Military General Power Of Attorney Form Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Poor babies. They actually think they know what they’re doing. In reality, they haven’t grasped the half of it.National Republicans look at the 2020 election results and see 72 million voters for Donald Trump—more than his turnout in 2016, and more than any other presidential candidate in American history except for Joe Biden in the same election. Then they say to themselves: All of this could be ours. Now and forever, if we just maintain those voters’ loyalty.Privately, they may not agree that Biden owes the win to irregularities in the ballot counting, or that by rights Trump should be declared the victor. Indeed, if your name is Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), reporting last month had it that you were rather resentful of Trump for hogging the glory, and not saying enough to discourage the insurgent anti-incumbency boycott of the Senate runoff in Georgia, with Perdue’s seat in contention (Dave Goldiner, Sen. Perdue suggests Trump is toast in closed-doors GOP strategy meeting with Karl Rove, New York Daily News, 17 Nov. 2020). But not a month goes by and here Perdue is, voicing support for that lawsuit out of Texas, against the opinion of his own state’s attorney general (Kate Riga, Loeffler, Perdue Praise Trump's Latest Election Gambit, Which Georgia’s Own AG Called ‘Wrong’, Talking Points Memo, 9 Dec. 2020). Whatever their judgment of the president’s tactics and chances, they don’t think they have a future in national Republican politics if they don’t hew to the wishes of that base.On the merits, this suit is as frivolous as all but one of the others brought on behalf of the Trump campaign. It seeks to decertify the results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, so that each state’s Republican-controlled legislature can appoint a Trump-friendly slate of electors to vote on December 14. No matter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as Perdue and 105 other members of Congress including the other senator from Georgia, that the deadline for certifying the vote, in order to be held presumptively valid on December 14, was three days ago. Those certifications were done on the usual schedule and procedure. The outcome is the only thing there for Republicans to dislike, but that was never a reason to overturn the result before. Never mind, either, that every state except Maine and Nebraska is legally obligated to return the electors chosen by statewide popular vote (National Archives, The 2020 Presidential Election: Provisions of the Constitution and U. S. Code [PDF, revised July 2020], p. 4).In theory it is possible that an ongoing controversy that was not resolved before Safe Harbor Day, December 8, could still be resolved before December 14 and result in a valid return of electoral votes. If the controversy were still unresolved on December 14, it would then be decided by Congress—presumably by votes (Pete Williams, What ‘safe harbor day’ is and why it’s bad news for Trump, NBC News, 7 Dec. 2020). This stunt might be understood as an attempt to bring the electoral votes of those four states before Congress, rather than having it rely on the certificates from the secretaries of state.But why? The secretaries themselves have all insisted on the correctness of both the results and the procedure. None has stated this more pointedly than Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, the only Republican among that number, who made a point of noting his personal support for Trump when he announced his certification in favor of Biden (Michael Warren, Georgia’s pro-Trump election chief is now considered a pariah inside the GOP, 21 Nov. 2020). With each of them, however, it also helps to remember that they each have their own jurisdiction to protect, and for them to accept a result that was dictated to them by the president of the United States would destroy federalism, not just their own authority.So, one downside of this situation is that 106 members of Congress have effectively surrendered their own judgment in favor of Trump, not only on political tactics but also in many cases against the express wishes of the majority of the voters in their own states. They increasingly look like they would roll over for any tin-pot dictator who identified with the same political faction, if they so value personal power over constituent service. And growing numbers of voters will grow ever wiser to this—unless the tin-pot dictator wins against the odds (among other things, you’re unlikely to get the military support for a coup d’etat when you’ve heaped as much verbal abuse on the military as Trump has) and begins a campaign of repression, the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since Pol Pot or Idi Amin.In short, this is a particular kind of madness that arises from the presumption that just because Trump represents where the party is today, his allies also represent the party’s future. The truth is that Trump makes everything about himself and drives the party in the opposite direction from the true public interest. When he is gone from the political scene, we are sure to bear witness to endless internecine disputes over which politicians best carry on the “legacy" of Donald Trump. With luck, some might even dedicate themselves to higher purposes than Trump ever demonstrated when he was in office—and more power to them. Rest assured, however, that more Americans will remember his term as a time of discord that none did more to aggravate than Trump himself, and ended in a health crisis that Trump was slow and reluctant to mitigate, an economic disaster that further widened the health crisis, and political chaos that did not spare Republican officials. If this is the future of the Republican party, I am frightened for the future of America.

Q. Can America sentence young non-violent people to military basic training and advanced skilled training instead of a prison sentence?A. Correctional boot camps were the rage in the US in the 1980’s and 1990′s. Meta-analysis conclusively showed no improvement in recidivism, or cost savings. Two papers included were reviews of US experience (vengeful justice) as models/cautionary tales for Australia and the United Kingdom.Correctional boot camps (United Kingdom)What is the focus of the intervention?Boot camps are programmes for juvenile or adult offenders as an alternative to punishments such as prison or probation. They are modelled on military boot camps and involve activities such as drills, ceremony and physical training. Strict daily schedules are followed, and punishments for misbehaviour often involve physical activities like push-ups.Programmes differ based on content and delivery of physical and therapeutic aspects, which could include education, substance abuse treatment and improvement of cognitive skills.This narrative summarises the findings of three systematic reviews. Review 1 was based on 32 studies, Review 2 was based on 44 studies and Review 3 was based on 16 studies.The conclusions on effect size are taken from Review 1 only.All boot camp studies included in the reviews were conducted in the USA.EFFECTHow effective is it?There is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime.In Review 1, while individual studies found both statistically significant positive and negative effects on crime, the overall analysis showed that boot camps had no overall effect on rates of re-offending by participants. This result was consistent across all three reviews.How strong is the evidence?The overall evidence is taken from Review 1 (based on a meta-analysis of 32 studies).The review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions can be ruled out.It had a well-designed search strategy, included unpublished literature and risks of bias by the reviewers were minimised.However, biases remain within the primary studies, including the difficulties of comparing boot camps to one another due to differences in treatments, the use of different outcome measures by researchers, and the problem of drop-out rates and how to take these into consideration when calculating effect sizes.MECHANISMHow does it work?The authors of Review 2 provided the most comprehensive attempt at explaining how boot camps work to reduce reoffending.By ensuring strict discipline and demanding physical exercise and labour, participants are encouraged to behave respectfully and obediently, hopefully making them more likely to comply with rules or laws upon programme completion.Adherence to daily routines and interactions with camp staff should teach participants skills to help them control their behaviour.Prosocial behaviours such as respect are also taught and practiced, with close supervision allowing positive behaviours to be reinforced and negative behaviours punished immediately.Review 3 also mentioned increasing self-esteem and promoting physical fitness as life skills.MODERATORSIn which contexts does it work best?The reviews noted a number of potential moderators, including offender characteristics (age and gender), programme characteristics (focus on rehabilitative or physical elements), treatments (drug treatment, vocational education and aftercare components), whether the programme was voluntary or mandated, and the presence of counselling sessions as part of the programme.None of the three reviews explained why or how these contextual differences might influence the outcome.Review 1 found that participants in boot camps with a strong therapeutic component including treatments such as education, drug treatment and counselling had lower rates of reoffending than those in camps with a stronger focus on physical elements.They also found that juvenile boot camps without a counselling component had a statistically significant negative effect upon re-offending rates of participants.Review 2 found that participants in voluntary boot camps had reduced rates of recidivism compared to mandatory boot camps. Review 2 also discovered that voluntary boot camps for young people significantly reduced the participants’ odds of recidivism (based on only 3 primary studies).While no moderator analysis was conducted on race, review 3 noted that up to 80% of boot camp participants were ethnic minority youths, despite boot camps being originally designed for white, working class participants.IMPLEMENTATIONWhat can be said about implementing this initiative?Boot camps are structured programmes, which generally last between 90 and 180 days.There is a graduation ceremony attended by family and friends for those who successfully complete the programme.Participants are housed in dormitories resembling military barracks, are placed in squads or platoons, and wear uniforms. Programme staff function as drill instructors and are often addressed by military titles. Punishment for misbehaviour is immediate, and usually takes the form of physical activities such as push ups.All three reviews note that studies evaluating boot camps with a strong therapeutic element seemed to have a higher chance of a successful outcome than those with a weaker or no therapeutic focus. Review 3 noted that programmes vary widely in the application and duration of therapeutic elements. Review 2 suggested that aftercare services with therapeutic content are important, and therefore, should not be short term in duration.ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSHow much might it cost?While none of the reviews conducted a full cost benefit analysis, some mention of costs was reported in the primary studies.Review 2 cited one study, which found that in 1997, the cost per boot camp participant was $31,752 less per year in California, compared to the cost of incarceration. Another study reported a similar comparison and found that in 2001 boot camps were $78,700 cheaper than prison per participant per year. Review 3 stated that the Alabama boot camp cost a total of between $779,229 and $1,676,880 less than participants being in prison. Three studies within Review 3 found that boot camps were cheaper than prison, while four studies found no difference.General considerations• Boot camps differ substantially in content – some camps focus on physical training and hard labour, while others emphasise delivering therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills.• Boot camps with an evidence-based therapeutic focus see the largest reductions in recidivism amongst participants.SummaryThere is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime. Those boot camps that have seen the greatest reduction in participant recidivism, especially with juvenile populations, have focused upon therapeutic elements within the programmes.Ratings for Individual ReviewsResourcesReview 1: Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L., Mitchell, F.N. (2003) 'Effects of correctional boot camps on offending' Campbell Systematic Reviews 2003:1, DOI:10.4073/ csr.2003.1Review 2: Meade, B. and Steiner, B. (2010) 'The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence', Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841-853Review 3: Riphagen, R. C. (2010) 'Effectiveness of Male Juvenile Boot Camps in the United States: A Critical Review of the Literature', Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University.Uploaded 04/06/15Boot camps a poor fit for juvenile justice (Australia)October 24, 2012 2.36pm AEDT Robyn Lincoln Assistant Professor, Criminology, Bond UniversityQueensland unveils tenders for two new boot camp programs for young offenders.The Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, has authorised a tender process for the operation of two youth boot camps. The camps, aimed at 13 to 17 year olds, are to be trialled in Cairns and on the Gold Coast for a two-year period. The camp in the north of the state is an intensive diversion program for “sentenced” juveniles, while that in the south-east corner is an early intervention scheme for “at risk” youth.As with all matters of justice, Queensland is not alone in proffering boot camps as the “answer to youth crime”. The Brumby Government proposed school-based camps for Victoria in 2010, and both the Northern Territory and Western Australia have flirted with such programs as early as the 1980s.In the wake of calls for the operation of boot camps to solve problems of youth crime, it is instructive to examine what they are, what inspires them and what the research evidence reveals about their outcomes.The shape and size of boot campsThere was a proliferation of boot camps in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s, where millions of dollars were diverted to their operations.They come under the guise of wilderness, bush, work, motivational and challenge camps. Some are attached to schools or prisons and many are geared toward adult offenders, but a significant proportion are aimed at “recalcitrant youth”, some set up specifically for females.While the camp programs vary, the common features of these residential programs are that they are established on militaristic lines with an emphasis on deference to authority, conformity, intimidation, isolation, and concentrated physical training.The tender documents for the proposed Queensland camps appear no different. The program intends to instill “discipline and respect”, ensures “direct consequences for offending” and entails considerable “supervision”.Moral foundationsThe very concept of a boot camp is based on the notion of individual responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour. It is about failure of parents or families and ultimately of the young people who find themselves in trouble with the law.The principles revolve around shock treatment, power and control, and disciplinarian techniques. To that end they exemplify the “get tough” politicisation of crime, a misplaced view that we have the capacity to correctly identify threat and risk. A misguided belief in the effectiveness of the punitive approaches of past centuries.This is what has been labelled by some as “vengeance justice”. For even though these programs purport to “address the causes of crime”, they are mean-spirited and sheet the blame for crime solely at the individual level.Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie addresses the press. AAP/Dave HuntEvaluating boot campsDuring the 1990s in particular and in the USA specifically, a number of studies were conducted into the effectiveness of boot camps. Similar evidence emerged from the UK about a range of “short sharp shock” treatment regimes.All of this empirical work shows quite clearly that there is no benefit to boot camps. Whether the measures are re-offending rates or whether it is centred around cost-effectiveness — there is little to show that boot camps offer a beneficial alternative.Of course given the variety of boot camp philosophies and the practices of their daily regimes some caution needs to be exercised about the research evidence. In addition, trying to conduct any truly robust research is difficult and rarely are quasi-experimental designs used (that is, random allocation of youth to boot camp versus a range of other