Last posts on politique américaine

Neuneu II, le retour

2016-04-01T10:10:00+02:00

Publié par Guy Jovelin le 1 avril 2016

Qu’elle donne dans le cynique ou le burlesque, la politique américaine est une éternelle source d’émerveillement.

En Syrie, on pensait avoir déjà tout vu… Bombardements (réticents) sur l’Etat Islamique après avoir participé à sa création, amitié simultanée avec les Kurdes syriens et les Turcs qui sont en train de s’entretuer, soutien aux milices chiites irakiennes et opposition aux milices chiites syriennes qui sont pourtant une seule et même chose, assassinat du n°2 de l’EI pour la troisième fois en deux ans, entraînement des rebelles modérés qui tourne à la farce absolue. N’en jetez plus ! Une vie n’y suffirait pas…

Et pourtant. Les génies comiques de Washington semblent dotés d’inépuisables ressources pour nous faire rire. Connaissez-vous la dernière ? Le Pentagone se bat contre la CIA par groupe syrien interposé !

Pour être tout à fait honnête, ce n’est pas la première fois que cette situation grotesque arrive et nous avions déjà évoqué la chose quand les Kurdes avaient fait mouvement autour d’Azaz. Mais c’était avant le cessez-le-feu et les optimistes pouvaient penser que, dans le mouvement de panique suivant l’offensive russo-syrienne à Alep, certains esprits avaient pu malencontreusement s’échauffer.

Que nenni, ils remettent ça, au vu de tous, et c’est suffisamment sérieux pour que la presse américaine elle-même s’en fasse l’écho.

Il ne surprendra personne que le Pentagone, soutenant les YPG kurdes, est ici plus modéré que les pompiers-pyromane de la CIA et leurs armées privées de « modérés ». Nous avions déjà montré que le flirt du gouvernement et de la CIA avec les djihadistes passe très mal auprès de la hiérarchie militaire américaine et qu’un esprit de fronde plane sur l’US Army. Les derniers événements ne vont pas arranger les choses sur le bateau ivre…

En attendant, ne boudons pas notre plaisir. La politique américaine en Syrie, ça ressemble un peu à (vidéo) ça...

Leblogalupus

Les US en 2013 - Presidents

2013-12-03T08:00:00+01:00

Les US en 2013 - The muppet show

2013-12-03T07:30:00+01:00

Les US en 2013 - we don't negociate with terrorists

2013-12-03T07:00:00+01:00

Les US en 2013 - Lovers

2013-12-02T08:00:00+01:00

Les US en 2013 - Not your dad

2013-12-02T07:30:00+01:00

Les US en 2013 - Prints

2013-12-02T07:00:00+01:00

House of Cards : Quand la vengeance n'a pas de limites. (Les Nouvelles Séries de la Saison 2012 - 2013)

2013-02-06T18:26:00+01:00

De quoi ça parle ? (le pitch de la série) : Frank Underwood, membre du Congrès démocrate et whip du gouvernement à la Chambre des représentants, a aidé Garrett Walker à devenir Président des États-Unis en échange de la promesse de devenir Secrétaire d'État. Mais, avant l’investiture de Walker, la chef de cabinet Linda Vasquez lui annonce que le Président n'a pas l'intention d'honorer sa promesse. Furieux, Underwood et sa femme Claire (qui comptait sur la nomination de son mari pour développer son groupe d'activistes environnementaux dans d'autres pays) font un pacte pour détruire ceux qui l'ont trahi. Frank se met donc à la recherche de pions pour mener sa croisade, et il trouve pour cela le député Peter Russo et la jeune journaliste Zoe Barnes. (Source : Wikipedia)

