Bernie vs Hillary: Ausgangslage Ende März

Sanders hat es aus momentaner Sicht sehr schwer, genügend Delegierte (pledged delegates) zu bekommen, um Clinton bis zur Convention eindeutig zu schlagen, da die Delegierten proportional verteilt werden.

Zu hoffen, dass die Super-Delegates, die mehrheitlich zu Clinton stehen (weil sie auf eine entsprechende Belohnung in Form von Posten oder Gefälligkeiten hoffen), einfach so ins Sanders Lager wechseln, scheint mir unwahrscheinlich, wenn sich die Ausgangslage für die beiden Bewerber nicht ändert.

Was aber könnte den Wahlkampf umkrempeln:

  • Clinton oder enge Mitarbeiter werden wegen der nicht regelkonformen Nutzung des Email-Servers angeklagt (oder wenn es zu keiner Anklage kommt, weil Justizdepartement oder Obama eine Anklage verhindern, dass FBI Beamte aus Gewissensgründen aus dem FBI austreten und die Sabotage einer gerichtlichen Verfolgung Clintons publik machen) .

    Eine so „beschädigte“ Kandidatin Clinton könnte wohl von der Demokratischen Partei zu Recht nicht mehr aufgestellt werden und, da mit Sanders ein Bewerber mit viel Unterstützung bereits vorhanden ist, auch nicht einfach ein Clinton-Ersatz wie z.B. Joe Biden aus dem Hut gezaubert werden.

 

  • Sanders schafft es, den Eindruck einer „Revolution von unten“ und des Anbruchs einer neuen Zeit bis an die Convention zu tragen.
    Sanders braucht, um Clinton einzuholen, in den nächsten Primaries mindestens 57% der Wählerstimmen (Quelle: Sane Progressive, youtube) Schafft er es, in den Delegiertenzahlen mit Clinton gleichzuziehen und an der Convention eine Mehrheit der Super-Delegates zu überzeugen, dass er der Kandidat des Volkes ist und sie sehen, dass sie mit Clinton nur mehr eine kurze politische Karriere vor sich haben, dann dürften sie zu Sanders wechseln. (vgl. Tulsie Gabbard)

    Die jüngeren Superdelegierten dürften also im Sinne ihrer Karriere zu Sanders schwenken, die alten mit Clinton gross gewordenen bei Clinton verharren.

Advertisements

Putins Abzug aus Syrien: Interpretation

Vgl. http://thesaker.is/week-twenty-two-of-the-russian-military-intervention-in-syria-putin-announces-new-strategy/

Der Abzug geschieht, um den Türken weniger Angriffsfläche für eine Invasion/Intervention in Syrien zu geben. Würde die Türkei in Syrien intervenieren, wo Russland sich offiziell zurückzieht und den Friedensprozess vorantreibt, dann wäre ein Eingreifen Russlands gegen den Aggressor Türkei in der Weltöffentlichkeit verständlich und sehr schwierig anders zu verkaufen.

Rückzug eines Teils der militärischen Kräfte macht also insofern Sinn, dass Putin den Nachbarstaaten jegliche Gründe für eine Intervention aus der Hand nehmen will.

 

Hillary Clinton: Werden die Republikaner mit ihr zusammenarbeiten?

Hillary ist von republikanischer Seite die meistgehasste Person im demokratischen Lager über all die Jahre.

Kann Hillary deshalb von sich behaupten, dass sie eine Kandidatin ist, die mit beiden Lagern gut zusammen arbeiten kann? Sanders will wohl gerade deshalb die Superdelegierten auf dem Nominierungskongress von sich überzeugen, wenn er über weniger Stimmen verfügen würde als Hillary bis zum Kongress.

