Diese Woche konnte man aus den Nachrichten erfahren, das der Verfassungsschutz auf Recherchen der Antifa zurückgreift. Wieso diese Nähe problematisch ist, zeigt dieser Artikel. Eine der Schnittstellen zwischen Verfassungsschutz, Antifa und den Medien ist die Amadeu-Antonio Stiftungsgründerin Anetta Kahane. Dabei handelt es sich um eine ehemalige interne Mitarbeiterin der DDR Staatssicherheit, die mit ihren Angaben dutzende Personen aus ihrem Umfeld belastete. Darunter Künstler, westdeutsche Reporter, Studenten von West-Berliner Universitäten – vor allem berichtete Sie über in der DDR lebende Ausländer. Kahane führte Aufträge aus und erhielt von der Stasi kleinere Geschenke und Geld. In einem von IM “Victoria” stammenden Bericht heißt es 1976 über einen Kreis von Schriftstellern und Schauspielern: “Zu den Feinden der DDR gehören in erster Linie Klaus Brasch und Thomas Brasch.” Klaus Brasch starb an einer Medikamentenüberdosis, ein Selbstmord steht im Raum, sein Bruder starb nur wenige Jahre später an einem Herzinfarkt.
Zur Verschleierung ihrer früheren Stasi-Aktivitäten als IM „Victoria“ wurde der Deutsche Wikipedia Eintrag zu Gründerin Kahane massiv geschönt. Lediglich 400 ihrer 800 Seiten umfassenden Akte wurden von der Birthler Behörde freigegeben.
Interessanterweise ist neben diversen Politikern, wie Cem Özdemir und Rita Süssmuth auch der Präsident des Thüringer Verfassungsschutz im Vorstand der AA Stiftung. Präsident Kramer wie auch Kahane unterhalten beide beste Beziehungen zu israelischen Institutionen.
Özdemir, wie Friedrich Merz, führendes Mitglied des transatlantischen Thinktanks Atlantikbrücke, zählt zu den neoliberalen Befürwortern aktueller US Kriege, und hat mit Grünen Werten etwa so viel zu tun, wie Süssmuths Engagement für die Terrororganisation MEK, zu deren Veranstaltungen Sie gegen Bezahlung einer 5 stelligen Summe erscheint. Die MEK unterhält übrigens in Albanien eine neue militärische Einrichtung. Dank Hillary Clinton und ihrer Lobbynetzwerke, wurde die Organisation von der Terrorismusliste gestrichen, damit entfiel in Deutschland die Überwachung durch den Verfassungsschutz, obwohl die Organisation in Deutschland im Bereich der organisierten Kriminalität agiert.
Von der SPD sind es Politiker wie Andrea Nahles, Heiko Maas und Franziska Giffey die sich in Kahanes Kontakten wiederfinden.
Neben ihrer Förderung durch Soros erhält die Stiftung auch Gelder durch die regierenden Parteien. Laut einer Anfrage an die Bundesregierung 3.6 Mio €, nach eigenen Angaben erhielt die Stiftung fast 6,2 Millionen Euro an Zuschüssen, insbesondere vom Bundesfamilienministerium. Dafür gab es dann auch eine Kita Broschüre, welche für Wirbel sorgte, in der Familienministerin Giffey das Vorwort schrieb.
Wohin fließen die Millionen… ?
Kampf gegen Rechts, Flüchtlinge, Genderstudien…
Eine Auswahl von Twitterkonten, welche mit der Amadeu-Antonio Stiftung wechselseitig verbunden sind – dies passiert wenn Twitter Benutzer miteinander kommunizieren…
man könnte fast meinen Kahane koordiniert ein Netzwerk…
Wie sieht wohl die mediale Berichterstattung aus wenn man mit einem linksextremistischem Netzwerk und verführten Kindern auf der Buchmesse auftritt, um gegen anders denkende zu protestieren…
Der „NAZI“ auf obigem Photo, welcher auch von der Bild-Zeitung gezeigt wurde.
Ist ein Aktivist der ANTIFA FFM.
Ein durch „linke“ Aktivisten verwüsteter Stand auf der Frankfurter Buchmesse.
Zu den Netzwerken der Stiftung gehören auch die Medien, zudem unterstützt AA die Bertelsmanntochter Arvato bei der Zensur auf Facebook.
Werbewirksam ist AA vor allem im Bereich der Flüchtlinge aktiv – öffentlich tritt die Stiftung jedoch nie gegen die Ursachen von Flüchtlingen auf, sondern man lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit gezielt auf die Folgen der verheerenden US Militärpolitik der letzten Jahrzehnte. Die Ursachen der Migration aus dem Nahen Osten werden insgesamt medial verschleiert, mit dem Ergebnis, das in Deutschland eine Friedensbewegung effizient verhindert wurde.
Denn genau wie damals arbeitet Frau Kahane primär für die Interessen der aktuellen Regierung.
Das Landgericht Hamburg als Zensurbehörde gegen die Meinungsfreiheit…
Letzten Monat sorgte der Fall des Spiegel Journalisten Claas Relotius für ein kurzzeitiges Medienecho. Seine politische Schönschreiberei ergänzt durch fiktive Elemente, gepaart mit einer gewissen kriminellen Energie durch Sammeln von Spendengeldern für erfundene Protagonisten führte zu einem Skandal.
