Reference Package Reference Letter Consent Form Reference: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. It would amount to violation.you may read this..YREGULATIONSPREAMBLESince their inception in 1929, the “©Oscar®” Awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have enjoyed increasing international recognition. Today they are among the most respected and sought-after prizes bestowed anywhere.Their prestige, long acknowledged within the motion picture industry, has grown over the years because the public recognizes the Oscar as an award based solely on artistic and technical achievement and because care has been taken to preserve the integrity of the Oscar symbol. Specifically, the Academy has carefully limited reproductions of the Oscar statuette and references to the annual Academy Awards presentation in promotions and advertising.The purpose of these Regulations is to set a code of fair practice for all forms of advertising pertaining to the annual Academy Awards presentation, and for other uses of the Academy's intellectual properties.The Academy does not wish to restrict the benefits film producers, distributors and exhibitors may derive legitimately from publicity associated with the annual Academy Awards presentation, but desires to equalize these benefits and ensure that:the rights of past and future Academy Award recipients are fully protected,no false claims of Academy Award consideration are made in any advertising medium,the public is not misled by any statement or implication that any achievement has won or been nominated for an Academy Award when that is not so, andthe necessary legal protection is provided for the trademark and copyright owner, i.e., the Academy.The Academy, as the copyright owner of the Academy's “Oscar” statuette, and owner of its trademarks and service marks, including “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” “OSCAR NIGHT®,” “A.M.P.A.S.®” and the federally registered “Oscar” design mark, is required to protect its properties against unauthorized uses and infringements.Please adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of these rules.COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKSThe Award of Merit statuette, commonly known as the “Oscar,” is the copyrighted property and registered trademark and service mark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (“Academy”). The Academy has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce, manufacture, copy, sell, display images of and publish said statuette in any size or medium, whether in three or two dimensions, and to distribute or exploit the statuette or reproductions of same by gift, sale, license or otherwise. No reproduction, replica, drawing, photograph, derivative work or other copy of the Award of Merit statuette may be made or used by any manufacturer, advertiser, organization or individual except in accordance with these regulations or under express written license from the Academy.All published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences®,” or “©A.M.P.A.S.®,” to provide notice that it is protected by copyright, trademark and service mark registration.“OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” “OSCAR NIGHT®,” “A.M.P.A.S.®” and the “Oscar” design mark are trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and may not be used except in accordance with these regulations or under a special written license from the Academy.Any use of the marks “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” “OSCAR NIGHT®,” “A.M.P.A.S.®” and the “Oscar” design mark must include notice of trademark and service mark registration and credit the Academy as the owner of said marks (“®”), except as provided in section 20 below.Permission to use Academy Award symbols (the Award of Merit statuette and other statuettes, medals, plaques and certificates) and institutional marks of the Academy for any publication in other than fair use hard-news reporting must be obtained in writing from the Academy, except that permission is hereby given to use Academy Award symbols and marks of the Academy in accordance with these Regulations.The Award of Merit statuette may not be used in generic fashion as a logo or decorative motif for any purpose in any video or television production, motion picture, or print or digital publication not produced by, or explicitly authorized by, the Academy.The Award of Merit statuette may not be used as a stage property or article of set dressing in any stage, television, video or motion picture production not produced by the Academy. Licensed exceptions will be considered under unusual circumstances. Violations of this paragraph may subject theatrical films to the loss of Academy Awards eligibility, in addition to any other remedies allowed by law.The marks “OSCAR®” and “OSCARS®” (as related to the Academy’s motion picture award) may not be used in the title or subtitle of any magazine, online or digital publication, commercial web site, stage production, video, television program or motion picture not produced by the Academy.The marks “ACADEMY AWARD®” and “ACADEMY AWARDS®” may be used in the title or subtitle of a magazine, online or digital publication, commercial web site, stage production, video, television program or motion picture with the written consent of the Academy.“OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®” and “ACADEMY AWARDS®” may not be incorporated into a home video series title or subtitle, either on packaging or in advertising for such products.The marks “ACADEMY AWARD®” and “ACADEMY AWARDS®” may be incorporated into the title or subtitle of an audio product with the written permission of the Academy.Academy Award winners have no rights whatsoever in the Academy copyright or goodwill in the Oscar statuette or in its trademark and service mark registrations. Award winners must comply with these rules and regulations. Award winners shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the Oscar statuette, nor permit it to be sold or disposed of by operation of law, without first offering to sell it to the Academy for the sum of $1.00. This provision shall apply also to the heirs and assigns of Academy Award winners who may acquire a statuette by gift or bequest.Gold miniature Oscar statuettes are subject to the same regulations as the standard size statuettes.ADVERTISINGNo personal appearance, picture or drawing of an Academy Award recipient with an Academy Award symbol or Academy mark may be used in advertising or promotional materials of any sort without the written consent of the Academy, except as permitted by these Regulations.No Academy Award symbol or photograph, picture or drawing that includes a reproduction of an Academy Award symbol or Academy mark may be used in any advertising in newspapers, periodicals, billboards, posters or other medium, specifically including electronic media, without the written consent of the Academy, except as permitted by these Regulations.Pictures that have received or been nominated for an Award of Merit may be so advertised in print, electronic media and theatrical trailers subject to the following conditions:Pictures that have received an Award of Merit may use a depiction of the Oscar statuette provided:it appears no more than once in each advertisement,the size of the depiction does not exceed ten percent of the total advertising space,the Academy approves the quality of the representation of its symbol used,the copyright, trademark and service mark notice, “©A.M.P.A.S.®,” accompanies the depiction in legible form, andthe achievement for which the award was conferred is specified adjacent to the depiction.Pictures that have received an Award of Merit may use the words “OSCAR® Winner,” “ACADEMY AWARD® Winner,” or similar descriptions incorporating the Academy’s marks provided:any reference to the Academy’s marks is directly followed by an indication of the achievement for which the award was conferred, andthe Academy’s marks appear in the form “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” and “ACADEMY AWARDS®” to provide notice of trademark and service mark ownership and registration.Pictures nominated for an Award of Merit may use the words “OSCAR® Nominee,” “ACADEMY AWARD® Nominee,” or similar descriptions incorporating the Academy’s marks provided that:no reproduction of an Oscar statuette is used,the word “Nomination(s)” or the words “Nominated for” appear in the same size, style and color of type as the marks “ACADEMY AWARDS®” or “OSCARS®,”the word “winner” or equivalent term is not used to describe the receipt of a nomination, andany reference to the Academy’s marks is directly followed by an indication of the achievement for which the nomination was conferred.No film or achievement that has not received or been nominated for an Award of Merit (including those that use the talents of a former Academy Award winner or nominee) may be advertised or exploited in a manner that may mislead the public or imply by design, layout or wording of copy that the film or achievement has received such an award or nomination.From each January 1 until that year’s Academy Awards presentation, no individual may be described in advertising as an “Oscar® Nominee” or “Academy Award® Nominee” except in advertising for the film for which the nomination was received.Special Awards (conferred only by vote of the Academy Board of Governors) must be clearly identified in all advertising by their specific name (Thalberg Award, Sawyer Award, Honorary Award, etc.) and must specify the year in which the recognition was accorded. Special Awards shall not be advertised or exploited in a manner that may cause the public to confuse a Special Award with an Award of Merit voted by the Academy membership.A Scientific and Technical Award may be used in advertising that achievement provided:the year and accomplishment for which the Award was given are included in the advertising,only the image of the award conferred is depicted, and not the Oscar statuette, unless the statuette was the award presented,references to the award are specific as to the classification (i.e., Technical Achievement Award, Scientific and Engineering Award or Academy Award/Oscar), andall parties named in the award are included.No film may be advertised or exploited as having “qualified” for an Academy Award or having otherwise been officially recognized by the Academy, except as a Nominee or Winner and in accordance with these Regulations.PACKAGINGNo Academy Award symbol or Academy mark, nor any photograph or drawing that includes a reproduction of an Oscar statuette or Academy mark, may be used on, as part of, or affixed to any item that is sold to the public, including home videos, audio records or any commercial goods, whether or not in connection with a current or previous recipient of an Award of Merit, except as follows:Home video copies of motion pictures that have received the Academy Award for Best Picture may include a depiction of the Oscar statuette on their packaging under the following conditions:it appears no more than once on each package,the size of the depiction does not exceed one inch in height,the Academy approves the quality of the representation of its symbol to be used,the copyright, trademark and service mark notice, “©A.M.P.A.S.