Siemens Infrastructure operates from Switzerland (e.g. “J-Stamp” land), potentially influencing its Swiss CEO, Matthias Rebellius, to allow the brand to advertise on the controversial “bambkb” account, known for promoting pro-Hitler content and Holocaust denial.

Notably, “bambkb” is a Swastika account (formerly known as Twitter) accused of consistently spreading misinformation, fostering antisemitism, and advocating for Hitler.

Collectively, [antisemitic] posts have received millions of views, according to the platform’s metrics. And notably, none of them have community notes currently attached to them — X’s supposed but inefficient guard against misinformation. Additionally, bambkb has pushed numerous conspiracy theories, promoting QAnon as well as content claiming that the Parkland, Florida, mass shooting was fake; the moon landing was staged; and the Earth is flat.

Interestingly, Siemens’ official statement about its historical connection with Hitler reflects a concerning enthusiasm for their collaboration in past crimes against humanity.

At the end of the 1930s, the regime’s demand for armaments began to intensify. Without the aid of foreign workers, the manufacturing sector could no longer meet this demand. After the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, this situation worsened since growing numbers of qualified employees at the company’s various plants were drafted for military service. The use of forced labor was seen as the only way to compensate for labor shortages.

Outbreak of hostilities? Does Siemens want us to forget it was an invasion? It was aggression. It was propaganda on an immense scale that manipulated misery and discontent from the depression into racist nationalist hatred. A fraud was generated for horribly racist Germans to believe that stealing territory and wealth from others (e.g. war) would generate prosperity for them at the expense of everyone else.

Right there on the top you can see a Siemens official doing their best to ignore reality. Outbreak of hostilities is like describing a bank robbery as an exchange of funds.

It’s even worse. Siemens want to claim that they found aid of foreign workers lacking? Hold on a minute there Carl Friedrich von Siemens!

On 17 March 1933 the head of Siemens complained bitterly about a “massive influx of foreign Jews” to Germany after WWI. For some reason he really, really hated the exact same foreign workers that he also allegedly believed there weren’t enough of… that’s the unmistakable classic sentiment of mass dehumanization.

And under this obviously cooked and contrived self-contradicting context somehow enslavement into forced labor was the only way to maintain production levels for what, exactly?

…from the end of 1943 on, Siemens primarily manufactured electrical equipment for the armed forces.

Got it. To be fair by the mid-1930s Siemens was one of Germany’s largest Nazi-supporting weapons manufacturers, profiting from the agitations for war. And with that horrible output in mind, again, was forced labor really ever the only way? Siemens even tried to campaign on the idea that slaves liked it because they enjoyed being robbed of all freedom, starved and beaten, before being shot in the head under banners like “Arbeit Macht Frei“.

In January 1946, Mr. von Siemens acknowledged that prisoners for the Nazi concentration camps at Oranienburg and Buchenwald were put at the company’s disposal by camp administrators and did work in its plants, but he could not recall how many prisoners were involved. Unaware of Ill-Treatment. He said the prisoners welcomed the opportunity to work, and he said he was not aware of any undernourishment or ill-treatment.

Funny how he knew exactly the number of slaves he required to meet Hitler’s demands, but then could not recall any numbers when held accountable for slavery.

Literally a case of widespread slave labor coming from violent racist and illegal incarceration, to which Siemens also says he was unaware of any ill-treatment.

Engaged in profit from precise control of slaves, yet unaware of numbers and ill-treatment. Incompatible statements.

Basically Siemens obligated itself to ensure its “success” would be defined by racist ill-treatment of workers, directly endorsing and engaging in slavery and then genocide.

Slavery is never close to being the only way to get work done, so you really have to wonder who wrote such horrible tone-deaf Holocaust-denial as official statements.

Siemens even officially complains in their statement about how difficult it was for them to help Hitler given how unpopular he was.

Being bombed after positioning themselves as Hitler’s loyal enabler was oh such a bother to poor, poor Siemens.

After the war broke out, production at Siemens’ German locations was impeded by transport problems, a scarcity of raw materials and, in particular, labor shortages. Starting in 1942, the situation was further exacerbated by the air war. A large number of the company’s factories in the Berlin area were destroyed by aerial bombardment, disrupting key manufacturing operations at the company’s Siemensstadt campus. Meanwhile, the demand for armaments continued to increase. Company management reacted by establishing additional production facilities in other parts of Germany and in the territories occupied by the German military. […] Later in the war, however, it became increasingly necessary to replace production capacity destroyed by Allied bombing. As a result, Siemens had transferred and relocated nearly 400 facilities by the time the war ended. These facilities also made use of forced labor.

“The situation”? Nazism was a situation.

And the war broke out? Again, an odd way to describe Hitler’s instigation, aggression and invasion.

Siemens didn’t give up direct support of Nazism even when it meant being destroyed themselves. That’s very telling. I mean, square that with their claims that they had to support Hitler to save their company. Not true, obviously. When their company was being destroyed for supporting Hitler… somehow they still decided they had to support Hitler.

Get it? That’s not a business decision. That’s just greed and dehumanization, as one historian has explained.

The Topf brothers, more interested in funding their lavish lifestyle, drinking and womanizing, approved [genocide plans for profit] without comment. […] Driven by self-preservation, office rivalries and personal greed, the men of Topf and Sons had human motives for heinous behavior. It is their very ordinariness that makes them so appalling.

Bombing Siemens into smithereens meant they quickly stole more property and enslaved more people to keep a massively growing list of crimes against humanity going. Whose land? Whose labor? The Nazi “production capacity” replacement strategy for Siemens lacks all context let alone details of who they kept forcing to lose to selfishly profit from oppression and war — why they refused to quit the abusive and fraudulent Nazi doctrines of exploitation.

Imagine how much shorter the Holocaust might have been, how many millions might have been saved, if Siemens did the obvious thing and said “hey, our production was destroyed we’re done rewarding ourselves here with slave labor” instead of scheming on how to repeatedly restart and keep their drunken and lavishly genocidal lifestyle going?

Siemens really plays their “poor, poor us” fiddle the loudest after their hopes and dreams of Nazi victory were defeated.

The Allies confiscated all the company’s tangible assets worldwide. All its trademark and patent rights were rescinded. All its foreign assets were lost. Overall, Siemens forfeited 80 percent of its total worth or some 2.6 billion German marks. In November 1941, after the death of his uncle Carl Friedrich, Hermann von Siemens was appointed to head the company. He had led Siemens through the last years of the war and was now confronted with the challenge of rebuilding the company and reestablishing it on the global market.

All those “gains” from Nazism taken away? Siemens left his more direct government role when the Nazis came to power because they were so aligned it became redundant.

Again, if they had resisted or refused to serve Hitler they would have come out better on multiple levels (including the right side of history). Yet that’s an impossibility given Siemens’ long known and apparently ongoing fondness for Nazism.

The Siemens narrative suggests they unapologetically prioritized “profit” from war crimes including genocide over any ethical considerations, even when facing their own destruction as a result.

That gives proper context to the company’s current association with a pro-Hitler Holocaust-denial campaign on social media. It raises concerns about any present commitment to ethical practices as well as historical responsibility. Apparently 80% forfeiture wasn’t enough of a lesson the last time.

Let me put it plainly. When Jews had 100% of their assets stolen, families destroyed, even their lives taken for no reason other than hate/racism, Siemens says he was unaware of any ill-treatment. When Siemens engaged in facilitating and expanding hate/racism crimes against humanity, implicated in millions of deaths and forced to forfeit just 80% of ill-gotten or stolen assets, then suddenly Siemens whines like a stuck pig about the hardship of Nazi defeat and loss.

Related: in 2001 Siemens tried to trademark Zyklon (Cyclone) for their new line of gas ovens, trying to profit on the very specific name of poison gas used for Nazi genocide.

German engineering giant Siemens has hastily abandoned plans to register the trademark “Zyklon”, the same name as the Zyklon B poison gas used in Nazi extermination camps, BBC News Online has learnt. A year ago, Bosch Siemens Hausgeraete (BSH), the firm’s consumer products joint venture, filed two applications with the US Patent & Trademark Office for the Zyklon name across a range of home products, including gas ovens.

Not exactly the best marketing team at Siemens, something not quite right with their grasp of history, which is probably why they keep getting themselves into trouble with the past.

Related: Apple, Disney, IBM and many other have immediately stopped all advertising on Swastika (formerly known as Twitter) after their brand was placed next to pro-Nazi content.

Siemens?

SIEMENS.

The Germans say words matter and “Kristallnacht” just isn’t descriptive enough, given the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Nazis in November 1938.

For many, such as Meier Schwarz, a more appropriate term would be “pogrom,” a Russian word deriving from a verb meaning “to wreak havoc, to demolish violently.” As such, “Pogromnacht” — night of pogroms — has become more common in recent Holocaust discourse in Germany.

“Kristallnacht,” or its English equivalent, remains in common use outside Germany, including by English-language media and Jewish organizations. The USHMM uses it but further defines what happened as an “organized act of nationwide violence” and a “wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms.”

The best part of the very German-sounding dialog about terminology is a direct shot at lazy deniers, by demanding a level of integrity and authenticity from those who claim to study history.

“The most important thing,” Gross said, “is to know what you are talking about.”

You won’t hear that in America, a country obsessed with a false “right” to be dumb — completely uninformed and wrong about everything.

Not just babies, children too. It’s true:

…while the odd practice of sometimes slipping kids into the mail might be seen as incompetence or negligence on the part of the mail carriers, Lynch sees it more as an example of just how much rural communities relied on and trusted local postal workers.

“Mail carriers were trusted servants, and that goes to prove it,” Lynch says. “There are stories of rural carriers delivering babies and taking [care of the] sick. Even now, they’ll save lives because they’re sometimes the only persons that visit a remote household every day.”

Perhaps they should have scaled up (pun not intended) into train travel services for children. Would be far better than the options kids in America have today to travel safely over land on their own: NONE.

Amtrak (after 2012)

Children age 12 and under may not travel unaccompanied…

British Rail

The simple answer is that there’s no minimum age to travel on a train alone.

French Rail

Does your child aged 4 to 14 have to travel alone on the train? Take advantage of the Junior & Cie escort service…

German FlixTrain (operating in 42 countries)

Children between 6 and 14 years can travel alone with a declaration of consent from their parent or guardian (to be given during booking).

America pointlessly over regulates, while the Europeans innovate.

Numerous news outlets are highlighting that the recently elected leader of the United States is a self-professed extremist theocrat hailing from “Southern Arkansas”, who openly opposes and lacks faith in democratic principles.

“By the way, the United States is not a democracy. Do you know what a democracy is? Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.

In what we hope was an unexpected statement, Mike Johnson clearly issued a very strange caution to residents surrounding Haughton, Louisiana, a community situated in the northwest corner of the state with a history of anti-democratic terrorism. Notably, he advised them against desiring a democratic system while simultaneously seeking their votes. Here’s what that looks like in terms of Louisiana history:

In case it’s unclear what a map of people voting against democracy in American history represents:

Or here’s how Johnson’s hometown and political base of anti-abolitionist Benton perhaps could represent their place in American history:

Johnson’s anti-democratic sermon about two wolves and a sheep having dinner is an odd one for an even more unsettling reason. It seems to also relate to his self-described informal adoption of a Black child, a highly questionable and unconventional choice.

One part of his personal life has raised more than a few eyebrows: Johnson’s Black “son” Michael, who does not appear in Johnson’s family photo with his four biological children. […] According to Johnson, Michael says that he would have joined a gang, taken drugs, wound up in prison or died if Johnson and his wife had not taken him into their home. “…the reality is, and no one can tell me otherwise, my son Michael had a harder time than my son Jack is going to have simply because of the color of his skin. And that’s a reality. It’s an uncomfortable, painful one to acknowledge, but people have to recognize that’s a fact.”

Johnson’s message seems to be individuals must acknowledge that color of one’s skin is a simple fact about inequality, because as a self-appointed informal authority over a Black child’s life he is not open to any differing opinions on the matter.

This is the utmost contradiction to the principles of equal rights for someone to express, and it also involves erasing his son’s identity and taking his voice. It’s crucial to emphasize the man says he informally adopted a Black child, which has allegedly turned into him regularly impersonating and appropriating the Black voice to spread harmful white supremacist falsehoods.

Johnson went further [in rejection of reparations than others and simply lied]. In his statement, he invoked the will of God, Martin Luther King Jr., and the opinion of his adopted 35-year-old black son, Michael, to argue not only that reparations are wrong, impractical, and probably illegal, but that they would harm black Americans’ dignity by depriving them of the “meaning” injected into their lives by having to achieve equality without government aid.

The assertion is without merit and untrue. Throughout history, white Americans have indeed relied on government assistance to enhance their well-being. It’s worth emphasizing once more that the notion of “self-made” success can be misleading, as government aid has played a crucial role. Denying equal opportunities to both Black and white individuals mirrors a common talking point associated with the KKK.

Visualize a scenario where a white father is using media platforms to address his (informally) adopted Black son, unyieldingly asserting that his son’s future will be permanently marked by adversity simply because of his skin color. The father isn’t advocating for overcoming, equalizing, or proving anything; instead, he is declaring that accepting the harsh racial inferiority of Black men in America is an established and unalterable reality.

Does that sound even remotely democratic to you?

Related: My Family’s Slave

Now, consider the fact that Johnson consistently championed regressive and ill-informed political measures aimed at deliberately increasing hardships for Black individuals compared to their white counterparts:

Serving his fourth term in Congress, Republican Rep. Mike Johnson has supported… curtailing federal funding for any entity that teaches that the United States is fundamentally racist.

It seems as though the prominent public figure elected in one of the most racially charged areas of America aims to deceptively persuade Black individuals, including his own son, into believing they can never achieve equality with whites. This attempt to normalize such a belief is not a regular occurrence; instead, it unmistakably reveals Johnson may carry into his positions of power some deeply troubling racist beliefs.

Allow me to clarify the mindset behind the “Southern Arkansas” lynching perspective, as Johnson’s motivated (informal) adoption of a child and the disgraceful appropriation of a Black person’s identity to cause harm may seem perplexing to those not familiar with this context.

Johnson’s stance is evident in his attempts to convey the idea that Black individuals, including his (informally) adopted son, are intrinsically and forever inferior, necessitating white paternalism while simultaneously not deserving such assistance. He also seems to argue that America is not marked by racism as if individuals without representation were better off (enduring rape and labor camps instead of enjoying freedom of thought) silencing and erasing Black voices, much like his approach towards repeatedly appropriating the voice of an (informally) adopted son. Abraham Lincoln, in his presidential election campaign, issued a warning about such politicians posing a threat to American democracy.

Is there no law in America preventing racists from adopting Black children with the intention of indoctrinating them with harmful savior narratives rooted in white supremacist ideals? Regrettably, such a law does not exist, and in a related historical context, President Lincoln was assassinated.

Nixon’s “Tar Baby” also comes to mind, something maybe familiar to those allowed to study rather obvious fundamental racism of America. Nixon called white nationalism an unfortunate circumstance for Blacks, while propping up white nationalism.

This clearly reflects Johnson’s refusal, like Nixon, to let go of anti-democractic historical Civil War sentiments. He appears to be suggesting that the emancipation of Black individuals was a mistake. It’s concerning that a political party, deliberately creating social issues that fuel dysfunction and drive opposing sides towards violent extremism, would embrace such a divisive figure. It indicates their lack of commitment to moving beyond the legacy of the Civil War and the essential work required for a functioning democracy, as outlined in this analysis.

“Apparently experience isn’t necessary for the speaker job,” said Senator Mitt Romney, noting Johnson’s relative lack of time in Congress. “We’re down to folks who haven’t had leadership or chairmanship roles, which means their administration of the House will be a new experience for them.”

One doesn’t need any prior experience, as explained by this source, for a House Speaker to merely exist and deliver a resounding “NO” to everything a “democratic” (representative) movement proposes or accomplishes.

…as Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) put it. “I could give you a narrative about anyone being a good choice at this point. We just need a warm body at this point, right? And I think he qualifies,” Young said as he dipped into a subway train. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), after hearing that assessment, commented dryly as Young stood beside her: “A high standard.”

Remember how President Woodrow Wilson had a penchant for appointing utterly inexperienced extremists to head institutions with the intention of dismantling them, while removing ALL Black voices from government? This tendency calls to mind the actions of powerful domestic terrorists with racist ideologies in America…

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the latest candidate put forward by Republicans to be their leader and Speaker of the House, has repeatedly elevated white nationalist “great replacement” and “invasion” conspiracy theories that are directly linked to multiple acts of deadly violence in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Charlottesville, and elsewhere.

Johnson appears to deny the evident link between his promotion of violent white nationalism and the occurrence of racist domestic terrorism. Instead, he has sought to attribute male violence, including mass shootings, to the idea that women have too many freedoms and rights, as outlined in this source. This strategy aligns with a classic KKK tactic of blaming victims for the crimes committed against them.

In 1960 Louisiana, Black victim — not white shooter — convicted of a crime: A case that ‘flips justice on its head’

Is there even a need to question why Johnson, in multiple ways over many years echoing typical white supremacist rhetoric associated with the Louisiana Klan, opted for a career as a lawyer and politician, much like many other individuals in American government linked to the Louisiana Klan?

Whether the Ku Klux Klan of the Louisiana-Arkansas border was responsible for the murder of F.W. DANIELS and T.F. RICHARDS of Mer Rouge in the end of August may soon be determined in the courts of Louisiana, which would seem to have sole jurisdiction.

Mer Rouge is only 100 miles from Johnson’s anti-democracy speeches in the First Baptist Church of Haughton.

In addition to allegedly using his platform to advocate for racist, homophobic, and misogynistic domestic terrorism, the recently elected leader has devoted years to attempting to discredit, reverse, and subvert electoral processes.

…known for his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He led an amicus brief signed by over 100 Republican lawmakers in support of a Texas lawsuit that challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

This individual isn’t an affable figure; he comes across as deceitful and poses a significant risk. His actions do not reflect a genuine concern for others, especially given the known white nationalist ideology that fundamentally perpetuates systemic racism. His seemingly unexplained ascent to a position from which he should have been disqualified is a disheartening repetition of some of the gravest errors in U.S. history, paralleling instances such as those of Jackson, Wilson, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump. The world has witnessed too much suffering and loss due to these racist and troublesome figures; it’s high time they become the exception in American history rather than the rule.

For a comprehensive understanding of Johnson’s moral extremities, it is advisable to investigate his ties to the legal and political circles associated with Klan No 34, a white supremacist vigilante militia (considered domestic terrorists) that deeply penetrated the Louisiana justice system. They played a significant role in normalizing acts of torture, mutilation, and murder of any Americans who dared to oppose their extremist views. Who has properly investigated whether Johnson ever aided or abetted the torture, mutilation and murder of Americans in the well known campaigns of domestic terrorism typical of his district?

Someone who doesn’t believe in Black freedom and equal rights should never be allowed to even informally adopt any Black child. Someone who discredits women’s rights should never be entrusted with assigning blame for mass atrocities or shaping education policies. And unquestionably, an individual who harbors disdain for democracy should never be granted the power to turn it off.

Sounds like John Brown rolling in his grave to me.