Archive for Oktober 18th, 2018

18. Oktober 2018

Sahra Wagenknecht wirft Merkel Totalversagen vor – „Skrupellos und eine Strafe fürs Land“

18. Oktober 2018

Why Did the Secret Service Report That a Plane Had Crashed into the White House on 9/11?

Firefighters were called out to a major incident that supposedly occurred at the White House, minutes after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. The Secret Service had reported that a plane had crashed into the home of the U.S. president, the building was on fire, and there had been a structural collapse. However, when members of the District of Columbia Fire Department arrived on the scene, it quickly became apparent to them that no such incident had taken place and they were promptly ordered to leave.

While it might be claimed that this incident was merely the result of confusion in the middle of an unprecedented crisis, there is an alternative explanation for it. Evidence suggests the Secret Service could have been running a training exercise on the morning of September 11, which included the scenario of a plane crashing into the White House.

For example, other government agencies are known to have been holding exercises on September 11 and so the Secret Service could have run an exercise that day in order to coordinate its activities with the activities of these agencies. Additionally, the Secret Service is known to have conducted exercises before 9/11, based around the scenario of a terrorist attack at the White House. In some exercises, it actually simulated a plane crashing into the White House. So, when it reported a plane crash at the White House on September 11, it may have been responding to a simulated incident that regularly featured in its exercises.

Furthermore, before it reported the crash, the Secret Service was alerted to a suspicious plane that was supposedly approaching Washington, DC. Evidence indicates that this plane may have been a simulated aircraft in an exercise, which was subsequently imagined to have crashed into the White House.

The Secret Service was, according to numerous accounts, alarmingly slow to respond to the 9/11 attacks. If the agency was running an exercise when the attacks occurred, this may help explain its poor performance, especially if the exercise was based around the scenario of suicidal terrorists using planes as weapons. Agents may have thought real world events they heard about were simulations in the exercise, and therefore failed to respond to them promptly and appropriately.

read the article here:

18. Oktober 2018

Nach dem Tod von Ulla – REISE NACH ALEPPO UND LATTAKIA (nocheinparteibuch)

Nach dem Tod von Ulla am letzten Dienstag und ihrer Verabschiedung und Bestattung am Donnerstag habe ich eine Reise nach Aleppo unternommen, um auch dort Ullas Wünschen entsprechend eine Ausstellung ihrer Bilder vorzubereiten, wobei der Rückweg einen Abstecher über Hama und Lattakia beinhaltete.

Da der Reiseplan dabei sehr eng war, bin ich leider nicht dazu gekommen, neben der bei den syrischen Freunden von Ulla sehr beliebten Webseite von Herrn Zuckerberg auch noch das Parteibuch-Blog hier bei WordPress mit Artikeln zur Reise nach Aleppo uind Lattakia zu befüllen. Um nun auch den mit Facebook nicht vertrauten Parteibuch-Lesern zumindest schon mal einen kleinen Eindruck in diese Reise zu bieten, habe ich nachfolgend einige Links zu den Facebook-Posts gesammelt, die ohne sich einzuloggen erreichbar sein sollten.

Abreise aus Damaskus

Ankunft in Aleppo

Nächtlicher Blick aus dem Fenster des Shahba-Hotels in Aleppo

Besuch des Zentrums von Aleppo mit Ibrahim Muhammad – Ibrahim Muhhamad hat davon weitere Bilder veröffentlicht

Abendessen nahe der Zementfabrik in Ramouseh

Zwischenstop in Hama

Abendessen bei Ahmed Said im Bergdorf Beit Yashut

Strandhotel in Lattakia

Ausflug nach Qardaha

Inzwischen bin ich wieder zurück in Damaskus.