Wie so oft gab es auch hier ein Vorspiel das jedoch keine mediale Zuwendung erfuhr – als der Softwareentwickler und Blogger Jens Bernert mit seinem Blog „der Blaue Bote“ vom Journalisten des Stern Marc Drewello im Auftrag des Bertelsmann Konzerns verklagt wurde, da er den Journalisten der Verbreitung von Fakenews in Form des Propagandakonstruktes Bana Alabed bezichtigte.
Bernert, ein Familienvater, der Politikwissenschaften und Geographie an der Uni Mannheim studierte, verfasste auf seinem Blog Artikel über Bana Alabed, welche den Geschichten des Stern widersprachen. Er beschuldigte Stern Journalist Marc Drewello Falschmeldungen zu verbreiten.
Bana Alabed und Familie mit einem Unterstützer.
Banas Vater Ghassan war Mitglied der radikalislamischen Safwa Brigade – einer militanten Oppositionsgruppe, welche das Schariarecht in Syrien fordert.
Bana mit dem „Journalist des Jahres“ 2016 Hadi Abdallah. Reporter ohne Grenzen verlieh Abdallah diesen Titel trotz einschlägiger Verbindungen zu jihadistischen Terroristen.
Hadi Abdallah mit Baraa Abdul Rahman
Bernert beschuldigte also Marc Drewello Fakenews zu produzieren. Dabei monierte Bernert zum Beispiel zu Recht, dass die 7-Jährige Bana zum damaligen Zeitpunkt nicht einmal in der Lage war rudimentäres Englisch zu verstehen. Wie sollte Sie dann, wie vom Stern verbreitet, in den Sozialen Medien aktiv sein ?
„Richterin (Simone) Käfer versucht mehrfach, den Betreiber des „Blauen Boten“ zur Einsicht zu bewegen, dass seine Wortwahl nicht statthaft sei – dann könne man sich bestimmt auch mit der Gegenseite über die Kosten unterhalten. Aber er beharrt. Zumindest, dass Stern.de eine „offensichtliche Lügengeschichte“ verbreite, müsse man doch wohl behaupten dürfen, pflichtet ihm sein Anwalt (Markus Kompa) bei.
Bernert hatte über den Stern.de-Autor unter anderem geschrieben, er sei ein „Nachrichtenfälscher“ und „Fake-News-Produzent“ und dass er „Falschmeldungen zu Propagandazwecken“ produziere. Das darf er laut Gericht nicht behaupten, da es dem Redakteur von Stern.de einen Vorsatz unterstelle, also nahelege, das Magazin habe absichtlich die Unwahrheit verbreitet. Das kann Bernert aber nicht nachweisen.“
Letztendlich wurde geurteilt, dass Journalisten den Inhalt ihrer Artikel nicht auf Echtheit überprüfen müssen. So lange man ihnen nicht nachweisen kann, dass Sie vorsätzlich Fälschungen veröffentlichen, handeln diese also rechtens. Hierin besteht der Unterschied zwischen Drewello und Relotius – da Drewello lediglich fremdes Material kopierte – dürfen ihm Fehler nicht angelastet werden – er gilt als unschuldig – Relotius, der der Tat überführt wurde – hat im Gegensatz hierzu eine reale Strafe erhalten.
Somit wird Kriegspropaganda für Journalisten legalisiert, wie unwahr diese auch immer sein mag – lediglich eigene Kriegspropaganda zu generieren – wird sanktioniert,…
Da fragt man sich nur – wer benötigt solche Journalisten – oder besser noch – wer benötigt solche Richter…
Zudem wurde nicht wie propagiert Bana Alabeds Twitterkonto gelöscht – sondern durch Einlassungen von Bertelsmann – das Konto von Jens Bernert – Bertelsmann ist wohl der Meinung das Urteil somit einer breiten Öffentlichkeit vorenthalten zu können. @BlauerBote.
Das existenzielle Problem das die Richter am Landgericht Hamburg für die freie Meinung darstellen, wurde bisher noch nie öffentlich adressiert.
Seit Jahren gibt es hierzu Blogs die Fehlentwicklungen dokumentieren.
Darunter auch die erwähnte Richterin am Landgericht Simone Käfer.
Zum Abschluss einige Worte von Peter Scholl-Latour
Last month the scandal on one of the journalists from the Spiegel (Claas Relotius) who freely invented several passages in his articles – had a short intermezzo in cooperate media in Germany.
Preludes to this were blatantly ignored in mainstreammedia when computer scientist and independant blogger ‚Der Blaue Bote‘ (‚the blue messenger‘) Jens Bernert was sued by journalist Marc Drewello from the newsmag „Stern“ (and consecutively by its publisher the Bertelsmann group) for accusing Stern of producing fakenews in regard of the propaganda construct – Bana Alabed.
Bernert a family father who studied political science wrote investigative articles on Bana Alabed contradicting the story of the Stern magazine on his Blog. He accused Stern journalist Marc Drewello of producing fakenews.