Einschub: Die Chancen, dass Bernie allerdings die Mehrheit der Superdelegierten gewinnt, scheint mir äusserst klein. Dazu ist die demokratische Partei viel zu stark auf Postenerhalt und Status quo fixiert, als dass ihre Repräsentanten und Leader erkennen würden, dass für den amerikanischen Bürger ein neues Zeitalter angebrochen ist. Verschiedene Reaktionen auf eine Nomination von Clinton und Trump oder Cruz sind denkbar. Die Unterstützer von Bernie enhalten sich der Stimme oder wählen Jill Stein von den Grünen; eine Unabhängige werden möglicherweise sogar zu Trump wechseln, um ihren Protest gegen die verlogene Politik Washingtons auszudrücken . Sich als „rationaler Handelnde“ verstehend werden ihre Stimme Clinton statt Trump/Cruz geben, um das Schlimmste zu verhindern. Republikaner des Establishment werden statt Trump Clinton unterstützen, die eine Republican-lite ist. Es ist nun eine Frage der Grösse jeder dieser Gruppen, die den Wahlausgang bestimmen werden. 

Für Europa und den Rest der Welt wäre wohl Donald Trump die weniger drastische Wahl, weil Trump in der US-Innenpolitik grossen Schaden anrichten würde durch seine rassistische Politik, die er verfolgen will.

Clinton hingegen wird innenpolitisch den Status quo von Obama halten, die Grossindustrie aber weiter gegenüber dem Mittelstand begünstigen und keine Erleichterung bringen. In der Aussenpolitik dürfte sie aleridngs als Neocon und Falke grösseren Schaden anrichten als ein Donald Trump, der hier eher isolationistische Anklänge hat.

Stimmt Hillarys Behauptung, dann ist die „Verschwörung von Rechts“ nicht wirklich vorhanden und nur Show.

Nimmt man die Anschuldigungen von den Republikanern ernst und deren Widerwillen gegenüber Hillary, dann dürfte ihre Präsidentschaft mindestens genauso blockiert werden im Parlament wie die von Obama.

Russland zieht Teil der Truppen aus Syrien ab: Unsere Ziele wurden „insgesamt erreicht“

Abzugsankündigung wird interessant sein in Bezug auf die Reaktion der USA und Verbündeter. Erst dann lässt sich Putins Schachzug genauer bewerten. Kann Syrien seine Gewinne gegenüber den Aufständischen und gegenüber dem IS aufrecht erhalten oder sind sie zu schwach? Ist Assad wirklich unter Druck, wie das die europäischen Zeitungen durchwegs interpretieren, am Friendensprozess teilzunehmen und Konzessionen zu machen?

Die Ankündigung:

Von Russia Today:

https://www.rt.com/news/335554-putin-orders-syria-withdrawal/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu to start the withdrawal of forces from Syria starting Tuesday. Russia will however keep a military presence at the port of Tartus and at the Khmeimim airbase to observe ceasefire agreements.

“I consider the objectives that have been set for the Defense Ministry to be generally accomplished. That is why I order to start withdrawal of the main part of our military group from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic starting from tomorrow,” Putin said on Monday during a meeting with Shoigu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

In a short period of time Russia has created a small but very effective military group [in Syria]… the effective work of our military allowed the peace process to begin,“ Putin said, adding that with the assistance of the Russian Air Force „Syrian government troops and patriotic forces have changed the situation in the fight with international terrorism and have ceased the initiative.“

 

Und die entsprechenden Interpretationen von Saker und Kommentatoren dazu:

Stichworte: Schlauer Schachzug; die USA und ihre Verbündeten werden durch den Abzug überrascht; es scheint, dass Russland die syrischen Truppen für genügend stark erachtet, sich selbst, zu verteidigen, gegen den IS vorzugehen und auch die russischen Anlagen in Syrien zu schützen; Abzug könnte mit anderen regionalen Playern (Saudiarabien?) abgesprochen sein (tit for tat); USA und Verbündete können sich über die Strategie Russland kein klares Bild machen und ein Einsatz ohne Überraschungen wird erschwert (= wichtig, wenn man erfolgreich planen will).

 

http://thesaker.is/analysis-of-the-russian-military-pullout-from-syria/

It is way too early right now to give a categorical evaluation of the timing and consequences of the Russian withdrawal from Syria.  Let us also keep in mind that there is a lot we don’t know.  What we do know is that Sergei Lavrov has had an absolutely crazy schedule over the past month or so and that Russian diplomats have been holding intense negotiations with all the regional powers.  I am confident that the Russians planned their withdrawal at least as carefully as the planned their intervention and that they have left as many open options as possible.  By the way, the big advantage of a unilateral decision is that, unlike one taken as part of an agreement with other parties, it can be unilaterally rescinded too.  It took the Russian just days to launch their initial operation even though they had to execute it all in difficult conditions and under the cloak of secrecy.  How long would it take them to move back into Syria if needed?

When all is said and done, I simply trust Vladimir Putin.  No, no just because I am a Putin fanboy (which, of course, I am!), but because of his record of being right and taking difficult, even risky, decisions which eventually yielded Russia yet another unforeseen success.

Like any good chess player, Putin knows that one of the key factors in any war is time and so far Putin has timed his every move superbly.  Yes, there were times in the past when I got really worried about what looked to me as either too much waiting or as dangerous risk-taking, but every single time my fears ended up being unfounded.  And yes, I can easily muster up a long list of potentially catastrophic scenarios for Syria, but I think that this would only make sense if Putin had, like Obama, a long and impressive list of failures, disasters, miscalculations and embarrassing defeats on his record.  But he does not.  In fact, what I see is an amazing list of successes achieved against very difficult odds.  And they key to Putin’s success might well be that he is a hardcore realist.

Russia is still weak.  Yes, she is stronger than in the past and she is rising up very fast, but she still is weak, especially in comparison to the still immense AngloZionist Empire whose resources simply dwarf Russia’s in most categories.  However, this comparative weakness also forces the Kremlin to be very careful.  When an empire is rich and powerful being arrogant and over-estimating your own capabilities is not nearly as bad as when a much weaker country does it.  Just look at the USA under Obama: they went from one humiliating and costly defeat to another – yet they are still here and still powerful, almost as powerful as they used to be 10 years ago.  While in the long run the kind of hubris and gross incompetence we nowadays observe in US decision-makers will result in the inevitable collapse of the Empire, in the medium to short term there is no truly painful price to pay for failure.  Just one example: just think of the US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They are absolute and total failures, abject disasters of incalculable magnitude.  They will go down in history as amongst the worst foreign policy failures ever.  And yet, walking around in downtown New York or San Fransisco you would never think that you are visiting a country which just lost two major and long wars.

Russia does not have such a “luxury of power”, she has to make every bit count and she has to plan each move with utmost precision.  Just like a tightrope walker with no safety harness, Putin knows that a single misstep can have catastrophic consequences.

To withdraw the bulk of the Russian military task force in Syria right now is a gutsy and potentially risky move for sure, but I am confident that it is also the right one.  But only time will tell if my confidence is warranted or not.

 

 

 

 

Warum Gaddafi sterben musste

Artikel aus Counterpunch:

Gaddafi hatte eine unabhängige Zentralbank, die eigene Entwicklungsprojekte ohne Zins finanzierte.

Er schaffte es, die afrikanischen Staaten in Richtung einer gemeinsamen Ölwährung zu vereinen, die anstelle des Dollar treten sollte.

Damit wurde er den Franzosen, die die ehemaligen Kolonien Afrikas noch immer als ihr Einfluss- und Ausbeutungsgebiet betrachten, zu mächtig. Es gibt eine französische Liste, in der steht, weshalb Frankreich intervenieren will und muss. Mit keinem einzigen Wort werden allerdings als Grund Menschenrechte oder soziale Missstände angeführt. Es geht allein um Macht, Geld, und Öl.

 

 

Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

shutterstock_378987952a katz / Shutterstock.com

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails, dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1  A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

2 Increase French influence in North Africa,

3 Improve his internal political situation in France,

4 Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

5 Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called “fractional reserve” lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold.  In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar’s gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar.”  Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard.  Libya’s al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, “hard currency.”

Under al-Qadhafi’s leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification.  The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL).  The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent.  Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya.  The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country’s 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya’s Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa).  In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

Der manipulierte Bürger im Netz

Dystopie: Überwachung und Macht über Verhalten der Bürger dank Datenauswertung

Die Computeranalysten des Militärs und von Google kennen dich und dein Verhalten besser als deine Freunde und sie können dich durch gezielte Ansprache manipulieren.

z.B. Google bestimmt, wer in der Suchliste oben erscheint. Im Normalfall suchen die Leute nie mehr als die ersten drei, vier Suchresultate. Entsprechende wissenschaftlich ausgewertete Manipulationstest wurden bei Wahlen in Indien bereits gemacht. Google kann allein durch die Platzierung von Suchresultaten Wahlen beeinflussen.

