Monatsarchive: Juni 2016

Merkel überholt AfD, ohne sie einzuholen.

In einer Rede warnt Angela Merkel vor einer verstärkten Masseneinwanderung aus Schwarzafrika. Sie spricht von einem Angriff der Migranten auf Europa und fordert eine Sicherung der EU-Außengrenzen.

Angela Merkel warnt vor Angriff der Migranten
Angela Merkel sprach in einer Rede am Dienstag von einem Angriff der Migranten. (Screenshot: YouTube)

Seit dem letzten Jahr steht Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel für eine bedingungslose Willkommenspolitik. Sie machte Selfies mit Flüchtlingen und appellierte an die Fremdenliebe der Deutschen. Sie sagte, dass Deutschland nicht mehr ihr Land sei, wenn man sich für Hilfe in Notsituationen entschuldigen müsse.

Doch schon seit längerem verzichtet die CDU-Chefin auf enthusiastische Beschwörungen ihrer früheren Willkommenspolitik. Mit dem Türkei-Deal verband sie sogar das erklärte Ziel, dass nicht zu viele Flüchtlinge nach Europa und nach Deutschland kommen sollen.

Angriff der Migranten auf Europa

Und bei in einer Rede bei einer Veranstaltung des CDU-Wirtschaftsrates am Dienstag sprach Angela Merkel im Zusammenhang mit der Flüchtlingskrise nun sogar von einem „Angriff“ der Migranten auf die europäischen Außengrenzen, wie Focus berichtet.

Jeden Tag dringen rund 2.000 Migranten illegal über das Mittelmeer nach Europa ein. Die Bundeskanzlerin vermeidet das Wort „Flucht“ spricht stattdessen von einem „Angriff auf etwas Konstitutives in unserer Europäischen Union … auf unsere Außengrenzen“.

Daher fordert Angela Merkel einen besseren Schutz der Schengen-Außengrenzen. Die Aufgabe bestehe darin, diese Außengrenzen „nicht Schleppern und Schmugglern zu überlassen, nicht Menschenleben aufs Spiel zu setzen“.

Schwarze sind laut Merkel das größte Problem

Das größte Problem ist laut Merkel die „Migration aus dem afrikanischen Kontinent“. Mit den afrikanischen Ländern „eine wirkliche Partnerschaft“ hinzubekommen, sei die „zentrale große Aufgabe, wenn wir unsere Außengrenzen schützen wollen“.

Als Beispiel nennt sie Niger. Das islamische Land im Westen Afrikas hat eine Geburtenrate von 7,6 Kindern pro Frau – so viele wie in keinem anderen Land der Welt. Die Bevölkerung des Niger werde sich alle 20 Jahre verdoppeln, sagt Merkel. Zudem kämpfe dort die Terrorgruppe Boko Haram.

Zum Vergleich: Die deutsche Geburtenrate liegt bei nur 1,4 Kindern pro Frau, wobei allerdings die Kinder von eingebürgerten Migranten schon eingerechnet sind. Um eine Bevölkerung stabil zu halten braucht es eigentlich eine Geburtenrate von 2,1 Frauen pro Kind.

Araber sind das geringere Problem

Die Flüchtlingsströme aus Syrien und dem Irak sind nach Ansicht der Bundeskanzlerin das geringere Problem. Denn sie seien auf Bürgerkriege zurückzuführen, sodass „wir in absehbarer Zeit dort Lösungen haben werden“.

German president Gauck declares: Not the elites are the problem, the population is.

On this Thursday, June 23 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we cover the absurd “sit-in” by elected representatives in the House as Democrats move to the next phase in the effort to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. We also cover the Brexit vote and the possibility it will be manipulated in favor of the EU, new revelations in the Orlando shooting, and a declaration by the German president that the elites are not the problem, the population is.

Alex Jones: BREXIT Win Puts Globalists‘ On The Run

Today on The Alex Jones Show
On this Friday, June 24 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we cover the globalists’ largest defeat in decades: Brexit. UK voters chose to leave the unelected superstate known as the EU in a historic referendum on Thursday, but they need to realize that Brexit presents an opportunity rather than a victory; they must keep pushing back against the technocrats. The globalists will continue to use monetary policy – not political – to enslave nation-states. On today’s show Trump insider Roger Stone talks Brexit and the recent victory over the City of Cleveland’s attempts to censor pro-Trump groups. Also, Steve Pieczenik discusses how the technocrats will attempt to socially engineer the population after Brexit. Tune in!

