Imagine when you have to work 30-odd years to afford a two-bedroom house (or just the rent), trying to keep your head above water, moving to places that your job demands and not your lifestyle. This is anything but Kiwi. A devastated social structure is what current economics leave behind and while the rest of the developed world is moving to the right because of this.

A couple of years ago, at the New Zealand writer’s festival in Christchurch, famous author Keri Hulme resigned from her remote home in Okarito. A very, very small place down south at the west coast used to be a tight-knit community of locals that shared the same values. These values are shattered now. That’s why Keri Hulme said, she will move to the East Coast, looking for another retreat. What happened in Okarito?

New Zealanders are living on a remote island which is prone to nature’s disasters. Life can be rough, especially down south-west. Communal life is a cornerstone of society where your neighbours are no strangers and, at best, friends. One needs each other as natural events are humbling reminders of human’s place in the world.

The small islands in the southern hemisphere seemed quite isolated from the world’s issues. However, it just seems this way. Over the recent years, whilst trying to keep up with the OECD standards and a neoliberal agenda of „the markets“, New Zealand has become an export country for clean natural products. At the same time, it became a safe haven for a certain kind of refugees: The rich ones. more

Viva la revolucion!

Solange die Diskussion um rechts und links, um Karl Marx oder Adam Smith, arm oder reich anhält, wird sich ab der Revolution nichts ändern. Das System baut Institutionen, die am Tag nach der Revolution Patina ansetzen und am Tag vor der nächsten verbrannt werden.

Es gibt eine Aussage des jungen Fidel Castro, in der er die herrschende Demokratie im Land als Farce bezeichnet. Das war zu Zeiten, als die Regierung Generals Batistas für ökonomischen Wohlstand sorgte und das Land zugleich in eine Klassengeselllschaft spaltete. Während ein zwei Drittel der Kubaner ohne fließendes Wasser und mit 6 US$ pro Woche auskommen mußte, lebte in Havana die Aristokratie. Es war eine Zeit, in welcher die Ideen Marx‘ und Engels fruchtbaren Boden fanden.

Klassenkampf dominierte das 19. und 20. Jahrhundert; entsprechend gewalttätig entluden sich die Spannungen. Und in der selben Manier entwickelte sich der Umbruch zu der verkommenen Institution, welche von ihm zuvor beseitigt wurde. Castros tiefe Mißgunst gegenüber der Demokratie (für ihn war sie nur Blendmittel zum Mißbrauch von Macht) hat ihm die Möglichkeit einer besseren Gesellschaft genommen. Er wurde zum Diktator einer anderen Idee, doch immernoch seiner eigenen. Sein Antrieb wurde eine Neurose.
Castros Werdegang gleicht jenem der marxistischen Theorie: In der frühen Phase, wo dieselbe eine Ideologie der Unterdrückten ist, stehen messerscharfe, folgerichtige Analysen auf der Agenda. Nach Kampf und Sieg bleiben starre Ideen alter Männer, die keine Lösungen für die neue Ordnungen parat halten. Stattdessen führen sich Marx wie Castro ad absurdum beim Festhalten an eine Ideologie, welche nur bis zur Revolution taugt. more

Wahnvorstellung

Ich wachte schweißgebadet auf, hatte geträumt, daß Trump die Wahlen gewinnt. Ich träumte, wie er alle Kräfte mobilisiert, um die „Disbeliever“ und die Dissidenten über die NSA ausfindig macht und verfolgt. Er hatte es geschafft, die feine Linie zum Angrund aufzureißen: Wo man nur noch auf der einen oder der anderen Seite stehen kann,

Ich kniete auf der anderen. Trump lachte bösartig in meine Richtung, die Masse um ihn applaudierte, feierte, schoß in die Luft und stürzte Latinos in diese Schlucht, welche sich immer weiter öffnete und uns voneinander entfernte. Neben ihm stand Clinton mit stolz erhobenem Haupt… 

….diese Gehirnwäsche. Ich messe der USA noch immer zuviel Bedeutung zu, oder?