Willkommen bei Huxley

Daten sind die wichtigste Währung und manipulieren unser Kaufverhalten. Aber auch über unser Weltbild haben sie immer mehr Macht.

Zickzacklinien auf einem Computerbildschirm in verschiedenen Farben

Bewegungsprofildaten eines Sensors.  Foto: dpa

Wir leben in einer Welt, in der sich Regierungen und Konzerne anmaßen, die Menschheit global zu überwachen. Wie passt das zur Demokratie, welche Strategien der Gegenwehr sind erforderlich? Diese Fragen besprechen Hacker und Journalisten am Freitag und Samstag beim „Logan Symposium“ in Berlin.

Die Tagung, an der auch die taz als Partner mitwirkt, mag Nicht-Experten wie eine Nerd-Veranstaltung erscheinen. Das ist ein Vermittlungsproblem von uns Journalisten. Zuzuschreiben ist es aber auch Informatikern. Ein Teil von ihnen entwarf das System mit, über das nun diskutiert wird. Ein anderer verzettelt sich in elitärer Expertokratie, statt Politik und Gesellschaft wachzurütteln. Denn es geht hier nicht um Nerds, sondern um die Demokratie.

Beim Logan-Symposium im vergangenen Jahr sprach der Journalist John Pilger davon, wie allumfassend Regierungen die Wahrheit mit konstruierten Narrativen ersticken – überall, nicht nur in Russland. Solche Deutungsmuster bestimmen das Weltbild vieler Menschen.

Manche Narrative wirken dabei subtiler als schlichte Staatspropaganda. Sie erzeugen ein bestimmtes Klima. Die einflussreichste Erzählung modelliert den Staat als unmodernes Relikt: altersstarr und fett. Dies, so das Narrativ, entwertete Demokratie selbst als überbürokratisch.

Immer knalligere Geschichten

Elegant, schlank und smart erscheinen dagegen die Management-Prinzipien von heute. Im Silicon Valley entstanden jene Technologien, die Kommerz und Politik angeblich vereinen. Konsumentendemokratie statt Wahlen: Like. Das Invididuum als kraftvoller Unternehmer seiner selbst steht allerdings zunehmend allein da. Das Narrativ der Rationalität des Marktes wurde zur allumfassenden Metadeutung aller Lebensbereiche. Galt einmal die Unabhängigkeit der Presse als Daseinsberechtigung der Medien, zählt heute die Zielgruppe. Was mit der Einschaltquote begann, steigerte sich mit in Echtzeit gemessenen Zugriffen bei Onlineportalen. Geschichten müssen immer knalliger werden.

Die Inhaber lernender Algorithmen wissen bereits jetzt, wer wir sein werden

Ziel ist nicht die Aufklärung, sondern der virale Hit: Metrik als Relevanz, Journalismus als Ware und Demokratie als Marktumfeld. Digitale Konzerne spielen hier eine wesentliche Rolle. Ihre Macht ist ein Grund dafür, warum viele Menschen tiefenentspannt sind, während früher schon die biedere Spitzelei der Stasi die Welt erschreckte. Dabei sind die Indiskretionen heute viel detaillierter.

Mathematisch präzise Psychogramme, soziale und ökonomische Röntgenaufnahmen von Milliarden Individuen sind von Maschinen les- und auswertbar. Intimste Details unserer Charaktere sind errechenbar, gespeichert auf Serverfarmen von Monopolisten. Menschen sind Datenfilets im Warensortiment hybrider Konzerne mit politischen Zielen.

Macht über Milliarden Menschen

Taucht bei Ihnen der reflexhafte Gedanke auf, dass Sie die globale Röntgenmaschine nicht betrifft, weil Sie nichts zu verbergen haben? Weil Sie viel zu uninteressant sind? Genau dann greift ein nützliches Narrativ. Denn Sie ahnen vielleicht zugleich, dass das gar nicht sein kann. Andernfalls wären die Daten von Milliarden uninteressanter Menschen nicht das Wichtigste, nach dem die mächtigsten Institutionen dieser Erde gieren. Nicht Öl oder Platin, sondern Daten repräsentieren den heute wertvollsten Rohstoff. Sie sind ein anderer Begriff für Macht über Menschen. Sie sind die Universalwährung, die sich in jede andere konvertieren lässt, sozial oder ökonomisch.