Bana Alabed with a fan
Banas father Ghassan, a member of the Safwa Brigade – a militant opposition group.
Bana with „Journalist of the Year“ 2016 Hadi Abdallah. Reporters without Borders awarded Abdallah the title – despite his links to jihadist terrorists in Syria.
Hadi Abdallah with Baraa Abdul Rahman
Bernert accused journalist Marc Drewello of producing fakenews – by claiming Bana – who was not even capable to understand basic English at the time – published tweets on social media.
„Judge Simone Käfer started several attempts to reason the blogger for a corrected „wording“ – in that case there would be a chance to be capable to talk about the costs with the other party.“
It was finally ruled that journalists are not to be made responsible for the veracity of their articles – unless it is proven they do it on purpose. That is the difference between Relotius and Drewello. As Drewello did just copy a fictional story – according to judge Simone Käfer he is innocent – Who needs such journalists – who needs such judges ?
In the end the Hamburg Court (Landgericht Hamburg) sentenced the blogger to pay the costs of about 10.000€+ (excluding the fees for his lawyer) – and as Bertelsmann complainted to social media – twitter removed the account @BlauerBote.
The existential problem related to judges of the Hamburg court – free speech was censored more than once – was never adresses in public – tho there are blogs dedicated to this issue for years…
This article had to be removed from its original blog due to legal threats –
I thought it poses a good opportunity to present the content to an international audience.
Germany had its own Philip Cross affair…
How Wikipedia’s monopoly is used for disinformation.
(By Dirk Pohlmann)
Wikipedia has set itself the goal of creating a „free and high-quality encyclopedia and thus spreading lexical knowledge.“ Meanwhile, the online encyclopaedia ranks number 5 on the ranking of the most visited websites . So it is one of the most important sources of information on the Internet worldwide.
But despite its popularity, Wikipedia can not meet its own standards. Although criticism of the one-sidedness of important articles on politically relevant topics is increasing among authors and users, the problem cases have so far been interpreted as an inevitable consequence of the openness of Wikipedia, which is at the same time their secret of success. If everyone could join in, there would sometimes be posed problems.
But not the free access is the cause of one-sidedness, but the really very hierarchical structure of the online lexicon. It has made possible the hostile takeover of the project, which is seen in public as a model of open, democratic cooperation, by a group known wikipedia-internally as the „Politburo (Political Office)“, which we call the „junta“. It rules with „vandalism messages“ in Wikipedia and penalizes bullying entries that run counter to its views, even the mention of our Youtube show „Stories from Wikihausen“ with locks, sometimes immediately permanent for life. The group has its own administrators, ie Wikipedia referees and is thus perpetrator, prosecutor, defense lawyer, prosecutor and judge in personal union. These are grotesque circumstances that do not correspond to the carefully maintained public image.
Wikipedia claims to belong to both the mass media and the social media. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a dominant position and is de facto monopolist of dictionaries. The Brockhaus no longer exists, the Encyclopedia Britannica since 2012 only online, the business model of the printed encyclopedia is obsolete. Wikipedia is absolute.
Power, especially the power of a monopoly, is incompatible with democracy. From constitutional point of view is the monopoly position of a medium of the GAU (largest accident to be assumed). The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany has stated in several judgments on freedom of expression and the media system that this state must be actively prevented by the legislature that a monopoly runs counter to the purpose of the media, namely to guarantee pluralistic, balanced and state-wide reporting. The Federal Constitutional Court has also explicitly forbidden to extradite the related broadcasting of an interest group. The problem becomes even more serious when one considers that a dictionary has the pretension and appearance of objectivity.
Who dominates Wikipedia, monopolistically dominates the public definition of reality and can influence the political discourse relevant. Above all, the reputation of people is defined by Wikipedia. So used, the Wikipedia can be used as a powerful denunciation instrument.
It is not surprising that this concentration of power attracts people, groups, institutions and government agencies. When Markus Fiedler and I researched for our YouTube show „Wikihausen“, who is champion in the manipulation of Wikipedia, we landed not in Russia, but in Israel. Alone the Israeli „Ministry of Strategic Affairs“ (translated in German Wikipedia as the „Ministry of International Relations“ !) Spends over $ 70 Million on a Campaign in the words of Director General Sima Vaknin-Gil “ to create a community of militants „that will“ stop activities by anti-Israeli activists „and“ flood the Internet „with pro-Israeli content.However, this sum is only a fraction of the money spent by the Israeli military, state and private agencies and NGOs for these purposes, as we have shown in the 4th episode of Wikihausen .
Is this addressed in the mainstream media, which are worried about alleged Russian manipulation? No. Is legal and diplomatic action taken? No. Does Wikipedia even take care of this problem? No. But why are such dual standards possible? And what are their consequences? Does that really interest anyone?
While journalists publicly like to say that Wikipedia is not a reputable source for them, they really use Wikipedia extensively, not just for research. One of my colleagues was countered by his ARD (German TV Channel 1) editor even with a proposal for an investigative documentary on an ARD station with a Wikipedia phrase on the subject. What he reported on his research, but did not match the Wikipedia entry. And since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia aimed at objectivity, the entry became a reason for refusal.