The strategy of the lobby may be the big show, the big circus, the big distraction and during this the possibility for voters to let off steam. Trump is the biggest clown in this circus for ages and it just fits into the concept of mass control where democracy is nothing but a hollowed out facade with „free elections“ sprayed over it.

There’s a big show going on for a while. We’re all doomed to take notice – whether we like it or not. The American election is upon the world and we give it way too much credit.

People say that the outcome of the US-elections would have impact on the whole world. Well, they do. Even though the hegemonial power of U.S. and A. is on its way out, it has still enough potential to stir up shit. Bluntly said. Most people are aware that neither Hillary nor Donald will leave the world in peace – if Clinton wins (she may), Iran will be the target, again. If Trump makes it, something will be burning, for sure. Either way: Things will go as the lobby wants it.

No news that „the lobby“ are the ones with the money and assets that are allowing the show to go on like this. There is a lot of money flowing to American politics. The top spenders are, unsurprisingly, realty, pharmaceutical and military companies. Amazon is in the game too. [ list ] Just to pick an interesting one: General Electrics has a subsidy called „GE Sustainability“  which focuses on military products and services. One subsidy of this subsidy is called „Philantropy“ – make up your own mind about that.

However, I’ve been pondering why the people / companies with the real money ( compared to Trump’s assets ) allowing a clown like him on to the stage. While Clinton stands for the establishment, the status quo, Trump is a colourful yet narrow-minded individual who speaks his mind unconventionally. To put it that way: He’s not politically correct (PC). And PC is something many Americans can’t adhere to anymore, they „sheit“ on it as political correctness has been a cover up for intransparent politics. It is, to many people I assume, a means to tell them they don’t understand the processes. A cover-up for the important operations of politics that the average Joe is not able to comprehend.

Well, f# that!

This wraps Trump up pretty much: He’s just don’t fucking cares. Like voters do not care about political processes anymore. And in spite of the PC of the last years, they are numb and ignorant of exactly these processes of a democracy. They don’t know what’s going on (non-transparency) because they have been locked out actively via PC. All they have is a deep mistrust for the system. Understandable. It seems Trump voters are ready to let go of a democracy which is truly a facade and go with whatever alternative they got: A clown.

Let’s view that from the angle of a politically involved party, a company: They rule the show, no more doubt about that. Maximising profits is the primary directive of an economic entity. Therefore the political system has to create a surrounding that allows for that. This is nothing that doesn’t yet exist – in fact, we are living in a global market that is none but a shared playground for the big concerns. Following the simple truth: „Competition is for loosers“ they share the global market amongst themselves. We all know the nice graphics that show a couple of hundred brands branched out, yet leading to a handful of concerns. For instance, KRAFT foods inc. owns something about a hundred companies all over the world, so where’s the competition? Right, down there, between the small companies, the local stores, the freelancers, the mini-jobbers. The losers.

The big companies have the means to topple Donald Trump’s few assets by the thousands and therefore they can support and determine the outcome of a election. Controlling media is just the tip of the iceberg. There’s money to pay media companies, journalists, tech guys, psychologists, marketing experts, etc… Back to elections: Why would a big lobby allow a seemingly uncontrollable and unpredictable clown like Donald Trump to go for election at all? Well, there’s Clinton who raises the doubt of being fit to lead the US back to its Golden Age when capitalism catered for everyone. As part of the establishment she’s not really offering a solution to the greater audience in America that does not get it’s share of the pie anymore. So Trump is the element to mobilise them by causing havoc in the political landscape and especially the behated political correctness. Trump undermines the least of the standards not just of political correctness but simple human decency. And here’s the theory: One wants to let him go all the way to the bottom until the last American may ask himself whether he can be serious or not. The lobby might be filtering out the real rednecks that won’t leave Trump down. They may trust that they won’t be the majority once election day is upon America. Current Trump voters caused a peak in the polls which most probably go into a dip soon. Hillary Clinton will become the least of a worry for the American voter who has at least an understanding of basic human decency.