Deswegen ist Google mehr als nur reich. Milliarden Menschen füttern ihre Daten-Doubles im Smartphone. Algorithmisch animiert entsteht die digital maßgeschneiderte Weltanschauungsbestätigung jedes Einzelnen bei Facebook. Die Inhaber lernender Algorithmen wissen mittlerweile nicht nur genauer als unser bester Freund, wer wir sind. Sie wissen bereits jetzt, wer wir sein werden. In wenigen Jahren wurde Facebook für 40 Prozent der Amerikaner zur primären Informationsquelle. Weltweit ist das Netzwerk ein Realitätsaggregator für Milliarden Menschen.

Dabei zersplittert eine ehemals geteilte Öffentlichkeit in individualisierte Wirklichkeitsbruchstücke. Nicht New York Times oder BBC vermitteln durch unabhängigen Journalismus einen differenzierten Blick auf die Welt, sondern ein kommerzieller IT-Konzern. Diese Revolution zersetzt die Wirklichkeit, die Individualisierung macht sie formbar. Facebook missbraucht seine User schon seit Jahren für Experimente. Der Konzern machte öffentlich, dass er mit exakt geplanten Manipulationen des Algorithmus psychologische Einstellungen von Hunderttausenden Usern so steuern konnte wie gewünscht. Berichte über diese Experimente standen mehrfach in den renommiertesten Wissenschaftszeitschriften der USA.

Auch politisch wird manipuliert

Solcherlei Manipulation brachte auch US-Präsident Barack Obama die Wiederwahl ein. 100 Millionen Dollar bezahlte er einem Team von Datenwissenschaftlern. Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin unterhält für digitale Manipulation Trollfabriken in St. Petersburg. In China filtern 100.000 staatliche Zensoren das Internet. Der britische Geheimdienst GCHQ hat eigene Programme, um die Einstellungen der Nutzer auf Twitter, Facebook und YouTube gezielt zu manipulieren.

„Squeaky Dolphin“ heißt eines davon. Der Rüstungskonzern Raytheon bietet die Software „Riot“ (Aufstand) an, die Unruheherde prognostiziert und Unruhestifter überwachen kann. Und das US-Verteidigungsministerium betreibt vollautomatisierte Meinungsmache: Das Programm „Social Media in Strategic Communication“ identifiziert feindliche Propaganda und erzeugt Gegenpropaganda. 2009 beschäftigte das Pentagon 27.000 Fachleute für Public Relations, Jahresetat: 4,7 Milliarden Dollar.

Seit diesem Jahr ist Google-Chef Eric Schmid Berater dieser mächtigsten aller Militärbehörden. Orwells Überwachungs-Dystopie „1984“ war nur die nötige Voraussetzung: Willkommen in Huxleys „Brave New World“. Dass all diese Informationen mit der nächsten Aufmerksamkeitswelle davonschwappen werden, ist ein Indiz für den Erfolg jener Narrative, gegen die Hacker und Journalisten ankämpfen müssen.

 

Medienfreiheit im Westen wird immer mehr eingeschränkt – Sind wir das neue China oder die UdSSR

The Danger Of Media Blackout

Tyler Durden's picture

Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.

Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.

This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being necessary “to combat and prevent Russian aggression.”

It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It’s a component of the US’ decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the US would reign as the world’s sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,

“[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.”

Of particular importance here is the term, “legitimate interests.” With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.

Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, “Stop, before it’s too late,” yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony. If the major powers do not call “time out”, world war could easily be on the horizon. Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West. No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.

Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.

Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it’s possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it’s a major undertaking to do so.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information. In most of the world, there’s an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal. Whatever does not fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.

A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders’ actions on the world stage.

However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that’s favourable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.

Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called “the Free World” – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.

The overall message that’s received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy. Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they’ve reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.

The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.

This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it’s entirely likely that they would oppose it.

And, of course, that’s exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.

Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things.

First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.

 

Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.

In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to “serve the country.”

Trouble is, this by no means “serves the country.” It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders, who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders’ zeal for domination.