®,” accompanies the depiction in legible form, andthe award year for which the award was received and the category, “Best Picture,” are indicated adjacent to the depiction.The words “OSCAR® Winner,” “ACADEMY AWARD® Winner,” “OSCAR® Nominee” and “ACADEMY AWARD® Nominee” or similar descriptions incorporating the Academy’s marks may appear on home video packaging of any motion picture that has received an Academy Award or nomination under the following conditions:the motion picture actually received an Award of Merit or nomination,any reference to the Academy’s marks is directly followed by an indication of the year and achievement for which the award or nomination was conferred,the word “Nominations(s),” “Nominee(s)” or the words “Nominated for” appear in the same size, style and color of type as the marks “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®” and “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” andthe Academy marks appear in the form “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®” to provide notice of trademark and service mark ownership and registration, and credit is given to the Academy as the owner of these marks as follows: “‘ACADEMY AWARDS®’ is the registered trademark and service mark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,” or “‘OSCAR®’ is the registered trademark and service mark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.”EDITORIAL USENews and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions:all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration, andneither the marks “Academy Award®” nor “Oscar®” may be used to describe awards given by organizations other than the Academy. (An award may be described as “the Uruguayan equivalent of the Oscar Award,” but not as “the Uruguayan Oscar.”)USE OF CLIPS FROM ACADEMY AWARD PRESENTATIONSThe Annual Academy Awards telecast is copyrighted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Any rebroadcast or other use of the program or any of its contents, except in accordance with the following, is prohibited.In accordance with fair use provisions of copyright law, broadcast news programs and services may excerpt portions of the Academy Awards telecast for rebroadcast during the seven days following the telecast (up to, and including, Sunday), subject to the following conditions:up to three minutes may be used within the period ending the first day (Monday) following the telecast,one minute, not separate from the three minutes in (a), above, may be used within the period of the second through seventh days (Tuesday through Sunday) following the telecast,the material may be used only for news reporting purposes directly related to the Awards Presentation as an event,any display, exhibition or performance of the material must be accompanied by the legend “Clip Courtesy A.M.P.A.S.© ____” (year supplied as appropriate), andno use of any excerpt from any Awards Presentation may be made while the telecast is in progress.Permission may also be given for the use of Academy Awards telecast clips in connection with obituary reporting on past Academy Award recipients. The Academy will attempt to facilitate the granting of permission for the use of clips from the Awards Presentations for obituary news reporting upon request under the following conditions:only clips approved by the Academy are used,the clips are used only in news broadcasts and only in conjunction with stories concerning the deceased in such news broadcasts,the clips are used only within a 72-hour period immediately following announcement of death,any display, exhibition or performance of the material must be accompanied by the legend “Clip Courtesy A.M.P.A.S.© ____” (year supplied as appropriate),the approved obituary clip(s) shall not exceed 60 seconds in total running time, andthose requesting the clips agree to obtain, at their own expense, the consent of all other persons appearing in the clips and all guild or other clearances that might be required.All those rebroadcasting any clip(s) from any Academy Awards telecasts hereby agree to indemnify the Academy, its governors, officers, members, agents, employees and representatives, and to save and hold the Academy and each of them harmless from, and to defend the Academy and each of them against, any liability and expense, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of any claim whatsoever which may be brought or based upon the use of the clip(s).Permission shall not be granted for the use of clips from the Academy Awards telecast for non-news ventures, except under unusual circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis. An exception, if granted, shall not be considered precedential.This policy shall apply also to requests for permission to use the audio portions of Academy Awards presentations.ABOUTCONTACTLEGALSITE MAPCAREERSPRESSSTORE© 2015 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

This:or this:Robert Conquest was an on the payroll British intelligence services propagandist who created anti-communist work made to look scholarly and distributed it to journalists, academics, and other information providers. He is the one that gave us the supposed “20+ million killed by Stalin.” He was so effective that later work by academics looking at actual sources have been labeled “Stalin apologists” for even questioning it. Now that is effective propaganda. And J. Arch Getty, the historian is a mainline academic, not some fringe nut job.Alexander Finnegan's answer to Robert Conquest vs. Arch Getty, totalitarian vs. revisionist theories in Sovietology, which do you consider the most reliable source of knowledge? Inspired by the many answers marked with ignorance and bias in the light of Russian disclosed archives.The best kind of propaganda connects with you emotionally. It also relies on cementing groupthink so challenging it exposes you to shame. Most people don’t want to bother. Plus they don’t like cognitive dissonance and challenging what they learned when they were younger.Soviet propaganda on TV sort of worked. But as the Soviet Union started to fall apart people knew that the news reports were full of it. What was really effective was the anti-Soviet propaganda that Gorbachev permitted. This really helped bring down the entire system.In the U.S. most journalists believe in capitalism or they wouldn’t be hired. The corporations that own the media channels aren’t going to put a dedicated Stalinist on TV. If you believe something it comes across as much more authentic. And people can tell.Contrast this with Soviet propaganda, where many people didn’t even believe their own message.Chomsky and Herman analyzed the modern media and found that there are unofficial “filters” that help direct the modern Free Press into a form of propaganda. This was discussed in Manufacturing Consent.Glasnost proved to be an equal disaster.“What happened in our country is primarily the result of the debilitation and eventual elimination of the Communist Party’s leading role in society, the ejection of the party from major policymaking, its ideological and organisational unravellling, the formation in it of factions, careerists’ and national separatists’ penetration of the leadership of the party and state as well as the party and power structures of the republics, and the political conversion of the group headed by Gorbachev and their shift to the position of elimination of the Communist Party and the Soviet state.” Id.“It’s worth pointing out that Gorbachev never put much meat on the bones of ‘democratisation’. With hindsight, it’s obvious that his use of the term reflected an ideological concession to western capitalism; that he had come to believe that the Soviet Union should aspire to the political norms defined in Western Europe and the US. Such thinking neglects a number of factors that should be well understood by any Marxist:‘Free speech’ in the advanced capitalist countries is essentially a piece of attractive icing beneath which lies a bitter cake of plutocratic repression. Via its monopolisation of the mass media, the ruling class dominates the field of ideas almost comprehensively. There is a level of debate and criticism, but only of a few individual policies and not of systemic features of capitalism. As Chomsky famously put it: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum”.27The political freedoms available in the west are much constrained owing to the correlation between wealth and power. Ordinary citizens have the right to vote, but their choice is nearly always restricted to two or three pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist parties, between which there is little substantive difference (so rare is the appearance of a meaningfully different option within mainstream politics, that when it happens it sends the ruling class into a frenzy of confusion, as is being witnessed at the moment with the rise of the Labour left under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn). Actual power is monopolised by the wealthy, and challenging it can be extremely dangerous, as is evidenced by the treatment of Irish Republicans that have served time in Britain’s colony in the north of Ireland, or the many longstanding black, Puerto Rican and indigenous political prisoners in the US who have spent decades behind bars on account of their struggle for equality and human rights.In a context of ongoing class struggle waged by the working class of a socialist country against its internal enemies (those that want to restore feudalism or capitalism) and its external enemies (the leading capitalist countries that will inevitably work to destabilise a socialist country), a level of political repression is an unhappy necessity; this is elaborated in the article on ideological deterioration28 in relation to Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin. The needs of the few – to get fantastically rich – can’t be allowed to compromise the needs of the many to enjoy a dignified, peaceful and fulfilling life.” Id.