The strategy of the lobby may be the big show, the big circus, the big distraction and during this the possibility for voters to let off steam. Trump is the biggest clown in this circus for ages and it just fits into the concept of mass control where democracy is nothing but a hollowed out facade with „free elections“ sprayed over it.

 

Für den an Arbeit interessierten Arbeitslosen in der Gegend um Sömmerda hieß es nach der Wende und vor Hartz IV Umschulung oder Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit. Angst vor einem Leben ohne Arbeit hatte jeder — warum sich auch jeder Mühe gab, sich für den neuen Arbeitsmarkt fit zu machen. Ein neues Gefühl beschlich die Menschen im Osten, das sie bis dahin nicht kannten: Man bewarb sich mit anderen auf ein und dieselbe Stelle und nur einer würde sie bekommen. Menschen standen plötzlich in Konkurrenz. Wer es nicht schaffte, wurde Langzeitarbeitsloser und mußte mit etwas weniger auskommen. Man kam aus, irgendwie.

Am 1. Juli 1990 schloß das einstige VEB Kombinat Robotron in Dresden. Knapp siebzigtausend Menschen verloren ihre Arbeit praktisch über Nacht.

In Sömmerda, einem kleinen Provinznest nordöstlich von Erfurt, gab es noch immer einen Betrieb des Robotron: das Büromaschinenwerk Soemtron. Von Einheimischen auch „Rheinmetall“ genannt, da die Geschichte des Werkes selbst bis 1816 zurückreichte, beschäftigte es 12.000 Menschen – fast die Hälfte Sömmerdas Einwohner. In den 1980er Jahren konzentrierte sich das Werk Sömmerda auf die Produktion von Personalcomputern. Es rückte in den Mittelpunkt der DDR-Führung, welche mit Mikroelektronik auf dem Weltmarkt punkten wollte. Das war aussichtslos; stattdessen baute man auf Anleitung beispielsweise Nadeldrucker oder PC´s die billig im Westen verscherbelt wurden. Nicht nur einmal wurde Ware wegen Fingerabdrücken zurückgesandt.

Als das Werk 1991 schloß, schoß die Arbeitslosigkeit im Landkreis Sömmerda über die 20% Marke. Aus dem Werk wurde ein Industriepark mit verschiedenen Ansiedlungen kleiner Unternehmen. Nur noch jeder Dreißigste aller vorigen Mitarbeiter stand hier in Lohn und Brot. Und die anderen? more

Gesichtserkennung durch Computer geschieht mittels eines recht überschaubaren Algorithmus. Jeder halbwegs fitte Programmierer bekommt das hin: Video-feed einbinden, eine externe Bibliothek reinladen, loslegen. Der Rest wird mittels einer strukturierten Datensprache (XML z.B.) gespeichert. Das Prinzip ist, ein menschliches Gesicht als Muster abzuspeichern und innerhalb der einzelnen Datenobjekte zu verfeinern. Für wirklich Interessierte, hier mal eine solche Datei.

Diese Technologie kann man fast als alt bezeichnen. Es wurde also höchste Zeit für die Politik, das auch mal auszuprobieren. Es ist Allgemeinwissen, daß solche Prozesse im öffentlichen Raum schon länger laufen bzw. schon länger in Planung sind.

Was bedeutet das für uns? Wir werden sehen.

Testen Sie’s hier live (Chrome Browser)

 

“The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home’, some were applauding the police,” she said. “Her daughter was crying.”

Es ging um die Welt. Sowas geht immer um die Welt: Wenn es um den Islam geht, den Terror oder um Frauen am Strand. Als drei Polizisten am Strand von Nizza eine Frau zwangen, ihre Kluft auszuziehen — insbesondere ein Kopftuch abzulegen, wurde man Zeuge eines neuen Tiefpunktes europäischer Kultur. Allein der Umstand, darüber berichten zu müssen grenzt an Absurdität. Die Tatsache, daß alle Menschen in einem Land wo man sich liberté auf die Fahnen geschrieben hat, polizeilich einer Anzugskontrolle unterziehen müssen, ist bestürzend.