Les raisons d’y jeter un œil… ou pas ! (mon avis critique sur le Pilote de la série) : House of Cards est donc l’histoire d’une déception, d’une trahison, et d’une vengeance. Frank Underwood, un membre du Congrès, ne sera donc pas le nouveau . Cette histoire possède 2 noms forts qui résument les raisons d’au moins y jeter un œil par curiosité, même si le sujet n’est pas forcément celui qui passionne le téléspectateur curieux ou le Sériephile acharné : Frank Underwood est interprété par le toujours brillant Kevin Spacey, et la réalisation de l’épisode-pilote est assurée par le célèbre réalisateur David Fincher. 2 gages de qualité certains pour une série diffusée sur le réseau de video-on-demand Netflix. Donc, avec David Fincher, la réalisation est fluide, impeccable. House of Cards est une série politique, et on pensera inévitablement à de glorieux prédécesseurs, The West Wing (A la Maison Blanche, en VF), et The Wire. Et elle ne démérite pas face à elles.

Si la série se révèle un peu difficile à suivre au début, comme à chaque fois que l’on veut nous plonger de façon réaliste dans un milieu à part avec ses propres règles et codes, on finit par comprendre où la série veut en venir. D’autant plus qu’un guide nous accompagne au sein de la narration. L’originalité de la série tient au fait que Frank Underwood brise le 4ème mur, et s’adresse directement à nous !! Ce qui lui permet de livrer sans fards toutes ses pensées, dans un univers où tout n’est que politesse de façade et faux-semblants. Car si les autres séries citées précédemment nous plongeaient elles aussi dans les arcanes du pouvoir, qui ont de toute façon toujours exercé une certaine fascination pour les spectateurs, elles mettaient quand même en scène des personnages idéalistes convaincus de veiller au bien commun, et qui croyaient en la politique. Là, toutes les manœuvres de Frank ne sont destinées qu’à une chose : éliminer ses adversaires politiques les uns après les autres afin de se venger, de faire s’écrouler ce qui n’est de toute façon qu’un château de cartes. Du coup, peut-être est-ce un bien que ce soit lui qui soit également le guide et compagnon du spectateur. Car Frank, d’un 1er abord froid et distant, use de méthodes profondément détestables et machiavéliques. Mais finalement, est-ce que les autres politiciens valent vraiment mieux que lui, et dans le même cas, n’auraient-ils pas réagi de la même manière ? Du coup, on se plaît à suivre, complètement absorbé, ce nouveau thriller politique qui a le temps, du fait d’une narration sérielle, de se déployer.

En bref : Il est difficile de ne pas voir en House of Cards une nouvelle réussite brillante et une série de qualité. Si l’on peut être un peu perdu au début, on finit par se plaire à suivre un Kevin Spacey encore une fois impeccable, et un cast de qualité, dans les méandres du Pouvoir américain.

Côté Cast : Outre Kevin Spacey, on notera dans le rôle de son épouse la présence de Robin Wright. Les sériephiles reconnaîtront, eux, Kate Mara, dans le rôle d’une journaliste, elle qui jouait une jeune adolescente quelque peu perturbée dans la Saison 1 d’American Horror Story, et Kevin Kilner, le William Boone de la Saison d’Earth Final Conflict (Invasion Planète Terre, en VF).

Toward a North American New Right

2011-10-09T00:05:00+02:00

Toward a North American New Right

By Greg Johnson

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Author’s Note:

This is the Editor’s Preface to North American New Right, vol. 1, which will be published in November.

To plant a field or build a house, one must first clear a space. The same is true of an intellectual movement. North American New Right was created as a space for dialogue in which a new intellectual movement, a North American New Right, might emerge.

North American New Right began on June 11, 2010, as an online journal, the “blog” of Counter-Currents Publishing (http://www.counter-currents.com). But from the very beginning, North American New Right was also conceived as a print publication, an annual volume that would showcase the best of the online journal and provide a more readable format for appreciating our longer, more involved pieces. With this, the first volume of North American New Right, that project has now come to fruition.