The Danger of (Over)Interpretation: On Adorno’s Plea Against Artistic Semblance and “Micrological Study” — The Home of Schlemiel Theory

When someone sees a great artwork or read a compelling novel or poem, he or she usually wants to know why it has such an affect. Is it the choice or words? Is it the theme? Is it the critique it levels on society? Humanity? Religion? As a literary and cultural critic, I know very […]

über The Danger of (Over)Interpretation: On Adorno’s Plea Against Artistic Semblance and “Micrological Study” — The Home of Schlemiel Theory

Noam Chomsky: ‘Who Rules the World?’: An Exchange

In response to:

A Case Against America from the June 9, 2016 issue

To the Editors:

I am sorry that Kenneth Roth found the book of mine that he reviewed, Who Rules the World? [NYR, June 9], “infuriating.” I have of course looked with interest at his reasons, but do not find them convincing.

His first case charges “sloppiness” in my observation that the Obama administration was considering reviving military commissions while in fact they continued to operate. The observation was accurate: it referred, explicitly, to what the Obama administration was considering in 2009, citing the news reports of May 2009.

The second example is that I was “simply confused” in quoting Jessica Mathews [NYR, March 19, 2015], attributing to her the view quoted “when in fact she was criticizing that perspective.” Roth does not take into account the sentence that immediately follows the passage we are discussing. It reads: “At its extreme, this reasoning holds that the US should not be bound by international rules….” Mathews does indeed criticize the “extreme” perspective that she describes, which is clearly and explicitly distinguished from the “non-extreme” position that I quoted and attributed accurately and properly. The text elsewhere contains no qualification. If there is any interest in further details, I will be glad (with his consent) to release the extended correspondence in which the New York Review editor repeatedly made the same point, and I responded in detail.

Roth’s next point is that my “preoccupation with American power seems out of date” because its limits are so apparent—as I discussed at considerable length, but with what seem to me far more significant examples than the ones he gives. These raise their own questions. Thus it is hardly controversial (Fawaz Gerges, ISIS: A History, and many other sources) that “the emergence of the Islamic State” to which Roth refers is a direct outgrowth of what he calls a “blunder” but what I would prefer to call the major crime of this century, the US invasion of Iraq. Similarly, I never called the Russian invasion of Afghanistan “a blunder” (though it was); rather, a crime.

I won’t continue, but if anyone is interested in other cases mentioned, I’ll be glad to consider them.

Noam Chomsky
Cambridge, Massachusetts

To the Editors:

As a longtime reader of The New York Review who first became acquainted with the writing of Noam Chomsky when reading his 1967 article about the responsibility of intellectuals, I was pleased to see Kenneth Roth’s review of Who Rules the World? I believe this was the first of Chomsky’s books to be reviewed in these pages since The Hateful Triangle was published over thirty years ago. Hopefully, the review will introduce new generations of readers to Chomsky’s arguments and analysis.

I want to take issue with one criticism Roth makes because it actually brings into focus one of Chomsky’s major points about the responsibility of American citizens when it comes to the actions of our government.

It is very easy (and rewarding) for Americans to look with a gimlet eye upon the failings of other nations and political figures, say, for example, to identify the criminality of a dictator like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, as Roth does in his review. Americans who write critically about such individuals can always expect a warm and respectful hearing from the political, journalistic, and intellectual gatekeepers. Chomsky’s point has always been that citizens of any country have a unique responsibility to be critical of their own country’s actions because, depending on the political form prevalent in the country, these citizens have the most influence over (and responsibility for) the actions of their own government.

If we live in a country (or are citizen-expatriates), we pay taxes to finance the activities of our government. If the country has democratic forms (a free press, competitive free elections) then the actions of the government can, at least in part, be laid to active support (or at least acquiescence) on the part of the citizenry. Unlike totalitarian societies such as the former Soviet Union, American citizens have enormous personal freedom—especially the freedom to fully inform themselves. With this freedom combined with the potential to actually influence what the government does (unlike in the former Soviet Union or, to give an example from Roth’s review, modern-day Syria) comes extraordinary responsibility.

It is from this position of responsibility and personal freedom that Chomsky has written critically about US government policy for over fifty years. It is why his omission of condemnations of the role of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin in today’s Syrian conflict is not a failing of his book or his approach. Chomsky may be prolific in his criticisms of US foreign policy, but he has never set himself up as a one-man Amnesty International. As an American seeking to awaken his fellow citizens to US policies for which in some way we are all responsible, he certainly has done more than his fair share of good works, as the substance of Roth’s review makes clear.