A witness to the scene, Mathilde Cousin, confirmed the incident. “The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home’, some were applauding the police,” she said. “Her daughter was crying.” — The Guardian

Der Grund: Das allgemeine Verbot, Burkas zu tragen, oder alles, was der Vollverschleierung ähnlich kommt. Die Franzosen begründen dies mit der angespannten Stimmung in der Bevölkerung, die durch das Tragen solcher Kleidung nicht angeheizt werden solle. Die öffentliche Ordnung ist nun in Gefahr, wenn man sich vermummt, verschleiert oder einfach seinen Kopf bedeckt.

Folgen wir mal der Argumentation: Wenn es so ist, daß die öffentliche Stimmung im Zaum gehalten werden kann, indem man niemanden im eigenen Land an den Islam erinnert, die Leute gewissermaßen ablenkt — wo findet sich dann die Lösung des großen Problems der Religionsfeindlichkeit? Ist es so, daß die Politik meint, aus den Augen aus dem Sinn? Zu naiv. Ist es vielleicht zum Schutz der islamisch-Gläubigen? Unwahrscheinlich. Und müßig. Am Ende gilt nur eines: Die bestürzende Lächerlichkeit, die einem Angst macht, wozu wir inzwischen fähig sind. „Wir“ — das sind Einwohner eines alten Kontinents der sich seit Jahrzehnten seiner freiheitlichen Traditionen rühmt und das wahre Gesicht zeigt: Wir sind eben nicht anders als die Anderen.

This is not just a matter anymore for EU politicians but for every European citizen to remember that there is actually something which has been abstract and in Brussels for the past years. As a European people may now start to ask more concretely what the EU actually stands for. The UK may be hit the hardest; by exiting they will definitely teach the world, themselves included, what the union means.

– or: why I’ve despised the idea of Britain leaving and now I think it’s good.

The UK is leaving the European Union based on a referendum which was decided rather on irrational grounds. It will most probably not bear the fruits that the pro-brexit voters hope for and most of them – and all others too – don’t know what they’re in for. In fact, it is speculation until now and it will be for quite some time. However, speculation is one of the corner stones of our current economy. The whole stock market is based on irrational decisions and expectations, not to say on vague feelings on top of facts.
The same is valid for everyone voting in the British referendum: The ones who feared the exit and the ones who apparently loathed the European Union enough to say YES to the exit and maybe even ponder after. In this case it is the downside of direct democracy – and Aristoteles warned already to be wary of the reign of the mob. However, the „mob“ are all the people who may not have political insight (an issue one has to blame politics for) but live with their fears and everyday issues. What people address all around the globe is the issue that nobody seems to take care of their needs and demands.

It is pretty much comparable to someone who urges a doctor for treatment, without knowing what the treatment is but being able to vaguely express the symptoms. There is a story about asian doctors that get paid as long as their patients are happy, not when they’re sick. Projected upon politicians, it is their duty to prevent people from getting into dire situations at all.

In defence of politicians though it has to be said that Westerners are living on a non-sustainable standard and every inch of degradation of that creates outrage. And Westerners seem to have taken over a demanding mentality and therefore expect a service of politicians. They expect someone who can fix this. As people expect doctors to patch them up. The issue that a lot of illnesses start due to a wrong lifestyle and hence is caused by one self, does not come to mind.

Enough comparing doctors and politicians.  We know how the world ticks nowadays and that politicians do not seem to be able to cope with an ongoing lobbyism. Especially European processes are slow and distant from EU citizens while the turnaround on the markets as such is very high — as are the downsides of it. People are exposed more to economic decisions than to political ones. Who can feel the power of a government anymore?

