Das Monster im Schrank

das-monster-im-schrank

01-10-19 12:13:00,

Ich möchte dir eine Geschichte erzählen. Eine sehr alte Geschichte. Sie ist wohl über zweitausend Jahre alt und wurde schon sehr viele Male erzählt, überall auf dieser Welt. Dennoch war sie stets nur wenigen Personen bekannt. Über viele Jahrhunderte hinweg haben jene, die diese Geschichte kannten, zeitgemäße Worte und Bilder in allen Sprachen der Welt gesucht, um sie den Menschen zu erzählen. Doch nur sehr wenige konnten sie hören und verstehen. Die wenigsten wissen auch heute noch von ihrer Existenz. Weil dies immer wieder so geschah — über all die Jahrhunderte bis heute — stehen wir heute hier, wo wir heute sind.

Deshalb soll diese Geschichte von all den Dingen handeln, an die du jetzt denkst, die du hinterfragst und die dir Sorgen bereiten. Ich möchte deshalb heute erneut versuchen, diese alte Geschichte zu erzählen, mit den Worten unserer Zeit in einer der vielen Sprachen, die wir heute, zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, sprechen. Denn ich weiß sehr genau: Es ist die richtige Zeit für diese eine Geschichte, die ich nun hier niederschreibe, denn mir scheint, dass diese Zeitepoche etwas Besonderes an sich hat. So werden jene, die meine Geschichte verstehen können, täglich mehr. Vielleicht gehörst auch du dazu. Also höre mir genau zu! Ich erzähle dir die Geschichte von dem Monster, das wir alle in unserem ganz persönlichen Schrank sitzen haben.

Ein Monster wandelt durch unsere Zeit und begleitet uns. Es ist immer bei uns. Wohin wir auch gehen. Jeden Tag, Stunde um Stunde. Und es begleitet auch dich. Es begleitet auch deine Frau, deine Eltern, deine Kollegen, deine Freunde, sogar deine Kinder. Du magst seine Existenz in diesem Augenblick bestreiten und ich kann diesen Widerstand sehr gut verstehen. Denn viele Jahre lang kann sich dieses Monster äußerst still verhalten, so dass sich die Menschen überall auf der Welt seiner Existenz überhaupt nicht bewusst sind. Um das Monster hören und sehen zu können, benötigt ein Mensch nämlich sehr gute Ohren und Augen, die den meisten Menschen schon viele Jahrhunderte lang fehlen.

Seit einigen Jahren werden vermehrt Geschichten über dieses Monster erzählt. Ich weiß es, denn sie dringen bis zu meinem Haus, mitten in Europa. Tatsächlich bemerken immer mehr Menschen inzwischen, dass es dieses Monster gibt, auch wenn sie es noch nicht sehen oder hören können. Wenn sie jedoch innehalten im ständigen Wettlauf unserer Zeit und das Tempo drosseln — auch auf die Gefahr hin,

 » Lees verder

The Real Monster in “Game of Thrones” Is Its Hidden Reactionary Ideology

the-real-monster-in-“game-of-thrones”-is-its-hidden-reactionary-ideology

09-05-19 07:40:00,

Politics & Elections

Biden Says Trump Is an “Aberration” From the GOP. He’s Wrong.

Prisons & Policing

Bail Reform Should Include Efforts to End Pretrial Incarceration

Economy & Labor

Why Does Trump Like Communist Vietnam? Because It’s Capitalist.

Politics & Elections

Interning for a Centrist Democrat Pushed Me to Democratic Socialism

Politics & Elections

Trump Admits to Dodging Taxes for “Sport”

Politics & Elections

Mitch McConnell’s Plot to Seize Full Power for the GOP Is Working

Editor’s note: This article contains spoilers.

If one were to Google search “White Walkers + metaphor,” the results would be pretty universal. The overall hegemonic reading of “Game of Thrones,” particularly in progressive analysis, has read the White Walkers as representing the threat of catastrophic climate change.