The North American New Right is a “metapolitical” movement modeled on the European New Right, but adapted to the realities of North America. The goal of the North American New Right is to lay the metapolitical foundations for the emergence of a White Republic (or republics) in North America.

This project is motivated by consciousness of an existential threat. European peoples, both in our mother continent and scattered around the globe, now live under a cultural, political, and economic system that has set our race on the path to cultural decadence and demographic decline. If these trends are not reversed, whites will disappear as a distinct race. The incomparable light we bring to the world will be extinguished, and the greatness of our achievements will be preserved only in fragments, like the scraps of literature, shards of pottery, and shattered artworks that survived the wreck of pagan antiquity.

We aim to halt that process here in North America, but we also wish to learn from and contribute to the struggle of our comrades for white homelands around the globe.

“Metapolitics” refers to what comes before the political, i.e., the foundations of politics, including both (1) political ideas, i.e., the intellectual case for a particular political order, and (2) a concrete community that embodies those ideas in the present and will serve as the seed of a new political order to emerge in the future. As a journal of ideas, North American New Right naturally focuses on the intellectual dimension of metapolitics, which centers around three issues: identity, morality, and practicality.

If we are to defend the idea of a White Republic, we have to answer the question of identity: Who are we? Once we know who we are, we still have to answer the moral question: Is it right to create a society for our people alone? Finally, even if a White Republic is moral, we have to deal with the question of practicality: Is a White Republic even possible?

Identity

Questions of identity include such topics as: existing European regional and national identities; the problem of identity in European colonial societies where the blending of European stocks is almost universal; the inadequacy of abstract, propositional forms of identity; the problem of petty nationalism; the deep roots of a common European identity, including biological race, European history and prehistory, and the cultural diffusions revealed by comparative linguistics and mythology; the Traditionalism of René Guénon and Julius Evola; concepts of collective destiny; causes for collective pride and guilt, i.e., the strengths and weaknesses of our people; and the relationship of the North American New Right to the Western political, philosophical, and cultural tradition.

A corollary of the question of who we are is the question of who we are not, the question of “the others,” which subsumes unavoidable debates regarding the Jewish question. In an ideal world, it would be possible to be for oneself without being against anybody else. But as Carl Schmitt so cogently argues, in the real world, the political realm is constituted by the distinction between friend and enemy, which is rooted in the potential for existential conflicts between peoples.

On the other hand, we need to know who we are before we can deal with the question of who we are not. It is not possible to create political movements based merely on opposition to other groups while avoiding any discussion of our own identity as “divisive.” Thus the project of the North American New Right is to deal forthrightly with the questions of who we are not, but only within the larger context of the positive questions of who we are. Who and what we are for has logical and practical priority over who and what we are against.

Morality

In my view, the key moral question is whether it is right to prefer one’s own kin over others. Whites, and only whites, have become convinced that it is wrong to prefer our people over other ethnic groups. Strict ethnic impartiality would not, however, be destructive of our race if all other races abided by the same principle. But unfortunately, they do not. All other groups not only are allowed to appeal to ethnic solidarity, they are encouraged and rewarded to do so. This puts whites at a systematic disadvantage in dealing with other groups, a disadvantage that over time would be sufficient to dispossess whites of our own homelands.

But our situation is actually far worse, for many whites have not adopted mere impartiality in dealing with other ethnic groups. Instead, they actually prefer other groups to their own. They are practitioners of what Guillaume Faye calls “ethnomasochism” and “xenophilia.” Such attitudes, of course, can only accelerate white dispossession.

And when whites no longer control homelands of our own, our destiny as a race will pass into the hands of other groups, many of which have deep historical grudges against us. We will, in effect, be a conquered people, and we will share the fates of conquered peoples, most of whom disappear from the pages of history.

Note that the question of ethnic partiality is not the issue of moral “univeralism.” Partiality to one’s own people is a completely universalizable principle. So is ethnic impartiality. So are ethnomasochism and xenophilia. The reason that ethnic impartiality and ethnomasochism/xenophilia are destructive to whites is simply that they are not practiced universally and reciprocally.

Another moral issue is the question of utopia. Whites are willing to maintain racially destructive moral attitudes like ethnic impartiality or ethnomasochism/xenophilia because they believe that they are making sacrifices to bring about a better world, a world without ethnic enmity and conflict. We have to destroy this illusion before it destroys us. We need to establish the enmity and conflict are ineradicable. They are normal, natural, and a challenge to our improvement, not something that can go away.

But we also need to advance our own, more realistic vision of utopia: a peaceful world in which the causes of quarrel are not eliminated, but simply managed. Ethnic diversity in and of itself need not cause conflicts. Ethnic strife is, however, inevitable when diverse groups try to occupy the same living spaces. Therefore, the best way to avoid ethnic hatred and conflict is universal nationalism, i.e., giving every distinct people a country or countries of its own. A durable foundation for world peace is the recognition that all peoples have an interest in preserving the principle of national self-determination. (There is also a common interest in preserving our planetary environment.)

Dreams & Reality

Before the White Republic can become a reality, it must first be a fantasy, a dream, a vision of a possible world. But to become a reality, a vision must also be realistic. So the North American New Right has the dual task of cultivating dreamers and realists.

To cultivate the dreamers, we have a strong focus on the arts. Art is an indispensable tool of propagating political ideals, for it can reach more people, and stir them more deeply, than mere prose. But more fundamentally than that, our ideals and programs themselves are also the products of the artistic imagination.

To encourage contemporary artists, we seek to place them in contact with our tradition. Many of the greatest artists of the last century were men of the right, and one does not have to go back too far in history before the principles we defend were the common sense of virtually every great creative genius. We also seek to offer contemporary artists constructive criticism, publicity, and opportunities to network and collaborate.

To cultivate realism, we explore the questions of whether a White Republic is even feasible and how we might get there from here. These questions can be approached from two distinct though complimentary angles: the theoretical and the historical. Philosophy and the human sciences can tell us a good deal about what is possible and impossible, likely or unlikely. They seek to move from the possible to the actual. History, by contrast, moves from the actual to the possible. If something has happened, it is ipso facto possible.

The examples of the Irish and the Spanish, for example, show us that European peoples who have been conquered and colonized for centuries can preserve their identities and reconquer their homelands. More recent history also gives us examples of how large, multinational, multiracial empires have collapsed, allowing their constituent nations to free themselves and create ethnically homogeneous states. History thus provides us with a vast store of examples and analogies that can help us shape our ideas and guide them toward realization.

Theory & Practice[1]

To achieve our political aims, the North American New Right must understand the proper relationship of social theory to social change, metapolitics to politics, theory to practice. We must avoid drifting either into inactive intellectualism or unintelligent and therefore pointless and destructive activism.

Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism[2] offers many important lessons for our project. Chapter 1, “An Assessment of the Nouvelle Droite,” is Faye’s settling of accounts with the French New Right. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Faye was a leading thinker and polemicist of the French New Right before quitting in disillusionment. In 1998, after 12 years, he returned to the battle of ideas with Archeofuturism, which begins with an explanation of his departure and return.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Nouvelle Droite, led by Alain de Benoist, was a highly visible and influential intellectual movement. The Nouvelle Droite published books and periodicals like Nouvelle École and Éléments; it sponsored lectures, conferences, and debates; it engaged the intellectual and cultural mainstreams. The Nouvelle Droite did more than receive coverage in the mainstream press, it often set the terms of debates to which the mainstream responded.