interventions that are then followed up in the long term).Yet even in studies where there were some differences in outcomes, they were marginal or negligible and could often be sheeted home to the backgrounds of the offenders (age, sex, previous convictions) rather than any militaristic-style intervention they had undergone.Of most significance is that some studies showed that there was potential for greater effectiveness when the boot camp included some kind of “treatment” option which flies in the face of the fundamental philosophy of such camps.In the last decade more sophisticated research has emerged including meta-analyses of multiples studies. However the findings remain, that there were no significant differences on re-offending measures between those who attend a correctional boot camp and those who did not.Even when the “softer” style of boot camps were evaluated there were no differences on recidivism. Similarly studies that have undertaken longer term follow-ups show no benefit. In research where a cost-saving has been identified this was only because offenders spent slightly less time in prison. Finally, one evaluation of a school-based camp again found no differences on re-offending but participants displayed “favourable” views of the program.Does the boot fit?Thus several decades of evaluations of boot camps has demonstrated quite conclusively that they are not effective in reducing recidivism and have marginal impact on cost-savings.The problem with these “shock and awe” tactics is that they are centred around individual responsibility. This shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the “causes” of crime — demographic changes, deployment of police, reform to criminal codes, urban design, extended surveillance, tougher supervision orders.Most of all it signals a vengeful justice system. Let’s face it, boot camps are founded on fear and terror.Return to the Crime Reduction ToolkitJuvenile Boot Campshttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdfConclusions: Correctional practitioners and planners might learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:■ Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s individual program and reentry plans may improve the likelihood he or she will not commit a new offense.■ Programs that offered substantial discounts in time served to those who completed boot camps and that chose candidates sentenced to serve longer terms were the most successful in reducing prison populations.■ Chances of reducing recidivism increased when boot camp programs lasted longer and offered more intensive treatment and post release supervision, activities that may conflict with the goal of reducing population. Efforts to achieve multiple goals are likely the overall cause of boot camps’ conflicting results.Program designers are urged to determine which options are best for their jurisdictions; for example, they may consider whether to implement more treatment programs or move inmates out of the system more rapidly. These decisions affect costs, as prison bed-space savings go up or down. Other correctional programs are adopting some of the important elements of boot camps—for example, carefully structured programs that reduce idleness—to increase safety and improve conditions of confinement for younger offenders.20 However, in recent years, some jurisdictions facing rising costs have responded by cutting programs.One lesson for policymakers from 10 years of boot camp research is that curtailing programs may lead to increased violence, misconduct, and serious management problems.Boot Camp Justice for Juvenile OffendersAfter the crime rate for those under the age of 17 doubled in a five year period, Camp Stop, a military-style boot camp, was opened. This program aims to deal with juvenile offenders and steer them away from a life of crime. Fourteen-year-old Norton G. explains why he was incarcerated. Sgt. Major Richard Hurt believes boot camp can make a positive difference in kids’ lives. While life is harsh at Camp Stop, it cannot compare with life in Georgia prisons in the 1930s. Scenes from the movie I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, based on a book about Georgia prisons, show how the mistreatment of prisoners led to prison reforms.Criminal Justice and the Juvenilehttp://file:///C:/Users/RAD/Downloads/1978-6398-2-PB%20(1).pdfhttps://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FCJEI/Programs/SLP/Documents/Full-Text/Bobbitt-thomas-paper.aspx

The USSR had no ovens for cremating victims exterminated for the “crime” of having Jewish ancestry.Nazi physicians did human experiments in RwandaAnne Frank, a young girl and her entire family except her father were killed for being Jewish.Hitler:The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break down the last barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples. The Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people.The Germany of today is a National Socialist State. The ideology that dominates us is in diametrical contradiction to that of Soviet Russia. National Socialism is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the German people. Bolshevism lays stress on international mission. We National Socialists believe a man can, in the long run, be happy only among his own people. We are convinced the happiness and achievements of Europe are indissolubly tied up with the continuation of the system of independent and free national States. Bolshevism preaches the establishment of a world empire and recognizes only section of a central international. We National Socialists grant each people the right to its own inner life according to its needs and its own nature. Bolshevism, on the other hand, establishes doctrinal theories that are to be accepted by all peoples, regardless of their particular essence, their special nature, traditions, etc. National Socialism speaks up for the solution of social problems, issues and tensions in their own nation, with methods that are consistent with our common human, spiritual, cultural and economic beliefs, traditions and conditions. Bolshevism preaches the international class struggle, the international world revolution with the weapons of the terror and the violence. National Socialism fights for the reconciliation and consequent adjustment of the differences in life and the union of all for common benefits. Bolshevism teaches the overcoming of an alleged class rule by the dictatorship of the power of a different class. National Socialism does not attach importance to a only theoretical rule of the working class, but especially on the practical improvement of their living conditions and standard of living. Bolshevism fights for a theory and, for it, sacrifices millions of people, immense values of traditional culture and traditions, and achieves, compared with us, only a very low standard of living for all. As National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism. We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not wish that our churches become club-houses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly. We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world. It would be unthinkable to transfer such a catastrophe into Germany, because, at the of the day, in Russia there are 10 city dwellers for every 90 country dwellers, but in Germany for only 25 farmers there are 75 city dwellers. National Socialists and Bolshevists both are convinced they are a world apart from each other and their differences can never be bridged. Apart from that, there were thousands of our people slain and maimed in the fight against Bolshevism. If Russia likes Bolshevism it is not our affair, but if Bolshevism casts its nets over to Germany, then we will fight it tooth and nail.Speech made at the Reichstag (21 May 1935) Found in Translation of Herr Hitler's Speech to the German Reichstag on May 21, 1935 Foreign Office Press. [page needed] German versionStalin:National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death."Anti-Semitism: Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States" (12 January 1931)Soviet troops liberate AuschwitzSoviet troops opening the gates of AuschwitzNazi propagandaAnti-Semitic film “The Eternal Jew”Films in particular played an important role in disseminating racial antisemitism, the superiority of German military power, and the intrinsic evil of the enemies as defined by Nazi ideology. Nazi films portrayed Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society. For example, The Eternal Jew (1940), directed by Fritz Hippler, portrayed Jews as wandering cultural parasites, consumed by sex and money. Some films, such as The Triumph of the Will (1935) by Leni Riefenstahl, glorified Hitler and the National Socialist movement. Two other Riefenstahl works, Festival of the Nationsand Festival of Beauty (1938), depicted the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games and promoted national pride in the successes of the Nazi regime at the Olympics.The Role of NewspapersNewspapers in Germany, above all Der Stürmer (The Attacker), printed cartoons that used antisemitic caricatures to depict Jews. After the Germans began World War II with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the Nazi regime employed propaganda to impress upon German civilians and soldiers that the Jews were not only subhuman, but also dangerous enemies of the German Reich. The regime aimed to elicit support, or at least acquiescence, for policies aimed at removing Jews permanently from areas of German settlement.Outdoor display of the antisemitic newspaper Der StürmerA German couple reads an outdoor display of the antisemitic newspaper Der Stürmer (The Attacker). Germany, 1935.Nederlands Instituut voor OorlogsdocumentatieCovering up Atrocities and Mass MurderDuring the implementation of the "Final Solution," the mass murder of European Jews, SS officials at killing centers compelled the victims of the Holocaust to maintain the deception necessary to deport the Jews from Germany and occupied Europe as smoothly as possible. Concentration camp and killing center officials compelled prisoners, many of whom would soon die in the gas chambers, to send postcards home stating that they were being treated well and living in good conditions. Here, the camp authorities used propaganda to cover up atrocities and mass murder.In June 1944, the German Security Police permitted an International Red Cross team to inspect the Theresienstadt camp-ghetto, located in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (today: Czech Republic). The SS and police had established Theresienstadt in November 1941 as an instrument of propaganda for domestic consumption in the German Reich. The camp-ghetto was used as an explanation for Germans who were puzzled by the deportation of German and Austrian Jews who were elderly, disabled war veterans, or locally known artists and musicians “to the East” for “labor.” In preparation for the 1944 visit, the ghetto underwent a “beautification” program. In the wake of the inspection, SS officials in the Protectorate produced a film using ghetto residents as a demonstration of the benevolent treatment the Jewish “residents” of Theresienstadt supposedly enjoyed. When the film was completed, SS officials deported most of the "cast" to the Auschwitz-Birkenaukilling center.TheresienstadtIn response to growing international awareness of Nazi atrocities, the