In this reading, while the different houses — Stark, Targaryen, Lannister, etc. — engage in their provincial “game of thrones,” an all-encompassing existential threat approaches from “beyond the wall”: the Night King and his White Walkers. Their threat renders the main characters’ intra-house intrigue, conspiracies and power struggles utterly meaningless. The metaphor asserts that the houses represent the different nation-states, all engaged in international politicking, but refusing to band together to meet the existential challenge posed by climate change.

Those who argue for this interpretation have relied on the words of the author to anchor their claim that “Game of Thrones” is basically a metaphor for climate change. George R.R. Martin has himself said:

There’s a certain parallel there…. The people in Westeros are fighting their individual battles over power and status and wealth. And those are so distracting them that they’re ignoring the threat of “winter is coming,” which has the potential to destroy all of them and to destroy their world.

The metaphor works in a certain sense. There is a structural homology. But really, do we need the words of an author about his intent to interpret a text? Haven’t we recognized “the death of the author” for some time in criticism? A piece of art is subject to negotiation; its meaning is not universal. It is something that is created.

The stories you care about,  » Lees verder

The Making of a Monster: We’re All Lab Rats in the Government’s Secret Experiments

the-making-of-a-monster:-we’re-all-lab-rats-in-the-government’s-secret-experiments

03-05-19 08:48:00,

 The
Making of a Monster: We’re All Lab Rats in
the Government’s Secret Experiments


By John W. Whitehead

“But these weren’t the kind of
monsters that had tentacles and rotting
skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be
able to wrap his mind around—they were
monsters with human faces, in crisp
uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal
you don’t recognize them for what they
are until it’s too late.” — Ransom
Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for
Peculiar Children

March 28, 2019 “Information
Clearing House

–  The U.S.
government, in its pursuit of so-called
monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it
a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent
decades unleashed untold horrors upon the
world—including its own citizenry—in the
name of global conquest, the acquisition of
greater wealth, scientific experimentation,
and technological advances, all packaged in
the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when
the government is involved. There is only
greater greed for money and power.

Unfortunately, the public has become so
easily distracted by the political spectacle
coming out of Washington, DC, that they are
altogether oblivious to the grisly
experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane
conditions that have become synonymous with
the U.S. government.

These horrors are being meted out against
humans and animals alike.

It’s heartbreaking enough when you hear
about police shooting family dogs that pose
no threat—beloved pets that are

“guilty” of little more than barking, or
wagging a tag, or racing towards them in
greeting
—at an alarming rate somewhere
in the vicinity of 500 dogs a day.

What I’m about to share goes beyond
heartbreaking to horrifying.

For instance, did you know that the U.S.
government has been buying hundreds of dogs
and cats from “Asian meat markets” as part
of a gruesome experiment into food-borne
illnesses?

 » Lees verder

The Birth of a Monster: The Federal Reserve | Light On Conspiracies – Revealing the Agenda

the-birth-of-a-monster-the-federal-reserve-light-on-conspiracies-8211-revealing-the-agenda

16-03-19 12:46:00,

By David Howden

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years. In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended — the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms.

 » Lees verder

The Birth Of A Monster

the-birth-of-a-monster

18-02-19 08:07:00,

Authored by David Howden via The Mises Institute,

The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years. In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended – the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized,

 » Lees verder

Unsere Monster

unsere-monster

15-11-18 02:51:00,

Bolsonaro: Ein von unseren Medien geschaffenes Monster
von Jonathan Cook

Nach dem Sieg von Jair Bolsonaro bei der brasilianischen Präsidentschaftswahl am 28. Oktober sind die Schwarzmaler unter den westlichen Eliten wieder einmal aktiv. Bolsonaros Erfolg hat, ebenso wie der Donald Trumps, ein lang gehegtes Vorurteil bestätigt: dass dem Volk nicht zu trauen ist; dass es sich, wenn es ermächtigt ist, aufführt wie ein von primitiven Trieben geleiteter Mob; dass der gemeine Pöbel nun damit droht, die sorgfältig errichteten Mauern der Zivilisation niederzureißen.

Die Hüter des Status quo haben sich geweigert, die Lektion aus Trumps Wahl zu lernen, und so wird es auch mit Bolsonaro sein. Anstatt die intellektuellen Fähigkeiten zu bemühen, die sie als ihre exklusive Domäne beanspruchen, wenden die westlichen „Analysten“ und „Experten“ ihren Blick erneut von allem ab, was ihnen zum Verständnis dessen verhelfen könnte, was unsere angeblichen Demokratien in die von den neuen Demagogen bewohnte Finsternis getrieben hat. Stattdessen schieben sie die Schuld, wie immer, einfach den sozialen Medien in die Schuhe.

Soziale Medien und Fake News sind scheinbar die Gründe für Bolsonaros Sieg an der Wahlurne. Ohne dass die Wächter zur Stelle waren, um den Zugang zur „freien Presse“ zu begrenzen – die selbst der Spielball von Milliardären und globalen Unternehmen ist, Marken schützen muss und gewinnorientiert arbeitet – war der Pöbel vermeintlich frei, seiner angeborenen Bigotterie Ausdruck zu verleihen.

Mit den folgenden Worten doziert der Brite Simon Jenkins, altgedienter Wächter und ehemaliger Redakteur der Londoner Times, der nun eine Kolumne für den Guardian schreibt, über Bolsonaro:

  • „Die Lektion für die Verfechter der Demokratie ist mehr als deutlich. Ihre Werte können nicht als selbstverständlich erachtet werden. Wenn Debatten nicht mehr durch die Medien, durch Gerichte und Institutionen reguliert werden, wird die Politik auf den Mob zurückgreifen. Die sozialen Medien – die einst als Mittel der globalen Eintracht bejubelt wurden – sind zu Lieferanten von Falschheit, Wut und Hass geworden. Ihre Algorithmen polarisieren Meinungen. Ihre Pseudo-Informationen treiben Auseinandersetzungen auf die Spitze.“*

So lautet nun der standardmäßige Konsens der Konzernmedien, sei es in ihren rechtsgerichteten Verkörperungen oder ihren Varianten am linksliberalen Ende des Spektrums, wie eben dem Guardian: Das Volk ist dumm, und wir müssen vor seinen niederen Instinkten geschützt werden. Die sozialen Medien, so wird behauptet,

 » Lees verder

Bolsonaro: A Monster Engineered by Our Media – Global Research

bolsonaro-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media-8211-global-research

01-11-18 07:31:00,

With Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil’s presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump’s, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.

The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump’s election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western “analysts” and “experts” are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.

Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:

“The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.”

This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity’s id.

Selling plutocracy

There is a kind of truth in Jenkins’ argument, even if it is not the one he intended.

 » Lees verder

The Monster of Idlib | New Eastern Outlook

The Monster of Idlib | New Eastern Outlook

09-09-18 05:01:00,

SYRI85772323

On September 3, 2018, in a “Tweet,” Donald Trump warned Russia, Syria and Iran that any attempt to kill the monster of Idlib would be resisted in some manner by the US. The monster, you see, is Donald Trump’s pet and Idlib, a region in Northwest Syria, is where he keeps it. It feeds on local children and roams the countryside at will.

Its friends are corporate news media, we know that for certain. You see, there has never been a photo of the monster published anywhere. Nearly 3 million people live, or at least used to, where the monster roams. Some ran away, others may have been eaten, but anyone who tries to find out gets caught, sometimes beheaded, sometimes put in prison or they simply disappear.

From here on, the reader is faced with a strange and sinister tale of a people living in fear. They have no rights, no dreams, no life at all, no purpose but one, to feed the monster.

Of course, the reader might well wonder why geopolitics are being “sorted out” with parable and allegory. Why use the term monster?

If the corporate media is to be believed, please don’t laugh, the people living in Idlib are under the watchful eye of “freedom fighters.” No one is kidnapping their children, no one is taking their homes, their food, their lives, no one is using them for human shield or slave labor.

We know this because the corporate media, the “fake news” as Trump calls it, tells us so. So, does Trump, in a way, as he wants the “monster,” as we have chosen to call it, to continue unchecked, unwatched, trusting the lives of 3 million people to its predations.

I consider that at best “unwise,” perhaps a bit more than that.

What is Idlib?

Let’s look at who rules Idlib. Idlib and adjacent occupied regions within the Aleppo Governorate are and have been part of Syria for 3000 years. Much of the bible is played out here. In fact, the oldest Hebrew Bible, the Aleppo Codex, dating from 930 C.E., originated there. Partially destroyed in 1947, the Codex was smuggled to Palestine in 1957 and is now housed at the Shrine of the Book in the Israel Museum.

 » Lees verder

‘Leitkultur’ is bout die Monster van Frankenstein bijeenhoudt

‘Leitkultur’ is bout die Monster van Frankenstein bijeenhoudt

11-06-18 07:59:00,

Sinds het in de jaren ’90 in het Duitse politieke discours geïntroduceerd werd en al snel overwaaide naar Nederland en andere West-Europese staten, steekt het begrip Leitkultur steeds weer de kop op. Maar wat behelst dat begrip eigenlijk? Waar komt het vandaan? Wat beoogt het en is het ook geschikt voor dat doel?

Het begrip Leitkultur is te herleiden tot de Göttinger politicoloog Bassam Tibi, zelf een Syrische immigrant. Tibi bedoelde zijn begrip Leitkultur als een reparatie en correctie op de zich ontwikkelende multiculturele samenleving. Hij constateerde dat grote groepen immigranten in Duitsland niet integreerden in de Duitse samenleving en veronderstelde dat dit kwam doordat de Duitsers als cultuurnatie – anders dan bijvoorbeeld het post-revolutionaire Frankrijk met zijn mensenrechtenverklaring en wat dies meer zij – geen expliciete, gedefinieerde identiteit konden bieden.

Tibi kwam met een positivistische oplossing: Duitsland moest een Leitkultur definiëren en hij deed zelf alvast een voorstel hoe dit in te vullen. De politicoloog wilde deze Europese Leitkultur definiëren aan de hand van waarden uit de “culturele moderniteit”, zoals daar zijn democratie, laïcisme, Verlichting, mensenrechten en civil society. Het begrip van de ‘culturele moderniteit’ ontleende Tibi aan de neomarxist Jürgen Habermas. Ironisch, gezien het feit dat nu vooral neoconservatieven met het begrip van de Leitkultur schermen.

Blijf op de hoogte van nieuws, opinie en achtergronden: Volg Novini!

Waarom hadden de Duitsers eigenlijk geen gedefinieerde Leitkultur? Omdat ze die nooit nodig hadden gehad. Toch is het niet zo dat de Duitsers geen cultuur hadden. De Duitse cultuur was onder Duitsers echter vanzelfsprekend. Dat heeft te maken met wat cultuur is, namelijk een samenstel van gedeelde gebruiken, tradities, percepties en zienswijzen, dat zich organisch ontwikkelt en ontwikkeld heeft en van generatie op generatie in de weg van de geleidelijkheid, door opvoeding en socialisatie, overgedragen is.

De problemen ontstonden toen ineens op grotere schaal groepen buitenlanders hun intrede deden in de Duitse samenleving. Deze gastarbeiders, het woord zegt het al, zouden echter na verloop van tijd weer vertrekken, zo werd althans aanvankelijk afgesproken, later week de politiek hier van af en bleven ze. Daarmee kwam ook de kwestie van de integratie van deze groepen vreemdelingen op. Vreemdelingen die immers hun eigen cultuur meebrachten en zodoende ook in Duitsland of andere West-Europese landen vooral met mensen van dezelfde afkomst socialiseerden.

 » Lees verder