Michael A. Meeropol
Cold Spring, New York

Kenneth Roth replies:

Noam Chomsky takes issue with my criticism of his one-dimensional focus on what he sees as America’s nefarious role in the world. If Chomsky had entitled his book “America’s Evil History,” I would have accepted his exclusive focus. However, he entitled it “Who Rules the World?” yet goes on to write as if the United States is virtually alone as the cause of all the world’s problems.

Chomsky cites the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq, which he says is “a direct outgrowth” of George W. Bush’s invasion. There is no doubt that the invasion and subsequent occupation and dismantling of the state were a disaster that greatly contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq, where it now controls the country’s second-largest city, Mosul. But that ascendancy is also the product of many other factors, such as the discriminatory and abusive laws and policies against Sunnis by the government of former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Its indiscriminate bombing of Sunni areas and other sectarian abuses after the withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011, well before the rise of ISIS, led many Sunnis to see ISIS as a lesser evil.

Other factors include Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s targeting of civilians in opposition-held parts of his neighboring country, breeding antipathy that helped to encourage the rise of ISIS there and provided a base for operations in Iraq; Iran’s, Russia’s, and Hezbollah’s backing of Assad’s indiscriminate attacks; funding for ISIS as well as extremist interpretations of Islam emanating from the Gulf; and Turkey’s border policy allowing jihadists to join ISIS.

Chomsky doesn’t mention any of this. History did not stop with US crimes in Iraq. Nor in an increasingly multipolar world can the United States control everything.

Chomsky also disputes the sloppiness I found in his book. Much of it is due to his decision to compile a series of his essays without bothering to date or update them. According to a “publication history” included in an advance copy of the book but omitted from the published version, many of the essays had appeared previously, over half on a website called TomDispatch. Chomsky notes there that the chapters earlier appeared “in somewhat different form” but the unspecified modifications evidently did not include changing arguments that are now out of date. And there is nothing in the published version of the book to let the reader know the reason for including these dated arguments. The result is a disjointed reading experience.

For example, Chomsky makes repeated references to what he perceives as a misguided and overblown US response to the Iranian nuclear threat (pp. 50, 81–82, 131, and 140–141) but doesn’t mention the July 2015 nuclear deal until p. 218. Similarly, Chomsky’s claim that the Obama administration was considering reviving the Bush military commissions in Guantanamo, made on p. 40, is never updated in the remaining 250 pages to explain that Obama has in fact used them, to much detrimental effect, during most of his tenure in office. Yes, a reader checking footnotes could have found a May 2009 citation for Chomsky’s assertion about the military commissions and surmised that it may no longer be true, but a less sloppy (or lazy) approach to the book would have filled in that crucial subsequent development.

One might justify publication of a series of dated essays if their dates were clearly indicated and the book were billed as an exposition of Noam Chomsky Thought as it has evolved. The book purports to be a study of the current world order but does not analyze each topic addressed in light of the most up-to-date information.

As for Chomsky’s claim that Jessica Mathews was embracing instead of criticizing the view that the US government advances “universal principles” rather than “national interests,” I simply refer the reader to the tenth paragraph of her review in the March 19, 2015 issue of The New York Review (available online), where to most other than Chomsky her meaning is obvious in the midst of a critique of unilateralism as opposed to the multilateralism that she prefers. Chomsky seems to find her next sentence to favor his interpretation—“At its extreme, this reasoning holds that the US should not be bound by international rules”—when in fact she is providing an added reason to reject the misguided unilateralists.

As for Michael Meeropol, I agree with his point (and said so in my review) that Americans have a special responsibility to press their government to act in more principled and defensible ways. That has rightly been a longtime concern of Chomsky. However, by dwelling on only the negative, his latest book leaves the impression that America can do no good—that withdrawal and isolationism are the best we can hope for.

I do not accept that implicit prescription. Given the enormous evil done by some other nations, and the proven capacity of the United States sometimes to mitigate that harm, I would have preferred a more holistic and nuanced assessment of America’s part in the world. That would help readers understand not only how to deter American misconduct but also how to encourage positive American conduct. We need to do both.

Dunkelhäutiger zeigt zwei 11 und 12 Jahre Mädchen aus Gladbeck sein Geschlechtsteil.

Recklinghausen (ots) – Durch lautes Husten machte ein unbekannter Mann heute, gegen 07.20 Uhr, auf der Kleine Lönsstraße auf sich aufmerksam und zeigte zwei 11 und 12 Jahre Mädchen aus Gladbeck sein Geschlechtsteil. Beschreibung 40 bis 50 Jahre alt, 170 cm groß, Glatze, Bart, bekleidet mit einer schwarzen Lederjacke und einer blauen Jeans, dunkelhäutig. Hinweise erbittet das Fachkommissariat unter Tel. 0800 2361 111.