The UK was a nagger to the European members – no doubt about that. The Britains always had a distinctive approach to things which was not just to keep the British pound but demanding more power for the house of commons to block EU legislation at their liking, limiting the
It was good for the EU when the UK was there. And the UK should have stayed. That’s what I believed until today, after the decision was made. But reflecting upon the past when the UK was all-in, one has to ask what they actually achieved in changing the EU as the lobby-ridden, slow moving apparatus. The exit is a tough result for all of the European countries – and probably the world. But it is definitely a chance for Europe because it has to redefine what the European Union actually is.

This is not just a matter anymore for EU politicians but for every European citizen to remember that there is actually something which has been abstract and in Brussels for the past years. As a European people may now start to ask more concretely what the EU actually stands for. The UK may be hit the hardest; by exiting they will definitely teach the world, themselves included, what the union means.

The Brexit may be doomed as a silly act of a direct democracy. The situation the world is in, tightened in the grip of economic greed and debt, demands more than discussions. It demands actions, how silly the reasoning might be. But the sorrows of the people which cannot address a certain threat (neo-liberalism as such) at least release their anger and shape a reality afar from lobby-influenced politics. Simply put: If the UK would have stayed in the EU, the outcome would not have been better either. Sadly it has to be said that no change seems worse that any.

Ironic though that the UK was the birthplace of the neoliberal idea that I see as the underlaying foundation of the European problems which has made them turn their back on liberalism in a certain way.

Flüchtlinge fressen

Die Reaktion des Innenministeriums (s. Google) auf das Kunstprojekt ist der Grund, warum die Leute AfD wählen.

„In these cases specialists use False Evidence Appearing Real as a definition. Being scared makes people to anticipate and aggravate of what may lie ahead rather than plan and evaluate. E.g. Continuation of scholarly education, most educators perceive this as a risk that may cause them fear and stress[10] and they would rather teach things they’ve been taught than go and do research. „

He most probably won’t, but everyone who ever heard of Donald Trump may have had thought about what happens if Trump gets elected president. Maybe even a few of his supporters. This article asks the “what if” question and scratches along some issues that made the rise of Trump-superstar even possible.
Concluding from Trumps behaviour and his claims, which seem to follow no reasoning but his own mood, it seems unpredictable what Trump will do next. However, a picture can be drawn of a future where Trump is American president from this very unpredictability if we apply the paradigms of modern capitalism. These may be arguable but for an outlook on things they shall serve as basic premises of political mechanics on a global scale.
There are some commonly known paradigms about the modern world. For once, if you cannot put a price tag on something, it´s of no value. That includes humans, art as such and education to some degree. Another fact is that democracy is a facade, if not a show. For the latter, America is a role model not just in putting up electoral shows but abusing „democracy“ for imperialistic causes.
Values are attached to interests, hence they diverge from any socio-economic view. There is corporate interest in a economic manner; there is corporate interest in a social manner; there is individual interest – the hardest one to determine, especially with Donald Trump. All of them exist and interfere, creating an entwined pattern that constantly changes its shape. However, it seems that economic corporate interest is currently dictating life, enabling billionaires to even get considered by voters for a political role in a democracy. This fact points to the core of the (democratic) issue: that people support candidates but do not make candidates. The USA are a pioneering nation in putting up the right show for the election of presidential candidates where the voter’s support is just that: support, not election.
Why would that be?

Americas role in the world.

The USA have a well documented record of global economic dominance. Like any country in the world it fights an ongoing battle to secure resources. Unlike other countries however the USA are leading by exporting „values“ transported by its media industry and by securing interests by means of conflict and interfering with foreign governments to have them acting in favour of the western world.

The core of the issue is that the United States on one hand proclaim to be an independent nation that is based on democratic values and checks and balances but seemingly behaving as it is not guided by these. Poking around in internal affairs of a nation seems afetal unless the nation’s state is affecting foreign policies – which it does especially with the USA. The plain fact that many people outside the US know the name Trump as well as the election dates for American presidency indicates that internal affairs of the US are a concern to the rest of the world. Quick question: when is the next election for your national government?