Wikipedia is a frequently used source, especially when it comes to personal research by journalists, simply because the entries in the online lexicon are always displayed first when searching Google.
Unfortunately, this suggestion falls into the category of making „goats to gardeners“.
The lexical accuracy and impartiality of Wikipedia is very different, depending on whether you enter the terms „differential calculus“, „photosynthesis“ or „Appendix 1391“. Camp 1391 is a notorious torture prison of Israeli military intelligence.
„Appendix 1391“ is one of the articles edited by the hyperactive Wikipedia author „Feliks“. He has highlighted everything there is to know about the events in Camp 1391, such as the fact that prisoners are raped before or during the interrogation. That there are 1 x 1 meter black-painted cells without light, no running water, with a toilet bucket emptied once a week. With an air conditioner that is hot in summer and cold in summer. The reports of Abu Greibh’s role model can be found in the Guardian , even in the taz , in the mirror , in Newsweek , in Haaretz , in a UN commission of inquiry, and in many other newspapers that still ran journalism in the 1990s. Feliks has completely deleted all information previously recorded in Wikipedia about systematic human rights violations. Justification: Israel investigated the allegations and did not confirm them.
Feliks Markus Fiedler was already in the research for his two films „The dark side of Wikipedia“ and „censorship – the organized manipulation of Wikipedia and other media“ noticed. He is one of the writers who does an incredible amount of work, so one wonders if they have no job, no friends and no family.
That’s why we’ve been working more intensively together with Feliks. His main interest, as he himself states on his now largely erased author page, is to the Middle East since he witnessed „how a Kassam rocket came down.“ He has more than 150 Wikipedia articles on Israel, Palestine, the Israeli armed forces, and subjects worked on Israeli politics. He also has a second focus: Members of the Left. Feliks edited 51 MPs and politicians of this party. He also deals with alternative media and the peace movement. Since Markus and I have dealt with Annetta Kahane in our video blog „Stories from Wikihausen“, Feliks has also „edited“ my Wikipedia article as a punishment.
The unmasking of Feliks was an investigative jigsaw puzzle that finally got us through a clue in which school he graduated from high school. In combination with other, we researched data brought us on his trail.
It is now clear who Feliks is: He was formerly Jörg Egerer and has renamed after 2015 in Jörg Matthias Claudius Grünewald. Egerer is a civil servant, by profession judicial officer and converted sometime in 2012 from the Catholic faith to Judaism. Egerer / Grünewald is a member of the left party „Die Linke“, is assigned to the „anti-German“ wing and is a political friend of Klaus Lederer, was Bundestag candidate of the Bavarian „Die Linke“ and was attached there as treasurer at the executive committee. During his tenure, there were irregularities that were known after his resignation, but according to party members for party-political considerations were never informed legally. Donations receipts were issued to the „Forum of Communist Working Groups“ which, despite its name, today belong to the left wing of the Left, but the money did not remain in the party but was passed on.
It is noticeable that Egerer / Grünewald either discredits entries to members of the left for proximity to his political positions by selective selection of detailed information, such as the members of the Bundestag Diether Dehm, Annette Groth, Inge Höger, Alexander Süßmaier, Kornelia Moller or Oskar Lafontaine, or represents positively, as with Klaus Ernst or Eva Bulling-Schröter, whose website he also looked after. The negative representation in Wikipedia by Feliks applies in particular to leftists who express themselves critically to the current Israeli foreign policy.
This could be related to the fact that Jörg Egerer was a frequent participant in Sar-El, a volunteer program of the Israeli armed forces for foreigners, but in which no service is rendered in active combat units. Several leftists have reported that there is a photo of Jörg Egerer in Israeli uniform with a Uzi submachine gun.
Egerer / Grünewald is also a lieutenant in the reserve of the Bundeswehr and a member of the „Bund deutscher Soldaten eV“, where he is also a cash auditor. He has military parachute badges of the US Army, the Czech, Croat and Belgian forces. But none of the left-wing politicians we spoke to knew about this.
Jörg Egerer / Grünewald has selected his Wikipedia name Feliks for his own account for a secret service, Feliks Djerdjinski, who is responsible for the liquidation of, depending on the source, 50,000 to 250,000 political opponents as head of the Cheka and the NKVD.
That Egerer / Grünewald likes to exercise power and punish us party members have reported by a variety of anecdotes.
Particularly intriguing is his adaptation of the Wikipedia entry by Nirit Sommerfeld, a German-Israeli artist and peace activist critical of the militarism of sections of Israeli society and trying to build bridges to Palestinians. Sommerfeld is Managing Director of the BIB (Alliance for the End of the Israeli Occupation), which she is working with the emeritus psychology professor Dr. med. Rolf Verleger, who was also a member of the Central Council of Jews.
Egerer / Grünewald discredits publishers in a known-perfidious manner of Feliks and brings in particular Sommerfeld in the vicinity of the BDS movement (Boycott Deinvestment Sanctions, which calls for a boycott of Israel), of which it deliberately keeps away. Feliks insinuates in both persons a proximity to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Egerer / Grünewald hast to know due to his numerous visits to Israel that participation in the BDS movement leads to a ban on entry into Israel and is punished there with prison.