“Szymanski describes “a few basic assumptions of Soviet society” that were not debated in the press: socialism as a system, communism as a goal, and the leading role of the Communist Party. “These issues are considered to have been settled once and for all and public discussion of them is considered by the regime to be potentially disruptive of popular rule.” This is consistent with Fidel Castro’s famous formula: “Within the revolution, everything; against the revolution, nothing.” These basic assumptions of socialism can be compared with the basic assumptions of capitalism: the supremacy of private property; profit as the major engine of economic activity; exploitation of labour as the source of profit. Id.“Dissidents and anticommunists were appointed as editors of newspapers and magazines, and were given carte blanche to use their publications to openly attack the basic ideas of socialism and the whole nature of the Soviet system. “Liberal intellectuals were named to run Ogonyok, Sovetskaya Kultura, Moscow News, Znamya, and Novy Mir… The top political leadership had actually given editors, journalists, writers, and economists freedom to write as they wished, using the mass media as their vehicle.” Id.“Added to all this was the fact that Gorbachev and his allies decided to end restrictions on foreign propaganda, for example putting an end to the jamming of Radio Liberty– a generously-funded propaganda arm of the CIA, focused on spreading anticommunist lies around the socialist countries of Europe. So Gorbachev’s idea of “improving socialism” was in fact based on bulldozing its structures and legacy.The attack on the party went so far that Fidel Castro, in December 1989, at an event commemorating the 2,000-plus Cubans who died in the course of their heroic internationalist duties in Angola, was moved to remark:It’s impossible to carry out a revolution or conduct a rectification without a strong, disciplined and respected party. It’s not possible to carry out such a process by slandering socialism, destroying its values, discrediting the party, demoralising its vanguard, abandoning its leadership role, eliminating social discipline, and sowing chaos and anarchy everywhere. This may foster a counter-revolution – but not revolutionary change… It is disgusting to see how many people, even in the Soviet Union itself, are engaged in denying and destroying the history-making feats and extraordinary merits of that heroic people. That is not the way to rectify and overcome the undeniable errors made by a revolution that emerged from tsarist authoritarianism in an enormous, backward, poor country. We shouldn’t blame Lenin now for having chosen tsarist Russia as the place for the greatest revolution in history.” Id.Gorbachev then began a full scale assault on reducing the power of the CPSU, the communist party, in an attempt to consolidate his own power. But by weakening the party he left there no gatekeepers of communism in the society. The party had always been the heart of the worker’s revolution and the keepers of the spirit of Marxism. Once it was destroyed the system was doomed.In China they did the opposite. There was no criticism of the party.But we do like the Soviets sometimes, too.Chomsky makes the excellent point that to debunk a lie it takes 10x longer than it does to repeat it. Why? Because lies are lazy. They rely on groupthink. So you must address and knock down improper assumptions if you are to uncover the lie. The problem is that the news media doesn’t have time for that. Second, most people are too lazy to read longer things. The prevailing logic is “Don’t make me think.”Perhaps the most ridiculous things I have heard was from someone who claimed that I am full of it because my answers are “too long,” “based on sophistry,” “cherry picked for the facts,” and “If you cannot explain something simply, you don’t understand it.” Einstein said this. However, he was required to show his work, and not present his theories in cartoon form. Unpacking lies takes time, especially when dealing with a heavily indoctrinated audience.Concision explainedThe other issue is novelty. If you make statements that are outside the groupthink, you need to support them. They will sound crazy to the closed minded. But the open minded will hear you.Verdict:The U.S. propaganda was far more successful.The Soviet propaganda was okay, but you could see through it far more easily than U.S. propaganda.The real problem in the Soviet Union was Glasnost, which really tore the house down. You could have had no propaganda but forbidden anti-Soviet propaganda and been fine. But permitting dissent was the real problem. Also, remember the Soviet people had not learned about so called “atrocities” of Stalin and the Bolsheviks, so they had no framework to discern truth from fact. So they were easily duped by Solzhenitsyn and other dissenters. Solznitsyn is the most effect propagandist in history.His wife told the truth very clearly:A 2003 article regarding the death of Solzhenitsyn’s wife put it like this:“In her 1974 memoir, Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn”…, 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.”The Gulag Archipelago shouldn’t be taken seriouslyFurther, Solzehenitsyn was a right wing radical and extremist.“But there's something else that makes him more complex than just a victim of tyranny and a crusader against it. Once in America and feted by Western leaders, he urged the US to continue bombing Vietnam. He condemned Amnesty International as too liberal, opposed democracy in Russia, and supported General Franco.”Mark Steel: A reactionary called SolzhenitsynThe other accounts of the gulags from letters written by prisoners depicts a whole different reality.“Well-known accounts of Stalin-era labor camps like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” and Gustaw Herling’s “A World Apart” imply, in their very titles, that detention sites were almost entirely cut off from the rest of Soviet society – islands divided from the country’s “mainland,” or underworlds into which prisoners disappeared, never to be heard from again.In fact, most Stalin-era labor camp inmates theoretically enjoyed at least some letter-writing privileges. Although rules varied depending on where and when a prisoner was held, often inmates could receive an unlimited amount of correspondence through the official camp mail system (though this was heavily censored).The amount they could send depended on the crime, with harsher limits for political offenders. In the 1940s, inmates sentenced for political crimes were often limited to sending only two to three letters home per year. But some political prisoners, like Formakov, managed to get around these constraints and send steady streams of letters through a mixture of official and illicit channels.”“In a separate series of letters, Formakov describes the stage shows he performed in as part of a camp cultural brigade. In a letter to his wife dated March 9, 1946, Formakov explained that the sunny attitudes the inmates who participated in these shows had to assume were often very much at odds with their reality:“We had a concert on the 8th in honor of International Women’s Day. I served as the emcee… You act as master of ceremonies, make some witty remarks, and then head backstage, release your soul, and you just want to wail… For this reason, I never let it go; my soul is always in a corset.”In addition to letters on standard lined notebook paper and mass-produced postcards, Formakov sent handmade birthday and Christmas cards. In one case, he carved a special anniversary greeting into birch bark for his wife. He wrote and illustrated short stories for his two children (Dima, five years old at the time of Formakov’s first arrest in July 1940, and Zhenia, born in December 1940). And he decorated the pages of some of the letters he sent with pressed wildflowers.”In letters from Stalin's labor camps, a window into Soviet political oppression“But his letters – both those sent through official channels and those smuggled out – capture many details that rarely figure in the memoirs of labor camp survivors. For instance, in a letter dated August 10, 1944, Formakov describes the surreal experience of going to the camp club to watch the 1941 American musical comedy “Sun Valley Serenade,” which had just been purchased by Soviet authorities and would have been a hot ticket in Moscow. Similarly, in a communication dated Oct. 27, 1947, he references rumors of an impending devaluation of the ruble, which suggests that – despite the Soviet state’s efforts to keep plans for a December 1947 currency reform secret – news had leaked, even to distant labor camps.Such passages support recent research by scholars Wilson Bell and Golfo Alexopolous, who have noted that labor camps were far more intertwined with the rest of Soviet society than previously thought.”Other accounts have also corroborated these facts.The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA““Humanitarian” lies serve to brainwash the population into supporting imperialist wars. Fed by far-right propaganda, and funded by the CIA, the mainstream “news” outlets describe the Soviet labour camps – also known as the “the Gulags” – as Stalin’s means to repress pro-democracy dissidents and to enslave the Soviet masses. However, the same CIA that, through Operation Mockingbird, gave the US military almost-total control over mainstream press in order to foster anti-Soviet disinformation (Tracy 2018), has recently released declassified documents that invalidate the slanders surrounding the Gulags.The CIA which conducted various anti-Soviet operations for almost five decades, and whose staff strived to obtain accurate intelligence about the USSR, cannot be said to have any bias in favor of the USSR. Therefore, the following declassified CIA files that surprisingly “confess” in favor of the Soviet Union are particularly valuable.”