Rückfragen bitte an:

Polizeipräsidium Recklinghausen
Michael Franz
Telefon: 02361/55-1031

The Idaho Refugee Rape Coverup


Three Syrian refugees reportedly raped a little girl at knife point in Idaho before urinating on her body,

an incident that prompted furious residents to accuse Twin Falls city council members of covering up the assault. The sexual assault allegedly took place on June 2, but has received virtually no media attention aside from one vague KMVT report.

However, residents have been circulating what really happened on social media, with the Creeping Sharia blog reporting that the victim was a young girl who was born premature and is “less developed for her age”. The victim’s grandmother found the victim and then called the girl’s mother, who called the police. The police took 2 and a half hours to arrive but were unable to take any action due to the “language barrier”. When she arrived, the mother of the alleged rapists was only able to say “no police,” while the father reportedly congratulated his 13-year-old son. Video of the entire assault was captured on the boy’s cellphone.

Dunkelhäutiger versucht eine Frau im Park sexuell zu mißbrauchen


Nach einem bislang noch unklaren Vorfall in der Nacht zum Dienstag (21.6.2016) im Kurpark Bad Krozingen fahndet die Polizei sowohl nach einem unbekannten Mann als auch nach einer ebenfalls unbekannten Frau, die möglicherweise Opfer einer Sexualstraftat wurde.

Gegen 00.10 Uhr meldete ein namentlich bekannter Zeuge, dass er soeben beobachtet habe, wie zwischen Neumagenstraße und Kurhausstraße ein Mann auf einer Frau gelegen habe. Die Frau habe um Hilfe geschrien. Als der Zeuge auf den Mann zuging, habe dieser von der Frau abgelassen und sei zunächst in Richtung Bahnhof-Westseite weggerannt. Nach kurzer Zeit habe er den Unbekannten einholen und vorübergehend festhalten können. Er sei dann aber erneut geflüchtet.

Bei der Flucht verlor der vermeintliche Täter ein Basecap und eine Jacke. Beides wurde von der Polizei sichergestellt.

Der Unbekannte wird wie folgt beschrieben:

Etwa 170 cm groß, schlanke Statur, dunkelhäutig, kurze schwarze Haare, eventuell mit einem Drei-Tage-Bart. Er sprach deutsch. Weiteres ist nicht bekannt.

Noch vor Eintreffen der Polizei hatte sich auch die Frau von der Örtlichkeit entfernt. Ihre Identität ist ebenfalls noch unbekannt. Eine Beschreibung von ihr liegt nicht vor.

Die Polizei schließt eine Sexualstraftat nicht aus und bittet insbesondere die Frau, die von dem Unbekannten angegangen wurde, sich beim Polizeiposten Bad Krozingen, Telefon 07633/938240 oder beim rund um die Uhr besetzten Polizeirevier Müllheim unter Telefon 07631/17880 zu melden.


Rückfragen bitte an:
Walter Roth
Polizeipräsidium Freiburg
Stabsstelle Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Telefon: 0761 882-1013

Zwei Algerier beklauen Gast in einem Schnellrestaurant

Frankfurt (ots) – (va) Auf frischer Tat nahmen Zivilfahnder gestern Abend auf der Liebfrauenstraße zwei Trickdiebe fest.

Die Algerier im Alter von 24 und 26 erspähten gegen 17.30 Uhr in einem Schnellrestaurant die über einen Stuhl gehängte Jacke einer 37-Jährigen.

Während der eine das Umfeld im Restaurant im Blick behielt, deckte sein Kumpel mit seiner Jacke den Blazer des Opfers ab und entwendete ihr Portemonnaie.

Anschließend verließen sie getrennt die Lokalität und konnten von Zivilkräften festgenommen werden.

Beide werden heute dem Haftrichter vorgeführt.

Rückfragen bitte an:

Polizeipräsidium Frankfurt am Main
P r e s s e s t e l l e
Adickesallee 70
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: 069/ 755-00
Direkte Erreichbarkeit von Mo. - Fr.: 07:30 Uhr bis 17:00 Uhr
Telefon: 069 / 755-82110 (CvD)
Fax: 069 / 755-82009
Homepage Polizeipräsidium Ffm.: 

« Ältere Einträge Letzte Einträge »