This is not the worst measure of Jörg Matthias Claudius Grünewald. But it is amazing that he could still become a board member of the Jewish Beth Shalom community in Munich.
Markus Fiedler and I will do more research as soon as we can prove it to the court, because Egerer has already tried in advance of our YouTube program to prevent his exposure and announced to punish our release of his previously anonymous act. Because that would lead to a „pogrom“ against him. This victim-victim reversal is one of his favorite arguments.
We are very excited about how Wikipedia, the left and its Jewish community will respond to the knowledge of its anonymous ministry.
A conversation with Prof. Dr. Scholl-Latour about the Middle East.
(Original interview from Ulrike Reinhard)
we-magazine: How would you describe the German government’s current position on Syria?
Peter Scholl-Latour: It doesn’t have one! Either the Germans run after the Americans or they make a desperate attempt to do something different. As they did with Libya – and as we see that usually goes wrong. The only correct decision that’s been made was the decision not to take part in the Iraq war. On the other hand, it was a bad decision to be the only member of the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance not to give formal assent to the joint declaration of intent on Syria – when we didn’t need to send a single plane or soldier. It was sheer foolishness vis-à-vis our allies. Under no circumstances should we ever intervene in the internal affairs of Syria.
we-magazine: Use of poison gas in Syria has been squarely laid at the door of the Assad regime – at least by the western media and many politicians. Obama is always talking about “crossing the red line”. What do you think the consequences would be if the West intervened militarily in Syria?
Peter Scholl-Latour: This is a similar campaign of misinformation to the one that took place a few years ago with Iraq. At that time there was much talk of monstrous stockpiles of poison gas and missiles too. Tony Blair even went so far as to speak of the possible annihilation of Europe by Iraq. Absolute bullshit! And now they’re at it again and using the selfsame mechanisms. They realize that Assad is gaining ground and have to find a quick excuse to demark this so-called “red line” – which is a pretty stupid expression! – so they can send arms to the insurgents. Yet they’ve no idea into whose hands these weapons might fall!
The truly best fighting force on the side of the insurgents are not the deserters from the Syrian army – who are not as numerous as is generally believed – nor the Sunni village communities – who have come together in an alliance but aren’t all that effective in military terms. The real fighters, the ones who are also prepared to lay down their lives, are the guys from Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist Islamist movement. And as even the Americans admit, they have joined forces with Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia! We are now the allies of Al-Qaida! But nobody breathes a word about this; the German press, you see, is not at all a free press!
we-magazine: Why isn’t the German press free? Why are so few people speaking up?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Paul Sethe, I don’t know if his name means anything today, but in post-war Germany he was a very great, very conservative journalist and one of the founders of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. And he once wrote that the freedom of the press in the western world is the freedom of 200 rich people to publish their opinions. In present-day Germany this figure is down to four or five. It’s the publisher who decides which line will be followed. The publisher appoints the editor-in-chief and the editor-in-chief makes sure that journalists toe the line and if somebody doesn’t toe the line, their services are no longer required.
we-magazine: An elegant form of censorship.
Peter Scholl-Latour: Exactly. Add to this the self-censorship in the minds of journalists who think that the editor-in-chief or publisher would be pleased to read this or that, and so slant their articles accordingly.
we-magazine: To return to Syria – what happened there in comparison to Tunisia and Egypt?
Peter Scholl-Latour: I first went to Syria in 1951. And believe me, all this talk about freedom is too absurd! Syria’s troubles started in Dara’a – which by the way, interestingly enough lies directly on the border to Jordan from where it can be directly influenced, including by the Saudis. Admittedly also by a number of rallies and demonstrations held with the best of intentions.
Obviously the Syrians too wanted more freedom. Only by then they had seen what had happened in Libya and what was happening in Egypt. So their enthusiasm was not exactly overwhelming. In fact it was strictly limited. But then concerted efforts were made to pump it up and inflate it, capped finally by that all-important move when Turkey threw open all its borders even – or should I say expressly for – arms shipments from Saudi Arabia and Qatar – which speaks volumes!
Syria can hardly be compared with Egypt and Tunisia. In Tunisia it was that incident when the street vendor set himself on fire and burned to death for whatever reasons we simply don’t know. Whether it was for political reasons or because he was unhappy in love, nobody knows. Nor do we. Only it had this astonishing follow-on effect. In Tunisia nobody expected an uprising. Tunisians are very peace-loving, gentle people who are also very heavily Europeanized. But it was there of all places that the ball started to roll and within a few weeks Ben Ali was deposed. Yet sadly to say even today we can see that the much-trumpeted democratization process hasn’t taken place even in Tunisia. Ennahda, the party that fanned the flames of the uprising, was certainly a very honorable party in its early days, yet in its confrontation with the extremist Islamist forces of the Al-Nor party which is financed by Saudi Arabia, we can have no idea of which further turning it will take.
we-magazine: So what makes fundamentalist Islam so strong in these countries?