The Nouvelle Droite was deep; it was highbrow; it was radical; it was relevant; and, above all, it was exciting. It was based on the axiom that ideas shape the world. Bad ideas are destroying it, and only better ideas will save it. It had the right ideas, and it was increasingly influential. Its metapolitical strategy was a “Gramscianism” of the Right, i.e., an attempt to shape the ideas and ultimately the actions of the elites—academics, journalists, businessmen, politicians, etc.—as envisioned in the writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

However, according to Faye, as the 1980s came to a close, the Nouvelle Droite became less influential: “Regrettably, it has turned into an ideological ghetto. It no longer sees itself as a powerhouse for the diffusion of energies with the ultimate aim of acquiring power, but rather as a publishing enterprise that also organizes conferences but has limited ambitions” (pp. 24–25). The causes of this decline were based partly on objective conditions, partly on the movement’s own weaknesses.

Two of Faye’s points seem particularly relevant here. I should note that even if these points do not turn out to be entirely fair to the Nouvelle Droite, they still contain universal truths that are applicable to our project in North America.

(1) The rise of the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen caused a decline in the visibility and influence of the Nouvelle Droite, whereas one would have thought that the Front National’s good fortunes would have magnified those of the Nouvelle Droite. After all, the two movements share much in common, and there can be little doubt that the Nouvelle Droite influenced the Front National and brought new people into its orbit.

Faye claims, however, that there are many “airlocks” that seal off the different circles of the French Right. Faye claims that the Nouvelle Droite never really tried to engage the Front National, because its members fundamentally misunderstood Gramsci. Gramsci’s cultural battle was organically connected with the economic and political struggles of the Italian Communist Party.

The Nouvelle Droite, however, treated the battle as entirely cultural and intellectual. Thus they were not really Gramscians. They were actually followers of Augustin Cochin’s theory of the role of intellectual salons in paving the way for the French Revolution.[3] Under the autocracy of the old regime, of course, one could ignore party and electoral politics. But after 1789, one cannot.

The North American New Right aims to change the political landscape. To do that, we must influence people who have power, or who can attain it. That means

Ghosts of the Truman Doctrine

2011-02-23T00:20:00+01:00

Ghosts of the Truman Doctrine
by Paul Gottfried
Ex: http://takimag.com/
In the last few days I’ve run across two authoritative statements by neocon journalists which provide a new American “Freedom Doctrine for Arab democracy.” One statement is by Pod the Younger in the New York Post summoning Americans back to the Truman Administration’s pro-democracy policy. In Europe after World War II, it seems, American stewardship kept Europe from going communist.
Pod is referring to the arduous string-pulling that the US engaged in after the Second World War to keep European countries with large communist parties, particularly France and Italy, from moving into the Soviet Bloc. But those countries had communist parties that rarely received above a quarter of the popular vote. It is also doubtful that these places would have fallen behind the Iron Curtain even if the US didn’t bankroll what quickly became corrupt blocs such as Italy’s Christian Democrats. In the German case, with due respect to Pod and other neocons, there were pre-Nazi parliamentary institutions dating back to the early nineteenth century. Germany always had a substantial, well-educated middle class and very industrious workers. Unlike the Egyptians, almost all Germans were literate and most had marketable skills. Comparing the Germans, even after World War II, to most of the Arab world today is almost infantile. Would Pod suggest that we export our labor unions to foreign countries to teach others about “democracy”? That may not be a bad idea, provided we could move our unions out of this country into North Africa.
Krauthammer exhibits more mental energy than Pod in framing his detailed endorsement of global democracy. He appeals to the Truman Doctrine, the third reference point in neocon memory after the 1938 Munich Agreement and Israel’s founding in 1948. The US is urged to “use its influence to help democrats everywhere throw off dictatorial rule.” We must also intervene to make sure that we have true democracy when we foster (or incite) revolution.
It is furthermore in our government’s interest to protect “these new democracies…against totalitarians, foreign and domestic.” Just as during the Cold War’s early phase when we kept communist parties from entering European governments, we must now take action to keep totalitarian parties, meaning here Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, “out of power.” Krauthammer does not imagine that the policies he proposes can be implemented without extensive American involvement. But he reminds us: “A freedom doctrine is a freedom agenda given direction by guiding principles. Truman did it. So can we.”
Is what Krauthammer proposes really self-rule for other countries, or is it acceptance of a permanent American suzerainty? He seems far less willing to allow Egypt to go its own way than to have Egyptians live according to his wishes. Why not describe his political program as having the US government force the rest of the world into compliance with the neocon vision of a good society?
If Krauthammer is universally concerned with freedom, why doesn’t he protest the continual infringement on free speech and inquiry in Western “democracies” in the name of fighting hate speech and unkind thoughts? In France one can now be arrested and thrown in jail for questioning the “Turkish genocide.” The same is true throughout the EU for those who challenge the governmentally recognized account of the Holocaust. It is also quite possibly a punishable crime in France to reissue Jean Raspail’s Le Camp des Saints. According to Le Figaro Magazine, the novel’s 85-year-old author will have courts prosecuting him and his publisher on 87 counts as soon as his reprinted work hits the bookstands. In this novel, first published 35 years ago, Raspail depicts Indians fleeing en masse in a boat to France. Since this voyage is shown in a less-than-complimentary fashion, the author is subject to judicial prosecution for having insulted Third World sensibilities.
Raspail told Le Figaro that freedom’s primary threat isn’t “Big Brother,” it’s “Big Other”—the silent shaming collective force of those who aren’t native Europeans. He points out that there are now multiple laws in his country, mostly passed by French communists and socialists, criminalizing ungracious speech against certain (particularly non-Christian and usually nonwhite) minorities.

