{"id":107349,"date":"2014-02-04T07:52:00","date_gmt":"2014-02-04T07:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?guid=235b154c6d5829b6383077a1d6e64a0d"},"modified":"2014-02-04T07:52:00","modified_gmt":"2014-02-04T07:52:00","slug":"militarism-in-germany","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/militarism-in-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Militarism in Germany"},"content":{"rendered":"
Militarism in Germany<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
by Stephen Lendman<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A previous article discussed WW I’s 100th anniversary. On July 29, 1914, it began. It was called the war to end all wars.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
WW II followed. German involvement was central in both wars. In 1945, Hitler’s Wehrmacht was disbanded. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It ravaged and destroyed much of Europe. It killed millions of people. Most Germans wanted never again. They renounced militarism.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A new Bundeswehr was established. It was constitutionally restricted to defense. Conscripts were called “citizens in uniform.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the same time, West Germany joined NATO. It did so in May 1955. In October 1990, membership included the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
NATO is a killing machine. It’s a US-led imperial tool. It threatens world peace. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany bears its share of responsibility. Especially after reunification. In November 2010, a new combat medal was established.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the time, the Frankfurter Rundschau said:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“For a long time we have heard very little about the citizen in uniform, but increasingly about combatants for German interests around the world.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“And good combat soldiers need not only proper equipment, but also recognition.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Months after German reunification, Bundeswehr policy objectives changed. They went beyond defense.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They include the “promotion and protection of worldwide political, economic, military and ecological stability.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They involve “maintain(ing) free world trade and access to strategic raw materials.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In 1998, Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party\/Green Party coalition government approved combat in Yugoslavia. It was lawless aggression.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It was Germany’s first involvement since WW II. It wasn’t the last.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany is an active NATO member. Thousands of Bundeswehr soldiers served with US ones in Afghanistan. They did so for over a decade.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In October 2013, Der Spiegel<\/span><\/a> discussed how “Afghanistan changed the German military.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It arrived over a decade ago. Allegedly as peacekeepers. In October 2013, Germany ceremonially handed over its Kunduz military base to Afghan security forces.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then German Defense Minister Thomas d Maiziere said: “Here we built and fought, cried and consoled, killed and died.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle added: “We are not turning our backs on the people of Afghanistan.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Neither minister acknowledged Germany’s role in ravaging and destroying a long-suffering country.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In more than ever turning it into a wasteland. In sustaining conflict without end. In causing mass slaughter, destruction, and horrific human suffering. In destroying an entire generation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Afghanistan transformed Germany for the worst. Its Bundeswehr is an offensive fighting force. It partners in NATO aggression.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Retired General Harald Kujat\/former Bundeswehr chief of staff acknowledged it, saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Afghanistan has been the most important experience for the German armed forces.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“It was the first time since World War II that the German military was involved in real combat action.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Its experience made it a “real fighting force.” Patrick Keller is a German foreign policy\/security analyst.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“It’s not too far fetched that we will have to be prepared to act” in future Middle East, North African, central and eastern European conflicts, he argued.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Germany increasingly shoulder(s) more responsibility,” he added. Militant Bundestag members want greater German assertiveness.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German parliamentarian Roderich Kiesewetter wants increased German leadership – “to take over responsibility where others are not willing to,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German militarism is small compared to America’s. Its budget is a small fraction of Washington’s. It’s less than what Britain, France, Japan and Saudi Arabia spend.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Its militarism assures it’s only a matter of time until it’s increased. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. It wields enormous political influence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Hardline German officials stress the close connection between security and economic interests. German militarism reflects it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So does Chancellor Angela Merkel. She wants Germany’s NATO role increased. She wants it more involved in “shap(ing) the global order.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
She’s a reliable US imperial partner. On January 28, Der Spiegel <\/span><\/a>headlined “Germany Weighs Stronger Military Role,” saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen want Germany to assume a greater role in world affairs, including military missions abroad.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Both ministers believe an economic powerhouse like Germany can’t stay on the sidelines.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Policy changes are happening. Germany plans greater involvement in France’s Mali operation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It’s “considering providing military aircraft for transport and medical evacuation in the Central African Republic,” said Der Spiegel.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Greater military assertiveness is replacing earlier restraint. Steinmeier wants Germany “ready to engage in foreign and security policy issues earlier, more decisively, and more substantially.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
An unnamed Foreign Ministry official said Germany can’t stay uninvolved.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Merkel is rhetorically noncommittal. An unnamed Chancellery official claims “no fundamental change regarding foreign missions.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
How far she’ll go remains to be seen. Germans are “skeptical.” They’re leery about “engaging in combat missions,” said Der Spiegel. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Most oppose greater involvement. Nearly half of Germans think the Bundeswehr is too engaged abroad.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the same time, Merkel won’t leave French foreign operations “left alone.” Or America’s.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Defense Minister von der Leyen wants Germany involved in a “joint European defense policy worthy of the name.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