Frankly, the US is the modern example of blending economic values with political ones. Especially the political term freedom seems to be overloaded with freedom of trade and economic liberty, hence there is the term neoliberalism. One could say, the democratic term „freedom“ has been replaced with its economic counterfeit, leading to decay of its meaning in a social context.
Things are of value if it can be determined economically. Humans, treated in a sense of human capital, are valued in this very context as valuable only if they can contribute to profit maximisation. Josef Marquard Wintrich once left a statement that became a mantra for law students in Germany: That an individual human is not to be degraded to a simple means, an object. It is a practical extract of Immanuel Kants philosophy prohibiting instrumentalisation of a human being.

Using people as cheap labour within the borders of a nation our outside, keeping them just below the existential minimum to survive (to function worker) is one fact that need scrutinising under the aspect of instrumentalisation. Leaving people in dire straits after a military invasion into their country is not just simple neglect but a means of weakening resistance to own enterprises on their land. Iraq, 1991 and after. The same goes for influencing, en- or dethroning foreign governments, ignoring democratic structures – before and after the process. Iran, 1953. The list is long and it is not to blame the USA as a nation; the land of opportunity has just nurtured a devastating corporate attitude that has gone global.

Trumps behaviour is a welcome change

Back to Trump: initially, his behaviour is erratic and it seems a big anti-pattern to current politics. The latter may be the reason why people see a change and a chance in it. „Make America great again“ is a sentence where its meaning can be dissected over a thousand pages. However, people need concise answers to their problems – which may seem addressed by Trump just by being „authentic“. This very “authenticity“ of Trump as one who speaks his mind and transports a feeling of „we can do“ – in a different way Obama did – seems like a welcome change for people tired of a wrongly understood political correctness.
This political correctness is meant in a wider meaning than just on American uni campuses with mixed student groups; in fact, I suspect it to be a motor of racism and nationalism as such people feel suppressed by PC. A suppression, subjectively perceived as such. There was a day when gaps in social life began to open by the closure of socially critical facilities such as public pools or public libraries (this is a claim by the author, as numbers are very hard to find, but Europe is a bright example of this currently happening). These gaps raise concern, anger with people. There’s a feeling creeping in that contains the conviction that the government either does not care or is helpless against an unleashed neoliberalism that demands competitiveness before anything else. Political correctness is a patch on these gaps that tries to render common sense obsolete.

There we go. Trump stands against these “gaps” – he speaks out. Political correctness as a patch gets ripped off the social issues but a bandage of nonsense is used to cover it up under some national pride. A pride that ties people together to solve their own problems. A pride with flaws, without brain; like a struggling animal that is in a blind rush to leave the trap it’s caught in.

A phenomena of the current capitalist system is that it lures with promises of wealth and leaves a void on the other side of it. As people search for meaning in their life, or at least guidance, the only guidance this system gives is consumerism. It has no other answer for the ever-growing group of people who do not succeed in this game. Trump acts as if he has an answer to everything – and if not, he blames the problem just for being their, shooting it. It must feel like a big relief when (verbally) shooting problems make them go away. Trump may incorporate a dream of a leader that people request once they run out of options with their current environment.

The American environment dictates: Without hard work no achievement; without the risk no reward; without a job no quality of living; without elbows no success. The latter is true as a fact but only within the current reality that is based on a questionable paradigm of growth. We talking about a subtle fear – not to be underestimated as its outlook is existentially devastation. An outlook that needs to be questioned too. Will you really suffer more when you are without a job? How far would you go to earn money? Would you work 200 hours for 35US$ in pursuit of the dream or the fear of starving?

Behavioural psychology has well documented that anxiety of loss is outweighing the driving force of emotions of pleasant experiences. Anxiety gets neurologically amplified by their „negative bias“ and remains longer as a pattern in our brains than others. Frankly, fear is the best motivation. It is about us westerners who cope with their own problems, sorrows and fears. The fear of losing our relative wealth for once. While it is estimated that the average Trump-voter has an annual income around $72.000 it does not affect the fact that fear of a degrading life standard is real. As real as the typical bliss ignorance of a western citizen. For instance, only one out of ten Americans can roughly identify the role of Edward Snowden.

Donald Trumps attitude seems fearless as he acts and speaks. The substance of his opinions falls way behind the way he is claiming them. It is an attitude found by scared people that push forward with a battlecry.

Trump as uncontrollable element? Who or what controls a(n American) politician?

In theory, a politician as a person is only controlled by his conscience. In praxis it is interest: Personal interest and corporate interest in its widest sense. Independently of the content of these interests, certain policies are beneficiary to certain people and groups. In a democracy, a basic principle is to benefit the majority of people. In this regard an answer to the question „who is controlled by whom“ would not be fruitful — people know that there’s an imbalance in the checks and balances. In fact the question needs to be: „Does modern democracy cater for the majority of people?“
It seems not. It seems that there is a major interest – not only in the USA – that is shared widely amongst political minds but not shared within the majority of people. This discrepancy points to a problem that appears when the mix of political parties and interests does not reflect the same in a cross section of community. And this is the main pillar of democracy: To mirror the dynamic shape of its citizens.

Lobbyism is neither new nor bad as such. But when it starts to bias the political landscape to diverge from the will of the people, it becomes a corrupting element that needs to be contained.

Is Trump someone who contains? He apparently isn’t capable to contain thoughts that should not leave his mouth. Not to say it is not politically correct, but it is not well-thought through. If Trump is against muslims is his right to be but to claim it, he has to support it with reasonable arguments. He cannot support anything with reason which would render his politics simply chaotic.

Would chaos be good for the USA?

Let’s identify the „USA“ again. It is a nation with liberal democratic foundations. It is not a corporate entity like a company that wants to make profit. So chaos is not good for the USA. Internally. However, foreign politics speak – and will speak, with either Trump or Clinton, another language. There is another war lurking around the corner. It will be resources – and ideally connected with some villain territory. A territory that used the be a country of civilians until they got corrupted by western influence. Which are CIA acts such as the Mossadegh Coup in Iran 1953 or the rise and fall of Iraq from 1991 onwards. It all resulted in desolation – in chaos – for the population in these countries. Apparently the current NATO partners to the USA positioning for another proxy war by surrounding Russia. It may be sabre-rattling to distract of the upcoming strike agains Iran which Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly predicted just last week.

The USA gave good examples in the past to enact political decisions based on general fear: The stale cold war made the American weapon industry billions of dollars; the slightest attitude towards social politics was trampled down by labeling such thoughts „communist“ – the worst thing an American citizen could become.
When the iron curtain got lifted, there was no more money in weapons and no support by the American population could have been expected. The industry needed another justification to build guns and shells.
That’s when Saddam Hussein became bad guy number one. And there were two wars on Iraq’s soil fired by the fear of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a proclaimed mad man (which were never found) and the justified by the message to bring democracy, freedom and stability to the people.
Once Saddam was executed, the Twin Towers in New York fell with a bang that gripped the world in an instant. The „either with us or against us“ doctrine was introduced with the patriot act. Permanent fear of Americans to become victim of a terror attack on their own soil, lead nationalism to the rise. Any bomb produced to fight the scum that dared attacking the „free world“ was democratically justified. That was at least the message transported; no American citizen were shown dancing on the streets.
Then Al Quaida had its head chopped off. A new threat was needed and found in the IS – a child born of the American and European warfare in Iraq leaving a devastated country where more than half a million children died due to an embargo mainly controlled by the UK. While items like pencils were forbidden to be introduced into Iraq (reasoning of the British: they could be used for military purposes), people needed to make a living in a destructuralized, devastated country. The only infrastructure that has been safeguarded and nurtured were the oil rigs and their agency buildings. No soldiers around schools, museums, libraries or hospitals.
Asked whether the dead of thousands of children and citizens in Iraq was worth a price paying for oil, the US foreign minister Madeleine Albright stated: „we think the price is worth it.“ That said, who would not look differently at a bereft, angry Iraqi father burning an American flag publicly?

Why terrorism isn´t good business anymore.

Terrorism, as the western world would define it, is a thawb-wearing, bearded man with an AKA 47. This seems such a naive picture by writing or reading it that the matter of fact is saddening: It is the picture the western world got fed as people got fed propaganda times before. Out of personal experience, one friend did not shave his black beard before flying and got „mildly harassed“ in Australia, another friend got held and searched at a German airport because of his dreadlocks. The fact that racism can be activated in an instant may be connected with the simple and narrow focus of humans to phenomena. It is easy to distinct people by skin colour or the way they wear clothes or hair. But to answer the question whether every bald guy is a skinhead it takes more engagement with the matter. Time, people do not think they have nowadays anymore as time is money. Time that Donald Trump doesn’t take because it is all about emotions, on whatever grounds they are build up.

The war against terror was already a blatant charade agains Saddam Hussein. If any, he terrorised his own people. This problem did not get solved by the allies – on the contrary: It got deepened and allowed the IS to grow. While they are a threat to the people in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, they are not to the US Americans. At least not, if we put the 13000 Americans killed every year by American guns in contrast to killed people in terror attacks (more than twice the number of the 9/11 attacks victims). While it is not about number-crunching but the fear of imminent attacks it is a reality in the middle-east and a political instrument in the west.

This is taken straight from Wikipedia:

In a 2005 Gallup poll (U.S.), a national sample of adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 were asked what they feared the most. The question was open-ended and participants were able to say whatever they wanted. The top ten fears were, in order: terrorist attacks, spiders, death, being a failure, war, criminal or gang violence, being alone, the future, and nuclear war.[4]
That’s a lot of buzzwords to contemplate a political strategy upon. But it has changed three years later:

In an estimate of what people fear the most, book author Bill Tancer analyzed the most frequent online queries that involved the phrase, „fear of…“ following the assumption that people tend to seek information on the issues that concern them the most. His top ten list of fears published 2008 consisted of flying, heights, clowns, intimacy, death, rejection, people, snakes, failure, and driving.[5]
What happened to the number one fear, terrorism? Is this what happens when there are no terrorist attacks on American soil for more than 15 years? What if people arranged themselves with the fear of terrorism but don’t fear it anymore? As ISIS, for instance, has no current face that can be used to depict a constant threat, there may be something bigger needed. Something institutionalised, involving a better definable, more powerful force that stands for the “bad” and “evil” in the American world.

Donald Trump is a fine example of a fear-monger and a motivational coach. He could be a motivator for Americans to make the war industry great again.

„In these cases specialists use False Evidence Appearing Real as a definition. Being scared makes people to anticipate and aggravate of what may lie ahead rather than plan and evaluate. E.g. Continuation of scholarly education, most educators perceive this as a risk that may cause them fear and stress[10] and they would rather teach things they’ve been taught than go and do research. “
It is not the fear of a terrorist attack so much but the fear of change that is imminent in us. Change brings unknown circumstances. Therefore the fear is irrational and can be fired with irrational arguments. Who is fitter than Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? She will use the „false evidence appearing real“ as well but based on (not necessarily true) facts that fit in a frame of reasoning. A reasoning the society of American people may be tired of as it is worn and more conservative as the actual Republican Trump. The American election, a tough choice.

A motivation coach in patriotism and false-evidence-salesman can be beneficial for some industries at least. Trump could be beneficial for an ignorant American mind by distracting from some harsh realities too. Clinton covers another clientele. The ones that still believe in promises of the intertwined capitalist-democratic agenda. The current elections worldwide seem like a reality-check where people stand in a decaying system.