18. Oktober 2018

How Pro-War Democrats Use Russiagate To Bloat the Military—Bipartisan justification for an $716 billion defense budget and nuclear build-up – By Sarah Lazare

There is no doubt this moment calls for a powerful mobilization against the Trump administration and the ruling-class, white-supremacist interests it represents. But establishment Democrats‘ strategy of hitching their “resistance” campaign to Russiagate is misguided and dangerous. By demanding Trump prove he’s tough on Russia, the same Democrats who warn that Trump is dangerous and unhinged are asking him to oversee an even more bellicose foreign policy. The net effect has been to push the U.S. government to take a more confrontational stance toward Russia and other geopolitical foes and—ultimately—expand its military empire.

Whatever one thinks about the aims and scope of Russian interference, the evidence is undeniable: Democrats’ overwhelming focus on Russia has led directly to a significant—and measurable—military buildup. The $716 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2019 is massive, marking an $81 billion increase over 2017 (adjusted for inflation). The bill explicitly targets Russia and China. From the outset, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle cited the threat of Russian interference to argue in favor of the NDAA. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, gushed, “This bill continues the absolutely critical work of pushing back against President Putin.” Smith, who earlier that month called for an impeachment investigation of Trump, appeared eager and willing to hand the president a giant check for war.

Bipartisan lawmakers handed a major victory to Trump by passing the defense bill, which includes $6.5 billion to fully fund the “European Deterrence Initiative” to build the military capabilities of European states near Russia. The legislation also instructs Secretary of Defense James Mattis to conduct a feasibility study on whether a “permanently stationed United States Army brigade combat team in Poland would enhance deterrence against Russian aggression.”

Most alarmingly, the NDAA earmarks $21.9 billion for nuclear weapons programs and $65 million to develop “a lowyield nuclear warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.” This is another win for the Trump administration, which has called for more “flexible” and “loweryield” nuclear arms, largely to counter Russia. (The United States and Russia own over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.)

This confrontational positioning has ramifications far beyond Russia. In July 2017, for example, the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of bipartisan legislation that bundled sanctions against Russia with sanctions against Iran and North Korea—even at the risk of upending the nuclear deal with Iran. To justify this move, Democrats cited Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Sen. Dianne Feinstein told The Intercept, “I just looked at the sanctions, and it’s very hard, in view of what we know just happened in this last election, not to move ahead with [sanctions].”

Meanwhile, other election scandals, from voter suppression to the fact the electoral college overrode the popular vote, garner far less scrutiny and outrage. As for collusion with foreign governments, leaders of the “resistance” aren’t exactly lining up to examine evidence that Trump’s transition team colluded with the Israeli government to defend illegal settlements in Palestine.

The nonstop specter of Russian “active measures” has all but ended any discussion of post-Snowden reforms to curtail dragnet government surveillance. The threat of our permanent national security state was, for decades, something the Left cared about. Now the FBI and CIA, we’re told by some ostensibly left media, are our allies.

There may well be something to the Russian influence story and the Trump administration should, of course, be held to standards of utmost transparency on this and every other matter. But Democrats and their loyal pundits are pegging their anti-Trump strategy to Russiagate, and not to the multitude of other scandals, precisely because Russia is a historic geopolitical foe—a convenient bad guy that can be invoked to demand the heightened national security state many centrist Democrats were already calling for. Some of these resistance heroes, like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Feinstein, brought us the war in Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, the war on Yemen and the intervention in Libya.

At times, Trump indeed expresses a strange affection for Putin—an affection animated, at least in part, by a Steve Bannon-esque love of strong white men. But then he turns on a dime and threatens escalation against Russia and its allies. It’s a bankrupt politics to reflexively advocate the opposite of whatever Trump says; we must look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and examine the material policies our government is implementing. A sober assessment reveals that heightened tensions with Russia are fueling a measurable U.S. military buildup backed by Republicans and Democrats. Within this tinderbox, the Left should reject any expansion of U.S. empire, and challenge any “resistance” campaign that pushes Trump toward militarization.

Sarah Lazare is web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at @sarahlazare.

18. Oktober 2018

Weltpolitik ohne Washington (


(Eigener Bericht) – Berlin und die EU streben auf dem gestern gestarteten ASEM-Gipfel eine Stärkung ihrer Stellung sowohl gegenüber den USA als auch gegenüber China an. Zu dem Gipfel sind Spitzenvertreter von insgesamt 51 Staaten aus Europa und Asien in Brüssel eingetroffen; als Besonderheit gilt, dass die Vereinigten Staaten nicht beteiligt sind. ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) wurde 1996 gegründet, um ein Gegengewicht gegen das US-dominierte APEC-Format (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) zu bilden. Bis heute stützt APEC US-Ansprüche vor allem in Ost- und in Südostasien, während die EU ASEM als ihr Einflussinstrument zu nutzen sucht. „Europa und Asien“ könnten, wenn sie sich zusammenschlössen, „die Welt auf bedeutende Weise verändern“, wird ein EU-Diplomat mit Blick auf den ASEM-Gipfel zitiert. Zugleich sucht sich die EU gegen China zu positionieren: Sie preist auf dem Gipfeltreffen ihre neue „Konnektivitätsstrategie“ an, die als Gegenmodell zu Chinas „Neuer Seidenstraße“ konzipiert ist und Beijing auf den euro-asiatischen Transportkorridoren zurückdrängen soll.


18. Oktober 2018

Lawrow: Russland wird zu Gespräch mit Westen bereit sein, wenn… (
Moskau wird laut dem russischen Außenminister Sergej Lawrow auf ein Gespräch im Rechtsfeld mit den westlichen Ländern warten, wenn sich bei ihnen „der politische Wutanfall“ gelegt hat. Zugleich verwies der Politiker darauf, dass Russland auf größere Provokationen seitens des Westens vorbereitet sei.

„Wenn das alles oberflächlich ist und ,der politische Wutanfallʻ auf natürliche Weise vergeht und wenn sie sich aussülzen, dann werden wir auf sie für ein ernsthaftes, professionelles, nicht propagandistisches Gespräch im Rechtsfeld warten“, so Lawrow gegenüber RT France, Paris Match und Figaro.

„Falls unsere westlichen Kollegen uns mit dieser Hysterie aus der Fassung bringen wollen, dann lesen sie historische Bücher schlecht“, fügte Russlands Außenminister hinzu. Zugleich betonte Lawrow, Russland werde auf größere Provokationen seitens der westlichen Länder vorbereitet sein, die in letzter Zeit eine Reihe von Vorwürfen gegen Moskau erhoben hätten:
„Wir werden auch zu größeren Provokationen bereit sein. Aber unsere Antwort ist einfach: Wenn man mit uns via Medien kommuniziert, werden wir auch über diese antworten, aber konkret und korrekt.“

Er verwies darauf, dass bisher „uns alle Beweise nur über die Medien vorgelegt werden“.
„Bei aller Achtung vor ihnen und dem Journalistenberuf, können wir als seriöse Menschen konkrete Fragen nicht behandeln“, in denen Russland aller Todsünden beschuldigt werde, so der Außenminister.

18. Oktober 2018

Treffen in Rom von Stefano Fassina, Initiator der italienischen Bewegung „Patria e Costituzione – Sinistra di Popolo“ mit Sahra Wagenknecht, Initiatorin der deutschen Bewegung „Aufstehen“.


Ein interessanter und nützlicher Austausch, um die Bewegung „Aufstehen'“ besser kennen zu lernen und die Bewegung Patria e Costituzione – Sinistra di Popolo zu präsentieren. Wir teilen die Analyse der Notwendigkeit für eine linke Bewegung, die wichtigen Fragen des sozialen Schutzes und der Identitätskrise, die sonst nur im nationalistischen und rechten Umwelt erörtert werden und dort dann eine regressive Auslegung finden, solidarisch zu behandeln.

Wir teilen die Ansicht, dass wir im Rahmen der Europäischen Union und der Eurozone über den nationalen Staat den Raum demokratischer Souveränität zurückerobern können. Bei diesem Treffen, an dem auch der Abgeordnete Fabio de Masio teilgenommen hat, haben wir die Aufmerksamkeit auf die italienische und die deutsche Politik sowie auf die besorgniserregenden Gefahren der Einführung für die europäische Ordnung gelenkt. Wir haben Sahra Wagenknecht kurz vor den Europawahlen zu einer Versammlung nach Rom eingeladen.

18. Oktober 2018

Der große Krieg. Frieden mit Russland ist unsere einzige Chance – von Klaus von Raussendorff (Rubikon)

18. Oktober 2018

Käme es zu einem großen Krieg, wären die ausländischen Militärbasen in Deutschland eine große Gefahr für die deutsche Bevölkerung. Freundschaftliche Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Deutschland im Rahmen der entstehenden polyzentrischen Weltordnung sind die realistische Alternative zur aggressiven Durchsetzung westlicher Vorherrschaft und globaler Chaos-Politik.

Warum es besser für uns Deutsche ist, mit Russland in Frieden und Freundschaft zu leben, scheint derzeit besonderer Begründungen zu bedürfen. Die in europäisch-atlantischen Weltmachtfantasien befangenen Eliten Deutschlands sind auf einem gefährlichen anti-russischen Kurs. Es tut daher Not, sich einige wichtige Aspekte unseres großen Nachbarlandes im Osten vor Augen zu halten.

Hier weiterlesen:

18. Oktober 2018

Millionenfache Armut: „Schattenbericht“ bringt Schicksale ans Licht – von Tilo Gräser (Sputniknews)

Was Armut für viele Menschen hierzulande bedeutet, darauf macht ein neuer Bericht der Nationalen Armutskonferenz (NAK) aufmerksam. Er beschreibt die Lage ebenso wie den politischen Handlungsbedarf. NAK-Sprecherin Barbara Eschen kritisiert deutlich die Bundesregierung und sagt: Der Wirtschaftsboom verhindert nicht Armut trotz Arbeit.


18. Oktober 2018

Brasilien: Rechtsextremer Bolsonaro in Umfragen bei 49 Prozent: Kandidat der Arbeiterpartei Haddad hält Sieg dennoch für machbar. 50 Attacken gegen Linke in sieben Tagen. UN besorgt über Gewaltwelle (amerika21)

Nach dem Sieg im ersten Wahlgang in Brasilien wächst die Zustimmung für den rechtsextremen Kandidaten Jair Bolsonaro für das Präsidentenamt weiter. In der jüngsten Umfrage für die Stichwahl am 28. Oktober erreichte der Kandidat der Sozialliberalen Partei (PSL) 49 Prozent und der linksgerichtete Fernando Haddad von der Arbeiterpartei (PT) 36 Prozent der Stimmen. Aus dem vergangenen Wahlsonntag waren Bolsonaro mit 46 und Haddad mit 29 Prozent hervorgegangen.


18. Oktober 2018

Lecture on The Council on Foreign Relations – by Author Laurence Shoup – Tue, Oct. 23, 2018 at 7 PM – Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin


Laurence H. Shoup received his Ph.D. in History from Northwestern University in 1974. He is the author of five books, including Imperial Brain Trust (with William Minter) and Rulers and Rebels: A People’s History of Early California, 1769-1901, as well as many articles in scholarly and popular publications. He has taught U.S. history at the University of Illinois, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and has been active in the anti-war and social justice movements since the 1960s.

The Council on Foreign Relations is the most influential foreign-policy think tank in the United States, claiming among its members a high percentage of government officials, media figures, and establishment elite. For decades it kept a low profile even while it shaped policy, advised presidents, and helped shore up U.S. hegemony following the Second World War. In 1977, Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter published the first in-depth study of the CFR, Imperial Brain Trust, an explosive work that traced the activities and influence of the CFR from its origins in the 1920s through the Cold War.

Now, Laurence H. Shoup returns with this long-awaited sequel, which brings the story up to date. Wall Street’s Think Tank follows the CFR from the 1970s through the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union to the present. It explains how members responded to rapid changes in the world scene: globalization, the rise of China, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the launch of a “War on Terror,” among other major developments. Shoup argues that the CFR now operates in an era of “Neoliberal Geopolitics,” a worldwide paradigm that its members helped to establish and that reflects the interests of the U.S. ruling class, but is not without challengers. Wall Street’s Think Tank is an essential guide to understanding the Council on Foreign Relations and the shadow it casts over recent history and current events.


Wall Street’s Think Tank is a very important book, and its information is essential for an understanding of how our politics, and the world’s, has come to its sorry state.

—Joan Roelofs, Counterpunch

Forty years ago, Laurence Shoup and William Minter published their book Imperial Brain Trust, a careful and highly informative analysis of World War II planning for the postwar world by the Council of Foreign Relations and the State Department, plans that were then implemented, establishing much of the framework of postwar history. In this new study, Shoup carries their inquiry forward with a very revealing account of how a small group of planners drawn from sectors of concentrated private and state power, closely linked, along with ‘experts’ whose commitments are congenial to their ends, have set the contours for much of recent history, not least the neoliberal assault that has had a generally destructive impact on populations while serving as an effective instrument of class war. A welcome and very valuable contribution.

—Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Laurence Shoup reveals, as nobody has before, the actual workings of the Council on Foreign Relations. He names the names, explores the connections, and details the penetration of this beast as it shapes and expresses the will of the United States ruling class in the period of its global hegemony. As this approaches its end, we may expect the Council to continue to play a decisive role. In any event, no one can claim to understand U.S. imperialism without reference to Shoup’s masterful work.

—Joel Kovel, author, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?

Lucidly written and deeply informed, this book reveals how the super-rich class organizes itself into a consciously directed, ruling plutocracy. Shoup offers a treasure of insights into a subject that seldom gets the attention it very much needs.

—Michael Parenti, author, The Face of Imperialism and Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies

This book will be a formidable resource for those looking for the ‘American’ fraction of the transnational capitalist class in an era when the hegemony of the U.S. state is being seriously challenged.

—Leslie Sklair, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, London School of Economics

Wall Street’s Think Tank is an invaluable supplement to Laurence Shoup’s earlier book, Imperial Brain Trust, as it chronicles the subsequent history and composition of the Council on Foreign Relations over the last five decades. It thus records how the CFR’s early advocacy of the Vietnam War led to a reversal in 1968 of both Council and U.S. policy, followed by a restructuring of the CFR itself. Did this mean that the CFR avoided the widespread campaign before 2003 to press America into another disastrous war in Iraq? Not at all: The CFR, as Shoup documents, played a leading role in this largely dishonest effort. Underlying both campaigns Shoup shows the on-going presence in the CFR of the international oil majors, as well as of related financial interests, such as the Rockefellers and their spokesmen. Shoup persuasively demonstrates how U.S. foreign policies are still (as in the 1950s) formulated at the CFR before they are adopted in Washington. While it may be more challenged than before by other think tanks, none can begin to match its international outreach. This is a must read for those wishing to understand the dynamics of U.S. hegemony.

—Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of English, University of California, Berkeley; author, The American Deep State

Praise for Imperial Brain Trust:
The first in-depth analysis of the activities and influence of the most important private institution in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. Shoup and Minter’s work is based on detailed research, including examination of material hitherto unavailable to the public. This work will stand as a milestone.

—Library Journal

[A] masterpiece of documented analysis of one of the most successful influences on American national policy…. As informed and informative as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking, Wall Street’s Think Tank is an essential and strongly recommended addition to both community and academic library collections.

—Paul T. Vogel, The Midwest Book Review

Articulate, well organized, deftly presented, as informed and informative as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking, Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014 is essential reading for academia and non-specialist general readers with an interest in America’s foreign policies and how they are developed and influenced. Very highly recommended for both community and academic library Political Science reference collections and supplemental studies lists.

—Jack Mason, The Midwest Book Review

%d Bloggern gefällt das: