Friday, April 28, 2017


Nie wieder Krieg! - Delegation für Frieden und Kooperation auf der Krim

Krim-Reise mit den Teilnehmern der Delegation für Frieden und Kooperation Willy Wimmer, Andreas Maurer und Erwin Thoma.
 Besuch in der Zarenresidenz Yalta, dem Platz der Yalta-Konferenz, am 24. April 2017 - - Video 19 Min.
Am 8. Mai 1945 endete der 2. Weltkrieg mit dem Sieg über Hitler-Deutschland. Den höchsten Blutzoll dieses Krieges zahlte die Sowjetunion mit 27 Millionen Toten. Als sich das Ende der Nazi-Diktatur abzeichnete, trafen sich vom 4. bis zum 11. Februar 1945 die alliierten Staatschefs Franklin D. Roosevelt (USA), Winston Churchill (Vereinigtes Königreich) und Josef Stalin (UdSSR) in Jalta, um die Nachkriegsordnung Europas gemeinsam zu beschließen. Es wurde bewusst die Sommerresidenz des letzten russischen Zaren Nikolai II. als Ort für diese historische Zusammenkunft gewählt, die auch als „Krim-Konferenz“ oder „Konferenz von Jalta“ in die Geschichte einging.
Weiterlesen: www.seniora.org/1038
Ramin Mazaheri (Press TV/Paris)

Obama & Macron: Brand changes courtesy of capitalist empire

 
by Ramin Mazaheri
If leaders lead and followers follow, then we’ll have to wait another election cycle to be rid of Emmanuel Macron.
Since Sarkozy l’américain France is a follower. He buried the independence which was a key part of Charles de Gaulle’s worldview. France now follows the lead of American capitalists. In NATO, in globalization, in subordinating the EU to the US, in subordinating French national interests to the EU, in rolling back the communist-inspired reforms it took us average people decades to win, etc.
Brexit and Trump are examples of two nations refusing to follow. Unfortunately, Emmanuel Macron appears likely to win.
If he does, the powers-that-be will have installed him in office for the same reason that Obama was installed over Hillary in 2008 –the regime needs a new face, this time in France.
I don’t want to be cruel, but looking at Francois Hollande is no picnic. Look at my picture and you won’t be surprised when many commenters say the same thing about me – we who displease the eye have a right to be frank without being accused of shallowness.
It’s not about faces, though, but electability. Prior to round one, I had about as good a chance of being voted President of France as Hollande and I’m not even a French citizen. I think with a better haircut Icould surpass Hollande’s 4% approval rating.
But Macron is about to become president because the powers-that-be realized that there was no way that historically unpopular Hollande could win, and so he gawn. Those nefarious powers did not get to where they are by being loyal.
Yes, Macron is 100% Clintonian, but what’s happening in France right now is best understood as a replay of the US election in 2008. The much-ballyhooed arrival of Obama proved to be only a brand change – the capitalist/imperialist product remained the same.
Give credit where it’s due: It was a GREAT brand change – it won the Nobel Prize for Advertising, after all. Excuse me, I meant the Nobel Peace Prize.
Because if Obama was if not the puppet of Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democratic oligarchs he was certainly their willing servant: bailouts, drones, deportations, surges, regime changes – on only a handful of issues would I say that Obama didn’t do exactly what Hillary would have done.
With the same Brussels-kowtowing economic austerity plan, the same capitalist/globalization fervor and the same DC-designed foreign policy, Macron has been selected to be the shiny new face of the exact same product.
But I thought we all agreed that we hated Hollande?
Hollande himself has endorsed Macron as being a continuation of his policies. Sensible journalists should be screaming from the rafters: “Well then how can you vote Macron for president?” This is truly the most sensible reason to vote AGAINST Macron, given the one-term reality of Hollande.
If France thinks Macron will give them something seriously different… then that is a case of willful blindness, and that can only end badly.
In 2008 Obama benefitted from a huge historical subterfuge: The concept that voting for a Black man (any Black man) could only mean progress. But, more importantly, it was about restoring America’s global brand after Dubya Bush.
Macron’s historical subterfuge is perhaps less compelling, but only because France’s crimes are not Dubya-era America’s crimes. From a domestic point of view: Macron is 39-years old, and the desire for young blood in France cannot be underestimated. In the UK if you lose you’re out. In the US less so. In France, get in and you stay in.
Anyone think “Penelopegate” Fillon won’t be running for president again? The guy he surprisingly beat in the Républicain primary, Alain Juppé, was convicted of corruption and initially barred from holding office for 10 years. That his sentence was later reduced to 1 year can only be called due to…the word is “corruption”. The French, as they have no problem telling you, are fed up.
From an international point of view, the French brand will be hugely tarnished by a National Front victory.
But it is a lie that a vote against the National Front will mean progress because it a vote against racism, allegedly.
It’s not that the National Front is not racist – it is – but so are all the other political parties in France except the far-left (and even many of those rabid Je Suis Charlies). It’s also not true that racism does more societal damage than right-wing neoliberalism, which touches everybody (almost).
To explain or justify a possible Macron victory one must hack through so many layers of delusion, hypocrisy and stupidity, but those are the mental thickets which occur as a result of incestuous politics.
Macr-Obama? MacHoBama? It’s inbreeding, whatever you call it
France has never had a successful, openly “Third Way” politician.
It was assumed that only the English-speaking world was gullible enough (and anti-socialist enough) to fall for the ruse of “compassionate conservatism”. This absurd idea that “enlightened capitalism” isn’t a oxymoron. Macron’s “neither left nor right” nonsense is, in the supremely condemnatory French sense of the word, “boring”.
Macron is the baby-faced offspring produced by the right-flank of the Socialists and the left-flank of the conservatives. But this is misleading, because it implies two different sets of DNA were involved.
Politically, Macron is the product of incest because the Socialists and Républicains have enacted the same policies so as to become indistinguishable: state of emergency, austerity, anti-refugee, anti-Muslim, foreign intervention, obeying Brussels, etc.
And that makes Macron miscegenated royalty, and he’s being treated like that by the media: someone with no faults; someone who cannot be criticized; someone with glowing qualities and glowing beauty; someone with a divine right to rule due to his alleged moral superiority over piggish Le Pen.
Macron is the shiny, distracting part of the old switcheroo – swap out Hollande for Macron, keep the same policies.
We cannot forget that Macron is an economic extremist – he is as radical, on the other pole, as someone who wants to do away with all private property. That’s what Austro-Chicago school neolilberals are: reactionaries against socialism, storing up as much as they can for the day they know is coming – the communist democratic victory of the people over the 1%. Hell, we’d settle for just beating the .000001%.
On foreign policy Macron says nothing – he says as little as possible on anything but the most inoffensive subjects – but it’s certain he will be interventionist: because that is what neo-imperialism requires. That’s what globalization requires. An outlook of avoiding conflict is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism and you can’t talk your way out of that one.
Let’s talk hashtags and let’s talk fast, because we’ve less than 2 weeks
Frankly I think “MacHoBama” is the most accurate, but the “Ho” makes it a bit crude for my Oriental tastes. Feel free to use it, though.
The day after the first round vote the top Twitter hashtag in France was #SansMoiLe7Mai – “Without Me on May 7th”. This is to express support for neither Le Pen or Macron.
France worries more about abstention than many other countries, and first round abstention was 1/3rdlower than the doomsday predictions and only a couple points higher than historical averages. Not bad, considering there are two terrible right-wing candidates.
Frankly, I think France doth protest too much: every article about abstention is less space for debating the issues, and 70% of France said the campaign failed to address France’s economic and social problems. It is a pathetic shame that France won’t count the “blank ballot”, but they don’t want to reveal just how widespread the dissatisfaction is with the establishment politicians, the political system and the current capitalist economic policy.
Many voted for Donald Trump on the basis of ABH -Anyone But Hillary: France needs to realize the slogan needs to be ABM – Anyone But Macron.
They are predicting that leftists will be the group which stays at home in the largest numbers. Well, nothing like fake leftists to destroy an election – why stop after 40 years? It was the idiot, IDIOT Socialist Party Benoit Hamon supporters (6% of the vote) which undercut the actual leftist (not far-leftist) Jean-Luc Melenchon, handing the election to the right. Ugh.
I’m drawing a blank on more motivational slogans…Remember the Macralamo? Wrong country. The larger problem is that France is well-aware that Macron is economically right-wing, but…
France will suffer as long as it remains hypocritical
I brought up Alain Juppé earlier, and he is indeed a great example of how France’s politicians are recycled more often than hippie compost despite committing the antisocial misdeeds that get you Chinese Water Torture treatment in China, and perhaps worse.
But Juppé is also another telling example of French hypocrisy: Despite his crimes, Juppé has been for some time the most popular politician in France!
He recently fell to the 2nd-most popular politician behind failed leftist (not far-leftist) candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon, who roughly 70% of people approve of…but who only 20% of the country voted for?
Where do I start explaining the lack of logical consistency among the French?
How can they support a candidate who was godfathered by the most unpopular president ever?
How can they forget that they protested for months over the “Macron Law” set of austerity reforms? It was so unpopular even among the ruling Socialist Party that the Prime Minster invoked a rarely-used constitutional clause which gave Parliament only two choices: Vote “yes” in a confidence vote, or dissolve and hold fresh elections. Unsurprisingly, parliamentarians did not vote to fire themselves, and Macron Law passed without a democratic vote.
And yet, much to the dismay of my chronically distended bile ducts which will surely collapse under the appalling strain on May 7, people will vote Macron and call themselves “leftist” just as Americans called themselves “leftist” for backing Barry in 2008.
Le Pen has 2 weeks to get creative, and she already has
Le Pen is ten times as effective as Macron when it comes to speaking and campaigning, if only from watching her media-savvy father.
Le Pen should be able to debate rings around him on the only debate, May 3.
Macron looked terrible in the first debate between the five principal candidates. During the 2nd debate between all 11 candidates prosecutors eventually decided they didn’t have enough evidence to jail him for illegally disguising himself as part of the furniture.
“Everyone knows what side Emmanuel Macron is on – he is on the side of the corporations,” Le Pen told workers outside the Whirlpool factory. “I am on the workers’ side, here in the car park, not in restaurants in Amiens.”
If this quote from Le Pen resonates with you, you will vote Le Pen. If this doesn’t make sense or scares you, you are either an unrepentant capitalist or a total airhead and will vote Macron.
It will ALWAYS come down to class…unless you are fooled into thinking its race. That’s what they did with Obama, and that’s what they want they want to do with Le Pen.
These are 2 terrible candidates, but at least there is a clear choice: You are either with the haves or the have nots. There is no race there.
Theoretically, at some point Macron has to get off racism. Well, Le Pen has never held any power – the National Front holds just 0.4% of all elected offices in France. They are the ultimate paper tiger, but they are the only real “outsider candidate” in this election.
Le Pen simply has to keep following Macron around and bringing up his record and his proposals, and hopefully the French will see the light.
If not, then history repeats itself as farce and we’ll get at least 5 years of Macr-Obama: smooth face, smooth lies, smooth concrete under the bridge where you and your family will soon be jostling for space.
The good news? You’ll be jostling with people of all colors.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. 
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world
$27.95
More offer

 Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin: our friendship is unbreakable

Chinese President Xi Jinping sends personal message of friendship to Russian President Putin on China’s behalf, scotching attempt by US to make trouble between them.
Russia’s President Putin has met in the Oval Hall of the Kremlin with Li Zhanshu, Director of the General Office of the Communist Party of China, and chief of staff of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The meeting was held directly after Li Zhanshu held talks with his Russian counterpart Anton Vaino, who is the head of the Russian President’s Executive Office and who is President Putin’s chief of staff.
I have previously explained who Li Zhanshu is, and why his visit is important, and the likely reason for his visit, which is the ongoing attempt by the Trump administration to cause trouble between China and Russia, and China’s and Russia’s concern to squelch any mistaken impressions which might be caused by that attempt.
That in turn explains the way the Chinese and the Russians – undoubtedly by pre-arrangement – used Li Zhanshu’s meeting with Putin to publicise a personal message from President Xi Jinping to Putin.  The Kremlin’s transcript of Li Zhanshu’s words reads as follows
Before my departure, I went especially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.
Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterised by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.
He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.
(bold italics added)
The “serious changes in the international situation” of course refers to the change of administration in Washington, and the new administration’s attempt to make trouble between China and Russia.  President Xi Jinping in his personal message to President Putin went out of his way to say that this attempt could not succeed, and that China’s strategic partnership with Russia “will not change”.
The message is of course primarily intended for the Trump administration.  The Chinese and the Russians scarcely need to reassure each other about the depth of their relationship, which they are of course far more informed about than anyone else.  However Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are anxious that there should be no illusions about it in Washington.  Alas, given the chaos in Washington, it is doubtful whether anyone there is paying attention.
  • North Korea saga
    We have heard it all before – all options are on the table – and of course, that means using force. This time, North Korea is in the crosshairs, with the usual bellicose language and threats being meted out. What is completely absent,...
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/

Live: Sechste Moskauer Konferenz über internationale Sicherheit - Plenarsitzung
Die sechste Moskauer Konferenz über internationale Sicherheit startet heute im Radisson Blu Hotel in der russischen Hauptstadt. Während der zweitägigen Konferenz wird sich mit den Kernthemen der globalen und regionalen Sicherheit sowie dem internationalen Terrorismus befasst. Dazu werden hochrangige Vertreter verschiedener Staaten Reden halten. 
Redner werden heute die Verteidigungsminister aus dem Iran, Kasachstan, Indien, Pakistan und Brasilien sein. Außerdem wird der ehemalige afghanische Präsident Hamid Karzai sprechen. Wir übertragen die Plenarsitzung live und mit englischer Simultan-Übersetzung.

Frankreich: Ein Paradestück in Sachen Propaganda

Französische Präsidentschaftswahlen 2017 - ein fabelhaftes Lehrstück

praesidentschaftswahl_frankreich_2017 

Ein Beitrag von Irene Eckert


 Wie auf einer Großleinwand erleben wir derzeit  eine beispiellose Propagandaschau1, vorgeführt, Der Ex-Wirtschaftsminister einer äußerst unpopulären "sozialistischen" Regierung Hollande, der Ex-Rothschild-Banker und Multimillionär  verlässt im August 2016 sein Amt um, wie er sagt,  „eine neue Etappe seines politischen Kampfes  zu beginnen“ . Dazu ruft er aus dem Stand die Bewegung „En marche!“ ins Leben. „Auf dem Wege“ will er dann ganz spontan eine Debatte über , wie er meint über „nötige Änderungen am politischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen System des Landes anstoßen“. Gleichzeitig mit dieser vermeintlichen Spontan-Entscheidung erscheinen wie verabredet landesweit Bilder, die ihn als romantisch Liebenden mit seiner 25 Jahre älteren Ehefrau, der dreifachen Mutter und siebenfachen Großmutter abbilden. Schon als 15jähriger soll der Schöne seine ehemalige Lehrerin Brigitte Trogneux angehimmelt haben und schließlich mit der Multimillionärin und Ex-Gattin eines Bankers 2 seine späte Erfüllung gefunden haben. Hinweise auf  ganz anders geartete Liebeleien des 39jährigen werden selbstredend als "Fake News" russischer Provenienz abgetan. Das Versprechen im Falle ihres für sicher angenommenen Wahlsieges mitregieren zu wollen, hat Brigitte bereits abgegeben. Hillary Clinton und ihr einstiger Präsidentengatte lassen grüßen.

Dem französischen Volke, vor allem seinen älteren Damen, wurde im August 2016 ganz plötzlich ein neuer Star geboren. Der als Charmingboy gehandelte Macron hat zwar weder ein Wahlprogramm, noch eine Partei, noch ist er ein guter Redner, aber er ist „On The Move – En Marche“, in Bewegung. Ihm wird das gewisse Etwas zugeschrieben, ein Image verpasst, mittels dessen man die in allen Schattierungen bankrotte politische Klasse neu aufzupolieren hofft. Wohl deswegen haben sowohl der Republikaner Francois Fillon als auch der „linke Sozialist" Benoit Hamon umgehend nach bekannt werden seines ersten Erfolges, Macron ihre Unterstützung zugesagt. Alle Medien, PR- und Rating-Agenturen sehen in ihm bereits den gekürten Repräsentanten der Republik.

Von allen tonangebenden Höhen, den nationalen sowie den Brüsseler Institutionen, von Seiten unserer Frau Merkel und selbst vom Ex-US-Präsidenten Obama persönlich bekommt der neue Führungskader jede denkbare Schützenhilfe. Das Volk erfährt auf diese Weise in Direktübertragung, was da oben gespielt wird oder was für die Herrschenden auf dem Spiele steht.

Demokratie war gestern

Mit Hilfe letzter, verzweifelt wirkender Kraftanstrengung versuchen die 'Eliten' der einstigen „Grande Nation“ noch einmal das Rad der Geschichte zugunsten des 'Tiefen Staates' herumzudrehen. Der militärisch-industrielle-bankengestützte Komplex braucht Leute, die ihm bedingungslosen Gehorsam schulden, die bereit sind, mit ihrer jugendlicher Kraft das Ruder wieder fest in den Griff zu bekommen. Das Konglomerat von gegen die Mehrheit des Volkes gerichteten Interessen wurde neu zusammengeschmiedet und bietet all seine Möglichkeiten auf. Wie schon 1945, als die Kommunisten in Frankreich, Italien und anderswo bedrohlich stark geworden waren und damit zu einer echten Gefahr für das Establishment und seine faschistischen Handlanger, gilt es diesmal, die neopopulistischen Kräfte, daran zu hindern, einen Zipfel der Macht zu erheischen. Die Methoden des 'Tiefen Staates' sind inzwischen noch raffinierter geworden. Emmanuel Macron aber ist genauso sein Geschöpf, wie auch der später peinliche gewordene Gefreite Hitler ihre Kreatur war. Es sind und waren damals wie heute dieselben menschheitsfeindlichen Kräfte am Werk. Mit Hilfe von gut bezahlten Kopflangern liefern uns ihre Medien ein Zerrbild dessen, was wirklich gespielt wird. Manches deutet aber doch daraufhin, dass das letzte Wort noch nicht gesprochen ist.3

In völliger Verdrehung der Tatsachen und der wirklichen Zusammenhänge wird nicht nur den Franzosen, sondern wird der Welt suggeriert, die populäre Anwältin Marine le Pen sei eine Faschistin und Feindin der Menschheit. Ihre Wähler werden - ganz ähnlich wie vormals in den USA - als dumpfbackige Proleten abgetan.

Den Propaganda-Apparaten Paroli bieten

Während also Le Pen Wähler als ungebildet gelten, sie selbst und ihre Verteidiger als Rassisten abgestempelt werden, sieht die Wirklichkeit ganz anders aus.
Marine le Pen repräsentiert eine Politik des Friedens und der Verständigung mit Russland4. Sie steht für ein Abrücken von der aggressiven NATO-Politik. Sie teilt nicht die vorherrschende Meinung, dass Russland die Krim - auf illegale Weise gar noch - annektiert habe. Das macht sie natürlich in den Augen ihrer Gegner zu einem Hassobjekt. Die französischen Banken gewährten ihr keine Kredite, weshalb sie anderswo Ausschau halten musste, was ihr wiederum zum Vorwurf gedieh. Demgegenüber ist klarzustellen: Die blonde Dame im Spiel verteidigt vor allem eines, nämlich die nationale Souveränität ihres Landes gegenüber supranationalen Übergriffen. Sie verteidigt die Rechte der französischen Bürger und zwar aller Bürger und stellt sich darüber hinaus auf die Seite der Arbeiterschaft5. Emmanuel Macrons asoziale Massnahmen als Minister weisen ihn dagegen als Wirtschaftsliberalen aus. Sogar sein sozialdemokratischer Kollege und Ex-Konkurrent Benoit Hamon hatte gegen dessen volksfeindliche Maßnahmen, die vorzusetzen er als Präsident vorhat, vormals protestiert.

Während Le Pen ein „Europa der Vaterländer“ anstrebt und daher zurecht als Euro-Skeptikerin gilt,
verteidigt Macron die EU ohne Wenn und Aber. Unter seiner Präsidentschaft dürfte die Russophobie, ganz im Sinne seiner transatlantischen Auftraggeber, noch an Schärfe zunehmen. Besonders deutlich wurde diese erneut anhand der Weigerung seines Teams, russischen Presseorganen - trotz beantragter Akkreditierung - Zutritt zu seiner Wahlkampfparty zu gewähren . Was wohl Emile Zola dazu sagen würde?6 Vermutlich würde er doch im Interesse der Presse- Und Meinungsfreiheit empört sein „J'accuse“ erneuern.

Weder für den Le Pen zur Last gelegten Rassismus, noch für ihre vermeintliche Islamophobie können Beweise vorgebracht werden. Als Argument gegen sie muss daher herhalten, dass sie für eine kontrollierte, rechtsstaatliche Einwanderungspolitik eintritt. Dass sie die Menschenrechte und die Menschenwürde aller in Frankreich lebenden Bürger zu schützen verspricht, gilt ihren Kritikern nichts. Wohl aber scheint man ihr zu verübeln, dass sie dem islamistischen Terror einen Riegel vorschieben will. Soll etwa, wer die Islamisten kritisiert, fortan als Rassist durchgehen dürfen?

Auch scheint man ihr übel zu nehmen, dass sie für die Aufhebung der Sanktionen gegenüber Russland eintritt. Dahinter kann ja wieder einmal nur Russland selber, der uns verordnete Erzfeind stecken, so die völkerrechtsfeindliche, konstruierte Anklage.

Nationale Souveränität wahren – für eine wirksame Antikriegsstrategie

Für die Entwicklung einer nationalen und wirksamen Antikriegsstrategie, einer Strategie für Frieden und Gerechtigkeit gilt es die Zusammenhänge gerade zu rücken. Die Propagandaapparate von parteinahen Stiftungen, Medien, PR-Agenturen, NGOS sind als Kriegswaffen kenntlich zu machen. Diese Waffen werden gegen die Belange der Völker, wider die kleinen Leute, wider die Rechte der arbeitenden Menschen eingesetzt. Mit Hilfe solcher Einrichtungen werden wir alle gehirngewaschen.

Verbriefte Rechte können nur auf nationaler Ebene geltend gemacht werden, schon auf EU-Ebene sind sie verloren. Dort führen nämlich die bestbezahlten Anwälte multinationaler Konzerne das Regiment. Der Kampf für Frieden und Gerechtigkeit kann und muss auf Grundlage nationaler Verfassungen im Rahmen unserer historisch gewachsenen Nationen erfolgen. Im grenzenlosen, kulturlosen Raum sind wir ohne Verwurzelung und damit aufgeschmissen. Die nur modern scheinende Parole „No Borders“ ist daher ultra-reaktionär, sie führt uns ins All und damit ins Aus.

Die Bewegungen für die Wiedererlangung nationaler Souveränität sind daher nur scheinbar absurder Weise jetzt globaler Natur. Sie werden auch bei einer Wahlniederlage von Frau le Pen nicht einfach verschwinden, wie der amerikanische Analyst Wayne Madsen richtig feststellt.7 Was nämlich so pejorativ als „Neue Rechte“ meist „Ultrarechte“ gehandelt und damit von den selbst ernannten Friedenskräften aus dem linksliberalen Spektrum stets vehement abgelehnt wird, ist etwas anderes, als das vorschnell verpasste Etikett suggerieren will. Es ist ein von zunächst bürgerlichen Kreisen getragenes postkoloniales Aufbegehren gegen Fremdbestimmung, gegen imperiale Übergriffe.

Aus der Geschichte lernen

Man könnte vergleichsweise durchaus 200 Jahre zurückgreifen und einen Blick auf das Entstehen der anti-napoleonischen Befreiungsbewegung in Deutschland werfen oder auf die im 20. Jahrhundert statthabenden nationalen Befreiungsbewegungen im Globalen Süden. Auch ein Blick auf den zunächst nationalen Befreiungskampf des heute souveränen und wirtschaftsmächtigen, von Kommunisten geführten China, das einst unter der Opiums-Knute der Kolonisten stöhnte und seine Völker dahinsiechen sah, ist erhellend. Diese zunächst bürgerlichen-nationalen Freiheitskämpfe können uns eine Orientierungshilfe bieten zum Verständnis gegenwärtig ablaufender globaler Trends, die mit dem Rechts-Links Schema keineswegs mehr zu erfassen sind. Das grenzenlose Diktat der neoliberalen Globalisierer stößt inzwischen auf Barrieren. Die mit ihm einhergehenden Kriege, die wie ein Flächenbrand schwelen, der mit seinem Zwilling, dem blinden Terror uns alle zu verschlingen droht, hat „populistische“ Gegenkräfte auf den Plan gerufen.

Nachdem die Kommunisten, 1956 beginnend, erfolgreich niedergemacht und innerlich zerrüttet worden sind, muss es nicht verwundern, dass der Widerstand heute von anderswo einsetzt. Die trotzkistische Gegenbewegung hat ganze Arbeit geleistet und am Ende erfolgreich die gesamte Linke in allen Schattierungen unterminiert. Auch im einst von kämpferischen Kommunisten angeführten Frankreich wurde der ehemalige Sozialdemokrat und Trotzkist Melenchon jetzt von ihnen unterstützt ins Rennen geführt. Von den Bürgerlichen wurde der 'linke' Kandidat kurz vor Ende der ersten Runde des Wahlkampfes gegen die ernstzunehmende Konkurrentin Le Pen hochgepuscht, um ihr den ersten Platz im streitig zu machen. Natürlich gibt sich der Pseudokommunist jetzt neutral und unterstützt weder Macron noch le Pen, angesichts der Nähe seiner programmatischen Aussagen zu deren Programm eher erstaunlich.

Mit Hilfe von linken Versatzmustern, von linken Denkansätzen, von pseudolinken Kandidaten wird von den Herrschaftsstrategen alles darangesetzt, um niederzuwalzen oder bis zur Unkenntlichkeit zu verdrehen, was nach systemischer Opposition riecht. Wirklich oppositionelle Kräfte müssen demzufolge neu buchstabieren lernen, sie müssen um die Ecke denken. Auf die gesamte 'Linke' von Gewerkschaften über Sozialdemokratie und Grüne bis hin zu den Kommunisten ist heute bedauerlicher Weise kein Verlass mehr.

Die sich als „marxistisch“  ausgebende Tageszeitung "Junge Welt" spielt etwa in Deutschland eine besonders fatale Rolle. Längst haben die Vertreter des Tiefen Staates dort Eingang gefunden. Viele gute Namen sind so oder so aus ihren Spalten verschwunden: Werner Pirker, der ehemalige stellvertretende Chefredakteur Rüdiger Göbel, der Analytiker Rainer Rupp, selbst der langjährige Chefredakteur Arnold Schölzel  wurde in die dritte Reihe versetzt. Den Schlagzeilen der  ganz und gar nicht mehr 'Jungen' Welt ist seither ebenfalls zu misstrauen.

Wo 'Antifa' draufsteht ist unter Umständen 'Fa' drin und was als "faschistisch" denunziert wird, stammt möglicher Weise aus eben diesem Qualitativ nahe stehenden Kreisen.

Da bleibt vorerst nur eins, die nationale Souveränität verteidigen und zwar mithilfe der UN-Charta, einer Errungenschaft des Krieges gegen den Faschismus. Wir müssen die dort niedergelegten wertvollen Worte als Vermächtnis und unser Rechtsgut verteidigen, als das Wenige, das uns noch bleibt.

Wir dürfen - um den Preis des gemeinsamen Überlebens willen - nicht Bündnispartner aus dem bürgerlichen Lager verprellen, gering schätzen oder gar noch angreifen. Die Zeiten stehen 2017 nicht wie vor hundert Jahren auf proletarischer Revolution. Da es den Völkern nicht gelungen ist, diese hart erkämpfte Errungenschaft zu schützen, stehen wir heute vor einem Scherbenhaufen. Wir müssen die Scherben zusammen klittern. Dazu ist unabdingbar zunächst, einen Überblick über das geopolitische Gesamtgebilde zu gewinnen. Weder Putin, noch Trump, noch Marine Le Pen, noch die AFD in Deutschland sind unsere Gegner, seien letztere noch so  CDU-nah. Auch nachdem Wegschubsen ihrer Frauke Petry und der neuen Partnerschaft zwischen dem EX-CDU Mann Gauland und der neuen Frontfrau Frau Alice Weidel sind diese nicht etwa schlimmer als die CDU und ihre Verbündeten, sondern eher politische Realisten, die nationale Belange nicht preiszugeben bereit sind.

Das große, weltumspannende Thema bleibt vorerst nationale Souveränität versus Globalismus.8 Eine blutleere, opportunistische Linke versteht leider schon lange nicht mehr, wo ihre Freunde und wo demgegenüber ihre Feinde zu suchen sind. Richtungsweisende Losungen und damit richtige, Massen mobilisierende, vorwärtsweisende Handlungsanweisungen sind von ihr vorerst nicht zu erwarten. Der opportunistische, linke Irrtum ist natürlich folgenreich und verheerend. Vielleicht aber besteht doch noch Hoffnung, dass er durch die Wahlentscheidung der Franzosen oder durch die weitere europolitische und globale Entwicklung in absehbarer Zeit korrigierbar wird. Im Interesse des Weltfriedens und der Sache der Gerechtigkeit müssen wir dafür Sorge tragen, dass diese Kurskorrektur eintreten wird.
__________________

2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGPDV6AGIvI
https://www.nytimes.com/.../marine-le-pen-draws-cheers-in-macr... Le Pen arrived to meet with workers at a Whirlpool plant in Amiens on Wednesday. … a tumble dryer factory in the country's north Mr. Macron's hometown where met with union representaitves at the Chamber of Commerce

7 "It almost appears oxymoronic that national sovereignty movements are now global in nature. And to the dismay of globalists who gather at annual elitist and secretive meetings sponsored by the Bilderberg Group, the World Economic Forum, the Ambrosetti Forum, and the Bohemian Club to bemoan the growth of populist political parties, national sovereignty movements are here to stay.“ http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/04/25/sovereigntist-movement-not-going-anywhere.html

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Intel Vets Voice Doubts on Syrian Crisis

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/26/intel-vets-voice-doubts-on-syrian-crisis/


Two dozen former U.S. intelligence professionals are urging the American people to demand clear evidence that the Syrian government was behind the April 4 chemical incident before President Trump dives deeper into another war.
AN OPEN MEMORANDUM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Subject: Mattis ‘No Doubt’ Stance on Alleged Syrian CW Smacks of Politicized Intelligence

Donald Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, retired Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, during a recent trip to Israel, commented on the issue of Syria’s retention and use of chemical weapons in violation of its obligations to dispose of the totality of its declared chemical weapons capability in accordance with the provisions of both the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman hold a news conference in Tel Aviv, Israel, April 21, 2017. (U.S. Embassy photo by Matty Stern)
“There can be no doubt,” Secretary Mattis said during a April 21, 2017 joint news conference with his Israeli counterpart, Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman, “in the international community’s mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all.” To the contrary, Mattis noted, “I can say authoritatively they have retained some.”
Lieberman joined Mattis in his assessment, noting that Israel had “100 percent information that [the] Assad regime used chemical weapons against [Syrian] rebels.”
Both Mattis and Lieberman seemed to be channeling assessments offered to reporters two days prior, on April 19, 2017, by anonymous Israeli defense officials that the April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack on the Syrian village of Khan Shaykhun was ordered by Syrian military commanders, with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s personal knowledge, and that Syria retained a stock of “between one and three tons” of chemical weapons.
The Israeli intelligence followed on the heels of an April 13, 2017 speech given by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that, once information had come in about a chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, the CIA had been able to “develop several hypothesis around that, and then to begin to develop fact patterns which either supported or suggested that the hypothesis wasn’t right.” The CIA, Pompeo said, was “in relatively short order able to deliver to [President Trump] a high-confidence assessment that, in fact, it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical strikes against its own people in [Khan Shaykhun.]”
The speed in which this assessment was made is of some concern. Both Director Pompeo, during his CSIS remarks, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, during comments to the press on April 6, 2017, note that President Trump turned to the intelligence community early on in the crisis to understand better “the circumstances of the attack and who was responsible.” McMaster indicated that the U.S. Intelligence Community, working with allied partners, was able to determine with “a very high degree of confidence” where the attack originated.

Mike Pompeo, now CIA director, speaking at the 2012 CPAC in Washington, D.C. February 2012. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)
Both McMaster and Pompeo spoke of the importance of open source imagery in confirming that a chemical attack had taken place, along with evidence collected from the victims themselves – presumably blood samples – that confirmed the type of agent that was used in the attack. This initial assessment drove the decision to use military force – McMaster goes on to discuss a series of National Security Council meetings where military options were discussed and decided upon; the discussion about the intelligence underpinning the decision to strike Syria was over.
The danger of this rush toward an intelligence decision by Director Pompeo and National Security Advisor McMaster is that once the President and his top national security advisors have endorsed an intelligence-based conclusion, and authorized military action based upon that conclusion, it becomes virtually impossible for that conclusion to change. Intelligence assessments from that point forward will embrace facts that sustain this conclusion, and reject those that don’t; it is the definition of politicized intelligence, even if those involved disagree.
A similar “no doubt” moment had occurred nearly 15 years ago when, in August 2002, Vice President Cheney delivered a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Cheney declared. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.” The message Cheney was sending to the Intelligence Community was clear: Saddam Hussein had WMD; there was no need to answer that question anymore.
The CIA vehemently denies that either Vice President Cheney or anyone at the White House put pressure on its analysts to alter their assessments. This may very well be true, but if it is, then the record of certainty – and arrogance – that existed in the mindset of senior intelligence managers and analysts only further erodes public confidence in the assessments produced by the CIA, especially when, as is the case with Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction – the agency was found so lacking. Stuart Cohen, a veteran CIA intelligence analyst who served as the acting Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, oversaw the production of the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was used to make case for Iraq possessing WMD that was used to justify war.
According to Mr. Cohen, he had four National Intelligence Officers with “over 100 years’ collective work experience on weapons of mass destruction issues” backed up by hundreds of analysts with “thousands of man-years invested in studying these issues.”
On the basis of this commitment of talent alone, Mr. Cohen assessed that “no reasonable person could have viewed the totality of the information that the Intelligence Community had at its disposal … and reached any conclusion or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached,” namely that – judged with high confidence – “Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer limit imposed by the UN Security Council.”
Two facts emerge from this expression of intellectual hubris. First, the U.S. Intelligence Community was, in fact, wrong in its estimate on Iraq’s WMD capability, throwing into question the standards used to assign “high confidence” ratings to official assessments. Second, the “reasonable person” standard cited by Cohen must be reassessed, perhaps based upon a benchmark derived from a history of analytical accuracy rather than time spent behind a desk.

Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos and other “intelligence” which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.
The major lesson learned here, however, is that the U.S. Intelligence Community, and in particular the CIA, more often than not hides behind self-generated platitudes (“high confidence”, “reasonable person”) to disguise a process of intelligence analysis that has long ago been subordinated to domestic politics.
It is important to point out the fact that Israel, too, was wrong about Iraq’s WMD. According to Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli Intelligence Officer, Israeli intelligence seriously overplayed the threat posed by Iraqi WMD in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War, including a 2002 briefing to NATO provided by Efraim Halevy, who at the time headed the Israeli Mossad, or intelligence service, that Israel had “clear indications” that Iraq had reconstituted its WMD programs after U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998.
The Israeli intelligence assessments on Iraq, Mr. Brom concluded, were most likely colored by political considerations, such as the desire for regime change in Iraq. In this light, neither the presence of Avigdor Leiberman, nor the anonymous background briefings provided by Israel about Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities, should be used to provide any credence to Secretary Mattis’s embrace of the “no doubt” standard when it comes to Syria’s alleged possession of chemical weapons.
The intelligence data that has been used to back up the allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use has been far from conclusive. Allusions to intercepted Syrian communications have been offered as “proof”, but the Iraq experience – in particular former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s unfortunate experience before the U.N. Security Council – show how easily such intelligence can be misunderstood and misused.
Inconsistencies in the publicly available imagery which the White House (and CIA) have so heavily relied upon have raised legitimate questions about the veracity of any conclusions drawn from these sources (and begs the question as to where the CIA’s own Open Source Intelligence Center was in this episode.) The blood samples used to back up claims of the presence of nerve agent among the victims was collected void of any verifiable chain of custody, making their sourcing impossible to verify, and as such invalidates any conclusions based upon their analysis.
In the end, the conclusions CIA Director Pompeo provided to the President was driven by a fundamental rethinking of the CIA’s analysts when it came to Syria and chemical weapons that took place in 2014. Initial CIA assessments in the aftermath of the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons seemed to support the Syrian government’s stance that it had declared the totality of its holding of chemical weapons, and had turned everything over to the OPCW for disposal. However, in 2014, OPCW inspectors had detected traces of Sarin and VX nerve agent precursors at sites where the Syrians had indicated no chemical weapons activity had taken place; other samples showed the presence of weaponized Sarin nerve agent.
The Syrian explanation that the samples detected were caused by cross-contamination brought on by the emergency evacuation of chemical precursors and equipment used to handle chemical weapons necessitated by the ongoing Civil War was not accepted by the inspectors, and this doubt made its way into the minds of the CIA analysts, who closely followed the work of the OPCW inspectors in Syria.
One would think that the CIA would operate using the adage of “once bitten, twice shy” when assessing inspector-driven doubt; U.N. inspectors in Iraq, driven by a combination of the positive sampling combined with unverifiable Iraqi explanations, created an atmosphere of doubt about the veracity of Iraqi declarations that all chemical weapons had been destroyed. The CIA embraced the U.N. inspectors’ conclusions, and discounted the Iraqi version of events; as it turned out, Iraq was telling the truth.
While the jury is still out about whether or not Syria is, like Iraq, telling the truth, or whether the suspicions of inspectors are well founded, one thing is clear: a reasonable person would do well to withhold final judgment until all the facts are in. (Note: The U.S. proclivity for endorsing the findings of U.N. inspectors appears not to include the Khan Shaykhun attack; while both Syria and Russia have asked the OPCW to conduct a thorough investigation of the April 4, 2017 incident, the OPCW has been blocked from doing so by the United States and its allies.)

Photograph of men in Khan Sheikdoun in Syria, allegedly inside a crater where a sarin-gas bomb landed on April 4, 2017.
CIA Director Pompeo’s job is not to make policy – the intelligence his agency provides simply informs policy. It is not known if the U.S. Intelligence Community will be producing a formal National Intelligence Estimate addressing the Syrian chemical weapons issue, although the fact that the United States has undertaken military action under the premise that these weapons exist more than underscores the need for such a document, especially in light of repeated threats made by the Trump administration that follow-on strikes might be necessary.
Making policy is, however, the job of Secretary of Defense Mattis. At the end of the day, Secretary of Defense Mattis will need to make his own mind up as to the veracity of any intelligence used to justify military action. Mattis’s new job requires that he does more than simply advise the President on military options; he needs to ensure that the employment of these options is justified by the facts.
In the case of Syria, the “no doubt” standard Mattis has employed does not meet the “reasonable man” standard. Given the consequences that are attached to his every word, Secretary Mattis would be well advised not to commit to a “no doubt” standard until there is, literally, no doubt.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS)
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator (GG-12) HQ, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)