But there are governmental attacks on politically incorrect sentiments closer to home. In Saskatchewan, ministers have been threatened with jail if they read aloud passages from the Bible that are sexist or homophobic. Presumably said ministers can get away with this act against Canadian “human rights” if they dissuade their parishioners from believing in the offending biblical ethics. Why are attacks on liberty acceptable when done in the name of “human rights” but not because of the Koran?
Krauthammer complains that there are still Americans who question his “freedom doctrine”: Although the left is “enthusiastic for Arab democracy,” they have not been consistent in their willingness to do what is necessary to sustain it. “Indeed, the left spent the better part of the Bush years excoriating the freedom agenda as either fantasy or yet another sordid example of U.S. imperialism.” Krauthammer is particularly bothered by what we are led to believe is the exclusively leftist idea of “Arab exceptionalism,” namely the idea that our Western ideas about democracy are not workable for Arabs.
Is Krauthammer such an idiot that he doesn’t know that lots of people on the right, including most Ron Paul voters, believe it’s a bad idea to invest money and lives trying to convert most of the world to those features of modern democracy that Krauthammer considers desirable? These mavericks (to borrow Sarah Palin’s term) also believe that we would do better to fight for our diminishing freedom in the Western world rather than going elsewhere in search of monsters to slay. No one is asking Krauthammer or his buds on FOX News to agree with this alternative point of view. It’s only a question of acknowledging that those who disagree with them are by no means exclusively on the left. Why can’t they treat their enormous opposition on the right as worthy of respectful mention?
I believe there are two obvious reasons for this rejection of reality. First, the predominantly Jewish neocons who run the conservative media apparatus loathe “opponents on the right,” meaning people who are collectively dismissed as anti-Semites and who are so uniformly contemptible that one is supposed to avoid noting their existence. Krauthammer on TV can barely conceal his revulsion for Ron Paul, and last week he poured out his contempt on the mostly conventional Republican CPAC because some of the participants were enthusiastic Paul-backers. Such enthusiasm has not been authorized, and those who express it are, from Krauthammer’s perspective, deserving of suspicion. Who knows whether such enthusiasts aren’t also “neo-Confederates” like Tom DiLorenzo, who has been beaten from pillar to post in the national press for having addressed the League of the South in addition to being an economics advisor to Ron Paul? Krauthammer, Kristol, and the Pod people surely wouldn’t want such a person allowed anywhere near the conservative-GOP coalition. Someone as extremist as DiLorenzo might scare off Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, or those liberals whom the neocons have wooed onto their TV programs.
Two, it is important that the neocons, who are having their way in terms of controlling “movement conservative” resources, don’t cause their benefactors to notice that theirs is not the only show on the very loosely defined “right.” There are still competing views from bona fide conservatives, and if business donors are made aware of this fact they may take their donations elsewhere. For those who are monopolizing the goodies, it is important to keep those who count from noticing other conservative positions.
The liberal media has exactly the same interest. The establishment left does not care any more than the neocons to see the present “conservative” opposition pulled toward a harder right. Even if the left and the non-neocon right occasionally agree on foreign policy, they are farther apart sociologically than, say, Jonah Goldberg is from Matthew Yglesias or Bill Kristol from Alan Colmes. Those permitted to participate in the conversation keep the others out of view. Why complicate the picture by seeking the opinion of nonpersons?

US-Kongress beugt sich (erneut) den Göttern der Wall Street

2010-05-20T00:20:00+02:00

US-Kongress beugt sich (erneut) den Göttern der Wall Street

F. William Engdahl

Ex: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/

Wer noch immer der Illusion nachhängt, der US-Kongress sei eine unabhängige gesetzgeberische Volksvertretung, die zum Wohle der gesamten Nation handele, der sollte diese nach der jüngsten Abstimmung über eine geplante Finanz-»Reform« endgültig aufgeben. Mit einer mehr als deutlichen Mehrheit von 61 zu 33 Stimmen hat der US-Senat den Vorschlag, die sechs größten Banken des Landes zu zerschlagen, abgelehnt. Eine vorgesehene Sonderabgabe für die Wall-Street-Banken in Höhe von 50 Milliarden Dollar für den Fall des Zusammenbruchs einer größeren Bank fand ebenfalls keine Mehrheit.

Die beiden vorgeschlagenen Änderungen waren Teil des Entwurfs für das Gesetz »Safe Banking Act of 2010«. Mit ihrem Votum über die geplante Verordnung zur Zerschlagung der Banken haben die 61 Senatoren dafür gestimmt, genau das System am Leben zu erhalten, das ursächlich für den Crash von 2007 verantwortlich war. Die sechs größten US-Banken – Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo und Morgan Stanley – beherrschen weltweit auch den Derivatehandel, besser Finanzwetten genannt.

In meinem Buch Der Untergang des Dollar-Imperiums zeige ich im Detail, wie diese Wall-Street-Banken die Macht erobert haben, und zwar auf Kosten des Wohlergehens des Landes und letztlich der gesamten Weltwirtschaft. Den Vorläufern dieser Banken gelang 1913 ein regelrechter Putsch, als Präsident Woodrow Wilson das Federal-Reserve-Gesetz unterzeichnete, durch das der Kongress seines von der Verfassung garantierten Rechts auf die Kontrolle über das Geld des Landes beraubt wurde. Die Federal Reserve wurde als private Institution im Besitz privater Interessen und unter Kontrolle der Wall Street gegründet. Die Einrichtung der Federal Reserve ermöglichte den Eintritt der USA in den Ersten Weltkrieg gegen Deutschland, um die Finanzen der Bank J.P. Morgan zu retten, die (unter Missachtung der amerikanischen Neutralität) Gläubiger Frankreichs und Englands war.

Tim Geithner, der heute als Obamas Finanzminister fungiert und angeblich die Finanzkrise beilegen soll, hat zusammen mit Larry Summers zwei wichtige Gesetzentwürfe formuliert – die Außerkraftsetzung des Glass-Steagall-Gesetzes von 1933 und das Gesetz zur »Modernisierung des Warenterminhandels«, den sogenannten »Commodity Futures (d.h. Derivate) Modernization Act« – und damit die Schaffung jener Mammut-Finanzkonglomerate ermöglicht, die dann »zu groß, um unterzugehen« wurden. Durch das Commodity-Futures-Gesetz wurde der Handel mit Finanzderivaten und Energiederivaten jeglicher staatlichen Aufsicht entzogen.

Mit dem Votum gegen die Verordnung zur Zerschlagung der Banken und gegen die vorgesehene Sonderabgabe hat der Senat deutlich zu erkennen gegeben, dass ihn die Wall Street fest im Griff hat: die Doktrin vom »zu groß, um unterzugehen« wird beibehalten. Bislang sieht es so aus, als werde die Wall Street aus dem Großen Finanzkrach von 2008 mit noch weit größerer politischer Macht hervorgehen, als sie sie während der Regierungszeit George W. Bushs besessen hatte.

27 Demokraten stimmten gemeinsam mit fast allen Republikanern – lediglich drei waren nicht mit von der Partie – gegen die Zerschlagung der Banken. Präsident Barack Obama war gegen die Sonderabgabe und die Maßnahmen zur Zerschlagung; während der Debatte über die Abstimmung empfing er Jamie Dimon, den Chef von J.P. Mogan, zum Abendessen im Weißen Haus. J.P. Morgan ist die größte amerikanische Bank, sie hat 2009 mehr Geld für Lobbyarbeit ausgegeben, als irgendeine andere Bank.

Wirtschaftlich gesehen gibt es keine Bestätigung dafür, dass Megabanken irgendetwas zur Stützung der Wirtschaft beitrügen, das kleinere Institute nicht genauso leisten könnten. Tatsächlich hat sich im Verlauf der Jahrhunderte gezeigt, dass Großbanken zerstörerisch wirken. Adam Smith hat bereits im 18. Jahrhundert vor den Gefahren der Megabanken gewarnt, die derzeitige Krise in der EU über Griechenland und Portugal stellt diese erneut unter Beweis. Goldman Sachs und JP MorganChase haben mithilfe von Derivaten die Finanzen Griechenlands so manipuliert, dass sich das Land 2002 unter falschen Voraussetzungen in den Euro schleichen konnte. Im Verein mit den amerikanischen Rating-Agenturen stecken sie heute hinter der Finanzkriegsführung, durch welche die Griechenland-Krise auf die gesamte EU ausgedehnt wird, um den Euro als mögliche alternative Reservewährung zum US-Dollar auszuschalten.

Kaum zu glauben ist indessen, dass es die (private) Federal Reserve wiederholt abgelehnt hat, ihre geheimen Vereinbarungen mit den Großbanken in der Finanzkrise offenzulegen. Obwohl die allgemeine Aufmerksamkeit dem Finanzministerium und dem US-Konjunkturprogramm Troubled Asset Relief Program galt, war die Fed die treibende Kraft hinter den Bailouts durch die US-Regierung: 4,3 Billionen Dollar wurden praktisch unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit in das Bankensystem gepumpt. Außerhalb der Fed weiß niemand, wer zu welchen Bedingungen Geld erhalten hat, noch wer die Transaktion genehmigt hat. Das einflussreichste Mitglied der Fed, der Präsident der New York Federal Reserve Bank William Dudley, war zuvor geschäftsführender Direktor bei Goldman Sachs. Er übernahm den Posten von Tim Geithner, dem Mann der Wall Street, als dieser 2009 nach Washington wechselte.

Mittwoch, 12.05.2010

Kategorie: Allgemeines, Wirtschaft & Finanzen, Politik

© Das Copyright dieser Seite liegt, wenn nicht anders vermerkt, beim Kopp Verlag, Rottenburg

Dieser Beitrag stellt ausschließlich die Meinung des Verfassers dar. Er muß nicht zwangsläufig die Meinung des Verlags oder die Meinung anderer Autoren dieser Seiten wiedergeben.