Peter Scholl-Latour: One thing we should not forget: movements like Hamas in Palestine or earlier on the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt too were all originally charitable organizations which took care of the people, set up huge community kitchens, built schools and so on, and by so doing got the people on their side. None of this started with violence. But then came the moment when the government saw them as a danger and reacted aggressively. And then naturally enough the Islamic parties also resorted to arms. In any case, the readiness to resort to arms was already there. In Algeria this led to a dreadful civil war which lasted eight years and took a death toll of 250,000 people about which nobody in the West has talked. And all this happened in the wake of free elections! This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of the West Free elections had taken place. General Chadli Bendjedi was foolish enough to allow free elections. He (and the West with him) completely misjudged the fact that it was the Islamic Salvation Front which held the majority and was sitting in parliament, and so there was this hasty coup d’état. And the West said not a word – on the contrary the West was only too glad that the danger had been averted. While people in other places were much less indulgent in their view of what had happened.
we-magazine: How would you describe the current situation in Syria?
Peter Scholl-Latour: By and large it has turned into a confrontation between different confessions. Although it would be a mistake to believe that the Sunnis are standing resolutely on the side of the insurgents. The greater part of the army – which includes a great many Sunnis – has remained with Assad.
In Syria there is a considerable middle class, a bourgeoisie, and they have seen the rising chaos in Libya and the falling living standards in Egypt and what they have seen hasn’t made them exactly eager for unrest.
The conflict really has been brought into the country from the outside, and not for any kind of humanitarian reasons but with the intention of establishing a democracy. But the whole point of the exercise – and this is the central issue about which nobody speaks – was to prevent the establishment of an Iranian Shiite bridge stretching from the borders of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, right through to Hezbollah.
Ever since the battle for al-Qusay, a rebel stronghold and a strategically important city in the west of Syria, Assad has regained the corridor between Damascus and the Alawi regions on the coast where he has his main support, which now leaves him in a much stronger position. His campaign was supported by the Lebanese Hezbollah, who naturally had their own excellent reasons for intervening – namely that if the Alawis in Syria were eliminated and not just stripped of their possessions and offices but actually murdered, then this would leave Hezbollah extremely isolated in its corner. And then the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Sunnis of Lebanon, and Syria’s people, the Americans and Israelis – also notorious for their ability to misread a situation – all these different parties would have attempted to eradicate Hezbollah. This is the reason for Hezbollah’s intervention. Hezbollah is the best Arab army in the Middle East. In 2006 it succeeded in something that is also always passed over in silence, it succeeded in holding off the Israeli offensive for three long weeks and in forcing it to retreat.
We-magazine: Israel is weaker than ever before …
Peter Scholl-Latour: Yes, that is correct.
The Israelis are well-known for their cleverness and intelligence, but politically they’re not so terribly clever otherwise they wouldn’t have turned Iran into their bogeyman. Khomeini – I was one of the few people who knew him personally – didn’t “throw out the Jews”. Iran is the only Islamic country in which a minority of some 30,000 Jews still lives and who have synagogues and an MP in parliament. Obviously, this MP cannot be a Zionist.
It simply isn’t the case that Syria is Israel’s biggest enemy. Israel will really have to watch out when it gets the Al-Qaida bands of the Al-Nusra Front on its Golan border. For 40 years now, ever since the Jom-Kippur war, not a single shot has been fired on this border. Since this uprising broke out, though, there’ve been bouts of sporadic firing which are bound to intensify. It’s absolute bullshit for the West to believe that “my friends are automatically your enemies” equation. Just look at Afghanistan: the Americans believed that because the Mujahideen were the enemies of the Russians, the ungodly Shorawi, they were the friends of America. Total idiocy! As soon as the Russians quit Afghanistan, it was the Americans themselves who became the enemy.
we-magazine: Is this a lack of knowledge or sheer ignorance on the part of America and the West?
Peter Scholl-Latour: The Americans have the best oriental scholars in the world. But it also must be said that the political class in America is mired in stupidity and ignorance. Ignorance and hypocrisy are the main diseases andemic to the West.
we-magazine: What can the EU and Germany do?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Nothing. What should the Germans do? Everything that German politicians keep spouting is complete nonsense! At least from 2003 when they didn’t react to that lightening American strike in Afghanistan – which by the by was a textbook example of a good campaign. They should have pulled out immediately once it was over. The Germans knew it would all go wrong. They had the reports from the BND, the Foreign Intelligence Agency; they had the reports from the commanding officers. But Berlin simply refused to believe them. Now I won’t name the ministers. They don’t regard me with any kindly eye. But basically the only one of them with any clear vision – though he was also unlucky in other respects – was Guttenberg. Even Herr Jung believed that things would work out right in the end. What utter nonsense! You just have to look at the “Euro Hawk” affair to see how disastrously ministers are served by their secretaries of state and their apparatus of informants. Guttenberg gave one of the responsible secretaries of state the boot. He cleared the deck and he was perfectly right to do so.
we-magazine: What should the West do to gain a better profile in this transformation process towards democratic governance?