She wants Germany involved in “current crises and conflicts\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00a6To sit and wait is not an option,” she said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“If we have means, we have capabilities. We have the obligation and, we have the responsibility to engage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Rhetorically, Merkel is largely ambiguous. Officially she’s supportive.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German President Joachim Gauck’s just concluded Munich Security Conference comments reflects it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called for greater German assertiveness. “Germany can’t carry on as before,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Dramatic” new “open world order threats” require more frequent and decisive German responses, he added.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In other words, he argued for stepped up militarism. He wants Germany involved globally.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Are we doing what we can to stabilize our neighborhood, both in the East and in Africa,” he asked?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Are we doing what we have to in order to counter the (non-existent) threat of terrorism?”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“And, in cases where we have found convincing reasons to join our allies in taking military action, are we willing to bear our fair share of the risks?”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In cases of military intervention, “Germany should not say no on principle.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Gauck, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and Defense Minister von der Leyen share likeminded sentiment. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany has a disturbing pre-WW II history of militarism. Millions of Germans died in both wars.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Older Germans remember. They want never again. Younger ones never experienced the horrors of war. Everyone everywhere is vulnerable today.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Einstein explained saying: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Waging global war is unthinkable. Today’s super-weapons can extinguish life worldwide. Imagine mushroom-shaped cloud denouement.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Helen Caldicott said enough nuclear explosions <\/span>“would create nuclear winter, with the US covered with a cloud so thick that it would block out the sun for years, and that would be the end.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Nobel laureate George Wald (1906 – 1997) said “there’s no such thing as safe nuclear power.” He called dying from it “so ghastly ignoble as to be, I think, intolerable, altogether unacceptable.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He deplored nuclear weapons. He denounced them. He wanted them eliminated. “Our business is life, not death,” he said. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called for “closing down all nuclear power plants tomorrow.”<\/div>\n
He made Richard Nixon’s enemies list. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called political leaders of his time “insane.” He called the Vietnam War one of “the most shameful episodes in the whole of American history.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Imagine what he’d say today. Admiral Hyman Rickover founded America’s nuclear navy. In 1982, he told Congress:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships?” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
That’s why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits – attempts to limit war have always failed.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapons it has available.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”  <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Potential disaster awaits humanity. Deranged leaders risk the unthinkable. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Imagine waging war risking extinction. We have a choice. End them or they’ll end us. There’s no in between. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
http:\/\/www.claritypress.com\/LendmanII.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.progressiveradionetwork.com\/the-progressive-news-hour<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Militarism in Germany<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
by Stephen Lendman<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A previous article discussed WW I’s 100th anniversary. On July 29, 1914, it began. It was called the war to end all wars.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
WW II followed. German involvement was central in both wars. In 1945, Hitler’s Wehrmacht was disbanded. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It ravaged and destroyed much of Europe. It killed millions of people. Most Germans wanted never again. They renounced militarism.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A new Bundeswehr was established. It was constitutionally restricted to defense. Conscripts were called “citizens in uniform.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the same time, West Germany joined NATO. It did so in May 1955. In October 1990, membership included the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
NATO is a killing machine. It’s a US-led imperial tool. It threatens world peace. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany bears its share of responsibility. Especially after reunification. In November 2010, a new combat medal was established.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the time, the Frankfurter Rundschau said:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“For a long time we have heard very little about the citizen in uniform, but increasingly about combatants for German interests around the world.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“And good combat soldiers need not only proper equipment, but also recognition.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Months after German reunification, Bundeswehr policy objectives changed. They went beyond defense.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They include the “promotion and protection of worldwide political, economic, military and ecological stability.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They involve “maintain(ing) free world trade and access to strategic raw materials.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In 1998, Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party\/Green Party coalition government approved combat in Yugoslavia. It was lawless aggression.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It was Germany’s first involvement since WW II. It wasn’t the last.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany is an active NATO member. Thousands of Bundeswehr soldiers served with US ones in Afghanistan. They did so for over a decade.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In October 2013, Der Spiegel<\/span><\/a> discussed how “Afghanistan changed the German military.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It arrived over a decade ago. Allegedly as peacekeepers. In October 2013, Germany ceremonially handed over its Kunduz military base to Afghan security forces.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then German Defense Minister Thomas d Maiziere said: “Here we built and fought, cried and consoled, killed and died.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle added: “We are not turning our backs on the people of Afghanistan.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Neither minister acknowledged Germany’s role in ravaging and destroying a long-suffering country.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In more than ever turning it into a wasteland. In sustaining conflict without end. In causing mass slaughter, destruction, and horrific human suffering. In destroying an entire generation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Afghanistan transformed Germany for the worst. Its Bundeswehr is an offensive fighting force. It partners in NATO aggression.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Retired General Harald Kujat\/former Bundeswehr chief of staff acknowledged it, saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Afghanistan has been the most important experience for the German armed forces.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“It was the first time since World War II that the German military was involved in real combat action.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Its experience made it a “real fighting force.” Patrick Keller is a German foreign policy\/security analyst.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“It’s not too far fetched that we will have to be prepared to act” in future Middle East, North African, central and eastern European conflicts, he argued.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Germany increasingly shoulder(s) more responsibility,” he added. Militant Bundestag members want greater German assertiveness.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German parliamentarian Roderich Kiesewetter wants increased German leadership – “to take over responsibility where others are not willing to,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German militarism is small compared to America’s. Its budget is a small fraction of Washington’s. It’s less than what Britain, France, Japan and Saudi Arabia spend.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Its militarism assures it’s only a matter of time until it’s increased. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. It wields enormous political influence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Hardline German officials stress the close connection between security and economic interests. German militarism reflects it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So does Chancellor Angela Merkel. She wants Germany’s NATO role increased. She wants it more involved in “shap(ing) the global order.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
She’s a reliable US imperial partner. On January 28, Der Spiegel <\/span><\/a>headlined “Germany Weighs Stronger Military Role,” saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen want Germany to assume a greater role in world affairs, including military missions abroad.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Both ministers believe an economic powerhouse like Germany can’t stay on the sidelines.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Policy changes are happening. Germany plans greater involvement in France’s Mali operation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It’s “considering providing military aircraft for transport and medical evacuation in the Central African Republic,” said Der Spiegel.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Greater military assertiveness is replacing earlier restraint. Steinmeier wants Germany “ready to engage in foreign and security policy issues earlier, more decisively, and more substantially.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
An unnamed Foreign Ministry official said Germany can’t stay uninvolved.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Merkel is rhetorically noncommittal. An unnamed Chancellery official claims “no fundamental change regarding foreign missions.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
How far she’ll go remains to be seen. Germans are “skeptical.” They’re leery about “engaging in combat missions,” said Der Spiegel. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Most oppose greater involvement. Nearly half of Germans think the Bundeswehr is too engaged abroad.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the same time, Merkel won’t leave French foreign operations “left alone.” Or America’s.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Defense Minister von der Leyen wants Germany involved in a “joint European defense policy worthy of the name.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
She wants Germany involved in “current crises and conflicts…To sit and wait is not an option,” she said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“If we have means, we have capabilities. We have the obligation and, we have the responsibility to engage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Rhetorically, Merkel is largely ambiguous. Officially she’s supportive.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
German President Joachim Gauck’s just concluded Munich Security Conference comments reflects it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called for greater German assertiveness. “Germany can’t carry on as before,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Dramatic” new “open world order threats” require more frequent and decisive German responses, he added.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In other words, he argued for stepped up militarism. He wants Germany involved globally.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Are we doing what we can to stabilize our neighborhood, both in the East and in Africa,” he asked?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Are we doing what we have to in order to counter the (non-existent) threat of terrorism?”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“And, in cases where we have found convincing reasons to join our allies in taking military action, are we willing to bear our fair share of the risks?”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In cases of military intervention, “Germany should not say no on principle.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Gauck, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and Defense Minister von der Leyen share likeminded sentiment. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Germany has a disturbing pre-WW II history of militarism. Millions of Germans died in both wars.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Older Germans remember. They want never again. Younger ones never experienced the horrors of war. Everyone everywhere is vulnerable today.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Einstein explained saying: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Waging global war is unthinkable. Today’s super-weapons can extinguish life worldwide. Imagine mushroom-shaped cloud denouement.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Helen Caldicott said enough nuclear explosions <\/span>“would create nuclear winter, with the US covered with a cloud so thick that it would block out the sun for years, and that would be the end.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Nobel laureate George Wald (1906 – 1997) said “there’s no such thing as safe nuclear power.” He called dying from it “so ghastly ignoble as to be, I think, intolerable, altogether unacceptable.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He deplored nuclear weapons. He denounced them. He wanted them eliminated. “Our business is life, not death,” he said. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called for “closing down all nuclear power plants tomorrow.”<\/div>\n
He made Richard Nixon’s enemies list. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He called political leaders of his time “insane.” He called the Vietnam War one of “the most shameful episodes in the whole of American history.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Imagine what he’d say today. Admiral Hyman Rickover founded America’s nuclear navy. In 1982, he told Congress:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships?” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
That’s why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits – attempts to limit war have always failed.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapons it has available.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”  <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Potential disaster awaits humanity. Deranged leaders risk the unthinkable. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Imagine waging war risking extinction. We have a choice. End them or they’ll end us. There’s no in between. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
http:\/\/www.claritypress.com\/LendmanII.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.progressiveradionetwork.com\/the-progressive-news-hour<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1217,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-107349","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorials"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1217"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}