.
Black is right, however, to point out the parallels between the ideas of the American eugenicists and the Nazis."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/LETTERS-TO-THE-EDITOR-2548640.php
..."Lombardo sketched out his two-hour presentation, "Eugenics: Lessons From a History Hidden in Plain Sight."
As he explained it, it was around the turn of the last century when scientific thinkers, notably Sir Francis Galton, cousin of evolutionist Charles Darwin, began arguing that allowing the unfit to have children might weaken the human herd and should be controlled by law.
After Indiana passed a pioneering statute allowing state officials to sterilize those deemed unfit to breed, California enacted an even stricter eugenics law. California made it legal for state officials to asexualize those considered feeble-minded, prisoners exhibiting sexual or moral perversions, and anyone with more than three criminal convictions.
As Lombardo explained, by using the term "asexualization" instead of "sterilization," California's law went beyond ordering vasectomies in men or tubal ligations in women. California made it legal to castrate a man or remove the ovaries from a woman, permanently preventing reproduction.
Lombardo said California's asexualization statute passed unanimously in the state Assembly, drew only one dissenting vote in the state Senate and was signed into law by Gov. James M. Gillett in 1909.
It was amended at least twice, in 1913 and 1917, to shift the focus of California's eugenics program away from the castration of prisoners and toward the sterilization of insane asylum inmates.
"If you look at the numbers of people from 1909 through 1950 sterilized in California, it's something on the order of 19,000, evenly split between men and women," Lombardo said. "My guess would be most of those were not castration but were vasectomies or tubal ligations, which are a lot cheaper, faster and safer..."
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/State-s-little-known-history-of-shameful-science-2663925.php
Last edited:
