"Yes, We Can" Reloaded?
Maria Weiß may 25, 2011
The principle of presumption of innocence which allegedly is not existing in the American juridical system, at least not in the same form as in Europe and other countries around the world, for instance is precisely intending to prevent, inter alia, politically motivated acts of revenge. The fact that, in this case, a man only on suspicion is treated in fact like a dangerous criminal, and thus in advance is already being sentenced, with all the consequences - this has really a very special taste.
Now it became known that the respective person is in the hands of a private security service in an unknown location - these security services are not required to tell where it is - , not far from Ground Zero, as it was said. In any case, the main responsible persons certainly will know the place. But everyone knows what private security services can do, for example just think of the Iraq war, what kind of crimes they are able to commit. One can not help thinking, in this case, in the view of this whole procedure, that it actually means not only a kind of punitive action in advance against this respective person, but also a kind of punishment of European countries and also of some of their efforts to come free from tutelage.
Can the principle of "suspicion is sufficient" be accepted?
At times of the so-called reunification of Germany in the early 1990's, our organisation has been dealt with this problem. For example, at that time there was a meeting of the then so-called Independent Trade Unionists, which came mainly from the former GDR, a fierce debate about the question of whether, for example, the allegation of sexual harassment by a woman solely is sufficient for a conviction of the affected man. Some people there said that due to the weaker position of women "suspicion is sufficient ", what was decisively denied by us. It's not about denying, from the start, the possibility of such action on the part of the involved male, that would be nonsense. It's all about that before a conviction or even just a quasi conviction through a similar public action the respective facts must be enlightened.
Equal rights for everyone are regardless of gender. One cannot apply double standards here, neither as a means of compensation for in fact existing inequalities.
What to complain about a certain kind of action such as in China in relation to the so-called dissidents? In principle, the distinction is little or none, what throws a light on the state of mind of the so-called critics of the Chinese revisionists, of the present Chinese government, on the part of the U.S. imperialists and other imperialists and reactionaries.
The society, also the global society, as a matter of fact is divided into classes, or let us call it interest groups or interest communities, and these are not exactly identical. They are partly in a very sharp and even to some extent in an irreconcilable contradiction to each other, and that affects the whole society. It should now be obvious that the exploitation has spread to the whole world - "globalisation"- and this fact has just to do with very different approaches to property and the use of it, to appropriate the labour of others in order to multiply property, generally speaking. Marx has delivered a much more accurate and detailed analysis 150 years before, and this has not been refuted yet, in no way as a whole. There are objectively irreconcilable interests in society, and they just play a role in social events and also in the approach, whether by individuals, whether by governments, institutions, interest groups or anyone else. And these objective things very well are in relation with each other and also with others.
We must defend this materialistic method, otherwise you can not see things properly. There are always opportunists and others who are opposing that and try to lump it together with so-called conspiracy theories.
In the present case, it catches the eye that at first a completely outstanding action is present here, the international exposing of a top international representative of the international financial bourgeoisie allegedly unmasked as a criminal, what (still) is not the case. The question suggests itself, why it is done in this way. And a number of answers are possible. The first thing to say is that the U.S. juridical system is different from the European one, namely the fact that the principle of presumption of innocence is handled less stringent than in Europe. But that is not the reason for such an approach as in this case because, if you compare it for example with other cases, there was not a similar action in these cases, not even close to that, so indeed you have to ask yourself what the aim is and which reasons they have to pursue this aim. And a number of outstanding circumstances are catching the eye. For example, the economic crisis in the U.S. (and not only theirs) is aggravating increasingly. They do not know how they will ever pay their debts, remaining the leading economic power in the world what is something that absolutely does not fit together, at least not in permanence, surely it cannot but end for them in a similar disaster.
Next it is a fact that the present management of the IMF in a certain sense has favoured the European position - and thus a competitor – as well as it has signalled a certain willingness to recognise the emerging demands of new international forces such as China and other so-called emerging powers on other continents, though of course in the whole history there have been close connections to the U.S. Of course, in the eyes of an economic power that strives to preserve domination and hegemony, increasingly outdated, this is not just what they wish for themselves and a clash is inevitable in some way. So it is not an outrageous consumption that anyone here has played with the idea to bring about a change, "unscheduled" and quite suddenly.
It's not a coincidence
that now for example also
a Turkish representative
is under discussion as a successor
to the IMF top
job. It is likely
that this would still
fit best into the concept of
the U.S., since Turkey plays an important
role in the preservation of their influence
on European countries
and the EU as a whole and more recently on the development
in the Middle East. One should not
underestimate: the U.S.
government still has considerable difficulties
to keep under control the situation
in the Middle East.
The contradictions with regard to Israel are
not to be overlooked,
at least on the conceptual level, and they are increasing. And as for the mass
movements in these countries, everything else is in sight, but that they
will readily prevail there.
In any case they need a
trying to represent its interests in regard
to certain other so-called
emerging powers, "Bridge Powers" of Europe to Asia
and Africa. And there
Turkey seems to propose itself. Let's see what will come out.
Of course, such a
lack of self control or
a possible act of violence would not be all right,
if it had occurred. Of course
it could not be tolerated. But what is being
practised here is outstanding, this international exposing and incitement,
almost reminiscent of pogroms. That can
not be tolerated in any way.
Anne Will talk round of may 22 on the given theme
It’s extreme, these people who simply
refuse to think politically. It may be true that this class or, if you
like, caste or whatever you want to call it has the peculiarity (also)
in France to be snobbish and
vain. But the crucial question that still arises is, what happened in fact? And that must be answered.
Only for comparison: Who represents for here the hundreds of thousands of young women from Eastern Europe or countries of the Third World, which are deported to here and forced into prostitution, by force, by the respective traffickers and mobsters, etc.? Who speaks for them with such vehemence as it is done in this single case which not even is enlightened? I still have not heard that even one of these criminal pigs that operate in human trafficking, was similarly put to pillory in public. So much for "Double Standards Reloaded". In this respect the supposed champion of women's emancipation, Alice Schwarzer, said succinctly: "Prostitution is not prohibited"! Nobody can hardly express his own perversion more clearly , and also the dirty sweatshop mentality that comes to light in it. You really do not have to wonder how this woman stoops to be a reporter for the "Bild-Zeitung" in the Kachelmann trial.
On the subject of rape
Homosexuality is abuse of human nature, nature in general. This will not be attacked by these forces. On the contrary, it is touted as supposed emancipation. A forced sexual act is a rape of woman that can not be accepted, of course. Homosexuality, however, is violation of human nature, and that is worse, even if it takes place "by mutual consent, " it is abuse of nature, which would inevitably lead to its demise, if it should prevail in general, because any reproduction of nature - at least in all higher forms - needs sexual polarity. Only very few and poorly developed creatures go through this process unisexual, but “within same sex" it does not happen at all. You can measure the essential contents of the propaganda (especially by the ruling caste) for so-called "homosexual lifestyle". Who is "detached" from what in this respect?
The really important thing about this whole matter is
that action must be taken against this type
of methodology. The
only principal conclusion to
be drawn from this whole
affair and from this whole
situation, from the whole
crisis, which worsens
further and further, is that
the overthrow of the
system (including its
is on the agenda all over the
world. And those
peoples that have risen
and all those who will rise up in future
will do well
to recognise this
and to accept democracy
in its literal sense, hold their own against all imperialist manoeuvres and
resist all attempts of manipulation.
(Translation of the German original)