Peter Scholl-Latour: I am growing increasingly allergic to hearing the word democracy. It makes me cringe! “Human rights” is another term that’s been so blatantly misused that it’s lost its meaning. When I see the former French foreign minister Juppé appearing side by side with the Saudi foreign minister al-Faisal to caution Syrians to be good democrats in spite of everything – then honestly speaking I must say this is the giddy height of hypocrisy! The Saudis of all people!
Leading other countries to democracy is simply not our job. They should do it themselves; it’s none of our business. We should leave them alone. Any involvement can only turn out badly.
we-magazine: So what continues to motivate the West to believe that it should act like a missionary?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Well, in many aspects – as simplistic as this may sound – obviously it’s petrol.
But this isn’t the case in Syria. The intention there is simply to break the connecting Iran – Hezbollah bridge. And the Israelis are obsessed with putting Iran and all its allies back in their place. I really don’t see the reason for this. I myself have talked to Khomeini about Israel, and when I submitted my questions back then – which I put through his son Ahmed – one of them was what would you do with the Jews in Israel when you won’t recognize the state of Israel and even want to wipe it out? I was sitting by the government spokesman at that time, and Ahmed was in Bonn, and both of them started to laugh. I was startled because I didn’t think my question was any laughing matter. But Khomeini’s son explained to me that he’d never heard such an idiotic question in his whole life – as though the Arabs would ever be capable of winning a war with the Jews. That’s their way of thinking. But apparently nobody knows it.
we-magazine: Nobody knows it in the West …
Peter Scholl-Latour: Well, I have written about it!
we-magazine: So what’s your scenario for the arena of conflict around Israel. How far does it hold the potential to trigger a third world war?
Peter Scholl-Latour: No, there’s no danger of that. All the parties there are far too quarrelsome and divided for that to happen.
But there’s another thing that we Europeans have to get into our heads – European states are not fit for going to war! We still need America. Even when the Americans exasperate us and drive us to despair with the stupid things they do, we’re still very much dependent on them. When the British and French were waging their war of the air in Libya – which was a well conducted operation – they ran out of bombs after just three weeks. And even before they began, the Americans had to take out the Libyan air defense. They all had to fall back on the Americans. And this happens everywhere.
we-magazine: So the role of NATO can be equated with that of America?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Yes. Europe is now in a most undignified situation.
we-magazine: What can Europe do to get out of it?
Peter Scholl-Latour: First of all it needs to sell people the message that we need decent weapons. Only this is something that nobody’s saying – on the contrary, military budgets are being constantly slashed. The French have now mounted a superb military campaign in Mali which was a considerable source of satisfaction for me personally as I once served in the French army. But they’ve now got to see to it that they get out double-quick.
we-magazine: Will they get out?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Sure, they’ll get out, obviously they will. But who’s going to take their place? The Mali army is a bunch of total incompetents and all the African troops of the African Union – even when they’re UNO contingents – have failed miserably everywhere they’ve been. I’ve seen this myself in the Congo, in Sierra Leone… and the list goes on ….everywhere just abject failure.
we-magazine: To return for the moment to Tunisia and Egypt, what role did religion play in the overthrow?
Peter Scholl-Latour: At the beginning none whatsoever. It was an uprising of the upper middle class of intellectuals, of a very honorable and fairly extensive middle class section of the population in Tunisia. And the same applies to Cairo, Suez and Alexandria. But obviously the same does not apply exactly to the provincial towns and cities, and especially not to the villages where the mass of people followed a plain, relatively peaceful form of Islam which they got on very well with. And these are the very people who are faring much worse now than ever before. But the worst thing is that now the extremists are coming from Saudi Arabia, one of our closest allies, and fanning the flames of the discontent and manipulating it to their own ends and purposes. All Islamic extremists come from Saudi Arabia. Here in Germany too, our own Salafists are funded by Saudi Arabia. And we continue to supply them with Leopard tanks. It just shows the sheer extent of our hypocrisy.
And you must add to this the deteriorating security situation in the country. Many Egyptians now regret the passing of the Mubarak regime – that is the end result of our policies and the economic inaptitude of the countries. Criminal elements have grown very strong.
we-magazine: The same can be said about nearly all the countries …
Peter Scholl-Latour: Indeed. Libya is certainly one of the high points. The Algerians, the Algerian military, who are the real holders of power, had better watch out now that nothing happens on their patch, especially as president Bouteflika, who was relatively well-liked by the people, is now on his deathbed.
we-magazine: What’s the situation like in Jordan?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Jordan is an appendage of Saudi Arabia. Of course the Americans are there and the British have their old positions there, and the Israelis are Jordan’s protectors. But all that can change with the enormous influx of refugees. Because these refugees are not all dear boys and democratically inclined freedom fighters. There are also hardliners among them, and above all huge numbers of Palestinians who used to live in Syria. And they had quite a good life in Syria, much better than anywhere else.
All this represents a new potential for conflict in Jordan.
And it’s also very telling that the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Maschaal, who used to live in Syria is now living in Qatar. Qatar – that’s one of the West’s closest allies.
we-magazine: Qatar is playing a similar role to Saudi Arabia?
Peter Scholl-Latour: Yes, but with only 200,000 inhabitants. Basically this state is a sick joke but such sick jokes are tolerated by the West. It puts on Formula 1 racing and plays host to the FIFA World Cup. The way it squanders money is scandalous. And all because this Emir is sitting on rich reserves of natural gas and oil – which we need. This is why he can be so outrageously lavish. We’re living in a world that’s totally corrupt. He also tolerates that foreign workers in his country are treated like slaves and nobody says a word!
Other contributions by Peter-Scholl Latour
The parole of the fighters – „Alavites to grave Christians to Beirut.“ gave Assad no alternative than to fight for his life.
Adib Shishakly a descendant of the brutal military ruler Adib Shishakli was involved in the begin of the revolution, outlining the french colonial flag as the flag of the revolution.
The demands of the „yellow vests“ now officially go beyond the mere question of fuel prices. In a long manifesto sent to the press and the MEPs, which received widespread media attention in the French media, they list a number of demands they wish to have met.
MPs of France, we send you the people’s directives to translate them into laws.
Members, make our voices heard in the National Assembly !
Follow the will of the people ! Set these directives:
- Zero Homelessness: URGENT.
- More progression in income tax, that is, more differentiation.
- Minimum wage of 1,300 euros net.
- Promotion of small shops in the villages and city centers.
Cessation of the construction of large shopping centers around the big cities, which stall the retail trade, and more free parking in the city centers.
- Isolation of apartments on a large scale, to advance the ecology with savings in the households.
- Taxes: the BIG (McDonald’s, Google, Amazon, Carrefour …) should pay BIG and the small ones (artisans, small and medium enterprises) pay SMALL.
- A uniform system of social security for all (craftsmen and small self-employed included). Abolition of self-employment social insurance (RSI).
- The pension system must remain in solidarity and therefore be socialized. No pension on points.
- Stop the increase in fuel tax.
- No pension under 1,200 euros.
- Every elected member of parliament has the right to receive the median wage. His travel expenses are monitored and, if justified, reimbursed. Right to restaurant and holiday vouchers.
- The wages of all French people and pensions and benefits are indexed according to inflation.
- Protection of French industry: ban on relocations. Protecting our industry means protecting our know-how and our jobs.
- Stop the posting of workers. It is not normal for someone working on French territory not to receive the same pay and rights. Any person authorized to work on French territory must be treated as a French citizen and their employer must pay them the same as a French employer.
- To safeguard employment: Limiting fixed-term employment contracts in large companies. We want more permanent contracts.
- Abolition of the „Tax Credit for the Promotion of Competition and Employment“, CICE (1). Use of this money to promote a French hydrogen car industry (really ecological, unlike electric cars).
- End of the austerity policy. Termination of interest payments on illegitimate debt and the beginning of debt repayment – without resorting to the money of the poor and less poor, but by tracking down the 80 billion in tax evasion.
- Abolish the causes of forced migration.
- Correct treatment of asylum seekers. We owe them housing, security, nutrition and education for the minors. Collaboration with the UN to set up reception centers in many countries around the world pending the outcome of the asylum procedure.
- Repatriation of rejected asylum seekers to their country of origin.
- Implementation of an actual integration policy. To live in France means to become a Frenchman – French courses, courses in French history and civic education with a diploma at the end of the courses.
- Determination of a maximum wage of 15,000 euros.
- Job creation for the unemployed.
- Increase in benefits for persons with disabilities.
- Limitation of rents. More apartments with moderate rents – especially for students and precarious workers.
- Ban on the sale of land and facilities owned by France – dams, airports and so on.
- Consistent provision of funds for justice, police, gendarmerie and army. Payment or recreation of overtime of law enforcement.
- Use of all tolls for the maintenance of the highways and country roads of France and for road safety.
- As gas and electricity prices have risen since privatization, we want both back in the public purse and prices lowered accordingly. (Socialization).
- Immediate stop to stop small railways, eliminate post offices and close schools and maternity wards.
- Well-being for the elderly. Prohibition of profit at the expense of older people. Instead of „gray gold“ „gray well-being“.
- Maximum of 25 students per class from pre-school to graduation level.
- Provision of necessary funds for psychiatry.
- Referendums are to be included in the constitution. Creation of a legible and efficient website, monitored by an independent regulatory body, where people can propose legislation. If such a proposal receives 700,000 signatures, it must be discussed, supplemented and, where appropriate, proposed by the National Assembly. The National Assembly shall be obliged to submit it to the whole of the French for voting – one year after the date on which the 700,000 signatures have been obtained.
- Return to a 7-year mandate for the President of the Republic. The election of MEPs two years after the election of the President will send a positive or negative signal to the President of the Republic regarding his policy. This will help to make the voice of the people heard.
- Retirement at 60 years . Right to a pension at the age of 55 for all persons who work hard physically – for example bricklayer or slaughterhouse worker.
- Extension of the system of childcare allowances (Pajemploi) beyond the age of 6 up to the child’s 10th birthday.
- Promotion of rail freight transport.
- No withholding tax deduction.
- End the lifelong pensions for past presidents.
- Prohibition of charging merchants for payment by credit card by their customers.
- Taxation of marine diesel and kerosene