An example of why people hate Obama:


Kentucky Fire Chief Refuses to Help Family of Stranded Motorists Because They Are Black




Follows up anti-black racial slur with an anti-Asian one.







90 COMMENTS
90 COMMENTS





















A
A
A

Email


Print











Photo Credit: via WDRB News

November 20, 2014 |




































A Kentucky fire chief is being criticized for racist comments after he refused to help a family of stranded motorists because they were black, and then suggested that an Asian-American television reporter did not understand English.

In a Bullitt County Sheriff’s deputy’s body camera recording obtained by WDRB, Southeast Bullitt County Fire Chief Julius Hatfield can be heard discussing a car accident on I-65 in September.

Hatfield first goes out of his way to provide assistance to Loren Dicken, who is white.

“You got a jack, ain’t you?” Hatfield asks the driver. “If you show me where them things is at, I’ll get my guys to start changing the tire for you.”

At first, Dicken turns down the offer, but Hatfield insists, saying, “It will save you a bill.”

Firefighters working for Hatfield even picked Dicken up from the hospital and took him back to the firehouse, where his car was ready and waiting.

But Hatfield treats the family of four black motorists completely differently.

“Well, I’ve got a family of four from Cincinnati, I got to do something with,” the Bullitt County deputy tells Hatfield over the radio.

“We ain’t taking no n*ggers here,” Hatfield replies, laughing.

Instead of offering to help driver Chege Mwangi, the deputy recommends that he call the AAA motor club.

Mwangi told WDRB that he noticed that the firefighters had provided assistance to other motorists, but his family wasn’t injured so he didn’t think much of it. However, he said that the sheriff’s department was helpful.

And when WDRB’s Valerie Chinn attempted to ask Hatfield about the financial management of Southeast Bullitt Fire Department at a town meeting, he suggested that she didn’t understand English, and threatened to have her arrested.

“Do you understand English darling?” he says in video recorded at the public meeting by WDRB cameras. “Do you understand English?”

“Turn that camera off,” Hatfield barks. “I’ve asked you that in a nice way. Buddy, call the cops and get them here.”

“I asked you once tonight if you understand English,” the fire chief adds after Chinn presses the issue. “I’m speaking English.”

Hatfield later told Chinn over the phone that he did not recall the remarks he made while responding to the accident on I-65 in September, but he was sure that it was a slip of the tongue. Chinn said that he also apologized for the way that he treated her at the town meeting.

Watch the video here from WDRB, broadcast Nov. 19, 2014.

Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father

November 21, 2014 by Michael Stone 1165 Comments


Christian conservatives win, children lose: Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses.

On Friday the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 to approve the biased and inaccurate textbooks. The vote signals a victory for Christian conservatives in Texas, and a disappointing defeat for historical accuracy and the education of innocent children.

The textbooks were written to align with instructional standards that the Board of Education approved back in 2010 with the explicit intention of forcing social studies teaching to adhere to a conservative Christian agenda. The standards require teachers to emphasize America’s so called “Christian heritage.”

In essence, Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks that portray Moses as an influence on the Constitution and the Old Testament as the root of democracy.

Critics called the whole process into question after publishers posted a number of last-minute changes to the textbooks yesterday, leaving board members and observers without time to figure out exactly what was in the approved texts.

According to reports, scholars did not have an opportunity to review and comment on the numerous changes publishers have submitted since the last public hearing. Some of those changes appeared to have been negotiated with state board members behind closed doors.

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller issued the following statement:


“What we saw today shows very clearly that the process the State Board of Education uses to adopt textbooks is a sham. This board adopted textbooks with numerous late changes that the public had little opportunity to review and comment on and that even board members themselves admitted they had not read. They can’t honestly say they know what’s in these textbooks, which could be in classrooms for a decade.”

In addition to Miller’s complaints about the process, the Texas Freedom Network issued a statement on today’s State Board of Education vote to adopt new social studies textbooks for Texas public schools, noting:


the new textbooks also include passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament. Scholars from across the country have said such claims are inaccurate and mislead students about the historical record.

Emile Lester, a professor of history in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Mary Washington, claim the textbooks contain “inventions and exaggerations” about Christianity’s influence on the Founding Fathers and, by extension, the formation of American democracy.

Credible historians warn the misguided attempt to suggest biblical origins for the Constitution would lead students to believe that “Moses was the first American.”

Scholars claim the decision to include the biblical figure of Moses in social studies education is part of a concerted effort by Christian extremists to promote the idea that the United States is a “redeemer nation” – giving a divine justification for supposed American exceptionalism.

The proposed textbooks are deeply flawed, and have no place in a public school classroom. It is wrong and factually incorrect to teach Texas public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible.

Despite the efforts of Christian conservatives to pervert and twist U.S. history to satisfy their religious superstition, the fact remains Moses was not the first American, and America is not a Christian nation.

Children deserve the truth.

(H/T Right Wing Watch)


Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/11/texas-approves-textbooks-with-moses-as-founding-father/#ixzz3K02PfmtO

6 reasons why religion does more harm than good

It's hard to argue with some of these...
Valerie Tarico, Alternet
Share 2K
304


0











Topics: AlterNet, Religion, Christianity, God, Atheism, Innovation News, News, Politics News

6 reasons why religion does more harm than good
(Credit: Jaroslav74 via Shutterstock)


This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

AlterNetMost British people think religion causes more harm than good according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as “very religious” 20 percent say that religion is harmful to society. For that we can probably thank the internet, which broadcasts everything from Isis beheadings, to stories about Catholic hospitals denying care to miscarrying women, to lists ofwild and weird religious beliefs, to articles about psychological harms from Bible-believing Christianity.


In 2010, sociologist Phil Zuckerman published Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. Zuckerman lined up evidence that the least religious societies also tend to be the most peaceful, prosperous and equitable, with public policies that help people to flourish while decreasing both desperation and economic gluttony.

We can debate whether prosperity and peace lead people to be less religious or vice versa. Indeed evidence supports the view that religion thrives on existential anxiety. But even if this is the case, there’s good reason to suspect that the connection between religion and malfunctioning societies goes both ways. Here are six ways religions make peaceful prosperity harder to achieve.

1. Religion promotes tribalism. Infidel, heathen, heretic. Religion divides insiders from outsiders. Rather than assuming good intentions, adherents often are taught to treat outsiders with suspicion. “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers,” says the Christian Bible. “They wish that you disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them,” says the Koran (Sura 4:91).

At best, teachings like these discourage or even forbid the kinds of friendship and intermarriage that help clans and tribes become part of a larger whole. At worst, outsiders are seen as enemies of God and goodness, potential agents of Satan, lacking in morality and not to be trusted. Believers might huddle together, anticipating martyrdom. When simmering tensions erupt, societies fracture along sectarian fault lines.

2. Religion anchors believers to the Iron Age. Concubines, magical incantations, chosen people, stonings . . . The Iron Age was a time of rampant superstition, ignorance, inequality, racism, misogyny, and violence. Slavery had God’s sanction. Women and children were literally possessions of men. Warlords practiced scorched earth warfare. Desperate people sacrificed animals, agricultural products, and enemy soldiers as burnt offerings intended to appease dangerous gods.

Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God.

Today, humanity’s moral consciousness is evolving, grounded in an ever deeper and broader understanding of the Golden Rule. But many conservative believers can’t move forward. They are anchored to the Iron Age. This pits them against change in a never-ending battle that consumes public energy and slows creative problem solving.

3. Religion makes a virtue out of faith. Trust and obey for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus. So sing children in Sunday schools across America. The Lord works in mysterious ways, pastors tell believers who have been shaken by horrors like brain cancer or a tsunami. Faith is a virtue.

As science eats away at territory once held by religion, traditional religious beliefs require greater and greater mental defenses against threatening information. To stay strong, religion trains believers to practice self-deception, shut out contradictory evidence, and trust authorities rather than their own capacity to think. This approach seeps into other parts of life. Government, in particular, becomes a fight between competing ideologies rather than a quest to figure out practical, evidence-based solutions that promote wellbeing.

4. Religion diverts generous impulses and good intentions. Feeling sad about Haiti? Give to our mega-church. Crass financial appeals during times of crisis thankfully are not the norm, but religion does routinely redirect generosity in order to perpetuate religion itself. Generous people are encouraged to give till it hurts to promote the church itself rather than the general welfare. Each year, thousands of missionaries throw themselves into the hard work of saving souls rather than saving lives or saving our planetary life support system. Their work, tax free, gobbles up financial and human capital.

Besides exploiting positive moral energy like kindness or generosity, religion often redirects moral disgust and indignation, attaching these emotions to arbitrary religious rules rather than questions of real harm. Orthodox Jews spend money on wigs for women and double dishwashers. Evangelical parents, forced to choose between righteousness and love, kick queer teens out onto the street. Catholic bishops impose righteous rules on operating rooms.

5. Religion teaches helplessness. Que sera, sera—what will be will be. Let go and let God.We’ve all heard these phrases, but sometimes we don’t recognize the deep relationship between religiosity and resignation. In the most conservative sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, women are seen as more virtuous if they let God manage their family planning. Droughts, poverty and cancer get attributed to the will of God rather than bad decisions or bad systems; believers wait for God to solve problems they could solve themselves.

This attitude harms society at large as well as individuals. When today’s largest religions came into existence, ordinary people had little power to change social structures either through technological innovation or advocacy. Living well and doing good were largely personal matters. When this mentality persists, religion inspires personal piety without social responsibility. Structural problems can be ignored as long as the believer is kind to friends and family and generous to the tribal community of believers.

6. Religions seek power. Think corporate personhood. Religions are man-made institutions, just like for-profit corporations are. And like any corporation, to survive and grow a religion must find a way to build power and wealth and compete for market share. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity—any large enduring religious institution is as expert at this as Coca-cola or Chevron. And just like for-profit behemoths, they are willing to wield their power and wealth in the service of self-perpetuation, even it harms society at large.

In fact, unbeknown to religious practitioners, harming society may actually be part of religion’s survival strategy. In the words of sociologist Phil Zuckerman and researcher Gregory Paul, “Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity.” When people feel prosperous and secure the hold of religion weakens.

Why We Have Sex




Some of the top-rated videos on porn sites provide the somewhat surprising answer.







3 COMMENTS
3 COMMENTS





















A
A
A

Email


Print









November 13, 2014 |




















I was sprawled across my bed, utterly wrecked, one morning many years ago. I'd just had amazing amazing phone sex with someone who, to this day, remains the most attachment-avoidant person I've ever met.
"Holy ****," I mumbled, made dreamy by ravishment. "Why was that so...good? We were on the phone."

"People need connection," he said simply. To my surprise, even he had known this, deep in some barely accessible part of his poor love-avoidant heart. And it had been a connection, an intense sexual communion that felt like something real had happened, even though no body parts had been touched or even seen.

This private connection between lovers--This is why we **** each other, even though there are plenty of promiscuous toys, pillows, and shower spouts that can do the job quite well. And, yes, it has to be ****ing (of some sort) because other human interactions--a nice chat in the bank line, for example--just won't do it.

Bearing witness to someone surrendering to their instincts--just being with them in the moment they lose themselves--is powerful. And to find someone you trust enough to fall into that void with them, well, it's a rare and beautiful gift.

On a less sublime level, I think it's also about being present in the Now and existing in a state of Flow, where you are wholly consumed with what you are doing. These are purportedly optimal (and often needlessly Capitalized) states for achieving happiness, inner peace and well-being. (See also: Ekhart Tolle's The Power of Now and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow). The orgasm is, like, a bonus to what's really going on.

Caitlin Moran describes this kind of focused-attention-on-another in her book How to Build a Girl about a teenage Brit who transforms herself into a badass music journalist/sexual adventurer:

"Here's the amazing thing about sex: you get a whole person to yourself, for the first time since you were a baby. Someone who is looking at you--just you--and thinking about you, and wanting you...You are in a room with a closed door, and no one else can come through it....It seemed to me that this was the real reason people wanted to **** so much. To get here. To get to this tiny, quiet place where there was nothing else to do but be with each other. Just to be two humans who had--for a short while--stopped wanting."

That idea fits nicely with what I discovered when I looked on PornHub the other day for the Top Rated Video of All Time. It wasn't "***** takes *** in her hair" or whatever I was expecting, but a sweet little clip of a sleepy, tousled-haired woman waking her lover up and giving him a blow job.

This top-rated video--OF ALL TIME!--showed two people portrayed as affectionate, familiar lovers happy to be waking up together in such a nice way. They weren't over-the-top porn excited, but just enjoying the everyday-yet-so-amazing swollen pleasures of taking someone you like in your mouth and/or being taken thus. In the world of porn, this was maybe about the squarest, most vanilla thing ever. And yet it was the most loved...of all time! (For that one day, at least. Today, alas, I can't re-find it. It has been replaced by "Hot blond maid having ****." Top-ratedness is apparently fleeting. )

The point of all this being: sexual connection, in whatever form it takes, is something we all seek, including the millions of surreptitiously wanking users of Porn Hub on that particular day. Even my old friend, dear attachment-avoidant boy, needed this intimacy, albeit from the distance that felt safe to him.

We all need to get this place, however we can--where you get to be two humans who have--for a short while--stopped wanting.

Go find your place.

doe sentence make sense is with out grammar?

AntiShortite, most women I date are taller than me

Leviticus 19:16 (CJB)


16 ... don’t stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake; I am Adonai.

anyone lived in a pretty how town





E. E. Cummings, 1894 - 1962
.


anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did.

Women and men(both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain

children guessed(but only a few
and down they forgot as up they grew
autumn winter spring summer)
that noone loved him more by more

when by now and tree by leaf
she laughed his joy she cried his grief
bird by snow and stir by still
anyone’s any was all to her

someones married their everyones
laughed their cryings and did their dance
(sleep wake hope and then)they
said their nevers they slept their dream

stars rain sun moon
(and only the snow can begin to explain
how children are apt to forget to remember
with up so floating many bells down)

one day anyone died i guess
(and noone stooped to kiss his face)
busy folk buried them side by side
little by little and was by was

all by all and deep by deep
and more by more they dream their sleep
noone and anyone earth by april
wish by spirit and if by yes.

Women and men(both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain

It is so cold here in Philly, I even saw some gangstas walking around with their pants pulled up

Even Charles Manson is getting married...and you're still single?

The 6 Types of Atheists and Non-Believers in America




Researchers polled non-believers to find out who abandons religion and why. The answers tell us a lot about religion and non-belief in America.







6 COMMENTS
6 COMMENTS





















A
A
A

Email


Print





November 17, 2014 |




































With the rising number of people in America—now nearly one in five—who have no religious affiliation at all, more people are asking questions about who exactly these unbelievers are. Not all of them identify as atheist or agnostic or a non-believer, but plenty do, and while there are many people offering to defend this particular community, few are willing to speak for them.

After all, unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are. In addition, the public image of atheists, who are a diverse group in reality, is being shaped by a handful of vocal white men—Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being the most famous—who, while well-respected in the atheist community, are not really representative.

Because of this, researchers at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga decided to poll and interview non-believers to find out what kind of people abandon religious faith and why. Based on this research, the project authors were able to divide non-believers into six basic categories, some of which may surprise you.

First things first: While atheists have a public image of being dogmatic and belligerent—an image that famous atheists like Bill Maher only end up reinforcing—researchers found that to absolutely not be true. Only 15 percent of non-believers even fit in the category of those who actively seek out religious people to argue with, and the subset that are dogmatic about it are probably even smaller than that. But that doesn’t mean that the majority of non-believers are just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs and not letting atheism affect their worldview. On the contrary, researchers found that the majority of non-believers take some kind of action in the world to promote humanism, atheism or secularism. Here is a breakdown of the types.

1. Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic. By far, the most common kind of non-believer, at nearly 38 percent. This group enjoys intellectual discourse, and while they’re often very certain about their beliefs, they’re not belligerent about it. These types often get mistaken for dogmatic atheists, however, because they have a tendency to join skeptic’s groups or otherwise find avenues to discuss non-belief with others. However, as researchers note, these non-believers “associate with fellow intellectuals regardless of the other’s ontological position,” so long as their friends “versed and educated on various issues of science, philosophy, ‘rational’ theology, and common socio-political religious dialog.” They like debating religion, but aren’t particularly interested in chasing down believers to give them a hard time.

2. Activist. This group also gets commonly accused of being dogmatic, but like the intellectual atheist, while they’re firm in their beliefs, they’re intellectually flexible and don’t prioritize attacking believers. Instead, they are motivated by a strong sense of humanist values to make change in the world, often making related issues—such as feminism, gay rights, or the environment—a priority over simply advocating atheism. This group also advocates for a better, more egalitarian atheist community, according to researchers: “They seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere." Because of this, they unfortunately attract a lot of abuse from a small but vocal minority of atheists who disapprove of linking secularism with larger social justice issues, but they do have the numbers on their side. They are the second biggest sub-category of non-believers, making up 23 percent of non-believers.

3. Seeker-Agnostic. This group, which makes up 7.6 percent of non-believers, are unlikely to be as critical of religion as most other groups. They prioritize not-knowingness. If you ever come across people saying, “I don’t know, but neither do you!” regarding religious belief, you’re dealing with a seeker-agnostic. They don’t really believe in anything, but they are uncomfortable committing to non-belief completely. They routinely get accused of intellectual cowardice by atheists, but researchers defend them, saying, “For the Seeker-Agnostic, uncertainty is embraced.”

4. Anti-Theist. This group tends to get conflated with all atheists by believers, but they only constitute 15 percent of non-believers. Like the Intellectual Atheists, they like to argue about religion, but they are much more aggressive about it and actively seek out religious people in an effort to disabuse them of their beliefs. While most atheists limit themselves to supporting a more secular society, anti-theists tend to view ending religion as the real goal. While plenty are aggressively angry, researchers point out this isn’t necessarily a bad thing: “For example, many of the Antitheist typology had responded as recently deconverted from religious belief or socially displeased with the status quo, especially in high social tension-based geographies such as the Southeastern United States,” and being combative with believers might help them establish their own sense of self and right to non-belief.

5. Non-Theist. They don’t believe in any gods, but don’t think about those who do very often. In such a religious society, simply opting out of caring much about religion one way or another is nearly impossible, which is why this group is only 4.4 percent of non-believers. “A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion,” researchers explain. In some skeptical/atheist circles, this group is disparagingly referred to as “shruggies," because they simply shrug when asked their opinion on religion. However, some quite likely are indifferent because they’re fortunate enough to live in a bubble where belief doesn’t matter one way or another.

6. Ritual Atheist/Agnostic. While you might think the anti-theist is the non-believer type that scares Christians the most, it turns out that it may very well be the Ritual Atheist/Agnostic. This group, making up 12.5 percent of atheists, doesn’t really believe in the supernatural, but they do believe in the community aspects of their religious tradition enough to continue participating. We’re not just talking about atheists who happen to have a Christmas tree, but who tend to align themselves with a religious tradition even while professing no belief. “Such participation may be related to an ethnic identity (e.g. Jewish),” explain researchers, “or the perceived utility of such practices in making the individual a better person." The Christian Post clearly found this group most alarming, titling their coverage of this study “Researchers: 'Ritual' Atheists and Agnostics Could Be Sitting Next to You in Church,” and giving the first few paragraphs over to concern that people in your very own congregation may not actually believe in your god. The atheism, it seems, might be coming from inside the house (of God).

While a lot of non-believers don’t really do much when it comes to acting on their non-belief, for those who are trying to create a more organized atheist community that takes up activism and offers community, there is plenty of reason to hope. The Intellectual, the Activist and the Anti-theist all, to one extent or another, discuss their non-belief with others or let their non-belief have significant impact on their activities. Taken together, they make up nearly three-quarters of non-believers. That’s a big group that has a lot in common, and perhaps that energy could be harnessed as a force of good.



Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments."

I believe the marketing of Neurontin as a psychotropic was banned by the FDA due the amount of suicides involved with its use. Of course, I do not advocate not doing anything that is helping, however I do advocate the Recovery movement, for example the National Empowerment Centre at Power2u dot something (sorry I forget)

take care

Wrong, NRA—Right-to-Carry Laws Actually Increase Gun Violence
New study definitely debunks gun nuts' crazy theory that more guns make us safer.
20 COMMENTS20 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

November 17, 2014 |




A new study from researchers at Stanford University debunks the oft-cited fact that more guns leads to less crime. In fact, the researchers found, the opposite is the case: right-to-carry laws are associated with higher rates of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder.

The results of the study are imperfect. Lead author of the study and Stanford law professor John J. Donohue III said, “Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades.” While they specifically found that right-to-carry laws had yielded 8 percent more instances of aggravated assault, that number isn’t set in stone because of a number of confounding factors (such as various drug epidemics). Regardless, Donohue says that 8 percent is a low guess–the reality could be much higher.

Still, the study’s findings are significant in that it pokes a hole in the gun lobby’s main argument. The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham provides context:

The notion stems from a paper published in 1997 by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who looked at county-level crime data from 1977 to 1992 and concluded that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Of course, the study of gun crime has advanced significantly since then ( no thanks to Congress). Some researchers have gone so far as to call Lott and Mustard’s original study ” completely discredited.”
One of the major critiques of the study came from the National Research Council, which in 2004 extended the data through the year 2000 and ultimately concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Or in other words, “More guns, less crime?

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, confirmed to the Huffington Post that the study accurately concluded that “right-to-carry laws increase firearm-related assaults,” although “the exact magnitude of that effect is uncertain.”

The Most Popular Drug in America Is an Antipsychotic and No One Really Knows How It Works
The pharmaceutical industry has flooded America with antipsychotics.

264 COMMENTS264 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

November 13, 2014 |
Does anyone remember Thorazine? It was an antipsychotic given to mentally ill people, often in institutions, that was so sedating, it gave rise to the term "Thorazine shuffle." Ads for Thorazine in medical journals, before drugs were advertised directly to patients, showed Aunt Hattie in a hospital gown, zoned out but causing no trouble to herself or anyone else. No wonder Thorazine and related drugs Haldol, Mellaril and Stelazine were called chemical straitjackets.

But Thorazine and similar drugs became close to obsolete in 1993 when a second generation of antipsychotics which included Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify came online. Called "atypical" antipsychotics, the drugs seemed to have fewer side effects than their predecessors like dry mouth, constipation and the stigmatizing and permanent facial tics known as TD or tardive dyskinesia. (In actuality, they were similar.) More importantly, the drugs were obscenely expensive: 100 tablets of Seroquel cost as much as $2,000, Zyprexa, $1,680 and Abilify $1,644.

One drug that is a close cousin of Thorazine, Abilify, is currently the top-selling of all prescription drugs in the U.S. marketed as a supplement to antidepressant drugs, reports the Daily Beast. Not only is it amazing that an antipsychotic is outselling all other drugs, no one even knows how it works to relieve depression, writes Jay Michaelson. The standardized United States Product Insert says Abilify's method of action is "unknown" but it likely "balances" brain's neurotransmitters. But critics say antipsychotics don’t treat anything at all, but zone people out and produce oblivion. They also say there is a concerning rise in the prescription of antipsychotics for routine complaints like insomnia.

They are right. With new names and prices and despite their unknown methods of action, Pharma marketers have devised ways to market drugs like Abilify to the whole population, not just people with severe mental illness. Only one percent of the population, after all, has schizophrenia and only 2.5 percent has bipolar disorder. Thanks to these marketing ploys, Risperdal was the seventh best-selling drug in the world until it went off patent and Abilify currently rules.

Here are some of the ways Big Pharma made antipsychotics everyday drugs.

Approval Creep

Everyone has heard of "mission creep." In the pharmaceutical world, approval creep means getting the FDA to approve a drug for one thing and pushing a lot of other drug approvals through on the coattails of the first one. Though the atypical antipsychotics were originally drugs for schizophrenia, soon there was a dazzling array of new uses.

Seroquel was first approved in 1997 for schizophrenia but subsequently approved for bipolar disorder, psychiatric conditions in children and finally as an add-on drug for depression like Abilify. The depression "market" is so huge, Seroquel's last approval allowed the former schizophrenia drug to make $5.3 billion a year before it went off patent. But before the add-on approval, AstraZeneca, which makes Seroquel, ran a sleazy campaign to convince depressed people they were really "bipolar." Ads showed an enraged woman screaming into the phone, her face contorted, her teeth clenched. Is this you, asked the ads? Your depression may really be bipolar disorder, warned the ad.

Sometimes the indication creep is under the radar. After heated FDA hearings in 2009 about extending Zyprexa, Seroquel and Geodon uses for kids--Pfizer and AstraZeneca slides showed that kids died in clinical trials--the uses were added by the FDA but never announced. They were slipped into the record right before Christmas, when no news breaks, and recorded as "label changes." Sneaky.

And there is another "creep" which is also under the radar: "warning creep." As atypical antipsychotics have gone into wide use in the population, more risks have surfaced. Labels now warn against death-associated risks in the elderly, children and people with depression but you have to really read the fine print. (Atypical antipsychotics are so dangerous in the elderly with dementia, at least 15,000 die in nursing homes from them each year, charged FDA drug reviewer David Graham in congressional testimony.) The Seroquel label now warns against cardiovascular risks, which the FDA denied until the drug was almost off patent.

Dosing Children

Perhaps no drugs but ADHD medications have been so widely used and often abused in children as atypical antipsychotics. Atypical antipsychotics are known to "improve" behavior in problem children across a broad range of diagnoses but at a huge price: A National Institute of Mental Health study of 119 children ages 8 to 19 found Risperdal and Zyprexa caused such obesity a safety panel ordered the children off the drugs.

In only eight weeks, kids on Risperdal gained nine pounds and kids on Zyprexa gained 13 pounds. "Kids at school were making fun of me," said one study participant who put on 35 pounds while taking Risperdal.

Just like the elderly in state care, poor children on Medicaid are tempting targets for Big Pharma and sleazy operators because they do not make their own medication decisions. In 2008, the state ofTexas charged Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen with defrauding the state of millions with “a sophisticated and fraudulent marketing scheme,” to “secure a spot for the drug, Risperdal, on the state’s Medicaid preferred drug list and on controversial medical protocols that determine which drugs are given to adults and children in state custody.”

Many other states have brought legal action against Big Pharma including compelling drug makers to pay for the extreme side effects that develop with the drugs: massive weight gain, blood sugar changes leading to diabetes and cholesterol problems.

Add-On Conditions

It's called polypharmacy and it is increasingly popular: Prescribing several drugs, often as a cocktail, that are supposed to do more than the drugs do alone. Big Pharma likes polypharmacy for two obvious reasons: drug sales are tripled or quadrupled—and it's not possible to know if the drugs are working. The problems with polypharmacy parallel its "benefits." The person can’t know which, if any, of the drugs are working so they take them all. By the time someone is on four or more psychiatric drugs, there is a good chance they are on a government program and we are paying. There is also a good chance the person is on the drugs for life, because withdrawal reactions make them think there really is something wrong with them and it is hard to quit the drugs.

Into this lucrative merchandising model came the idea of "add-on" medications and "treatment-resistant depression." When someone's antidepressant didn't work, Pharma marketers began floating the idea that it wasn't that the drugs didn't work; it wasn't that the person wasn't depressed to begin with but had real life, job and family problems—it was "treatment-resistant depression." The person needed to add a second or third drug to their antidepressant, such as Seroquel or Abilify. Ka-ching.

Lawsuits Don't Stop Unethical Marketing

Just as Big Pharma has camped out in Medicare and Medicaid, living on our tax dollars while fleeing to England so it doesn't have to pay taxes, Pharma has also camped out in the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Arguably, no drugs have been as good for Big Pharma as atypical antipsychotics within the military. In 2009, the Pentagon spent $8.6 million on Seroquel and VA spent $125.4 million—almost $30 million more than is spent on a F/A-18 Hornet.

Risperdal was even bigger in the military. Over a period of nine years, VA spent $717 million on its generic, risperidone, to treat PTSD in troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet not only was risperidone not approved for PTSD, it didn't even work. A 2011 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the drug worked no better than placebo and the money was totally wasted.

In the last few years, the makers of Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa have all settled suits claiming illegal or fraudulent marketing. A year ago, Johnson & Johnson admitted mismarketing Risperdal in a $2.2 billion settlement. But the penalty is nothing compared with the $24.2 billion it made from selling Risperdal between 2003 to 2010 and shareholders didn't blink. The truth is, there is too much money in hawking atypical antipsychotics to the general population for Pharma to quit.


Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp the Public Health (Random House)."

And by default, conservative republicans for all the others?

How do these states match up?


What Economic Recovery? More American Kids Are Homeless than Ever -- The 5 Worst States for Child Homelessness
2.5 million children are living in shelters, on the street, in cars, or doubled up in unstable housing.
2 COMMENTS2 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

November 17, 2014 |




For months, the financial press has joyously trotted out indicators of economic recovery: the official unemployment rate fell to 5.8 percent in October, the stock market is at record highs, the budget deficit has hit a record low. When 78 percent of voters said they were worried about the economy in midterm exit polls, some finance journalists puzzled over why Americans didn't appreciate how good things are these days. But as NPR and many others noted, the positive numbers don't square with many Americans' lived experience. Despite promising economic trends, millions of Americans can only find part-time work, many have grown discouraged and given up looking for jobs, and for those who have work, wages are barely keeping up with inflation, NPR notes.

Here's another stark reminder of how terribly many poor Americans are doing, the stock market's enviable performance notwithstanding. According to a new report by the National Center on Family Homelessness, 1 out of every 30 kids in America is homeless. That's 2.5 million children living in shelters, on the street, in cars, or doubled up in unstable housing with families or friends (who are likely suffering financial or housing instability as well).

"The impact of the Great Recession has really lingered for poor families despite other positive turns in the economy," Dr. Carmela DeCandia, the group's director, tells AlterNet. "Poverty is the driving factor behind family homelessness." In 2013, 45 million Americans lived in poverty, struggling to survive on an income at or below $19,530 for a family of 3, according to government statistics highlighted in the report. 7% of Americans live in extreme poverty, with an income less than $11,157 for a family of four.

DeCandia says families headed by young single women are particularly at risk, given a lack of employment opportunities for women with kids. "Parenting alone, homeless mothers have sole childrearing, homemaking, and breadwinning responsibilities," notes the report. Families headed by single women have some of the highest rates of poverty in the country.

Then there's the harsh disparity between the minimum wage in many states and the high cost of housing. "Sometimes there's a threefold difference between the minimum wage and the income needed to get a two bedroom apartment," DeCandia notes. "Put all that together, and it's not really all that surprising that more families are ending up homeless."

In addition to their financial hardships, a shocking number of homeless women have been traumatized by violence and rape, leading to rampant depression and anxiety disorders. Studies show that up to 90% of homeless women have been exposed to traumatic events such as sexual abuse as children and rape and domestic violence as adults. "These experiences profoundly impact a mother’s ability to become residentially stable, find jobs that pay livable wages, form trusting relationships, parent effectively, and have good long-term health outcomes," notes the report.

Unsurprisingly, homeless families do not have access to quality mental health care or others resources. "There's a lot of difficulty in families accessing health care," says Dr. DeCandia. "Not all have health insurance. There aren't always enough providers in communities and there's a stigma. People don't want to reveal their homelessness for fear of child welfare involvement."

Their caretakers' trauma, combined with the insecurity of homelessness, which in itself is traumatic, can lead to lifelong problems for kids. "The impact of homelessness on the children, especially young children, is devastating and may lead to changes in brain architecture that can interfere with learning, emotional self- regulation, cognitive skills, and social relationships," the report's authors note.

Family homelessness was not much of a problem in America until the 1980s, when cuts to social programs -- particularly low-income housing programs -- sent many poor families into the street. In the aftermath of Katrina 1.5 million kids experienced homelessness. That number dropped to 1.2 after some of those families were resettled. But by 2010, child homelessness had shot back up to 1.6 million kids, thanks to the Great Recession and the housing crisis, and rates of child homelessness continue to climb. According to the report, child homelessness surged by 8% nationally in 2013 alone. 31 states and the District of Columbia saw a rise in child homelessness between 2012 and 2013.

On top of all that, a discrepancy in the way the government measures family homelessness means many families get skipped over for housing help and other financial aid. Currently, HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) does not count families jammed into the homes of family or friends, despite the instability of these arrangements and the fact that they are often temporary (the Department of Education does count doubled up families as homeless.)

"We need to get on the same page when it comes to who's homeless," DeCandia says. "Otherwise, people who need aid are not eligible for some housing subsidies, vouchers, housing programs and services that go along with that. On top of that, there aren't enough subsidies and vouchers to go around. There's already a long wait list for families in the system that are eligible."

Meanwhile, DeCandia says individual states must start setting up interagency councils and creating state plans with concrete policy strategies to address the problem. "It's really a solvable issue," DeCandia contends. "Unfortunately, these kids have been quite invisible -- they haven't gotten the attention they need and their numbers continue to rise. We need to take decisive action."

The report concludes with the following recommendation:

The solution to child homelessness starts with agreeing as a nation that children living doubled-up in basements and attics with relatives and friends are homeless and need our help. The next step is to ensure an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing combined with essential services. To remain housed, mothers need employment opportunities that provide adequate income; this necessitates education, job training, transportation, and childcare.

Here are 5 states with the worst child homelessness problem, as rated by the report.

1. Alabama

There were 59,349 homeless kids in Alabama during the 2012-2013 school year. 35,239 were reported living without a home the year before. Alabama's minimum wage is $7.25, while a two bedroom apartment requires that tenants make $13.34 an hour. 27 percent of Alabama's children live in poverty.

2. Mississippi

Mississippi has 26,108 homeless children. Like Alabama, the state's minimum wage is $7.25. The state has even higher rates of child poverty: 35 percent of Mississippi's children are impoverished.

3. California

California has one of the highest number of homeless children in the country; 526, 708. At 8 dollars per hour, California's minimum wage is higher than in the South. But tenants must make a whopping $25.78 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment there.

4. Arkansas

21,704 Arkansas kids were homeless in 2013. Like much of the South, their parents can hope for a $7.25 an hour minimum wage tops, despite a two bedroom house requiring income almost twice that.

5. New Mexico

29 percent of New Mexico's kids live in poverty. Of those, 22,463 are homeless. The income required to rent a family-sized apartment is almost double the minimum wage.

Read the whole report here.

I think I am scared

When people ask me what I do for a living, I tell them that I work at Bed,Bath and Beyond. I am in the Beyond Department, if someone asks where something is I say: "its beyond me"

We've Been Stupefied: 4 Reasons Why the Republic Is in Serious Trouble




How the Republicans subvert democracy, and Democrats fail to do their job.

The American republic didn’t end this week because conservative Republicans captured the Senate. Conservative Republicans captured the Senate because the republic has been ending, as liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans surf four predatory new asymmetries in our national life – in security, in speech, in investment and in consumer marketing. These immense imbalances of power are submerging the elections, delegitimizing the liberal capitalist republic that promised to give security, speech, investment and marketing deeply different meanings and consequences than the ones they’ve acquired.

Nothing less than a transformation of American citizenship worthy of Nathan Hale, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. (who learned a lot from Gandhi), Vaclav Havel and, yes, Edward Snowden can free us from yet another spectacle of politicians who look like pinheads dancing on pins’ heads.

Security: When American civilian planes brought low the American superpower in 2001, they shook the dollar-driven premise that a massive, militarized national-security establishment can protect an open society. Yet instead of rethinking its premises and policies the “military-industrial complex” that Dwight Eisenhower warned against has recovered from the shock of 9/11 to become a global search-and-destroy directorate, nearly independent of democratic governance, that is making American society less conducive to the voluntary civic discipline, candor and trust that alone sustain a republic.

Certainly technological change is driving an Orwellian transformation of “homeland” security through surveillance. Henry Kissinger warns that “The Commander of U.S. Cyber Command has predicted that ‘the next war will begin in cyberspace’” and that it will be asymmetrical. But the prospect that our vast military could be paralyzed by hackers is making the national-security “cure” as dangerous as the disease of terrorism itself. Not only liberals but especially libertarian conservatives, who’ve long mocked the line, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,” understand the new “security” danger well.

No wonder that Edward Snowden, 29, a libertarian conservative, has sacrificed so much to warn us that with only a “policy switch,” any administration could use the National Security Agency’s massive database to chill individual Americans’ exercise of the most basic freedoms of speech and political action. Fear of such abuse is already inducing online self-censorship and chilling public debate, Snowden believes.
Snowden is impressing viewers of Laura Poitras’ documentary “CitizenFour” as a brave, levelheaded citizen reminiscent of Nathan Hale, who was similarly young when he was hanged in 1776 for defying the only “legitimate” government of his time, a monarchial, mercantile, multinational regime, on behalf of a nascent republic. Now Snowden is defying what that republic is becoming.
Predictably, some people consider Snowden a traitor, as some of Hale’s contemporaries did him. But just as Hale was reported to have said, with impressive composure and courage, before he was hanged, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country,” so Snowden has written that “the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like … me. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of … an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be.” That an analogy to Hale isn’t a stretch should be frightening in itself; more frightening is the growing asymmetry between what 18th century Britain imposed against Hale’s republican spirit and what it’s equipped to impose on everyone in its close cooperation with our NSA, as reported in the Poitras documentary and the Guardian.

Speech: An equally chilling asymmetry between citizen speakers and incorporeal speakers has grown not only with surveillance but also with recent jurisprudence that compounds a long trend of equating business corporations with persons. Rulings such as Citizens United reduce citizens’ sovereignty over markets, championed by both Roosevelts, to trivial “consumer sovereignty” within markets. Markets cannot be free and open, or their participants hopeful and prosperous, without appropriate, occasionally aggressive regulation. But today’s market managers, driven to maximize shareholder value at all other costs, unable to engage in long-term planning that might defer their short-term gains, destroy markets’ own contributions to society by buying off the politicians whom citizens elect to regulate them.

This is done by funding or otherwise abetting election campaigns that are prohibitively expensive because over-determined by advertisements on profit-driven media. The Supreme Court has intensified this asymmetry. Your speech isn’t free in any republican sense if a few donors and corporate managers have megaphones while you have laryngitis from straining to be heard: As if adding insult to injury in 2012, megaphones were denied to Occupy protesters against economic and social devastation caused by deregulated markets.

Investment: Another insult has been the pretension that the republic is in crisis because Aunt Millie wants Social Security and firefighters want pensions. They want them all the more now that predatory, casino-like financing has thrown millions of Americans out of their jobs and homes or degraded their wages and working conditions, thanks largely to asymmetries that are inherent in capitalism itself.

The early 20th-century British writer R. H. Tawney noted “the naïve psychology of the business man, who ascribes his achievements to his own unaided efforts, in bland unconsciousness of a social order without whose continuous support and vigilant protection he would be as a lamb bleating in the desert.” Writing in 1926, Tawney nicely anticipated investors’ reactions to the crash three years later and the admonitions of Sen. Elizabeth Warren right now.

The devastation of the American Dream is also partly a consequence of the global intensification of capitalist asymmetries: Transnational businesses that escape regulation and taxation force governments to compete with one another to attract them by scanting basic public needs even more than they already have by being bought off right at home. The genius of markets in focusing narrowly on investors, workers and consumers as self-interested individuals quickly becomes their stupidity in obliviousness to the social consequences of their gyrations. That’s why we need democracy to catch up with plutocracy by strong transnational regulation. Even in Nathan Hale’s time, Boston Tea Partyers defied the East India Company, one of the world’s first multinationals. Apostles of global prosperity such as Fareed Zakaria — and perhaps libertarians such as Edward Snowden — should revisit that page of both American and global history.

So should the apostles of markets to parts of the world that haven’t had them before, promising to empower the tribal and peasant people by commodifying homes and farms that have never had deeds that entitled them as capital. The political scientist Benjamin Barber warns in his book “Consumed” that unless strong political regulation “secures newly manifested capital against exploitation and abuse,” the economy that “discloses, legitimizes, and hence captures” formerly extralegal assets opens doors to predatory and exploitative encroachments on them.

Consumer Marketing: These daunting new asymmetries in security, speech and investment can be reduced only by millions of citizens as vigilant and mobilized as Snowden and Elizabeth Warren. Instead our body politic is so drained of candor and trust that we’ve let a court conflate the free speech of flesh-and-blood citizens with the disembodied wealth of anonymous shareholders, and we’ve let lawmakers, bought or intimidated, render us helpless against torrents of marketed fear and titillation that are dissolving a distinctively American democratic ethos the literary historian Daniel Aaron characterized as “ethical and pragmatic, disciplined and free.”

What might awaken and empower more citizens, instead of isolating, stupefying and discouraging them? The answer involves breaking out of the Catch-22 that runaway markets have imposed not just by disadvantaging and dividing their supposedly sovereign consumers but also by actively groping and degrading us.

The disease that today’s investors and managers embody and are imposing on the rest of us is their own incapacity to endure short-term pain for long-term gain – or to endure long-term planning and deferred rewards for short-term gratification. What today’s capitalism is becoming no longer permits it, and the chaos it sows makes democratic deliberation impossible and authoritarian non-solutions attractive.

Many over-stressed, over-stimulated Americans have adapted to living with variants of force and fraud that erupt in road rage; lethal stampedes by shoppers on sale days; elaborate (and intensively marketed) security precautions against armed home invasion; gladiatorialization in sports; nihilism in entertainment that fetishizes violence without context and sex without attachment; micro-aggressions in daily relations; commercial groping and goosing of private lives and public spaces in the marketing of ordinary consumer goods; and a huge prison industry to deter or punish broken, violent men, most of them non-white, only to find schools in even the “safest,” whitest neighborhoods imprisoned by fear of white gunmen who are often students themselves.

Stressed by this republican derangement, millions are spending billions on palliatives, medications, addictions and even surveillance designed to protect them from themselves. All those vials, syringes, security systems and shootings reflect the insinuation of what Edward Gibbon called “a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire …” until Roman citizens, having surrendered their republic to authoritarians in pursuit of security, “no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honour, the presence of danger, and the habit of command. They received laws and governors from the will of their sovereign, and trusted for their defense to a mercenary army.”

If the situation looks somewhat worse than it really is, that’s owing partly to profit-crazed media that sensationalize what’s worst and ignore what’s not. Still, some of us feel like the old Roman republicans, who, recalling their former freedoms, felt, as Livy put it, that “We have become too ill to bear our sickness or their cures.” At Davos, more than a few elite economic and strategic leaders survey the public wreckage they’ve caused and tell one another that, after all, the people must be ruled. But these would-be leaders can barely rule themselves.

If there’s a silver lining in Snowden’s having to spend all his energies fighting the state, it’s that his battle spares him the perverse compromises made by libertarian and free-market conservatives who can’t reconcile their sincere commitment to republican ordered liberty with their knee-jerk obeisance to unregulated market riptides that are dissolving republican virtue and sovereignty before their eyes.

Global capital has released the genie of power from the nationalist bottles in which democratic governments held some strength and, with it, some legitimacy. International diplomacy, once a velvet glove on the iron fist of state power, often now finds itself covering only the algorithmically driven nothingness of mercurial “shareholder value.” The United States military’s “Africom” may soon become a hired security service for that continent’s new Chinese investor/owners.

Meanwhile, in China, Africa and the United States, real citizens stand alone. But so it was when Nathan Hale defied a seemingly impregnable British empire (as would Gandhi, whom Winston Churchill dismissed as “that naked fakir”). So, too, when Martin Luther King Jr. and impoverished black churchgoers, unarmed and trembling, walked into Southern squares to face armed men and dogs in what even Justice Clarence Thomas once called a “totalitarian” system of segregation. So, too when a hapless playwright named Vaclav Havel and other activists in Soviet Eastern Europe defied a vast security state that few in the West had thought would give way. So, too, now, as Snowden defies what the American republic has become. Control of the Senate will matter as much as it should only when it reflects a convergence of Snowden-like libertarians and Warren-like liberals against Republicans’ perverse determination to subvert democracy and Democrats’ equally perverse dereliction of it.





Jim Sleeper is the author of Liberal Racism (1997) and The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York (1990).

Hitler’s Legacy: The Skorzeny Syndrome

By Peter Levenda on November 7, 2014 in News



Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Alber-183-25, Otto Skorzeny.jpg
Otto Skorzeny

“Terrorism, the Skorzeny Syndrome, is flourishing in the modern world, a reminder that Hitler and Nazism are still taking their toll more than three decades after the Third Reich collapsed.”—Glenn B. Infield115

The above quotation is from Infield’s biography of Otto Skorzeny, published in 1981, and the facts are as true today as they were then. Infield writes of the relationship that existed between Skorzeny and Yassir Arafat, for instance, and reminds us how Skorzeny advised the PLO and Al-Fatah from his base in Cairo. Infield knew and interviewed Skorzeny, and his biography of “Hitler’s Commando” is relevant to any contemporary study of the origins of modern terrorism.

What the world has been experiencing since at least 2001 and certainly for years earlier than the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has been what analysts refer to as “asymmetrical warfare” conducted by “non-state actors.” This is a technique that was developed to perfection by Skorzeny and the other leaders of what we have called ODESSA. The fact that the Western intelligence agencies turned a blind eye to Skorzeny’s activities has contributed to our inability to confront and defeat what we have called Islamist terrorism.

Arms dealing, covert international banking systems, targeted assassinations, terror bombings, the “strategy of tension” as it was described and defined by fascist terrorist Stefano della Chiaie, already existed as part of an underground terror network long before al-Qaeda was born.

After World War II, the American people thought that Nazi Germany had been defeated and the “war” was over; this book demonstrates that it never was. Instead, we were told that Communism was the new threat and we had to pull out all the stops to prevent a Communist takeover of the country. And so our military and our intelligence agencies collaborated with surviving Nazis to go after Communists. We refused to pursue worldwide right wing terror groups and assassins. After all, they were killing Communists and leftists; they were doing us a service. Like Hoover and the Mafia, the CIA refused to believe a Nazi Underground existed even as they collaborated with it (via the Gehlen Organization and the like).

The whole thrust of this book has been that American leaders in business, finance, media, and politics collaborated with Nazis before, during, and after the war. The West’s share in the “blame” for Al-Qaeda, et al, goes back a long way—before Eisenhower—to a cabal of extremist US Army generals and emigre Eastern Europeans who didn’t have much of a problem with Nazism since they feared Communism more. The Church, the Tibetans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Croatians—and the Americans—all felt that Communism was the greater danger, long before WW II. We enlisted war criminals to fight on our side. We appropriated the idea of global jihad from the Nazis and their WW I predecessors. We amped up their plan to weaponize religion and convinced Muslims, who hated each other, to band together to fight Communism. And when Afghanistan was liberated and the Soviet Union was defeated?

September 11, 2001.

Our cynical exploitation of religion has delivered a hideous stream of blowback that threatens the world still.

With the Nazi diaspora, the leaders of the Third Reich who had survived—who were either living underground, or were “denazified” and living freely above ground—constituted a government-in-exile. They remained in contact, reinforced each other’s beliefs, provided logistical support where possible, and kept the faith alive. They became involved in political and military intrigues around the globe, always with the goal of causing an imbalance in global power structures. Motivated by anti-Semitism, they collaborated with Arab leaders and guerrilla organizations in attacks against Israel, even going so far as to develop weapons systems in Egypt. They wrote propaganda against Israel and against Jews in general, repeating the same libels as before. They formed “neo-Nazi” groups in Europe, Latin America, North America, and elsewhere, cultivating a fawning new generation of followers on every continent. They support Holocaust deniers and right-wing extremists everywhere, even when they do not agree on all points. They found official positions within extremist governments in the Middle East and Latin America.

They also constitute an army-in-exile. They trained troops, instructed security forces in interrogation and torture, ran guns. They conspired to assassinate objectionable leaders in various countries, as well as those who betrayed their own network. They developed weapons of mass destruction long before the identical claim was laid at the door of Saddam Hussein.

They are “non-state actors” like Al-Qaeda, with the difference that they recently had a state. They conduct “asymmetric warfare” because they can no longer field battalions made of tanks and planes and submarines—and no longer really need to do so. Using terror as a weapon has proven to be far more effective. They move money silently and unseen through the world’s financial institutions. People like Schacht and Genoud wrote the book.

And they are loosely organized. Individual units possess a certain degree of deniability, something that newer terror groups have copied.

Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah, Jemaah Islamiyyah, Lashkar- e-Taiba, etc. are all children of ODESSA. The pact between Nazi anti-Semitism and Arab anti-Semitism was made with Hajj Amin al-Husseini all those years ago—and has been renewed every decade since with refinements as necessary to reflect emerging political realities in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. Skorzeny, al-Husseini, Genoud: one big happy family.

Emboldened by the defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan, aided and abetted by CIA, the militant forces of that remote yet deadly landscape turned their attention on the West. Repudiating Western decadence and liberalism, the Taliban enforced strict and even idiosyncratic interpretations of syariah law. Proponents of the Third Way, the Taliban were equally disgusted with Soviet atheism and Communism, and with American materialism and liberalism. Yet, they won the war against the Soviet invasion using asymmetric warfare. They were not able to field armored divisions, but had to wage a long and exhausting guerrilla war against helicopter gunships, tanks, and rockets.

Asymmetric warfare is usually defined as the conflict between two, dramatically unequal, forces. The war of the United States in Vietnam is given as one example, where the vastly superior (in terms of economy, numbers, and military strength) US forces fought the guerrilla forces represented by the Viet Cong, and the regular North Vietnamese forces represented by the Viet Minh. Often the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is given as another example, with the army and air force of the Israeli military opposed to the various guerrilla factions represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), plus those of Hamas and Hizbollah.

In most, if not all cases, of asymmetric warfare of the last hundred years or so, it has often been that of a powerful western country embroiled in a conflict with numerically and economically weaker non-state actors, which the current problem with Al-Qaeda and ISIL seems to represent. In these cases, the non-state actors are fighting for their own territory, language, ethnic identity, etc., often against a colonial or former colonial power, such as England, France, the Netherlands, Spain, etc.

There is one type of asymmetric warfare that is usually not recognized or included in studies of this phenomenon, however: it is when a powerful state loses its power yet continues to fight the forces that defeated it, using the same means as non-state actors— such as terrorism and assassination. There is to my knowledge only one such example in the modern world, and that is Nazi Germany.

As pointed out in studies of terrorism and asymmetric warfare, nationalist and ethno-nationalist groups are those most likely to engage in this type of protracted and violent conflict. That is not to say that leftist, “internationalist” groups do not, and have not, also been involved in asymmetric warfare; of course they have. The number of violent incidents involving leftist groups is actually larger than those perpetrated by nationalist groups; however the number of fatalities is substantially greater in those incidents perpetrated by the nationalists and ethno-nationalist, anti-colonial groups.

Nationalism is a hallmark of the type of terrorism we have come to experience in the post-World War Two period. It was actually given a form and an agenda by the Nazis who created the Werewolf concept: a stay-behind guerrilla force that would use asymmetric tactics to wage war against the Allies. This was an example of a state that refused to cease hostilities even after defeat.

Another type of asymmetric actor is the religious ideologue. As has been pointed out in studies of terrorism—especially since the events of September 11, 2001—this new type of adversary may not be identified with a single ethnicity or geographic territory. Even though the origins of the violent religious terrorist may be found in the post-colonial period, the nature of the conflict has changed considerably since then.

What many fail to realize is that the ideology of the Nazi Party— particularly as refined by the SS—was essentially a spiritual ideology. I have made the point elsewhere that the Nazi Party was a cult. To try to understand it as a purely political entity (in a modern, American context) is to make a grave mistake.

The Nazi network that was formed in the last days of the war and which has existed, in one form or another in the seventy years since then, is comprised of both a nationalist and a religious agenda. The Nazi Party has its origins in esoteric Aryanism, such as represented by the writings of ***** von List and Lanz von Liebenfels, as well as occultist groups such as the Armanenschaft, the Germanenorden, and the Thule Gesellschaft. These groups combined racist ideology with spiritual, mystical ideas and practices, some of which were adapted from more mainstream esoteric groups such as the Theosophical Society and the writings of its founder, Helena Blavatsky. The Social Darwinism that is one of the hallmarks of the Nazi regime is the “outer court” of the spiritual Darwinism that is clearly elucidated in Blavatsky’s works. What this means is that Nazism is just as much a spiritual philosophy as it is a political one.

Thus the basic components of the non-state actor in asymmetric warfare are present in the Nazi Underground (what we have been calling ODESSA). The terrorist acts perpetrated by this Underground are precisely those of the modern non-state actors with which we have all become familiar. The motivation for ODESSA runs parallel to that of “Islamist” terror organizations: a spiritual viewpoint that both organizations wish to impose on the world through the medium of terrorism, assassinations, and the like. Both ideologies are exclusive rather than inclusive; both are anti-Semitic; both are anti-American and deplore what they see as Western “decadence.” (One could make a very good case that Hitler’s objection to modern art, modern music and modern culture in general is virtually identical to the point of view of Islamist critics concerning the same.)

In addition—and this may be more important than it seems at first glance—many members of the SS and the Wehrmacht converted to Islam after the war, and found employment and residence in Muslim countries. In some cases, they actively supported Arab regimes in their opposition to the State of Israel by providing technical expertise, engineers, and training in interrogation, espionage, and related arts of war.

I believe this provides an important perspective into the current terrorist phenomenon, as it shows a continuity of purpose combined with tactical and operational methods that have their origin in the murky world of the first days of the Cold War—when a cynical manipulation of religion using non-state actors took place under the aegis of a decades-long and often poorly thought-out campaign of state-sponsored anti-Communism.

During the course of many years of research (from about 1968– present) into the origins of religious violence I have come into personal contact with both the PLO and Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI), as well as with North American racialist and white supremacist groups such as the National Renaissance Party (NRP) and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) among others, as well as with the South American Nazi sanctuary and nexus for Operation Condor, Colonia Dignidad in Chile. I lived in Malaysia for seven years, in an apartment that was only a few blocks from where the 9/11 attacks were originally discussed, and in Indonesia where I met Abu Bakr Ba’asyir, the architect of the Bali Bombings in 2002, and founder of JI.

I have also been on intimate terms with a number of conventional and non-conventional religious organizations spanning various forms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as Buddhism, the religious of India, Afro-Caribbean religions, and modern so called “New Age” movements such as Wicca, Satanism, and the secret societies of Western Europe and America. I believe it is this unique perspective on both religion and politics that informs my thesis that the choices we made as a country in the immediate post-war period have resulted in the current state of affairs where terrorism, “Islamism,” and other forms of asymmetric conflict are concerned.

To quote Infield again:


It has become evident during recent years that major wars in the nuclear age will be fewer than those in the past but individual and group terrorism will increase steadily. Skorzeny and his commandos during the Third Reich and Skorzeny and his ODESSA members during the postwar years were leaders in modern day terroristic tactics. Skorzeny’s followers and students adhere to his teachings today.116

It was Skorzeny and his colleagues in ODESSA who, as early as 1950 and the outbreak of the Korean War, proposed forming a bloc of non-aligned nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to stand up to America and Russia: exactly the same position taken by Sukarno five years later. The position of the Islamist theoreticians of today is not dissimilar: the difference is that the Soviet Union has already fallen.

While China may develop into a threat, Uzbek and other activists in western China are creating another Muslim front with the intention of destabilizing that regime. Seen as both Communist and Capitalist, China could be an interesting adversary for the Third Way position of contemporary Nazism. China is at least as nationalist as its former enemy, Japan.

As for Japan itself, it has recovered remarkably since the devastation of the Second World War and two atomic bombs. Japan and Germany are economic powerhouses. Even though Japan has been struggling in recent years, it is still one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

As for Germany, it has developed exactly as planned so long ago. It is reunited and the leader of the European Union, easily its most powerful and influential member. It is true that growing numbers of immigrants from Eastern Europe and especially Muslim immigrants from Turkey, the Balkans, and North Africa, are providing an environment where questions concerning German identity and responsibility are being raised. But as German cities have been rebuilt, industrial growth is strong, and memories of the war are fading with each new generation, it is doubtful whether any serious soul-searching will occur. With tensions rising in Europe over the fate of Ukraine and the Russian annexation of Crimea, it may be that the world will look to Germany again to provide the buffer between a newly-aroused Russia and the much more vulnerable nations of Eastern and Southern Europe.

It is doubtful whether the world will once again be confronted with jack-booted storm troopers wearing swastika armbands, singing the Horst Wessel song; but that does not mean that Nazism has disappeared. It has merely changed uniforms and moved to a different theater of operations. I do not wish to deprive the Islamic groups of agency in their present conflict with the West, but it is important to emphasize that they were as manipulated and exploited by the

Germans in two World Wars as they had been by the colonial powers. The concept of global jihad was foreign to Islam until created by a German spy—of Jewish ancestry, no less—with a view towards using Muslims as proxy soldiers in Germany’s fight with the Allied forces of England, France, and Russia. And when the Cold War began, they were manipulated once again: this time by American intelligence efforts to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.

To continue the struggle against the Western world that was begun by Westerners themselves for motives that had nothing to do with Islam or with genuine jihad is to cooperate in Western strategies that only will result in the destruction of more Muslim lives and the desolation of more Arab lands.

This is especially true with regards to Palestine. The Palestinians themselves must realize that no assistance is coming their way from the vastly wealthier and populous Arab world. The devastation of Gaza and the ongoing occupation of the West Bank is the legacy of decades of Arab indecision and manipulation. It is obviously far more beneficial to have the Palestinians live in squalor and die in refugee camps than to have the Arab nations work together to create a more productive solution. The Arab leaders have long since realized that the Nazi and Zen ideals of heroic death on the battlefield are dated notions, suicidal and non-productive, that can only end in annihilation. Yet they tolerate and even encourage the raging anti-Semitism of Hitler, Goebbels, and von Leers because it directs Palestinian anger towards Israel (and the United States), and away from the Arab leaders themselves who have found themselves in an increasingly vulnerable situation since the revolts of the Arab Spring.

Palestinian suicide bombers, however, have looked towards Hitler and Hajj Amin al-Husseini as avatars of the New Islam, of the desire to create a caliphate that will stretch from Jerusalem and Mecca all the way to Southeast Asia. To Kuala Lumpur, and Jakarta.

And, yes, even to Sumbawa.

We are still fighting World War One, and we will continue to fight it. We are redrawing the world map once again in lines of blood and steel. America should be at the forefront of the fight to end these conflicts, but our moral leadership has been called into question again and again. We made mistakes at the end of World War Two: we sided with the colonial powers when we should have made common cause with the indigenous peoples of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia who looked to us as their natural allies. We enlisted the aid of Nazis and Nazi war criminals to accelerate our space program and to field espionage agents against the Soviet Union. We allowed dedicated and committed anti-Semites with a history of violence and bloodshed against civilian populations to run freely in the developing nations, training torturers and assassins.

We acted out of fear; we co-opted our values, trading them for greater security.

This, too, is the Hitler Legacy. We thought we could control the Devil that was the Nazi Party and the SS, using them to protect ourselves against Russia. We used the strategies developed by the Germans in two world wars to coerce and cajole Muslim believers to declare a holy war—a holy war that would one day be aimed at us.

We lived up to the charges made against us by the Islamists— that we were without faith, bereft of spirituality, obsessed with materialism, cold enough to the summons of the soul that we could contemplate weaponizing religion: seeing it as just one more tool, one more element in our ever growing arsenal of destruction. We could urge Muslims and Buddhists to risk their lives in attacks against our enemies, willing to fight to the last drop of their blood, using their faith—and clumsy, awkward protestations of our own— as the motivation for deadly, violent action when we had no moral, no legitimate right at all, to demand this of them.

Is it any wonder, then, that the blowback was so severe, the hatred so concentrated?

The networks still exist, transforming softly from time to time, changing with every new political development on the world stage. There are names in the address book of ODESSA chief Hans- Ulrich Rudel of people who are still alive as this is being written: people scattered all over the world, devotees, true believers, carrying the torch in a virtual Nuremberg Rally, feeling more and more comfortable by the day.

New groups are being formed, new leaders chosen from among the faithful. Xenophobia is at an all-time high in Europe and increasingly in America. The Internet has provided new and improved means of communication. Arab systems of money transfer such as hawala are used to defeat the strictures of the international banking system, made more severe after the events of 2001. The hysteria we used to feel about secret Communists has been replaced by hysteria over terrorism. We lost our way, briefly, in the 1950s over Communism; and innocent people were ruined, reputations destroyed. Now again we are equally paranoid to the extent that TSA agents pat down the elderly and infants in strollers. We are increasingly made to disrobe before we can board a plane, and we are thankful because this means we will be safer.

But, if we want to, we can walk across the border into Canada or Mexico.

As the political life of every country becomes more and more polarized between “right” and “left,” the men of ODESSA can only laugh at our discomfort. When the Berlin Wall came down many thought that the world had become a safer place. They did not realize that this was only phase one of the overall plan, the one that might have been hatched in Strasbourg in 1944 at the Maison Rouge Hotel. Or not. But it was the plan.

And when the Soviet Union fell, many patted themselves on the back thinking that history was at an end, that all serious conflict was over, except maybe for a little clean-up here and there. Nothing to worry about. Our side won.

Dream on.

On the sixth of June, 1948 Savitri Devi—the woman historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke called “Hitler’s Priestess”—met the venerable old Swedish explorer Sven Hedin. Distraught over the destruction of the Reich and the executions at Nuremberg, she asked him:

“And I’d like to know, can we have any hope?”

He said, “Why do you say, ‘Can we have any hope?’ Do you have no hope?”

She then replied, “Those of Nuremberg, they have killed them.”

Sven Hedin said, “Don’t fear. Germany has more such men.”

“Yes, but when will they appear?”

“They’ll appear in time.”

“What about the Fuhrer? Is he dead or alive?”

“Whether he’s dead or alive, he’s eternal.”117

9780892542109Notes:

115 Glenn B. Infield, Skorzeny: Hitler’s Commando, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981, p. 238.

116 Infield, p. 237.

117 Abridged from Savitri Devi, And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews, R.G. Fowler, editor. Counter-Currents Publishing, 2013, p. 54.
- See more at: http://disinfo.com/2014/11/hitlers-legacy-skorzeny-syndrome/#sthash.HEEDviSJ.dpuf