“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:“According 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.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/read...Hillary 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/2...Tracy, 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/5471956 “Source: The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIAWhy Americans are so effectively indoctrinated.The U.S. has a long and very sophisticated history of propaganda, dating back to WWI, in which Edward Bernays created the modern marketing industry.Marketing and advertising are propaganda. The names are different.Marketing—Propaganda for selling goods and servicesAdvertising—Print or media propaganda for selling goods and servicesPropaganda—”Is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations and the media can also produce propaganda. “Propaganda - Wikipedia“In the twentieth century, the term propaganda has often been associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically was a neutral descriptive term. A wide range of materials and media are used for conveying propaganda messages, which changed as new technologies were invented, including paintings, cartoons, posters, pamphlets, films, radio shows, TV shows, and websites. More recently, the digital age has given rise to new ways of disseminating propaganda, for example, through the use of bots and algorithms to create computational propaganda and spread fake or biased news using social media. In a 1929 literary debate with Edward Bernays, Everett Dean Martinargues that, "Propaganda is making puppets of us. We are moved by hidden strings which the propagandist manipulates." Id.Bernays was a genius at influencing the public. Prior to this period advertising used logic to sell goods. For example, a Ford might create advertising that describes the quality of the product, its usefulness, and other logical reasons to buy the product.Freudian psychoanalysis was becoming very popular at the time. Freud talked about how human beings are not solely rational actors. In fact there are subconscious desires acting upon us without our knowledge. Freud intended to use these factors to help people overcome their mental disturbances. Bernays had a different purpose—to make money.Bernays happened to be Freud’s nephew. Bernays was approached by a cigarette manufacturer.“I have an untapped market,” the executive said.“There is a stigma against women smoking, so we are missing out on potential sales of cigarettes.”“Let me think about and get back to you,” Bernays said.There was turmoil in Europe, so Bernays did not write to him.“So then I called up the head Freudian psycholanalyst in America and presented the problem.”“I can help you, said the psychoanalyst, but it is going to take some money.”A week later Bernays received a call back.“Women don’t smoke because there is a stigma against women smoking. Men don’t like it. But there is a big push for women’s suffrage. So you need to associate smoking with women’s liberation. Call the cigarettes ‘Torches of Freedom’ and have important women smoking. It will associate smoking with women’s liberation.”Bernays told the cigarette maker to give cigarettes to women marching in a parade for women’s suffrage. They did. The newspapers reported the smoking as “Torches of Freedom.”Smoking among women skyrocketed and the cigarette companies made a fortune.Appealing to women who wanted freedom and to be cosmopolitan was very effective.America was isolationist and didn’t want to enter WWI. President Wilson did. He hired Bernays to turn around public opinion regarding the war. Bernays was incredibly successful.This documentary covers Bernays very well.To this day political elections are marketing campaigns. Take for example Barack Obama. Obama was young, well spoken, good looking, in line with American neoliberalism and not a radical, and could reliably deliver on the side of Wall Street. He received enormous support from them.America was given a “sample” of Obama during the 2004 election. The Democratic Party is ran by the elites of Wall Street. The Democratic Party up until recently had in its selection process superdelegates. These were party elites that could deliver a huge number of votes. The superdelegates could easily outnumber the number of votes by members of the party. That is why Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election had virtually no chance of winning unless he received a vast majority of votes by the ordinary members of the party. The elites also happen to be leading members of society, including Wall Street, Fortune 500 corporations, etc. In America both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are corporate parties. Turns out the primary was far more rigged in other ways too, as shown by Wikileaks.The public liked Obama. America had been run through the ringer by the Big Banks selling risky but profitable subprime loans. They were selling debt packages too, which they knew were not secure. America was in a terrible recession and mired in Iraq and Afghanistan in bloody wars going nowhere. America was terrified still of terrorists.Obama could be sold as something different. Young, articulate, and African American—perhaps he could be sold as someone who might give us hope and bring change. Thus, the “Hope and Change” campaign began. During this process Obama let himself become everything to all people. He made no efforts to disabuse liberals of his neoliberal ideology.Obama won. Bernays would have been so proud. Obama’s campaign even won a “Marketer of the Year Award.”"I think he did a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name to being a candidate for president," said Linda Clarizio, president of AOL's Platform A, the sponsor of the opening-night dinner attended by 750 where the votes were cast."I honestly look at [Obama's] campaign and I look at it as something that we can all learn from as marketers," said Angus Macaulay, VP-Rodale marketing solutions "To see what he's done, to be able to create a social network and do it in a way where it's created the tools to let people get engaged very easily. It's very easy for people to participate."Jon Fine, marketing and media columnist for BusinessWeek, pointed to Mr. Obama's facility with engaging voters in social-media channels. "It's the fuckin' Web 2.0 thing," he said.In introducing the winner to the crowd, Ad Age Editor Jonah Bloom joked, "I'm surprised. I thought you [all] made more than $250,000."Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the YearObama turned out to be the Trojan Horse that saved Wall Street. As President he bailed out the Big Banks and auto companies. He let Main St. learn “tough love and personal responsibility.”He also was the best friend to the defense contractors and the military industrial complex. He doubled down on drone strikes and extrajudicial killings. He supported the overthrow of governments in Libya, Honduras, and Ukraine, and largely in Syria by supporting jihadi extremists fighting against Assad, a moderate Muslim. He presided over a massive government surveillance program spying on all Americans.Obama’s Final Drone Strike DataBoth Republicans and Democrats agree when it comes to U.S. imperial aggression.At a speech for the elites Obama proudly reminds them how much he did for them:“You’re welcome.”The American Media As Self CensoringNoam Chomsky and Ed Hermann in their book “Manufacturing Consent” discuss how the media self censors while presenting information. The best form of propaganda is that in which the speaker truly believes it. That way it is sincere.The U.S. mainstream media is owned and operated by six major corporations. Advertisers control funding, thus they control the content by voting with their wallets. If Tucker Carlson says something that offends the public and might hurt their sales, they pull the funding. Without money the show is cancelled. If Tucker Carlson says something pro socialist, this is detrimental to business interests, so the funding gets cut.Journalists that believe in the values of American imperialism, neoliberalism, and American exceptionalism are hired. Dissent is permitted, but within sharply constrained boundaries.Discussion is focused on differences between the two corporate parties, Republican vs. Democrat. The Green Party and others aren’t given much attention. Sharp differences between the two give the illusion of free speech and active debate.Television media is constrained by concision. Pundits must say things in between commercials. Pundits that say things contrary to the standard conventional wisdom are not aired because explaining the facts and nuances of their positions would take too long. So pundits tend to just confirm what is already understood.“Balance” is another factor. Take climate change, for instance. 97% of climate change scientists are in consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This is established. But the media will bring on one scientist to represent the majority and for “balance” a dissenter will be brought on. Then the two debate. This gives the impression that the matter is in fact not settled, and there is genuine debate going on in the climate change scientist community. It is not.Just in case the mainstream media doesn’t fight communism enough, the government works to ensure that the public is properly propagandized against the “evils of socialism.”School in America is the primary form of propagandaThe Black Book of CommunismThe Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Nicholas Werth et al. is anti-communist propaganda filled with lies and misrepresentations. The book is often quoted for the bogus claims that “Communism killed 100 million people,” “Stalin killed 60 million,” etc.In it, the authors wrongly equivocate communism and Nazism. Nevermind that Hitler was the mortal enemy of communism, whom he claimed were “JudeoBolsheviks” because 80% of the Bolsheviks were Jews. It was communists that liberated Jews from the camps. Upon liberating them some Soviet soldiers broke down. Many vomited. Some found Nazi guards hiding and killed them.Were the Nazis Socialists? SnopesMost of the Black Book of Communism the regurgitation of Nazi propaganda. Sometimes it references Robert Conquest. It fails to mention that Conquest based much of his narrative on Nazi propaganda (at that time the Kremlin had not released seminal documents), so historians had confused propaganda from what really happened. Once Conquest, Pipes, and Applebaum published their works, these composed the Cold War propaganda canon. Any attempts to correct these by actual historical proof that was released by the Kremlin after the fall of the USSR was waived off as “Stalin apologism” and equating it with “Holocaust denial.”Alexander Finnegan's answer to How true is the claim that most Cold War propaganda about the Soviet Union is regurgitated directly from Nazi propaganda?CriticismEven mainline scholars consider it not something to be taken seriously.Whereas chapters of the book, where it describes the events in separate Communist states, were highly praised, some generalizations made by Courtois in the introduction to the book became a subject of criticism both on scholarly and political grounds. Moreover, two of the book's main contributors—Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin—as well as Karel Bartosek publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct. Werth and Margolin felt Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship"and faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries. They also argued that based on the results of their studies, one can tentatively estimate the total number of the victims at between 65 and 93 million. In particular, Margolin, who authored the Black Book's chapter on Vietnam, clarified "that he has never mentioned a million deaths in Vietnam.” Historians Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty have criticized Courtois for failing to draw a distinction between victims of neglect and famine and victims of "intentional murder". Economic historian Michael Ellman has argued that the book's estimate of "at least 500,000" deaths during the Soviet famine of 1946–1947 "is formulated in an extremely conservative way, since the actual number of victims was much larger", with 1,000,000–1,500,000 excess deaths. Regarding these questions, historian Alexander Dallin has argued that moral, legal, or political judgments hardly depend on the number of victims. Many observers have rejected Courtois's numerical and moral comparison of Communism to Nazism in the introduction. According to Werth, there was still a qualitative difference between Nazism and Communism, saying: "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union". He further told Le Monde: "The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious". In a critical review, historian Amir Weiner wrote: "When Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution". Historian Ronald Suny remarked that Courtois' comparison of 100 million victims of Communism to 25 million victims of Nazism "[leaves out] out most of the 40-60,000,000 lives lost in the Second World War, for which arguably Hitler and not Stalin was principally responsible". A report by the Wiesel Commission criticized the comparison of Gulag victims with Jewish Holocaustvictims as an attempt to trivialize the Holocaust. Historian Peter Kenez criticized the chapter written by Nicolas Werth: "Werth can also be an extremely careless historian. He gives the number of Bolsheviks in October 1917 as 2,000, which is a ridiculous underestimate. He quotes from a letter of Lenin to Alexander Shliapnikovand gives the date as 17 October 1917; the letter could hardly have originated at that time, since in it Lenin talks about the need to defeat the Tsarist government, and turn the war into a civil conflict. He gives credit to the Austro-Hungarian rather than the German army for the conquest of Poland in 1915. He describes the Provisional Government as 'elected'. He incorrectly writes that the peasant rebels during the civil war did more harm to the Reds than to the Whites, and so on". Historian Mark Tauger challenged the authors' thesis that the famine of 1933 was largely artificial and genocidal. According to journalist Gilles Perrault, the books ignores the effect of international factors, including military interventions, on the communist experience. Social critic Noam Chomsky has criticized the book and its reception as one-sided by outlining economist Amartya Sen's research on hunger. While India's democratic institutions prevented famines, its excess of mortality over China—potentially attributable to the latter's more equal distribution of medical and other resources—was nonetheless close to 4 million per year for non-famine years. Chomsky argued that "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of [...] Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone". Le Siècle des Communismes, a collective work of twenty academics, was a response to both François Furet's Le passé d'une Illusion and Courtois's The Black Book of Communism. It broke Communism down into series of discrete movements, with mixed positive and negative results. The Black Book of Communism prompted the publication of several other "black books" which argued that similar chronicles of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism.The Black Book of Communism - WikipediaThe Black Book of Communism alleges that communism killed 94 million people during the 20th century. This number is accumulated from more than 10 different nations and various movements around the world. It includes two of some of the most populated nations on Earth — China and the Soviet Union. Despite being cited often, the Black Book of Communism has repeatedly been criticized for it’s reckless, careless, and highly questionable methodology.Some of the major criticisms against the Black Book of Communism includes the fact that it counts the following as “victims of communism”: some nazis and their collaborators who were killed by the Soviet Union during World War II, people who died in the 1921 Russian famine (which was caused by drought, the whites stealing food, war, etc), other hunger-related deaths caused by the nazi war against the Soviet Union, and many other incidents that were dishonestly attributed. The book contains deaths dishonestly attributed to communism by completely ignoring external factors such as sanctions, foreign military intervention, etc. It also includes inaccuracies of historical events such as when Werth credits the Austro-Hungarian army, not the German army, for the occupation of Poland in 1915, making the ridiculous claim that the bolsheviks only had 2,000 members in October 1917 when they actually had around 200,000 members, or claiming that the infamous U.S.-backed dictator Batista “fiercely opposed” the U.S., and in some instances, pulls numbers straight out of thin air.Debunking: “Communism killed more people than naziism!”A passage from the “Black Book of Communism” where it portrays the OUN/UPA nazi collaborators as heroic victims of communism who fought against the ‘commies and jews’ . They are responsible for pogroms in Ukraine where they murdered tens of thousands of Jewish, Polish, & other ethnic minorities alongside of the German nazis such as in Babi Yar (1941) where they later set up the Syrets nazi concentration camp in 1942. Id.The critics of the book’s claim of 94 million people killed by communism includes some the book’s own authors. One of them that is particularly noteworthy is Nicholas Werth, who is responsible for writing much of the book. Werth is on record as saying that the allegations of a death toll of communism during the 20th century of beyond 85 million as being ‘non-clarified’ and ‘unjustified’. Continuing, he says from the book that the highest possible estimate is 93 million while the lowest being 65 million. In another instance he also admitted that he alleged 15 million deaths by the Soviet Union and Courtois, the editor, seemingly pulled 5 million deaths out of thin air, which just so coincidentally happens to be about as many nazi/axis soliders that were killed in WWII by the USSR, and added it to reach 20 million. Margolin, another main writer of the book, also admitted in the previous Le Monde article that Courtois’s claim of one million killed in Vietnam is also bogus, stating that he ‘never reported a million’. In explaining why Courtois lied, they admitted that the editor was “obsessed” with trying to reach 100 million. Various authors of the book have also protested Courtois’s comparison of communism and naziism with comments such as ‘extermination camps did not exist in the USSR’ and ‘the more you compare communism and nazism, the more the differences are obvious.’The claim that communism killed 94 million people during the 20th century, for all intents and purposes, is an outright lie that hinges on counting millions of deaths that were not caused by communism and by having sympathies for nazis and their genocidal collaborators during WWII, as if they were victims of anything but justice. But that is a whole discussion for another time — even with the Black Book of Communism’s fake death toll, many people have taken it upon themselves to stretch that lie even more, attempting to place the death toll at 100 million. The false and inflated number of 100 million people being killed by communism over 100 years will be the number I will use just because it is the most common myth perpetuated.If the allegation against communism is that it killed 100 million people, how many people did naziism kill? The Holocaust death toll is estimated to be between 15 million to 20 million people. That is at least 1.25 million people killed each year. Compared to communism’s alleged one million deaths among ten different nations and from various movements. If naziism kept that pace of 1.25 million people killed each year, it would reach 125 million deaths in a century— compared to communism’s alleged 100 million. Comparing the alleged deaths of 100 years of communism to the death toll from 12 years of naziism is intellectually dishonest, you are comparing apples to oranges. When you realize that you are comparing 15 million deaths in 12 years versus 100 million deaths in 100 years, the claim that “communism killed more people than naziism” starts to become more visible as the nazi propaganda that it is.However naziism is responsible for more deaths than just from the Holocaust. Naziism is why World War II even happened — had naziism not been created then Nazi Germany wouldn’t have caused the world war, and World War II (as we know it) would not have existed. It is possible in a hypothetical universe that a war would have still occurred given the material conditions that the nazis exploited to rise to power. But at the same time it is also possible that other people would have risen to power and not caused a war. But we live in this universe and in this universe WWII was officially caused by Nazi Germany after rising to power by exploiting the dismal material conditions in the failed capitalist Weimar Republic. The number of civilians killed during WWII is estimated to be about 50 million people to 55 million people (almost all being allied civilians, largely Soviet civilians), about half being from famine and war-related diseases. Military deaths range from 21 million people to 25 million people — in total that is about 71 million people to 80 million people killed because of naziism’s war on humanity through WWII. Using both of the most conservative estimates, 71 million from WWII and 15 million from the Holocaust, that’s about 86 million people killed by naziism. In 12 years.Naziism was only getting started with it’s killing though. The nazis had a plan called “Generalplan Ost”, a plan for genocide of Slavs and colonization of Eastern Europe. The population of the Soviet Union was over 160,000,000 people before the war and had a net growth of almost over a million people each non-wartime year. In 1946, the population of the Soviet Union was 170,548,000, after losing over 20,000,000 people during World War II. The nazi plan, had the Soviets and their allies lost, would have resulted in the deaths of about 200,000,000 people in the Soviet Union.What about the deaths caused by neo-nazis since World War II? Since 2014, thousands of civilians have been killed by the neo-nazi militias of the fascist Ukrainian government such as Azov in Donbass with grad rockets, by cutting off water supplies, shelling the homes of civilians, and more. An alt-right nazi terrorist in Norway (2011) killed 77 people and injured over 300. The number of deaths by nazi terrorist attacks, neo-nazi movements, and regimes inspired by Nazi Germany adds more and more deaths to the nazi death toll.Nazi Germany was born in 1933 and died in 1945. In 12 years of it’s ugly existence, it led to the deaths of over 86 million people between the Holocaust and causing World War II. Meanwhile the allegation against communism over 100 years in 10 different nations (two of which were some of the most populated nations on Earth), and from various communist movements around the world is 100 million people killed.And as for capitalism, 100 million Indigenous people in the Americas were killed during the European colonization for the propagation of American capitalism, as well as millions of African people that were enslaved as property to be profited off of by capitalists in the West. How many people have been killed by capitalist sanctions? How many people have been killed in capitalist wars? How many people have been killed by capitalist dictators like Pincohet? How many people have died and will we let die for profiteering?Every time you preach this lie, you’re aiding the rise of neo-naziism & fascism. Put the intellectually dishonest claim that “communism killed more people than naziism” to sleep — you’re lying to yourself & everybody around you. Id.There are indeed no limits to which anti-communists will stoop to preach their hateful message. Sadly, some of it comes from right wing nationalists. There is a disturbing increase in fascism and neo Nazism around the world.More realistic numbers can be found.Some may argue that capitalism is not related to imperialism. Or some argue that capitalism is not bad but crony capitalism, or corporatism is the problem. Both are untrue. Capitalism involves competition. When corporate entities influence politicians to make laws which favor them and disrupt the market, this is unstoppable because liberal democracy is bourgeois democracy. It is rule by the bourgeois elites who will stop at nothing to maintain their power. Your average person doesn’t want there to be corporate donations and lobbying, but this is not something they can change because even the Supreme Court has endorsed dark money and has called corporate donations Constitutionally protected Free Speech.“According to Karl Marx, the expansion of imperialism was directly linked to a growth in capitalism due to one fundamental reason: the fact that capitalism was a worldwide system and unable to be constrained within the boundaries of a single country or nation-state (Chandra, 39). This viewpoint of Marx is reiterated by historian Bipan Chandra who states: “by its very nature capitalism could not exist in only one country…it expanded to encompass the entire world, including the backward, noncapitalist countries…it was a world system” (Chandra, 39). In accordance with this view, Marx argued that capitalism required an “international division of labour,” in which the capitalists sought to convert “one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field” (Chandra, 43). Thus, according to Marx, imperialism served as a means to extract a large amount of “raw materials” and resources in a relatively cheap manner – all at the expense (and exploitation) of the indigenous peoples of the world that came into contact with the imperial powers. Ironically, Marx viewed the expansion of capitalist societies into the world as a necessary evil that would, ultimately, shift societies toward the path of communism. For Marx – who believed that society followed a series of progressing epochs – imperialism was simply the next (and unavoidable) step for capitalism’s relentless expansion.”Capitalism and the Expansion of ImperialismHitler loved capitalism. He believed in private property. The Nazis at Mauthausen concentration camp would rent prisoner slaves to businesses, including Volkswagen and Bayer. Slaves were rented to do quarry work and to work on railroad lines. Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex - WikipediaThe lies about the Holomodor have been solidly debunked:Alexander Finnegan's answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day?Much of the present anti-communist propaganda is from Nazis.“According to journalist George Seldes:"Hitler had the support of the most widely circulated magazine in history, Readers Digest, as well as nineteen big-city newspapers and one of the three great American news agencies, the $220-million Hearst press empire.Hearst…was the lord of all the press lords in the United States. The millions who read the Hearst newspapers and magazines and saw Hearst newsreels in the nation's moviehouses had their minds poisoned by Hitler propaganda."Seldes recounts that the American Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, told him that"[When] Hearst came to take the waters at Bad Nauheim [Germany] in September 1934…Hitler sent two of his most trusted Nazi propagandists…to ask Hearst how Nazism could present a better image in the U.S. When Hearst went to Berlin later in the month, he was taken to see Hitler."Seldes reports that a $400,000 a year deal was struck between Hearst and Hitler, and signed by Doctor Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. "Hearst," continues Seldes, "completely changed the editorial policy of his nineteen daily newspapers the same month he got the money."In court documents filed on behalf of Dan Gillmor, publisher of a magazine Friday, in response to a lawsuit by Hearst, he states:"Promptly after this visit with Adolf Hitler and the making of said arrangements... plaintiff, William Randolph Hearst, instructed all Hearst press correspondents in Germany, including those of INS (Hearst's International News Service) to report happenings in Germany only in a friendly manner. All of correspondents reporting happenings in Germany accurately and without friendliness, sympathy and bias for the actions of the German government, were transferred elsewhere, discharged, or forced to resign."In the late 1930s, Seldes recounts, when "several sedition indictments [were brought by] the Department of Justice...against a score or two of Americans, the defendants included an unusually large minority of newspaper men and women, most of them Hearst employees."Source: Randy Davis, "Nazis in the Attic"http://www.emperors-clothes.com/...---William Randolph Hearst is known as one of the largest media moguls of all time. During the 1930s, he worked with the Nazi party to help promote a positive image of the Nazi party in American media. He also received loans from Italian fascist bankers during this time. The actions of Hearst were an important element in shaping American sentiment about not getting involved in the political situation in Europe as many Americans were lead to believe that there was nothing terribly wrong going on in Europe, and even after the war started some Americans continued to support the Nazi regime based on the propaganda that they had been exposed to through Hearst media sources.Source: "This War Is About So Much More."http://ww.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm”William Randolph HearstIt is a matter of some significance that Cardinal Innitzer’s allegations of famine-genocide were widely promoted throughout the 1930s, not only by Hitler’s chief propagandist Goebbels, but also by American Fascists as well.It will be recalled that Hearst kicked off his famine campaign with a radio broadcast based mainly on material from Cardinal Innitzer’s “aid committee.” In Organized Anti-Semitism in America, the 1941 book exposing Nazi groups and activities in the pre-war United States, Donald Strong notes that American fascist leader Father Coughlin used Nazi propaganda material extensively. This included Nazi charges of “atrocities by Jew Communists” and verbatim portions of a Goebbels speech referring to Innitzer’s “appeal of July 1934, that millions of people were dying of hunger throughout the Soviet Union.”Tottle, Douglas. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Toronto: Progress Books,1987, p. 49-51Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomorhttp://www.rationalrevolution.ne...The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took PlaceThe West is also susceptible to anything anti-communist. Even Solzehnitysn’s wife admitted her husband’s book was fiction.A 2003 article regarding the death of Solzhenitsyn’s wife put it like this:“In her 1974 memoir, Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn”…, 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.”The Gulag Archipelago shouldn’t be taken seriouslyIn fact the U.S. government hired former Nazis to help them create propaganda and to spy on leftists.“The wide use of Nazi spies grew out of a Cold War mentality shared by two titans of intelligence in the 1950s: Mr. Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, and Mr. Dulles, the C.I.A. director.Mr. Dulles believed “moderate” Nazis might “be useful” to America, records show. Mr. Hoover, for his part, personally approved some ex-Nazis as informants and dismissed accusations of their wartime atrocities as Soviet propaganda.In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. Mr. Hoover declared the journalist, Charles Allen, a potential threat to national security.”In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazishttps://www.archives.gov/files/i...““Honest and idealist … enjoys good food and wine … unprejudiced mind …”That’s how a 1952 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment described Nazi ideologue Emil Augsburg, an officer at the infamous Wannsee Institute, the SS think tank involved in planning the Final Solution. Augsburg’s SS unit performed “special duties,” a euphemism for exterminating Jews and other “undesirables” during the Second World War.Although he was wanted in Poland for war crimes, Augsburg managed to ingratiate himself with the U.S. CIA, which employed him in the late 1940s as an expert on Soviet affairs. Recently released CIA records indicate that Augsburg was among a rogue’s gallery of Nazi war criminals recruited by U.S. intelligence agencies shortly after Germany surrendered to the Allies.Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the cold war–the CIA’s use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a clandestine campaign against the Soviet Union.The CIA reports show that U.S. officials knew they were subsidizing numerous Third Reich veterans who had committed horrible crimes against humanity, but these atrocities were overlooked as the anti-Communist crusade acquired its own momentum. For Nazis who would otherwise have been charged with war crimes, signing on with American intelligence enabled them to avoid a prison term.“The real winners of the cold war were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused after the war on challenging each other,” says Eli Rosenbaum, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and America’s chief Nazi hunter. Rosenbaum serves on a Clinton-appointed Interagency Working Group (IWG) committee of U.S. scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification.”The CIA's Worst-Kept Secret: Newly Declassified Files Confirm United States Collaboration with Nazis - Institute for Policy StudiesThe art of the big lie: the history of fake newsOne of the biggest forms of propaganda is the myth that communism killed 100 million people. Every time you hear it the lie gets bigger. If someone fell off their bicycle and hit their head and died it must have been the fault of communists, according to their strange logic. The truth is that communism never caused a famine. Famines were common in Russia. The Nazis blamed the famine on Stalin to incite Ukrainian nationalism. Stalin never killed by the Great Purge millions of people. In fact reliable sources estimate that no more than 250k at the absolute most died in the purges, and many of those killed were swept up in the purges ran by lower level officials. Stalin ordered some people killed. Those condemned in the trials have been shown to be guilty by overwhelming evidence. They were not show trials.Debunking: “Communism killed more people than naziism!”Even to the present day America supports neo-Nazis in Ukraine. America has a long history of pro-Nazi sentiment.America’s Collusion With Neo-Nazis

Significant fact checked statements?According to NYTIMES,Fact Checks of the Third Presidential DebateReporters for The New York Timesfact-checked the statements made byHillary Clinton and Donald J. Trumpduring Wednesday’s presidential debate.Here’s how we analyzed it live, or just get the highlights.Updated October 21, 2016FACT CHECKED: The U.S. Intelligence Community is made up of 17 agencies, forming the basis of Clinton’s claim.The 17 agencies are: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.However, as the head of the 17-agency intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group.Our rulingClinton said, "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails…[PoliFact] rate Clinton’s statement True.Clinton, Trump clash on Russia's role in electionOCT. 19, 2016 RELATED ARTICLEMr. Trump said that health insurance premiums were “going up 60, 70, 80 percent,” and “next year, they’re going to go up over 100 percent.”Overstated.Trump, Premiums for individual health insurance under the Affordable Care Act are rising sharply in many states and counties. Increases of 25 percent to 45 percent or more have been approved in some states. But increases of 80 percent or more are rare. And federal subsidies help pay the cost for many — but not all — consumers. WPOST says, Trump cherry picked with premium increases ranging from 1.2 % to 70% but averaging 9%— Robert PearTrump, Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees “who are definitely ISIS-aligned — we now have them in our country.”Highly unlikely.Read moreMr. Trump said a cease-fire agreement between the United States and Russia allowed Russia to control more territory in Syria, because the Russians outplayed the United States.Grains of truth.Read moreOn projections that Mr. Trump’s proposals would raise the national debt, he said that “they’re wrong because I’m going to create tremendous jobs.”Good luck with that.Read moreMr. Trump criticized the Obama administration’s support of publicizing in advance the Iraqi-led attack on Mosul, which just began.Not so fast.Read moreMr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons.Not anytime soon.Read moreMrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump tweeted that the Emmy’s were “rigged” when he did not win for “The Apprentice.”He said he was robbed.Read moreRegarding Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, Mr. Trump said that “she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime.”Not even close.Read moreMr. Trump asserted that $6 billion went missing from the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state.A mischaracterization.Read moreMrs. Clinton said that when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president, the fiscal position of the federal government improved: A $300 billion budget deficit turned into a $200 billion surplus, she said. And, she added, “we were actually on the path to eliminating the national debt.”Half-right, half-wrong.Read moreMrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump didn’t even raise the issue of the border wall with the Mexican president, since he choked.Both choked.Read moreMr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton deleted 33,000 of her private emails after she got a subpoena. WPOST disagrees, [says she started deleting before sobpoena and no evidence she anticipated one]PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation.In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya.Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files.For our list of 15 fact checks on the Clinton email controversy, go here.“If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote … that shouldn’t be registered to vote.”–TrumpTrump cited a 2012 Pew Center on the States study as the source of this claim during the debate, while indicating that there may be potential voter fraud during this election. But this study looked at ways to make the election system more accurate, cost-effective and efficient. It did not say that these problems indicated signs of isolated or widespread voter fraud.About 24 million (1 in every 8) voter registrations were significantly inaccurate or no longer valid because people moved, had died or were inactive voters.More than 1.8 million records for people who are deceased, but whose registrations were still on voter rolls.About 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. This could happen if voters move to a new state and register to vote without notifying their former state.Outdated technology, shrinking government budgets and paper-based registration systems contributed to inaccuracies and inefficiencies.Clinton: “Well, you know, once again, Donald is implying that he didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I’ve said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is…”Trump: “Wrong.”Clinton: “… a very clear fact that…”Trump: “Wrong.”Clinton: “… before the invasion, he supported it.”Mostly true.Read moreWhen asked about the many women who have come forward to allege they were kissed or groped by Mr. Trump without their consent, Mr. Trump said the stories were largely debunked.Not true.Read moreMr. Trump said the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is in 32 countries.Way too high.Read moreMrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump bought Chinese steel for his Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.Reports suggest it's right.Read moreMr. Trump, “We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”No. No. No.Read moreClinton, Mr. Trump used undocumented workers to build Trump Tower.Too far.Read moreMr. Trump suggested that South Korea and Japan do not pay any of the costs of maintaining American military bases on their territory.Wrong.Read moreMrs. Clinton said her fiscal plan “doesn’t add a penny to the debt.”Wishful thinking.Read moreMrs. Clinton said that Mr. Trump’s economic plan “might lose 3.5 million jobs” while giving tax cuts to people at the very top.WPOST, Mark Zandi, a well-respected economist at Moodys Analytics, did issue a report saying that if Trump’s economic plans were fully implemented, 3.5 million jobs would disappear, incomes would stagnate, debt would explode, and stock prices would plummet. (This compares to an anticipated increase of 6 million jobs under current Obama administration policies.) Zandi, in another report, also said that if Clinton were able to fully implement her economic plans, the economy would add an additional 3.2 million jobs during the first four years of her presidency. Combined with anticipated job creation under current law, that adds up to 10.4 million jobs. …But both reports were highly dubious that either candidate would be able to get their plans through Congress, including Trump even if Congress was controlled by Republicans–because so many of his positions are such a departure from Republican principles. Even so the report said the U.S. economy would likely suffer under a Trump presidency… the report said Trump’s trade policies would be especially damaging.“He shipped jobs to 12 countries, including Mexico.”–ClintonThis is correct. Trump has a long history of outsourcing a variety of his products and has acknowledged doing so. We know of at least 12 countries where Trump products were manufactured: China, the Netherlands, Mexico, India, Turkey, Slovenia, Honduras, Germany, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam and South Korea.Further, Trump products transited other countries through the packaging and shipping process — meaning workers in more than 12 countries contributed to getting many of Trump’s products made, packaged and delivered to the United States.Check out our complete inventory of Trump’s products made overseas.“Just like when you ran the State Department, $6 billion was missing. How do you miss $6 billion? You ran the State Department, $6 billion was either stolen. They don’t know. It’s gone, $6 billion.”–TrumpWe had previously given Trump Four Pinocchios for this false claim, apparently aimed at rebutting rebut news stories about the nearly $1 billion loss that he claimed in a 2005 tax return that was made public by the New York Times.Trump misunderstands a $6 billion figure that appeared in a 2014 management alert from the State Department Inspector General. The alert summarized a variety of recent audits that indicated paperwork deficiencies in closing out contracts that were issued in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. But no money is missing or lost, a point that the IG emphasized in a letter to The Washington Post in 2014. Instead, the alert highlighted missing paperwork, not dollars.Trump is also wrong to blame Clinton. We examined the audit reports referenced in alert and concluded that easily two-thirds, or perhaps more, concerned contracts that predated Clinton’s tenure at State.“I started with a $1 million loan … but I built a phenomenal company.”–TrumpTrump consistently lowballs the help he got from his father, suggesting he got his start when he obtained a $1 million loan. “My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars,” he told NBC in October, which he claimed he had to pay back with interest. “A million dollars isn’t very much compared to what I built.”But that ignores the fact that he joined his father’s thriving real estate business after college and that he relied on his father’s connections as he made his way in the real estate world.For instance, Fred Trump — along with the Hyatt hotel chain — jointly guaranteed the $70 million construction loan from Manufacturers Hanover bank, “each assuming a 50 percent share of the obligation and each committing itself to complete the project should Donald be unable to finish it,” according to veteran Trump chronicler Wayne Barrett in his 1992 book, “Trump: The Deals and the Downfall.”Trump also benefited from three trusts that had been set up for family members. In 1976, Fred Trump set up eight $1 million trusts, one each for his five children and three grandchildren, according to a casino document. (That today would be worth about $4 million in inflation-adjusted dollars.) The casino document lists several other loans from Trump’s father to his son, including a $7.5 million loan with at least a 12-percent interest rate that was still outstanding in 1981.The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 23 reported that a 1985 casino-license document showed that Donald Trump owed his father and father’s businesses about $14 million.In a 2007 deposition, Trump admitted he had borrowed “a small amount” from his father’s estate: ‘I think it was like in the $9 million range.” And as Trump’s casinos ran into trouble, Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage — a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.“She destroyed 33,000 emails criminally, criminally, after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress.”–TrumpTrump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files.For our list of 15 fact checks on the Clinton email controversy, go here.“If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote … that shouldn’t be registered to vote.”–TrumpTrump cited a 2012 Pew Center on the States study as the source of this claim during the debate, while indicating that there may be potential voter fraud during this election. But this study looked at ways to make the election system more accurate, cost-effective and efficient. It did not say that these problems indicated signs of isolated or widespread voter fraud.About 24 million (1 in every 8) voter registrations were significantly inaccurate or no longer valid because people moved, had died or were inactive voters.More than 1.8 million records for people who are deceased, but whose registrations were still on voter rolls.About 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. This could happen if voters move to a new state and register to vote without notifying their former state.Outdated technology, shrinking government budgets and paper-based registration systems contributed to inaccuracies and inefficiencies.Clinton: “Well, you know, once again, Donald is implying that he didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I’ve said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is…”Trump: “Wrong.”Clinton: “… a very clear fact that…”Trump: “Wrong.”Clinton: “… before the invasion, he supported it.”That’s one estimate.Read moreMr. Trump, “People are going to pour in from Syria — she wants 550 percent more than Barack Obama.”True.Read moreMr. Trump’s fiscal plans would add $20 trillion to the national debt.In the long term.Read moreMrs. Clinton said that Mr. Trump is willing to “spout the Putin line” and “get help from him” in the election. Mr. Trump said “our country has no idea” if the Russians are responsible for the emails published by WikiLeaks.She is mostly right.Read moreMr. Trump said that Mrs. Clinton’s support for abortion rights would allow a fetus to be ripped from a woman’s womb in the ninth month of pregnancy, in some cases just a few days before a baby is born.WPOST “One-third take place at six weeks or pregnancy or earlier; 89 percent occur in the first 12 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute … Only 1.2 percent of abortions—about 12,000 a year– take place after 21 weeks. (The Supreme Court has held that states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the mother.) On top of that, Guttmacher says that 43 states already prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy, such as fetal viability, in the third trimester or after a certain number of weeks.Misleading.Read moreMr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton once “wanted the wall” on the Mexican border.A fence but not a wall.Read moreTrump, “Hillary wants amnesty, which is a disaster. She wants open borders.”She sent mixed messages.Read moreClinton, “We have 33,000 people a year who die from guns.” WPost, “But it is worth noting that more than 60 percent were from suicides, not gun violence.”The majority are suicides.Read moreMr. Trump said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was forced to apologize for negative comments about him.Nobody forced her.Read moreMrs. Clinton said the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed “dark money” to stream into politics.The New York Times_____________________WPOST: The Border Patrol agents — 16,500 — plus ICE last week, endorsed me. First time they’ve ever endorsed a candidate.”–Trump… Trump is actually referring to the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, which is the union representing ICE officers. The National Border Patrol Council, the organization representing 16,500 Border Patrol agents, also endorsed Trump. Both unions said this was the first time they endorsed a presidential candidate.Washington Post 3rd Debate Special Edition Fact CheckWe live fact-checked the 25th — and final! — debate night of the 2016 campaign.The final presidential debate once again demonstrated Donald Trump’s thin grasp of the facts and his willingness too make poorly sourced or inaccurate claims. Hillary Clinton, for the most part, was more factually accurate.Real-time fact-checking and analysis of the 2nd 2016 presidential debateSuggested edit to Colt StanleyPolifact Half true; toddlers part of the reason cited in the decision Clinton oversimplifies arguements in 2008 gun control caseHeller, a police officer “should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend hims; [no mention of toddler in written opinions or oral arguments] No, Hillary, The Supreme Court's Heller Decision Wasn't About Toddlers‘”You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying, that you referenced Chris, was that I disagreed with how the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns,” Clinton said.”Hillary Clinton Bizarrely Claims Landmark Heller Decision Was About Toddlers’ Access to GunsHeller? Toddlers? Death? What the debate’s gun discussion was all about.UPDATED 2016.10.20ImageSource. PoliFact