Nazis decided to allow a Red Cross investigation committee to visit the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia. Elaborate measures were taken to disguise conditions in the ghetto and to portray an atmosphere of normalcy. This footage, showing an orchestral performance, is part of a German propaganda film made following the Red Cross visit to Theresienstadt.Bundesarchiv FilmarchivView Archival DetailsMobilizing the PopulationThe Nazi regime used propaganda effectively to mobilize the German population to support its wars of conquest until the very end of the regime. Nazi propaganda was likewise essential to motivating those who implemented the mass murder of the European Jews and of other victims of the Nazi regime. It also served to secure the acquiescence of millions of others—as bystanders—to racially targeted persecution and mass murder.Source: Nazi PropagandaSoviet propagandaDeath to Capitalism; Against the White Terror and the Threat of WarNotice how the propaganda is clearly different. One is a prosocial message, the other is built entirely on building hate. Nazi Germany was built on the idea that those who were “genetically inferior” were corrupting the morals of the society and the only path forward was to exterminate them. In the Soviet Union the enemies of the society were those who chose to engage in antisocial behavior.The Soviet Union and its leader, Stalin, were indeed diametrically opposed to the notion of genetic superiority.Still others think that war should be organised by a "superior race," say, the German "race," against an "inferior race," primarily against the Slavs; that only such a war can provide a way out of the situation, for it is the mission of the "superior race" to render the "inferior race" fruitful and to rule over it. Let us assume that this queer theory, which is as far removed from science as the sky from the earth, let us assume that this queer theory is put into practice. What may be the result of that? It is well known that ancient Rome looked upon the ancestors of the present-day Germans and French in the same way as the representatives of the "superior race" now look upon the Slav races. It is well known that ancient Rome treated them as an "inferior race," as "barbarians," destined to live in eternal subordination to the "superior race," to "great Rome", and, between ourselves be it said, ancient Rome had some grounds for this, which cannot be said of the representatives of the "superior race" of today. (Thunderous applause.) But what was the upshot of this? The upshot was that the non-Romans, i.e., all the "barbarians," united against the common enemy and brought Rome down with a crash. The question arises: What guarantee is there that the claims of the representatives of the "superior race" of today will not lead to the same lamentable results? What guarantee is there that the fascist literary politicians in Berlin will be more fortunate than the old and experienced conquerors in Rome? Would it not be more correct to assume that the opposite will be the case?Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.) (January 26, 1934)The Gulag—Solzhenitsyn was full of shit. Even his wife said so:In her 1974 memoir, ''Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn'' (Bobbs-Merrill), she wrote that she was ''perplexed'' that the West had accepted ''The Gulag Archipelago'' as ''the solemn, ultimate truth,'' saying its significance had been ''overestimated and wrongly appraised.''Pointing out that the book's subtitle is ''An Experiment in Literary Investigation,'' she said that her husband did not regard the work as ''historical research, or scientific research.'' She contended that it was, rather, a collection of ''camp folklore,'' containing ''raw material'' which her husband was planning to use in his future productions.Natalya Alekseyevna Reshetovskaya was born at Novocherkassk in 1919 and studied at the universities of Rostov and Moscow. She first married Mr. Solzhenitsyn in 1940, four years after they had met as students.From the start, she wrote, there was tension between them over Mr. Solzhenitsyn's refusal to have children out of fear that they would interfere with his work.[1][1][1][1]The Conditions of the PrisonsA 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon “economic accountability” such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners’ food supplies.5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals.7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the “ordinary criminals” of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.The following are excerpts of the CIA document, underlined and put together for the reader:These facts negate the narrative that Gulag prisoners were unpaid. The labour was indeed forced; however, material rewards were provided. The prisoners were paid from 1952 onward, and rewarded by food prior to 1952.According to bourgeois fantasies, the Soviet “regime” sought to deliberately starve the Gulag populations. However, as a matter of fact, there indeed were Soviet efforts to increase the food supply of prisoners, after World War II.The fact that the working day was only two hours more than that of the free workers until 1954, and equal to that of the free worker from 1954 onward is a clear demonstration of the egalitarian tendencies of the Soviet State.All the while, the noteworthy fact is that criminals, not “pro-democracy revolutionaries” were sent to the Gulags. Like all justice systems, there certainly were errors and some innocent people were sent to the prisons; the point though is that this fact has been exaggerated by the imperial press.Let’s compare the Soviet system to that of the United States. The 13th amendment permits prison slavery, with many prisoners victimized by racial profiling. Even the Clinton Dynasty had slaves in the Arkansas Province (News 2017).The NumbersAccording to page four of another CIA (1989) document titled “The Soviet Labour System: An Update,” the number of Gulag prisoners “grew to about 2 million” during Stalin’s time.These figures match Soviet statistics as well, from declassified Soviet achieves. The following is a 1954 declassified Soviet archival document (Pyakhov), an excerpt of which is translated into English:“During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the conent in the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.“Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.“It should be noted… that established by Decree … on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people…Attorney General R. RudenkoInterior Minister S. KruglovJustice Minister K. Gorshenin”The Soviet archives remained declassified for decades, only to be released near or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, after Stalin died, the pro-Stalin head of the NKVD (Soviet interior ministry) Lavrenty Beria had already been executed by Khrushchev, a staunch anti-Stalinist (History in an hour 2010). These facts make it very unlikely that the Soviet intelligence would have a pro-Stalin bias.The Italian-American historian Michael Parenti (1997, pp. 79-80) further analyzes the data provided from the Soviet archives:“In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. At about that time, there began a purge of the purgers, including many intelligence and secret police (NKVD) officials and members of the judiciary and other investigative committees, who were suddenly held responsible for the excesses of the terror despite their protestations of fidelity to the regime.“Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies…. [T]he great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as ‘the largest system of death camps in modern history’.“Almost a million gulag prisoners were released during World War II to serve in the military. The archives reveal that more than half of all gulag deaths for the 1934-53 period occurred during the war years (1941-45), mostly from malnutrition, when severe privation was the common lot of the entire Soviet population. (Some 22 million Soviet citizens perished in the war.) In 1944, for instance, the labor-camp death rate was 92 per 1000. By 1953, with the postwar recovery, camp deaths had declined to 3 per 1000.“Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (‘counterrevolutionary offenses’) numbered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpolitical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.”Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, whereas according to declassified Soviet archives, 2,369,220 up until 1954. When compared to the population of the USSR at the time, as well as the statistics of a country like the United States, the Gulag percent population in the USSR throughout its history was lower than that of the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, based on Sousa’s (1998)research, there was a larger percentage of prisoners (relative to the whole population) in the US, than there ever was in the USSR:“In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice…. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.”ConclusionSeeing the USSR as a major ideological challenge, the Western imperial bourgeoisie demonized Stalin and the Soviet Union. Yet after decades of propaganda, declassified archives from both the US and USSR together debunk these anti-Soviet slanders. Worth our attention is the fact that the CIA – a fiercely anti-Soviet source – has published declassified documents debunking the very anti-Soviet myths it promoted and continues to promote in the mainstream media. Together with declassified Soviet archives, the CIA files have demonstrated that the bourgeois press has lied about the Gulags.[2][2][2][2]Notes13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2018, from 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of SlaveryCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA). (1989). THE SOVIET FORCED LABOR SYSTEM: AN UPDATE (GI-M 87-20081). Retrieved February 12, 2018, http://fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000500615.pdfCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2010, February 22). 1. FORCED LABOR CAMPS IN THE USSR 2. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN CAMPS 3. DECREES ON RELEASE FROM FORCED LABOR 4. ATTITUDE OF SOVIET PRISON OFFICIALS TOWARD SUSPECTS 1945 TO THE END OF 1955. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdfHillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’. (2017, June 08). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from Hillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’Игорь, П. (n.d.). Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли «жертвы репрессий»? Retrieved August 28, 2018, from Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли "жертвы репрессий"?Parenti, M. (1997). Blackshirts and reds: Rational fascism and the overthrow of communism. San Francisco, Calif: City Lights Books.Sousa, M. (1998, June 15). Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from Lies concerning the history of the Soviet UnionThe Death of Lavrenty Beria. (2015, December 23). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/23/lavrenty-beria-summaryTracy, J. F. (2018, January 30). The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know. Retrieved August 28, 2018, http://fromhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956Footnotes[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA