Archive for September 5th, 2016

5. September 2016

Keine Macht den Rechten! von Jürgen Todenhöfer

z1891

Liebe Freunde, die dramatischen Erfolge der AfD von heute sind für Deutschland eine Niederlage. Wenn der Rassismus weiter siegt, geht unser Land in die falsche Richtung. Ja, unsere Politiker haben Fehler gemacht. Ich verstehe die Enttäuschung vieler Protestwähler. Aber es ist falsch, deswegen alles aufs Spiel zu setzen, was Deutsche in Jahrzehnten harter Arbeit aufgebaut haben. Zusammen mit unseren ausländischen Mitbürgern. Gerade weil ich Deutschland liebe, rufe ich allen Protestwählern zu: Die Zukunft Deutschlands liegt nicht rechts. Dort liegt unsere finsterste Vergangenheit. Bitte, liebes Deutschland, geh nicht nochmal nach rechts!

Ich bin ein Kind des 2. Weltkriegs, der von Rechten angezettelt wurde. Ergebnis: Deutschland verlor ein Viertel seines Territoriums, es gab 8 Millionen tote Deutsche, 25 Millionen tote Russen, 6 Millionen tote Juden… Meine Heimatstadt Hanau brannte in den letzten Kriegstagen ab. Ich werde die wie Fackeln brennenden Menschen nie vergessen. Über 10 Jahre hat Deutschland gebraucht, um aus den Ruinen wieder aufzuerstehen. Heute sind wir das beliebteste Land der Welt (BBC). Und eines der erfolgreichsten. Wir dürfen diese Erfolge trotz aller Fehler der Parteien nicht gefährden. Die Rechten hatten ihre Chance. Sie haben sie verspielt. Sie haben Deutschland schon einmal ruiniert und jenseits unserer Grenzen Tod und Verderben verbreitet. Bitte Deutschland, geh nicht nochmal nach rechts!

Als Jugendlicher war ich unpolitisch. Doch als die NPD Mitte der 60 Jahre plötzlich stark wurde, habe ich in Freiburg in einer NPD-Kundgebung in Sprechchören mit Freunden eine Diskussion erzwungen. Vor tausenden Rechten. Ich musste als erster auf die Bühne. Mit weichen Knien rief ich der NPD-Führung, die damals nicht gegen Muslime, sondern gegen Juden hetzte, zu: „Rassisten wie Ihr dürfen nie mehr an die Macht kommen.“ Viel mehr brachte ich nicht heraus. Ich wurde von den Tausenden gnadenlos ausgepfiffen. Den Beifall meiner 30 Freunde hörte niemand.

Heute rufe ich dasselbe. Nur lauter. Ich weiß, die meisten AfD-Politiker sind keine Nazis. Aber als Rassisten sind sie nahe dran. Die Gespenster der Vergangenheit dürfen nie mehr auferstehen. Deutschland darf nicht nochmal in ihre Hände fallen. Unsere Zukunft liegt nicht im Kampf gegen andere Hautfarben und Religionen. Unsere Zukunft liegt im Miteinander. Bitte, liebes Deutschland, geh nicht nochmal nach rechts!

Euer JT

Exklusive Weltpremiere – Inside IS – Der Dokumentarfilm

Advertisements
5. September 2016

Why the Syrian conflict is not a civil war – by Vaughan Famularo

http://theduran.com/author/vaughan-famularo/

Delegation from the US Peace Council visits Syria and exposes the lies told about the war there. Urges US anti-war movement to unite against the aggression against Syria conducted by the US government.

A delegation from the US Peace Council (USPC) has recently returned to the US from a fact finding mission to Syria.

The members spent 6 days meeting with Syrian Government Officials including, President Assad, Union Leaders, Government Opposition Members as well as Civil & Business Leaders, NGO’s, Charities and Universities.

The delegation stated that each member paid their own way and that the Syrian Government allowed them to meet whomever they wanted.

They issued their report and held a press conference Press conference at the UN on 9th August 2016.

Alfred Marder who, is the President of the USPC firstly acknowledged that the US peace and anti-war movement has been in a state of confusion about Syria and that this has caused division within the movement.

Marder went on to say that much of the confusion stems from the US media’s uncritically accepting US government claims about Syria and Assad. He slammed the role of the media as Nefarious!

“There is a familiarity of the government and media narrative which, is used to convince the American people, that the Government has a moral responsibility to intervene.”

He explained that the domestic tactic used by the US government to sway US public opinion, is, to demonise the leader of whatever country the US is targeting.

“Whether it’s Noriega, Hussein, Gaddafi, or Assad, there’s a definite pattern here”

He said the story the US people have been told about President Assad and Syria have been purposefully false. Concerning the reporting he said

“This is not accidental. This is designed to confuse people’s opinions on these Leaders.”

This confusion among the anti war movement effectively neuters their actions and purpose.

The delegates will report back to the many US Anti War affiliations telling the facts of what they found in Syria.

Marder concluded his talk with the hope that the Anti War affiliations can unite and rally the US Anti War Movement to confront their government in order to pressure for policy change in Syria.

One of the main points all members of the Delegation made very strongly was

“That there is no Civil War in Syria!”

This is a false narrative that has been spread by the US government and by the US media.

In fact, the opposite is true. Each delegate stated how impressed they were with the solidarity of the Syrian people.

Contrary to reports in the Western media Christians, Muslims and secular Syrians are united behind the Syrian government and President Assad and are undivided in their fight against the foreign-backed mercenary forces who have invaded their land.

They marvelled at being told by “nearly every Syrian they met” that they refuse to be broken up or identified by their religion or sect.  They see themselves firstly as proud Syrians.

Each delegate who spoke made the point that President Assad is elected democratically and that the Syrian people hold President Assad and his government in high regard and also point out that this is the main reason why Syria has been able to withstand 5 years of bloody war.

The Assad government is recognised by the United Nations and all elections that have been held in Syria have been monitored by international observers who have been satisfied that they have met all international standards.

Other members of the delegation added points that they had individually discovered.

Joe Jamison, coordinator of the Queens Peace Council, affiliated with the USPC, started his report by quoting Mark Twain,

“It is not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble, what gets us into trouble is what we think we know for sure which, just ain’t so.”

Jamison was blunt in his assessment and likened this quote to the dangerous attitude of so many Americans who think they know about Syria and President Assad but “….what they think they know, just ain’t so!”

In his opinion the US motive is to destroy Syria as an independent secular Arab state and make it compliant to US interests and policies, like Iraq and Libya have become since the US invasions and bombings of these two countries.

Just like Libya before the NATO bombing, Syria has universal free healthcare and free education from childcare through to university.

Jamison pointed out that the US government supports Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups (whose names change often) who they claim to be ‘moderate rebels’ but who in truth are not moderate in any way and are affiliated either with Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

He mentioned the foreign backed mercenaries (ISIS) are fuelled by the Wahhabi doctrine which he described as

“a sick medieval and backward ideology driven by the Muslim Brotherhood with its genesis in Saudi Arabia.”

He affirmed his opinion by describing how so called ‘moderate’ Jabhat Al-Nusra mercenaries beheaded a 12 yr old boy during the time the delegation was in Syria. There is nothing ‘moderate’ about beheading a 12 year old boy.

In contrast he said

“that Syrian Islam is a socially inclusive and a pluralistic form of Islam. They are democratic and humane.”

Another delegate, Madelyn Hoffman, in answer to journalists’ question, said,

“It is a war of the Syrian people, all of them against foreign mercenaries who are funded and trained by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US, and Israel.”

These mercenaries are trained in Qatar and move into Syria freely through the Turkish border.

The other major story they shared was the generally unreported sanctions that the US has imposed upon the Syrian people.

The US government claims the sanctions target the Syrian government.   However they are actually aimed at wearing down the resolve of the Syrian people.

The US has imposed sanctions similar to the ones Iraq experienced before the invasion, which even the US admits killed half a million children.

Syrians cannot get baby formula, common medication, medication for chemotherapy, child immunisation etc.

These sanctions are so insidious that they affect medical clinics throughout Syria because they are unable to get parts for machines used in medical practice. Think: X-ray, CAT, MRI machines right down to dentists drills.

President Assad has claimed from the beginning that there was no uprising and that the country was being invaded by foreign backed mercenaries. Gaddafi said exactly the same thing when NATO started bombing Libya.

Coincidence? I think not.

The same scenario was acted out in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria: invaded and bombed into submission without any politician, general or complicit media representative tried or held to account. There is not even an acceptance of error or a conciliatory voice of remorse.

Maybe this void of responsibility explains the general feeling of mental and spiritual numbness that seems to emanate from the general public in the West towards anything related to Western foreign policy? This numbness manifests itself in a collective ‘shrugging of the shoulders’ when it comes to any foreign policy debate. 

The pattern will however continue until Western public opinion finally stirs itself.  In the meantime the confusion within the US anti-war movement, and the inactivity and indolence this has led to, shows why the advocates of war in the US and the West are being given a free pass.

5. September 2016

Moskau will Antwort auf Entspannungs-Vorschläge: „Verwirrung in Nato-Hauptstädten“ (sputniknews)

http://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20160905/312410452/verwirrung-nato-hauptstaedten.html

05.09.2016

Moskaus jüngste Initiative zum Abbau der Konfrontation hat bei Nato-Funktionären für Verwirrung gesorgt. Darauf weist Russlands stellvertretender Verteidigungsminister Anatoli Antonow in einem Zeitungsinterview hin. Er konkretisiert, was die russische Militärführung dem Nordatlantischen Bündnis vorschlägt.

In einem am Montag veröffentlichten Interview mit der „Nesawissimaja Gaseta“ sagte Antonow im Hinblick auf die Brüsseler Tagung des Nato-Russland-Rates im Juli: „Trotz der bestehenden Widersprüche zeigten wir uns bereit zu einem konstruktiven Dialog über die Fragen von gegenseitigem Interesse.“

„Wir schlugen den Nato-Ländern vor, den Meinungsaustausch in Moskau (etwa im September) fortzusetzen, um die militärpolitische Lage in Europa unter Berücksichtigung der Entscheidungen des Warschauer Nato-Gipfels zu besprechen. Als gewünschtes Ergebnis dieser Konsultationen betrachten wir eine Verständigung in Bezug darauf, was getan werden müsste, um eine weitere Konfrontation und ein Wettrüsten in Europa zu verhindern“, so Antonow.

„Außerdem ist die russische Seite daran interessiert, einen nicht politisierten Überblick der früheren Militärprogramme im Format des Nato-Russland-Rates zu organisieren, um ihren Neustart zu prüfen, aber auch daran, Informationen und Einschätzungen zu den aktuellen Terror-Bedrohungen in Europa auszutauschen, um sich insbesondere dem ‚Islamischen Staat’ zu widersetzen“, sagte der stellvertretende Verteidigungsminister.

Die russische Delegation habe konkrete Vorschläge unterbreitet, um die militärische Sicherheit im Ostseeraum zu erhöhen: „Wir bekräftigten unsere Bereitschaft, unsere Militärflugzeuge von Kaliningrad nach St. Petersburg und zurück mit eingeschalteten Transpondern fliegen zu lassen – auf einer mit den baltischen Ländern vereinbarten internationalen Route außerhalb der regulären Luftstrecken. Laut unserem Vorschlag soll dies auch für alle Militärflugzeuge der Nato-Länder sowie Schwedens und Finnlands verbindlich sein.“

„Unser positives Programm der Zusammenarbeit, das der Nato vorgeschlagen wurde, stieß in Brüsseler Kreisen und in den Hauptstädten der Nato-Länder auf Erstaunen und Verwirrung. Dort glaubte man, dass wir nach Brüssel gekommen waren, um herumzustreiten und uns auf die Differenzen zu konzentrieren. Man konnte sich dort nicht vorstellen, dass Russland, ohne über die Probleme hinwegzuschauen, eine Kooperation anbieten würde, um die regionale Sicherheit zu festigen und die Spannungen zwischen der Allianz und Russland abzubauen“, betonte Antonow.

Er sagte weiter: „Es hagelte haltlose Vorwürfe (darunter auch von ranghohen Funktionären im Brüsseler Nato-Hauptquartier), wonach Russland nur Halbmaßnahmen vorschlage und die Nato-Reihen spalten wolle. Es waren Appelle zu vernehmen, die Bemühungen zu vereinigen, um sich der russischen ‚Informations-Expansion‘ entgegenzusetzen. Es gab auch Versuche, die russische Initiative ‚nicht zu bemerken‘ und totzuschweigen.“
„Auf diese Reaktion waren wir gefasst. Wir verstehen, dass es in Brüssel nicht leicht ist, auf die russlandfeindliche Rhetorik zu verzichten. Es wurden ja allzu viele Kräfte und Mittel eingesetzt, um das Feindbild Russland zu erzeugen. Trotzdem rechnete das russische Verteidigungsministerium damit, dass es in den Nato-Hauptstädten (vor allem unter den ‚alten‘ Mitgliedern der Allianz) nicht wenig vernünftige Politiker und Militärs gibt, die begreifen würden, wie schädlich die Konfrontation ist. Dabei werden unsere Länder mit gemeinsamen Problemen und Herausforderungen im Sicherheitsbereit konfrontiert, wie etwa mit dem internationalen Terrorismus“, mahnte Antonow.

Er unterstrich: „Trotz des Nato-Kurses auf eine internationale Isolierung unseres Landes plädiert das russische Verteidigungsamt für einen gegenseitig nutzbringenden Dialog. Wir sind davon überzeugt, dass ein solches Zusammenwirken den Interessen Russlands und der Nato-Länder gleichermaßen entspricht.“

„Dass Nato-Politiker in ihren öffentlichen Äußerungen auf das positive russische Programm der Zusammenarbeit nicht eindeutig reagieren, während offizielle schriftliche Antworten ausbleiben, bewegt uns vorerst zu der logischen Frage, ob die Allianz und ihre Partner wirklich an einer Deeskalation der Spannungen interessiert sind“, so Antonow.

5. September 2016

NORTHERN NASTINESS – by Victor Grossman – BERLIN BULLETIN No. 116 September 5 2016

Old German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once said – or so goes the legend: “If the world ever perishes I’d want to be in Mecklenburg where everything happens fifty years late.”  The alarm bells are now loudly ringing, warning that this once feudally most backward part of Germany between Berlin and the Baltic Sea may prove something like the opposite!

The elections on Sunday (Sept. 4) were an unmitigated disaster! The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), running for the first time, rang up an amazing 21.9 % of the vote, putting it in second place behind the Social Democrats and beating out Angela Merkel in her own home state! Despite attempts at respectability, the AfD is far, far to the right. Not only does it oppose same-gender marriages, abortions and most hard-won rights for women (though two of its prominent leaders are women), it demands a cruel tightening of penal law, even for children, and wants to start up military conscription again.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party is very much for strengthening the Bundeswehr (armed forces); Ursula von Leyen, her ambitious Minister of Defense, is demanding ever more weapons with ever more advanced technology, and is ever more belligerent generally in words and tactics. She has been held back just a tad by some Social Democrats like Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who at times sounds almost sensibly pacific– and is no doubt very much worried about party losses in national polls. But the AfD, till now always ostracized by the others and with no immediate hopes of getting into any  coalitions anywhere, says  loudly what others may whisper: it demands that “the Bundeswehr make a basic training possible more oriented toward war and foreign deployment … whenever German security interests are involved”. It, too, demand’s more financing for the German weapons industry. The only noticeable difference from today’s government policy of expansion is that the AfD speaks more belligerently and, recalling old-time nationalism, wants to weaken the close military ties with the USA. Germany must again lead the pack, economically and militarily, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

These issues are important on a national level for the 2017 elections, with Merkel already weakening under constant attacks from former allies. The main attacks on her are based on an issue which she stated so forcefully one year ago and which people in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (“Meck-Pom”) have also found important. The main AfD talking-point is its opposition to refugees arriving from the war zones or Africa. Although it has become more careful in choosing words and no longer demands the shooting of immigrants who try to cross the border illegally, even women and children, its main attraction is still its hatred of all refugees, and especially Muslims. Actually, the state of “Meck-Pom”, like similarly hate-ridden areas of Saxony, has one of the smallest number of immigrants and few real difficulties. But the AfD agitators, assisted by the media, have succeeded in arousing usual fears of the “Others”. This development is especially dangerous because all leading parties but the LINKE (Left) have retreated in one way or another from that dramatic call by Merkel: “We can cope with this”. Some still admire her words, but many don’t; for the first time her popularity has sunk below the half-way level.  She and her party were hit hard by the bitter defeat in Meck-Pom, getting only 19%, with the AfD at nearly 22 %. And it is her own district and home territory.

Will the AfD continue its seemingly unstoppable upward rise? In Berlin’s elections in two weeks it will get another good chance, and although it cannot get close to its Mecklenburg numbers, it will almost certainly get all too many seats in the Berlin legislature and in all twelve borough councils, thus winning many beachheads for future expansion.

One aspect of this frightening advance worries and saddens me especially. Many of those voting for the AfD, in a very big turnout, were people who did not vote in past elections. They were less interested in an AfD program hyped to them in new, glowing flavors than in registering their disappointment and anger at the old parties, which seemed to be doing nothing to overcome abounding stagnation, lack of decent, steady jobs, and a secure future for themselves and their progeny. This is where the LINKE should be offering answers, fighting answers, paired with street actions, sit-downs and visible people-based moves for achievable improvement, together with a convincing perspective for a better society. It is such methods, I believe, which brought huge gains and near success to the remarkable campaign of Bernie Sanders in the USA and the enthusiasm similarly aroused by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. They called, with both facts and emotion, for resistance to the One Percent on top, who are getting ever more obscenely wealthy while poisoning the world with over-priced, dubious pharmacy goods, weed-killers, phonied emission tricks and above all weapons for more and more wars and more and more refugees, from which they were the main profiteers.

The LINKE, so far as I know, has worked for local improvements whenever it had seats on a local or state council, but refrained from either calls to action or calls for a future, better society. It should have challenged all other major parties on this, because they all have betrayed their constituents and their promises. The gap they left open, which the LINKE should have filled, was stuffed instead by the loud-mouth, aggressive AfD, while it focused instead on joining up in more state coalition governments and, as a main aim, getting cabinet posts at the federal level in a Social Democratic-Green-LINKE coalition. On the Berlin state level, after the coming elections on September 18th, this combination seems quite attainable. But aiming at such goals means hurting no potential partner’s feelings, refraining from militancy, offering compromises, and thus losing any real reason for angry citizens to vote for it. They see it being diluting into a slightly more leftish but much weaker version of the Social Democrats. So why vote for it? And aside from Thuringia, where the rules may be different, every time the LINKE joined up in a state coalition it lost many voters and ended up far weaker than before. Will it make this same mistake after the Berlin election? Will it try for this same solution on the federal scale? And if so, what then?

Election Results: (In parentheses what they got 5 years ago)
SPD – 30.5 (35.6),
AfD – 20.8 (0.0),
CDU – 19.0 (23.0)
LINKE 13.2 – (18.4)
And, with no seats, since under 5 %
Greens – 4.8 (8.7)
Free Dems 3.0 (2.8)
NPD 3.0 (6.0)

5. September 2016

Kritik an „Antinationalen“/“Postantideutschen“

wir möchten hiermit auf unseren – bereits im Juli veröffentlichten – Text „Hoch die antinationale Solidarität?“ hinweisen.
Der Text wendet sich gegen den „internationalen Antinationalismus“ der sogenannten „Antinationalen“ (deren zentraler Stichwortgeber das Bündnis „UmsGanze“ ist) und formuliert eine erste Kritik der vorgeblich internationalistischen Politik dieses Spektrums. Die „Antinationalen“, die sich gelegentlich auch „Postantideutsche“ nennen, gehen scheinbar auf Distanz zu den offen neokonservativen „Antideutschen“ und erheben den Anspruch, eine zeitgemäße kämpferische, bewegungsorientierte und linksradikale Politik zu entwickeln. Im Zuge dessen messen sie auch dem Internationalismus bzw. der internationalen Solidarität wieder zentrale Bedeutung bei. Auf den ersten Blick wirkt das wie eine Abkehr von den antilinken und affirmativen Positionen der „Antideutschen“. Wir meinen: Bei näherer Betrachtung entpuppt sich der „Internationalismus“ der „Antinationalen“ jedoch als Modernisierung „antideutscher“ Ideologeme – mit folgenschweren Konsequenzen für linke, internationalistische Politik. Antiimperialisten und Internationalisten sind daher gut beraten, dem „antinationalen Internationalismus“ eine Absage zu erteilen.
%d Bloggern gefällt das: