Ukraine under dissolution on the order of US-EU and instrument is the rise of the fascist extreme right
by Dimitris Kazakis
If you want to know who in all ways are strengthening the rise of fascism and nazi extremism in Europe, you do not need do anything else but to look at what is happening right now in Ukraine. Both the U.S. and Germany has under Europe’s cover story beautifully financed the resurrection of the 14.e Waffen SS division in Ukraine, which had been formed by Nazi Ukrainian nationalists during the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union.
This horde of barbarians who stayed in the historical chronicles of the 2nd world war with the name Ukrainian SS, participated in mass cleansing of civilians, hundreds of villages was burnt as Distomo in Greece but first and foremost in Ukraine itself, but also in Belarus. The ferocity with which acted in many cases surpassed their comrades from Germany.
This is why their actions was rightly condemned not only by the Red Army and the partisans who were operating behind the lines of Hitler, but also by the western allies. Anyone arrested with insignias of this unit was sent directly to court martial and faced the firing squad for heinous crimes against civilians. *Many of their insignia have clear Swedish roots and Swedish ultra-right and neo-Nazis openly demonstrate their support for the Ukrainian Nazis (This article highlights the truth about who financially, organisationally and logistically also supports the Swedish and the European new-Nazis and right-wing extremism).
The history of today’s confrontation
This horde was not the only one. The Ukrainian Galicia’s main city Lvov was historically the eastern region of the kingdom of Galicia, which until the first world war was attached to the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had annexed Galicia during the division of the kingdom of Poland in the 18th century. But because the region of Galicia status of exploitation and oppression was relatively mild compared with the Tsarist regime, many Poles along with other ethnic and religious minorities relocated in order to escape from the Tsarist pogroms that took place on a regular basis.
The House of Habsburg of Austria allowed this relocation to the attached Galicia so the area became a great mix of different populations in terms of religion, ethnicity, language, and so on. Polish nationalists claimed Galicia for their account. And because the Austrians wanted to counterbalance their activity they strengthened in every way the Ukrainian nationalism as a rival. A Ukrainian nationalism with a strong German reference. Very quickly Galicia became the field of confrontation of the Polish and the Ukrainian nationalism with populations experiencing ethnic cleansing for the rival camps to achieve “purity” in their own ethnic standards.
On June 23, 1917 Ukraine is established as a part of the original Russian Republic, where a few months ago, in February, the Russian people had overthrown the Tsar. After the overthrow of the Provisional Government in Petrograd by the Bolsheviks on November 7 (October 25 on the Julian calendar), 1917 and the passage of all power to the soviets, a Bill of Rights of the Peoples of Russia is published the 15 (2) November of the same year, which recognized “the right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, to the point of secession and the creation of an independent state.” Few days later, ie on 20 (7) November, the Ukrainian Central Rada based in Kiev proclaimed the Ukrainian Democratic Republic.
Ukraine is established as an independent state
22 (9) January 1918 the Ukrainian Central Rada published the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine on the basis of which the People’s Republic of Ukraine was formed with socialist references and imperatives, but is directly hostile to the Bolsheviks. With the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed between mainly Germany and Soviet-Russia on March 3, 1918, Ukraine came under the control of the German Empire. For the first time in order to help the most extreme nationalist elements in Ukraine, Germany presses Austria to leave eastern Galiciain the control of Ukrainian nationalists.
With the direct help of the Germans and Austrians on 24-26 April 1918, the Cossack ataman Paul Skoropantski overturns the Central Rada and impose a brutal dictatorship. The gallows and executions are put on the daily agenda. All the old privileges of the aristocracy are restored. Paramilitary groups are threatening to burn the villages who are resisting and they spread terror on the population. With the capitulation of Germany and Austria, the Skoropantski regime is overturned in December 1918.
The People’s Republic of Ukraine is re-established a new Central Rada where Simon Petliura prevailed, who found the opportunity to demand with the support of the French who disembarked in Odessa in November 1918 to occupy the vacuum left by the capitulation of the Germans.
The Ukrainian Rada participate in the 19 countries invasive war against Soviet Russia, run by the Entente. But repeated defeats and the growing popular discontent, are leading the Rada – at the suggestion of France and England – to form an alliance with Poland’s dictator Pildouski in April 1920 to continue the war against Soviet Russia.
On March 18, 1921 the peace treaty of Riga was signed between Poland and Soviet Russia under which Galicia, which was passed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to the ownership of Ukraine, is attached to the first. From then until the second world war the Poles implemented savage ethnic cleansing operations against the local population who refused to consider themselves Polish, as well as against anyone who opposed the partition of the region into latifundia in favor of Polish aristocrats.
The emergence of Ukrainian Nazis nationalists
In 1929 reportedly in Ukrainian Galicia the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), weas founded and was composed mainly of followers of individual terrorism and paramilitary action. Their ideology ranged from an extreme nationalist racial perception of Ukrainian blood purity, to openly Fascist and Nazi beliefs. Until the beginning of the Nazis invasion against the USSR on June 22, 1941, this organization has focused in pogroms against the Poles, Russians, Jews and generally against anyone without ”pure” Ukrainian blood on one hand and, on individual acts of terrorism against the Polish establishment on the other hand.
In the preparations of the Nazi aggression against Poland, but also during the OUN helped especially by acts of sabotage and assassination attempts. This has built excellent relations between Ukrainian nationalists and German Nazis. Indeed, the latter to ensure their cooperation, had promised to handover the rule throughout Galicia which was under Polish occupation. Something that didn’t happen since the treaty Riebentrof-Molotov came between in September 1939 on the basis that Nazi Germany recognized the domination of the USSR in Galician that was annexed by Poland from Ukraine in 1921.
However, the OUN’s cooperation with the Nazis didn’t stop. Instead it was intensified and used by the Nazis as a fifth collon against the Soviets in the territory of western Ukraine. And therefore unsurprisingly with the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the OUN found the opportunity to announce on 30 June 1941 the Ukrainian state established in Lviv, the capital of the Ukrainian Galicia and led by Stjepan Banderas.
This Act of Declaration mentions among other things the following: “The newly established Ukrainian state will work closely with the great National Socialist Germany, led by the leader Adolf Hitler who is forming a new order in Europe and the world and help the Ukrainian people to be relieved from Moscows occupation. The Ukrainian People’s Revolutionary Army, who has established themselves on Ukrainian land, will continue to fight alongside the allied German Army against the Moscow occupation for a sovereign and united state, as for a new world order.”
Although the new Ukrainian state was pure Nazistic, Nazi Germans had other plans for Ukraine. They saw it as the breadbasket of the German 3rd Reich flooded by German settlers. And therefore they did not recognize the fledgling state only when it was too late for them in 1944 when they where under wild retreat from the Red Army. Nevertheless the OUN functioned as the political cradle of the Ukrainian SS and helped greatly with recruitment by the Nazi Germans regular and irregular portions of volunteers who fought alongside them and distinguished themselves as few SS-units of atrocities against the people of Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Austria.
The remains of these units after they were renamed to 1:st division of the Ukrainian National Army they surrendered to Anglo-Americans on May 10, 1945. Americans smuggled both Ukrainian Nazis, but also German Nazi officers of the division and made sure to dispense the countless war crimes mainly committed against civilians in the areas they acted. In this way, they resurrected the old OUN and used it as a means of recruiting and training agent provocateurs often sent for sabotage and subversive activity in Soviet Ukraine.
Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR
When the USSR was dissolved and Ukraine passed into the hands of the former party oligarchy that over a night turned into “democrats” they turned the country into their own private plot. And as happened everywhere in the former existing socialism, the former party members cooperated with the old dissidents agents of the West in order to plunder as much as possible from the countries that inherited the mercy of party autocracy. This happened in Ukraine, which in 1993 entered the orbit of the IMF to completely collapse the social cohesion of the country and the crash the economy.
Architect of Destruction Viktor Yushchenko, the first governor of the independent by Western standards newly created central bank of Ukraine. Yushchenko as head of the Central Bank was responsible for the deregulation of the national currency in the context of the “shock therapy” imposed by the IMF in October 1994.
In November 1994, the World Bank sent negotiators to consider the reform of the agriculture of Ukraine. With the liberalization of trade (which was a part of the financial package from the IMF), the surplus grain from the U.S. and the “food aid” functioned as dumping of the domestic market, contributing to the destabilization of one of the largest and most productive economies in the world in wheat (eg comparable with Midwestern U.S. states).
Until 1998, the liberalization of the grain market resulted in a reduction of production of grain by 45% compared to the level of 1986-1990. The collapse of livestock production of poultry and dairy products were even more dramatic.
The cumulative decline in GDP as a result of the financial package and the “structural reforms,” by the IMF was over 60% in the period 1992-1995. This temporary sacrifices was necessary for Ukraine to acquire a bright future, the IMF staff said over and over again. While the failure of the “economic package” the blamed, where else, on the corrupt political leaders of Ukraine.
In 1999, after heavy pressure from Washington, the central bank governor Yushchenko was appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine. Following his appointment, Yushchenko immediately put in motion a comprehensive range of bankruptcy on most industrial companies in the country, under the aegis of the IMF. He also tried to undermine the bilateral trade in oil and natural gas between Russia and Ukraine on behalf of the IMF, which had demanded that the trade be made in U.S. dollars and not in exchange of goods.
The destruction of the industrial infrastructure of the country and the loads of exchanges with the main trading partner, Russia, led to the climax of the mass migration of the Ukrainian population, but also to the “advertisement” of Ukraine to the West through the most famous export goods, Ukranian girls that in ‘myriads’ became victims of human trafficking with white flesh.
This fact together with the fact that the selling off of the country was generalized did cost the orange government the elections. Viktor Yanukovych won the presidential elections of 2010, a typical politician from a corrupt establishment, who in order to manage the massive popular anger and the collapse of the country away from the appetites of the West, was forced to turn east towards Russia.
The Nazis in U.S. and EU’s service
On 21 November 2013, the government resign from the signing of the association agreement that was proposed by the European Union. The opposition reacts with protests in Kiev and in the western part of the country, which are rapidly turning into a rebellious look. It prompts a call for early presidential and parliamentary elections and refuses to form a government when approached by President Yanukovych after the Prime Minister resigns. These events were baptized Euromaidan, before Eurorevolution, from Radio Free Europe, which is operated by the State Department.
At first glance, the motion appears to be an attempt to organize a second “Orange Revolution.” But on January 1, 2014, the power changes hands on the streets. The Nazi party “Freedom” organized a torchlight procession in Kiev in memory of Stepan Bandera, the Nazi nationalist leader who allied himself with the Nazis against the Soviets. And that is why the by the west adored Yushchenko wanted in the eve of his fall to anoint a national hero of Ukraine, collecting the responses from the greater portion of his countrymen, and many Jewish, Polish and Russian organizations. The rally was attended by over 15,000 Nazi with swastikas and symbols of the old Ukrainian SS. Since then, the capital has been covered with anti-Semitic slogans and terrorism prevails against anyone who is considered an “outsider” or “pro-Russian” by the Nazis.
This Nazi organization became possible the with money from the embassies of the U.S. and German primary, whilst organized the first occupation of Lviv ensured free passage to the West for supplies of money, arms and all sorts of supplies. Today on the streets of Kiev the faltering government is confronting the revived Ukrainian SS with training, weapons and money from Germany, USA and the European Union. The intentions of the staffs of the ‘democratic’ West is no longer a simple coup d’etat. They seek the complete dissolution of Ukraine, its shredding so that its people no longer will be able to escape the Wests control.
Already in Kiev and elsewhere armed Nazi groups act and with specially trained commandos in the West, veterans of the “civil wars” in Syria and Libya in order to not allow the repressive forces of the Ukrainian government to gain the upper hand. And so the streets are stained with the blood of innocent. On the other hand, the Ukrainian government seems unable to deal with such a situation quickly escalates towards open military intervention with support from outside.
The armed forces of the country have since long been dismantled by the previous “orange revolution” and the “financial packages” of the IMF, so they are now not in a position to resist the armed dismantling of the country. Add to that, that many current and former military personnel have discovered that it is highly profitable to fight from the lines of the modern Ukrainian SS.
The threat to the “soft underbelly” of Russia
With all that Ukraine tends to evolve into a key attack corridor against Russia. The prevalence of the Nazis in Ukraine will mark not only the end of Ukraine itself, but also the beginning of armed infiltration operations in the border of Russia. Just like the U.S. are used to do to Syria, Iran, and generally to any country they intend to wrap in the flames of an artificial civil war. With this notion today in Ukraine both the Nazis and the big bosses in Washington, Berlin and Brussels are struggling to get revenge for the defeat of the army of von Paulus, which ultimately failed to cut off Russia from the energy sources in Caucasus.
Apart from the fact that these developments from far smell widespread war, the question is: how far is Greece from tasting the recipe of Ukraine on its own territory? In a situation of social and economic collapse comparable with that of Ukraine? How far?
Posted in Greek by Dimitris Kazakis February 24 at 9:26 at EPAM’s website
Translated to English by Kosmas Loumakis in accordance with the original text
When the article was written the government of Ukraine was still in power as some of the comments at the end of the article comes from that horizon.
*Footnote by the translator, in relevance to Sweden.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University talking with journalists of democracy now February 20, 2014
Transcript from video (min. 11:45 – 35:14)
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A short-lived truce has broken down in Ukraine as street battles have erupted between anti-government protesters and police. Last night, the country’s embattled president and the opposition leaders demanding his resignation called for a truce and negotiations to try to resolve Ukraine’s political crisis. But the truce only lasted a few hours. The last three days have been the bloodiest period of Ukraine’s 22-year post-Soviet history. Over 50 people have died, including at least 21 today. The truce ended today when armed protesters attempted to retake Independence Square. Both sides have accused the other of using live ammunition. A Ukrainian paramedic described the chaotic scene.
UKRAINIAN PARAMEDIC: [translated] Some bodies are at the concert hall. Some are at the barricades. Now there are maybe around 15 or 20 dead. It is hard to count, as some are carried away, others are resuscitated. Now, as far as I know, three dead people are at the city hall, and two more dead are at the main post office. There are so many at the concert hall that we didn’t even take them.
AMY GOODMAN: The Ukrainian parliament, Rada, and Cabinet buildings have reportedly been evacuated because of fears they could be stormed by protesters. The street clashes are occurring while the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, is meeting with the foreign ministers from Germany, Poland and France.
The Obama administration stepped up pressure on the Ukrainian government Wednesday by announcing a visa ban on 20 members of the Ukrainian government. The U.S. is also threatening to place sanctions on the Ukrainian government.
The protests began in late November after President Yanukovych reversed his decision to sign a long-awaited trade deal with the European Union, or EU, to forge stronger ties with Russia instead.
To talk more about the latest in Ukraine, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is now out in paperback. His latest piece in The Nation is called “Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.”
So, talk about the latest, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: Where do you want me to begin? I mean, we are watching history being made, but history of the worst kind. That’s what I’m telling my grandchildren: Watch this. What’s happening there, let’s take the big picture, then we can go to the small picture. The big picture is, people are dying in the streets every day. The number 50 is certainly too few. They’re still finding bodies. Ukraine is splitting apart down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the American media, which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West. We now have reliable reports that the anti-government forces in the streets—and there are some very nasty people among them—are seizing weapons in western Ukrainian military bases. So we have clearly the possibility of a civil war.
And the longer-term outcome may be—and I want to emphasize this, because nobody in the United States seems to want to pay attention to it—the outcome may be the construction, the emergence of a new Cold War divide between West and East, not this time, as it was for our generation, in faraway Berlin, but right on the borders of Russia, right through the heart of Slavic civilization. And if that happens, if that’s the new Cold War divide, it’s permanent instability and permanent potential for real war for decades to come. That’s what’s at stake.
One last point, also something that nobody in this country wants to talk about: The Western authorities, who bear some responsibility for what’s happened, and who therefore also have blood on their hands, are taking no responsibility. They’re uttering utterly banal statements, which, because of their vacuous nature, are encouraging and rationalizing the people in Ukraine who are throwing Molotov cocktails, now have weapons, are shooting at police. We wouldn’t permit that in any Western capital, no matter how righteous the cause, but it’s being condoned by the European Union and Washington as events unfold.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you say the Western countries who bear some responsibility, in what sense do they bear responsibility? I mean, clearly, there’s been an effort by the United States and Europe ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union to pull the former Soviet states into their economic sphere, but is that what you’re talking about?
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean that. I mean that Moscow—look at it through Moscow’s eyes. Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the U.S.-led West has been on a steady march toward post-Soviet Russia, began with the expansion of NATO in the 1990s under Clinton. Bush then further expanded NATO all the way to Russia’s borders. Then came the funding of what are euphemistically called NGOs, but they are political action groups, funded by the West, operating inside Russia. Then came the decision to build missile defense installations along Russia’s borders, allegedly against Iran, a country which has neither nuclear weapons nor any missiles to deliver them with. Then comes American military outpost in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which led to the war of 2008, and now the West is at the gates of Ukraine. So, that’s the picture as Moscow sees it. And it’s rational. It’s reasonable. It’s hard to deny.
But as for the immediate crisis, let’s ask ourselves this: Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine, Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, “You must choose between Europe and Russia.” That was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment, what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, “Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine.” And it was rejected in Washington and in Brussels. That precipitated the protests in the streets.
And since then, the dynamic that any of us who have ever witnessed these kinds of struggles in the streets unfolded, as extremists have taken control of the movement from the so-called moderate Ukrainian leaders. I mean, the moderate Ukrainian leaders, with whom the Western foreign ministers are traveling to Kiev to talk, they’ve lost control of the situation. By the way, people ask—excuse me—is it a revolution? Is it a revolution? A much abused word, but one sign of a revolution is the first victims of revolution are the moderates. And then it becomes a struggle between the extreme forces on either side. And that’s what we’re witnessing.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the Ukrainian opposition leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who admitted earlier today the opposition does not have full control of protesters in Independence Square.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: The only chance to do it is to stop the riot police, to stop the protesters, to impose a DMZ, like demilitarized zone, and to move this conflict from the streets to the Parliament.
REPORTER 1: Parts of the protesters are out of control?
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: No one—I would be very frank, that the government doesn’t control the riot police, and it’s very difficult for the opposition to control Maidan. And there are a number of forces who are uncontrolled. This is the truth.
REPORTER 2: So, Ukraine is in chaos now.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: Ukraine is in a big mess.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Professor Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: A moderate.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go—
STEPHEN COHEN: Who wants to be president.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to President Obama. He’s in Mexico for the big Mexico-Canada-U.S. summit talking about Ukraine.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: With regard to Ukraine, along with our European partners, we will continue to engage all sides. And we continue to stress to President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian government that they have the primary responsibility to prevent the kind of terrible violence that we’ve seen, to withdraw riot police, to work with the opposition to restore security and human dignity, and move the country forward. And this includes progress towards a multi-party, technical government that can work with the international community on a support package and adopt reforms necessary for free and fair elections next year. Ukrainians are a proud and resilient people who have overcome extraordinary challenges in their history, and that’s a pride and strength that I hope they draw on now.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama in Mexico, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: What are you asking me to comment on?
AMY GOODMAN: Your response to his response.
STEPHEN COHEN: To what he just said? Shame. Shame. He is saying that the responsibility for restoring peace is on the Ukrainian government, and it should withdraw its security forces from the streets. But let me ask you, if in Washington people throwing Molotov cocktails are marching on Congress—and these people are headed for the Ukrainian Congress—if these people have barricaded entrance to the White House and are throwing rocks at the White House security guard, would President Obama withdraw his security forces? This is—this is—and do you know what this does? And let’s escape partisanship here. I mean, lives are at stake. This incites, these kinds of statement that Obama made. It rationalizes what the killers in the streets are doing. It gives them Western license, because he’s not saying to the people in the streets, “Stop this, stop shooting policemen, stop attacking government buildings, sit down and talk.” And the guy you had on just before, a so-called moderate leader, what did he just tell you? “We have lost control of the situation.” That’s what I just told you. He just confirmed that.
So what Obama needs to say is, “We deplore what the people in the streets are doing when they attack the police, the law enforcement official. And we also don’t like the people who are writing on buildings ‘Jews live here,’” because these forces, these quasi-fascist forces—let’s address this issue, because the last time I was on your broadcast, you found some guy somewhere who said there was none of this there. All right. What percent are the quasi-fascists of the opposition? Let’s say they’re 5 percent. I think they’re more, but let’s give them the break, 5 percent. But we know from history that when the moderates lose control of the situation, they don’t know what to do. The country descends in chaos. Five percent of a population that’s tough, resolute, ruthless, armed, well funded, and knows what it wants, can make history. We’ve seen it through Europe. We’ve seen it through Asia. This is reality. And where Washington and Brussels are on this issue, they won’t step up and take the responsibility.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, even in most recent history, whether you look at Libya or whether you look at the situation in Syria, where those presidents warned that there were extremist elements inside a broader popular movement that were eventually going to gain control, this seems like a replay in terms of what’s going on here in the Ukraine of a popular movement, but yet a very, very, as you say, right-wing movement—not only a right-wing movement, but a fascist movement with a history. Ukraine has had a history of a fascist movement going back to the days of Nazi Germany.
STEPHEN COHEN: Let’s go to real heresy. Let’s ask a question: Who has been right about interpreting recent events? Let’s go to the Arab Spring. Obama and Washington said this was about democracy now, this is great. Russia said, “Wait a minute. If you destabilize, even if they’re authoritarian leaders in the Middle East, you’re not going to get Thomas Jefferson in power. You’re going to get jihadists. You’re going to get very radical people in power all through the Middle East.” Looking back, who was right or wrong about that narrative? Have a look at Egypt. Have a look at Libya. Who was right? Can Russians ever be right about anything?
Now what are the Russians saying about Ukraine? They’re saying what you just said, that the peaceful protesters, as we keep calling them—I think a lot of them have gone home. There were many. By the way, at the beginning, there were hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, of very decent, liberal, progressive, honorable people in the streets. But they’ve lost control of the situation. That’s the point now. And so, the Russians are saying, “Look, you’re trying to depose Yanukovych, who’s the elected government.” Think. If you overthrow—and, by the way, there’s a presidential election in a year. The Russians are saying wait ’til the next election. If you overthrow him—and that’s what Washington and Brussels are saying, that he must go—what are you doing to the possibility of democracy not only in Ukraine, but throughout this part of the world? And secondly, who do you think is going to come to power? Please tell us. And we’re silent.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the famous leaked tape right now. The top State Department official has apologized to her European counterparts after she was caught cursing the European Union, the EU, in a leaked audio recording that was posted to YouTube. The recording captured an intercepted phone conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe. Nuland expresses frustration over Europe’s response to the political crisis in Ukraine, using frank terms.
VICTORIA NULAND: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it. And, you know, [bleep] the EU.
AMY GOODMAN: While Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s comment about the EU dominated the news headlines because she used a curse, there were several other very interesting parts of her conversation with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
GEOFFREY PYATT: Let me work on Klitschko, and if you can just keep—I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. Then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we can probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
VICTORIA NULAND: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR saying, “You need Biden?” And I said, “Probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick.” So Biden’s willing.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Pyatt, speaking with Victoria Nuland. The significance of what she is saying? She also had gone to Ukraine and was feeding protesters on the front line.
STEPHEN COHEN: Cookies, cookies. Well, here again, the American political media establishment, including the right and the left and the center—because they’re all complicit in this nonsense—focused on the too sensational, they thought, aspect of that leaked conversation. She said, “F— the European Union,” and everybody said, “Oh, my god! She said the word.” The other thing was, who leaked it? “Oh, it was the Russians. Those dirty Russians leaked this conversation.” But the significance is what you just played. What are they doing? The highest-ranking State Department official, who presumably represents the Obama administration, and the American ambassador in Kiev are, to put it in blunt terms, plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.
Now, that said, Amy, Juan, you may say to me—neither of you would, but hypothetically—”That’s a good thing. We don’t like—we don’t care if he was elected democratically. He’s a rat. He’s corrupt.” And he is all those things. He is. “Let’s depose him. That’s what the United States should do. Then the United States should stand up and say, ’That’s what we do: We get rid of bad guys. We assassinate them, and we overthrow them.’” But in Washington and in Brussels, they lie: They’re talking about democracy now. They’re not talking about democracy now; they’re talking about a coup now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, this is more from—
STEPHEN COHEN: And we—excuse me—and we should—we, American citizens, should be allowed to choose which policy we want. But they conceal it from us. And I’m extremely angry that the people in this country who say they deplore this sort of thing have fallen silent.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Let’s listen to little bit more of the leaked conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe.
VICTORIA NULAND: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
GEOFFREY PYATT: Yeah. I mean, I guess, you think—in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys. And, you know, I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of—
VICTORIA NULAND: I think—I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy—you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe, speaking with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine. Stephen Cohen, this—this chess game—
STEPHEN COHEN: You don’t need me here. What do you need me for?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —this chess game that they’re conducting here?
STEPHEN COHEN: There it is. There it is.
AMY GOODMAN: But explain the names. Who is Klitsch, Yats?
STEPHEN COHEN: All right. And notice the intimacy with which the Americans deal with the two leading so-called “moderate”—and these are big shots, they both want to be president—Ukrainian opposition. Klitschko is Vitali Klitschko, a six-foot-eight former—he resigned his title two months ago to enter politics—heavyweight champion of the world. His residence has been Ukraine—I mean, Germany. He plays—he pays taxes in Germany. He’s a project of Merkel. He represents German interests. I’m sure he’s also faithful to Ukraine, but he’s got a problem. Yatsenyuk, however—not Yatsenyuk, but the other guy she calls “Yats” is a representative of the Fatherland Party. It’s a big party in Parliament. But Washington likes him a lot. They think he’ll be our man. So you could see what they’re saying. We don’t quite trust Klitschko. Now, if you want to get esoteric, that’s the tug between Washington and Berlin. They’re not happy with Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. They don’t like the role Merkel is playing, generally. They think Germany has gotten too big for its britches. They want to cut Merkel down. So you noticed Klitschko, the boxer, is Merkel’s proxy, or at least she’s backing him. You notice that they say, “He’s not ready for prime time. Let him do his homework.”
Now, this guy—I’m bad on Ukrainian names. Tyagnybok, that they say has got to play a role, he’s the leader of the Freedom Party, the Svoboda Party, but a large element of that party, to put it candidly, is quasi-fascist. And they’re prepared to embrace this guy. This is the guy, by the way, that Senator John McCain in November or December went to Kiev and embraced. Either McCain didn’t know who he was, or he didn’t care. The United States is prepared to embrace that guy, too—anything to get rid of Yanukovych, because they think this is about Putin. That’s all they really got on their mind.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, here you have President Obama, again, speaking yesterday in Mexico.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia. Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children, or chemical weapons, or towns being starved, because a despot wants to cling to power.
AMY GOODMAN: Who benefits from the instability, Professor Cohen, in Ukraine? And what does it mean for Putin? Is he concerned about this?
STEPHEN COHEN: Of course he’s concerned. It’s right on his borders, and it’s all tainting him. I mean, The Washington Post wrote an editorial yesterday. Putin is happy that the violence has broken out in the streets. Everybody understands, even The Washington Post understands, which understands almost nothing about Russia, but they got this, that during the Sochi Olympics, the last thing Putin wants is violence in Ukraine. So why is he happy about it? He deplores it. He’s unhappy. He’s furious at the president of Ukraine. He read him the Riot Act on the phone last night, that why doesn’t he get control of the situation? What is he doing? So Putin is not responsible for this. Can we speak about Obama?
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly.
STEPHEN COHEN: Very quickly. I grew up in the segregated South. I voted for him twice, as historical justice. That’s not leadership. That’s a falsification of what’s happening in Ukraine, and it’s making the situation worse, what he says, is that we deplore the violence and call upon Ukrainian government to withdraw its forces and stop the violence. He needs to talk about what’s happening in the streets.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And is it conceivable, if Ukraine descends into a further civil war, that Russia might intervene?
STEPHEN COHEN: It’s conceivable. It’s conceivable. Here—I mean, Yanukovych—you might say, as an adviser to Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, “Impose martial law now, because you’ve got bad PR in the West anyway, and you’re not in control of the situation.” The problem is, Yanukovych isn’t sure he controls the army.
AMY GOODMAN: He just fired the head of the army yesterday.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, we don’t know what it means, but it indicates he’s not too sure about the army. But, by the way, you asked, would Russia intervene? Would NATO intervene? NATO is all over the place. NATO was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Ask yourself that: Would NATO send troops in? Is that, yes, you think they would?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I—
STEPHEN COHEN: We don’t know.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We don’t know, yeah.
STEPHEN COHEN: And we’re not going to be told, just like we’re not being told what’s going on in these private conversations about deposing the president of Ukraine. If they depose—
AMY GOODMAN: Unless they’re leaked again.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, and if the Russians leak them, it doesn’t count. Is that right?
AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. can hardly protest, given the whole scandal with the NSA recording conversations.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, well, you know what they said. They said—they said, when this got leaked, that this is a low point in statecraft. After Snowden? After Snowden? I mean, what did Tennessee Williams used to say? Mendacity? Mendacity? The mendacity of it all? Don’t they trust us, our government, to tell us a little bit of the truth at last?
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Cohen, I want to thank you for being with us. We’re going to move onto Venezuela. Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, it’s just out in paperback. His latest piece in The Nation is “Distorting Russia: How the American Media Misrepresent [Putin], Sochi and Ukraine.” This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
On 20th of February 2014, the Greek Minister of Culture and Sports Mr. Panos Panagiotopoulos delivered the opening speech of the EU conference “Financing Creativity” in Athens. This conference seeks to address models of cultural policy in the coming decades. Yet not a single artist was invited as a speaker nor was the conference promoted publicly. Given this situation “Mavili Collective” called for artists from different fields of practice to attend the conference. Having been excluded from a dialogue about cultural policies the artists present publicly expressed their feelings regarding the proposed role of culture and laughed. The response of the Minister is revealing.
The Minister of Culture stated in his speech that we need to be more competitive following the economies of China and Middle East since the cost of labour in Europe today is extremely high. The words most frequently used by many of the speakers were: competitiveness, business, industry, product, consumers etc. Mrs Lina Mendoni, General Secretary of the Ministry of Culture and Sports made the crucial statement that “Culture is economy”. A vision for the culture that is nowadays expressed openly and indicative of how the Greek State is increasingly abandoning its support of contemporary culture. Instead, as was stated clearly in the conference, the Greek State intends to fund private institutions that will then form the cultural landscape of the country. Does such a policy reflect the wider vision of the EU for culture? Some might say the conference was a fiasco, but was the fiasco the laughter or the cultural policies/narratives being proposed?
Michael Nevradakis: Joining us today on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series is Dimitris Kazakis, the economist and the general secretary of EPAM, Greece’s United Popular Front. Mr. Kazakis, thank you for joining us today.
Dimitris Kazakis: Thank you for having me.
Michael Nevradakis:Let’s begin with a discussion about Greece’s current presidency of the European Union? How do you respond to Greece taking over the EU’s rotating presidency and to the recent statements that we heard from Greek and European politicians regarding the supposed progress that has been made by Greece?
Dimitris Kazakis: I believe that we find ourselves in a situation where all European citizens are beginning to understand that the European Union, or what was described by Jose Manuel Barroso and Mario Draghi as “progress” or the “political and economic union” of Europe, is a threat to all European peoples. Here in Greece, this has manifested itself in a particular way. Recently, a major ceremony was organized for Greece’s rotating European Union presidency, and this took place with Athens under occupation. It is incredible that with a simple decision issued by the Greek police, which was reminiscent of the Greek military junta of 1967-1974, protest marches and gatherings were banned throughout all of Athens, based on the absurd claim that the physical safety of the European dignitaries visiting Athens was in danger. This is a ludicrous claim when you consider that they were in a guarded, secure space, in the AthensMusic Hall. And yet this rationale was used as an excuse to ban protests and gatherings in all of Athens, a decision which is completely unconstitutional, but which is meant to send the message to the Greek people that they need to get used to such a strong police presence. Typically, at protests, we see the usual troublemakers show up, which give the police an excuse to intervene violently–not that they needed much of an excuse to do so–and this gets on the news, the media reports how violent the protests were, and so forth. We, as the National Popular Front EPAM, came out to the streets of downtown Athens despite the ban, and with an open call to the Greek public. We broke the ban and we were the only organized group that marched in Athens on the day of the ceremony. Yet, this was not mentioned anywhere in the news. We weren’t surprised, we did what we had to do though, and we wanted to demonstrate to the citizens of Greece and Europe who are under the same occupation, that they can put a stop to this occupation only with a show of strength and determination, that we as citizens will not be stripped of the few remaining rights that we still have. Later that day, prime minister Samaras, with his well-known peculiar smile which resembles a cross between a deeply troubled person and a space alien, came out and said that Greece is doing well, that it is on the road to recovery, and that we need more European integration, to which my response is “no more Europe, we can’t take it anymore!”
Michael Nevradakis:The assumption of the rotating European Union presidency by Greece was accompanied by several other major stories which suddenly dominated the headlines in Greece. We had the government taking back a proposal for a 25 Euro entrance fee for public hospitals, we had a statement by the president of Alpha Bank, one of Greece’s largest banks, criticizing the government for taking back this measure, we had the escape of suspected terrorist Christodoulos Xiros from a prison furlough, we had further arrests of members of parliament from the far-right Golden Dawn party…do you believe that the timing of all of this is merely coincidental, or do you believe that something deeper and less visible is at play here?
Dimitris Kazakis: We have to see these developments on two levels. On one level is Greek society, which on the surface seems to be a passive observer to everything that is happening in the country, but which is, in reality, reaching a boiling point. People in Greece are beginning to understand that none of the political options which existed within the country’s system of governance up until now is not enough, is not allowing their message to get across. The upcoming municipal and European elections are increasingly seen as the final opportunity for change to possibly be delivered from within the existing system. This is what is happening at the societal level. On a political level, we are seeing the increasing disenfranchisement of the people with the political system. This is evident simply by looking at the sharply declining ratings for the television and radio news programs, which consists of black propaganda in favor of the current economic and political parties. The public is not interested, doesn’t care, and doesn’t watch or listen to them anymore. Another characteristic example is the sharp rise in internet connectivity rates in Greece, which have gone from about 15 or 20% to well over 50%, despite the crisis. This is evident of the demand for news and information from sources other than the mainstream outlets of propaganda in Greece. The political system in Greece is collapsing, and this is true of all of the major parties, even with the differing characteristics of each particular party. In light of the collapse of the existing political system, the governing coalition is trying to distract the public in various ways, whether it be through the arrests of more members of Golden Dawn for weapons possession, or through the discussion of the increasing dangers of urban terrorism, led by the recently-escaped Christodoulos Xiros, who we are supposed to believe easily escaped even though he is in poor health. To illustrate how ludicrous this is, the former Postbank chief Aggelos Filippidis, who left Greece to avoid arrest, was tracked down in Turkey using his cell phone coordinates, but we are supposed to believe that the infirm Christodoulos Xiros cannot be found? At the same time, the government is trying to terrorize the public by presenting a dual threat: that of far-right extremists represented by Golden Dawn on one end, and the supposedly extremist left at the other end, the armed terrorist left led by terrorists such as Christodoulos Xiros and phantom terrorist groups. I would really not be surprised to learn that these so-called terrorist groups were created in some basement office in Athens’ police headquarters. All of this fearmongering on the part of the government has to do with the upcoming municipal and European elections and the government’s attempts to make electoral gains through a campaign of terrorizing the public and creating a false dilemma between the right and the left. The government is trying to unite all right-wing voters under its umbrella, even if many of those voters consider the current government to be treasonous, by presenting itself as the only viable option against the left in Greece. And on the other hand, it is trying to associate anyone who is speaking out against the government’s policies and who is calling for change, with terrorism and with those who wish to wage urban guerrilla warfare. My response to this is to say that the rule of this government these past few years is the worst form of terrorism that Greece has experienced in the post-war period. <<<
Michael Nevradakis: In recent weeks, we’ve seen the emergence of a new major scandal in Greece, with accusations of cronyism and fraudulent loans given by institutions such as the Hellenic Postbank. This is a scandal which has implicated major names in Greece’s banking and finance sectors, as well as politicians. Please share with us your take on the situation.
Dimitris Kazakis: We have to begin by examining this issue in a broader sense. Greece’s system of governance has traditionally maintained certain “sacred cows.” These “sacred cows” reinforce and reproduce the corrupt system of governance in the country, as well as the various financial and economic interests which support it. These sacred cows are the country’s banking system, the country’s defense industry, which was always used as a patronage tool for the country’s elite, and the thirdly, major public works projects and the major contractors who would receive the contracts for these projects. These are the three pillars of the modern-day Greek system of governance, at least in the past 40 years since the fall of the military dictatorship. What has happened now? One of these three pillars was hit: the defense industry, through the government’s plans, under troika pressure, to dissolve it. Here of course there is much behind-the-scenes manoeuvring amongst defense contractors regarding who will emerge as the frontrunner in the new political situation that is shaping up in Greece. And now, the second sacred cow that is being attacked is the banking system, through the Hellenic Postbank scandal. This scandal has directly implicated major business figures including Mr. Kontominas, Mr. Griveas, and Mr. Lavrentiadis, who already is in prison, and in addition, Mr. Vardinogiannis is also under attack, through his close professional relationship with Mr. Filippidis. With this, Pandora’s Box is now being opened for the third pillar as well, the major public works projects, from what is being heard. Why is all of this happening at this time? I don’t believe that these pillars are being attacked as part of a genuine effort to reform the Greek state and the Greek economy. Instead, I believe that it has to do with the fact that the entire Greek state apparatus is being dismantled, in order for Greece to be turned into a controlled periphery of Europe, where foreigners — whether they are EU bureaucrats, politicians, or investors — will be able to come in and take over full control of the state, which will have in the meantime ceased functioning as an independent, sovereign entity. This should not come as a surprise, when considering that towards the end of 2013, German magazine Der Spiegel referred to Greece as a cross between “Afghanistan and Pakistan,” that it is a failed state. This term was not used by accident. “Failed state” is a term that is used in diplomatic circles to refer to countries that are incapable of governing themselves, and which as a result require international control, oversight, or intervention. I believe that the groundwork is being laid systematically to “justify” the characterization of Greece as a failed state, or as German Chancellor described Greece back in September, as a “dependency” located in Europe’s periphery. All of this is meant to justify the claim that the Greek State is no more. And within this context, they not only believe that they can accomplish this, but they are trying to convince the ordinary Greek that he or she not only lives in a worthless banana republic, but that the Greek people themselves are worthless, incompetent, and incapable of self-governance or handling their own affairs. By doing this, they hope to convince the Greek people that what is best for them are foreigners – technocrats, bureaucrats and bankers – who will govern the country and impose the necessary policies. It should be noted that Mario Draghi said something very similar on October 5th in a speech he gave in the United States before a group of banking executives, where he said that there are two types of sovereignty: national sovereignty, referring to the sovereign rights of a particular nation, and the sovereignty of effectiveness, where a non-democratic, non-representative government provides a society’s basic necessities to the people. And he posed the question: what is preferable? To have rights but not the ability to exercise them, or to have your basic needs met? That’s the dilemma that Mario Draghi posed, and that is the direction that we are heading in. They are trying to convince the ordinary Greek that he is illiterate, that he is incompetent, and that the solution is not for him to become literate or competent, but to give up control to those who are competent and capable, who in this case happen to be non-Greek. That’s their philosophy and what they are trying to accomplish.
Michael Nevradakis:And unfortunately, this is a mentality that has indeed entered the Greek psyche in various ways, as we often hear ordinary Greeks say that we failed, that we are incapable, that we brought the country to the position it is in today, that the foreigners are more civilized, more organized, more efficient, and that we need the Germans or some other superior power to come in and impose order on the country.
Dimitris Kazakis: Yes, indeed. That is the myth, and it is repeated over and over again by the mass media in Greece. It is quite amazing, for instance, to see just how many television programs in Greece keep glorifying immigration, constantly presenting examples of Greeks who purportedly became incredibly successful abroad, in Germany or elsewhere, even though we all know just how difficult immigration is, in reality, and what a difficult time people have when they are forced to leave their home. And we are not talking about immigration by choice, whether it is to gain new experiences or new knowledge and skills in order to eventually return to your country. We are talking about a situation where people are being forced to leave. And in the media, this is being glorified as some sort of wonderful solution, in order to convince the ordinary Greek that, hey, if their son or daughter cannot find work in Greece, it’s okay, they’ll simply go overseas and find a job there, without thinking about what their child will actually go and do overseas, where will they go and under what circumstances. This is a sign of the occupation that Greece is presently experiencing as a nation. If you go back and read newspapers from the Nazi occupation in Greece, one will find that the main headline of the major Greek newspaper Kathimerini on the second day after the Nazi invasion, with German troops stationed in Athens, the headline read: “And now, let us all get back to work for the new, peaceful era that is ahead of us.” In other words, the newspaper was instructing the Greek people that the war was over, that they lost everything, and that they should lower their heads and back to work. Indeed, at the time the newspapers were writing that the most organized peoples of Europe were the Germans, and that the Germans came to Greece to restore order and to save Greece from the corruption of the previous era and from the politicians that had been imposed on the country by the British imperialists. That’s what they were saying back then, and they are writing very similar things today. And there is a percentage of the Greek population which has already lost the battle, not with their country’s system of governance, but their battle with life, they have committed suicide while living, they are the living dead. When you say and you convince yourself that you no longer have any control over your life, it is a form of committing suicide. Here I must state my very firm belief that the most dynamic element of the Greek population today, its youth, need to return to Greece. Right now, Greece is calling for its young people all across the world to mobilize, to return to their country, because their country needs them now as it has never needed them before, in order to be able to recover. Otherwise, I am afraid that in the very near future, what we know as Greece today will no longer exist, that this country, which previous generations fought for with blood, with tears, and with major battles, will no longer exist.
Michael Nevradakis: There is also an incredible parallel that should be mentioned with the 1950s, the first decade after the war, when I believe that it was actually official Greek government policy to promote immigration out of the country, and indeed by providing funds in order for people to leave, supposedly as a measure that would reduce unemployment in the country!
Dimitris Kazakis: Yes, this is very true. And indeed, the governments at the time were also glorifying immigration, which was at similar level’s to today. But there is one major difference: back then, people in Greece shed tears over this immigration, and there was a whole chunk of popular culture, film and music from that era, which reflected the pain of separation, of immigration and leaving home. This doesn’t exist today, because there is no culture which would reflect such a pain. Today’s celebrities care about other things, about their lifestyle, their yachts, and they have no connection with the people. And so, people in Greece are enduring this pain silently, as there is no popular culture that reflects what they are experiencing. This perhaps explains why, compared to the 1950s, there is a larger percentage of people in Greece who have abandoned all hope.
Michael Nevradakis:Let’s turn our conversation now to the policies of the European Union. You mentioned earlier about how the European Union and the troika are planning the final dissolution of Greece…what is being heard from the European Union at this time, for both Greece and Cyprus, regarding issues for which we have heard numerous rumors, such as eliminating bank deposit insurance, about new property taxes, or even for a new so-called “haircut” of the Greek debt?
Dimitris Kazakis: For the haircut of Greek debt, it has been decided, from all sides, from the head of the European Stability Mechanism Klaus Regling, from the German government, and from the European Commission, that they only acceptable agreement regarding the restructuring of the debt would be an extension of the repayment period for the debt, and specifically, only the portion of the debt which is bilateral. This refers only to the first 70 or 75 billion out of the initial 110 billion from the first so-called “bailout” Greece received, as this money was loaned to Greece on the basis of a bilateral agreement between countries. The remaining money that has since been loaned to Greece, about 190 billion Euros in all, was given through the European Stability Mechanism. These monies were not loaned on the basis of a bilateral agreement, but through the issuance of bonds, and the repayment terms of bonds cannot be changed except by exchanging the bonds with new bonds. For this to happen, it requires a political intervention and the voluntary participation of the bond-holders, who have flat-out rejected such a possibility. But what does the extension of the repayment period really even mean? They are fooling the public. What it really means is that you pay more money, over a longer period of time. If a bank issues you a 10 year loan with an interest rate of 2.5% and they offer to refinance the loan over 30 years at an interest rate of 2%, if you do the calculations, you will see that you will actually pay a lot more money over time, for the same loan. So essentially, this so-called extension really just means more money for the lenders. Here, we should mention another major problem, which is Greece’s rapidly growing debt. The country’s public debt right now stands at 326 billion Euros. If we add private debt to this figure, we will add an additional 208 billion to the tally, for a total of 534 billion Euros. And if we add to that the debts of the banking sector, which total 100 to 120 billion Euros, then we are talking about a total debt burden of over 650 billion Euros, not even including any secret debts that we are unaware of, with credit default swaps and so forth that no one has ever bothered to investigate. At this time, Greece’s annual gross domestic product is 183 billion Euros, and it is projected to decline further. Is it ever possible for Greece to repay these debts, which are three and a half times the size of Greece’s GDP? Is this sustainable? No, not a chance. Can the debt simply be “haircut”? No, it cannot. It can only be written off. And this can only happen with a unilateral decision made by the Greek people. There are no examples in history, from the beginning of the 19th century, of a national debt being written off without the people imposing the write-off, or even, at least, a partial write-off of the debt. If the people don’t demand it and impose it, it will not happen. Debt has never been written off simply on the basis of an agreement with the lenders, without there also being conditions attached to the write-off which were so odious that it was worse than the original debt. In the meantime, the economic depression in Greece is reaching epic proportions. Since we are hearing a lot of nonsense recently about Greece attaining a primary surplus, that GDP declined only 3.8 or 4 percent, let me just mention one statistic that anyone can understand. One of the key measures of the strength of a modern economy is its electricity consumption. A growth in the demand for electric power is a very basic indication of the growth of an economy. Can an economy grow without a corresponding growth in demand for power? No, it cannot. On the other hand, you can, for instance, have a recession that is much bigger than the decline in demand for electric power– a decline in electricity consumption of 2% and a GDP decline of 8%, for example — but you cannot, under any circumstances, have a decline in GDP that is smaller than the decline in consumption of electric power. It is impossible. It’s like saying that an economy can function without electricity. IT cannot happen. Knowing that, can somebody please explain to me, perhaps one of the all-knowing economists in the Greek finance ministry, how it is possible that the decline in Greek GDP was on the order of 3.8 or 4% in 2013 with a projected increase of 0.4% in 2014, when just in the first 11 months of 2013, the total amount of electricity generated and demanded within the Greek economy declined by 8.2%? This means that the true extent of GDP decline is at least 8.2%! This is unprecedented for the Greek economy, we’ve only seen this during times of war. This is a sign of the direction we are heading in. Meanwhile, the Greek economy is among the bottom 5 or 6 countries in the world, out of over 180 countries, with the lowest percentage of investment in their economies. Greek workers, the 67% or so of the working population that is employed in salaried positions, has lost 60% of its purchasing power at current price levels. This last point is especially significant when we consider the deflationary pressures on the Greek economy at this time. Under these conditions, unemployment has reached record levels. For this year, a further decline in wages on the order of 2.8% is projected, and this alone will cause the unemployment rate to rise to 28.9%. And when we are examining unemployment, we need to take into account long-term unemployment. When the economic crisis first began in Greece in 2009, the unemployment rate in Greece was around 8%. Out of these 8%, 25% were unemployed for a year or more, shocking figures for that particular time. Today, the official unemployment rate is 27.8%, and a whopping 72% of those who are unemployed have been out of work for over one year. Under such conditions, the working population has been completely devalued, and any recovery will be extremely difficult under present policies. This is why many economists have deemed the Greek economic crisis as a terminal economic crisis. A terminal economic crisis is when, under existing circumstances, there is no possibility of an economic recovery. When this is the case, radical measures must be taken.
Michael Nevradakis: And aside from the debt issue, what is being heard in EU circles regarding issues such as the imposition of new property taxes or the possible haircut of bank deposits?
Dimitris Kazakis: At this time, what is being heard in EU circles can be summed up by a recent statement by Joaquin Almunia, the vice-president of the European Commission, who in response to a recent question posed by a Greek representative of the European parliament, said that if the Greek government requests it, that the EU will certainly go ahead and impose a haircut of bank deposits in Greece. This of course is laughable, because the troika, not the Greek government, are the ones governing Greece in the first place. Beyond this though, recently the president of the Bank of Greece, George Provopoulos, stated that Greek banks will require a new injection of capital, sometime around May or June of this year. Quite coincidentally, this is right after the scheduled time for the municipal and European parliament elections in Greece. In order for the banks to be recapitalized again, they want to get the 8 billion Euros that are said to be earmarked for them in the coffers of the European Stability Fund, 8 billion Euros that have been put on the tab of the Greek taxpayer and added to the country’s national debt. And of course these funds are not enough, more capital will be needed, and as a result, Greece will have to reach a new agreement with the European Stability Fund for additional monies that will recapitalize the country’s banks. If you visit the website of the European Stability Fund, you will read that anyone that receives money from the fund from June 2013 and afterwards will have to enforce a bail-in scheme in order to receive the monies. What does a bail-in mean? It means that those with bank deposits will contribute to the recapitalization of the banks, by losing a portion of their deposits, while the bank’s losses will be charged to the bank’s basic shareholders, which at this time, after the recapitalization of 2012, is the Greek state, and by extension, the Greek public. And what will also follow from this will be a reorganization of the banking sector under the oversight of the EU, and a new memorandum for Greece. So, sometime around May or June of this year, a sudden problem will appear with Greece’s deficit, which everyone already knows will be the largest deficit since 2009, it will suddenly be discovered that there is no primary surplus, that this is just a myth being uttered by prime minister Samaras while the real figures are being whitewashed, and a new loan will be needed for Greece, and not just for the banks, since Greece will be facing a funding shortfall ranging from 7 to 17 billion Euros for 2014 alone. So, as a result, the European Union will impose yet another memorandum on Greece. This is why changes are already being planned within the government at this time; changes which can take a variety of forms. I think the last thing that prime minister Samaras and the mafia that is ruling Greece want at this time is national parliamentary elections, but it is possible, and what they would want to do is to pass the baton on to Syriza and to Alexis Tsipras, the current leader of the main opposition, who has already passed his tests for “good behavior” with the Europeans, that he will not challenge the banks, that he will not pull Greece out of the Eurozone, and so forth. Tsipras will take over and the ticking time bomb will explode in his hands. All of the lies and myths of the previous government will blow up in his face, and as a result, his government will last only for two months or so, a new government will then be formed that lasts perhaps another couple of months, beginning a cycle of short-lived governments that will have a hard time lasting more than two months. This will continue until the Greek people finally decide to do away with this system and with all of these politicians and to implement a new plan for the recovery and reconstruction of Greece from scratch.
Michael Nevradakis:Let’s delve further into the issue of the possible departure of Greece from the Eurozone. In the past year, we’ve heard many politicians and many media outlets talk about how the danger of a Greek exit from the Euro has been overcome, but despite this, we continue to hear that this remains a possibility. What would a Eurozone exit mean for Greece at this time?
Dimitris Kazakis: It depends under what conditions and circumstances it takes place. The Europeans, and particularly the Germans, do not wish to lose Greece. Just a few weeks ago, during the holidays, there were numerous reports in the German press about the importance of Greece as a market for German exports, without there being any corresponding importance attached to German imports from Greece. This is a unilateral relationship and it is very important to Germany and its exports. Germany certainly gains a lot, economically, from such a relationship. The Germans are also afraid of the discord this will create within the Eurozone since, I remind you, there is no established procedure for a country to exit the Eurozone. Also, even if a country leaves from the Eurozone, even if it was kicked out by the other member-states, what will happen to all those Euros the following day and what would happen to the value of the currency? How would they be able to maintain its current exchange rate? This is why they are laying the groundwork from now for Greece, that it is a “failed state,” to bring in foreign powers and so on. The idea is to keep Greece in the Eurozone, even by force if deemed necessary. The only way for Greece to depart from the Eurozone, and to leave under conditions that create hope for the future, is for the Greek people themselves to impose it, and to impose it in the context of a broader plan for the reconstruction and redevelopment of the country. Otherwise, even if Greece departs the Eurozone, we will still be facing the same crisis and destruction, just outside of the Eurozone. Greece needs to be rebuilt from a new basis, for all the terms to change, politically and economically. Otherwise, any discussion regarding a departure from the Eurozone or not is pointless, and only serves to instill fear in those people who still feel that they have something to gain from being in the Eurozone. However, in the next six months, when they see that their bank deposits – at least for those people who still have money in the bank – when they see that their deposits are threatened, then their opinions will change as well, and support for a Greek departure from the Eurozone will increase dramatically. Already, according to the Eurobarometer survey, which is far from the most objective measure, 35% of the Greek people are in favor of returning to a domestic currency. My prediction is that even the Eurobarometer survey will show, within six months, a majority in favor of a departure from the Euro.
Michael Nevradakis: Beyond Greece, how would you describe the economic situation right now in other EU countries? For instance, you described, in a recent interview, the poor economic situation in France at the present time…
Dimitris Kazakis: Yes. Right now there is a great interest from the markets to buy bonds from countries like Ireland and Portugal, but the economies of these countries are collapsing. To illustrate, Ireland’s level of investment is only 9% of GDP. Countries with a level of investment that low include Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, and Somalia; countries which are beset by strife and civil war. How is it possible for such an economy to suddenly attract the interest of investors for its bonds? The answer lies in a recent statement made by Mario Draghi that the EU will do everything possible for the Euro to not sustain any blows. Translated, this means that the foreign investor will buy bonds from countries like Ireland and Portugal because they know that the European Union will do everything possible to reimburse them even in the event of a collapse of a Eurozone member-state such as Spain, France, Portugal, and so on. There is a major problem in France right now, an unprecedented situation. There are over 1.8 million people in Paris alone who are eating at soup kitchens. Unemployment is on the increase, investment is dropping, incomes are falling, and we are talking about a society that does not have the type of safety net, with families living together and such, that exists in Greece. Similar problems are being seen throughout the Eurozone. Recently, the quarterly report of the European Commission was circulated, which stated that if drastic measures are not taken quickly, the living standards of European citizens will decline to the standard of living in the United States during the 1960s. Of course, the manner in which this warning was written is to scare and blackmail governments and voters into accepting German-imposed policies that will supposedly “bail them out.” The economic figures show that living standards have already declined to those of the 1960s, and are quickly on their way to reaching the living standards of the 1920s, and the more that these economic policies are pursued and enforced, the more that they try to force through European economic integration, the more rapid the decline in living standards will be. The Eurozone has the highest unemployment rate in the world, higher still than the rest of the European Union. The social welfare state, which was the biggest achievement of the European peoples, has collapsed, and the few remaining freedoms and rights which still exist are now under attack by Jose Manuel Barroso and the others. Barroso said that he wants to implement a European Union of law and order, in statements made this past September. We see this “law and order” in Athens, and we see it in Spain, where a law was passed which foresees huge fines for anyone who protests in the streets without police approval. For instance, anyone who protests outside of the Spanish parliament without a permit from the police will face a fine of 600.000 Euros! We are talking about a pan-European police state at this time, and this is being done solely because the EU leaders and bureaucrats are terrified of social unrest against their policies.
Michael Nevradakis:We are on the air with the economist and general secretary of EPAM, Greece’s United Popular Front, here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series. Mr. Kazakis, recently, EPAM organized the first international conference for national currency, debt, and democracy. Tell us about the conference proceedings and about the proposal which emerged from the crisis for the establishment of a pan-European movement for the return to a national currency and the write-off of national debt.
Dimitris Kazakis: At this conference, which was the first of its kind held in Greece, over 34 representations participated from 10 countries, from Britain all the way to Finland. The atmosphere at the conference was excellent, and it was excellent because we discovered that we all speak the same language with regards to these issues, despite the fact that everyone was involved with the specific situation back in their home countries. It was evident that it would be much easier for all of us to collaborate and to work together than we originally thought, and certainly in a much more simple and civilized manner than what we have been sold from European Union bureaucrats about the so-called “United Europe.” We proved what a truly united Europe could be based upon: that a united Europe cannot exist with enslaved peoples, but only with free and independent nations, sovereign nations, where all nations respect each other and treat each other as equals, whether they are large or small. These are our basic values, and at the conference, we discovered together that we had the same goals in mind: national independence, popular sovereignty, and freedom for all peoples. These three principles stand in contrast to what the present-day European Union stands for, with the Eurozone, the common currency, the policies that they have been enforcing, the destruction of the European people. We decided to establish a network of dynamic movements and personalities from across Europe and the world, as we don’t want to remain trapped in the logic of EU bureaucrats. We want this to be a truly international movement, not just a European movement, as we believe that all peoples, all nations have the right to equal relationships with every other nation. There are no first-class or second-class nations in our view. We can start in Europe, in countries that are experiencing the problems that we are concerned with, but we wish this to be an international movement. And one of the things that we are trying to do is to help each other. To give an example, at the conference, representatives from three separate movements from Spain discovered here, in Athens, each others’ existence, found that they have the same goals and values, and decided to join forces, instead of there being three separate movements fighting for the same thing. Based on this spirit of collaboration and unity, EPAM decided that if it is to elect any representatives to the European parliament this spring, despite its opposition to the actual existence of this body and all of the European Union institutions, that it will redistribute any funding it receives from the EU to the various movements that are in existence throughout Europe to allow them to have the means to grow and develop. The major problem all such movements face is a lack of resources. For instance, the representatives who came from Spain told us that they travel from city to city on foot, because they do not have the available resources under such dire economic conditions to be able to travel via any other means. We were laughing, because this all seemed very familiar to us, as we do the same thing here in Greece. We, in fact, even proposed to share this experience together, in a sort of modern-day pilgrimage, but of a political and social nature. The French representatives also told us the same thing, and truly, we were very happy to see that there are such movements in existence which are dedicated to the well-being of their nations, and that we have the ability and the interest to develop close ties with each other as well. This is the embryo of tomorrow’s Europe, with free and equal nations which together can make decisions. <<<
Michael Nevradakis:And as you mentioned earlier, the European elections are approaching, as are municipal and local elections in Greece. Will EPAM be participating in both of these elections and will you potentially work together with any other similar movements which exist here in Greece?
Dimitris Kazakis: EPAM already collaborates, on the streets, with various political and social movements, on a number of fronts and issues. For the European elections, the membership of EPAM has decided to participate in the elections on a stand-alone basis, instead of as part of a broader umbrella. This is for three reasons. First, because our collaboration with other parties and movements has not yet reached such a level that would allow us to collaborate fully with a uniform platform. Second, because we wish to be the only party to participate in this year’s European elections based on a platform of national independence, with the Greek flag held high and with our demands for the restoration of our nation’s sovereignty and independence. No other political movement in Greece will be participating with such a message. The third reason is that we are trying to attract candidates to EPAM who are not necessarily from our movement, but to people who share our message and our beliefs.
Michael Nevradakis: And in addition to the local and European elections, it is being rumored that early parliamentary elections might also be declared in Greece. Do you believe that early elections will be held this year, and if so, will EPAM participate and would it consider collaborating with other parties such as Syriza in a potential government coalition?
Dimitris Kazakis: Yes, we will participate. Now, in what way and with which candidates, remains to be seen, as it depends on the conditions under which these elections would be held. I am not convinced though that we will see early elections this year, but that does not mean that the possibility should be ruled out, that snap elections couldn’t be declared even a month from now. I fear though that the current government wants to draw out its life span for as long as possible, for the final agreements to be made. Now, one might say…if the current governing parties suffer heavy losses in the local and European elections, how would they be able to continue governing this country? But, in Greece, we have seen other coups since May of 2010, so this unfortunately would not surprise us. And we did not see any of the opposition parties in parliament do much at all to speak out, for instance, against the complete ban on any protests or gatherings in Athens during the day of the EU presidency ceremony. Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, simply stated that he would not participate in the ceremony, an announcement which is meaningless and just for the consumption of the media. So it is not unimaginable that the current government will refuse to step down and will remain in power, and there is no political force inside the Greek parliament that will be able to do anything about this. They’ll come out and scream and shout and make accusations, but that’s about it. Of course, the Greek people might have something to say about this and might demand and force elections. Whatever happens though, we will participate, not with the goal of entering parliament or becoming a “better” opposition party than any of the other opposition parties. We will participate with a goal of Greece avoiding its total destruction and putting an end to the hell that it is experiencing today. For this to happen, there needs to be a total, complete, and radical change, as you know. Right now there is a phantom force that is hanging overhead all over Greece. That force is EPAM. Despite the fact that it has a presence everywhere in Greece, that its popularity and influence is growing rapidly, EPAM has been completely shut out of the media in Greece. It has been silenced everywhere, even while so many other completely marginal political parties are often heard. The reason is very simple: we are the only political force that the political system in Greece cannot manipulate or counter. It cannot play games with us. What we are trying to do is to break this silence, not because we want to be seen on television, but because we believe that the millions of Greek people deserve to have the opportunity to get to know us. This is our biggest challenge. If the Greek people knew us, then they would be able to make an informed choice. And we honestly believe that if given such a choice, we as EPAM would win. So they silence us totally, so that the public cannot easily find out about us. At the same time, the public is being bombarded with rigged polls which present a false dichotomy with only two choices. This creates a climate where you will either vote for the major right-wing party because you despise the left, or you will vote for the major supposedly left-wing party because you are not a right-winger. In such a context, the issues are not being discussed, ideas to get Greece out of the crisis are not being discussed, and the Greek people are not being unified. We would like to enter parliament if for no other reason than for us to have the opportunity to be heard by the people and for them to recognize that we are a legitimate political force. If this happens, the first major change in the mentality of the people will already have been accomplished. The people will have learned that there is an alternative, one that is currently being suppressed. From that point forward, we would not be the ones that would prevent, say, Alexis Tsipras of Syriza from governing. That is not for us to say, and we don’t care who is governing the country, but rather, what they will do for the country. If Alexis Tsipras can do the job, then we will gladly support him, even if we don’t believe that he will be able to do the job. We, however, will not participate in any governing coalition unless it fulfils our major positions: the unilateral write-off of the Greek debt, an exit from the Eurozone and the introduction of a domestic currency on the basis of careful planning and consideration, the filing of criminal charges against all those who brought Greece to its present-day situation and all those who stripped the country of its sovereignty and of popular rule, in violation of the Greek law and the Greek constitution. Fourth, to eliminate all obligations and agreements with the EU and the troika passed since May of 2010, including 420 new laws, 27 ministerial decrees, an entire orgy of illegality and illegitimacy. Finally, the establishment of a national committee to form a new national constitution, to allow the country to turn the page and to put an end, once and for all, to this political era. Without these commitments, EPAM will not participate in any governing coalition, as we know very well that these are the minimum preconditions for there to be true change in our country. We would not be averse to provide support, outside of the government, to a governing coalition which can, at the very least and at the bare minimum, provide some basic guarantees that will allow Greece and its people to experience even a small amount of breathing room. We made these proposals to Alexis Tsipras on the 8th of May 2012, when he called for a national dialogue, which of course never actually took place. We submitted our proposals though, and told Tsipras that though we don’t agree on the major issues, we are willing to give you a chance to prove that you can, in fact, accomplish all that you say that you can accomplish, within the Eurozone and within the European Union, even if we do not believe that what you are proposing can in fact be achieved. We stated that we are willing to provide some support, outside of a governing coalition, if you can at least do the following: first, restore Greece’s electoral system to a system of simple proportionality. Second, by eliminating the 100.000 Euro fee to participate in any election, a fee which is small change for the major parties but which is often prohibitive for smaller political movements like ours, for a true popular movement. And imagine there are three elections held in one year…300.000 Euros! Where can we find such money and to find candidates, particularly young candidates, most of whom are unemployed at the present time? This is a basic question of democracy and allowing people to express themselves democratically. Third, we want what is happening right now with Greece’s banks to be ended immediately, these ongoing scandals, their recapitalization and so on. Why should the Greek people pay to bail out the banks and these bankers, or pay for their yachts, their homes, or whatever else? Fourth, we want there to be an investigation to reveal all of the secret agreements that previous governments have signed, which have stripped Greece of its sovereignty. If any government can at least provide these guarantees to us, we would be willing to provide support for them outside of any governing coalition. We would provide such support knowing that such a government cannot accomplish all of this within the Euro. But we will not be the ones to decide this, it is for the people to decide. And we will be there when such a government fails, in order to not allow for any dark forces to take advantage of the situation and to bring the country back to where it is today, or worse, but to instead work to allow political movements that know how to overcome this situation once and for all to take hold.
Michael Nevradakis: Whatever happens, it is certain that 2014 will be a landmark year and that we will see a lot of changes, politically, economically, and socially, by year’s end. Mr. Kazakis, thank you very much for joining us today on Dialogos Radio, and thank you very much for sharing your insights and analysis with us.
Dimitris Kazakis: Thank you for having me.
Posted by epaminternational on 03/02/2014
Date: 08 October 2012
Luxembourg – The inaugural meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), comprising the euro area Finance Ministers, was held in Luxembourg on 8 October 2012. Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the ESM, said: “I am delighted to announce that the ESM has been formally inaugurated today.
Deutsche Sprache / Subtitles in english / sottotitoli italiani / ελληνικοί υπότιτλοι
Auch für diejenige, die bescheid wissen um was ESM wirklich geht, gibt es sehr interessante Geständnisse nach Minute 09:57 !
Even for those who know well what EMS is, there are some very interesting confessions after minute 09:57 !
Anche per chi sa bene che cos’ è MES, ci sono alcune confessioni molto interessanti dopo 09:57 !
Ακόμα και γι αυτούς που ξέρουν καλά τι είναι ο ΕΜΣ, υπάρχουν κάποιες πολύ ενδιαφέρουσες ομολογίες μετά το λεπτό 09:57!
Posted in S.C.G. January 6, 2014
It has always been in the interest of the ruling class to cultivate illusions which obscure the true nature of the game. Time to look behind the curtain.
“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - President Woodrow Wilson in his book the “The New Freedom” published in 1913
The quest for power is the primary driving force of history, always has been, always will be. Those who fail to recognize this principle are not spared in the grand chess game, but rather are moved and manipulated by forces that they do not understand.
From the perspective of those who dominate the board it is obviously preferable to have a population of ignorant pawns than it is to have an array of opponents which are capable of mounting an effective resistance. To that end it has always been in the interest of the ruling class to cultivate illusions which obscure the true nature of the game.
Elizabeth Sikorovsky: “Manufacturing Consent, What is that is that title meant to describe?”
Noam Chomsky: “Well the title is actually borrowed from a book by Walter Lippmann written back around 1921, in which he described what he called the manufacture of consent as a revolution in the practice of democracy. What it amounts to is a technique of control, and he said this was useful and necessary because the common interests, the general concerns of all people elude the public. The public just isn’t up to dealing with them, and they have to be the domain of what he called a specialized class.”
Walter Lippmann wasn’t speaking theoretically, nor was he commenting on a phenomenon that he had observed from a distance, he was part of that specialized class and he personally influenced the development of this new technique of control.
So what was this new technique that Lippmann was referring to?
The answer to that question takes us back to the beginning of World War I. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson formed the Committee on Public Information, also known as the CPI. It was a propaganda agency and it’s purpose was to build support for the war with the American people. The CPI, run by a man named George Creel was known for its crude tactics, blatant exaggerations and outright lies. However one member of the CPI, Edward Bernays, had a much more subtle approach. Rather than resorting to low brow tactics Bernays studied the mindset of the American people, then based on his observations he created a campaign to promote the idea that America’s purpose in the war was to “make the world safe for democracy”. This meme was wildly successful, so much so that continues to be used even to this day.
Edward Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, and like his uncle he was avid student of human psychology. Some documentarians such as Adam Curtis in his film “The Century of the Self” have mistakenly assumed that the psychological techniques that Bernays went on to develop were merely the practical application of Freud’s theories. However, though Freud had a significant influence on his nephew, the reality of the matter is that he was not the source of these ideas.
Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann all subscribed to a school of thought that was first put forth in 1895 by a French social psychologist named Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon wrote several books, the famous of which was entitled “Psychologie des Foules”. It was translated into English as “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”.
“The Crowd” was a revolutionary piece of work. In it Le Bon not only presented an in depth description of group psychology and how it differed from individual psychology but he also outlined a very simple set of principles that enable leaders to spark ideological contagion and thereby rise to power.
Hitler, Goebbels, and Mussolini all studied Le Bon’s writings and applied his techniques to the letter. The results they attained were precisely those that Le Bon claimed that they would have. Funny how they leave that little detail out of most history books don’t you think?
Sigmund Freud’s book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” was in fact a direct critique of the writings of Gustave Le Bon and William McDougall which focused on the relationship between individual psychology and group psychology, and explained how human groups can be controlled for long periods of time through the manipulation of group identity, belief systems and social structures.
Edward Bernays studied Freud, Le Bon, Wilfred Trotter, Walter Lippmann and many others. He then combined their perspectives and synthesized them into an applied science. He named that science public relations.
The success of his “make the world safe for democracy” meme during the war, both at home and abroad, planted the seed of an idea in his mind. Could group psychology tactics be applied during peacetime? After the Committee on Public Information was disbanded he decided to find out, and in 1919 he opened the world’s first pubic relations agency. He referred to his office as The Council on Public Relations.
This was Bernays’ specialty, engineering social trends for clients, and he was very, very good at it. Perception was now a commodity for sale to the highest bidder.
Bernays aided the CIA and United Fruit Company (known today as Chiquita Brands International) in a successful campaign to topple a democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954, he headed up the public relations campaign to garner support for the fluoridation of municipal water supplies on behalf of the aluminum mining Alcoa Inc, who was looking for a cheap way to dispose of their industrial waste, and he even helped a company convince the American public to eat heavier breakfasts so that they would buy more bacon.
What made Bernays so successful was his skill in applying of 3 psychological tactics:
1. Creating carefully calculated associations with the subconscious fears and desires of individuals.
2. Influencing opinion leaders and perceived authority figures in order to reach those who followed them.
3. Initiating the contagion of behaviors and ideas through social conformity.
Bernays wrote several books promoting these psychological tactics including “Propaganda” and “Crystalizing Public Opinion”. In these books he specifically encouraged governments and corporations to use his methodology to manipulate public perception.
This suggestion did not fall on deaf ears.
His techniques worked so well that they were adopted by virtually every sector that sought to influence the public: media, politics, advertising, even the military. As Walter Lippmann had indicated, it was a revolution.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, found Bernays’ approach very useful. Bernays acknowledged this fact in his 1965 autobiography entitled “Biography of an Idea” where he wrote:
“Karl von Wiegand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. … Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.” (Biography of an Idea, page 652)
The events that transpired in Nazi Germany stunned the world and they inspired several prominent psychologists to investigate how populations are convinced to commit atrocities. In the process they inadvertently established the science behind Le Bon’s and Bernays’ methods.
In 1951 psychologist Solomon Asch set out to study and measure the effects and causes of social conformity and its ability to alter perception. To do so he ran a series of experiments in which he asked groups of students to participate in what he told them was a “vision test.” In reality, all but one of the participants in each test were were actually actors, each of whom had been prepped to give specific answers at specific times.
The subjects were shown a card with a line on it, followed by another card with 3 lines on it labeled 1, 2, and 3. They were then asked which line in the second card matched the line on the first card in length. The lines were made in such a way that correct answer was obvious.
Each member of the group was asked to give their response one at a time, and the “real” participant always answered last or next to last. For the first two trials the actors gave the obvious, correct answer, however beginning on the third trial, they would all give the same wrong answer. The goal was to ascertain how many people would conform to the perception of those around them when the group’s position contradicted their own senses.
The results surprised Asch. He had believed that the majority of participants would not conform and give an answer that was obviously wrong; however, results showed that 37% of people would conform to the crowd consistently and 75% conformed at least some of the time.
Asch was uncertain as to whether this conformity was limited to social compliance or whether it was actually influencing perception at the neurological level.
In 2005 neuroscientist Gregory Berns sought to answer this question. Berns created a variation of Asch’s experiment, this time measuring brain wave activity during the test to determine at what level of the brain this conformity was taking place. The results showed very clearly that the Occipital and Parietal lobes were the most active when the participants were answering incorrectly. This meant that conformity was actually altering the perception of the test subjects at the neurological level.
Take a moment and register what that means. Social conformity literally causes the brain to rewrite our reality. Keep in mind these tests were conducted using subject matter that was physically verifiable. Imagine the implications for matters of opinion or faith.
In 1961 Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, conducted a series of experiments which measured the willingness of individuals to obey authority figures.
In the experiment test subjects were placed in a scenario where they were led to believe that when they flipped a switch an electric shock was being delivered to a person in the adjacent room. They were then ordered by a man in a white jacket claiming to be the official scientist in charge to ask the person in the next room a series of questions. If they received an incorrect response they were to punish them by flipping the switch thereby administering a shock.
As the test progressed the voltage level was steadily increased and the screams from the next room became more and more desperate, begging to stop the test and stating multiple times that they had a heart condition.
Many of the subjects expressed hesitation about continuing with the experiment upon hearing the person in other room scream and beg for help. Those that did were informed by the scientist that they had no choice but to continue. No consequences were threatened, yet just this assertion was usually enough to achieve compliance.
Under the influence of an apparent authority figure 50 to 65% of subjects continued administering the shocks even up to the maximum 450 volt shock. They even continued after the person in the other room stopped screaming which indicated that they were unconscious or dead.
The Milgram authority experiment has been repeated numerous times over the years, using individuals from a wide range of economic and social backgrounds and the conclusions are always consistent. The aura of authority exercises an almost irresistible force over the human mind, easily overriding core morals and ethics. Even more shocking is the fact that no legitimate authority is necessary. Appearances suffice.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” - Edward Bernays – “Propaganda” 1928
The invisible government that Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, and Woodrow Wilson had referred to was not just an abstract concept. It was a very real and concrete reality, and they were were well positioned to comment on it, because they directly participated in its creation.
It all started as an inquiry. “The Inquiry.” to the select few who knew, was a group of 150 men assembled by Woodrow Wilson to gather the data they thought necessary to “make the world safe for democracy” after World War I was over.
Among the known members of the inquiry were Walter Lippmann, Paul Warburg (better known as the father of the Federal Reserve), and Edward House, Wilson’s closest advisor, the man responsible for convincing Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
From 1917 to 1918, the group compiled over 2000 documents to be used during postwar negotiations. The most famous of these was the 14 points document, authored by Walter Lippmann, which proposed the creation of the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations.
After the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 a portion of the Inquiry met at the Hotel Majestic with a number of British diplomats to discuss forming a permanent institution. This meeting eventually led to the decision to join forces with a group of high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading and finance companies led by Elihu Root, a powerful corporate lawyer who was also a former United States Secretary of War, and leading advocate of Americas entry into the World War I. On July 29, 1921 the merged group filed a certification of incorporation, officially forming the Council on Foreign Relations, also known as the CFR.
The CFR, went on to build a membership comprised of the worlds most powerful business leaders, politicians and corporations. Among the corporate members are Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP Oil, General Electric, Raytheon, Lockhead Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Bloomberg, Rothschild North America, and Dyncorp international. You can find a complete list on the CFR website.
John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under president Eisenhower, is listed as one of the founding members of the CFR on their own website. It was Dulles that convinced Eisenhower to use the CIA to topple the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The Shah, a puppet who was installed to take his place, was a brutal dictator. He enjoyed full support from the U.S. government until he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Dulles was also the man behind the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala. And remember Bernays ran the propaganda for that operation. The tactic Bernays chose was to convince the public that the Guatemalan government was backed by the Soviets.
Bernays’ tactic worked even though the Soviet Union didn’t even have diplomatic relations with Guatemala at that time.
Once again Bernays set a trend, and for the next 40 years the U.S. government would use the specter of communism to justify invasions and covert operations around the globe.
Another member of the CFR McGeorge Bundy was National Security advisor under Kennedy and then under Lyndon B. Johnson. He was also the man responsible for encouraging the escalation of the Vietnam War. A prospect that Kennedy opposed and would not have allowed had he lived. This is according to documents written by Bundy himself.
President Nixon’s National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is also a member of the council. Kissinger was the man behind the CIA coup which overthrew the democratically elected president of Chile Salvador Allende. The puppet they installed in Allende’s place, Augusto Pinochet, was another brutal dictator who tortured and killed thousands of his own citizens. The U.S. government politely looked the other way.
Carter’s National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is also a member of the council.
It was Zbigniew Brzezinski who was behind the funding and arming of mujahideen in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A tactic designed to incite the Soviets to invade. These islamic militants later came to be known as the Taliban.
In this clip Hillary claims that the U.S. funded what they now call Al Quaeda in response to the Soviet invasion of 1979. However Zbigniew Brzezinski himself admitted in a 1998 interview with the Le Nouvel Observateur that the U.S. began funding the insurgents before the invasion and that this in fact was designed to draw the Soviets in.
Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisors Richard V. Allen and Robert C. McFarlane are also members of the council as was his Secretary of State George Shultz. George Shultz was behind the attempted overthrow of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. This was part of the Iran Contra scandal. The Contras which Reagan and Shultz were arming and training through the CIA, killed, tortured, raped, mutilated, and abducted hundreds of civilians they suspect of sympathizing with the Sandinistas. Yet when the scandal broke the media put all of the focus on the source of the funding for the operation rather than on the crimes that were being committed with that money.
George H. W. Bush was a director of the CFR from 1977-79 and his Secretary of State James Baker is a current member.
You might remember this clip from 2012 where Baker and Clinton Joked about the plan to take out Iran.
Kinda sounds like an inside joke doesn’t it?
One year after this interview the Obama administration attempted to initiate an attack on the Syrian government. This was designed to draw in Iran which has a mutual defense agreement with Syria. Obama took an indirect route by funding and arming militants, who then committed atrocities and blamed them on government forces. Sound familiar? Perhaps that’s because Zbigniew Brezinski was Obama’s personal mentor.
Bill Clinton is also a member of the Council, and his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright is currently serving on the Board of Directors.
Madeline Albright was in charge of the sanctions on Iraq that were in place during the entire Clinton administration.
Colin Powell, who led the charge to war with Iraq by presenting false evidence to the U.N. in 2003 is also currently on the CFR board of directors.
George W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are also members of the CFR.
Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was the man behind the banker bailouts in 2008. Goldman Sachs, which just happens to be a corporate member of the CFR was one of the primary beneficiaries of that bailout.
Another CFR member Robert Gates, was Secretary of Defense under both Bush and Obama.
Obama’s first National Security Advisor James L. Jones is a CFR member, as is Obama’s second National Security advisor Tom Donilon, his 3rd National Security advisor Susan Rice, his second Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, his first Secretary of State Hilary Clinton as was his first Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. John Kerry, Obama’s second Secretary of State, acknowledged that he was a member of the CFR in a speech given at the Council in 2003 but he is no longer listed in the official roster.
In the Senate Diane Feinstein is listed as a member, as is John Mccain, Joe Lieberman and former Senator Christopher Dodd. Christopher Dodd is currently the president of the Motion Picture Association of America in that role he was the driving force behind the SOPA and PIPA internet bills.
Three out of six of the current board members of the Federal Reserve, Daniel Tarullo, Jerome Powell, and Janet Yellen are all publicly listed as members of the Council.
This cozy relationship between the Federal Reserve and the CFR goes back to the very beginning. Paul Warburg was a founder of both organizations and he held positions in both of them concurrently. He was a director of the Council from its creation in 1921 until his death in 1932 and he served on the Federal Reserve board From 1921 to 1926.
His son James Warburg, who was also a CFR member, is most famous for the statement he made before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on February 17, 1950 in which he said, “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
Caroll Quigley was an author and professor of history at Georgetown University. He was also a personal mentor of President Bill Clinton.
Quigley served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration. He was not a fringe lunatic by any stretch of the imagination, but was in fact a respected member of the establishment. That’s what makes the statements he made in his book “Tragedy and Hope” so significant.
“Tragedy and Hope” was a dense and highly detailed historical volume which covered world history from 1914, with an emphasis on analyzing of the driving forces of civilization. The book was completely uncontroversial, that is until you get to the middle where he makes the following statement:
“There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Quigley specifically identified the CFR and the Institute of International Affairs as key hubs in this Round Table network and he confirmed its close relationship to banking and finance.
The Institute of International Affairs, also known as the Chatham house is the sister organization of the CFR. It was created in 1920 by the British diplomats who attended the meeting at the Hotel Majestic in Paris in 1919. There are chapters of the Institute of International Affairs in Australia, Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, Japan and in other countries as well.
The secret to the power the Council on Foreign Relations and the other round table groups wield lies in a clever application of the techniques that Bernays developed.
They target individual psychology by cultivating a sense of exclusivity and prestige which plays upon people’s desire to feel important and powerful. This is how they attract new members.
Like Bernays they manipulate the public indirectly by targeting opinion leaders and authority figures. By influencing their membership, which is comprised of men and women in the highest levels of government, business and finance they hijack the phenomenon observed in the Milgram Authority experiments while bypassing the electoral process. Most of the meetings held at the CFR are run under Chatham house rules meaning that the ideas discussed there may be used and spread by those present but no one is allowed to mention where those ideas came from.
These closed door discussions and their exclusive membership process work together to engineer the phenomenon demonstrated in the Asch conformity experiments. New members must be nominated by an existing member, seconded by three members and approved by board of directors. This process ensures that ideological continuity is maintained as social conformity brings new members into line with the group.
It’s important to remember that wealth, social status and official positions of power do not reduce the effects of group psychology.
To put it in simple terms the politicians aren’t calling the shots. They’re puppets. Voting the bums out doesn’t work, and now you know why.
Even if we remove every single corrupt oligarch from the councils of government we will end up right back in the same situation unless we deal with the psychological underpinnings of our enslavement.
But how do we do that? How do we reach the group mind and shake the crowd from its slumber?
Group psychology is a weapon and like all weapons it is capable of being used for good or for evil. For many years it has been in the wrong hands. It has been hidden from the public and used against them. It’s time for the people to pick up that weapon and use it to free themselves.
Time to start studying.
Read Gustave Le Bon’s books: “The Crowd” and “The Psychology of Revolution”.
Read Edward Bernays’ books: “Propaganda” and “Crystalizing Public Opinion”.
And read Gene Sharp’s books: “From Dictatorship to Democracy” and “National Security Through Civilian-Based Defense”
Learn the theory. Learn the techniques and start using them to spread the truth rather than hiding it. Start using them to prevent wars rather than start them. Start using them to stop the militarization of the police and to end the surveillance state. Use them to bring this corporate mafia to its knees.
To some of you this might be a bit frightening. This is dangerous stuff. These are ideological m-16s with boxes of ammunition.
If even a few motivated individuals started using these techniques effectively it could seriously disrupt the balance of power.
But that’s exactly what’s needed.
I challenge you to look around. Look at the state of the world. Look at where these psychopaths are taking us. If you do not feel the imperative to change the course we are on, then you are not paying attention.
To be continued (Parts 2 and 3 are already under way).
If you want to shift the balance of power back into the hands of the people, a simple starting point is to spread this video. Make a commitment to get this film into the hands of as many people as you can. Share it through social media, post it on your website, and send it to your friends via email. You have permission to download this video and distribute it through any means necessary.
The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1483926141/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War by Wilfred Trotter: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QOA9G6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego by Sigmund Freud: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1482042703/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
Propaganda by Edward Bernays: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0970312598/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
Crystalizing Public Opinion by Edward Bernays: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193543926X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
Tragedy and Hope by Carol Quigley: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094500110X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp…
The creation of the CFR:http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/inquiry.html
Janet Yellen (Chair of the Federal Reserve) is CFR: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/yellen.htm
Jerome H. Powell former partner in the Carlyle Group and current member of the CFR: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/powell.htm
National Security Advisor Jones admits who he really takes his orders from:http://www.cfr.org/defensehomeland-security/remarks-national-security-ad…
Brezinski admits that the CIA started funding the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet invasion to draw them into the region: http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
John Kerry admits to being a member of the CFR back in 2003 (he is currently not listed on the official roster): http://www.cfr.org/iraq/making-america-secure-again-setting-right-course…
The real story behind the Iraq sanctions:http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9
John Foster Dulles founding member of the CFR:http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/assumptions.html
McGeorge Bundy’s role in pushing for the Vietnam war, and his admission that he would not have been able to get the war if Kennedy had lived:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64713/lawrence-d-freedman/lessons…
George Shultz and the attempt to topple the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua by backing the “Contras”: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/20/world/shultz-and-president-defend-aid-…
Those same Contras were responsible for horrific atrocities against civilians: http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras
More regarding the attrocities in Nicaragua: http://books.google.com/books?id=MGgWWT9fWYQC&pg=PA32&dq=For+its+critica…
Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh Says Obama Lied About The Syrian Chemical Weapons Attacks
Posted in S.C.G. December 10, 2013
Seymour Hersh the investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, and the US military’s brutal torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison has now come forward stating that Obama lied about the Syrian Chemical Weapons attacks one August 21st, 2013.
Hersh’s article entitled “Who’s Sarin?” which he released on December 8th, accuses Obama of cherry picking intelligence, and hiding the fact that the U.S. intelligence community knew full and well that the rebels possessed sarin gas and should have been considered suspects in the attack.
In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
Hersh went on to say that many military and intelligence officers had expressed their frustration regarding the way the information was distorted by the administration.
One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’
He also confirmed the fact that the rockets used in the attack were homemade and were not the type used by the Syrian government at all.
“Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition that was very likely manufactured locally. He told me that it was ‘something you could produce in a modestly capable machine shop’. The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal.”
Of course none of this information would come as a surprise to anyone who watched the video we produced right after the attack (The Syrian War: What You’re Not Being Told):
Also note we predicted the attack on Syria a year before it happened:
Description of the crude rockets witnesses saw used in the chemical attack match remains found after other attacks: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-chemicals-idUSBRE97M0…
According to the U.N. investigation the March 19th chemical weapons attack turned out to be committed by the rebels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Russia agrees that the U.S. backed rebels were behind the attack: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-syria-crisis-chemical-russi…
Οι πολίτες με μοναδική συμμετοχή κήρυξαν την έναρξη διαλόγου για τη μετάβαση σε εθνικό νόμισμα!
Ήταν πέρα από κάθε προσδοκία! Ο κόσμος γέμισε τον κινηματογράφο Καλυψώ, με καθιστούς και όρθιους, στην πλατεία και τον εξώστη, ενώ δεκάδες πολίτες, όλων των ηλικιών, παρέμεναν στο πεζοδρόμιο καθ΄όλη τη διάρκεια της εκδήλωσης. Από την άλλη δεν μπορούν να μετρηθούν αυτοί που ήρθαν και δεν μπόρεσαν καν να μπουν μέσα στην αίθουσα, λόγω του κόσμου και αναγκάστηκαν να φύγουν.
Σε όλους αυτούς όμως το ΕΠΑΜ δίνει μια υπόσχεση: να βρεθεί σε κάθε συνοικία της Αθήνας και να συζητήσει το πρόγραμμα του για μια κυβέρνηση παλλαϊκού Μετώπου και τη μετάβαση σε εθνικό νόμισμα.
Η επιτυχία αυτής της εκδήλωσης αποτελεί για το ΕΠΑΜ εναρκτήριο λάκτισμα σε μια πορεία ενημέρωσης του λαού για τη διέξοδο από την κρίση και ανατροπή αυτού του καθεστώτος με συγκεκριμένα βήματα και προτάσεις.
Δ.Καζάκης: «Δεν μπορεί να είναι φιλολαϊκή δύναμη όποιος αναγνωρίζει το χρέος»
«Η Ελλάδα βρίσκεται στην κοιλιά ενός θηρίου. Έχει αρχίσει η διαδικασία της πέψης και το θηρίο ετοιμάζεται να μας αφοδεύσει. Κάποιοι αυτό το θεωρούν επιτυχία γιατί θα βγεις αλλά φαντάσου σε τι κατάσταση θα βρίσκεσαι”. Έτσι άρχισε την ομιλία ο γ.γ. του ΕΠΑΜ, Δημήτρης Καζάκης και συνέχισε: «προσπαθούν να μας πείσουν ότι επειδή χρωστάμε δεν έχουμε δικαιώματα. Ότι δε μας αξίζει αυτός ο τόπος άρα δεν οφείλουμε να τον υπερασπιστούμε».
«Λένε στον ελληνικό λαό πως επειδή χρωστά δεν έχει δικαιώματα και πολύ περισσότερο πως δεν μας αξίζει αυτό ο τόπος και άρα ορθώς δεν τον υπερασπιζόμαστε…. Μας κατατάσσουν στα αποτυχημένα κράτη, γιατί θέλουν τα μη βιώσιμα στοιχεία να τα δώσουν στους δανειστές. Δεν έχουν όμως υπολογίσει τον αστάθμητο παράγοντα που δεν είναι άλλος από τον ίδιο τον λαό ο οποίος είναι ο μόνος που μπορεί να κάνει την ανατροπή» τόνισε για να συνεχίσει «Μπορούμε να απαλλαγούμε από το χρέος; Ναι μέσα από τα κυριαρχικά μας δικαιώματα. Δεν πρέπει να σώσεις μόνο την “πολυκατοικία” πρέπει να έχει και την κυριαρχία του οικοπέδου. Οικειοθελώς οι προδότες απεμπόλησαν την εθνική κυριαρχία γιατί χωρίς τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα δεν έχουμε λόγο να συζητούμε το οτιδήποτε. Όσοι το πράττουν έχουν περάσει στην αντίπερα όχθη του εχθρού. Αναγνώριση το χρέους σημαίνει αναγνώριση μεθοδεύσεων και μερική αθώωση όλων όσοι έβαλαν τη χώρα στο χρέος. Δε μπορεί λοιπόν σήμερα να υπάρχει φιλολαϊκή δύναμη που να αναγνωρίζει το χρέος, έστω και μερικά!»
Δείτε το βίντεο της ομιλίας του Δ. Καζάκη
«Η χώρα πρέπει να μείνει έρμαιο των πολυεθνικών συγκροτημάτων και της παρασιτικής ελίτ που υπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα τους, για αυτό δεν παρουσιάζουν ένα πραγματικό σχέδιο ανάπτυξης» υπογράμμισε ο Όθωνας Κουμαρέλλας, Β΄συντονιστής της Πολιτικής Γραμματείας του Ε.ΠΑ.Μ.
«Μας έστρεψαν στον τουρισμό και τις υπηρεσίες ως πρότυπο ανάπτυξης. Να περνάμε καλά κι ας γίνουμε τα γκαρσόνια της Ευρώπης. Διότι κανείς δεν σκέφτηκε ότι αν δεν υπάρχει ένα σοβαρό παραγωγικό υπόβαθρο η χώρα καθίσταται ευάλωτη στην κατάρρευση. Δεν υπάρχουν μοντέλα. Στόχος είναι η ευημερία του τόπου” προσέθεσε και συνέχισε: «Απέναντι στην παγκοσμιοποιημένη οικονομία θα πρέπει να αντιτάξουμε μια εθνική οικονομία. Πως μπορούμε να το πράξουμε: Με την ανάκτηση της εσωτερικής αγοράς αλλά και ενός κράτους που θα εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα του έθνους και της κοινωνικής πλειοψηφίας. Η εθνική οικονομία πρέπει να οικοδομηθεί προς όφελος του λαού με σκοπό την κοινωνική ευημερία. Για αυτό χρειάζεται μια Συντακτική Εθνοσυνέλευση και ένας καταστατικός χάρτης» .
Δείτε το βίντεο της ομιλίας του Ό. Κουμαρέλλα
«Οι νέοι πρέπει να συμμετάσχουν, ο καθένας από το μετερίζι του, στη γενική πολιτική απεργία για την ανατροπή της δωσιλογικής κυβέρνησης» τόνισε ο εκπρόσωπος της νεολαίας του ΕΠΑΜ, Αλέξης Ξιφαράς που συμπλήρωσε: «Κάποιοι αντιλαμβάνονται την κρίση σα φυσικό φαινόμενο, κάτι σαν κρυολόγημα που θα περάσει μόνο του, αρκεί να μην προκαλούμε την εξουσία. Θα διαψευσθούν οικτρά».
«Για να ανατραπεί αυτή η δωσιλογική κυβέρνηση πρέπει να υπάρξει ενεργή συμμετοχή των νέων μέσα από την οργάνωση εκδηλώσεων ενημέρωσης, συζήτησης, αλληλεγγύης και στήριξης στρωμάτων που πλήττονται. Ο κατήφορος και η μαυρίλα θα λάβουν τέλος. Μοναδικά σημεία αναφοράς μας είναι η Δημοκρατία, η ισηγορία, η ισονομία και η παρρησία” είπε χαρακτηριστικά ο Αλέξης Ξιφαράς.
Δείτε το βίντεο της ομιλίας του Α. Ξιφαρά
ΧΑΙΡΕΤΙΣΜΟΙ ΕΚΠΡΟΣΩΠΩΝ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΩΝ
Στην εκδήλωση θερμό χαιρετισμό από καρδιάς απηύθυνε ο πρόεδρος του κινήματος “Δραχμή πέντε αστέρων” Θεόδωρος Κατσανέβας ο οποίος δήλωσε χαρακτηριστικά τα εξής
O Γιώργος Κωνσταντινίδης μέλος του αγγλικού κόμματος UKIP, επικεφαλής του οποίου είναι ο Νάιτζελ Φάρατζ, απευθυνόμενος στον κόσμο που γέμισε ασφυκτικά τον κινηματογράφο ΚΑΛΥΨΩ τους ζήτησε να μην χάσουν την ελπίδα τους και να παραμείνουν ενωμένοι (δείτε εδώ το χαιρετισμό του).
Η βουλευτής των ΑΝΕΛ, Ραχήλ Μακρή δήλωσε πως χαίρεται ιδιαίτερα που βρίσκεται ανάμεσα σε άτομα που μπορεί να έχουν διαφορές, έχουν όμως τον ίδιο στόχο σε ένα κοινό αγώνα που δεν είναι άλλος από τη ανατροπή αυτού του συστήματος (δείτε το χαιρετισμό της εδώ).
Το μέλος του ΔΗΚΚΙ και Συνταγματολόγος Ηλίας Νικολόπουλος παρουσίασε αναλυτικά σε ποια σημεία έχει γίνει παραβίαση το Συντάγματος και δήλωσε πως σε όλους αυτούς που το έπραξαν πρέπει να αποδοθούν ευθύνες για εσχάτη προδοσία (δείτε εδώ τον χαιρετισμό του).
by Stavros Katsoulis*
There is a well orchestrated operation of disinformation regarding the situation in Greece spreading worldwide. It is especially widespread in, what we know as, civilized countries, and even though informed citizens of these countries now know that disinformation is the classic modus operandi of the media moguls operating in these otherwise ‘democratic’ countries, the narrative on Greece follows the same path, and it is easy for anyone to be mislead by it. Any attempt by the average listener to become informed on the true situation in Greece by these media outlets, results in the same falsified news, as the same ‘story’ is repeated ad nauseam:
“Greeks are patiently and quietly waiting for their ‘incredibly capable’ government to pull them out of this crisis, and save the day.”
The mainstream media also make sure to repeatedly mention the ‘fantastic help’ that is being given to the Greek people by their ever-righteous ‘partners’ in the European Union. On top of that, an outpouring of ‘kindness and loyalty’ is bestowed upon the International Monetary Fund by the mainstream media – as is always the case in these on-going, tragic situations in other parts of the world. Finally, the Banks are being portrayed as always trying to do their best to help these countries. In addition to the above, the media make sure to constantly remind you that they are treating the whole situation with extreme understanding and sensitivity, as their one and only noble goal is to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – so help them god.
But none of these distinctions could be further from the truth. The Greeks, being fully submerged in the reality of this crisis on a daily basis, experience and see things in an entirely different way. They can no longer be fooled by international or internal mainstream media outlets, and their meticulously applied PsyOp (psychological operations).
The following facts portray the true perceptions of the Greek people, their awareness of the actual situation, and more importantly… their awakening.
FACT 1: Greeks do not look at the financial “aid” they are supposedly receiving as aid at all.
Contrary to popular international belief, Greeks understand that they are not getting – nor ever got – any help, whatsoever, from their so-called ‘partners’ in the European Union. And they are correct: No sensible mind would consider mounting mandatory extortionary debt – piled on top of existing debt, where the additionally borrowed money doesn’t even go to the country borrowing it, but rather back to the banks loaning the money in the first place – as ‘aid’ or ‘help’. All that’s left is multiplying debt, with no end in sight.
Greeks can’t be expected to be grateful for something that is nothing more than plain extortion.
FACT 2: Greeks don’t trust their political system anymore.
Greeks see their current government – including the previous two – as nothing more than traitorous. In fact, what has transpired since the beginning of the Greek crisis, in the minds of ordinary Greeks, is nothing short of treason: Officially since May 6, 2010 Greece’s national sovereignty and rights as a nation have been abolished willingly and irreversibly, by its own politicians. These politicians, in the eyes of the Greek people, are nothing more than mindless puppets who have given free reign to external powers. And while other countries have laws to prevent politicians from discussing internal affairs with foreign entities – one example being the ‘Logan Act’ in the United States – this is no longer the case of Greece, as the ‘Troika’ (European Commission, ECB, IMF) made sure to have any such rules disappear: these ‘common-sense’ laws, stating that the people of a nation be able to make their own internal decisions, do not apply to Greece anymore.
To the Greek people, treasonous acts are blatantly occurring before their eyes on a daily basis. How could anyone, in their right and Patriotic mind trust such a political system?
FACT 3: Greeks do not trust ‘their EU partners’ in any shape or form.
If they were to decide, the Greek people would leave it all behind. Austerity being forced upon the people, is but a small fraction of the problem. Greece, or any member state for that matter, by entering the EU and adopting the Euro, has lost the ability to govern itself for the good of its people. For years now, the EU has been imposing its own sociopathic rules on entire populations it knows nothing about. Even worse, it has been applying policies which clearly benefit a small, select group of interested parties who lobby at the highest ‘EU level’. The Greek constitution – like many other national constitutions – was required to be modified in order for the country to continue being part of an evolving EU: Article 28 of the Greek constitution, which defines that all EU law is to supersede any local law, is the corner-stone that Greeks believe sacrificed their country for the sole benefit of the EU.
Today, ‘who decides’ about Greece’s fate has been taken to a whole a new ‘dictatorial’ level, with decisions being made by unelected EU officials. For the Greeks, the Euro, and the way it’s being used by the EU “feudocracy”, has now become a much hated currency, and it should come as no surprise that most Greeks don’t want anything to do with it anymore. European nations are slowly waking up to the fact that EU federalism may not be good for them after all. Increasingly, the citizens of Europe are realizing that Chancellor Angela Merkel and her EU ‘partners in crime’ are imposing their anti-democratic policies upon Greece and the periphery, while gradually abolishing democracy all around Europe.
But for the Greeks very bad things have happened already: the EU ‘tools’ were put in place a long time ago, and the rapid, violent destruction of an entire country and its people, started way back in the day. Ordinary Greeks now want out.
FACT 4: Greeks see Democracy being abolished in Greece and EU-wide.
The current Greek government with its norm-breaking extended form of coalition does not even represent a third of the popular vote. By now, this could even be representative of a figure as low as 1/5 of the popular vote, or even lower. Thanks to stretched-out electoral laws, most MPs have been voted into their positions by a mere few hundred votes. Yet the government, blatantly ignoring the fact that it represents hardly anyone, and circumventing normal parliamentary procedures – even the old corrupt ones – continues to methodically apply the policies dictated to them by the ‘Troika’. Greeks know by now, that all these policies are created and compiled in the darkest dungeons of the corporate fascism found at the core of the EU. It’s no secret, as they are shamelessly told this by their own ‘leaders’. Every time any new, deadly austerity measure is being ‘negotiated’, Greek ‘leaders’ tell their citizens the exact same thing: “The ‘Troika’ must decide on that. We must wait for the ‘Troika’ to decide on whether an objection to a measure can be accepted or not.” In addition to the above, Greek Courts are called to decide upon – and support – absolute unconstitutional laws for that matter. Basic and fundamental human rights are being violated every minute, and the justice system chooses to turn a blind eye.
Greeks were the first to violently learn what other peoples of Europe are now getting to experience, or are slowly realizing: Democracy in Europe is gradually, painfully, and irreversibly being taken away from its citizens.
FACT 5: Greeks expect nothing from the Opposition.
The ordinary citizen of Greece doesn’t seem to consider the opposition parties as relevant. While the so-called ‘government’ of Greece continues the destructive ‘reforms program’, Greeks are witnessing the lukewarm role played by the Opposition. In fact, the main opposition party is no Opposition at all. By merely playing ‘spectator’, and being quite silent all throughout, it has proven, despite claiming otherwise, that it is, indirectly, quite supportive of every decision taken by the financial occupiers of the country. By not refusing to discuss with the sources of corruption and greed, the members of the Opposition thus prove that they approve of the institutions destroying the country. And even though they claim that they stand up against the system in their usual ‘left-leaning’ rhetorics, in the minds and hearts of ordinary Greeks, they look like nothing more than accomplices.
One would think that the main opposition party would attract innumerable sympathizers, since massive austerity is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Greeks. Yet, as even the easily disputed ‘official polls’ suggest, the Opposition has epically failed to convince the people of its sincerity: its numbers are usually equal or slightly higher than the governing party’s, all figures being extremely low.
FACT 6: Greek citizens do not just want a new government, they want a complete change from the ground up.
Conventional knowledge tells us ‘elections are the cornerstone of Democracy’, but that’s filling the minds of people with blatant lies. The truth to the matter is, that the cornerstone of Democracy (demos: people kratos: power) is that the power must derive directly from the people, and this on an ongoing basis: Democracy is thus a system in which the ‘power to the people’ is both mandatory, and made possible. Is there at all then, a country which has such a Democracy in the 21st century? True Democracy is hard to find, as it seems it’s something to be avoided at any and all costs by the powers that be. Why give ‘power to the people’ when your interests, within a given system, are supported just fine… There is no reason why – so the current system will not allow it. Yet the Greek people seem to think otherwise.
Historically and culturally, Greeks highly honor their personal and social liberties. One could even argue based on historic facts, that this feeling seems to be stronger among Greeks, than it is among many other nations. Freedom is not something the Greek people give up easily, despite the abuse they have let their rulers impose upon them for the past three years. There are already practical, undeniable signs, that the situation cannot go on indefinitely. Millions of ordinary Greek citizens who always paid their taxes are now ignoring current extortionate taxing laws – not to be confused with tax-evaders’ practices performed by privileged groups of oligarchs and politicians for decades, still happening today stronger than ever.
In Greece, there is emerging a new, natural resistance, in various forms and ways, against the dictatorial regime which has abolished the most basic rights of it own people. Recent history has shown too many times already, that Greeks are capable of overturning any political system forced upon them, from the ground up.
FACT 7: Greece can set an example for change, and inspire others
As stated earlier, Greeks have never relinquished freedoms and rights in the past without resistance. Unjust, deadly austerity imposed violently on an entire people, comes with the increasing feeling that the treasonous politicians’ end is nearing, and that justice shall prevail. And while people are still continuously provoked, humiliated, and subjected to even more pain, there lies the seed of resistance that is slowly seeing the light of day.
Greece is the place where Democracy was born. So it is the Greek people’s task today, to start anew, and to become once again an inspiring, shining example for the world to follow.
*Stavros Katsoulis is a member of the Political Council of the United People’s Front (EPAM). The UPF (EPAM) is a political movement/party in Greece which seeks to help Greece return to Democracy: nullify Greek debt as it is catastrophic and genocidal against its people, exit the EU and the Eurozone, and help the Greek people found a new constitution which will defend and establish Justice and Democracy.
by Anthony Coughlan (*)
Nations and Nation States make up the international community. “Globalisation” and the supranationalism of the European Union affect the environment of Europe’s Nation States, but do not make them out of date. Nationhood, shared membership of a national community, is the normal basis of democratic States in the modern world. This is shown by the advent of several new European Nation States to the international community since 1989, and the likely advent of many more States, in Europe and across the world, as the 21st century continues.
The following democratic principles are proposed as fruitful ways of approaching questions of nationhood, State sovereignty and the European Union. No claim is made for their novelty, but they may be useful as setting out what may be regarded as the classical approach of democrats to these issues.
1) INTERNATIONALISM, NOT NATIONALISM, IS THE PRIMARY CATEGORY
We are internationalists on the basis of our solidarity as members of the human race. As internationalists we seek the emancipation of mankind. The human race is divided into nations. Therefore we stand for the self-determination of nations. The right of nations to self-determination inspired the 18th century American Revolution. It was formally proclaimed as a democratic principle in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in the French Revolution of 1789. The right to national self-determination is nowadays accepted as a basic principle of international law and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
As democrats and internationalists we assert the right of those nations that wish it to have their independence, sovereignty and a Nation State of their own, so that they may relate to one another internationally on a basis of political equality. The democratic principle of internationalism does not mean that one is called upon to urge people of other nations to assert their right to self-determination; but rather that one respects their wishes and shows solidarity with them if they should do that. It is as true of the life of nations as of individuals that separation, recognition of international boundaries and mutual respect based upon that – viz, political equality, neither dominance nor submission – are the prerequisite of free and friendly cooperation between States, of internationalism in other words. Good fences make good neighbours.
2) NATIONS AND NATIONALITY COME BEFORE NATIONALISMS AND NATION STATES
Nations exist as human communities before nationalisms and Nation States. To analyse nations and the national question in terms of “nationalisms” is philosophical idealism, looking at the mental reflection rather than the thing it reflects. Nationalism developed as an ideology legitimising the formation of Nation States in the eighteenth century, although its elements can be found centuries before in some of the world’s oldest States – Denmark, England, France, China, Japan. Nations evolve historically as stable, long-lasting communities of people, sharing a common language and territory and the common culture and history which arise from that. On this basis develop the solidarities, mutual identification and mutual interests which distinguish one people from another.
Some nations are ancient, some young, some in process of being formed. Like all human groups, for example the family, clan, tribe, neighbourhood, they are fuzzy at the edges. No neat definition will encompass all cases. The empirical test is to ask people themselves. If people have passed beyond the stage of kinship society where the political unit is the clan or tribe, they will know themselves what nation they belong to. This is the political and democratic test too. If enough people in a nation wish to establish their own independent State, they have the right to do that, for political democracy can exist normally only at the level of the national community and a Nation State which is built upon that. The reason is that it is principally within the national community that there exists sufficient solidarity and mutuality of identification and interest among people as to overcome other social divisions and induce minorities freely to consent to majority rule and to obey a common government based upon that.
Such mutual identification and solidarity characterise the demos, the collective “We”, which constitutes a people possessing the right to national self-determination. They underlie a people’s sense of shared citizenship and allegiance to a government as “their” government, possessing democratic legitimacy, and their willingness to finance that government’s tax and income-transfer system, thereby tying the richer and poorer regions and social classes of particular Nation States together.
When people speak of the “common good” which it is the duty of the State and its government to uphold, it is the community of the nation, the people, the demos, whose welfare they refer to. The solidarities that exist within nations do not exist between nations, although other solidarities may exist, international solidarity, which become more important with time, as modern communications, trade, capital movements and common environmental problems link all nations together in international interdependence as part of today’s “global village”.
3) MANKIND IS STILL AT THE RELATIVELY EARLY STAGE OF THE FORMATION OF NATION STATES
Only a dozen or so contemporary Nation States are more than a few centuries old. The number of member States of the United Nations has grown from some 60 in 1945 to nearly 200 today. The number of European States has grown from some 30 to 50 since 1989. This process is not ended even in Western Europe, where people have been at the business of Nation State formation for centuries. It is ongoing in Eastern Europe. It has scarcely begun in Africa and Asia, where the bulk of mankind lives, where huge numbers of people are still members of clan-tribal societies based on kinship and where most State boundaries were drawn by the colonial powers following World Wars 1 and 2 with little consideration for the wishes of indigenous peoples.
There are some 6000 different languages in the world. At their present rate of disappearance there should still be 600 or so left in a century’s time. These will probably survive because in each case they are spoken by a million or more people and are likely to be seen by them as their national languages. There clearly are many embryonic nations. There are also long-established nations without their own Nation States, which have a national identity but no independence – for example the Scots, Catalans, Kurds, Palestinians, Chechyns, Tamils, Ibo etc. A nation can keep its identity in servitude as well as in freedom. Many new Nation States are likely to come into being during this century and next. In doing so they will acquire the two classical pillars of independent statehood, the sword and the currency – the monopoly of legal force over a territory embodied in an army and police force, and the monopoly of the issue of legal tender for that territory. A world of several hundred Nation States will be a world of several hundred national currencies.
4) MULTINATIONAL STATES, WHETHER FEDERAL OR UNITARY, MUST RESPECT THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONS COMPOSING THEM IF THEY ARE TO BE STABLE AND ENDURE
The right to self-determination of nations does not require that a nation seek to establish its own State. Nations can co-exist amicably with other nations inside a multinational State, as for example the English, Welsh and Scots did for three centuries inside the British State, or the many Indian nationalities inside modern India. They can do this however only if their national rights are respected and the smaller nations do not feel oppressed by the larger ones, especially culturally and linguistically.
If that condition is not met political pressures are likely to develop to break-up the multinational State in question. Multinational States are either the legatees of colonial conquest – for example, India, Indonesia, most of the States of Africa – or they have been formed by the governments of large nationalities extending their power over smaller ones and incorporating the latter into either a unitary or a federal State – for example Britain, Spain, Russia, China. The historical tendency, though it is not inevitable, seems to be for multinational States to break up into national ones, mainly because of the breakdown in solidarity between their component nationalities and the development of a feeling among the smaller ones that they are being put upon by the larger.
Shared civic nationality is the political basis of multinational States, shared ethnic nationality the political basis of Nation States. In both cases, if the State is a democratic one, all citizens will be equal before the law and the rights of minority nationalities in multinational States and of national minorities in Nation States will be equally respected. Historically, multinational federal States are all twentieth century creations – the USSR, the Russian Federation, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia etc. Several have lacked, or lack, the stability and popular legitimacy which come from centuries of tradition. Some have already dissolved, others are likely to in time, as various peoples within them assert their right to national independence.
5) THE EUROPEAN UNION IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ITS MEMBER STATES BECAUSE THERE IS NO EU SOLIDARITY OR SUPRANATIONAL EUROPEAN “COMMON GOOD” WHICH PEOPLE REGARD AS SUPERIOR TO THAT ATTACHING TO THEIR OWN NATION STATES
It is the absence in the European Union of anything like the underlying national solidarity which binds Europe’s Nation States together that makes the EU integration project, and especially the euro-currency scheme, so problematic and therefore unlikely to endure. The EU is a creation of powerful political, economic and bureaucratic elites, without popular legitimacy and authority. It is directed from the top down rather than from the bottom up and is therefore fundamentally undemocratic. There is no European people, no European “demos”, no European “We,” bound together by solidarities comparable to those which bind nations and Nation States together. Rather the EU is made up of a plurality of Europe’s nations and peoples. The links binding its members are essentially legal, institutional and bureaucratic. They are artificial, not organic. There is therefore no EU “common good” comparable to that underlying its component member States, whose pursuit or achievement could be regarded as justifying the establishment at supranational level of State-like governmental institutions.
All independent States, being political unions, are monetary and fiscal unions also. As monetary unions they have their own currency, and with that the capacity to control either the domestic “price” of that currency, the rate of interest, or its external price, the rate of exchange. As fiscal unions States have their own taxation, public spending and social service systems. By virtue of citizens paying common taxes to a common government in order to finance common public spending programmes throughout the territory of a State, there are automatic transfers from the richer regions and social classes of each State to its poorer regions and classes. This sustains and is sustained by a shared national solidarity, a mutual commitment to the common good of the national community in question.
By contrast, the euro-currency project, European Economic and Monetary Union, is a monetary union but not a fiscal union. Never in history has there been a lasting monetary union which was not also a fiscal union and political union, in other words a fully-fledged State, deriving its legitimacy from a shared national solidarity and common good which its government existed to serve and which in turn underpinned a common fiscal transfer system amongst the citizens of that State that bolstered its acceptability and authority.
The euro-currency scheme deprives the poorer EU States and the weaker EU economies of the ability to maintain their competitiveness and compensate for their lower productivity, poorer resource endowment or differential economic shocks by adopting an exchange rate or interest rate which suits their special circumstances. It fails to compensate them for that loss by the automatic transfer of resources from the centre which membership of a fiscal union entails. Compensatory fiscal transfers at EU level to the extent required to give the EU monetary union long-run viability are impossible in view of the volume of resources required and the unwillingness of the richer EU countries to provide them to the poorer because of the absence of the shared solidarity which would compel that. Currently expenditure by Brussels in any one year amounts to little more than one percent of EU annual gross domestic product, a tiny relative figure. This contrasts with expenditure by the EU’s Member States of between one-third and one-half of their annual national products.
Thus the fiscal solidarity which would sustain an EU political union and an EU multinational State does not and cannot exist. Democratising the EU in the absence of a European “demos” or people is by definition impossible. The EU’s adoption of such traditional symbols of national statehood as a flag, anthem, passport, car number plates, driving license Olympic games, youth orchestra, history books, motto, annual national day, citizenship, fundamental rights charter and constitution, are so many doomed attempts to manufacture a European “demos” artificially, and with it a bogus EU supranational “quasi-nation” and “national” consciousness. They leave the ordinary people of Europe indifferent, whose allegiance remains to their own countries and Nation States. The more European integration is pushed ahead and the more the national democracy of the EU member States is undermined in the process, the more the EU loses legitimacy and authority in the eyes of ordinary citizens. Consequently the greater and more certain the eventual popular reaction against it. To align oneself with such a misguided, inevitably doomed project is to be out of tune with history. It is to side with a supranational elite against the democracy of one’s own people, to spurn genuine internationalism for the intoxicating illusion of building a superpower.
6) RESPECT FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS A FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE AND THE CORNERSTONE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Insistence on the sovereignty of one’s own State is a natural right as well as a social duty. It is in no way an expression of misguided national egotism. Sovereignty has nothing to do with autarchy or economic self-sufficiency. The national sovereignty of a democratic State is analogous to the freedom and autonomy of the individual. It means that one’s domestic laws and policies and one’s foreign relations are exclusively decided by one’s own Parliament and government, which are elected by and responsible to one’s own people.
State sovereignty is a result of advancing political culture and is an achievement of modern democracy. It is not an end in itself but is an instrument of juridical independence, determining the possibility of a people that inhabits a particular territory deciding its own destiny and way of life in accordance with its own needs, interests, genius and traditions, and determining freely its relations with other peoples. It is the opposite of every kind of subordination to foreign rule. Without sovereignty a nations’s politics become provincial, concerned with marginal and unimportant issues. Maintaining State sovereignty alone guarantees the political independence of a nation and creates conditions for its members to maintain their right to self-determination.
The sovereignty of a democratic state means at the same time the sovereignty of its people. The end of the sovereignty of a State is at the same time the end of the sovereignty of its people. The sovereignty of a State and of its people is democratically inalienable. No government, no temporary parliamentary or referendum majority, has the right to alienate it, for they have no right to deprive future generations of the possibility of choosing their own way of life and deciding the common good of that society. The only mode of international cooperation acceptable to democrats is therefore one which will not demand of a State the sacrifice of its sovereignty, a sacrifice which the European Union requires of its members. Respect for national sovereignty makes possible the free cooperation of free peoples united in independent States on the basis of juridical equality, something which is fundamental to a stable international order.
7) “POOLING” SOVEREIGNTY MEANS THE END OF SOVEREIGNTY AND SUBMISSION BY SMALL STATES TO THE HEGEMONY OF BIG ONES
Concepts of “shared sovereignty”, “pooled sovereignty” and “joint national sovereignties” are deceptive terms for having one’s laws and policies decided by supranational EU bodies which one’s own people do not elect, which are not responsible to them and which can have significantly different interests from one’s fellow national citizens. EU membership means that countries can no longer decide their own laws over a wide range of public policy matters. Countries and peoples which surrender their sovereignty to the EU become in practice ever more subject to laws and policies that serve the interests of others, in particular the bigger EU member States.
The claim that if a nation or State surrenders its sovereignty to the EU it merely exchanges the sovereignty of a small State for participation in decision-making in a larger supranational entity, is simply untrue. The reality is very different. The EU continually reduces the influence of smaller States in decision-making by abolishing or limiting national veto powers. Even if bigger States divest themselves similarly of veto power, their political and economic weight ensures that they can get their way in matters which are decisive for them. Treaty changes also increase the relative voting weight of the larger EU states. The provision of the Treaty of Lisbon/EU Constitution which puts EU law-making in the Council of Ministers on a straight population basis from 2014 onward underlines this fact.
Equally false is the contention that the advent of new States to the European Union and their surrender of sovereignty to the EU would increase their sovereignty in practice. The nation which gives up its sovereignty or is deprived of it, ceases to be an independent subject of international politics. It becomes more like a provincial State than a national one. It is no longer able to decide even its own domestic affairs. It literally puts its existence at the mercy of those who are not its citizens, who have taken its sovereignty into their hands and who decide the policies of the larger body. In the European Union the big States, in particular Germany and France, decide fundamental policy. Juridically EU integration is an attempt to liquidate for its member States the democratic heritage of the French Revolution, the right of nations and peoples to self-determination, which they need to maintain if they are to advance their political and economic welfare. That is why the more the EU or the Euro-currency zone moves towards closer integration and accrues to itself ever more features of a State, the more it loses legitimacy and authority in the minds of citizens across Europe.
8) THE CONSTITUTION OF THE EU IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC IN THAT ITS INSTITUTIONS VIOLATE THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
The doctrine of the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary has been recognised as the basis of democratic States and as fundamental to the liberty of citizens since the days of Locke and Montesquieu. The European Union violates this principle fundamentally.
The Brussels Commission is the EU’s executive, but it proposes all EU laws as if it were a Parliament. Its members are nominated by governments, not individually elected. It has judicial powers and can adjudicate on competition cases and impose fines on EU members. Even though there may be an appeal to the Court of Justice, the Commission acts as if it were a lower court. It draws up and administers its own budget, with minimal democratic control. Under its aegis are some 3000 semi-secret working groups, whose members are not publicly knows, where most Commission decisions are actually made and where corporate lobbyists wield their influence. Only 2% of Commission decisions come up at meetings of the full Commission.
The Council of Ministers is called a Council, but it makes laws just like a Parliament on the basis of the Commission’s proposals. It makes those laws in secret, often on the basis of package-deals between its members, and it takes some executive decisions. Some 85% of EU directives and regulations are agreed privately in some 300 committees of civil servants from the EU member States which service the Council and they are approved without debate at Council level, Only 15% of EU laws are actually discussed or negotiated at Council level. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to no-one and is irremoveable as a body. It is a committee of legislators, which is the classical definition of an oligarchy.
The EU Parliament is more a council than a parliament. It cannot initiate any European law although it can amend laws which come from the Commission and Council as long as the Commission agrees and the Council members do not overrule it.
The Court of Justice is not just a court but sometimes legislates like a parliament or takes decisions like a constitution-maker. It continually interprets the treaties in such a way as to extend the legal powers of the EU to the maximum.
Executive, judicial and legislative functions are not separated in the EU institutions, but are inextricably intertwined. The constitution of the EU, the Treaty of Rome and its amending treaties, now consolidated in the Treaty of Lisbon, is the first State or quasi-State constitution in history to be drawn up entirely in the interests of transnational big business, without the slightest popular or democratic input into its making. Its foundational four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and labour – enshrine the principles of classical laissez-faire as constitutional principles which no government or elected parliament may legally change or violate, regardless of the wishes of their voters.
9) THE EU TURNS MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE AT NATIONAL LEVEL INTO SUPRANATIONAL LEGISLATORS, GREATLY INCREASING THEIR PERSONAL POWER WHILE REDUCING THE DEMOCRACY OF THEIR OWN PEOPLES.
Every time new EU treaties abolish further national vetoes and shift law-making for particular policy areas from the national to the supranational level, where laws are made by qualified majority voting in the EU Council of Ministers, national Parliaments and citizens lose power correspondingly, for they no longer have the final say in the areas concerned. Simultaneously individual Government Ministers, who are members of the executive arm of government at national level and must have a national parliamentary majority behind them for their policies, are turned into legislators for 500 million Europeans as members of the 28-person Council of Ministers. National politicians thereby obtain for themselves an intoxicating accretion of personal power at the expense of their national Parliaments and electorates, even though they may be open to being outvoted by a qualified majority on the Council. This is the reason Government Ministers tend to be so europhile and why they cooperate so willingly in denuding their own Parliaments and peoples of their powers.
The more policy areas shift from the national level to Brussels, the more power shifts simultaneously from national legislatures to national executives, and the more the power of individual Ministers and bureaucrats increases. Keeping on good terms with their fellow members of the exclusive Council of Ministers “club” of EU legislators becomes more personally important for national Ministers at EU level than being awkward in defence of their own peoples’ interests. Increasingly they come to see their function vis-a-vis one another as delivering their national electorates in support of further EU integration.
A Member State on its own cannot decide a single European law. Its people, Parliament and government may be opposed to an EU law, its government representative on the Council of Ministers may vote against it, but they are bound to obey it nonetheless once it is adopted by qualified majority Council vote. This devalues the vote of every individual citizen. Each policy area that is transferred from the national level to the supranational EU level devalues it further.
This reduces the political ability of citizens to decide what is the common good and deprives them of the most fundamental right of membership of a democracy, the right to make their own laws, to elect their representatives to make them, and to change those representatives if they dislike the laws they make. European integration is therefore not just a process of depriving Europe’s nation states and peoples of their national democracy and independence. Within each member state it represents a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.
The EU thus hollows out the Nation State, leaving its traditional institutions formally in place but with their most important functions transferred to the supranational level. It turns the State itself into an enemy of its own people, while clamping a form of financial feudalism on Europe.
10) THE DOMINANCE OR ATTEMPTED DOMINANCE OF A PEOPLE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND POWERFUL ELITES OF ANOTHER STATE IS IMPERIALISM AND A DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY
Imperialism can take the classical form of direct rule, in which a dominated people is openly treated as a colony, or the more modern form in which a people may have formal political independence, but their resources and external political and economic relations are in reality under foreign control and directed at continuing their subordination or dependence. Neo-colonial relations of this kind are common in the modern world between metropolitan powers and former colonies, and are against the interests of the peoples of both.
11) THE HISTORICAL TENDENCY IS FOR DEMOCRACY AS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO SUPERSEDE SUCH FORMS AS MONARCHY, DICTATORSHIP, OLIGARCHY AND PLUTOCRACY as people get better educated, become more aware of their rights and are no longer willing to obey a political authority they have no say in deciding.
DEMOCRACY MEANS RIGHTS OF EQUALITY, WHICH PEOPLE AGREE TO ACCORD ONE ANOTHER AND WHICH THE STATE RECOGNISES
Democrats acknowledge the possession of equal rights by all citizens of a State, as well as equality of human rights between people of different sex, race, religion, age and nationality, based on recognition of a shared common humanity. Ethnic minorities are entitled to have their rights protected within a democratic state. Majority rights and minority rights are different from one another, but are not in principle incompatible. The struggle against racism, sexism, ageism and national oppression are all democratic questions, concerned with equality. Recognition of equal human rights and the equal rights of citizens legitimises in turn public policies which seek to maximize as much as practicable equal opportunity amongst them, taking into account the constraints of any particular society’s resource endowment.
Such policies in turn legitimize the degree of inequality of outcomes and rewards which is socially acceptable. How much inequality of rewards should be acceptable? The classical answer is as much as maximizes the overall economic output which finances those rewards and which brings most benefit to the largest number of citizens.
12) PEOPLE ON THE POLITICAL LEFT AND RIGHT HAVE A COMMON INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND IN UPHOLDING NATIONAL DEMOCRACY
While democracy is concerned with equality, the traditional values which divide political Right and Left in modern industrial societies, proponents of capitalism and socialism, are concerned with inequality – in ownership and control of society’s productive forces, in power, possessions, income and social function. The mass democracy which historically was first achieved under capitalism serves to legitimise and make more tolerable the inequalities of power, wealth and income that characterise modern society. Traditional Left-wing thought holds that capitalism in turn creates the material conditions for the application of the principle of democracy to the economic sphere, in the form of socialism, social democracy or a “social market” economy.
Traditional Rightwing thought extols the rights of the individual against the collective as embodied in the State and upholds market provision of goods and services as more efficient. Traditional Leftwing thought extols collective as against individual rights and champions public provision of essential goods and services.
Most people acknowledge that both public and private provision are necessary, that there needs to be a creative tension between the two and that their boundaries are continually shifting in accordance with technological developments and the changing balance of class forces in society.
People on the political Right want the State to legislate right-wing measures, people on the political Left want left-wing ones; but neither can have either unless they are citizens of an independent State in the first place, which possesses the relevant legislative power and competence to decide. This is why regardless of whether people are politically either Left, Right or Centre, they have an objective common interest in establishing and maintaining an independent Nation State and a government which represents and is responsible to the nation.
Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, indeed all ideological “-isms”, requires the prior attainment of national independence. The old adage holds: “Attain first the political kingdom and then all other values will be added unto one.”
Political movements on Left and Right tend to be divided internally between those who understand the importance of national independence and democracy and how the imperative of establishing an independent State when that is absent transcends conventional Left-Right divisions, and those who do not understand this.
Likewise within each state different social interests align themselves for and against the maintenance of State sovereignty, seeking either to uphold or to undermine national democracy. This is a central theme of the politics of our time. It is why democrats in every EU country today, whether on the political Centre, Left or Right, are potentially part of an international movement in defence of the Nation State and national democracy, and against the political and economic forces which seek to undermine these.
13) GLOBALIZATION CHANGES THE ENVIRONMENT OF NATION STATES, BUT DOES NOT MAKE THEM OUT OF DATE . . . INTERNATIONALISM, NOT GLOBALIZATION, IS THE WAY TO A HUMANE FUTURE
The notion that “globalization” makes the Nation State out of date is an ideological one. Globalization is at once a description of fact and an ideology, a mixture of “is” and “ought”. It refers to important trends in the contemporary world – ease of travel, free trade, free movement of capital, the internet. The effect of these on the sovereignty of States is often exaggerated. States have always been interdependent to some extent. There was relatively more globalization, in the sense of freer movement of labour, capital and trade, in the late nineteenth century than today, although the volumes involved were smaller. At that time also most States were on the gold standard, a form of international money. Modern States do more for their citizens, are expected by them to do more, and impinge more intimately on peoples’ lives, than at any time in history, most obviously in providing public services and redistributing the national income.
Globalization imposes new constraints on States, but constraints there always have been. States adapt to such changes, but they do not cause Nation States to disappear or become less important. Globalization as an ideology refers to the interests of transnational capital which wishes to be free of State control on capital movements and seeks minimal social constraints on private ownership. The relation of transnational capital to sovereign States is ambivalent. On the one hand it seeks to erode the sovereignty of States in order to weaken their ability to impose constraints on private profitability and restrain “the furies of private interest”. On the other hand transnational capital looks to its own State, where the bulk of its share ownership is usually concentrated, to defend its political and economic interests internationally when needed.
14) STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR CIVIC OR ETHNIC COHESIVENESS BY CONTROLLING IMMIGRATION, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ETHNIC OR NATIONAL MINORITIES WITHIN THEIR BORDERS
There is no international, positive or natural legal right which entitles people to migrate to live and work in other peoples’ countries – apart from political asylum seekers, who are recognised as possessing such rights under both international and natural law. All independent States have the right to decide who shall settle in their territories and how newcomers may acquire rights of citizenship. At the same time once people of different national or ethnic origins have settled in a country, they have the right to be treated the same as everyone else.
It is evidence of how the European Union diminishes the sovereignty of its Member States that the government of each EU country must now extend such classical components of citizenship as rights to residence, work and social maintenance to the citizens of all other EU member States as a requirement of supranational European law. The EU Member States have surrendered the right to decide such matters.
Two distinct democratic principles are involved in assessing international migration policy: the right of national communities to protect their social and cultural cohesiveness and integrity, and their labour standards, in face of uncontrolled or excessive immigration, and the right to equal treatment of all people within a country. Confusing these two rights makes rational discussion of migration issues often difficult.
15) PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IS A PRIME DUTY OF SOVEREIGN STATES. NO ONE STATE OR GROUP OF STATES HAS THE RIGHT TO CONSTITUTE ITSELF AN INTERNATIONAL POLICEMAN OVER THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF OTHER STATES
International action to protect human rights should be grounded in respect for State sovereignty. This principle can be overborne only in accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law and on the basis of a broad consensus of the world community. The two recognized conditions for such international intervention nowadays are if one State attacks another or if a State attempts genocide against an ethnic group within its borders.
16) MANKIND IS AS YET AT A RELATIVELY EARLY STAGE OF DEMOCRACY, A CONCEPT THAT HAS SEVERAL DIMENSIONS
The human race is around a million years old, history some 6000 years, industrialism 300 or so, and political democracy, understood as provision of the universal franchise and the recognition that men and women everywhere possess human rights, has existed for little more than a century.
Over much of the world these rights are still denied and many nations that seek statehood are refused the right to self-determination. At the same time the universal franchise is only one dimension of democracy. It is of limited value in the absence of fair and proportional voting systems and controls on electoral spending to prevent the rich and powerful “buying” votes.
Other desirable dimensions of political democracy on the basis of the universal franchise, but which most States do not yet recognise, are direct legislation by citizens through referendums, the right of a sufficient number of citizens to initiate a referendum and rules of fairness in referendums, the institution of term-limits for consecutive periods of office to encourage the circulation of political elites, provision for the recallability of public representatives who flout their election pledges, and an optimal balance of central and local government to encourage citizen participation in public administration and efficient provision of public services. People will be struggling to establish such democratic rights for centuries to come
CONCLUSION: CHANGING ATTITUDES TO NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
The period of the Cold War, from 1946 to 1989, created a geopolitical space which permitted national sovereignty to flourish. New nations aspiring to independence were able to play off one superpower against the other. The doctrine that States were sovereign inside their borders and that those borders should be respected, was an achievement of the victory of democracy over fascism in World War 2. The principle of respect for national sovereignty became the cornerstone of international order. It was reflected in the post-war Nuremberg trials, where Germany’s primary crime in international law was judged to have been its waging of aggressive war. This doctrine was embodied in the United Nations Charter.
By contrast, since the end of the Cold War we have entered a period which is less sympathetic to the principle of national sovereignty. Following changes on the United Nations Security Council, the UN now confers a mandate on particular powerful countries to govern small and weak ones. Since 1990 the EU in former Yugoslavia, the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain and France in Libya, have claimed UN backing for their actions. The removal of the national sovereignty of some countries takes place under a UN-backed world order which is supported by the USA and the European Union.
In this context the old categories of colonialism and imperialism are acquiring a new lease of life. Existing and aspiring superpowers claim a new civilising mission, asserting their entitlement to interfere in the domestic affairs of smaller countries in the name of a benign supranationalism, “military humanism” or concern for human rights. That too will generate inevitable reactions as, in the pattern of all previous imperialisms, the superpowers overreach themselves and face the resolve of peoples everywhere to assert their democratic right to national self-determination.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(*) This document has been drafted by Anthony Coughlan, Professor Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin and Director, of The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9; Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792; Web-site: nationalplatform.org People are free to disseminate and use it in whole or in part as they see fit without any reference to or acknowledgement of its source.
Anthony Coughlan is one of the guests to the international meeting organized by EPAM 31 Nov-1 Dec 2013
FIRST THE INTERNATIONAL MEETING IN ATHENS AND NOW ACTIONS IN BRUSSELS – NOW BEGINS THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES LONG STRUGGLE AGAINST EU’s TOTALITARIANISM!
Just a week after the ceremony for the presidency in Greece, which was accompanied by the prohibition of the public and the violent suppression of protests marches, protests against the tragicomic in the Greek presidency is marked also in the “heart of Europe”.
The purpose of this action was to unite the voice of the Greek, Belgian and the other European peoples against policies that plunder whole societies.
Representative of the Initiative said: “THE GREEK PRESIDENCY SYMBOLIZES AUTHORITARIANISM AND SOCIAL BARBARISM THAT THE ELITES WANT TO IMPOSE ACROSS EUROPE. THIS HORRIBLE EXPERIMENT MUST BE STOPPED NOW”
Representative of the Belgian action committees against austerity said: “The ruling classes in both Belgium and Greece tell us that the crisis ends. We know that’s a lie and prepare for a long-lasting struggle against it.”
FÖRST DET INTERNATIONELLA MÖTET I ATHEN OCH NU AKTIONER I BRYSSEL – NU BÖRJAR DE EUROPEISKA FOLKENS LÅNGA KAMP EMOT EU-TOTALITARISMEN!!
Bara en vecka efter ceremonin för ordförandeskapet i Grekland, vilken åtföljdes av förbud emot allmänhetens deltagande och det våldsamma förtrycket av demonstrationerna, noteras protester mot den tragikomiska i det grekiska ordförandeskapet också i “hjärtat av Europa”.
Syftet med denna aktion var att förena rösterna från de Grekiska, Belgiska och de andra europeiska folken emot politiken som plundrar hela samhällen.
Representant för initiativet sade: “DET GREKISKA ORDFÖRANDESKAPET SYMBOLISERAR MAKTFULLKOMLIGHET OCH SOCIAL BARBARISM SOM ELITEN VILL INFÖRA I EUROPA, DETTA HEMSKA EXPERIMENT MÅSTE STOPPAS NU”
Representant för den belgiska aktionskommittén emot åtstramningar sa: “De härskande klasserna i både Belgien och Grekland säger att krisen lider emot sitt slut. Vi vet att detta är en lögn och förbereder oss för en långvarig kamp emot den..”
Five years after the Wall Street crash of September 2008, figures compiled by Britain’s House of Commons Library on wage rates in the 27-member European Union show that workers’ living standards have been thrown into sharp reverse.
The statistics belie claims that the euro zone has “turned the corner” with a modest rise in growth over the last quarter. The situation is particularly acute in those countries that have been subject to the dictates of the “troika”—the EU, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—which has overseen massive cuts in social spending as demanded by the international banks.
In Greece, wages have fallen by 11.3 percent since the autumn of 2010 [EPAM-International's comment: the actual wage reduction is much bigger!]. The UK’s Institute for Fiscal Studies has described this decline as “unprecedented.” The austerity drive has pushed millions into poverty and driven up the official unemployment rate to a record high of 27.6 percent. Among those aged 15 to 24, the official rate is a staggering 64.9 percent [EPAM-International's comment: these two rates are also actually bigger!].
Even so, the country is subject to relentless demands for further cuts. Only last month, the Greek parliament approved a new round of cuts that will slash wages again and wipe out an additional 15,000 public-sector jobs by 2015. Having cut the minimum wage for under-25-year-olds by 32 percent, to just 500 euros a month, Athens is reportedly considering further reductions.
Portugal had the second biggest fall in wages over the same period—8.1 percent. With some 13 billion euros in cuts implemented since 2008, Lisbon is following the Greek path of rising poverty and declining social provision. Reports are spreading of people going without health care due to lack of funds and pharmacies finding themselves unable to replace stock.
Spain and Cyprus—also on the receiving end of the troika’s austerity “medicine”—have seen wage rates decline by 3.3 percent and 3 percent respectively. In Spain, where unemployment is at 27 percent and over 50 percent among youth, the central bank is calling for the minimum wage to be suspended. This is part of a drive to overturn legal protections for workers in line with IMF demands for additional wage cuts of up to 10 percent.
As for Cyprus, a plan to “save” Cyprus Airways includes the sacking of nearly 50 percent of the national air carrier’s 1,000 workforce and wage cuts of 17 percent.
This assault on workers is by no means confined to the so-called “peripheral” countries. The Netherlands and Britain, supposedly among the “richest” countries, took third and fourth place on the falling wages table.
Wages have declined by 5.8 percent in the Netherlands since 2010. Rising unemployment and under-employment have helped reduce labour costs and social benefits. In June, the jobless rate rose to a 30-year high of 8.1 percent.
In the UK, the average hourly wage fell by 5.5 percent. Nominal wage rates have fallen for a record 35 consecutive months under the Conservative /Liberal Democrat government, with the decline greater than even during the Great Depression. As elsewhere, the assault on wages is inseparably bound up with the government’s austerity measures, now standing at £166 billion ($248 billion) and rising.
Some 700,000 jobs have already been lost in the UK’s public sector, but this is expected to rise to more than one million by 2018. Falling wage rates are accompanied by the growth of temporary and zero-hour contracts, which account for almost half of all new jobs since 2010. It is expected that by 2015, in real terms, workers’ annual incomes will have shrunk by £1,520 ($2,357).
These figures are the result not simply of objective economic forces. The ruling classes of Europe, in line with the American ruling elite, have pursued a policy of using the economic crisis to dramatically restructure class relations in their interests.
As the European commissioner for Greece, Maria Damanaki [EPAM-International's comment: who is supposed to be a «socialist» !!!], said at the time of the Cyrpus crisis in April, “The strategy of the European Commission over the past year-and-a-half or two has been to reduce the labour costs in all European countries in order to improve the competitiveness of European companies over the rivals from Eastern Europe and Asia.”
What has taken place thus far, however, is only the beginning. Huw Pill, head of Goldman Sachs’ economics team in Europe, recently said that the policy of “internal devaluation” being implemented to make the euro zone “sustainable” requires that in Greece and Portugal “wages fall by at least 50 percent relative to Germany (from their level at the start of 2011).” Relative wage reductions of 30 percent and more are needed in Spain and France, he added.
The reference to German wage levels is misleading. While, according to the House of Commons report, Germany is one of the few EU countries that recorded an increase in hourly wage rates (2.7 percent), nearly one-quarter of all employees in Germany are in low-wage jobs, with half of them earning less than €7 ($9.30) an hour. Wealth distribution inequality in Germany is the highest in Europe.
With the general election just one month away, there are demands from the German ruling class that the official parties make clear their readiness to implement the type of unpopular measures that have been carried out in Greece. Der Spiegel magazine recently wrote that Berlin’s insistence on severe cuts in southern Europe would be more credible if Germany itself were ready to implement similar measures.
Where Greece goes, the rest of Europe follows in a never-ending race to the bottom.
This historic shift in relations between capital and labour underscores the crisis of leadership in the working class. The trade unions and the rest of the old “labour” organisations function as the primary mechanisms for enforcing the diktats of international capital.
Whether in Greece, France, Spain or the UK, the trade unions at the most organise toothless protests, while entering into agreements with the employers and their respective governments to slash workers’ living standards in order to boost the “competitiveness”—i.e., profits—of the corporations and the fortunes of the super-rich. Everywhere the social democratic parties are officially committed to austerity.
A central role in this gang-up against workers’ living standards is played by pseudo-left organizations such as Syriza in Greece, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, and Die Linke in Germany. They staff much of Europe’s trade union apparatus. In their political line and their practice, these organisations seek to suppress the class struggle and block the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class in opposition to capitalism.
The defence of workers’ living standards and social rights requires a break with these rotten organisations and the launching of a continent-wide mass movement for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of workers’ governments within the framework of the United Socialist States of Europe.
On January 8, 2014 Greece inaugurated the beginning of its 5th Presidency of the EU with a big show held at the Zappeion in Athens. Hardly anybody was missing who had contributed to the destruction of the country in the past crisis years. It was the celebration of a paradox: A country presiding over an organization that is destroying its nation and its people!
Of course, democracy and freedom were topics in the speeches made by the participants. The police, on the other hand, prohibited all demonstrations justifying it with the argument ”to protect the life and the physical integrity of the participants…” The same police order also mentionedthat ”more lenient measures could not be adopted because of an estimated large participation of citizens in these demonstrations and the anticipated tension that may happen.” This may be correctly interpreted that police and government were thus fully aware of the fact that an estimated large number of citizens are more than unhappy about what is going on in their country and they were fully aware of the fact that a majority of Greeks would demonstrate on this occasion. And instead of cancelling the event – not speaking about possibly rethinking their overall political strategy in order to get closer to the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent – they decided to ban the people and celebrate among themselves. Is this democracy? In previous EU summits held in Greece, security measures had also been taken, but never there had been seen the necessity to silence and ban the people. More than 5000 citizens ignored the prohibition and demonstrated.
Many speeches were held mentioning the Greek crisis, the efforts of the Greek people, the progress done and that – at last – the development of the country is knocking on the door. . Unfortunately, development stands there already quite a couple of years – without ever entering.
Let’s start with Olli Rehn, the member of the European Commission dealing with the Greek crisis who is also a candidate for the position of President of the European Commission. On the 9th of December 2010, he anticipated positive rhythms of development for Greece from 2011 onwards. Only a few days later, on Dec.12, he corrected his statement to be 2012. Another year later, on December 9,2012 he anticipated that development would come in 2013.This year, of course, he anticipates that development will return during 2014.
The President of the European Commission, on the 6th of December 2010 likewise anticipated development for 2011 (it is not so much his fault since this is certainly what Olli Rehn had told him). On November 29, 2010 the Commission estimated that in 2012 Greece would achieve development of 1,1%. On the 5th of November 2013, the Commission announced that Greek economy would develop in 2014 by 0, 6%.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the IMF used similar mistaken techniques. On May 25, 2009 it anticipated a return of development to Greece at the end of 2010. On 18 December 2010, it revised its estimates by saying that the economy will start developing by the second half of 2011. On April 11, 2011, a new report anticipated development for 2012 and another report issued the next year, mentioned 2013. The report issued on October 8, 2013 naturally anticipates development by 0.6% in 2014.The OECD followed this pattern. And so on.
G. Papandreou, the former Prime Minister of Greece, on New Year’s Eve 2010 said that Greece will return to development in 2012 and that 2011 was the last year of recession. Papadimas, the technocrat former Prime Minister, on September 29,2010 anticipated development for 2011. Samaras, the current Prime Minister speaking on March 7, 2013 at the European Popular Party anticipated development at the end of 2013 while in September 2013 he revised it to 2014 which he repeated that in his speech at the EU presidency ceremonies.
Mistakes have been admitted by everybody in the meantime. The IMF was the first to do so. The EU Parliament has most recently declared the Troika an inefficient club with a lack of transparency and democratic legitimation which is misinterpreting key indicators and misdiagnosing the repercussions their programs are bringing along with the so-called aid. Incompetent – to put it into one simple word.
The current president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, stated that those responsible for the disaster should be found. Another German politician, Elmar Brok, stated that – last not least there was no written manual of how to manage crises – so how should they know what to do and mistakes were thus a natural consequence. Incompetence – to put it into one simple word.
At least to the citizens of Europe it is obvious: With these kinds of actions, activities and programs the development will remain where it is: ante portas.
Fortunate for the technocrats and politicians, citizens are not needed for ruling countries or organizations. In splendid ignorance and comfortable distance to reality, the ruling class celebrates itself – annoying people are banned.
No wonder, that there is a serious lack of trust into politics and politicians.
No wonder nobody takes them seriously anymore. If today’s ruling political class had been working in the private sector, they would now be standing queuing up with the European unemployed or celebrating in jail for fraudulent bankruptcy. Yet, they are continuing with their mistakes and destruction of what is left of what once was a good idea: the E.U. The tragedy is that they do not realize it.
Member of the Political Secretariat of E.PA.M
Athens January 9, 2014
London Event on Skouries (Halkidiki, Greece) gold mining held on Thursday, 19 September 2013 at Unite the union in London, UK.
Lazaros Toskas, member of the Struggle Coordinating Committee of Megali Panagia, shares stories of resistance and repression, of mining, rights and the politics of development.
Chair/Coordinator: Rachel Newton, Greece Solidarity Campaign
Speaker: Richard Solly, London Mining Network
Guest Speaker: Christina Laskaridis, Corporate Watch
Guest Speaker: Stathis Kouvelakis, Syriza London
Translation: Alexandros Maragoudakis
Organizer/Coordination: Theodoros Chronopoulos
Under the pretext of a severe financial crisis Greece is reasserting its investor-friendly profile by opening up all goldmines across the country without regard to the threats that mining poses to the environment and to people’s livelihoods. Foreign investors are particularly welcome: fast track processes; tax relief; exception from damages; easy money; no royalties; no problems.
But the true picture is not so rosy! Sham public consultations, questionable deals designed to advance specific corporate interests and the slow but steady destruction of the environment have been met with resistance. The struggle to oppose Eldorado Gold’s plans to create an enormous open pit mine on Mount Kakavos and within the ancient forest of Skouries has succeeded in capturing people’s imagination and inspiring waves of solidarity across the country.
While organizing their long campaign affected communities have learned a lot about Greek law; geology; environmental science; and the technologies of extraction. As they did so, they begun to ask questions about development, participation, human rights and the public interest. Their questions were answered by the riot police.
by Greg Palast
When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it.
The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.
The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world.
The memo is authentic.
I had to fly to Geneva to get confirmation and wangle a meeting with the Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy. Lamy, the Generalissimo of Globalisation, told me,
“The WTO was not created as some dark cabal of multinationals secretly cooking plots against the people… We don’t have cigar-smoking, rich, crazy bankers negotiating.”
Then I showed him the memo.
It begins with Larry Summers’ flunky, Timothy Geithner, reminding his boss to call the Bank bigshots to order their lobbyist armies to march:
“As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…”
To avoid Summers having to call his office to get the phone numbers (which, under US law, would have to appear on public logs), Geithner listed the private lines of what were then the five most powerful CEOs on the planet. And here they are:
Goldman Sachs: John Corzine (212)902-8281
Merrill Lynch: David Kamanski (212)449-6868
Bank of America: David Coulter (415)622-2255
Citibank: John Reed (212)559-2732
Chase Manhattan: Walter Shipley (212)270-1380
Lamy was right: They don’t smoke cigars. Go ahead and dial them. I did, and sure enough, got a cheery personal hello from Reed – cheery until I revealed I wasn’t Larry Summers. (Note: The other numbers were swiftly disconnected. And Corzine can’t be reached while he faces criminal charges.)
It’s not the little cabal of confabs held by Summers and the banksters that’s so troubling. The horror is in the purpose of the “end game” itself.
Let me explain:
The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”.
Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.
But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?
The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet — in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.
How could they pull off this mad caper? The bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement (or FSA), an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation.
Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods – that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules devised by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in “bads” – toxic assets like financial derivatives.
Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products”.
And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.
The job of turning the FSA into the bankers’ battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation.
Bankers Go Bananas
Why in the world would any nation agree to let its banking system be boarded and seized by financial pirates like JP Morgan?
The answer, in the case of Ecuador, was bananas. Ecuador was truly a banana republic. The yellow fruit was that nation’s life-and-death source of hard currency. If it refused to sign the new FSA, Ecuador could feed its bananas to the monkeys and go back into bankruptcy. Ecuador signed.
And so on – with every single nation bullied into signing.
Every nation but one, I should say. Brazil’s new President, Inacio Lula da Silva, refused. In retaliation, Brazil was threatened with a virtual embargo of its products by the European Union’s Trade Commissioner, one Peter Mandelson, according to another confidential memo I got my hands on. But Lula’s refusenik stance paid off for Brazil which, alone among Western nations, survived and thrived during the 2007-9 bank crisis.
China signed – but got its pound of flesh in return. It opened its banking sector a crack in return for access and control of the US auto parts and other markets. (Swiftly, two million US jobs shifted to China.)
The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora’s box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalised: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been co-chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim – and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany.
Of course, it was not just threats that sold the FSA, but temptation as well. After all, every evil starts with one bite of an apple offered by a snake. The apple: the gleaming piles of lucre hidden in the FSA for local elites. The snake was named Larry.
Does all this evil and pain flow from a single memo? Of course not: the evil was The Game itself, as played by the banker clique. The memo only revealed their game-plan for checkmate.
And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly. Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called “Citigroup”. Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US “Economics Tsar” and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to “consulting” for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the “end-game” memo.
That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game.
Special thanks to expert Mary Bottari of Bankster USA http://www.BanksterUSA.org without whom our investigation could not have begun.
The film of my meeting with WTO chief Lamy was originally created for Ring of Fire, hosted by Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Further discussion of the documents I laid before Lamy can be found in “The Generalissimo of Globalization,” Chapter 12 of Vultures’ Picnic by Greg Palast (Constable Robinson 2012).
Greg Palast: Secret memo reveals Larry Summers involved in deal that helped setup the global economic crisis
An example of what the systemic establishment calls as “conspiracy theory” and a story from the recent past we must not forget
In 2000, Greece agreed with Goldman Sachs in a funding program (Ariadne), which has been renewed with new terms in 2001 leading to a second program (Aeolos), to supply money to the country. Greece granted the lenders the rights in using airports and gambling.
The nature of this financial product was such that, lending appeared as selling and allowed Greece to exclude the amount of loan from the state expenses, thus display lower public deficit than the real one.
Indeed, from NY Times:
“In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.
For all the benefits of uniting Europe with one currency, the birth of the euro came with an original sin: countries like Italy and Greece entered the monetary union with bigger deficits than the ones permitted under the treaty that created the currency. Rather than raise taxes or reduce spending, however, these governments artificially reduced their deficits with derivatives.
But with the help of JPMorgan, Italy was able to do more than that. Despite persistently high deficits, a 1996 derivative helped bring Italy’s budget into line by swapping currency with JPMorgan at a favorable exchange rate, effectively putting more money in the government’s hands. In return, Italy committed to future payments that were not booked as liabilities.
In Greece, the financial wizardry went even further. In what amounted to a garage sale on a national scale, Greek officials essentially mortgaged the country’s airports and highways to raise much-needed money.
Aeolos, a legal entity created in 2001, helped Greece reduce the debt on its balance sheet that year. As part of the deal, Greece got cash upfront in return for pledging future landing fees at the country’s airports. A similar deal in 2000 called Ariadne devoured the revenue that the government collected from its national lottery. Greece, however, classified those transactions as sales, not loans, despite doubts by many critics.”
Therefore, the conclusions so far are:
First: such “tricks” of hiding the real deficit were applied in other countries too, like Italy, member of the eurozone, with the “help” of JP Morgan, and
Second: was proved that Goldman Sachs knew at least since 2000 the real figure of Greece’s deficit.
Since No1 and No2 international investors in Athens stock market (Norges Bank Investment, Black Rock), are also key shareholders in Goldman Sachs and key shareholders of the three biggest rating agencies, means that, the rating agencies knew very well what was the real situation of the Greek economy all these years, i.e., the real deficit figure. However, CDS were in low-level, allowing Greece to borrow at low interest.
However, the story continues differently, as follows:
In the mid-October of 2009, Goldman Sachs suggested to Greece a new financial product which would ease, at great extent, the huge borrowing needs of the country for the rest of 2009 and 2010 since some older bonds, of huge value, were expiring during that period.
However, Goldman’s proposal was not accepted by the Greek side. A few days later, Fitch downgrades Greece from A to A-, leading the country out of the top rating category. At the same time, stocks of the National Bank of Greece were sold massively in the NY stock market, as well as, subsequently, to the Athens stock market leading general index to a significant fall. At the same time, the price of Greek bonds was falling, the price of Greek CDS and interest was rising, as well as the cost of lending for Greece.
During the first days of November, a team of Goldman Sachs arrived in Athens to persuade the Greek side change its mind and close a new deal of financial lending, according to which the Bank of China would be involved in lending Greece, gaining some share in the National Bank of Greece and in the Greek Organization of Railroads, as a return.
While the negotiations were in process, the stock price of National Bank of Greece was rising in NY and Athens stock markets. At the same time, the pressure on Greek bonds and CDS stopped. Eventually, negotiations were not successful, as the Greek side rejected Goldman’s proposal for good.
Nearly the next day of this rejection, massive stock selling of the National Bank of Greece was recorded again in NY stock market, as well as stocks of the big Greek banks Alpha and Eurobank, and finally, stocks of the whole Greek banking sector. Prices of the Greek bonds rapidly dropped while Greek CDS and loan interest were rising rapidly, bringing Greece closer to default, as it was more and more difficult to re-fund her debt.
On December 12, Fitch downgrades Greece further, rating the country with BBB+, while announced that further downgrades are possible. S&P with Moodys followed, downgrading Greece during December. The result was a massive selling of Greek bonds and skyrocketing of country’s lending cost.
This means that, for at least 10 years there was no problem with interest, despite that everyone knew the real deficit figure, but the problem suddenly appeared in 2009 when, “accidentally”, the Greek government rejected Goldman Sachs’ proposal for a new “financial product”. Within a short time, rating agencies downgraded Greece skyrocketing her lending cost.
In other words, as long as Greece was playing the game of Goldman Sachs, giving economic benefits inside the Greek territory, there was no problem with lending. When the new government stopped giving such benefits, probably because no one knew where would lead in the future, international banksters-speculators mobilized every mean that they had (rating agencies, media etc.), in order to show who is the boss and that there is no way for the country to avoid default, except of playing with their rules.
Since the beginning of the crisis, mainstream media tried to downgrade the significance of this story and put the blame for default exclusively to the “corrupted” public servants, labor unions and generally “lazy” Greeks who lived beyond their means.
Propaganda continues even today, despite the ongoing failed policies that ruined country and led millions of Greeks to poverty, and peaks every time that the lenders are about to impose new destructive measures, while the systemic mouthpieces often call such stories as “conspiracy theories”.
Inom de mänskliga samhällen som har utvecklat någon form av civilisation, dvs någon form av framåtsträvande och utveckling, har en parasitorganism bitit sig fast sedan länge och nu befinner sig värdkroppen (hela mänskligheten) i livsfara. Parasiten måste behandlas just som en livshotande parasit och inte som en bekant “klåda”…
En parasit är en objuden gäst, en organism som lever vidhäftad vid en annan organism (ett värddjur eller en värdväxt) och tar sin näring ifrån denna.. Mänskligheten som helhet, om den från en samhällsekonomisk synvinkel ses som en levande organism, har också en objuden gäst, en organism som lever vidhäftad på och som suger livet ur värdorganismen/mänskligheten. Ordet kommer från grekiskans para, “vid”, och sitos, “mat” eller “föda”. Studiet av parasiter kallas parasitologi. Hos forntidens och dagens greker användes och används uttrycket ursprungligen dels om religiösa tjänstemän som betalades genom att de uppbar ’helpension’, dels om medföljare till högre ämbetsmän som medbjöds i officiella sammanhang. Ordet fick med tiden en lägre mening av snyltgäst… IDAG KAN MAN UTAN PROBLEM OCH MED TILLBÖRLIG VETENSKAPLIG PRECISION INOM SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAPERNA KALLA DEN EURO-AMERIKANSKA BANK-, AFFÄRS-, OCH POLITISKA ELITEN FÖR PARASITER. Dock i olika grad om man vill vara rättvis i sin bedömning av mänsklighetens absolut främsta hälsorisk…
Värdorganismen kan fortleva och eventuellt överleva parasiten men kan också duka under när den inte förmår föda både sig själv och parasiten.
Inom biologin skiljer man på några former av parasiter, vilket också samhällsvetenskapen kan göra och då kan parasiterna med lätthet identifieras inom värdkroppen, mänskligheten, nämligen:
- Djur som stjäl föda ifrån andra organismer kallas för kleptoparasiter. Kleptoparasiter i den mänskliga samhällskroppen är FINANSELIT, POLITISK ELIT och s.k ÖVERKLASS
- En parasit som lever helt inuti sin värd kallas här endoparasit, om den lever endast delvis inne i sin värd kallas den ektoparasit. Inom den mänskliga samhällskroppen kallas både endoparasiter och ektoparasiter MONARKIER, OLIGARKIER, PLUTOKRATIER, PSEUDO-DEMOKRATISKA REGERINGAR och MULTINATIONELLA FÖRETAG.
Parasiter är skadedjur, de är djur som vållar människan skada genom till exempel spridning av sjukdom eller genom att skada livsmedel, kläder, byggnader, grödor eller annan egendom. Mänsklighetens parasiter, för att kunna föda sig själva och skada livsmedel, grödor, hem och samhällen, sprider de mentala gifter som skadar det mänskliga intellektet, den mentala hälsan, samhällskaraktären och immunförsvaret till sådan grad att melankoli, apati och orationella, självdestruktiva tendenser uppstår hos värdorganismen/mänskligheten.
Begreppet “skadedjur” kan ses som klassificering av olika djurarter/samhällsgrupper från ett utilitaristiskt paradigm där man fokuserar på detta djurs/samhällsgrupps nytta för människor och mänskligheten. Djur/samhällsgrupper som därvidlag är till skada för människor ses, från detta perspektiv, som skadedjur.
Oftast räcker det med att balansera ph-värdet i kroppen för att göra sig av med parasiter och i de mänskliga samhällena handlar det om att balansera människo-värdet genom en i sanning blind och fungerande rättvisa och en verklig demokratisk och altruistisk grund för fördelning av människans livsnödvändigheter och utvecklingsmöjligheter.
En samhällsgrupp som till sin absolut största del lever och när sig på andras skapandekraft, uppfinningsrikedom och inspiration,.. på andras arbete, andras uppoffringar, andras hälsa, andras egendomar, andras föda, hem, mark och besparingar, är ju otvivelaktigt monarkernas, grevarnas, bankirernas och de multinationella företagsledarnas samhällsgrupp. När dessa genom utpressning får kontroll över armeer och vapensystem och makten att förskaffa sig kontroll över domstolar, politiska system, regeringar och därmed de mänskliga samhällena, är faran livshotande för hela organismen. Just där befinner vi oss idag.
De som aktivt, nyktert, genomtänkt och framförallt på ett relevant och adekvat sätt bekämpar denna mänsklighetens farligaste parasits framfart, är mänsklighetens enda hopp om tillfrisknande och överlevnad. Allt annat är numera tyvärr betydelselösa ‘sockerpiller’, ‘napp’ och ‘snuttefilt’ åt de ryggradslösa…
texten är en bearbetning av Wikipedias beskrivning av parasiten
Eurostat’s crafty ways of collaboration with governmental officials to swell Greece’s public deficit and debt
How Greek government’s accounts were lumped with billions of euros of fictional hospital invoices
The first part HERE
Imagine a retailer who customarily orders her annual stock of merchandise from her supplier, who overvalues his price because he is paid later than the date of delivery. The overvaluation includes interest plus various costs incurring to the supplier as a result of his late compensation, including a risk premium for the possibility of not being paid in full. Assume now that both the retailer and the supplier agree, for some reason, that the face value of the initial invoice is discounted by, say, 30%. In spite of the legally required adjustments actually made in their respective accounts, none the less, when asked by his superior Authority, the CEO of the retailer’s company, for some personal benefit, reports the face value of the initial invoice by hiding the realized discount. Imagine that this act is discovered and criticized by the superior Authority, which, alas, is having second thoughts, and so finds “beneficial” aspects in the CEO’s approach and they both live happily ever after.
The actors of the above theatrical show: Greece’s public hospitals (the retailer), the pharmaceutical suppliers of Greece’s public hospitals (the supplier), Greece’s Ministry of Finance (the CEO), and Eurostat (the superior Authority). To some readers, this may sound somehow too far-fetched, especially for Eurostat to have acted like the crafty “superior Authority” above, but unfortunately this is what happened.
In October 2009, the simultaneous occurrence of two events played a catalytic role towards the fake augmentation of hospital liabilities: the change of Greece’s government through snap Parliamentary Elections and the dispatch of the 2005-2008 accumulated outstanding hospital liabilities to Eurostat. It is common in most countries that a newly elected government claims that they have inherited a pile of problems from the previous government, so that in the following year they could show an improvement, due to their own problem-solving policies. This mindset led initially the new top officials of the Ministry of Finance to politically grab the opportunity offered to them by a systemic problem of Greece’s public sector, to name it “data counterfeiting”, and to manipulate, or “revise”, the accumulated hospital liabilities, coming to an unlawful overestimation of the public deficit and debt for the period 2005-2009. The striking thing is that the overestimation was not the result of transferring already materialized expenses to the year, or years, but it was the result of loading the government’s accounts for all years of previous government’s service with imaginary, yes imaginary, billions of euros! And an even more striking thing is that Eurostat went consciously along with it!
Contrary to countries that have instituted disciplinary provisions to be implemented at the disclosure of such practices, in Greece the unlawful data manipulation took uncontrollable dimensions leading to economic catastrophe as experienced today. In the case of hospital liabilities, two were the main factors, which facilitated the distortion of data: Greece’s systemic problems of following a variety of old fashioned accounting frameworks in the public sector and the secret discussions of the newly elected government with IMF officials, in order to submit the country into the IMF, the latter being revealed later.
As has already been stated by Greek Economic Statisticians, something dramatically shocking had to take place, if the IMF was to take control of the country. The idea of a fiscal crisis, in combination with a revival of the so called Greek Statistics, emerged as the perfect justification for the IMF intrusion in European affairs. Thus, statistical practices, like that of conjuring up a fake non-existent deficit out of the outstanding hospital liabilities of the 2005-2008 period, proved to be some of the most representative statistical trickery of that time, namely the years 2009 and 2010.
Payables to hospitals:money that nobody paid and nobody received
In Greece, as in the rest of the EU, public hospitals are traditionally provided with pharmaceuticals and medical equipment by suppliers, who are customarily paid later than the date of delivery, due to the required invoice validation procedures required by the Court of Audit. Regarding Greece, in September 2009, a huge number of non-validated hospital liabilities for the years 2005-2008 were accumulated, while their total value was not yet known. We should emphasize that Greece is not the only country with statistical problems of this sort. According to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), among which groups like Roche and Novartis, in 2011, European states owed €12-15 billion, related to more than one year, to the pharmaceutical industry.
On the 2nd of October 2009, that is before the October 2009 snap Parliamentary Elections, and within the usual Eurostat procedures, the National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG), called ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistics Authority) since March 2010, had sent to Eurostat the deficit and debt notification tables. These included an approximate estimate of the outstanding hospital liabilities equal to €2.3 billion, based on the traditionally carried out hospital survey by the NSSG. The new government inflated the €2.3 billion by €4.3 billion making it equal to €6.6 billion as it is described in their “Technical Report on the Revision of Hospital Liabilities” (February 2010). Thus, the false augmentation of the public accounts was as high as the impressive amount of €5,4 billion. Moreover, according to the same Technical Report, out of the €6.6 billion, only the €1.2 billion had been validated by the Court of Audit.
And not only did this illegality take place, but also the new government tried to load all this extra €5.4 billion of hospital liabilities on only one year, namely the 2008. At first, Eurostat rejected this by writing:
“In the 21 October 2009 notification, an amount of €2.5 bn was added to the government deficit of 2008 on top of the €2.3 bn. This was done, according to the Greek authorities, under a direct instruction from the Ministry of Finance, in spite of the fact that the real total amount of hospital liabilities is still unknown, that there was no justification to impute this amount only in 2008 and not in previous years as well, and that the NSSG had voiced its dissent on the issue to the GAO (General Accounting Office) and to the MOF (Ministry of Finance).”
Later, in April 2010, Eurostat gave in to the new government’s unlawful demands, apparently because Eurostat’s Bureaucrats were then busy with trying to find ways to load Greece’s governmental accounts with additional illegal debt, as we have described in our article “Eurostat’s failures greatly increase the size of Greece’s debt” (issue 10-16 November 2013, page 3).
Eurostat’s April 2010 second thoughts about giving in to Greece’s new government’s demands regarding the statistical malpractice of hospital liabilities were clearly against the European Regulations ESA95 (see ESA95 par. 3.06, EC No. 2516/2000 article 2, Commission Reg. EC No. 995/2001) and against the European Statistics Code of Practice, especially regarding the principles of independence of statistical measurements, statistical objectivity and reliability. One impressive breach of Law is that a large part of hospital liabilities was NEVER paid to pharmaceutical suppliers by the Greek government. See why: One and a half months later than the illegal augmentation of the public deficit, the Ministry of Finance called the suppliers and asked them to accept a 30% discount for the period 2005-2008.
Two points we want to call attention to:
All these unlawful statistical procedures and essential injustice were incurred to the detriment of Greece’s citizens. And, astonishingly, as an exception to all other European-countries’ citizens.
All we write is based on evidential documents by both Eurostat and top Ministerial Officials of that time.
We will end up as we did in our previous article; that is with the same question: How can the EU go on with one of its core members being so unjustly treated? The 2009 statistical events need an in-depth and serious investigation and not interventions to block Greece’s judicial procedures, as Eurostat is doing. Things have to be put right and Greece’s reinstatement must ensue. Public debt is not refused, what is refused is its untrue and felonious part.
An astonishing revelation of unjustly fixed statistics
by Basil A. Coronakis 10/11/2013
The second part HERE
Let us think for a moment what would happen if, all of a sudden, the debt of the French transport system, covering buses, trams, the metro, the RER and OPTILE and the PAM network for disabled people and so on, were all transferred to the government’s accounts. After all, the French transport system is heavily subsidised by the state. Well, the disaster one can only imagine did not happen in France, and rightly so, but it did happen in Greece! Greeks and all other European citizens have the right to know what happened in Greece and why it happened.
All of us in Europe have agreed to comply with certain terms and conditions called European Regulations and the first to do so is, alas, the European Commission. Therefore, if public transport companies provide a service, because of a governmental or European socio-economic policy, then these public companies must be compensated or subsidised for losses incurred as a result of charging prices lower than what they would have otherwise charged. This compensation or subsidy does not entail the transfer of their debt to the country’s public debt. Well, an answer has not yet been provided by the European Commission as to why, after two decades of applying the common rules, Greece was suddenly in 2009-2010 treated differently from France or any other EU member state.
Looking into the complexity of the Eurostat criteria required to be fulfilled in order for a public company to be moved into the public sector, it seems that, in the case of Greece, the job was done with a hasty disregard for normal procedures. There is an apparent breach of European Law in the application of the so called 50% criterion defined as the institutional requirement that the revenue from sales of products or services of the public companies cover at least the 50% of their production cost. By not treating the above compensation as “revenue from sales” and at the same time lumping commercial depreciation of 100 years into the 2009 one-year expenses, Eurostat was able to justify the non-conformity of the public companies with the 50% criterion.
There are additional instances of breach of Law. Until 2009, Greece’s Statistical Authority (ELSTAT), together with Eurostat, had decided that the debt of public enterprises (public utility companies) could not be part of the public debt, because the government’s finance was in the form of shares thus increasing the property rights of the government as a shareholder on these companies. This is the common practice in the rest of the European countries, according to European Regulations agreed by all European partners.
In April 2010, an estimate of the 2009 deficit was published by Eurostat, which guaranteed that Greece’s final public deficit figure was not going to undergo further changes by more than 0.5% of GDP either downwards or upwards. On this basis, in May 2010, the Eurozone countries and the IMF supported Greece with €110bn of financial assistance. Six months later, Eurostat scrapped the 0.5% and raised the final public deficit by 2 percentage points, despite such major revisions being contrary to the commonly accepted Code of Statistical Practice.
Eurostat’s totally unexpected and unexplained action was based on the transfer of 17 public companies from the private to the public sector. The end result was a devastating false augmentation of the country’s public debt and deficit for the year 2009, which since then has been carried on and on forcing the country to stagger under an unjustified extra burden, which is souring its relations with the rest of Europe.
The issues were brought to the European Parliament and the European Commission, which have recently replied in writing by distorting the truth. Without referring to all the reported issues, their answer claims that the Greek law covering passenger transport companies is different from the European Law because the formula to calculate the amount of compensation is not based on the produced output of OASA (a holding company like the French STIF). This is profoundly untrue for three reasons: OASA is a holding company acting as an umbrella of the passenger transport companies in one of Greece’s regions, Attica, and as a consequence OASA does not have transport output of its own, as is the case exactly with STIF. Second, if one reads the Greek law with open, unprejudiced eyes, they will easily learn that the Greek formula is based on “the produced output and the passenger count”, contrary, alas, to what the European Commission reply asserts. Third, if the Greek law covering the public passenger transport companies was not in agreement with the corresponding European Regulations, then the Commission would have acted to secure harmonisation of provisions affecting competition in transport, according to the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. Such actions never occurred.
In its answers, given in fact under pressure from the European Parliament, the European Commission has resorted to other outrageous claims by even providing a small footnote reference reported in the 2013 Eurostat Manual, which, first, did not exist before February 2013, and, second, is misleadingly reported without the actual date. We also note the following fact: in 2010, Eurostat moved a number of public enterprises to the public sector, and, one year later, in 2011, Eurostat moved them again, back into the private sector. Thus, we observe that the Commission has recognised the unjust and felonious augmentation of Greece’s public debt, but they do not want to admit it. This is proved by an impressive sleight of hand: now you see it, now you don’t. The trick: immediately after the public sector was saddled with these companies’ debt, saving this way the German banks from bankruptcy, these same companies were moved again back into the private sector, where they belonged since 1993. Such actions are strictly forbidden by the European Regulations, which require that the initial transfer to the public sector might be justified only if it was judged that it had been in force for several years before and after its initial transfer.
Eurostat’s mistakes towards Greece bring to memory the spontaneity, with which Mr Joaquin Almunia, then Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs (now Commissioner for Competition), reacted on 21 October 2009, when he heard a revised forecast for Greece’s 2009 public deficit. Almunia said: “We want to know what has happened and why it has happened. Serious discrepancies will require an open and deep investigation”. The investigation never took place, but four years later, on October 21, Almunia said: “The EU’s problem is unaccountability”.
Saying he is right is not enough. By their unaccountable attitude toward fiscal statistics, the European Commission and Eurostat have led to the silencing of responsible voices at Greece’s ELSTAT, which is now left without its seven-member board and under one man’s authority – the same man who is under felony charges and who is supposed to manage both the country’s statistical system and its statistical office: a unique phenomenon in Europe. As described above, the 2009 false public deficit and debt have created a horrific whirlpool swallowing European taxpayer’s billions – whose destination is unknown – and a debt death-spiral of a country, which has been among the 10 first EC member states, with a proven hard-working population, who lost 7% of its population in the Second World War and who can hugely contribute to the construction of a more democratic European Union. The question is: How can the EU go on with one of its core members being so unjustly treated? The 2009 statistical events need an in-depth, serious investigation and not interventions to block Greece’s judicial procedures, as Eurostat is doing. Things have to be put right and Greece’s reinstatement must ensue. Public debt is not refused, what is refused is its untrue and felonious part.
The banking tower in Frankfurt also hosts the offices of Alvarez and Marsal (Photo: Wolfgang Staudt)
BERLIN - Alvarez and Marsal, BlackRock, Oliver Wyman, Pimco: The names mean nothing to the average European.
But the financial consultancies have played a central role in all the eurozone bailouts and have so far invoiced taxpayers in Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain over €80 million.
Their “independent” expertise is used by the “troika” of international lenders – the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – to decide how much countries or banks need to prevent a default.
They are often hired without a public tender, posing questions on transparency and accountability.
They are sometimes hired despite potential conflicts of interest, which arise from links to investment funds and other financial service providers.
The consultancies also hire subcontractors, posing extra questions on who has access to inside information and how they use it.
Aside from local law firms, the subcontractors almost always include one or more of the “Big Four” accountancy companies – Deloitte, Ernst&Young, KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
The end result is a “golden circle” of a dozen or so large firms with a de facto monopoly on handling EU bailouts.
Take Alvarez and Marsal.
The New York-based consultancy earned €2 million for setting up and managing Spain’s “bad bank” in 2012.
In a typical model, it brought in a Spanish law firm called Cuatrecasas, a Japanese financial services company called Nomura and PwC to help do the job.
It has also earned €6.6 million for its work on the Cypriot bailout.
But its work in Cyprus caused a scandal which brought the questions to light.
According to an internal audit by the Cyprus central bank board, it got the money despite being ineligible for part of the work.
The audit document – seen by EUobserver – shows it got €1.1 million plus VAT for evaluating Bank of Cyprus, the island’s main lender, up to December 2012. It also got a service extension fee of €250,000 for continuing the work in 2013.
In December 2012, with Cyprus struggling to secure a bailout from fellow eurozone states, the central bank chief, Panicos Demetriades, shortlisted Alvarez and Marsal for several new contracts.
He did it despite the fact the board had “ruled out” the consultancy due to “potential perceived conflicts of interest” related to its Bank of Cyprus evaluation.
He then gave Alvarez and Marsal two of the new contracts despite the board’s concerns.
In early 2013, it got €960,000 plus VAT and expenses of up to €270,000 for analysing the recapitalisation plans of Cypriot banks.
It also got €2.7 million plus VAT and expenses of up to €540,000 for helping to restructure Bank of Cyprus itself and Laiki bank.
The secret fee scandal
“Perceived conflicts of interest” was the tip of the iceberg, however.
The scandal erupted in October this year, when Cypriot media reported that Demetriades awarded Alvarez and Marsal another, whopping, fee of €15 million without the board’s knowledge.
The bonus amounts to 0.1 percent of the total worth of the recapitalisation cost of Cypriot banks (€15.7 billion).
According to internal correspondence and draft contracts dating back to March 2013, the consultancy’s executive director, Hal Hirsch, and Demetriades, in principle agreed to payment of the fee “by whatever means” the recapitalisation was to be carried out.
Following messy talks in Brussels, the final bailout agreement included the seizing of private savers’ deposits over €100,000.
The secret bonus begs the question: How objective was Alvarez and Marsal’s evaluation of Cypriot banks when it stood to get a cut of the bailout?
The scandal also shows what can happen when contracts are awarded behind closed doors.
Demetriades in a written note in October claimed he agreed to the fee under pressure from the US firm. The central bank audit document quotes him as saying the fee agreement was: “Signed under duress. Mr Hirsch threatened to move the entire Alvarez team out of Cyprus at the peak of the crisis if I did not sign.”
In early September, after the central bank terminated its contract with the consultancy, it insisted that the whole amount – €15 million – should be paid.
But when the board rebelled, protesting that it had no knowledge of the deal, the US firm offered to take less.
“We will agree to a recapitalisation fee equal to €4.75 million. This is a very considerable and voluntary reduction and should not be subject to further negotiations,” Hirsch wrote in a letter to the central bank on 19 September.
The scandal is not over yet.
The Cypriot parliament and the Cypriot public prosecutor have launched inquires into the events.
An Alvarez and Marsal spokesperson declined to comment because the inquiries are ongoing.
The firm is trying to squirm out of the situation.
It said in a letter to the central bank, dated 26 October 2013, that the board has “full discretion” in deciding the amount of its recapitalisation fee.
Meanwhile, the central bank board is casting doubt on Demetriades’ claim that he agreed “under duress.” It says he had six months to complain to the board or to the troika, but chose not to.
Alvarez and Marsal is not the only consultancy to get troika-related contracts without public tenders.
Getting sums wrong
In January 2011, the Irish central bank hired its competitor, BlackRock Solutions, shortly after the Irish government filed for an €85 billion EU-IMF bailout.
BlackRock Solutions is a small advisory unit within BlackRock, a US-based firm, which has, in recent years, become the world’s largest asset management fund, overseeing €3 trillion of its clients’ wealth.
It was hired to forecast how much Irish banks risk losing and to carry out a “stress test” on worst-case scenarios for the Irish banking system.
It got €30 million for the job.
It also shared the task with subcontractors, including another US-based firm, Boston Consulting Group, and Barclays Capital, a British investment bank.
The first hiccup came when BlackRock Solutions’ got its bank profit forecast wrong.
The Irish central bank, based on the consultancy’s figures, expected bank profits to amount to €1.9 billion between 2011-2013 even in the worst case scenario. But by June 2012, the banks only managed to make €0.4 billion.
Irish politicians had earlier admitted the selection procedure for BlackRock Solutions was not ideal.
Speaking in the Irish parliament in 2011, Irish finance minister Michael Noonan said he eschewed a public tender due to troika pressure.
“The central bank has informed me that in light of the requirement under the EU-IMF programme to use consultants under a very tight deadline for urgent financial stability purposes, it was not possible to apply normal tender processes,” he noted.
During a TV show the same year, Irish central bank governor Patrick Honohan said the selection procedure was rushed.
“We have engaged some [consultancies] at high speed. It’s amazing when you pay large sums of money, how the best consultants in the world can come flocking,” he told Irish broadcaster RTE on 1 March 2011.
Dodgy forecasts aside, some Irish MPs fear insider trading.
BlackRock Solutions had intimate knowledge of the situation inside Irish banks not just from its January 2011 contract.
The Irish central bank also hired the US firm to assist in the completion of the 2012 and 2013 reviews of the banks’ capital needs.
At the same time, its parent firm, BlackRock, had, according to a company statement from April 2012, “client business in Ireland” worth “over €5 billion” and “assets domiciled in Ireland” worth €162 billion.
Pressed by MPs earlier this year to reveal the extent of BlackRock’s acquisitions in Ireland since 2011, Noonan said the Irish central bank “does not have the information requested” and noted that, in any case, “they [Blackrock] observe EU and Irish procurement legislation/requirements.”
Seven months later, BlackRock announced it will buy 3 percent of the Bank of Ireland – one of the banks which its subsidiary, BlackRock Solutions, “stress-tested” in 2011.
Tom McDonnell, an economist with the Dublin-based think tank Tasc, told this website there is no proof that BlackRock used insider knowledge.
But he said the set-up is “problematic” in terms of public perception.
“They are the biggest asset manager in the world, so it would give them a competitive advantage if they used that insider knowledge. This is not to say they have done it, but it creates a perception and the possibility or temptation to do it,” he noted.
Making heads spin
Greece also gave BlackRock Solutions a similar contract worth €12.3 million.
It included subcontracting to the Big Four audit firms.
According to a New York Times report in 2012, the troika and anything linked to it had become so hated in Greece that BlackRock Solutions used a fake name (“Solar”) and recruited 18 armed security guards to do its work.
In September 2012, Cyprus also hired Deloitte and Pimco, the world’s largest bond investor and an asset management firm of a size to rival BlackRock, to look at bank recapitalisation.
It later hired BlackRock Solutions/Solar to double-check the methodology of Pimco, in a decision which might make McDonnell’s head spin.
The Spanish government was more wary than its Irish and Greek counterparts.
BlackRock Solutions also pitched for a contract to stress test local banks as part of troika requirements for Spain’s €41 billion bank bailout.
But Spanish economy minister Luis de Guindos said in May 2012 that BlackRock Solutions risked conflict of interest with BlackRock’s investment activities.
BlackRock’s business in Spain is estimated to be worth €5.1 billion.
The same club still got the Spanish taxpayers’ money, however.
Spain awarded the €10.3 million contract to Oliver Wyman, another US consultancy, and Roland Berger, a German firm.
It also hired Deloitte (€1.8mn), Ernst&Young (€7.2mn), KPMG (€5mn), and PwC (€5.3mn), to carry out audits.
Portugal, like Spain, hired Oliver Wyman to assess the recapitalisation of the local banking system under its troika programme.
It got €1 million for 44 days of work.
PwC, the US bank Citi, and McKinsey, another US consultancy, did subcontracting.
In September 2013, the ECB followed suit: It hired Oliver Wyman to assess the balance sheets of the 130 largest banks in the eurozone.
It declined to give details about the fee or the tender procedures which led to its choice.
Why do they do it?
The question arises as to why these firms keep on being hired and what motivates them to seek troika-related work.
Neither BlackRock, Oliver Wyman, Pimco or any of the other consultancies and audit firms were available for comment.
But Constantin Gurdgiev, a finance lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, says lack of expertise in central banks is one reason.
He told EUobserver that “during the pre-crisis boom in credit creation, national central banks of countries with rapid credit expansion lost core personnel competencies and skills to staff migration to the private financial services providers.”
He added that the remaining staff “often performed mechanical tasks of collating and repackaging” data submitted by banks, but “lost the key skills to actively investigate banks’ balance sheets or draw up business performance models.”
The troika’s demand for data and for management of crisis reforms were more than central banks could supply.
Hiring big names in the consultancy business also lent governments in bailed-out countries more credibility, especially in financial markets.
The “external validation” of the US firms gave the banking loss estimates a “perceived objectivity” which markets could live with, Gurdgiev said.
Richard Boyd Barrett, a left-wing Irish MP who tabled several parliamentary questions on BlackRock Solutions, is more cynical.
He told this website the major consultancies and auditors are “part of the same golden circle of bankers and government officials that caused the financial crisis in the first place.”
Another source said the consultancies’ main motive is not multi-million euro fees, but “contact” with government people.
The source – a former Irish tax official, who asked to remain anonymous – recalled meetings with PwC representatives who “basically introduced [US internet firm] Facebook into Ireland.”
The source said: “The bureaucracy, in the sense of senior civil servants, happily arranged meetings with PwC clients or even prospective clients … You would discuss with them the Irish tax system. It was all very friendly.”
Big firms like BlackRock claim to have “Chinese walls” which separate their consultancy work from their other activities.
But people who know how the system works do not agree.
“I don’t think it’s possible at any stage to operate Chinese walls. People just talk. It’s not feasible,” the Irish source noted.
“If PwC four or five years ago had a particular query about taxation, it was able to consult the database and say: ‘The person you need to contact within the Irish tax revenue service is so and so and he has specialised knowledge about that area’,” the source added.
“The idea that they don’t have those types of links is completely wrong. That’s how they operate, that’s how they make their living,” the source said.
This story is part of a cross-border investigation on the troika of international lenders. It includes journalists from Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK. It was partly facilitated by the German Heinrich Boell Foundation
From Hellenic TV London with no english translation
Greetings to everyone,
Right from the beginning we need to clarify that the crisis which Greece is currently facing and has led the country to its 5th official bankruptcy does not originate from the actions of a prodigal government or from the effects of a fiscal problem which could be solved through the implementation of measures of re-adjustment and reductions in government expenditure. Greece has bankrupt due to its national debt as a result of the bankruptcy of its own economy which for the past decades has been suffering from the implementation of a model based on which an economy should grow through concentrating on being extrovert and as it follows that economy should obey to the decisions made by the international financial/capital markets.
In terms of the previous decades in Greece, it should be stated that as long as the international dogma of free markets and deregulation was applied, the Greek economy was becoming a parasitic economy which concentrated on providing cheap services. As a result Greece depended even more on the fluctuations of international financial markets and kept losing ground in terms of its international competitiveness. This result was expected as the Greek economy was formed around the basic principle that it should be serving the most illegal and extraordinary appetites for high returns and profitability as demanded from both external and internal investors.
A very characteristic statistic related to the previous statements is that the percentage of the private returns in terms of the total added value within the local economy during these years of the recession reached 59% in 2009. This is a record figure within the European Union as it is almost double in comparison to the weighted average figure which corresponds to the rest of the E.U. members. For decades, all the governing parties in Greece and their so-called protectors from abroad such as the OECD, the IMF and the E.U. did everything that could be done under their power in order to convert into a primary competitive advantage of the Greek economy the prospect of maximization of the private sector’s profits beyond any logical and reasonable limit which could be set by the economy itself due its capabilities in terms of productivity.
Due to all of the above the country’s productivity started to sink and that element of parasitism would be transmitted to all business sectors while at the same time the quackery of the issue and selling of financial derivatives was advocated as a solution. A characteristic statistic indicating this is the fact that in 1992 for every 100 dollars of foreign private capital which was invested in the local economy, a 59% was associated with investments in the real economy, 31% was associated with real estate and just 10% was associated with financial investments. In 1995 the figures were 33% towards the real economy, 7 % towards real estate and 60% towards financial assets. Just before the outbreak of the crisis the figures were 10% for the real economy, 1% towards real estate investments and 89% towards financial investments. The result was that figure corresponding to 63% of the total private profit generated from the economy during the last 10 years, was interest.
All of the above led to the creation of an economy similar to an existent El Dorado for anyone who wanted to sell derivatives and speculate both from Greece and from abroad. On the other hand, the government would either act as if none of this existed or even worse, would itself participate in this game which had as its ultimate goal to squander public wealth in favor of a specific financial and political oligarchy which with the support from speculators from the USA and Europe did all that it could be done under its power in order to attack the Greek societies’ ethics and instruct the Greek people that it is normal to borrow money, request subsidies and depend on special political favors in order to survive.
The result was that the national debt faced an incredible increase as the state had to undertake debts in order to be transformed into a pawn. Its political leaders were corrupted as they sold themselves to powerful financial centers and in return they had to promote the plundering of the country’s wealth by any means available and leave the country unprotected and exposed to any extreme practice of private speculation. At the same time, as soon as the production deficit of the Greek economy increased so did private and public borrowing.
This situation attracted the interest of officials from the Eurozone and especially from Germany. Greece did not join the Eurozone by mistake nor is it truth that Greece was not ready to join the euro. This was exactly the situation which was the prerequisite for Greece to join the Eurozone. Greece had to have deficits and debts which would allow the existence of the potential for further opportunities for profiting for the European banks and the countries which had exporting economies and primarily Germany. The later, transformed Greece into a garbage can to which Germany through dumping exported goods requesting in return the provision of new loans (from Germany to Greece).
Greece ended up to be totally depended on the provision of new loans which acquired from the Eurozone’s own capital market. On December 31st 2001, the Greek debt was 146 billion euros. On January 1st 2002, Greece has joined the euro and up until the 31st of December 2009 its national debt increased by 152 billion euros. In other words, within seven years Greece’s national debt had more than doubled. This situation is unprecedented as in 2009 the state’s income was roughly 45 billion euros and its imports were 15 billion euros while the income generated from services was almost 27 billion euros and the interest and coupons which had to be repaid were 109 billion euros!
Under these conditions Greece was facing a de facto bankruptcy irrespectively of whether the country could secure any new loans or not. Financial markets were closed for Greece since January 2009 and due to this situation the Eurozone had to intervene in fear of any implications to the currency itself due to Greece’s inability to repay its debt. In direct collaboration with both PASOK and New Democracy, E.U. officials manipulated the political transition in Greece in order to promote the formation of a new government with sufficient parliamentary majority which would be in apposition to guarantee that Greece would undergo severe liquidation in favor of its creditors just like a business, or a company which has declared bankruptcy.
The politicians in Greece along with the oligarchy which rules the country for decades, in order to escape the wrath of the Greek people, agreed to the general disposal of the country under a colonialist regime in exchange for a small share of the spoils which the Europeans lenders would reap. So, they agreed to put Greece and the Greek people under colonial guardianship and essentially under occupation having as their main goal the general disposal of the whole country.
Thanks to a sequence of memoranda and loan agreements, Greece is practically ruled by foreign commissioners. It is certified that all the laws passed and the policies implemented in the country are not even drafted by officials in ministries, but instead are drafted by European Commissioners. Ministers sign them without any objection and then address them to the Parliament for approval. The Greek state has been completely nullified. The government is a mere storefront of foreign powers and conquerors.
The results of the policies based on the memoranda were from the beginning disastrous for the country. From 298 billion euros in debt in 2009, or 127% of GDP, the debt increased to 328 billion euros in 2010, or 143% in terms of GDP, while in 2011 the debt reached an amount of nearly 369 billion euros, 71 billion euros more debt in two years, or at 178% of GDP. At the same time, the recession of the Greek economy escalated to unprecedented levels and unemployment along with mass poverty continued to increase while incomes were reduced by 15% as expressed at constant prices.
After the first disastrous invasion of the troika in Greece it was decided, during the second half of 2011, that without a restructuring of the debt through a “haircut” of around 56% it would not be feasible to deal with the continuous and rapid increase of the debt. The debt restructuring took place in March 2012, but the benefits promised to the bankers involved were such that instead of reducing the debt, the debt was eventually increased by 3-5 billion. So while the restructuring through the “haircut” reduced the nominal value of the debt by 106 billion euros, Greece was forced to borrow again another 109 billion in order to be in a position to carry out the PSI. This resulted in an increase in debt instead of a decrease. Additionally, the debt restructuring caused the bankruptcy of the insurance funds and the funds of stakeholders in the so called ‘wider public sector’ which includes institutions such as chambers of commerce, scientific associations, universities, hospitals, organizations, and many more. At the same it should be mentioned that common people who had invested their savings in bonds issued by the Greek government were seriously affected as well.
In order not to become apparent to the Greek people the fraud of the PSI, the Eurogroup decided to proceed to a Greek Bond buyback from the secondary market in November 2012. The buyback had as its goal to reduce the Greek debt by 30 billion with a cost of 11.7 billion which would have been paid by the EFSF. The Greek government is required to pay 11.7 billion within the next two months, an amount which it does not have. It is easy for one to picture Greece’s collapse if all this is combined with the continuous collapse of the financial aspect of the government due to the fact that the Greek population fails to meet its tax obligations, the recession which is more than 7% per year, the official unemployment which exceeds 27%, the investments which have fallen below 14% of GDP, the fact that this is the first time in the postwar history of Greece that the disposable income of the population continues to collapse and is far below the minimum level which is required so that a person can survive and the fact that the private debt continues on its increasing trend.
This collapse is fraudulent and deliberate and aims to sell out the country at rock bottom prices. The country is set to be sold out not only in terms of its publically owned property through privatization and concessions but in terms of the private property of the Greek society as well which today is mortgaged not only to banks but also to the state itself due to outstanding financial obligations of the vast majority of the people due to their failure to meet their tax obligations.
The tragedy is that the troika is applying more and more pressure insisting on this disastrous downhill and the leaders of this country have surrended in advance and without a fight. For the euro’s and the Eurozone’s sake we are in danger of destroying an entire country and eradicating an entire nation.
For us, the dilemma is crystal clear: One either compromises with the status quo and simply vindicates ways in order to manage the current situation in the most effective way or attempts to overthrow this financial regime. In such cases there is no middle way. If our country insists on waiting for a deus ex machina to save us though some sort of a miracle we will experience an absolute disaster. A realistic proposal is the one which does not expose the people and the country in any threats and does not allow anyone to sink in despair and hopelessness. If this nation makes the decision to overthrow this financial regime, the recovery will be very fast and the working classes will sense the difference from the first day. What should be done though?
First: We need to stop to depend on loans given to our country from the Eurozone which have as their main clause the destruction and selling off of the country. We must deny the repayment of the debt and this should be accompanied by a repudiation of the debt which should be characterized as illegal and abusive under the rules of international law.
Second: We need to declare the withdrawal of Greece from both the euro and the Eurozone in order to introduce a national currency to our economy and regain the ability and the freedom to restructure our economy based on our own criteria and the interests of the Greek people disregarding the European banking oligarchy. After that, we will need 6-8 months in order to introduce the new national currency. Within this period of time some direct measures should be implemented:
- The nationalization of the Bank of Greece and the major private banks which have attracted most liquidity from the Eurosystem. Why is that? In order to let the banking system go bankrupt while at the same time we are in a position to guarantee for the people’s deposits. The default will enable the banks to be rebuilt from scratch without any obligations to external investors while at the same time the banks could proceed to the deletion of debts associated with households and small businesses.
- The recovery of losses in income from which employees and the retired population suffered right from the begging of the implementation of the memoranda. Salaries and pensions should be brought back to the levels on which they were prior to May 5th, 2010. This would be achieved through the use of electronic scriptural money provided by the banks which are under public control while these banks would provide small businesses with operating loans.
- The imposition of capital control. In this way we will stop the bleeding which tyrannizes the Greek economy and deprives it from huge funds from within. Through the use of nationalized banks the so called ‘black money’ market for which the Greek banking system is famous internationally will come to an end. Controlling the movement of capital is easy once one assumes control on the banking system and in our case this capital control will be associated with selective taxation of capital which moving from the economy abroad or comes to the economy from abroad. Untaxed profits, dividends, interest payments and investments in securities abroad will come to an end as well. Also on funds from abroad which are destined to speculate in real estate and financial assets will be imposed dissuasive high taxation, while those funds which are directed towards investments in the real economy must be treated favorably given that they satisfy the government in terms of the provision of new vacancies for employment which will be relatively secure, they will be wage inelastic, investing in new technology, and value-adding production.
- Explicit abolition of layoffs and abolition of the use of bankruptcy in the private sector. In the case where we are dealing with a small business, a freelancer, or an individual producer, the state will guarantee that they do not bankrupt through the provision of direct support or subsidized loans. In the case of large corporations and especially multinational companies workers will be given the opportunity to manage the businesses with state support. At the same time inelastic labor rights will be imposed in order to deal with unemployment and especially unemployment associated with young people.
- Direct intervention in the country’s external balance of goods and services. Until the Greek economy is normalized and its production capabilities are set to be taken advantage of, imported goods would be substituted by domestically produced goods and the state will ensure to significantly reduce those imported goods which are not absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the domestic economy and the needs of its society. The government will also have to impose a selective protectionism based on which products will not be before domestically produced are exhausted and in the case that they are the products imported should be at least of the same quality and production value with the corresponding domestically produced products. Only under such conditions a less powerful economy may compete on equal terms.
- Our main concern during this period would be to maintain the circulation of paper money within the Greek economy, which according to current data amounts to 26 billion euros. For this we will implement capital control which would prohibit the export of paper money and would impose a very high tax to capital which is about to be exported and invested in equities and bonds abroad. At the same time, we would also allow the influx of paper money from abroad which will be checked in terms of where it is placed within the Greek economy in order to prevent any form of speculation. Deposits in domestic banks will not be restricted in any way but the introduction of the national currency no one would be able to withdraw physical money (paper money). All transactions within the economy would be made through the use of deposit accounts to which access will be gained through the use of debit cards (like ATM cards) and this is how the use of physical money would be substituted. This measure is necessary as the government would need to withdraw all euro banknotes (which are estimated to be around 10 billion euro) so that they could be used as a reserve currency of the nationalized Bank of Greece. Through the use of this reserve we would be able to cover up the current external deficit of goods and services.
We should also keep in mind that banks will have neither the character nor the current form. They will be under public control and have undergone liquidation so that we can discover where did the hundreds of billions of assets go, who benefited from them and who should be trialed for infidelity and predatory behavior. In this way we will be able to rebuild the banking system under public and social control, with absolute transparency of transactions, from scratch according to the real needs of this country and for the benefit of the vast majority of its people. This will give us the opportunity to deal for once and for all with the private debts, first and foremost erasing the debts of the households and small businesses which are unable to repay them, but also it will help us to prepare for a smooth transition to the national currency. This transition will take place under the same conditions which applied during the transition from the drachma to the euro.
Of course the key to all of this is the quick restart of Greek economy in terms of its productivity and investments in the real economy. This may be achieved through the provision of open credit available to those who want to invest in production related businesses and have as their main the addition of value to the process and the provision of secure employment, and an extensive program of public investment in infrastructure free from corruption. All the above will give a sharp upward momentum in the economy, such that when the currency is finally introduced its exchange rate will be stabilized with little turbulence.
Of course, all of this cannot be done if the Greek people does not manage to bring back democracy to its country and if they do not get rid of the completely corrupt political system which brought this nation to this misery and delivered him as a prisoner to financial markets. The Greek people should bring back this kind of democracy which has as its main prerequisite, national independence and sovereignty of the people who should be ruling their own countries and not become slaves to their lenders and their corrupt politicians.
General Secretary of E.PA.M.
Opening speech and closing speech, further down, of Dimitris Kazakis on the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DEBT, NATIONAL CURRENCY & DEMOCRACY in Keramikos – Athens, Saturday 30 November and 1 December 2013
After the end of this post click on “the whole conference” to see whole conference
“Dear fellow fighters, friends and invitees…
I welcome you, on behalf of the political board, to the international conference hosted by the United People’s Front (EPAM) where we’ll discuss the subjects of debt, national currency and democracy.
This meeting, for all of us fighting against the ‘memorandum occupation’, the euro and the EU, is a very important event. Not only because we’ll have the opportunity to enrich our effort with the experience of other countries whose people face similar problems and situations but also because we get the chance to get to know each other and make relationships of fellowship and coordination in the common fight of all of eurozone’s and EU’s people and beyond, against the worst authoritarianism the world has known since the ancient regime that was brought down by the great French Revolution.
What’s happening in Greece is the living example of the way in which the eurozone and the EU are evolving into a new super-state embodiment, the European Federation, as called by Barroso himself at the ‘State of the Union’ in September 2012. What is being done in Greece created and continues to create the legal and political precedent for this transformation.
The first thing the eurozone looked into, after the crisis broke out in Greece, was to isolate the country on the one hand and on the other hand, impose a state of colonial occupation that is novel in the European historical timeline.
Greece was forced, from the first moment, to ‘irrevocably and unconditionally waive all immunity’, as mentioned verbatimin the loan agreements.* By doing this, the eurozone lenders were free to put the country under a state of liquidation and clearance. The average Greek citizen was officially turned into a debt slave. A peon. Forced to give up on essential rights on their work, its product and their own life in order to pay a debt that is impossible to pay off.
It’s the first time in history since the era of feudalism, that a people, a whole nation is officially turned into a peon and has a state of peony imposed, that is a debt serfdom. Not just as a result of actions, something the IMF has been doing for decades in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, but officially, by signing colonial loan agreements on demand of the eurozone itself.
And all that thanks to the fact that Greece is in the eurozone and has given up its own essential means of fiscal, monetary and credit policy. The lenders, of course, looked to have loan agreements according to which peony, the debt serfdom, is presented as a voluntary request of Greece. The Greek people themselves.
In this crime, the lenders were aided by the furthermost assistance and ultimate support of a totally corrupt, sold-out and treasonous political system which didn’t hesitate to perform a coup and abolish every aspect of constitutional order of the country in order to serve the interests of the most rapacious circles of the euro and the money markets.
So, we think that as of the 6th of May, 2010 and up to this day, Greece is under occupation. Colonial occupation. One with an aim for the mass extinction of the Greek people and the plunder of the social and natural wealth of the country by its lenders. In a very short time, we had foreign commissioners arriving and occupying key positions of the state mechanism. In addition to the Troika. In this day, the state cannot proceed to any act without the prior suggestion or approval by the foreign commissioners. Even the judicial/legal system has been put under their wing. Even the military forces and the defense system of the country. In essence, the absolute being of the state has been abrogated.
With the assistance of the internal political system, of the contemporary collaborationists, the modern Quislings, in just three years, more than 400 laws were introduced on demand of the lenders and the Troika. More than 27 legislative acts that are of similar content to the old Royal Decrees, as well as dozens of other Cabinet acts under orders from above and beyond. For the Greek people, there is no vital sector that is crucial to them – in labor, society and politics – that hasn’t changed vastly on their expense, by abolishing their most essential of rights.
After all this, the Greek people have no sovereign ownership rights in their country. They can’t decide for themselves on anything that concerns them. Even the right in private ownership has been brutally bludgeoned. Everything in the country, the public and private wealth of the Greek citizens, is now available to the lenders and the euro-system. And the trade-off? The average Greek today, being even more indebted than when the Troika first came.
It’s not just that the public debt keeps rising… The country was forced to borrow again, mainly in order to keep funding the external debt, during the period of 2010-2013, more than 320 billion euros. That is more than what the public debt was before 31-12-2009 but even so, continues to owe more than 325 billion euros.
To the private debt of the Greeks – which exceeds the amount of 230 billion euros – another 45 billion were added in the last three years. It’s debt towards the Tax Office, with the sole purpose of confiscating real and mobile private property. At the same time, the average citizen saw 1 in 4 people losing their jobs. Every work right was abolished. They saw 1 in 3 losing even the possibility of insurance, while the base salary was reduced by at least 40%. Saw the regime of general poverty and unemployment going hand-in-hand with a regime of absolute immunity, where the worker is literally a derelict.
They watched as 3 out of 4 workers, who still have the “luxury” of having a job, either getting blackmailed and paid under even the base salary or facing delayed payments. Today, 3 out of 5 workers that have a job, face 5-month-old delayed payments. That is, they haven’t been paid for 5 months on average. The average Greek citizen saw the majority of self-employed workers getting destroyed with a single stroke. They make up 32% of the total employment figures. They saw half of small and medium-sized businesses shutting down, while the big ones have their earnings, suppliers and workers ravaged by their owners, so that they can flee Greece or vastly reduce their activities. They saw the volume of investment dropping extremely from 22% of GDP in 2009 to 12% today, turning Greece to the country with the biggest disinvestment worldwide. They also saw poverty and hardship double in two years. Rampaging immigration, notably of the younger generations, close to the levels of the ’60s – a time when the Greek society was faced with the biggest immigration wave it ever had. They saw – in a two year period, from 2011 to 2012 – the population decreasing by 80,000 in absolute figures, for the first time in the post-War period.
After all this, is the 98% of the Greek population, who according to measurements expect the worst, in the wrong? No. They’re absolutely right. If we keep following the same path, if we hold on to the euro – especially now, on the road to the European Federation, as declared by the prior Maoist Barroso – now that the right of composing and publishing the state budget, while the European Commission has officially obtained the status of a super-government, with the ECB having direct supervision and control of the banking system under its absolute jurisdiction, in the eurozone and the EU.
For us, the dilemma is clear: You either come in terms with the current situation and just seek ways of managing it better with increasingly worsening effects for the people or you overturn it. There is no middle ground. As long as we wait for a divine intervention, a miracle, we’ll keep experiencing absolute destruction. Not only us in Greece but all the peoples of the eurozone. A realistic approach is one that doesn’t leave the people open to today’s threats. One that doesn’t allow them to sink any more into anguish and despair, poverty and extinction. Our duty is majorly patriotic. Primarily nation-liberating against the worst continental regime that’s been imposed upon the people since Hitler.
Another Europe is indeed feasible. A Europe whose peoples will be free, sovereign and owners of their countries, where they will solely decide for their present and their future. Only such a Europe of independent, autonomous and sovereign peoples can turn into a continent of true peace, democracy and brotherhood.
Brotherhood cannot exist where peoples are slaves of the markets, the banking cartel and the supranational instruments of European integration. Suppression only brings wars. Wars of conquering and enslavement, which can only be responded to with an uprising of the entirety of the people.
One thing is certain: The Greek people won’t allow its extinction. And it’s that close, just that close, to the moment when it will take matters into its own hands. And be assured that it’s ready to assist all other peoples in their fight by any means. In the common fight of all of the peoples of Europe. And not just Europe…
The Greek people have done this before. They’ve set the example. They stood their ground, first winners against the Nazi hordes, for democracy, freedom and national sovereignity. Despite all the sacrifices they suffered. And they will set the example for all peoples again.
2014 will be the year of the Greek people. It will be a landmark year for democracy and freedom in all of Europe. Like it was then, on the 28th of October, 1940, when the Greek people were called to the fight against the fascist invader. First to the battle against the fascists and to defeat them. And now, against the new fascism, the fascism of the markets, against which they will score the first victory on behalf of all European peoples.
Thank you very much.”
* “The Borrower hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives all immunity to which it is or may become entitled, in respect of itself or its assets, from legal proceedings in relation to this Amendment, including, without limitation, immunity from suit, judgement or other order, from attachment, arrest or injunction prior to judgement, and from execution and enforcement against its assets to the extent not prohibited by mandatory law.”
Excerpt from the “AMENDMENT TO THE EUR 80 000 000 000 LOAN FACILITY AGREEMENT” text
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 11:25 π.μ.
by JIM REYNOLDS, Vice Chairman, Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB)
My name is Jim Reynolds and I am a Vice Chairman representing the Campaign for an Independent Britain. On behalf of our organisation, I come to Greece in full hearted friendship for the Greek people and for our colleagues from all over Europe, who are fighting for the return of democratic self government to their countries and deliverance from their debt slavery , enforced by that imperial project, the Euro currency. We in the Campaign for an Independent Britain are from all parties and none. We come from right, left and centre and all we want is our country back!
Our organisation was formed in 1969 under a different name as a cross-party coalition, opposed to “Common Market” entry in 1973. It is an umbrella group, supported by public donations, to which other Eurosceptic organisations are affiliated. We campaign for the restoration of full national sovereignty to the United Kingdom by its withdrawal from the obligations of the treaties of the European Union and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended), so that Parliament may legislate freely and may co-operate with other nations as it sees fit. We are a “broad church” of political opinion but will not tolerate racists or extremists and reject any organisation known to be motivated by anti-democratic intentions.
Our country has been betrayed by certain Prime Ministers. Edward Heath in 1972 took us into what was then called a Common Market – on a narrow vote in Parliament of 309 to 301, whilst concealing from all MPs the terms of entry. Harold Wilson in 1975 claimed he had secured new terms of membership and, aided by a lavishly funded campaign, the full support of the BBC and almost all British newspapers, he secured a 67% vote by 65% of the electorate to stay in.
In 1983, the men who later became our Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, gained their seats in Parliament for the first time by promising, if elected, to take us out of the European Union – but changed their minds when elected.
Over many years we have printed and distributed millions of factual leaflets on many subjects and organised public gatherings and films. We have a website HYPERLINK “http://www.freebritain.org.uk/”www.freebritain.org.uk . In 2010, after our most recent general election to Parliament, we supplied every member of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords with a booklet entitled “ A HOUSE DIVIDED: Can parliament serve Two Masters, the Nation and the European Union?”. I have brought a number of copies with me to make them available to you. It tells of the lies and deceits perpetrated in order to maintain public support for the EU – and of the loss of our Parliamentary sovereignty.
Turning now to those countries of Europe which, with us have joined the EU -Something very strange has happened to the countries of Europe over the last fifty years through the deceit of our politicians – the leaders who should be serving the interests of their own peoples who elect them. By meeting together with politicians from other countries in the EU they have increasingly discovered that, as a class, they have more in common with each other and with the bankers than they do with the people they are supposed to serve. Little by little they have created a super – state structure to which they have given their loyalty and obedience which should only be to their own countries and peoples.
In any other age this would have been called treason and would have been punished as such. They are people who dress like us, look like us and talk like us but whose loyalty is elsewhere – to that strange anti-democratic structure in Brussels. What was presented to us as a free association of sovereign nations co-operating in trade always was intended to develop into a super-state, a single despotism over all the peoples of Europe.
Britain was slowly enmeshed in this plot against its own people by its political class – but not without a struggle. As a country, we had spent all of our money and much of our blood to free the countries of Europe from fascism and the natural goodwill of democrats towards their fellows in other European countries was gradually subverted to this evil project.
One man who saw this clearly in the Forties was the Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin.
A man of the working class, he was intensely suspicious of the early moves towards European integration. He knew enough of Greek mythology to coin a keenly true but amusing mixed metaphor. He said of the European project.
“If you open that Pandora’s box, you don’t know how many Trojan horses will come flying out”.
Unfortunately for us and for Europe, Ernest Bevin was overruled by American pressure. Britain was bankrupt and the Americans controlled the flow of dollars. In fact, we have evidence that the CIA funded the European Movement from the beginning, just as the American government today puts diplomatic pressure on our country, telling us that we must stay in the EU.
Well, whilst the Trojan Horse was originally a Greek stratagem against the Trojans, there are now whole herds of them from Brussels within the walls of Greece today – and in every EU country. Wherever you see that ring of stars announcing another project assisted by the EU, a little bit of your country has been shaped to suit the policy makers of Brussels. Around all these projects – and the ones you don’t see or hear of – are the people who do well out of them. Some of them are gradually entrapped bit by bit, often unwittingly at the time, into giving their first loyalty to their Brussels paymasters.
The Commissioners in Brussels and the heads of government of other EU countries are far away and, whilst we can rage about what they do, there is little we can do to affect them. They are hermetically sealed in a world of privilege beyond our reach. It was our own, treacherous politicians who delivered us into the hands of these people. In doing it they became more like them, as prophetically described by the poet G.K. Chesterton eighty years ago.
“They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes.
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies”
Brussels has not taken any power from our countries which has not been handed over by our own politicians and officials. Sometimes in the mistaken belief that it was somehow for the peace and good of Europe – we have let them do it. Sometimes we were just too late to stop them. Now is the time to insist that they take back the power – our power to rule ourselves - and bring it home where it belongs – each in our own country.
And if they won’t do it, then throw the rogues out!
By meeting together, co-ordinating our efforts and sharing information, we can each be much more effective in in our own countries where the real fight is.
I mentioned Ernest Bevin, the socialist politician of the Nineteen Forties, as one who understood the dangers of the European project. The last British politician to stand against the creation of the EU superstate was very different politically – Margaret Thatcher. The President of the EU Commission, Jacques Delors, had proposed more or less what we have now – The EU Commission as the executive government of the EU, the so-called EU parliament as its token democratic assembly and the European Council of heads of government as its senate.
To each of these proposals in turn, Mrs Thatcher said “No!” “No!” “No!” and so was betrayed by the europhiles in her own party whose loyalty was to the EU and not to the most solemn oath they had sworn to their own sovereign and country. That is the rottenness at the heart of every EU member state, not just Britain.
If we had been meeting just over a month ago on October 28th , we could have joined with our Greek friends in celebrating “No!” day, the anniversary of Greece’s short response to the ultimatum by the Italian dictator Mussolini. The admiration which Britain then felt for Greece standing up to a much bigger country is reflected today in our support for your campaign to restore your country’s honour and self government. It is a common struggle which we share, so I share the sentiment of Lord Byron
“The mountains look on Marathon -
And Marathon looks on the sea;
And musing there an hour alone,
I dreamed that Greece still might be free;
For standing on the Persians’ grave,
I could not deem myself a slave”
Are we really free to choose and is the people’s power acknowledged? “Debt Management” is a short documentary on the illusion of freedom (the case of the “boiling frog”) and the illusion of choice (as in the example of “Plato’s cave”), from an economic perspective. The Greek crisis is just another round in the constant struggle between those who take decisions that determine the will of whole societies and the real power of the people. How can entire societies become powerless, from an economic point of view? By what means is that being achieved in modern Europe?
without Greek subtitles
Maria Delivani N., economist, former dean of the University of Macedonia.
Craig Wherlock, since 2008 “Journalist of the crisis.”
Didac S. – Costa, sociologist.
Albert Broomhead, economist and analyst.
Dimitris Kazakis, economist, author, columnist.
General co Kastrinakis P. Alexander.
Μαρία Δεληβάνη Ν., οικονομολόγος, πρώην πρύτανης του Πανεπιστημίου Μακεδονίας.
Craig Wherlock, από το 2008 «δημοσιογράφος της κρίσης».
Didac S.- Costa, κοινωνιολόγος.
Albert Broomhead, οικονομολόγος, αναλυτής.
Δημήτρης Καζάκης, οικονομολόγος, συγγραφέας, αρθρογράφος.
Γενική επιμέλεια Αλέξανδρος Καστρινάκης Π..
1. Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
This extraordinary documentary, made by the Mises Institute in 1996, is the clearest, most compelling explanation ever offered of the Fed. (42 mins)
2. Conspiracies – Iraq:
A 2006 Sky documentary revealing the only WMD Saddam Hussein had, was the Euros he charged for Iraqi oil. As this was a direct challenge to the US petrodollar, Hussein had to go. (46 mins)
3. Money As Debt:
A fast-paced and highly entertaining animated feature. It explains today’s banking system in terms that are easy to understand. (47 mins)
4. Woody Harrelson Presents – Ethos:
Presented by actor & activist Woody Harrelson, this powerful 2011 documentary blows the lid off our corrupt monetary and political system. (70 min)
5. The Money Fix – Monetary Reform:
This movie examines the human & the natural world. We learn how we can empower ourselves by redesigning the economy at the community level. (80 mins)
6. The Secret of Oz:
Governments should issue debt free money. This is the solution as revealed by L. Frank Baum in “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. (112 mins)
by Greg Palast for In These Times
Here’s what we’re told:
Greece’s economy blew apart because a bunch of olive-spitting, ouzo-guzzling, lazy-ass Greeks refuse to put in a full day’s work, retire while they’re still teenagers, pocket pensions fit for a pasha; and they’ve gone on a social-services spending spree using borrowed money. Now that the bill has come due and the Greeks have to pay with higher taxes and cuts in their big fat welfare state, they run riot, screaming in the streets, busting windows and burning banks.
I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it because of the document in my hand marked, “RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION.”
I’ll cut to the indictment: Greece is a crime scene. The people are victims of a fraud, a scam, a hustle and a flim-flam. And––cover the children’s ears when I say this––a bank named Goldman Sachs is holding the smoking gun.
This is an adaptation of an excerpt from Vultures’ Picnic, Greg Palast’s new book, out next week, an investigator’s pursuit of petroleum pigs, power pirates and high-finance fraudsters. Read the first chapter or just get the book here.
In 2002, Goldman Sachs secretly bought up €2.3 billion in Greek government debt, converted it all into yen and dollars, then immediately sold it back to Greece.
Goldman took a huge loss on the trade.
Is Goldman that stupid?
Goldman is stupid—like a fox. The deal was a con, with Goldman making up a phony-baloney exchange rate for the transaction. Why?
Goldman had cut a secret deal with the Greek government in power then. Their game: to conceal a massive budget deficit. Goldman’s fake loss was the Greek government’s fake gain.
Goldman would get repayment of its “loss” from the government at loan-shark rates.
The point is, through this crazy and costly legerdemain, Greece’s right-wing free-market government was able to pretend its deficits never exceeded 3 percent of GDP.
Cool. Fraudulent but cool.
But flim-flam isn’t cheap these days: On top of murderous interest payments, Goldman charged the Greeks over a quarter billion dollars in fees.
When the new Socialist government of George Papandreou came into office, they opened up the books and Goldman’s bats flew out. Investors’ went berserk, demanding monster interest rates to lend more money to roll over this debt.
Greece’s panicked bondholders rushed to buy insurance against the nation going bankrupt. The price of the bond-bust insurance, called a credit default swap (or CDS), also shot through the roof. Who made a big pile selling the CDS insurance? Goldman.
And those rotting bags of CDS’s sold by Goldman and others? Didn’t they know they were handing their customers gold-painted turds?
That’s Goldman’s specialty. In 2007, at the same time banks were selling suspect CDS’s and CDOs (packaged sub-prime mortgage securities), Goldman held a “net short” position against these securities. That is, Goldman was betting their financial “products” would end up in the toilet. Goldman picked up another half a billion dollars on their “net short” scam.
But, instead of cuffing Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein and parading him in a cage through the streets of Athens, we have the victims of the frauds, the Greek people, blamed. Blamed and soaked for the cost of it. The “spread” on Greek bonds (the term used for the risk premium paid on Greece’s corrupted debt) has now risen to — get ready for this––$14,000 per family per year.
Euro-nation, the secret Geithner memo, and the Ecuador connection
Why did the Greek government throw its nation’s fate into Goldman’s greasy hands? What the heck was in the “RESTRICTED” document? And why did I have to take it to Geneva, to throw it down in front of the Director-General of the WTO for authentication, a creepy French banker I otherwise wouldn’t bother to spit on, and then tear off to Quito to share it with the grateful President of Ecuador?
To give you all the answers would require me to write a book. I have: Vultures’ Picnic––in Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Fraudsters.
It’s really quite important to me that you read it, that you get it now. That’s a funny statement, I suppose, from an author. But if you’ve been reading my stories in The Guardian or watching my reports on BBC Newsnight, you’ve gotten the facts; but I really want to let you inside the investigations, to cross the continents with me and follow down the leads so that you can get a full picture of The Beasts. The Beasts and their trophy wives, intelligence agency go-fers, political concubines and bone-breakers. And besides, it’s enormous fun when it’s not scary as sh*t.
Here’s a taste of Chapter 12 – The Generalissimo of Globalization – from the film-enhanced eBook edition. [And more on the 1% Greece-ing us, check out the upcoming issue of In These Times.]
Note: I will be in Chicago for In These Times on November 29, part of our 15 city tour that begins this coming Sunday, November 13, in Portland, then moves to San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Denver, Boulder, New Mexico, Albuquerque, Chicago, Madison, New York, DC, Houston, Burlington, and Atlanta. Find out more info here.
Greg Palast is the author of Vultures’ Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores.
A paradigm is a set of values and norms that is publicly accepted and acknowledged as the suitable ones, and can be said to be the basic values of a certain civilization
An anti-Hellenic lobby paved the way for the establishment of the Rothschild-Zionist dogma
Before the global elite can launch a long desired global paradigm shift, an induced shift of the main and basic human values and norms, the old foundations so to say, must first be accused, slandered and falsified, and facts must be distorted. Various other cultures have had to endure this throughout history (North-South American Indians, Celts, Persians, Arabs, Africans, Polynesians and others). However now it’s not about the destruction of a culture but the destruction of the whole of the Hellenic foundations of the western civilization. The Globalists, who themselves claim that they are *Zionists, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not, now aim to replace the basic human values that is the base of western societies, by a very aggressive propaganda, opposing the old values, freedom, justice, humanity. Hellenism is the cradle of the values Rothschild-Zionism detest.
Hellenism = Hellenistic (also called classic) schooling, education and upbringing, ie classical Greek literature-philosophy-science-arts-music-theater-athletics (martial arts) taught properly in balance and an adequate symbiosis with each other,.. plus a moral approach towards humans and humanity, has proved to offer the most essential safeguards against tyranny, despotism, monarchy and oligarchy – Hellenism, as a broader term, originates from the word ellinismos (describes the genetic, geographic, cultural and spiritual roots of the Hellenes/Greeks) and is NOT limited to only the classical period of ancient Greece and later Rome, as Wikipedia and many other encyclopedias suggest. The word describes the ENTIRE history of the Hellenes (the Ionian and the Doric tribes). Hellenism has throughout the recorded history been, *Zionisms and its predecessors, the Pharisees, enemy No. 1. This of course, because it represents a direct threat to what later became the *Zionist worldview, the Zionist dogma. Hellenism namely highlights the importance of human freedom, it develops the thinking and offer the spiritual and intellectual tools, so that each individual can be able to develop an independent, critical thinking. *Zionism, in which the individual and free critical thinking is seen as a weakness for the collective and in which the individual is seen as merely a cog in a larger machinery, considered the Hellenic thoughts about the free human, as nonsense and even dangerous for the community. This ‘attitude’ towards Hellenic teachings is also what is diligently spread in the schools and in the common encyclopedias today.
This is why today the concept of freedom is distorted and changed into freedom without responsibilities (capitalism, neo-liberalism), or even into, too much freedom is dangerous for the human societies (conservatism, totalitarianism, autocracy).
“when truth has been peeled out of history, all that is left of it, is a worthless story”
Since about 70 years now, an anti-Hellenic lobby has deliberately been spreading false teachings and pseudo-arguments among secondary school’s, college’s and university’s, with the aim to undermine the classic, Hellenistic education. Anyone who is a bit familiar with the recorded facts in the history of mankind, notice this without difficulties, primarily through the major lexicons and encyclopedias obvious omission and distortion of important knowledge and facts about the legacy of the Greeks. On closer examination, you can very easy discover a deliberate manipulation of facts behind the history of the Hellenes’, their discoveries, their knowledge, their origin and their language.
Pure cultural persecution has been conducted against Hellenism from a Rothschild-Zionist lobby amongst academics, with the aim to minimize the possibilities for students to discover the genuine European heritage and the real western humans’ spiritual origin and instead replace it with a Rothschild-Zionist worldview. Tens of thousands of concerned academics worldwide, has been sounding the alarm about this over decades. A large number of professors from all over the world, believe that there is a deliberate anti-Hellenic lobby within the academic world, that want to remove Greek education in general from the curriculum in the major universities. A climate thrives in these, where Hellenism is considered to be “overrated” and as being based on an up-picking of achievements of neighboring cultures. All such claims can of course be rebutted quite thoroughly and without any difficulties, not least by the neighboring cultures own literature, but the damage is still done, because the vast majority of the students never make an effort to search for the real facts on these issues. They stick to the common approach to this heritage. It seem fairly unnecessary for most people to question the established encyclopedias, popular science and some of the top universities ways to convey the valuable heritage of the Greeks. It is even less believed that, in our “enlightened” time, they would deliberately, distort the truths about our existence, our origin and our true history.
Brave professors, lecturers and academics as Mary Lefkowitz, Victor Hansen and Bruce S Thornton among many others have alarmed about this. Since it exists so much written in Greek, which through the ancient, original texts, proves that the ‘anti-Hellenic lobby’ is spreading sheer lies about Greek culture, the Latin replaced classical Greek a few decades ago as the language of literature, philosophy and science. Most major encyclopedias today (relatively undetected), therefore ignore the actual, original texts and refers only to them through, far too often, very shallow interpretations and pure guesses by translators who have tried to comprehend the thinking of the ancient Greeks. They could have let the Classic Greek remain and even teach it more in its talking form, so that every student himself/herself could read the original texts and interpret them himself/herself. After all more than 80% of the books and scrolls in the infamous Library of Alexandria was in Greek. Why must these books content be explained to the world today by a bunch of interpreters?
Short idea-historic retrospective on Zionism and Hellenism:
The Hebreo-Chaldean tribes praised the ‘importance of the collective’ and built their world view and their view on humans and humanity largely on religion, mythology, the natural conditions, ‘necessities’ for the survival of the tribes and pure superstition. ‘Science’, Philosophy and Religion in these cultures had to comply with eachother and the authority, the ‘king’, the ‘emperor’, the ‘demigod’, the ‘prophet’ who was considered to have direct contact with “God” and could therefore NOT openly be criticized. He was infallible and his word could not be questioned. Any ‘weakness’ of their authority was supposed to cause chaos and anarchy in a society. They were “theocentric”, ie with a god and a priesthood in the center of their societies. They felt in these tribes that they needed and that they wanted a ‘shepherd’, THEIR ‘shepherd’. From around 1 500 BC the elite of the Sanhedrin, ie the highest Jewish council of the synagogue of ancient times and today’s Rothschild-Zionism (not necessarily Jewish), has always seen Hellenism as its archenemy. This, because automatically, through its main characteristics, its literature and its ancient mystery traditions, Hellenism forms a constant threat to the Rothschild-Zionism’s worldview and its fundamental views on humanity. Precursors of Rothschild-Zionism is actually NOT the whole of Sanhedrin but only a specific group within the ancient Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish council in the synagogue, namely the Pharisees. If you look deeper in their key political, religious, Jewish currents as a common denominator, then the Rothschild-Zionists today are the heirs of the Pharisees. Phariséism was a Jewish, religious, political party who interpreted the Torah and the law of Moses literally, but also rigidly (it was dictated instead of inspired) so the actual ethos and the spirit of the law became rigid and stiff and thus an extremely favorable tool for elitism, racism and tyranny. Today’s fundamentalism, in any religion or ideology is based on this kind of rigid ethos.
The Ionian and Doric tribes ie the Hellenes (Greeks), praised the individuals importance and placed the Human Being in the center of their concern and they built their worldview and their view on Humanity on critical observations, science and knowledge of the human role in nature and in universe. They were “anthropocentric”, with the human being in the centre and they looked at the world and mankind from an investigative perspective based on their own observations and studies. They did not live particularly different from their neighbors, but THE WAY THEY LOOKED UPON HOW THEY LIVED constituted their uniqueness in comparison with ALL other cultures in the ancient world. They examined everything from a critical perspective, and this critical, investigative approach they also turned towards their own functions, behavior, institutions, ideas and thinking. Where most other cultures saw more or less similar patterns, the Greeks through their perspective, distinguished details, differences and exceptions. They could place their focus of observation beyond nature, humans and even the gods and examine everything from a rational, investigative, scientific perspective. The Greeks had the ability to see life steadily and see it whole, rather than remain enslaved by custom, tradition, superstition, nature or by the brute force of the political and clerical elite. It sought to free itself from the ‘shackles’, the kind of existence that often dictate people’s lives through dogma, creeds, traditions, customs and practices and therefore breed non-examined, ingrained, ‘mechanical’, behavior patterns and routines. The Hellenes wanted to be fully ‘conscious’ in their perception and their behavior. To them it was therefore essential that Science, Philosophy and Religion were decoupled from each other, in order for free thinking to develop at all. This was something that was unthinkable in ALL the other cultures, as this view was seen as dangerous and as a threat to the order, the monarchy and the clerical elite.
The biggest achievement, with this approach to life was the birth of the organized, critical thinking, and thus the concept of freedom. Something that before the Greeks, was only for kings and emperors with their courts. From that critical thinking, an organized idea that all human beings are born free and independent, and therefore has the right to influence and decide about their lives, was born, so therefore slavery was seriously criticized and later abolished in ancient Athens around 300 BC (about 2000 years before anyone else). They showed by their celebration of the development of human qualities, that they did not want to be dependent on any ‘shepherd’, but that they themselves were capable of becoming the best ‘shepherd’ for their own lives, as long as they got to know the microcosmos and the macrocosmos and the natural principles that govern nature and universe.
The Hebrews were looking for “God” outside themselves and the Hellenes were looking for “God” in themselves…
It is really this ancient difference between two contradicting idea-worlds and spiritual traditions,…this “schizophrenia” between Hellenism and Rothschild-Zionism, that they have tried to crowd into ONE in the ‘modern Western civilization’. This paradox and this fundamental clash of ideas, is what really reflects the whole Western society in all its institutions, its culture its societies, its social character and its basic views on humans and Humanity.
- We think we base our societies and ‘democratic’ states on noble values, but everywhere we structurally violate these values on a daily basis for the sake of financial profit, power and self-pleasure.
- We think we are freer than others, but we captivate ourselves more than any other culture by the shackles of materialism and the devotion of only the physical, the flesh..
- We say that we defend freedom and human rights, but its obvious that the western Governments and institutions doesn’t count in all of humanity in the same standard, only the lords and the elite of the western world.
In our so called ‘democratic institutions’, a tremendous dehumanization of others is an accepted ingredient in our relations to others. Every bizarre paradox that we discover in the western societies can be traced back to this particular cultural and spiritual “schizophrenia” between Hellenism and Zionism.
Today Zionism is striving to bury Hellenism and go back to pre-Hellenic idea-worlds where the kings (todays: corporate leaders and bankers), the emperors (todays: leaders of great powers and international unions and organizations), the priests (todays: pseudo-science, media and show business) and the demigods (todays: ruling elite and celebrities) are again telling humanity whats best for us. For that paradigm-shift to be fully implemented, the pure and original Hellenic ingredients in human thinking has to first be ridiculed, humiliated and forgotten by humanity.
*Zionism is normally considered to be Theodor Hertzl’s organized Jewish movement for the achievement of a country for the Jewish people, the Jewish state of Israel (which also in fact content elitism, racism and totalitarism)… In this article though when I refer to Zionism I describe Rothschild’s version of Zionism, which is more about the actual “kidnapping” of the true Jewish people (ca 15% of those claiming to be jews today), their religion and traditions, to serve an oligarchic global family empire, with the current state of Israel as its shield and vehicle to this goal… There are Christian Zionists and Muslim Zionists no matter how strange that can sound, simply because today’s Rothschild-Zionism has nothing to do with the real Jewish belief but only with the aims of those families that consider themselves as “kings” and “emperors” of humanity and their plan with he state of Israel.
“THEY TORE DOWN ONE WALL IN ORDER TO FORM THE FUNDAMENTS FOR ANOTHER, MUCH BIGGER WALL”! This sentence is a good example of the increased and nowadays commonly expressed sentiments in south Europe.
WARNING,.. THIS TEXT CONTENT DELIBERATE GENERALIZATIONS OF CENTRAL AND NORTHERN EUROPEANS (in accordance with the accepted general tone about the “PIGS” in the majority of the central and northern european media):
Due to a still ongoing, generalization of southern Europeans, by Merkel’s “ethos” and tone in the central and northern European media, I have chosen to express few parts of the following text in the same generalizing “manners” and “mood”.
Since talks, about an alliance, between the southern european countries, has begun as an act of “self-defence” against EU’s political-cultural-financial attack, I want to draw your attention to the hostile “moods”, Merkel and the German media has stirred up in Europe through conscious propaganda playing on prejudices and narrow-mindedness.
by Kosmas Loumakis
Last week there was indications in some Greek, Cypriot, Spanish and Italian press that there are ongoing talks between the oppositions, the syndicates and the popular movements between all the countries of southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus) due to the recent brutal attack on Cyprus by the EU Troika, and it sounds like there exists a fast growing, united, lobby for the construction of an alliance between these countries soon… The reasons mentioned are, in order to withstand the attacks from the current EU and presumably to, in joint troop, leave the EU and return to their own national currencies, and thus become able again to be independent and free to manage their own economy according to own, real needs and circumstances.
EU that always protected Greece (hahahaha) has now given the Turks reasons to begin to express claims in the Cypriot and Greek territorial waters because of their interests in Cypriot and Greek oil and gas deposits. Due to this fact and the obvious and immidiate dangers this EU-praxis poses, many in southern Europe now seriously express:
“We should PROTECT OURSELVES against the EU, instead of cooperating with them!” It really seems that the ones who managed to tear down the Berlin Wall now are “building” the very fundaments for another, much greater ‘Wall’ between the South and the Central and Northern nations of Europe.
A “united” Europe was ‘sold’ to us and many accepted it, so the European nations should be able to sincerely work for real expressions of good neighbour-climate in order to “never fight again”. They were supposed to work for Peace, in other words! Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like anyone of those who with no shame accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, bothered to inform Mrs Merkel and the EU-trojka about those aims, so by their repetative talk about “PIGS-countries” and their councious generalization of 150 million south Europeans, they will not exactly win any popularity contest in the South. We certainly don’t need a EU that is led and directed by dictatorial, neo-colonial, neo-liberal, imperial policies and regulations, which are aggressively pushed through via media lies, police-violence, illegal “legislations”, indecorous interference in sovereign countries internal affairs and with ‘catch-22 threats’ (if you don’t take the loans you will not survive,… and if you take the loans you will be in debt to us for centuries). And this is still going on, despite the most massive protests, over the last 3 years that Europe has ever seen in modern times. Almost 50 million people allover Europe (mainly in the south but also in UK, Germany, France and Ireland) have over the last 3 years, expressed their dissent publically in massive protest movements and these people and many more, are now organizing themselves in democratic movements to begin, coordinated political and legal actions. Against these active citizens are the ‘obedient’, complying, “creamie masses”, who repeatedly ‘burp’ the reasons and the arguements the Merkelian EU-junta has ‘provided’ them with, through massmedias pro-bankster-propaganda.
Here beneath, I mix my own words on the topic with a few quotes and few examples of the general mood in the streets of southern Europe. After many open conversations and interviews with Greeks, Italians, Portuguese, Cypriots and Spanish in city squares, markets, cafés, bars, suburbs and main streets in most of the capital cities over the last three years, the following attitudes dominate the public oppinion in a clear and undisputable way:
“After the next great war which they currently are draging us towards, if anyone survives, instead of a dividing wall in Berlin, maybe a “great wall” , on Souths demands, will be erected from the Black Sea in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west. In other words, a wall between the countries that can easily be ‘self-sufficient’ and the countries that can barely survive without satisfying their essential import and export needs, ie between Southern Europe (Europe’s “bread basket”, pantry, greenhouse, “sun-terrace”, natural resource deposits and cultural foundations) and the central and north of Europe.”
Emotionally and culturally “the wall” has obviously existed for a while now, despite the superficial, nonsense-fellowship between ”north” and “south” on the surface. “Perhaps it is time to also errect the political and economic wall now”, many argue.
About the suposed rich countries, those who must live on other peoples natural resources and wealth through disgraceful “deals” and “treaties” on gun-point,… those who still feed themselves and preserve their “high” living standards mainly on the looting and plundering of other countries, many say: “Those who have lived long enough now on the natural resources and the goods of the south, should come to their senses and realize that they have for far too long committed and are still committing crimes against our nations and our people”. Most people I talked to in Madrid, Rome and Athens in the last three years, say: “We do not need them, they need us”, “They borrow money to us,… money that they have stolen from us in the first place”. (Read about the stolen Greek gold and the delicate issue of the monster share of Banque D’Orient here, who actually owes who).
Many in southern Europe consider it ”about time” now to turn to other continents, for example to invite tourism and to find markets for the top quality goods and the energy sources (sun, wave, wind, oil, gas). Many don’t see any reasons anymore why some of the richest parts of the world in natural resources and basic goods should be tied to hands and feet (by EU) and first satisfy the Central and North-European needs, before they can even look for other markets. Many say that “the south european countries should introduce visa requirements for central- and north-Europeans” (because anyway the future withdrawal from the EU puts an end to the fake image of any true “friendship” or real “neighborhood” and especially the ridiculous “air bubble” of a cooperating union of nations).
The voices of the fed up in the south, that now are asked to immigrate, starve and kill their elders and their sick, express oppinions as follows.
“Let’s leave the EU and let Berlin’s harlot lead the easily led, the emotionally dry souls, the obedient and the self appointed “good”, into the Fourth Reich like she intends to and they can all try to relax and enjoy life in Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka and several other ‘nice’ “recreation resorts”, which constitutes the “German Reich’s” best known tourist attractions. Places that mankind preserved in order to “remind us”, “so we shall never again let this happen”… Yeah, right.. 70 years later, racism, ethnic attacks, smear rhetorics and blatant generalizations of whole folk groups is in full swing again, coming from the same, yodelling leather suspenders and their propaganda-media as back then.” – The demonization of entire nations together with their people, is considered OK again in central and north Europe, because big brother (big harlot) has set the tone on nazi-mode and the obedient nations follow. This, is imposed on all of us again from the infamous Central European pirate-elite, the rule-fanatics, the control-freaks the self-proclaimed “good”, the self-appointed ubermänchen, who in fact themselves barely pass as humans, considering that “robot behavior”, hysterically controlled societies, ridiculously, excessively “watched” citizens, totalitarian ideologies and race-bilogical nonsense, is what they are trying to propagate for and implement allover Europe (and the world) again. These phenomenons, it should be clarified, are indications of clearly anti-human efforts and goals, not human. Science, (sociology, social-anthropology, psychology and pedagogy) clearly prove that these efforts when put to practice create very neurotic, mentally ill humans in their societies,… and a practically unquestioned focus on “productivity” is the well marketed “divine reason”. Not productivity to fulfill real needs of course, but an escalating, rampant, production-consumtion, derailed “carousel” of nonsense needs, just in order to keep their “markets” going at any cost and their citizens so busy so they will never have either the time or the interest to develop their souls (emotional life and thinking) in any adequate way and will threfore remain unfit to ask themselves the right questions or, most important of all, to realize where to look for the answers. The generalization and demonization of entire people and nations, are shaped from their idea-worlds and “ethics” and these idea-worlds has proved to be strongly anti-human, highly toxic for human thinking and extremely dangerous for mankinds survival as a whole!
Many in the south say: “Let them wallow there, behind the wall, in their constructed myths of self-proclaimed greatness and let us “poor wretches” who do not know better, survive with only our “paltry” cultures, our “insignificant” civilization, our “primitive” intellectual and spiritual gems, our “ridiculously” alive and sensitive souls, our “useless” advantages and treasures, the sunny climate, the natural beauty, the biggest variety of plants, herbs, fruits and vegetables, the fertile soil, the crystal clear, light blue mediterranean sea,… our thousands of ‘boring’ long sandy beaches, our thousands of little ‘ugly’ islands and all the “unexplainable” globally demanded, foods, wines, herbs, cheeses and native delicacies (which, by the way, happen to be considered as luxury goods in the rest of the world).”
If it wasn’t for the fact that all the EU-policies and the general attitudes around their ”projects” are so devastating for the naturally rich countries and especially for their people, there wouldn’t be such a dramatic increase in the following attitudes. But because of the tragic backdrop of the current, criminal and aggressive exploitation of the south, accompanied with smear-rhetorics and “imperial-like demands”, a wide spectrum of people in the south are expressing themselves in accordance with this “mood”.
“We actually have had enough of their stressed, complex filled, neurotic and hysterical central European culture, that want to “teach” the rest of the world how to live according to their own view of the world,… a view that, in practice, in action and strive, far too often expresses the most barbarous, egocentric needs and behaviors. A culture, where the natives, as soon as they learn something that others have known for centuries, or sometimes millennia’s, appoint themselves as the experts. A cultural self-image that can not stand to NOT know-best, and are therefore creating false teachings and are spreading vulgar beliefs and doctrines, like the following: All people (except the germanic and anglo-saxon ‘tribes’) are less smart, childish, lazy, unreliable, criminal and intellectually immature compared to us,… and all this, of course, in a hopelessly “blindfolded” and self-admiring comparison of themselves with the rest of the world.”
These kind of doctrines, together of course with a great lack of self-criticism has for very, very long been planted in their folk-spirit by their “kings” and their “nobility” in their societies, because it really helps when you need to launch an unjust war on some people on the planet, and ‘God knows’ that this particular part of the world HAS. You get your obedient citizens’ silent consent if you portray the ones you want to kill and steal the country from, as “less human” or at least as degenerated, less worth humans with a “defect DNA”. The central-europeans have proved to be, mentally, extremely well fit for this particularly uncivilized approach towards the rest of humanity. Through their self focused spectacles of self-righteousness, power-hysteria and racisms and through massive propaganda in the schools, they have for very long looked upon southern Europe’s, Hellenic, cultural foundations with fake admiration, jealousy, envy and aggression.
Both the American and the French revolutions and the English, civil rights and human rights struggles, was based on truly cultivated Europeans that had deeply understood and adopted the Hellenic values and virtues,… so, naturally from the European elite’s point of view, classic Hellenic education became ‘dangerous’ to their power-monopoly.
They have therefore tried very hard and have partly managed to conceal the Hellenic heritage in the European universities,.. since they are very much aware of the fact, that with a proper education in classic literature and arts in the European schools, it would be very hard for the European pirate-aristocracy to ‘get away’ with the current abuse of the Southern nations and our cultures. Once the “proud spirit of freedom” is awakened and conscious in the human soul, a person becomes very hard to govern and particularly hard to enslave.
Therefore the truly civilized individuals react and very strongly so, against injustice, atrocities and crimes committed towards fellow human beings, especially when generalization, racism and lies form the fundamental excuses. Even if the atrocities are explained and excused as, ‘glorious crusades’ for the best of the nation, the race or for mankind, a real human’s resposibility is to reacts and fight against barbarism. Revolting and very obvious barbarism is in fact all what the current EU-behaviour is about, because it is based on lies and deceit,… it is just wrapped in a ‘cultivated cover’ whose only purpose is to maintain a very shallow and lazy approach, if any at all, towards true cultivation and true civilization.
People who through real education have developed even a reasonable level of critical thinking, doesn’t ‘buy’ all these excuses for pure barbarism as easy as the ‘well-programmed’ and ‘well-trained’, pseudo educated does.
And modern mega-cities, hyper-technological armies and weapons, multinational corporations, all-reaching media/propaganda, complicated overrated economic formulas, unneccessary, vast number of laws and ‘regulations’, six lane highways, railroads, factories, computers, skyscrapers, luxurious cars, planes, trains, rockets, satellites, mansions & palaces, ‘designed’ clothes and highly over prized, ‘precious’ accessoires, unfortunately doesn’t make a civilization,.. nor does the nonsense ‘educations’ they provide the so called most developed with, while the actual essence and the REAL attributes of a civilization is consciously ignored.
In the central-, and the north-european societies, in much higher degree than anywhere else for instance, people zap through very stressed, fragments of life chasing fake things, fake looks, fake emotions, fake ‘knowledge’, fake relationships, fake friendships, fake ‘fullfillments’, and are at the same time convinced that they live much better lives than anyone else. This, occur because ‘high living standards’ are only estimated in money and things, not in TRUE mental and social health and in any REAL, provided, access to spiritual growth. Sadly, in reality they actually just pretend to live, they just adopt and ACTS OUT one of the well-marketed, Hollywoodian prototypes of “success”. They easily ‘slide into’ one or a combination of a few ‘social roles’ (masks), that ’certifies’ their ‘value’ in their societies. Meanwhile they are ‘comforting’ themselves and their starved, malnurtured and abused souls through credits, borrowed, very expensive “things” they call neccessities and with shallow, empty, use-and-throw-relations, based on clear licking-upwards-and-kicking-downwards behaviour.
“Maybe its time for them to really think about civilizing themselves at last and NOT continue to allow barbarism, greed, gluttony, cruelty, racism, arrogance, false pride and ‘predatory instincts’, so strongly, still characterize their attempt to a civilization.” Surely the western world’s most prestiguous institiutions for ‘higher learning’, the famous plant schools in Oxford, Boston, New York and Chicago and all the “cultivated” citizens can do better than this embarrassing Gollum’s Feast, they call a ‘civilization’. In the ‘South’ we know, long time now, that THE EMPEROR IS NAKED… The rest of the planet have known for long and the obedient, so easily enslaved, central- and north-Europeans still think THE EMPEROR HAS NEW CLOTHES,.. so they applaud, the completely BUTT-NAKED EMPEROR, and louder than ever! Of course they would, wouldn’t they?
In the eyes of the ‘world community’, I mean the people of the world, Greece, do not have a long criminal record like several other European nations have,… instead the people of the world know, Greece taught dignity, humanity and heroism throughout the centuries. It taught man to observe and investigate nature and life better, to explore and enjoy life better, to take part of life better and most of all to acknowledge every other human beings right to do the same. It gave the first formal expressions to these thoughts. It taught mankind that man was born to be free and independent and that humans didn’t have to accept political and economic enslavement and obey monarchs, despots and tyrants. The people of the southern, european countries have ‘understood’ the value of this Hellenic heritage on a much deeper level, than the central and northern european societies. The south LIVE with a Hellenic soul and the central and the north european societies live with a slightly limited understanding of the Hellenic mind and with a ‘sceptic view’ on the Hellenic soul. But it is only through the real understanding of the cultural and the spiritual constitution of the Hellenic soul, you can begin to understand the Hellenic mind better,… and not vice versa.
After giving it a thought, there really seem to be quite natural, cultural, ‘spiritual’, but also geopolitical and economic reasons for a southern, european alliance, at least as long as South Europe is under the current neo-colonial, POLITICAL-CULTURAL-ECONOMIC ATTACK from EU…
And after all the talk about the ‘South’s' alleged financial DEBT to the bankers and its underlying reasons, now we also want to talk about the ‘Central Europeans’ obvious moral, legal and financial DEBT to the rest of humanity and the underlying reasons for THAT.
Η ΜΥΣΤΙΚΗ ΟΜΑΔΑ ΠΟΥ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΑ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟ
Ολιγαρχία! Ένας πόλεμος, που παραμένει μυστικός! Κυβερνούν περιφρονώντας τη δημοκρατία! Ένας ακήρυχτος πόλεμος, που πρέπει να παραμείνει μυστικός, έχει ξεσπάσει σε ολόκληρο τον πλανήτη. Διεξάγεται από μια χούφτα τραπεζιτών και πολιτικών που κυβερνούν τον κόσμο περιφρονώντας τη δημοκρατία. Τα τελευταία χρόνια, το επίκεντρο των συγκρούσεων έχει μεταφερθεί στην Ευρώπη,
Ένας ακήρυχτος πόλεμος, που πρέπει να παραμείνει μυστικός, έχει ξεσπάσει σε ολόκληρο τον πλανήτη. Διεξάγεται από μια χούφτα τραπεζιτών και πολιτικών που κυβερνούν τον κόσμο περιφρονώντας τη δημοκρατία. Τα τελευταία χρόνια, το επίκεντρο των συγκρούσεων έχει μεταφερθεί στην Ευρώπη, με την Ελλάδα να παίζει το ρόλο του πεδίου δοκιμών. Στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, μια οχταμελής ομάδα – που θυμίζει τα δεσποτικά πολίτμπιρο της Σοβιετικής Ένωσης- ρίχνει εκλεγμένους πρωθυπουργούς και διορίζει νέους της αρεσκείας της. Την ονομάζουν ομάδα της Φρανκφούρτης γιατί δημιουργήθηκε στην Όπερα της πόλης, σε μια εκδήλωση αφιερωμένη σε ένα από τα μέλη της ομάδας…
Οι διεθνείς τάσεις ιδιωτικοποίησης αναγκάζουν τους Βολιβιανούς, για παράδειγμα, να ξοδεύουν το μισό μισθό τους για να αγοράζουν νερό, το οποίο ελέγχουν αμερικανικές εταιρείες, ενώ ο έλληνας πρωθυπουργός Γιώργος Παπανδρέου παραιτείται το 2011 για να μην πουλήσει οργανισμούς κοινής ωφέλειας και νησιά προκειμένου να δανειστεί η χώρα από το ΔΝΤ. Εντυπωσιακές πληροφορίες για τους θεατές που δύσκολα θα βρει κανείς στα γερμανικά και ευρωπαϊκά ΜΜΕ, όπως μια καμπάνια με επικεφαλής την Γερμανία που στόχο έχει να δυσφημίσει την Ελλάδα, ως τον αποδιοπομπαίο τράγο της κρίσης…
The famous journalist Stelios Kouloglou chose the internationally used Greek word “Oligarchy” to present his latest documentary in which he seeks to shed light on the “birth” and spread of the financial crisis, as well as of the role Goldman Sachs played in the situation.
The documentary was filmed in the USA, Germany, Belgium, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Ecuador and Greece, and highlights the effects of the crisis.
Many important politicians and journalists were interviewed, explaining the crisis from their own point of view. Successful economists, including Michael Hudson, Dimitris Papadimitriou, Michael Albert, Juan Torres Lopez and Jan Kregel, and sociologists such as Mike Levi and Dick Morris, analyze financial and sociological reasons as well as consequences the debt crisis has.
The documentary also asks for scientific help of many other specialists. Oscar Lafontaine, ex-leader of the German Left Party, in addition to many politicians, former and present members of the European Parliament, explain the political and economic scene of our times in the film.
Also interviewed in Kouloglou’s documentary: Jean Quatremer of Liberation, Peter Spiegel of the Financial Times, the editor of Harper’s Magazine, Frederick Kaufman, and Marc Roche, Le Monde journalist and writer of the book “How Goldman Sachs Rules the World.”
Sylvan Raines, a former employee of Goldman Sachs, reveals the bank’s influence concerning the Greek crisis, while Deputy Director of IMF Poul Thomsen helps Kouloglou unfold the story.
Lastly, modern Greeks discuss their personal experience, daily financial problems, and the difficulties they face in everyday life.
Ο ελληνικός λαός σήμερα βιώνει τον πιο επίσημο παραλογισμό. Το μαύρο περιγράφεται ως άσπρο και ο θάνατος ως ευκαιρία για νέα ζωή. Τα ελλείμματα στην οικονομία εμφανίζονται ως πλεονάσματα και η πλήρης απαξίωση ως ανάκαμψη. Ακόμη και η παγίδα του αποπληθωρισμού εμφανίζεται ως θετική εξέλιξη.
Τα στουρνάρια του υπουργείου
Έτσι το υπουργείο οικονομικών στην αγωνιώδη του προσπάθεια να ανακαλύψει κάποιο στοιχείο «ανάκαμψης», όσο απίθανο κι αν είναι, βγήκε στις 31/1/2014 με μια πρωτοφανή επίσημη ανακοίνωση, η οποία ανάμεσα στα άλλα έγραφε: «Οι λιανικές πωλήσεις τον Νοέμβριο του 2013 σημείωσαν άνοδο σε ετήσια βάση έπειτα από 44 μήνες (Μάρτιος 2010) συνεχούς μείωσης, σηματοδοτώντας – σε συνδυασμό με τη βελτίωση που παρουσιάζει τους τελευταίους μήνες ο δείκτης καταναλωτικής εμπιστοσύνης- σημαντική αλλαγή στο οικονομικό κλίμα, που αναμένεται να ενισχυθεί τους επόμενους μήνες.»
Αυτό που φαίνεται να ενθουσίασε το υπουργείο είναι το γεγονός ότι, σύμφωνα πάντα με τις προσωρινές εκτιμήσεις της ΕΛΣΤΑΤ, ο δείκτης όγκου λιανικών πωλήσεων τον Νοέμβριο του 2013 αυξήθηκε κατά 2,9% έναντι του αντίστοιχου μήνα του 2012, και επιπλέον, «τους τρεις μήνες που προηγήθηκαν, παρατηρήθηκε μία συστηματική αποκλιμάκωση του ρυθμού πτώσης του γενικού δείκτη.» Και κατέληγε με την εξής θριαμβευτική δήλωση: «Η βελτίωση του γενικού δείκτη προήλθε από την αύξηση των περισσότερων επιμέρους δεικτών που τον συνθέτουν, και κυρίως των κατηγοριών «ένδυση-υπόδηση» (30%) και «έπιπλα- ηλεκτρικά είδη- οικιακός εξοπλισμός» (19,2%).»
Μάλιστα. Αυτό που δεν φαίνεται να πρόσεξαν καθόλου οι ευφυείς συντάκτες της ανακοίνωσης είναι ότι η συνεχιζόμενη πτώση του δείκτη ήταν από την κατηγορία «καταστήματα τροφίμων» κατά -2,8%, τα «μεγάλα καταστήματα τροφίμων» κατά -3,0% και την κατηγορία «φαρμακευτικά-καλλυντικά» κατά -14,4%. Με άλλα λόγια τα ελληνικά νοικοκυριά έκοψαν έτι περισσότερο τις αγορές ειδών διατροφής και φαρμάκων για να αγοράσουν έπιπλα, ηλεκτρικά είδη, οικιακό εξοπλισμό, ρούχα και παπούτσια. Δηλαδή οι Έλληνες μπορεί να μην έχουν να αγοράσουν τρόφιμα και φάρμακα, αλλά έχουν να αγοράσουν έπιπλα, ηλεκτρικά είδη, οικιακό εξοπλισμό, ρούχα και παπούτσια!
Από μόνο του το όλο θέμα συνιστά ανέκδοτο και μάλιστα εντελώς γελοίο. Κανείς εχέφρων άνθρωπος δεν θα έπαιρνε στα σοβαρά αυτές τις προσωρινές εκτιμήσεις της ΕΛΣΤΑΤ για να συνάγει θετικά συμπεράσματα για την ευρύτερη τάση, εκτός κι αν αποκαλείσαι Στουρνάρας. Όνομα και πράγμα, όπως έχουμε επισημάνει πολλάκις. Βέβαια, παραμένει ως ερωτηματικό πώς γίνεται και εμφανίζονται αυτές οι αυξήσεις σε κατηγορίες λιανικής που όλοι γνωρίζουν από εμπειρία ότι πλήττονται πολύ περισσότερο από τα τρόφιμα και τα φάρμακα λόγω έλλειψης αγοραστικής δύναμης.
Πώς δηλαδή εξηγείται αυτή η έστω περιστασιακή άνοδος σ’ αυτές τις τόσο ελαστικές κατηγορίες λιανικής, έναντι των πολύ λιγότερο ελαστικών που είναι τα τρόφιμα και τα φάρμακα. Αυτό είναι ένα ακόμη τρομακτικό έλλειμμα στην συλλογή και παρουσίαση των στοιχείων της ΕΛΣΤΑΤ, από το οποίο οφείλουμε να απαλλαγούμε μαζί με το καθεστώς κηδεμονίας και αποικιοποίησης.
Η διάψευση, αλλά ποιος νοιάζεται…
Στις 28/2 δημοσιεύτηκε ανακοίνωση από την ΕΛΣΤΑΤ για τα προσωρινά στοιχεία του Δεκεμβρίου 2013, αλλά το υπουργείο οικονομικών – όπως ήταν αναμενόμενο – αυτή την φορά ποίησε τη νύσσα. Κοινώς έκανε την πάπια. Ο λόγος είναι απλός. Η ανακοίνωση περιγράφει την εξής κατάσταση στο λιανεμπόριο για το μήνα Δεκέμβριο του 2013.
Ο ∆είκτης Κύκλου Εργασιών, χωρίς τα καύσιμα κατά το µήνα ∆εκέµβριο 2013, σε σύγκριση µε το δείκτη του Δεκεµβρίου 2012, σημείωσε μείωση 7,0%, έναντι μείωσης 8,5%, που σημειώθηκε κατά την αντίστοιχη σύγκριση του έτους 2012 προς το 2011.
Ο ∆είκτης Κύκλου Εργασιών, µε τα καύσιμα, κατά το μήνα ∆εκέµβριο 2013, σε σύγκριση µε το δείκτη του ∆εκεµβρίου 2012, σημείωσε μείωση 6,7%, έναντι μείωσης 7,8%, που σημειώθηκε κατά την αντίστοιχη σύγκριση του έτους 2012 προς το 2011.
Ο ∆είκτης Όγκου, χωρίς τα καύσιµα, κατά το µήνα ∆εκέµβριο 2013, σε σύγκριση µε το δείκτη του ∆εκεµβρίου 2012, σημείωσε μείωση 6,5%, έναντι μείωσης 8,6%, που σημειώθηκε κατά την αντίστοιχη σύγκριση του έτους 2012 προς το 2011.
Ο ∆είκτης Όγκου, µε τα καύσιμα, κατά το μήνα ∆εκέµβριο 2013, σε σύγκριση µε το δείκτη του ∆εκεµβρίου 2012, σημείωσε μείωση 6,1%, έναντι μείωσης 8,3%, που σημειώθηκε κατά την αντίστοιχη σύγκριση του έτους 2012 προς το 2011.
Ο μήνας λοιπόν Δεκέμβριος ακόμη και με αυτές τις προσωρινές εκτιμήσεις δείχνει ότι οι πανηγυρισμοί του υπουργείου δεν έχουν καμιά σχέση με την πραγματικότητα. Ο ρυθμός πτώσης της λιανικής συνεχίζει να είναι υψηλός. Κάτι που σηματοδοτεί την τρομακτική συρρίκνωση της εσωτερικής αγοράς, λόγω έλλειψης ενεργούς ζήτησης και αγοραστικής δύναμης από τα εργαζόμενα στρώματα του πληθυσμού.
Η διάλυση της εσωτερικής αγοράς
Την περίοδο Ιανουαρίου-Δεκεμβρίου 2013 ο γενικός δείκτης κύκλου εργασιών (λιανική) μειώθηκε κατά -8,1%, σε σχέση με την αντίστοιχη περίοδο του 2012. Ο δείκτης όγκου σημείωσε την ίδια περίοδο του 2013 πτώση κατά -8,6% σε σχέση με την αντίστοιχη περίοδο του 2012. Εκτός καυσίμων και λιπαντικών αυτοκινήτων, ο δείκτης κύκλου εργασιών για την ίδια περίοδο του 2013 σημείωσε πτώση κατά -8,4% σε σχέση με το 2012, ενώ ο δείκτης όγκου μειώθηκε κατά -8,6%.
Για λόγους σύγκρισης αξίζει να σημειώσουμε ότι την περίοδο Ιανουαρίου-Δεκεμβρίου 2011 σε σχέση με την αντίστοιχη περίοδο του 2010, η πτώση του δείκτη κύκλου εργασιών ήταν -7,2%, ενώ του όγκου εργασιών ήταν -10,2%. Εκτός καυσίμων και λιπαντικών αυτοκινήτων, ο δείκτης κύκλου εργασιών έπεσε το 2011 σε σχέση με το 2010 κατά -7,7%, ενώ ο όγκος εργασιών κατά -8,7%.
Την περίοδο Ιανουαρίου-Δεκεμβρίου 2012 σε σχέση με την αντίστοιχη περίοδο του 2011, ο δείκτης κύκλου εργασιών έπεσε κατά -11,0%, ενώ του όγκου κατά -12,2%. Εκτός καυσίμων και λιπαντικών αυτοκινήτων, ο δείκτης κύκλου εργασιών έπεσε το 2012 σε σχέση με το 2011 κατά -11,3%, ενώ ο δείκτης όγκου κατά -11,8%.
Και να σκεφτεί κανείς ότι τυπικά ο μέσος δείκτης πληθωρισμού εμφανίζεται να αποκλιμακώνεται από το 2010 και μετά. Το 2010 ο μέσος ετήσιος πληθωρισμός ήταν 5,2%. Το 2011 ήταν 2,4%. Το 2012 ήταν 0,8%, ενώ το 2013 σημειώθηκε για πρώτη φορά αρνητικός δείκτης κατά -1,7%. Κάτι που προήλθε όχι από την άνοδο της παραγωγικότητας και των εισοδημάτων της ζωντανής εργασίας, οπότε θα είχε ευεργετικές επιπτώσεις στην οικονομία και στην κοινωνία, αλλά αντίθετα από την τρομακτική συρρίκνωση της αγοραστικής δύναμης του πληθυσμού και της οικονομίας.
Αποπληθωρισμός, υπερπληθωρισμός και πόλεμος
Αυτό το δεδομένο έχει ρίξει την ελληνική οικονομία στην παγίδα του αποπληθωρισμού η οποία μπορεί να αντιμετωπιστεί με δυο τρόπους: Είτε με τρομακτικές ενέσεις ρευστότητας, δηλαδή παροχής μεγάλων ποσοτήτων χρήματος – κάτι που μπορεί να συμβεί μόνο με κοπή νομίσματος, αλλιώς το χρέος θα εκτιναχθεί – είτε με πόλεμο.
Να γιατί οι διεθνείς κερδοσκόποι που κρύβονται πίσω από το γνωστό Levy Institute της Νέας Υόρκης προτείνουν διπλό νόμισμα, το οποίο θα μας κάνει να βιώσουμε και τα δυο, δηλαδή και έναν κατοχικό υπερπληθωρισμό, αλλά και τον πόλεμο. Όπως ακριβώς συνέβη ως απόρροια της Μεγάλης Ύφεσης του 1929-1933, όπου ο αποπληθωρισμός καταπολεμήθηκε με υπερπληθωρισμούς και New Deal για να καταλήξει ο κόσμος του μεσοπολέμου τελικά στον πόλεμο.
Εντός του ευρώ και με την συνεχιζόμενη πολιτική να είμαστε όλοι βέβαιοι ότι μοναδική και αναπόφευκτη κατάληξη είναι ο πόλεμος. Όλα τα υπόλοιπα είναι άλλα λόγια να αγαπιόμαστε, ή φλυαρίες για να κοιμίσουν τον κόσμο ώστε να μην πάρει χαμπάρι που τον οδηγούν οι συμμορίτες του ευρώ.
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 11:58 π.μ.
Στην Ουκρανία και αλλού επαναλαμβάνεται το σκηνικό του μεσοπολέμου με την ανοχή και την στήριξη του ναζισμού από τη δυτική ελίτ. Μετά την “αποκρατικοποίηση” της Κύπρου, σειρά έχει η Ελλάδα με περεταίρω εξαθλίωση, επιβολή στρατού κατοχής και γκρίζες ζώνες τύπου Ίμια.
Μήπως βρισκόμαστε στις παραμονές ενός νέου ολοκληρωτικού πολέμου στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ήπειρο; Ας δούμε τα δεδομένα. Για πρώτη φορά μετά τον δεύτερο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο έχουμε σε χώρα της Ευρώπης, την Ουκρανία, ένα καθεστώς που στηρίζεται στην ένοπλη βία καθαρόαιμων ναζί. Το Κίεβο είναι πόλη φάντασμα όπου περιπολούν ορδές ναζί του κόμματος Σβόμποντα, και του Πράβι Σέκτορ. Μαζί με κάθε λογής απόβρασμα του υποκόσμου συγκροτούν ομάδες και εισβάλουν σε κτήρια, λεηλατούν, πυρπολούν και απαγάγουν κατά το δοκούν. Όλα στο όνομα της αποκατάστασης της «έννομης τάξης» και της δίωξης των οπαδών του προηγούμενου καθεστώτος.
Το υπό κατάληψη Δημαρχείο του Κιέβου έχει γεμίσει με ρατσιστικά σύμβολα και σημαίες της Ομοσπονδίας των Νοτίων Πολιτειών των ΗΠΑ που πολέμησαν υπέρ της δουλείας. Οι «διαδηλωτές» καταστρέψανε και βεβήλωσαν τα μνημεία που δόξαζαν τους ήρωες που πολέμησαν εναντίον των ναζί. Στη θέση τους κυματίζουν σημαίες των SS και ρατσιστικά σύμβολα. Οι χαιρετισμοί Sieg Heil και το σύμβολο της ναζιστικής Wolfsangel έχουν γίνει πια κάτι το κοινότυπο στην πλατεία Μαϊντάν, και οι ναζιστικές δυνάμεις έχουν ήδη δημιουργήσει «αυτόνομες ζώνες» μέσα και γύρω από το Κίεβο.
Από το περασμένο Σάββατο που έφυγε προς άγνωστη κατεύθυνση ο Γιανούκοβιτς, οι εκπρόσωποι της ΕΕ και των ΗΠΑ πάσχιζαν να στήσουν μια κυβέρνηση της αρεσκείας τους. Η νέα κυβέρνηση πρέπει να συνεχίσει την ολοκληρωτική καταστροφή της Ουκρανίας, υπό τις οδηγίες του ΔΝΤ και της ΕΕ, αλλά χωρίς να είναι εμφανής η παρουσία των ναζί στην σύνθεσή της. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις τελικά κατέληξαν μετά από 4 ημέρες και η πρώτη κυβέρνηση ανοιχτής πολιτικής συγκυβέρνησης των εκλεκτών του παγκόσμιου χρηματιστικού καρτέλ με τους ναζί είναι γεγονός σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος 85 χρόνια μετά τον μεσοπόλεμο.
Μαφιόζοι και ναζί στο “τιμόνι” της Ουκρανίας
Οι εκλεκτοί της Δύσης ανέλαβαν την πρωθυπουργία, τα οικονομικά υπουργεία και την διπλωματία, ενώ οι ναζί την δικαιοσύνη, τη δημόσια τάξη και ασφάλεια, τις μυστικές υπηρεσίες. Ο Αρσένι Γιατσένιουκ που έχει διατελέσει υπουργός Οικονομικών και Εξωτερικών στην Ουκρανία επί Τιμοσένκο και ο οποίος εμφανίστηκε ως ηγέτης των διαδηλώσεων στο Κίεβο ήταν η επιλογή των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ για μεταβατικός πρωθυπουργός της χώρας μέχρι τη διεξαγωγή των εκλογών τον Μάιο.
Ο κύριος αυτός, όπως και η κυρία Τιμοσένκο, ανήκουν σ’ ένα μικρό κύκλο ολιγαρχών της Ουκρανίας που συσσώρευσαν τρομακτικά προσωπικά πλούτη από τις πολιτικές εκποίησης της χώρας που επέβαλε μετά το 1994 το ΔΝΤ. Οι διασυνδέσεις τους φτάνουν μέχρι την μαφία και το οργανωμένο έγκλημα που όλα τα χρόνια της «οικονομικής προσαρμογής» της Ουκρανίας άνθησε κυρίως μέσω του εμπορίου λευκής σαρκός.
Από το ίδιο κύκλωμα εμπορίου που φαίνεται να πλούτισαν και οι ηγέτες των ναζιστικών κομμάτων, αλλά και στρατολόγησαν τον κύριο όγκο των οπαδών τους. Σε πολύ λίγο το εμπόριο αυτό για την Ουκρανία θα είναι ότι για το κατεχόμενο Αφγανιστάν το εμπόριο του οπίου.
Άξιος λοιπόν πρωθυπουργός για μια χώρα που προορίζεται για τα κρεματόρια. Άλλωστε ο ίδιος με αφορμή την δήθεν ανάδειξή του από το συμβούλιο των κινημάτων της πλατείας Μαϊντάν, δήλωσε στο BBC (Καθημερινή, 26/2) τα εξής: «Πρόκειται να λάβουμε εξαιρετικά αντιλαϊκά μέτρα καθώς η προηγούμενη κυβέρνηση και ο προηγούμενος πρόεδρος ήταν τόσο διεφθαρμένοι που η χώρα βρέθηκε σε απελπιστικά δεινή οικονομική κατάσταση. Βρισκόμαστε στο χείλος της καταστροφής κι αυτή είναι μια κυβέρνηση αυτοχείρων. Οπότε καλωσήρθατε στην κόλαση…»
Για το υπουργείο Οικονομικών προτάθηκε ο Ολεξάντερ Σλάπακ, πρώην υπουργός Οικονομικών και αναπληρωτής επικεφαλής της κεντρικής τράπεζας, που ιδρύθηκε από τους Αμερικανούς και το ΔΝΤ το 1992. Η δημοσιογράφος Τετιάνα Τσορνοβόλ, η οποία έγινε γυναίκα-σύμβολο των διαδηλωτών, καθώς είχε ξυλοκοπηθεί από αγνώστους νωρίτερα φέτος μαζί με τον Ντμίτρο Μπουλάτοφ, αναμένεται να τοποθετηθούν στο Γραφείο Διαφάνειας και στο υπουργείο Νεολαίας και Αθλητισμού, αντίστοιχα. Όμως για τη θέση του επικεφαλής του συμβουλίου εθνικής ασφάλειας και άμυνας προτείνεται ο γνωστός για τα ναζιστικά του φρονήματα Αντρέι Παρούμπιγιε, ενώ υπουργός Εσωτερικών ανέλαβε ο Αρσεν Αβάκοφ επίσης γνωστός ναζί.
Το “πρόγραμμα” της νέας κυβέρνησης
Οι πρώτοι νόμοι του νέου καθεστώτος που δόθηκαν στη δημοσιότητα επιβεβαιώνουν τη διολίσθηση της χώρας σε ναζιστικά πρότυπα. Οι περισσότεροι από αυτούς τους νόμους βάζουν στο στόχαστρο το κομμουνιστικό κόμμα της χώρας, τις μειονότητες, αποποινικοποιούν τη ναζιστική προπαγάνδα και τοποθετούν σε θέσεις κλειδιά μέλη του Πράβι Σέκτορ και του Σβόμποντα.
Χαρακτηριστικά μερικοί από τους νέους νόμους:
• Σχέδιο απόφασης για την απαγόρευση των δραστηριοτήτων του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος της Ουκρανίας, με το πρόσχημα ότι υποστήριζε το Κόμμα των Περιφερειών του Γιανούκοβιτς.
• Σχέδιο ψηφίσματος για την αντιμετώπιση των συνεπειών της σοβιετικής κατοχής με σκοπό την αποκατάσταση των ιδιοκτησιακών δικαιωμάτων σε ντόπιους και ξένους γόνους των παλιών αριστοκρατικών οικογενειών, κ.ά.
•Κατάργηση του νόμου που ποινικοποιούσε τη ναζιστική προπαγάνδα όπως και κάθε εκδήλωση ρατσισμού. Έτσι η Ουκρανία είναι η πρώτη χώρα μετά το 2ο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο η οποία δεν θα τιμωρεί εγκληματικές πράξεις από ρατσιστικά κίνητρα.
• Σχέδιο απόφασης για το «Πάνθεον των εθνικών ηρώων» όπου θα δοξάζονται όσοι πολέμησαν στα Ουκρανικά SS, ή στο πλευρό των Γερμανών ναζί κατά τον δεύτερο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο.
• Σχέδιο διατάγματος για την εισαγωγή δημοσιονομικών περιορισμών με σκοπό την διάλυση του όποιου προνιακού και κοινωνικού κράτους είχε απομείνει στην Ουκρανία.
• Σχέδιο ψηφίσματος για απόδοση τιμών στους συμμετέχοντες στις ένοπλες συγκρούσεις κατά τη διάρκεια των ειρηνικών διαδηλώσεων, έστω κι αν ευθύνονται για δολοφονίες αθώων.
• Σχέδιο απόφασης για το διορισμό του ηγετικού στελέχους του ναζιστικού κόμματος Σβόμποντα στο Γραφείο του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα. Ενώ προωθείται η αντικατάσταση όλων των εισαγγελέων και δικαστών της χώρας προκειμένου να αντιμετωπιστεί η εισβολή της «Ρωσοεβραϊκής μαφίας» στο Ουκρανικό κράτος, σύμφωνα με το Σβόμποντα.
• Σχέδιο Νόμου για τα καθήκοντα του Προέδρου της Ουκρανίας με σκοπό την ενίσχυση των δικτατορικών εξουσιών του σύμφωνα με την αρχή του Führerprinzip της Γερμανίας του μεσοπολέμου.
• Σχέδιο απόφασης για τον διορισμό μέλους του ακροδεξιού κόμματος UDAR, που φέρεται να χρηματοδοτείται απευθείας από την Γερμανία, ως επόπτη της Υπηρεσίας Ασφαλείας της Ουκρανίας. Το συγκεκριμένο κόμμα είναι γνωστό για τις σχέσεις του με τον υπουργό εξωτερικών της Γερμανίας Βέστερβελε, όπως και τον Γερμανό πρέσβη στην Ουκρανία, οι οποίοι βρέθηκαν από τις αρχές των ταραχών στο πλάι των «διαδηλωτών» του στο Κίεβο.
• Σχέδιο απόφασης για την διάλυση των υφιστάμενων σωμάτων ασφαλείας και απόλυση από την υπηρεσία των μελών τους. Στη θέση συγκροτούνται νέα κατά πρότυπο των μονάδων κρούσης των «διαδηλωτών» και προσλαμβάνονται αποκλειστικά μέλη τους που ήταν σχεδόν αποκλειστικά από τα ναζιστικά κόμματα.
• Σχέδιο απόφασης κατάργησης του δικαιώματος των μειονοτήτων στη χρήση της γλώσσας τους. Απαγορεύθηκαν τα Ρωσικά, Ρουμανικά, Ουγγρικά και Ελληνικά. Οι εθνότητες αυτές βρίσκονται ήδη υπό διωγμό στην Ουκρανία, αντιμετωπίζοντας άγριους ξυλοδαρμούς, εισβολές στις δουλειές και τα σπίτια τους, κάθε λογής απαγορεύσεις, κοκ. Στόχος της τρομοκρατίας που ασκείται σε Ρώσους, Ρουμάνους, Ούγγρους και Έλληνες είναι ο εξαναγκασμός τους σε φυγή από την χώρα.
Τα υπολείμματα του Ευρωπαϊκού ναζισμού στη δούλεψη της δύσης
Η ανοιχτή πολιτική συμμαχία των ναζί με τους εκλεκτούς της χρηματιστικής ολιγαρχίας στις ΗΠΑ και την ΕΕ, δεν πρέπει να μας ξαφνιάζει. Ούτε το γεγονός ότι τα ναζιστικά κόμματα εμφανίζονται ως αντίθετα στην παγκοσμιοποίηση και στα όργανά της. Ο ναζισμός ήταν και παραμένει μια από τις φυλετικές, ρατσιστικές ιδεολογίες της παγκοσμιοποίησης. Ευαγγελίζεται την αποδόμηση των σύγχρονων εθνών, που βασίζονται στην κυριαρχία των λαών και υποστηρίζει την αναδόμησή τους σε φυλετική βάση. Η «καθαρότητα της φυλής» αντικαθιστά το εθνικό και λαϊκό συμφέρον κι επομένως είναι ένα πολύτιμος σύμμαχος για τον σημερινό οδοστρωτήρα των παγκόσμιων αγορών, οι οποίες αντιμετωπίζουν την άσκηση εθνικής και λαϊκής κυριαρχίας ως το μέγιστο εμπόδιο στον επεκτατισμό τους.
Η σύνδεση αυτή διεθνούς χρηματιστικής ολιγαρχίας και ναζισμού αρχίζει να εμφανίζεται, όλως περιέργως, και στην Ουγγαρία όπου το επιτόπιο ναζιστικό κόμμα Jobbik Magyarországért mozgalom, το οποίο στις εκλογές του 2010 πήρε το 16,7% των ψήφων, είναι κάτι ανάλογο με τους Ουκρανούς ομοϊδεάτες του. Πρόκειται για νοσταλγούς του προπολεμικού ναζιστικού καθεστώτος του Χόρτι, το οποίο υπήρξε ένα από τα πιο σκληρά και αιματοβαμμένα καθεστώτα του προπολεμικού ναζισμού. Ο ακιδωτός σταυρός σε κόκκινο φόντο, που συνιστούσε το σύμβολό του Ουγγρικού ναζισμού, κυμάτιζε και στις διαδηλώσεις της Ουκρανίας στην πλατεία Μαϊντάν.
Τελευταία όλο και πιο συχνά αξιωματούχοι εξ ΗΠΑ και ΕΕ φέρεται να συναντιόνται στην Ουγγαρία με την ηγεσία του εν λόγω ναζιστικού κόμματος, που στρατολογεί από τον υπόκοσμο, αλλά χρηματοδοτείται από συγκεκριμένους βαρόνους του τραπεζικού καρτέλ στην Ουγγαρία. Η επιβολή από τον πρωθυπουργό Βίκτορ Ορμπάν το 2010 έκτακτης κεφαλαιακής εισφοράς στους βαρόνους του τραπεζικού καρτέλ προκειμένου να μην πάρει επιπλέον μέτρα λιτότητας, όπως απαιτούσε το ΔΝΤ και η ΕΕ, δυσαρέστησε ιδιαίτερα τους ολιγάρχες, οι οποίοι, όχι άδικα, τον θεωρούσαν δικό τους πολιτικό.
Το χειρότερο όμως ήρθε όταν η κυβέρνηση του Βίκτορ Ορμπάν συμφώνησε στα τέλη του 2013 με την Ρωσία να δανειστεί απ’ αυτήν 10 δις δολάρια στα πλαίσια μιας στρατηγικής συμφωνίας-πακέτο που προβλέπει κάθε λογής οικονομική και πολιτική συνεργασία. Ο Βίκτορ Ορμπάν τυπικά δεν διαφέρει ιδεολογικά από τον Σαμαρά. Ανήκουν στην ίδια πολιτική οικογένεια. Απλά ο πρώτος δεν είναι τόσο δωσίλογος όσο ο «δικός μας» πρωθυπουργός. Δεν είναι τόσο δωσίλογος πρώτα και κύρια για το προσωπικό του συμφέρον.
Ωστόσο, επειδή τόσο το ΔΝΤ, όσο και η ΕΕ δεν φαίνεται να τον τρομοκρατούν με τις αλλεπάλληλες απειλές τους να συντρίψουν το εθνικό νόμισμα και την οικονομία της Ουγγαρίας, μάλλον ετοιμάζονται για «λύση» τύπου Ουκρανίας. Κι επειδή οι ναζί και τα αποβράσματα που στρατολογούν και εκπαιδεύουν αποδεικνύονται πολύτιμη εφεδρεία σε μια επιχείρηση αποσταθεροποίησης με εκτεταμένες οδομαχίες και συγκρούσεις «διαδηλωτών» σε οικιστικό περιβάλλον, οι αξιωματούχοι των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ ξαφνικά αύξησαν τις επαφές τους με την ηγεσία των Ούγγρων ναζί. Ετοιμάζονται για μια επανάληψη της επιχείρησης που έστησαν στην Ουκρανία; Να δούμε.
Κίνδυνος ευρείας ανάφλεξης
Όποιος σήμερα στην Ελλάδα δεν νιώθει την θερμότητα της φωτιάς που έχει ήδη ανάψει, μάλλον έχει χάσει τις αισθήσεις του. Κυριολεκτικά και μεταφορικά. Η Βοσνία-Ερζεγοβίνη φλέγεται από συνεχείς διαδηλώσεις ενός λαού που μπούχτισε να ζει υπό καθεστώς στρατιωτικής κατοχής από δυνάμεις του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ που προστατεύουν την οργανωμένη μαφία που διοικεί το πολιτικό υβρίδιο που ονομάζουν κράτος. Έχουμε ήδη τραυματίες, αλλά και νεκρούς από τις δυνάμεις καταστολείς, αλλά και από ελεύθερους σκοπευτές που εμφανίστηκαν ξαφνικά, όπως και στο Κίεβο για να δολοφονήσουν τυφλά αθώους.
Μόνο που η σύγκρουση αυτή δεν ελέγχεται από τους μηχανισμούς του ΝΑΤΟ, των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ κι επομένως οι αιματηρές διαδηλώσεις, ακόμη και η εμφάνιση ελεύθερων σκοπευτών, δεν αποτελεί είδηση για τα ΜΜΕ. Έστω κι αν πρόκειται μάλλον για τους ίδιους ελεύθερους σκοπευτές που έδρασαν και στο Κίεβο για μερικές ώρες, δολοφονώντας περί τους 20 και ύστερα εξαφανίστηκαν δίχως ίχνος. Ούτε το γεγονός ότι η ΕΕ σκέφτεται να ενισχύσει την στρατιωτική της παρουσία στη Βοσνία-Ερζεγοβίνη προκειμένου να καταστείλουν τις διαδηλώσεις, αποτελεί σοβαρή είδηση για τα ΜΜΕ.
Ούτε βέβαια και το γεγονός ότι η φωτιά των μαζικότατων διαδηλώσεων μεταδόθηκε και στο Μαυροβούνιο, όπου ο ντόπιος πληθυσμός δεν αντέχει άλλο να είναι δούλος μιας οργανωμένης μαφίας που έχει μετατρέψει τη συγκεκριμένη χώρα σε κρίκο του διεθνούς εμπορίου όπλων, ναρκωτικών και πορνείας. Οι διαδηλώσεις, αν και πολύ πιο μαζικές από εκείνες του Κιέβου, δεν είναι – τουλάχιστον προς το παρών – ελεγχόμενες από τις ΗΠΑ και την ΕΕ κι επομένως ανάξιες λόγου για τα εγχώρια και διεθνή δίκτυα δήθεν ενημέρωσης. Προς το παρών δρουν παραστρατιωτικές ομάδες, ελεύθεροι σκοπευτές και μονάδες καταστολής της πολιτικής μαφίας στην οποία έχουν εκχωρηθεί τα δήθεν κράτη της πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβίας.
‘Ερχεται η σειρά μας;
Πόσο απέχουμε κι εμείς στην Ελλάδα από μια τέτοια κατάσταση; Ο υφιστάμενος κρατικός μηχανισμός σήμερα έχει ολοκληρωτικά ξεχαρβαλωθεί. Μόνο οι εισπρακτικοί μηχανισμοί και η καταστολή έχει απομείνει. Όλα τα άλλα πνέουν τα λοίσθια. Όχι τυχαία, αλλά σκόπιμα. Μιας και στόχος των Γερμανών, Ευρωπαίων και Αμερικανών είναι να οδηγήσουν την χώρα στην πλήρη διάλυση προκειμένου να διαμελισθεί και να εκποιηθεί.
Πώς όμως μπορεί να αποδεχθεί κάτι τέτοιο ο μέσος Έλληνας; Πώς μπορεί να αποδεχθεί εθνικό ακρωτηριασμό; Το παράδειγμα της Κύπρου αποτελεί ένα σοβαρό παράδειγμα. Αν θέλεις να καταλύσεις ένα ολόκληρο κράτος και να το μετατρέψεις σε «κοινότητα» ή «περιφέρεια» τι κάνεις; Το καταστρέφεις οικονομικά και οδηγείς τον πληθυσμό του σε πλήρες βιοποριστικό αδιέξοδο. Αυτό ήδη έχει συντελεστεί στην Ελλάδα, αλλά και στην Κύπρο.
Ύστερα επενδύοντας στις δυνάμεις του δοσιλογισμού, βάζεις έναν Αναστασιάδη και αυτοανακυρήσσεται από πρόεδρος ανεξάρτητου κράτους μέλους του ΟΗΕ, σε «κοινοτάρχη» και βάζει τον κόσμο σε δημοψήφισμα για να νομιμοποιήσει μια για πάντα την κατάλυση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και την αντικατάστασή της από μια «ελληνοκυπριακή κοινότητα». Κι αυτό ανεξάρτητα από το όποιο αποτέλεσμα του δημοψηφίσματος. Η οικονομική δυσπραγία και το φόβητρο ενός ενδεχόμενου πολέμου θα καταστείλει κάθε αυθεντικά πατριωτικό αίσθημα.
Στην Ελλάδα όμως πώς τα καταφέρνεις; Αφενός κρατώντας στην κυβέρνηση μια παράταξη που έχει ήδη καταρρεύσει πολικά και εκλογικά μέχρις ότου πέσουν και οι τελευταίες υπογραφές προκειμένου να ξεπουληθεί ολόκληρη η χώρα στους δανειστές της τρόικας. Κάτι που αναμένεται να γίνει αρχές του καλοκαιριού. Αμέσως μετά τις ευρωεκλογές.
Κατόπιν, στέλνεις τους λεβέντες του δωσιλογισμού στο εξωτερικό για να διδάσκουν στο Χάρβαντ, ή όπου αλλού, ως διαπρεπείς statesmen. Όπως ακριβώς έγινε και με τον Γ. Παπανδρέου. Κι έτσι θα ανοίξει ο δρόμος για μια άλλη διακυβέρνηση του τόπου. Μια αντιμνημονιακή διακυβέρνηση, όπως έχουν σήμερα τα πράγματα και οι συσχετισμοί, που όμως δεν θα θέσει ζήτημα της εκ θεμελίων ανατροπής του καθεστώτος δεσμεύσεων και κατοχής της χώρας. Μια αντιμνημονιακή διακυβέρνηση, η οποία ελπίζει ότι μόνο ή κύρια με την επαναδιαπραγμάτευση θα πετύχει λύσεις.
Δεν θα σταθώ εδώ στο ιστορικό γεγονός, ότι ποτέ και πουθενά, κανενός είδους κυβέρνηση δεν πέτυχε τίποτε το θετικό με διαπραγματεύσεις των σχέσεων υποτέλειας και κατοχής. Δεν υπάρχει ούτε ένα ιστορικό προηγούμενο. Αυτό λέει πολλά για όποιον ξέρει να διδάσκεται από την ιστορία.
Ούτε θα σταθώ στο γεγονός ότι αυτή η νέα κυβέρνηση όσο θα διαπραγματεύεται – εικονικά ή πραγματικά, αδιάφορο – θα αναγκαστεί να επιβάλει την ίδια ή παρόμοια με την ήδη εφαρμοζόμενη πολιτική. Η δικαιολογία είναι απλή: κρατηθείτε μέχρις ότου να καταλήξουμε στις διαπραγματεύσεις. Κι έτσι η χώρα θα βυθίζεται όλο περισσότερο και θα ξεχαρβαλώνεται σε βαθμό πλήρους ακινησίας.
Ολοταχώς για κοσοβοποίηση της χώρας μας
Αυτό που θεωρώ πιο σημαντικό είναι το εξής ενδεχόμενο. Φανταστείτε ένα εκτεταμένο πολεμικό επεισόδιο στην παραμεθόριο μερικών εικοσιτετραώρων, που είναι πιθανό να προκαλέσει μια ένοπλη συμμορία σαν κι αυτές που έδρασαν και στρατοπεδεύουν στο Κόσοβο, στη Βοσνία-Ερζεγοβίνη και αλλού, είτε με μια ανταλλαγή σαρωτικών πυρών στην Ελληνοτουρκική μεθόριο. Τι θα συμβεί;
Το πρώτο που θα συμβεί είναι να υπάρξουν θύματα και πρόσφυγες, πολλοί πρόσφυγες ώστε να προκληθεί πανικός στον Έλληνα. Το δεύτερο θα αποκαλυφθεί πόσο ξεχαρβαλωμένη και εντελώς απροστάτευτη είναι η χώρα, χάρις στις πολιτικές διάλυσης της εθνικής άμυνας που ακολούθησαν όλες οι κυβερνήσεις και ιδιαίτερα εκείνες των μνημονίων. Το τρίτο θα προκαλέσει επέμβαση του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ προκειμένου να συνδράμουν στην αποκατάσταση της ειρήνης, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα η εγκατάσταση ξένων δυνάμεων στην παραμεθόριο θα γκριζάρει την περιοχή. Όπως ακριβώς έγινε με τα Ίμια.
Όλα αυτά είναι υποθέσεις εργασίας. Όμως όποιος ξέρει πρόσωπα και πράγματα, αλλά και ξέρει να αναλύει τις καταστάσεις σήμερα, γνωρίζει πολύ καλά ότι είναι απόλυτα ρεαλιστικές. Ο τρόπος αυτός δεν είναι παρά αυτό που υπέστη η Ελλάδα με τα Ίμια προκειμένου να δημιουργηθούν στην πράξη γκρίζες ζώνες στο Αιγαίο. Μόνο που αυτή την φορά το ζητούμενο των γκρίζων ζωνών δεν βρίσκεται στην θαλάσσια επικράτεια της Ελλάδας, αλλά στην εδαφική επικράτεια της Μακεδονίας και της Θράκης κατά προτεραιότητα. Και επιπλέον η αποτρεπτική ισχύ της Ελλάδας σήμερα όχι μόνο δεν συγκρίνεται με εκείνη του 1996, αλλά ουσιαστικά δεν υφίσταται. Χάρις πρωτίστως στις πολιτικές ολοκληρωτικής διάλυσης των ενόπλων δυνάμεων που ακολούθησαν οι εθελόδουλες κυβερνήσεις των μνημονίων.
Ποια κυβέρνηση θα ήταν ιδανική για να υποστεί ένα τέτοιο πολεμικό επεισόδιο; Ποια κυβέρνηση θα ήταν ιδανική για να αποδεχτεί ως τετελεσμένο μια γκρίζα ζώνη; Αν κάτι τέτοιο γινόταν με μια κυβέρνηση παραλλαγής ΝΔ-ΠΑΣΟΚ, τότε η κοινωνική εξέγερση θα ήταν αναπόφευκτη. Αν όμως στα πράγματα υπήρχε μια κυβέρνηση αντιμνημονιακή και μάλιστα της αριστεράς, τι θα γινόταν; Μια αριστερή κυβέρνηση που δεν μιλά για κατοχή, απαξιώνει κάθε έννοια πατριωτισμού, δεν θέτει θέμα ανατροπής του πραξικοπήματος που έχει συντελεστεί στην χώρα από τις 6 Μαΐου 2010 μέχρι σήμερα και αρνείται να θέση ως κορυφαίο ζήτημα την κατάλυση της εθνικής και λαϊκής κυριαρχίας της χώρας, είναι η ιδανικότερη για να της στήσουν μια τέτοια πολεμική προβοκάτσια.
Τι θα κάνει; Θα καλέσει σε παλλαϊκή άμυνα; Θα εξοπλίσει τον λαό, ώστε μαζί με τον στρατό να αντιμετωπιστεί κάθε πιθανή επιβουλή; Θα βρεθεί από την πρώτη στιγμή στην παραμεθόριο να συντονίζει τις ενέργειες που πρέπει να γίνουν και να ενθαρρύνει πληθυσμό και ένοπλες δυνάμεις; Θα ξέρει να διαχειριστεί την κρίση επιτελικά; Θα αποτρέψει με ρηματική διακοίνωσή της την όποια επέμβαση του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ, ή θα κάνει ότι έκανε ο Σημίτης στο όνομα της «ευρωπαϊκής αλληλεγγύης»;
Δεν μπορώ να γνωρίζω με ποιον τρόπο, ή πιο θα είναι το συγκεκριμένο σενάριο, αλλά μια τέτοια πολεμική προβοκάτσια θα την βιώσουμε στην χώρα, αργά ή γρήγορα. Αυτό για μένα είναι κάτι παραπάνω από σίγουρο. Όσο σίγουρο ήταν για μένα ήδη από το 2009 ότι η Ελλάδα έχει υποστεί χρεοκοπία. Είναι η λογική κατάληξη της ελεγχόμενης χρεοκοπίας και κατοχής στην οποία βρίσκεται η χώρα. Όσο επιτρέπουμε να συνεχίζεται η διάλυση της χώρας από τους δανειστές, το ευρώ και την ΕΕ, τόσο πιο κοντά έρχεται το ενδεχόμενο ενός πολεμικού επεισοδίου. Είτε στην κυβέρνηση βρίσκεται μια παραλλαγή των σημερινών μνημονιακών δυνάμεων, είτε μια αντιμνημονιακή δύναμη που δεν θέλει να τα βάλει με το ευρώ και την ΕΕ.
Μάλιστα στη δεύτερη περίπτωση θα δοθεί η δυνατότητα να στιγματιστεί μια για πάντα η αριστερά με εθνική μειοδοσία επί διακυβέρνησής της. Γιατί βρε παιδιά, μου είναι πολύ δύσκολο να φανταστώ έστω κι ένα από τα στελέχη της να έχει τα κότσια να κάνει αυτό που πρέπει. Δηλαδή να εγκαταλείψει την αριστερή μπουρδολογία, να απευθυνθεί στον πατριωτισμό του λαού και να ηγηθεί στην αποτροπή της επιβουλής.
Μόνο μια αληθινά πατριωτική και δημοκρατική δύναμη με ρίζες μέσα στο λαό και δυνατή οργάνωση μπορεί να ανταποκριθεί στις προκλήσεις μιας τέτοιας δοκιμασίας. Κι αυτή είναι μόνο το ΕΠΑΜ. Οφείλει να είναι το ΕΠΑΜ.
Δημοσιεύτηκε στο Χωνί, 2/3/2014
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 9:07 μ.μ.
Η φιλοναζιστική «προσωρινή κυβέρνηση» του Κιέβου που επιβλήθηκε μετά από αιματοβαμμένο πραξικόπημα στις 22-24 Φεβρουαρίου απειλεί με τις πλάτες των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ, με ευρεία σύρραξη την περιοχή της Κριμαίας. Ο λόγος είναι απλός. Οι ναζιστικές ομάδες κρούσεις που στάλθηκαν από το Κίεβο να καταλάβουν τα κυβερνητικά κτήρια στην Συμφερούπολη, πρωτεύουσα της Κριμαίας, απωθήθηκαν από τον εξεγερμένο ρωσικό πληθυσμό της περιοχής.
Θα πρέπει να θυμόμαστε ότι ο πληθυσμός της Κριμαίας δεν είναι ούτε ρωσόφωνος, ούτε φιλορώσος, αλλά ρωσικός κατά 90%. Κι επομένως δικαίως ανησυχεί βαθύτατα για την ζωή του από τους ναζί και τα άλλα τσακάλια, οι οποίοι από την πρώτη ημέρα που κατέλαβαν την κυβέρνηση της Ουκρανίας τι έκαναν; Απαγόρεψαν να μιλούν την μητρική τους γλώσσα οι Ρώσοι, οι Ρουμάνοι και οι Έλληνες που κατοικούν στην Ουκρανία. Ενώ ταυτόχρονα η ιδεολογία του ναζισμού και του ρατσισμού είναι πλέον νόμιμη.
Με άλλα λόγια η νέα διακυβέρνηση της Ουκρανίας επιτρέπει πλέον τις ρατσιστικές εκκαθαρίσεις εναντίον αλλοεθνών και Εβραίων από τους Ουκρανούς ναζί. Αν και δεν έχουν αρχίσει ακόμη για λόγους καθαρά επικοινωνιακούς. Μόνο σποραδικοί βιασμοί και δολοφονίες «φιλορώσων» συμβαίνουν από ναζί «πολιτοφύλακες», που όμως δεν βρίσκουν το φως της πλατιάς δημοσιότητας. Ιδίως στη Δύση. Κι επειδή δικαίως μεγάλες μάζες ετοιμάζονται τόσο από το Κίεβο, όσο και από άλλες πόλεις της Ουκρανίας όπου επικράτησαν οι «διαδηλωτές» να επιχειρήσουν την μεγάλη έξοδο προς το νότο, προς την Κριμαία, ναζί «πολιτοφύλακες» περιπολούν ώστε να αποτρέψουν ένα τέτοιο ενδεχόμενο.
Η κατάσταση όμως είναι φρικιαστική. Η εβραϊκή κοινότητα του Κιέβου, τρομοκρατημένη από την παρουσία ένοπλων ναζί ομάδων κρούσης που αντικατέστησαν τις μονάδες ασφαλείας στους δρόμους του Κιέβου, κάλεσε σε συνδρομή το Ισραήλ. Ο Νετανιάχου απάντησε ότι δεν συντρέχει κίνδυνος, φανερώνοντας για μια ακόμη φορά τις οργανικές σχέσεις σιωνισμού και ναζισμού.
Έβαλε μάλιστα κάποιους «εκπροσώπους» της εβραϊκής κοινότητας στην Ουκρανία να δηλώσουν ότι δεν υπάρχει κίνδυνος. Η ιστορία απλά επαναλαμβάνεται. Με τον ίδιο τρόπο κατά τον 2ο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο οι ναζί συνεργάστηκαν με τους σιωνιστές προκειμένου να καθησυχάσουν τις εβραϊκές κοινότητες λίγο πριν αρχίσουν το μαζικό ξεκλήρισμα.
Το ίδιο συμβαίνει και με τους Έλληνες. Τα μηνύματα που φτάνουν από Έλληνες στο Κίεβο και αλλού στην Ουκρανία είναι άμεσου κινδύνου. Η ζωή και το βιός τους είναι σε άμεσο κίνδυνο. Παρακολουθούνται από το νέο καθεστώς και οι απειλές είναι διαρκείς. Η γλώσσα τους είναι παράνομη πια στην Ουκρανία και δεν τολμούν να την μιλήσουν σε δημόσιους χώρους από φόβο αντιποίνων και πογκρόμ. Οι πληροφορίες που έχουμε είναι ότι χιλιάδες Έλληνες από το Κίεβο και άλλες πόλεις ετοιμάζονται να επιχειρήσουν έξοδο προς τον νότο και κυρίως την Κριμαία προκειμένου να βρουν προστασία σε περιοχές ελεγχόμενες από τους Ρώσους.
Μήπως ανησύχησε το ελληνικό κράτος για όλα αυτά; Ούτε κατά διάνοια. Δεν τόλμησε ούτε καν να διαμαρτυρηθεί για την απαγόρευση της Ελληνικής γλώσσας. Ούτε ενδιαφέρεται για τους εκεί Έλληνες. Μήπως κανένας άλλος «πατριώτης» εθνικιστής; Όχι βέβαια. Μάλιστα τα πορνοκάναλα της διαπλοκής και της κατοχής έβγαλαν δήθεν εκπροσώπους της ελληνικής κοινότητας να δηλώσουν ότι δεν συντρέχει λόγος ανησυχίας.
Παρ’ όλα αυτά οικογένειες Ελλήνων, αλλά και άλλων αλλοεθνών – σύμφωνα με τον ορισμό των Ουκρανών ναζί – δέχτηκαν «φιλικές» επισκέψεις όπου τους τονίστηκε ότι θα αποτελούσε «έγκλημα» τόσο η όποια «εχθρική» δήλωση προς τα ΜΜΕ της Δύσης, όσο και μια έξοδος προς το νότο. Ωστόσο, αν τελικά επικρατήσουν και εδραιωθούν οι δυνάμεις που επέβαλαν με αιματηρό τρόπο την εξουσία τους στην Ουκρανία, να είστε σίγουροι ότι πάμε ολοταχώς σε μαζική εθνοκάθαρση με τους Έλληνες να κινδυνεύουν άμεσα.
Με την Κριμαία να ελέγχεται από ένοπλες «δυνάμεις αυτοάμυνας» υπό την αιγίδα του πρωθυπουργού της αυτόνομης δημοκρατίας, αλλά και του τοπικού κοινοβουλίου, οι δυνάμεις των Ουκρανών ναζί δεν έχουν δυνατότητα να εισβάλουν στην περιοχή. Οι τοπικές αρχές της Κριμαίας έχουν αποφασίσει δημοψήφισμα τον Μάιο, την ίδια ημέρα των εκλογών στην Ουκρανία. Το δημοψήφισμα αναμένεται να επικυρώσει την πλήρη αυτονόμηση της Κριμαίας.
Ανοιχτό παραμένει το θέμα της Οδησσού, αλλά και της υπόλοιπης νότιας Ουκρανίας όπου κατοικείται κατά συντριπτική πλειοψηφία από ρωσικό πληθυσμό. Οι Ουκρανοί ναζί προσπαθούν να ελέγξουν την περιοχή, αλλά η εχθρότητα του ντόπιου πληθυσμού είναι έκδηλη και δεν θα αργήσει να ανάψει την σπίθα. Ιδίως όταν οι Ουκρανοί ναζί επιχειρήσουν να επιβάλλουν το καθεστώς απαρντχάιντ εναντίον των αλλοεθνών που έχει ψηφίσει ήδη το τύποις κοινοβούλιο του Κιέβου.
Τα πράγματα οδεύουν ολοταχώς σ’ έναν νέο πόλεμο της Κριμαίας με εντελώς αβέβαιες προεκτάσεις. Τα επιτελεία των ΗΠΑ, του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ φαίνονται αποφασισμένα να δοκιμάσουν τις αντιδράσεις της Ρωσίας, όπως έκαναν το 2008 όταν έβαλαν την Γεωργία να επιτεθεί στην Νότια Οσετία για να δοκιμάσουν την ετοιμότητα των Ρωσικών ενόπλων δυνάμεων.
Κυρίως οι ΗΠΑ και η Γερμανία εξοπλίζει αυτή τη στιγμή πυρετωδώς τους Ουκρανούς ναζί και τους ενισχύει με κάθε λογής υπόκοσμο στρατολογημένο από το ΝΑΤΟ σε Δύση και Ανατολή. Σε λίγο τζιχαδιστές που πολέμησαν στην Λιβύη, στη Συρία και αλλού, μαζί με παρακρατικούς ναζί από όλη την κεντρική Ευρώπη, όπως και επίλεκτες ειδικές δυνάμεις από χώρες του ΝΑΤΟ κυρίως τις ΗΠΑ, τη Βρετανία, τη Γαλλία και τη Γερμανία θα συγκροτούν την ομάδα κρούσης των νέων Ουκρανικών SS με στολές Ουκρανών πολιτοφυλάκων, εναντίον των Ρώσων στο νότο.
Απ’ ότι φαίνεται η καταρρέουσα παγκόσμια οικονομία και το απόλυτα ρεαλιστικό ενδεχόμενο ενός νέου παγκόσμιου κραχ εξωθούν τα επιτελεία των ΗΠΑ, της ΕΕ και του ΝΑΤΟ σε πολύ επικίνδυνους πολεμικούς τυχοδιωκτισμούς. Η επιτάχυνση της ολοκληρωτικής διάλυσης των συγκροτημένων κρατών και χωρών προκειμένου να επωφεληθούν οι αγορές κεφαλαίου για νέες τοποθετήσεις και ευκαιρίες κερδοσκοπίας, αποτελεί μονόδρομος γι’ αυτούς προκειμένου ακόμη και σε συνθήκες βαθιάς ύφεσης και αποπληθωρισμού να συνεχίσει η τρομακτική συσσώρευση κερδών των τελευταίων ετών. Φαίνονται λοιπόν αποφασισμένοι να τελειώνουν ακόμη και με την Ρωσία. Έστω κι αν κάτι τέτοιο μπορεί να σημάνει απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες για ολόκληρη την υφήλιο.
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 11:35 π.μ.
Ukraina under upplösning på beställning av USA-EU och instrument ökningen av den fascistiska extremhögern
av Dimitris Kazakis
Om du vill veta vem som på alla sätt stärker uppgången av fascistiska och nazistiska extremhögern i Europa, behöver du inte göra annat än att titta på vad som händer just nu i Ukraina. Både USA och Tyskland har under EU’s täckmantel vackert finansierat återuppståndelsen av den 14.e Waffen SS divisionen i Ukraina som hade bildats av nazistiska ukrainska nationalister under den nazistiska tyska invasionen av Sovjetunionen.
Denna hord av barbarer som namnges i de historiska krönikorna under det 2:a världskriget som det Ukrainska SS, deltog i massutrensningar av civila, hundratals byar brändes ner av dem så som Distomo i Grekland men först och främst i det egna Ukraina, och även i Vitryssland. Den grymhet med vilken de agerade överträffade i många fall deras kamraters från Tyskland.
Det är för övrigt därför de med rätta fördömdes för sitt agerande, inte bara av den röda armén och partisanerna som var verksamma bakom Hitlers linjer, men också av de allierade. Den som greps med insignier och symboler ur denna enhet skickades direkt till krigsrätt och dömdes omedelbart till arkebusering för avskyvärda brott mot civila. *Många av deras insignier har klart svenska rötter och svenska ultrahögern och nynazister visar öppet sitt stöd till de Ukrainska nazisterna (Denna artikel belyser sanningen om vilka som finansiellt, organisationsmässigt och logistiskt också stödjer den svenska såväl som den Europeiska ny-nazismen och högerextremismen).
Historien om dagens kraftmätning
Denna hord var inte den enda. Det ukrainska Galiciens största stad Lvov var historiskt den östra delen av kungariket av Galicien, som fram till första världskriget var knutet till det österrikisk-ungerska kejsardömet. Det österrikisk-ungerska imperiet hade infogat Galicien under uppdelningen av kungariket Polen under 1800-talet. Men på grund av att utsatthet för exploatering och förtryck var relativt mild i regionen Galicien i jämförelse med den tsaristiska regimen, flyttade många polacker tillsammans med andra etniska och religiösa minoriteter dit för att fly från de tsaristiska pogromerna som ägde rum med regelbunden basis.
Huset Habsburg av Österrike tillät att de migrerade till det inlämmade Galicien och så blev området en stor blandning av olika populationer ur religiöst, etniskt, språkligt perspektiv och så vidare. Polska nationalister hävdade Galicien för sin räkning. Och eftersom österrikarna ville bemöta deras verksamhet, stärkte man på alla sätt den ukrainska nationalismen som en rival. En ukrainsk nationalism med en stark tysk karaktär. Mycket snabbt blev Galicien slagfältet för mätningen mellan den polska och den ukrainska nationalismenen med befolkningar som upplevde utrensningar så att de rivaliserande lägren skulle uppnå den eftersökta “renheten” enligt sina egna etniska standarder.
Den 23 juni 1917 grundas Ukraina som en del av den ursprungliga ryska republiken, där det ryska folket för några månader sedan, i februari, hade störtat tsaren. Efter störtandet av den provisoriska regeringen i Petrograd av bolsjevikerna den 7 november (25 oktober enligt den julianska kalendern), 1917 och överföringen av all makt till sovjeterna, publicerades den 15 (2) november samma år Deklarationen för de ryska folkens Grundläggande Rättigheter, som erkände ”rätten för folken i Ryssland till sitt självbestämmande, tills graden för avskiljning och skapandet av en självständig stat.” Några dagar senare , det vill säga den 20 (7) November, utropade det Centrala Ukrainska Rådet baserat i Kiev den Ukrainska Folkrepubliken.
Ukraina etablerades som en självständig stat
22 (9) januari 1918 publicerade det Ukrainska Centrala Rådet, Deklarationen för Ukrainas Självständighet, grunden från vilken Folkrepubliken Ukraina bildades med socialistiska referenser och imperativ, men direkt fientlig mot bolsjevikerna. Med fördraget i Brest-Litovsk, som undertecknades mellan främst Tyskland och Sovjetryssland den 3 mars 1918 kom Ukraina under det Tyska rikets kontroll. För första gången, och för att hjälpa de mest extrema nationalistiska elementen i Ukraina, pressar Tyskland Österrike att lämna östra Galicien i de ukrainska nationalisternas kontroll.
Med direkt hjälp av tyskarna och österrikarna den 24-26 april 1918 kullkastar kosackernas ataman Paul Skoropantski det Centrala Rådet och inför en brutal diktatur. Galge och avrättningar kommer upp på dagordningen. Aristokratins alla gamla privilegier återställs. Paramilitära grupper hotar att bränna byarna som motsätter sig och de sprider skräck hos befolkningen. Med Tysklands och Österrikes kapitulation, störtas Skoropantskis regim i december 1918.
Folkrepubliken Ukraina återupprättas med det nya Centrala Rådet som leddes av Simon Petliura, som passade på att ta makten i skydd av fransmännen som landsteg i Odessa i november 1918 för att täcka vakuumet som tyskarnas kapitulation hade lämnat efter sig.
Det Ukrainska Rådet deltar i 19 länders invasiva krig mot Sovjetryssland, som leds av ententen (överrenskomelsen). Men de på varandra följande nederlagen och det växande folkliga missnöjet, leder Rådet – på förslag av Frankrike och England – att bilda en allians med Polens diktator Pildouski i April 1920 för att fortsätta kriget mot Sovjetryssland.
Den 18 Mar 1921 undertecknade fredsfördraget i Riga mellan Polen och Sovjetryssland under vilket Galicien, som enligt fördraget i Brest-Litovsk ägdes av Ukraina, nu anslöts till den första. Från och med då fram till andra världskriget genomför polackerna vilda etniska rensningsaktioner mot lokalbefolkningen som vägrade att betrakta sig som polacker, liksom mot alla som motsatte sig delningen av regionen i latifundier till förmån för polska aristokrater.
Framväxten av nazistiska ukrainska nationalister
1929 grundades enligt uppgift i Ukrainska Galicien Organisation för Ukrainska Nationalister (OUN), huvudsakligen bestående av anhängare av enskild terrorism och paramilitära aktioner. Deras ideologi varierade från en extrem nationalistisk rasuppfattning om det ukrainska blodets renhet, till öppet fascistiska och nazistiska övertygelser. Fram till början av nazisternas invasion mot Sovjetunionen den 22 juni 1941, var denna organisation inriktad på pogromer emot polacker, ryssar, judar och i allmänhet emot alla som inte hade “rent” Ukrainskt blod och vidare också i enskilda terrordåd mot det polska etablissemanget.
Vid förberedelserna av nazist-aggression mot Polen, men även under själva ockupationen hjälpte OUN särskilt till med sabotage och mordförsök. Detta byggde goda relationer mellan ukrainska nationalister och tyska nazister. För att säkerställa samarbetet, hade de senare till och med lovat att överlämna makten över hela det polsk-ockuperade Galicien till dem. Något som inte blev av då Riebentrof-Molotov fördraget kom emellan i September 1939 i vilket Nazityskland erkände Sovjetunionens herravälde över Galicien som Polen infogat från Ukraina 1921.
Emellertid så avbröts inte OUN’s samarbete med nazisterna. Istället intensifierades det och användes av nazisterna som en femte kolonn mot Sovjet i västra territoriet av Ukraina. Och därför, så som tedde sig naturligt med den nazistiska invasionen av Sovjetunionen, tog OUN tillfället att den 30 juni 1941 deklarera den ukrainska staten etablerad i Lviv, huvudstad i den Ukrainska Galicien med Stepan Banderas som ledare.
Denna Deklarations-akt nämner bland annat följande: “Den nybildade ukrainska staten kommer att ha ett nära samarbete med det Nationalsocialistiska Stortyskland, under ledning av ledaren Adolf Hitler som bildar en ny ordning i Europa och världen och hjälper det ukrainska folket att befria sig från Moskvas ockupation. Det ukrainska folkets revolutionära armé, som etablerat sig på ukrainsk mark, kommer att fortsätta att kämpa tillsammans med den allierade tyska armén mot ockupationen av Moskva såväl för en suverän och enad stat, som för en ny ordning i världen.”
Även om den nya ukrainska staten var rent nazistisk, hade de tyska nazisterna andra planer för Ukraina. De såg det som brödkorgen åt det tyska 4:e riket som översvämmats av tyska bosättare. Och därför erkände man inte den nybildade staten igen förren först när det var för sent för dem, 1944 då de var under vild flykt undan den Röda armén. Trots detta fungerade OUN som den politiska vaggan för det ukrainska SS och de hjälpte i hög grad de nazistiska tyskarnas rekrytering av reguljära och irreguljära delar av volontärer som kämpade tillsammans med dem och utmärkte sig som få SS-enheter med grymheter mot folken i Ukraina, Vitryssland, Polen, Tjeckien, Slovenien och Österrike.
Resterna av dessa enheter, efter att de bytt namn till den Ukrainska Nationella Arméns 1:a division, såg till att kapitulera till Anglo-amerikanerna den 10 maj 1945. Amerikanerna smugglade både ukrainska nazister, men också tyska nazistiska officerare ur divisionen och såg till att befria dem från åtal för de otaliga anklagelser för krigsförbrytelser och då främst mot civila i områdena de agerat i. På detta sätt, återupplivades gamla OUN och används som ett medel för rekrytering och utbildning av provokatörer som ofta skickats för sabotage och omstörtande verksamhet i det sovjetiska Ukraina.
Ukraina efter Sovjetunionens upplösning
När Sovjetunionen upplöstes och Ukraina kom i händerna på den tidigare parti-oligarki som på en natt förvandlats till “demokrater” och förvandlade landet till sin privata tomt. Och så skedde överallt i den f.d gällande socialismen, f.d partimedlemmar samarbetade med gamla oliktänkande agenter ifrån väst för att plundra så som inte gick för sig i de länder som ärvde parti-autokratins förskoning. Detta hände i Ukraina, som 1993 gick in IMF’s omloppsbana för att helt kollapsa den sociala sammanhållningen i landet och krascha ekonomin.
Förstörelsens arkitekt Viktor Jusjtjenko, den första direktören i den oberoende enligt västerländsk prototyp nybildade centralbanken i Ukraina. Jusjtjenko som överhuvud för centralbanken var ansvarig för avregleringen av den nationella valutan i samband med “chockterapin” som infördes av IMF i oktober 1994.
I november 1994 skickade Världsbanken förhandlare för att undersöka en reform av jordbruket i Ukraina. Med avreglering av handeln (som var en del av finansieringspaketet från IMF), fungerade överskottet av spannmål från USA och “livsmedelsbiståndet” som dumpning av den inhemska marknaden, vilket bidrar till en destabilisering av en av de största och mest produktiva ekonomierna i världen i vete (t ex jämförbart med mellanvästern amerikanska delstater).
Fram tills 1998, hade avregleringen av spannmålsmarknaden resulterat i en minskning av spannmålsproduktionen med 45% jämfört med nivån 1986-1990. Kollapsen av djuruppfödning, fågel- och mejeriprodukter var ännu mer dramatisk.
Den ackumulerade nedgången i BNP som en följd av det finansiella paketet och “strukturreformerna” från IMF var över 60% perioden 1992-1995. Det handlade om tillfälliga uppoffringar som krävdes för att Ukraina skulle kunna skaffa sig en ljus framtid, sa man åter och åter igen från IMF. Misslyckandet med de “ekonomiska paketen” skyldes på, var annars, de korrupta politiska ledarna i Ukraina.
1999, efter kraftiga påtryckningar från Washington, blir centralbankschefen Jusjtjenko utsedd till premiärminister i Ukraina. Efter sin utnämning, Jusjtjenko satte genast i gång ett omfattande utbud av konkurs flera industriföretag i landet, under ledning av IMF. Efter sin utnämning, satte Jusjtjenko genast i gång en omfattande konkurs-turné på de flesta industriella företagen i landet, under IMF’s ledning. Han försökte också att undergräva den bilaterala handeln med olja och naturgas mellan Ryssland och Ukraina på uppdrag av Internationella valutafonden, som hade krävt att handeln skall göras i dollar och inte i utbyte av varor.
Förstörelsen av den industriella infrastrukturen i landet och det massiva utbytet med den viktigaste handelspartnern, Ryssland, ledde till en klimax av massutvandring av den ukrainska befolkningen, men också att “marknadsföra” Ukraina till väst genom den numera mest kända exportvaran, Ukrainskor som i ’myriader’ föll offer för människohandel med vita kroppar.
Detta faktum tillsammans med att utförsäljningen av landet generaliserades, kostade till slut den oranga regeringen valet. Presidentvalet under 2010 vann Viktor Janukovitj, en typisk politiker ur ett korrupt etablissemang, som för att hantera den massiva folkliga vreden och kollapsen av landet undan västs aptit, blev tvungen att vända sig österut mot Ryssland.
Nazisterna i USA’s och EU’s tjänst
Den 21 november 2013 avsäger sig regeringen från undertecknandet av samarbetsavtalet som föreslogs av Europeiska unionen. Oppositionen reagerar med protester i Kiev och den västra delen av landet, som snabbt får ett upproriskt utseende. Den uppmanar till tidiga president-och parlamentsval, och vägrar att bilda regering när de kontaktas av president Janukovytj när premiärminister avgår. Dessa händelser döptes till Euromaidan, innan Eurorevolution, av Radio Free Europe, som drivs av USA’s State Department.
Vid första anblicken verkar övergången vara ett försök att organisera en andra “orangea revolution.” Men den 1 januari 2014 byter makten händer på gatorna. Nazistpartiet “Frihet” organiserade fackeltåg i Kiev till minne av Stepan Bandera, den nazistiska nationalistiska ledaren som allierade sig med nazisterna mot Sovjet. Och vilken Jusjtjenko, västs gunstling, före sitt fall ville smörja som nationell hjälte i Ukraina, mottagandes reaktionerna från den större delen av sina landsmän, och många judiska, polska och ryska organisationer. I manifestationen deltog över 15.000 nazister med hakkors och symboler från det gamla ukrainska SS. Sedan dess har huvudstaden täckts med antisemitiska slagord och terrorism råder mot alla som anses vara “utomstående” eller “pro-ryska” av nazisterna.
Denna nazistorganisation kom till med pengar från till största delen USA’s och Tysklands ambassader, efter att man först organiserade den första ockupationen av Lviv för att säkerställa fri passage till väst för leveranser av pengar, vapen och alla sorters förnödenheter. I dag på gatorna i Kiev konfronterar den vacklande regeringen det återupplivade ukrainska SS med träning, vapen och pengar från Tyskland, USA och EU. Intentionerna från de ”demokratiska” västs staber är inte längre en enkel statskupp. De söker fullständig upplösning av Ukraina, dess sönderstyckning för att inte längre dess folk skall kunna undfly västs kontroll.
I Kiev och på andra håll agerar redan nazister med väpnade grupper och med särskilt utbildade kommandosoldater i väst, veteraner från “inbördeskrigen” i Syrien och Libyen i syfte att inte låta de repressiva krafterna från den ukrainska regeringen få övertaget. Och så färgas gatorna med oskyldigas blod. Å andra sidan verkar den ukrainska regeringen oförmögen att handskas med en sådan situation som eskalerar snabbt emot öppen militär intervention med stöd utifrån.
De väpnade styrkorna i landet har för länge sedan upplöst av den tidigare “orangea revolutionen” och de “finansiella paketen” från IMF, så att de nu inte är i stånd att stå emot den beväpnade nedmonteringen av landet. De väpnade styrkorna i landet har för länge sedan upplöst av den tidigare “orangea revolutionen” och de “finansiella paketen” från IMF, så att de inte är nu i stånd att stå emot nedmonteringen av beväpnade landet. Lägg till att mycket nuvarande och tidigare militär personal har upptäckt att det är mycket lönsamt att slåss från det moderna ukrainska SS linjer.
Hotet mot Rysslands “mjuka buk”
Med allt detta tenderar Ukraina att utvecklas till en viktig attackkorridor mot Ryssland. Utbredningen av nazister i Ukraina kommer att markera inte bara slutet på själva Ukrainas, men också början på väpnade infiltrationsverksamheter i gränsen till Ryssland. Precis så som USA brukar göra i Syrien, Iran och i allmänhet i vilket land somhelst som man har för avsikt att linda i lågorna av ett artificiellt inbördeskrig. Ur den meningen kämpar i dag i Ukraina såväl nazisterna som de stora arbetsgivarna i Washington, Berlin och Bryssel för att ta revansch för von Paulus armés nederlag, som i slutändan misslyckades med att skära av Ryssland från energikällorna i Kaukasus.
Bortsett från faktum att denna utveckling från långt håll luktar utbrett storkrig, är frågan: hur långt bort är Grekland från att smaka på samma recept som Ukraina på sin egna mark? I ett tillstånd av social och ekonomisk kollaps jämförbar med den i Ukraina? Hur långt bort?
Upplagd på grekiska av Dimitris Kazakis 24 Feb kl 09:26 på EPAM’s hemsida
Översatt på svenska av Kosmas Loumakis i enlighet med originaltexten
När artikeln skrevs var fortfarande regeringen i Ukraina vid makten så några av kommentarerna i slutet av artikeln utgår från den horisonten.
*Fotnot, i relevans till Sverige av översättaren.
Η Ελλάδα επιστρέφει στην ανάπτυξη. Με τον τίτλο αυτό συνοδεύονται οι προβλέψεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και του Όλι Ρεν για την Ελλάδα. Σε συνέντευξη Τύπου στο Στρασβούργο (25/2), ο Φιλανδός επίτροπος δήλωσε ότι η Κομισιόν αναθεωρεί επί τα βελτίω τις προβλέψεις της για τον συνολικό ρυθμό ανάπτυξης το 2014 και προβλέπει +1,2% για την ευρωζώνη (έναντι αρνητικού προσήμου το 2013) και +1,5% για το σύνολο της ΕΕ. Σημείωσε ωστόσο ότι η ανάπτυξη στην ΕΕ παραμένει «εύθραυστη».
Όσο για την Ελλάδα, προβλέπεται θετικός ρυθμός ανάπτυξης +0,6% μέσα στο 2014 για πρώτη φορά μετά από έξι συνεχή χρόνια ύφεσης. Μάλιστα το 2015 η οικονομική ανάπτυξη στην Ελλάδα θα φτάσει το +2,9%, σύμφωνα πάντα με τις νέες προβλέψεις της Κομισιόν.
Μιλώντας στους δημοσιογράφους ο Όλι Ρεν σημείωσε ότι για το 2014 η Ελλάδα έχει επιτύχει πλεόνασμα στο ισοζύγιο συναλλαγών για πρώτη φορά από την καθιέρωση της σχετικής στατιστικής το 1948, ενώ τόνισε ότι «αναμένεται» να επιτύχει και πρωτογενές πλεόνασμα στον κρατικό προϋπολογισμό (για την επιβεβαίωση του οποίου προφανώς αναμένει και ο ίδιος τα επίσημα στοιχεία της Eurostat, που θα δημοσιοποιηθούν πιθανότατα στα τέλη Απριλίου). Και πάει λέγοντας.
Οι προβλέψεις που πάντα και ανελλιπώς διαψεύδονται.
Βέβαια, αν ήμασταν σοβαρή χώρα με ελεύθερη και δημοκρατική πληροφόρηση, η είδηση αυτή θα περνούσε στα ψηλά και μάλιστα με έντονα ειρωνικά σχόλια σε βάρος όσων έχουν το απερίγραπτο θράσος να παίρνουν στα σοβαρά τέτοιες προβλέψεις. Ο λόγος είναι απλός. Καμιά, μα καμιά από τις προβλέψεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, τουλάχιστον κατά τη διάρκεια της σημερινής κρίσης, δεν έχει επαληθευθεί. Ναι, καλά ακούσατε. Καμιά πρόβλεψη δεν έχει επαληθευθεί, αλλά αυτό δεν ενοχλεί κανέναν από όλους αυτούς που είτε λόγω σκοπιμότητας, είτε λόγω ηλιθιότητας ζητωκραυγάζουν για όσα προβλέπει ο ανεκδιήγητος Όλι Ρεν και το επιτελείο του.
Για του λόγου το αληθές, ας θυμίσουμε ορισμένες μόνο πτυχές από το ρεκόρ αστοχίας που δέρνει τις προβλέψεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής. Την άνοιξη του 2008 η ΕΕ δημοσιεύει προβλέψεις που μιλούσαν για «ανθεκτική άνοδο στο πρόσωπο των αντιξοοτήτων», όσο αφορά στην ευρωζώνη. Ενώ για την ελληνική οικονομία είχε την εξαιρετικά άστοχη, όπως αποδείχτηκε, πρόβλεψη ότι «η οικονομική ανάπτυξη αναμένεται να επιβραδυνθεί κατά το χρονικό ορίζοντα των προβλέψεων, με το πραγματικό ΑΕΠ να αυξάνεται σε μόλις κάτω από το 3 ½% τόσο το 2008 όσο και το 2009.» (σ. 69) Το δημόσιο χρέος προβλεπόταν να πέσει κατά το 2009 στο 90% του ΑΕΠ.
Σ’ όλη την έκθεση προβλέψεων οι συντάχτες της καυχιόνταν για το πώς οι οικονομίες της ζώνης του ευρώ μπορούσαν να επιδεικνύουν τέτοια ανθεκτικότητα σε σχέση με τα άλλα ανεπτυγμένα κέντρα της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας. Μιλάμε για σαΐνια!
Και πάμε στις προβλέψεις του φθινοπώρου του 2009. Να θυμίσουμε ότι η παγκόσμια οικονομία είχε ήδη υποστεί το παγκόσμιο κραχ το φθινόπωρο του 2008 με όλες τις οικονομίες να παρουσιάζουν αρνητικά πρόσημα, ενώ η Ελλάδα είχε ήδη εμφανίσει τον εκρηκτικό συνδυασμό ύφεσης και χρέους. Ωστόσο, στις προβλέψεις της η ΕΕ έλεγε ότι «η οικονομία της ΕΕ ανακάμπτει σταδιακά από τη βαθιά ύφεση», ενώ για την Ελλάδα διαπίστωνε τα εξής: «Έχοντας βιώσει μια δεκαετία έντονης οικονομικής ανάπτυξης 4% κατά μέσο όρο, η ελληνική οικονομία εισήλθε σε μια φάση ύφεσης το 2009.» (σ. 92). Παρ’ όλα αυτά προέβλεπαν – το φθινόπωρο του 2009 – ότι «οι προοπτικές είναι για το πραγματικό ΑΕΠ να παραμένει σχεδόν σταθερό το 2010, προτού ανακάμψει ελαφρώς το 2011.» Δηλαδή; Εκτιμούσαν συρρίκνωση της ελληνικής οικονομίας το 2009 κατά -1,1%, το 2010 κατά -0,3%, ενώ ελαφρά ανάκαμψη κατά 0,7% το 2011. Πέτυχαν διάνα!
Πάμε ένα χρόνο αργότερα, το φθινόπωρο του 2010 και η ΕΕ συνεχίζει με προκλητική συνέπεια το ίδιο σερί ανόητων προβλέψεων σκοπιμότητας. Για την ευρωζώνη και εν μέσω μιας συνεχιζόμενης ύφεσης εκτιμούσε ότι η «ανάκαμψη προοδεύει»! Ενώ για την Ελλάδα που είχε ήδη υποστεί το πρώτο της μνημόνιο και υπό επίσημη κηδεμονία και ελεγχόμενη χρεοκοπία έπαιρνε με ορμή την κατιούσα έγραφε: «Μετά την κλιμάκωση της κρίσης χρέους την άνοιξη του 2010 και τη δημιουργία του τριετούς προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής, η Ελλάδα εξέδωσε περιεκτικά μέτρα δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης. Αυτά αναμένεται να έχουν αρνητική επίδραση στην εγχώρια ζήτηση το 2010 και το πρώτο εξάμηνο του 2011. Ωστόσο, η επιτυχής και αξιόπιστη προσπάθεια δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής θα πρέπει να τονώσει την εμπιστοσύνη και να βελτιώσει την ψυχολογία. Το όφελος σε αξιοπιστία αναμένεται να αντισταθμίσει το οικονομικό κόστος της προσαρμογής και να οδηγήσει στην έναρξη της ανάκαμψης κατά το δεύτερο εξάμηνο του 2011.» (σ. 87)
Τι μας έλεγε τότε η ΕΕ; Ότι λόγω της έξαρσης της κρίσης χρέους που αδυνατούσε η ίδια να προβλέψει έξη μήνες νωρίτερα – έστω κι αν γραφικοί σαν κι εμένα την είχαν προβλέψει και αναλύσει τουλάχιστον από τις αρχές του 2009 – οδηγήθηκε η χώρα σε μια προσαρμογή που μόνο και μόνο από την πιστή εφαρμογή της συνταγής θα αποκατασταθεί η αξιοπιστία και θα οδηγήσει σε ανάκαμψη το δεύτερο εξάμηνο του 2011. Έτσι προέβλεπαν πτώση του ΑΕΠ κατά -4,2% το 2010, -3,0% το 2011 και άνοδο το 2012 κατά 1,1%!
Εκεί βέβαια που οι προβλέψεις έσπαγαν κάθε ρεκόρ ήταν στο χρέος. «Το χρέος θα αυξηθεί από 126 ¾% του ΑΕΠ το 2009 σε το 156% του ΑΕΠ το 2012,» ήταν η πρόβλεψη! Bullocks, όπως λένε κι οι Βρετανοί.
Την άνοιξη του 2011, δηλαδή στις αρχές του δεύτερου εξαμήνου που η ΕΕ είχε προβλέψει ανάκαμψη, η έκθεση προβλέψεών της έλεγε για την Ελλάδα: «Για τρίτη συνεχόμενη χρονιά, η οικονομική δραστηριότητα αναμένεται να μειωθεί. Το πραγματικό ΑΕΠ αναμένεται να μειωθεί περαιτέρω κατά 3,5% το 2011 – κυρίως λόγω της βαριάς μεταφοράς επιδράσεων που προέρχονται από το 2010 – ενώ η ανάπτυξη αναμένεται να ανακτήσει θετικό πρόσημο μόνο στα τελευταία τρίμηνα του έτους, ή αργότερα, με την ανάκαμψη να αποκτά δυναμική μετά 2012.» (σ. 105)
Οι προβλέψεις και πάλι εντυπωσιακές για την αστοχία τους. Το 2010 εκτιμούσε η ΕΕ ότι η πτώση του ΑΕΠ θα φτάσει στα -4,5%, το 2011 θα συνεχιστεί κατά -3,5%, ενώ το 2012 προβλεπόταν άνοδος κατά 1,1%! Όσο για το δημόσιο χρέος αυτό προβλεπόταν να φτάσει τα 142,8% το 2010, το 157,7% το 2011 και 166,1% το 2012.
Τελικά το φθινόπωρο του 2012, πάλι οι προβλέψεις της ΕΕ για την Ελλάδα ήταν οι εξής: «Τα δεδομένα του Σεπτεμβρίου των προσωρινών εθνικών λογαριασμών επιβεβαιώνουν ότι η ελληνική οικονομία παραμένει σε βαθιά ύφεση. Το ΑΕΠ μειώθηκε σε ετήσια βάση κατά 6,3% κατά το δεύτερο τρίμηνο, ενώ μετά από μια πτώση κατά 6,5% το πρώτο τρίμηνο, η ετήσια μείωση εκτιμάται στο 6,0% το 2012 ως σύνολο. Η συρρίκνωση αυτή αναμένεται να επεκταθεί στο 2013, το έκτο έτος της ύφεσης, με τις κινητήριες δυνάμεις της να παραμένουν σε γενικές γραμμές αμετάβλητες.» (σ. 65)
Και η ΕΕ προβλέπει για άλλη μια φορά ότι η ύφεση μπορεί να συνεχίζεται αλλά τον μεθεπόμενο χρόνο θα υπάρξει ανάκαμψη: «Το σημείο καμπής της ύφεσης αναμένεται το δεύτερο εξάμηνο του 2013, η οποία θα οδηγήσει σε μέτρια αύξηση του ΑΕΠ κατά 0,6% το 2014.» Ενώ για την ανεργία προέβλεπε: «Η αγορά εργασίας αναμένεται να επιδεινωθεί το 2013 και να ανακάμψει με αργούς ρυθμούς στη συνέχεια, με το ποσοστό ανεργίας γύρω στο 22% το 2014.» Το 2013 εκτιμούσε ότι η ανεργία θα έφτανε σε ετήσια βάση το 24%.
Δυο μέτρα και δυο σταθμά
Θα μπορούσαμε να γεμίσουμε σελίδες επί σελίδων με τις ανόητες και παντελώς αστήριχτες προβλέψεις της ΕΕ, που φαίνεται να προέρχονται από την κοιλιά του Βούδα. Ούτε μετά από τέτοια σερί αποτυχιών θα περίμενε κανείς να παίρνει στα σοβαρά το τι λένε οι προβλέψεις της ΕΕ. Εκτός βέβαια από τους ηλίθιους και όσους διατελούν σε διατεταγμένη υπηρεσία.
Ποια είναι η μόνιμη δικαιολογία της αποτυχίας των προβλέψεων της ΕΕ; Καλά το μαντέψατε. Οι διεφθαρμένοι Έλληνες που δεν έδιναν σωστά στοιχεία, αλλά και το γεγονός ότι δεν εφαρμόζουν πιστά το πρόγραμμα προσαρμογής. Το γεγονός ότι οι προβλέψεις της ΕΕ δεν βγήκαν ποτέ σωστές για ολόκληρη την ευρωζώνη, δεν πρέπει να σας ανησυχεί. Οι διεφθαρμένοι γραφειοκράτες των Βρυξελλών θεωρούν όλους τους λαούς ως διεφθαρμένους και άξιους περιφρόνησης.
Αξίζει μόνο να σημειώσουμε ότι ο κ. Όλι Ρεν στην συνέντευξή του σχετικά με τις προβλέψεις του επιτελείου του, επέμεινε σε κάτι που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον για εμάς. Για μία ακόμη φορά, ο Όλι Ρεν εστίασε την προσοχή του στον χαμηλό πληθωρισμό της ευρωζώνης, ο οποίος κινείται τώρα σε μηνιαία επίπεδα του 0,8%, τονίζοντας ότι «στηρίζει την ιδιωτική κατανάλωση, γιατί αυξάνει το διαθέσιμο εισόδημα»! Η διαπίστωση αυτή είναι τουλάχιστον ανόητη, γιατί η πτώση τιμών στην ευρωζώνη οφείλεται πρωτίστως στην έλλειψη αγοραστικής δύναμης, δηλαδή διαθέσιμου εισοδήματος του πληθυσμού.
Ο λόγος που δήλωσε τέτοια ανοησία είναι για να απαντήσει στην ανησυχία πολλών εντός και εκτός ευρωζώνης που φοβούνται την πιθανότητα αποπληθωρισμού. Θέλησε να διαβεβαιώσει ότι παρά την σημαντική πτώση του δείκτη τιμών, δεν πρόκειται να οδηγήσει σε αποπληθωρισμό, δηλαδή σε αρνητικό δείκτη τιμών.
Η διαβεβαίωση είναι το ίδιο σοβαρή και έγκυρη, όσο σοβαρός και έγκυρος είναι ο ίδιος ο Όλι Ρεν. Αλλού είναι το θέμα μας. Γιατί τέτοια ανησυχία μην τυχόν και πέσει σε παγίδα αποπληθωρισμού η ευρωζώνη, ενώ για την Ελλάδα, αλλά και για την Κύπρο που έχουν ήδη βρεθεί σ’ αυτή την κατάσταση δεν φαίνεται να ενοχλούνται; Αντίθετα χρησιμοποιούν τα αποπληθωρισμένα στοιχεία, αλλά και την κατάρρευση της ενεργούς εσωτερικής ζήτησης της ελληνικής οικονομίας όπως αυτή εκδηλώνεται στο εξωτερικό ισοζύγιο ως θετικές εξελίξεις; Γιατί δυο μέτρα και δυο σταθμά;
Ο λόγος είναι απλός. Έχουν ξεγράψει την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο. Δεν τους καίγεται καρφί για το τι θα απογίνουν. Βέβαια κανένας έχων σώας τας φρένας και νουνεχής στα οικονομικά δεν θα θριαμβολογούσε με τα συμπτώματα μιας οικονομίας καθώς η ύφεσή της έχει μετατραπεί στην χειρότερη κρίση αποπληθωρισμού που έχει βιώσει ποτέ στην ιστορία της. Μόνο αδίστακτοι οικονομικοί δολοφόνοι και όρνια που επωφελούνται πτωμάτων μπορούν να θεωρούν θετική μια τέτοια εξέλιξη. Μιας κι ο αποπληθωρισμός είναι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να απαξιωθεί παντελώς το σύνολο των δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών περιουσιακών στοιχείων μιας οικονομίας λίγο πριν διαλυθεί εξ ων συνετέθη.
Να γιατί η παγίδα αποπληθωρισμού για μια χώρα υπό καθεστώς εξάρτησης και δημοσιονομικής κατοχής, όπως είναι η Ελλάδα, οδηγεί πάντα σε πόλεμο. Ο πόλεμος είναι η τελική φάση, το έσχατο μέσο μιας διαδικασίας αποπληθωρισμού όπου σπρώχνεται σκόπιμα μια χώρα – όπως γίνεται με την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο – προκειμένου να επωφεληθούν τα κοράκια και οι γύπες της διεθνούς επενδυτικής κοινότητας από την ολοκληρωτική απαξίωση ακόμη και της εδαφική της επικράτειας.
Το γεγονός ότι ο Ευρωπαϊκός καθεστωτικός τύπος μαζί με τους Ευρωπαίους Επιτρόπους μιλάνε για νέο πακέτο «διάσωσης» τραπεζών και Ελλάδας μετά τις ευρωεκλογές με ακόμη πιο αυστηρούς όρους επιτήρησης και κηδεμονίας σε μια χώρα υπό πρωτοφανή γενικευμένη κατάρρευση, θα αρκούσε για να ξυπνήσει στους πιο οξυδερκείς από εμάς συλλογικές αναμνήσεις πολεμικής καταστροφής. Όμως μην ανησυχείτε. Οι περισσότεροι θα μείνουν στις διαβεβαιώσεις των αρπακτικών ότι δεν επιθυμούν το θάνατο του θηράματος που έχουν ήδη στα δόντια τους και θα συνεχίσουν να ζουν σε νιρβάνα μέχρι να ανάψουν οι φωτιές σε κάποια από τις παραμεθόριες περιοχές.
Για όλους εμάς τους υπόλοιπους που ξέρουμε καλύτερα, τα ένστιχτα επιβίωσης και η λογική δεν μας έχουν προδώσει, ξέρουμε τι να κάνουμε. Οργάνωση, οργάνωση και πάλι οργάνωση. Το Μέτωπο καλείται να δώσει με αφορμή αυτές τις ευρωεκλογές ίσως την πιο κρίσιμη πολιτική του μάχη πριν βρεθούμε όλοι μας να μάθουμε πώς στην πράξη δένεται το ατσάλι μέσα στην ίδια την φωτιά. Εγώ είμαι έτοιμος. Εσείς;
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 12:42 μ.μ.
Αν θέλετε να μάθετε ποιος ενισχύει με κάθε τρόπο την άνοδο της φασιστικής και ναζιστικής ακροδεξιάς στην Ευρώπη, δεν έχετε παρά να κοιτάξετε το τι συμβαίνει αυτή την στιγμή στην Ουκρανία. Τόσο οι ΗΠΑ, όσο και η Γερμανία με την κάλυψη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, χρηματοδότησαν αδρά την επανεμφάνιση στην Ουκρανία της 14ης μεραρχίας Waffen SS που είχε συγκροτηθεί κατά την διάρκεια της εισβολής των Γερμανών ναζί στην Σοβιετική Ένωση από Ουκρανούς ναζί εθνικιστές.
Αυτή η ορδή βαρβάρων που έμεινε στα ιστορικά χρονικά του 2ου παγκοσμίου πολέμου με την ονομασία Ουκρανικά SS, συμμετείχε σε μαζικές εκκαθαρίσεις άμαχου πληθυσμού, σε εκατοντάδες ολοκαυτώματα χωριών σαν το Δίστομο πρώτα και κύρια στην ίδια την Ουκρανία, αλλά και στην Λευκορωσία. Η αγριότητα με την οποία έδρασαν ξεπέρασε σε πολλές περιπτώσεις κι αυτήν των συντρόφων τους εκ Γερμανίας.
Γι’ αυτό άλλωστε και δικαίως καταδικάστηκε η δράση της όχι μόνο από τον κόκκινο στρατό και τους παρτιζάνους που δρούσαν στα μετόπισθεν των χιτλερικών, αλλά και από τους δυτικούς συμμάχους. Όποιος συλλαμβανόταν με διακριτικά αυτής της μονάδας στελνόταν απευθείας σε στρατοδικείο και αντιμετώπιζε το εκτελεστικό απόσπασμα για αποτρόπαια εγκλήματα εναντίον αμάχων.
Η προϊστορία της σημερινής αναμέτρησης
Αυτή η ορδή δεν ήταν η μόνη. Η Ουκρανική Γαλικία με κύρια πόλη το Λβόφ υπήρξε ιστορικά η ανατολική περιοχή του βασιλείου της Γαλικίας, το οποίο έως τον 1ο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο ήταν προσαρτημένο στην Αυστροουγγρική αυτοκρατορία. Η Αυστροουγγαρία είχε προσαρτήσει την Γαλικία κατά την διάρκεια του διαμελισμού του βασιλείου της Πολωνίας κατά τον 18ο αιώνα. Επειδή όμως στην περιοχή της Γαλικίας το καθεστώς εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης υπήρξε σχετικά πιο ήπιο σε σύγκριση με το τσαρικό καθεστώς, πολλοί Πολωνοί μαζί με άλλες εθνικές και θρησκευτικές μειονότητες μετεγκαταστάθηκαν στην περιοχή προκειμένου να γλυτώσουν από τα τσαρικά πογκρόμ που γίνονταν σε τακτική βάση.
Οι οίκος των Αψβούργων της Αυστρίας επέτρεψε αυτήν μετεγκατάσταση στην προσαρτημένη Γαλικία κι έτσι η περιοχή έγινε ένα μεγάλο μίγμα διαφορετικών πληθυσμών από άποψη θρησκευτική, εθνολογική, γλωσσική, κοκ. Οι Πολωνοί εθνικιστές διεκδικούσαν την Γαλικία για λογαριασμός τους. Κι επειδή οι Αυστριακοί θέλησαν να αντισταθμίσουν την δράση τους ενίσχυσαν με κάθε τρόπο τον Ουκρανικό εθνικισμό ως αντίπαλο δέος. Έναν Ουκρανικό εθνικισμό με έντονη Γερμανική αναφορά. Πολύ γρήγορα η Γαλικία έγινε πεδίο αναμέτρησης του Πολωνικού και Ουκρανικού εθνικισμού με πληθυσμό να βιώνει εθνικιστικές εκκαθαρίσεις προκειμένου τα αντίπαλα στρατόπεδα να πετύχουν μια «καθαρότητα» κατά τα δικά τους εθνολογικά πρότυπα.
Στις 23 Ιουνίου 1917 ιδρύεται η Ουκρανία ως μέρος αρχικά της Ρωσικής Δημοκρατίας, όπου λίγους μήνες πριν, τον Φεβρουάριο, ο Ρωσικός λαός είχε ανατρέψει τον τσάρο. Μετά την ανατροπή της προσωρινής κυβέρνησης στην Πετρούπολη από τους μπολσεβίκους στις 7 Νοεμβρίου (25 Οκτωβρίου με το Ιουλιανό ημερολόγιο) του 1917 και το πέρασμα όλης της εξουσίας στα Σοβιέτ, δημοσιεύεται στις 15 (2) Νοεμβρίου του ίδιου έτους η Διακήρυξη των δικαιωμάτων των Λαών της Ρωσίας, όπου αναγνωριζόταν «το δικαίωμα των λαών της Ρωσίας στην ελεύθερη αυτοδιάθεσή τους, έως του σημείου της απόσχισης και της δημιουργίας ενός ανεξάρτητου κράτους.» Λίγες ημέρες μετά, δηλαδή στις 20 (7) Νοεμβρίου, η Ουκρανική Κεντρική Ράντα με έδρα το Κίεβο ανακήρυσσε την Ουκρανική Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία.
Η Ουκρανία ιδρύεται σαν ανεξάρτητο κράτος
Στις 22 (9) Ιανουαρίου του 1918 η Ουκρανική Κεντρική Ράντα δημοσιεύει την Διακήρυξη της Ανεξαρτησίας της Ουκρανίας με βάση την οποία ιδρυόταν η Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Ουκρανίας με σοσιαλιστικές αναφορές και προτάγματα, αλλά με ευθέως εχθρική προς τους μπολσεβίκους. Με την συνθήκη του Μπρεστ-Λιτόφσκ, που υπογράφηκε ανάμεσα κυρίως στην Γερμανία και την σοβιετική Ρωσία στις 3 Μαρτίου 1918, η Ουκρανία περνά υπό τον έλεγχο της Γερμανικής αυτοκρατορίας. Για πρώτη φορά και με σκοπό να ενισχυθούν τα πιο ακραία εθνικιστικά στοιχεία στην Ουκρανία, η Γερμανία πιέζει την Αυστρία να παραδώσει την ανατολική Γαλικία στον έλεγχο των Ουκρανών εθνικιστών.
Με την άμεση βοήθεια των Γερμανών και Αυστριακών στις 24-26 Απριλίου 1918, ο Κοζάκος αταμάνος Παύλο Σκοροπάντσκι ανατρέπει την Κεντρική Ράντα και επιβάλει στυγνή δικτατορία. Η κρεμάλα και οι εκτελέσεις μπαίνουν στην ημερήσια διάταξη. Όλα τα παλιά προνόμια της αριστοκρατίας αποκαθίστανται. Παραστρατιωτικές ομάδες συγκροτούνται για να κάψουν τα χωριά που αντιστέκονται και να σκορπίσουν την τρομοκρατία στον πληθυσμό. Με την συνθηκολόγηση της Γερμανίας και της Αυστρίας, το καθεστώς Σκοροπάντσκι ανατρέπεται τον Δεκέμβριο του 1918.
Επανιδρύεται η Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Ουκρανίας με νέα Κεντρική Ράντα όπου γρήγορα επικράτησε ο Σίμον Πετλιούρα, ο οποίος βρήκε την ευκαιρία να επιβληθεί με την υποστήριξη των Γάλλων που αποβιβάστηκαν τον Νοέμβριο του 1918 στην Οδησσό για να καταλάβουν το κενό που άφηνε η συνθηκολόγηση των Γερμανών.
Η Ουκρανική Ράντα συμμετέχει στον επεμβατικό πόλεμο 19 χωρών εναντίον της σοβιετικής Ρωσίας, που διευθύνεται από την Αντάντ. Όμως οι απανωτές ήττες και η εντεινόμενη λαϊκής δυσαρέσκεια, οδηγούν την Ράντα – μετά από υπόδειξη της Γαλλίας και της Αγγλίας – να συνάψει συμμαχία με την Πολωνία του δικτάτορα Πιλδούσκι τον Απρίλιο του 1920 προκειμένου να συνεχιστεί ο πόλεμος εναντίον της σοβιετικής Ρωσίας.
Στις 18 Μαρτίου 1921 υπογράφεται η συμφωνία ειρήνης της Ρίγας ανάμεσα στην Πολωνία και την σοβιετική Ρωσία με βάση την οποία η Γαλικία, που είχε περάσει με την συνθήκη του Μπρεστ-Λιτόφσκ στην κυριότητα της Ουκρανίας, προσαρτάται στην πρώτη. Από τότε και μέχρι τον 2ο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο οι Πολωνοί εφάρμοσαν άγριες εκκαθαριστικές επιχειρήσεις εναντίον του ντόπιου πληθυσμού που αρνήθηκε να θεωρήσει τον εαυτό του Πολωνό, όπως επίσης και εναντίον όποιου αντιτάχθηκε στον διαμελισμό της περιοχής σε λατιφούντια υπέρ των Πολωνών αριστοκρατών.
Η εμφάνιση των ναζί εθνικιστών της Ουκρανίας
Στα 1929 φέρεται να ιδρύεται στην Ουκρανική Γαλικία η Οργάνωση Ουκρανών Εθνικιστών (ΟΟΕ), η οποία απαρτίζεται κυρίως από οπαδούς της ατομικής τρομοκρατίας και της παραστρατιωτικής δράσης. Η ιδεολογία τους κυμαινόταν από μια ακραία εθνικιστική φυλετική αντίληψη για την καθαρότητα του Ουκρανικού αίματος, έως ανοιχτά φασιστικές και ναζιστικές αντιλήψεις. Έως την έναρξη της εισβολής των Γερμανών ναζί εναντίον της ΕΣΣΔ στις 22 Ιουνίου του 1941, η συγκεκριμένη οργάνωση είχε επικεντρωθεί σε πογκρόμ εναντίον των Πολωνών, των Ρώσων, των Εβραίων και γενικά εναντίον οποιουδήποτε δεν είχε «καθαρό» αίμα Ουκρανού, αφενός και αφετέρου, σε ατομικές πράξεις τρομοκρατίας εναντίον του Πολωνικού κατεστημένου.
Στην προετοιμασία της ναζιστικής επίθεσης εναντίον της Πολωνίας, αλλά και κατά την διάρκειά της, η ΟΟΕ βοήθησε ιδιαίτερα με πράξεις δολιοφθοράς και απόπειρες δολοφονίας. Το γεγονός αυτό οικοδόμησε άριστες σχέσεις ανάμεσα στους Ουκρανούς εθνικιστές και τους Γερμανούς ναζί. Μάλιστα οι δεύτεροι για να εξασφαλίσουν την συνεργασία των δεύτερων, τους είχαν υποσχεθεί να παραδώσουν υπό την κυριαρχία τους ολόκληρη την υπό Πολωνική κατοχή Γαλικία. Κάτι όμως που δεν έγινε καθότι μεσολάβησε η συνθήκη Ρίμπεντροφ-Μόλοτοφ τον Σεπτέμβριο του 1939 με βάση την οποία αναγνωριζόταν από την ναζιστική Γερμανία η κυριαρχία της ΕΣΣΔ στην περιοχή της Γαλικίας που είχε προσαρτήσει η Πολωνία από την Ουκρανία το 1921.
Ωστόσο, η συνεργασία της ΟΟΕ δεν διακόπηκε με τους ναζί. Αντίθετα εντάθηκε καθώς χρησιμοποιήθηκε από τους ναζί ως Πέμπτη Φάλαγγα εναντίον των σοβιετικών στο έδαφος της Δυτικής Ουκρανίας. Κι επομένως όπως ήταν φυσικό με την ναζιστική εισβολή στην ΕΣΣΔ, η ΟΟΕ βρήκε την ευκαιρία να ανακηρύξει στις 30 Ιουνίου 1941 το Ουκρανικό Κράτος με έδρα το Λβοφ, πρωτεύουσα της Ουκρανικής Γαλικίας και επικεφαλής τον Στέπαν Μπαντέρα.
Αυτή η Πράξη Διακήρυξης αναφέρει ανάμεσα στα άλλα και τα εξής: «Το νεοσυσταθέν ουκρανικό κράτος θα συνεργαστεί στενά με την Εθνικοσοσιαλιστική Μεγάλη Γερμανία, υπό την ηγεσία του ηγέτη Αδόλφου Χίτλερ που διαμορφώνει μια νέα τάξη πραγμάτων στην Ευρώπη και τον κόσμο και βοηθά τον Ουκρανικό Λαό να απαλλαγεί από την κατοχή της Μόσχας. Ο Ουκρανικός Επαναστατικός Λαϊκός Στρατός, ο οποίος έχει συσταθεί στην ουκρανική γη, θα συνεχίσει να αγωνίζεται μαζί με την Συμμαχικό Γερμανικό Στρατό εναντίον της κατοχής από την Μόσχα για ένα κυρίαρχο και ενωμένο κράτος, όπως και για μια νέα τάξη πραγμάτων σε όλο τον κόσμο.»
Αν και το νέο Ουκρανικό Κράτος ήταν καθαρόαιμα ναζιστικό, οι Γερμανοί ναζί είχαν άλλα σχέδια για την Ουκρανία. Την ήθελαν σιτοβολώνα του Γερμανικού 4ου Ράιχ πλημμυρισμένη από Γερμανούς εποίκους. Κι επομένως δεν αναγνώρισαν το νεοσύστατο κράτος παρά μόνο όταν ήταν πλέον αργά γι’ αυτούς, το 1944 όταν ήταν πλέον σε άτακτη υποχώρηση μπροστά στον κόκκινο στρατό. Παρ’ όλα αυτά η ΟΟΕ λειτούργησε ως το πολιτικό λίκνο των Ουκρανικών SS και βοήθησε τα μέγιστα στην στρατολόγηση από τους Γερμανούς ναζί τακτικών και άτακτων τμημάτων εθελοντών που πολέμησαν στο πλευρό τους και διακρίθηκαν όσοι λίγες μονάδες των SS σε αγριότητες εναντίον των λαών της Ουκρανίας, της Λευκορωσίας, της Πολωνίας, της Τσεχίας, της Σλοβενίας και της Αυστρίας.
Τα υπολείμματα των μονάδων αυτών αφού μετονομάστηκαν σε 1η μεραρχία του Ουκρανικού Εθνικού Στρατού φρόντισαν να παραδοθούν στους αγγλοαμερικανούς στις 10 Μαΐου 1945. Οι Αμερικανοί φυγάδευσαν τόσο τους Ουκρανούς ναζί, αλλά και τους Γερμανούς ναζί αξιωματικούς της μεραρχίας και φρόντισαν να τους απαλλάξουν από τις αμέτρητες κατηγορίες για εγκλήματα πολέμου και κυρίως εναντίον των αμάχων στις περιοχές που έδρασαν. Με τον τρόπο αυτό ανέστησαν την παλιά ΟΟΕ και την χρησιμοποίησαν ως μέσο στρατολόγησης και εκπαίδευσης προβοκατόρων που συχνά στάλθηκαν για σαμποτάζ και υπονομευτική δράση στην σοβιετική Ουκρανία.
Η Ουκρανία μετά την διάλυση της ΕΣΣΔ
Όταν η ΕΣΣΔ διαλύθηκε και η Ουκρανία πέρασε στα χέρια της πρώην κομματικής ολιγαρχίας που εν μία νυχτί μετατράπηκαν σε «δημοκράτες» και μετέτρεψαν την χώρα σε δικό τους οικόπεδο. Κι όπως έγινε παντού στον πρώην υπαρκτό σοσιαλισμό, οι πρώην κομματικοί συνεργάστηκαν με τους παλιούς αντιφρονούντες πράκτορες της Δύσης προκειμένου να λεηλατήσουν όσο δεν έπαιρνε τις χώρες που κληρονομούσαν ελέω κομματικής απολυταρχίας. Έτσι έγινε και στην Ουκρανία, η οποία το 1993 εισήλθε στην τροχιά του ΔΝΤ για να καταρρεύσει ολοκληρωτικά η κοινωνική συνοχή της χώρας και η οικονομία της να συντριβεί.
Αρχιτέκτονας της καταστροφής ο Βίκτορ Γιουσένκο, πρώτος διοικητής της ανεξάρτητης κατά τα δυτικά πρότυπα νεοσύστατης κεντρικής τράπεζας της Ουκρανίας. Ο Γιούσενκο ως επικεφαλής της Κεντρικής Τράπεζας ήταν υπεύθυνος για την απορρύθμιση του εθνικού νομίσματος στο πλαίσιο της «θεραπείας σοκ» που επιβλήθηκε από το ΔΝΤ τον Οκτώβριος 1994. Το αποτέλεσμα; Η τιμή του ψωμιού αυξήθηκε εν μία νυκτί κατά 300%. Η τιμή της ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας εκτοξεύθηκε κατά 600%. Τα μέσα μαζικής μεταφοράς κατά 900%. Το βιοτικό επίπεδο καταρρακώθηκε. Οι μισθοί έως το 1998 υποχώρησαν κατά 75% σε σχέση με το 1991.
Τον Νοέμβριο του 1994, η Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα έστειλε διαπραγματευτές για να εξετάσουν την αναμόρφωση της γεωργίας της Ουκρανίας. Με την απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου (η οποία ήταν μέρος του οικονομικού πακέτου από το ΔΝΤ), τα πλεονάσματα σιτηρών από τις ΗΠΑ και η “επισιτιστική βοήθεια” λειτούργησαν ως ντάμπινγκ στην εγχώρια αγορά, συμβάλλοντας στην αποσταθεροποίηση μιας από τα μεγαλύτερες και πιο παραγωγικές οικονομίες του κόσμου σε σιτάρι, (π.χ. συγκρίσιμη με εκείνη των μεσοδυτικών πολιτειών των ΗΠΑ).
Μέχρι το 1998, η απελευθέρωση της αγοράς των σιτηρών είχε ως αποτέλεσμα τη μείωση της παραγωγής των σιτηρών κατά 45% σε σχέση με το επίπεδο του 1986-1990. Η κατάρρευση της κτηνοτροφικής παραγωγής, σε πουλερικά και γαλακτοκομικά προϊόντα ήταν ακόμη πιο δραματική.
Η σωρευτική μείωση του ΑΕΠ ως αποτέλεσμα του οικονομικού πακέτου και των «διαρθρωτικών μεταρρυθμίσεων» του ΔΝΤ ήταν πάνω από 60% την περίοδο1992-1995. Πρόκειται για πρόσκαιρες αναγκαίες θυσίες προκειμένου η Ουκρανία να αποκτήσει ένα μέλλον λαμπρό, έλεγαν και ξανάλεγαν τα στελέχη του ΔΝΤ. Ενώ την αποτυχία του «οικονομικού πακέτου» την χρέωναν, που αλλού, στους διεφθαρμένους πολιτικούς ηγέτες της Ουκρανίας.
Το 1999 μετά από αφόρητες πιέσεις της Ουάσινγκτον ο διοικητής της κεντρικής τράπεζας Γιουσένκο διορίζεται πρωθυπουργός της Ουκρανίας. Μετά το διορισμό του, ο Γιούσενκο έθεσε αμέσως σε κίνηση ένα ευρύτατο πρόγραμμα πτώχευσης των περισσοτέρων βιομηχανικών επιχειρήσεων της χώρας, υπό την αιγίδα του ΔΝΤ. Προσπάθησε επίσης να υπονομεύσει το διμερές εμπόριο πετρελαίου και φυσικού αερίου μεταξύ Ρωσίας και Ουκρανίας για λογαριασμό του ΔΝΤ, το οποίο είχε απαιτήσει ότι οι εν λόγω συναλλαγές να πραγματοποιούνται σε δολάρια ΗΠΑ και όχι με ανταλλαγή εμπορευμάτων.
Η καταστροφή της βιομηχανικής υποδομής της χώρας και των εμπορευματικών της ανταλλαγών με τον κύριο εμπορικό της εταίρο, την Ρωσία, οδήγησε στην κορύφωση της μαζικής μετανάστευσης του Ουκρανικού πληθυσμού, αλλά και να «διαφημιστεί» η Ουκρανία στην Δύση διαμέσου του πιο φημισμένου εξαγωγικού είδους της, τις Ουκρανέζες που κατά μυριάδες έπεφταν θύματα του εμπορίου λευκής σαρκός.
Ο Γιουσένκο πολύ σύντομα αντιμετώπισε δυσκολίες στο να παραμείνει πρωθυπουργός, μιας και οι πολιτικές γενικού ξεπουλήματος που εφάρμοζε κατ’ επιταγή της Δύσης, η απόλυτη διαφθορά που αντιπροσώπευε στον τρόπο διακυβέρνησης, αλλά και το πλήρες ξεχαρβάλωμα της χώρας που συνοδευόταν συχνά και με προκλήσεις προς την Ρωσία, έκαναν την λαϊκή οργή να διογκώνεται.
Έτσι οι εκλογές του 2004 ήταν κόλαφος γι’ αυτόν και την κλίκα του. Προκειμένου να παραμείνει στην εξουσία οργανώθηκε εκ μέρους των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ η λεγόμενη «πορτοκαλί επανάσταση». Η Μόσχα απάντησε με την άρση των επιδοτήσεων της για τις τιμές του φυσικού αερίου, αλλά η πορτοκαλί κυβέρνηση δεν μπορούσε να στηριχθεί στους δυτικούς συμμάχους της προκειμένου να βοηθήσουν ώστε να πληρώσει τις ανεβασμένες τιμές της αγοράς.
Το γεγονός αυτό μαζί με το ξεπούλημα της χώρας που γενικεύτηκε στοίχισε τελικά τις εκλογές στην πορτοκαλί κυβέρνησης. Τις προεδρικές εκλογές του 2010 τις κέρδισε ο Βίκτορ Γιανουκόβιτς, ένας τυπικός πολιτικός του διεφθαρμένου κατεστημένου, ο οποίος προκειμένου να διαχειριστεί την ογκούμενη λαϊκή οργή και την κατάρρευση της χώρας από τις ορέξεις της Δύσης, αναγκάστηκε να στραφεί ανατολικά προς την Ρωσία.
Οι ναζί στην υπηρεσία των ΗΠΑ και της ΕΕ
Στις 21 Νοεμβρίου 2013, η κυβέρνηση παραιτείται από την υπογραφή της συμφωνίας σύνδεσης που είχε προταθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η αντιπολίτευση αντιδρά με διαδηλώσεις στο Κίεβο και στο δυτικό τμήμα της χώρας, οι οποίες παίρνουν γρήγορα μια εξεγερσιακή εμφάνιση. Ζητά έκκληση για πρόωρες προεδρικές και βουλευτικές εκλογές και αρνείται να σχηματίσει κυβέρνηση όταν προσεγγίζεται από τον Πρόεδρο Γιανουκόβιτς όταν ο πρωθυπουργός παραιτείται. Οι εκδηλώσεις αυτές βαφτίστηκαν Euromaidan, πριν Eurorevolution, από Radio Free Europe, το οποίο λειτουργεί από το Στέιτ Ντιπάρτμεντ.
Από πρώτη ματιά, η κίνηση φαίνεται να είναι μια προσπάθεια για να οργανωθεί μια δεύτερη «Πορτοκαλί Επανάσταση.» Όμως, την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2014, η δύναμη στο δρόμο αλλάζει χέρια. Το ναζιστικό κόμμα «Ελευθερία» διοργανώνει πυρσοφορία στο Κίεβο στη μνήμη του Stepan Bandera, του ναζί εθνικιστή ηγέτη ο οποίος συμμάχησε με τους Ναζί εναντίον των Σοβιετικών. Και τον οποίο ο λατρευτός της Δύσης Γιουσένκο θέλησε παραμονές της πτώσης του να χρίσει εθνικό ήρωα της Ουκρανίας, εισπράττοντας τις αντιδράσεις της μεγαλύτερης μερίδας των συμπατριωτών του, καθώς και πολλών εβραϊκών, πολωνικών και ρωσικών οργανώσεων. Στην πορεία συμμετείχαν πάνω από 15.000 ναζί με σβάστικες και σύμβολα των παλιών Ουκρανικών SS. Από τότε, η πρωτεύουσα έχει καλυφθεί με αντισημιτικά συνθήματα και η τρομοκρατία επικρατεί εναντίον όποιου θεωρείται «παρείσακτος» ή «φιλορώσος» από τους ναζί.
Η οργάνωση αυτή των ναζί έγινε με χρήματα από τις πρεσβείες των ΗΠΑ και της Γερμανίας κύρια, ενώ οργάνωσαν πρώτα την κατάληψη του Λβοφ προκειμένου να εξασφαλίσουν την ελεύθερη δίοδο με την Δύση για προμήθειες χρήματος, όπλων και κάθε λογής εφοδίων. Σήμερα στους δρόμους του Κιέβου αντιπαρατίθενται με την παραπαίουσα κυβέρνηση τα αναβιωμένα Ουκρανικά SS με εκπαίδευση, οπλισμό και χρήματα από Γερμανία, ΗΠΑ και Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Οι προθέσεις των επιτελείων της «δημοκρατικής» Δύσης δεν είναι πια ένα απλό coup d’etat. Επιζητούν την ολοκληρωτική διάλυση της Ουκρανίας, το κομμάτιασμά της έτσι ώστε να μην μπορέσει ξανά ο λαός της να διαφύγει του ελέγχου της.
Ήδη στο Κίεβο και αλλού δρουν ένοπλες ομάδες ναζί και ειδικά εκπαιδευμένοι κομμάντος της Δύσης, βετεράνοι από τους «εμφυλίους» της Συρίας και της Λιβύης με σκοπό να μην επιτρέψουν στις δυνάμεις καταστολής της Ουκρανικής κυβέρνησης να πάρουν το πάνω χέρι. Κι έτσι οι δρόμοι βάφονται με αίμα αθώων. Από την άλλη η κυβέρνηση της Ουκρανίας φαίνεται ανίκανη να αντιμετωπίσει μια τέτοια κατάσταση που γρήγορα κλιμακώνεται σε ανοιχτή στρατιωτική επέμβαση με στήριξη έξωθεν.
Οι ένοπλες δυνάμεις της χώρας έχουν προ πολλού διαλυθεί από την προηγούμενη «πορτοκαλί επανάσταση» και τα «οικονομικά πακέτα» του ΔΝΤ, ώστε να μην είναι σε θέση τώρα να αντισταθούν στην ένοπλη διάλυση της χώρας. Αφήστε που πολλοί πρώην και νυν στρατιωτικοί έχουν ανακαλύψει ότι είναι άκρως επικερδές να πολεμάς από τις γραμμές των σύγχρονων Ουκρανικών SS.
Η απειλή στο «μαλακό υπογάστριο» της Ρωσίας
Με όλα αυτά η Ουκρανία τείνει να μετεξελιχθεί σε βασικό διάδρομο επίθεσης εναντίον της Ρωσίας. Η επικράτηση των ναζί στην Ουκρανία θα σημάνει όχι μόνο το τέλος της ίδιας της Ουκρανίας, αλλά και την απαρχή επιχειρήσεων ένοπλης διείσδυσης στην παραμεθόριο της Ρωσίας. Όπως ακριβώς συνηθίζουν να κάνουν οι ΗΠΑ στη Συρία, στο Ιράν και γενικά σε όποια χώρα σκοπεύουν να την τυλίξουν στις φλόγες ενός τεχνητού εμφυλίου. Μ’ αυτή την έννοια σήμερα στην Ουκρανία τόσο οι ναζί, όσο και τα μεγάλα αφεντικά τους σε Ουάσιγκτον, Βερολίνο και Βρυξέλλες πασχίζουν να πάρουν την ρεβάνς για την ήττα της στρατιάς του φον Πάουλους, η οποία τελικά δεν κατόρθωσε να αποκόψει την Ρωσία από τις ενεργειακές πηγές του Καυκάσου.
Πέρα από το γεγονός ότι αυτές οι εξελίξεις μυρίζουν από μακριά γενικευμένο πόλεμο, το ερώτημα είναι το εξής: πόσο απέχει η Ελλάδα από το να γευτεί κι αυτή την συνταγή της Ουκρανίας στο ίδιο το έδαφός της; Σε μια κατάσταση κατάρρευσης κοινωνικής και οικονομικής ανάλογης μ’ αυτήν της Ουκρανίας; Πόσο απέχει;
Δημοσιεύτηκε στο Χωνί, 23/2/2014
Αναρτήθηκε από ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΚΑΖΑΚΗΣ στις 9:26 π.μ.
by Vasilis Migkos – TRANSCEND Media Service
Greece’s Golden Dawn Neo-Nazi Party and How to Make Them Less Appealing to Greek Society
Everything started a very long time ago in Greece. Back to 1940’s at the period that Greece was violently invaded and occupied by Germany (April 1941 – October 1944). The German invasion succeeded the failed attempt of fascist Italy to occupy Greece. It was at that time the Nazism appeared in Greece. Although the vast majority of Greeks fought bravely against the Germans and struggled against the occupation, there was a small minority who cooperated with German administration, acting against their fellow citizens. These people, with the aid of the Nazi regime, earned privileges, protection and, of course, money at the expense of other Greeks.
After the liberation of Greece, paradoxically, these people were never punished. On the contrary, they enjoyed their big fortunes, created by dirty means during the occupation and got actively involved in social and economic life of Greece. Betrayers, black marketers, blackmailers, snitches and some of them murderers, had the chance to become stronger and remained unpunished.
In 1967, when the military coup occurred in Greece, a new generation of fascists came to the surface, assisted by the old ones. The new generation collaborated closely with the military regime till its collapse in 1974. The way and the methods were almost same as it happened during the Nazi occupation. Privileges, power, money and protection. Democracy was, of course, paralyzed and human rights were violated. People were pushed to exile, tortured and killed during the 7-year Greek Dictatorship.
Golden Dawn is the main nationalist extremist party in Greece nowadays. It is very well known for its radical ideas, violent methods and provocative behaviors. It was created in 1980 and its initial aim was to publish the homonymous magazine. The principles of the movement were absolutely neo-Nazi with hymns to Hitler and propaganda in favor of the superiority of the Aryan race. It was strange though, because like-minded extremists in Germany were fond of killing immigrants, especially Greeks and Turks who traditionally can be found in Germany in vast numbers and are considered to be inferior to the locals. Recently there was a trial of a member of the National Socialistic Underground of Germany, a woman who was involved in the murder of 8 Turks, 1 Greek and a police officer, during the period 2000 – 2007.
At the beginning, Golden Dawn had absolutely no power in Greece. It was a very small group of people that participated in the Yugoslav War (alongside the Serbs) and tried to get involved in the “Macedonian Issue” at the beginning of 1990s, when nationalism in Greece had risen against its neighboring country the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) which claimed the name “Macedonia” to be the official name of its state. However, despite the tension in the relationships of Greece with its neighbors (mainly Turkey, Albania and F.Y.R.O.M.), Golden Dawn had little impact on Greek politics. I must mention that, traditionally, Greek society on average was a leftist one. The Greek Left was always strong and present at the social and political movements of the country and the European Union (EU).
Although Greece has been a member of the EU since 1981, the transformation of Greek society and political life went wrong. Since 1974, two political parties have succeeded each other in the governance of the country. The socialists (PASOK) and the liberal right wing party (Nea Dimokratia). Their way of governance established totally wrong ethics in political and social life of Greece. Nepotism, opacity and corruption became such a usual phenomenon in Greek daily life, especially in politics. Each party was trying to promote their people, the public sector became huge and the wages of the civil servants were unreasonably increased.
At the same time, Greeks were enjoying an impressive improvement in their standard of living, able to consume more and more, linking their social status to the cost and the amount of the products they were buying, including houses and cars. Nepotism had penetrated in almost every aspect of their lives. It was a common secret that “if you don’t have good connections, you cannot do anything”. That was true. This system was so well constructed and enlarged, that if someone wanted to enjoy even the simplest things, such as finding a job, he should become part of this system and ask for the assistance of a politician or an important person in the local community. At that time, in the 1990s, Greece faced its first serious immigration problem. After the collapse of communists’ regime, massive waves of illegal immigrants from Albania were coming to Greece. Poor and desperate and most of them uneducated, it was logical that crime rates would become higher after their entrance in Greece. After the bankruptcy of Albania, Albanian prisons were opened and Albanian criminals were set free while at the same time the military equipment (guns and bullets) were looted. Many of them came to Greece, armed and illegal and continued their action in a country which was traditionally the wealthiest among the Balkans. This was the first time that racism appeared in Greece. It was because of all these incidents that many among the Greeks created a stereotype about Albanians, who are supposed to be criminals and thieves.
Problems also existed at the eastern borders, where territorial disputes were poisoning Greek-Turkish relations. In 1996, Greece and Turkey almost went to war because of a dispute related over two tiny Aegean islands. The war was prevented at the very last moment. At the same time, Turkish intervention in Thrace, the oppression of the minorities of the two countries and the “eternal” Cyprus issue kept always alive the fear of a possible Greek – Turkish war that could erupt at any time between the two countries.
Under those circumstances, someone would expect that Greek nationalism and Golden Dawn would rise. This didn’t happen though. The only instances that Golden Dawn appeared in public life was the demonstrations organized in memory of the three Greek members of a military helicopter pilot who died in the background of the crisis and the prosecution and trial of a member of Golden Dawn, Antonis Androutsopoulos, known as “Periandros” after the violent attack by him and his group against Dimitris Kousouris in 1998. The percentages of Golden Dawn in the elections were extremely low and its impact on Greek society was of no importance.
Things changed rapidly after the economic crisis emerged. The sudden change in Greece at all levels, political, economic, social and cultural, made Greeks wake up from a dream they were living in since 1974 when Democracy was reestablished in the country after the collapse of Junta. Or, better said, was supposed to have been reestablished. The dramatic reductions of the wages, the massive dismissals and the tremendous increase of crime rates, ruined the normal, quiet life of Greeks who, on average, were able to spend money, consume, travel and generally enjoy the goods of capitalism. The scandals that were revealed remained unpunished with a very few exceptions. The sense of injustice grew among Greeks. Some people, who played important political and economic role in Greece, were proved or rumored to have stolen huge amounts of money and participated in countless scandals. Very few of them were prosecuted.
People felt betrayed. No one ever told them about the perils of Greek economy, no one ever cared really about the destiny of Greek economy. Both of the parties that were altering in power, were constantly trying to give more and more to their people, in order to gain votes and secure their reelection. People, on the other hand, learned to expect more and more from their governments, and were disappointed if someone talked about the need of austerity measures and regularization of the economy, although it could easily be foreseen that this abnormal kind of economy would, sooner or later, collapse. Until today, the number one demand among the Greeks is Justice: Punishment of the perpetrators and confiscation of their properties. It is very well known that, if the Greek government had the courage to punish say 50 people (politicians and businessmen) and prosecute those who systematically don’t pay taxes (I am talking about professional debtors who owe huge amounts of money), Greece could pay all or almost all of its debt. Punishment of banks is also a great demand in Greece, because their unreasonable funding policies led them very close to bankruptcy and the Greek government spent a huge amount of money in order to save them. Money that normally could (and should) be spent for the payment of the debt.
The political system seems unwilling or unable to punish and distribute justice. Traditional political powers were now seen as the bricks of the same dirty wall. Thus, Golden Dawn appeared. They showed muscles, discipline, power, decisiveness and followed the typical strategy of all neo-nazi parties around the world. They accused immigrants of the high crime rates and unemployment of the locals. They presented themselves as the “cleaners”, the strong muscled guys who want and are able to “clean” the country by kicking immigrants out of the borders and punishing the politicians who stole money.
At this point I should also mention the strange role of media and the immigration problem. The presence of Golden Dawn in Greek media became almost daily. People got used to watching scenes of violence. Muscles and militarism became a lifestyle. The flags, the ceremonies, the symbols and the outraged extremists became attractive to those who were feeling angry, desperate and disappointed. Lack of education and of a minimal standard of political analysis gave a place to Golden Dawn in peoples’ minds, while, at the same time, none of the political parties made a clear and effective suggestion about how the problem of illegal migration problem of Greece could be solved. The position of the country (neighboring with Asia), the NATO wars and several conflicts brought thousands of desperate people to Greece, in their attempt to enter EU, in order to find a better future.
That’s why we reached the point that a neo-Nazi political party managed to get so much support in the last election in a country that was traditionally leftist, a country that is historically bonded with democracy, a country that fought and achieved victory against fascist Italy during World War II, fought bravely and was occupied and devastated by Nazis in 1941, a country that has countless cemeteries full of bones of people who were killed fighting Nazism and Fascism.
The recent arrests of some of the leading member of Golden Dawn and the imprisonment of their general leader, after the murder of Greek leftist Hip Hop artist by a fan of Golden Dawn, showed to people the structure and the way of action of this party. Guns, Nazi flags and objects and several things were found in the houses of the leading members of the party. Their prosecution of those people is something that may be legally correct, but not so much effective when it comes to the struggle against the roots of the problem. As it happened in Germany, Italy and other countries, fascism and Nazism rely on fear which, combined with ignorance, leads to hate.
How can this change?
Active citizenship through education with the adoption of a transparent way of governance under the umbrella of justice: Greeks were familiarized with the distorted idea that politics is something strange, full of dirtiness and not something that they should actively get involved, not something that they should really be concerned about. Politics were identified with opacity and corruption and was totally unattractive for the masses which, however, were strongly willing to get fanatics for a party and follow someone who promised to them privileges, job and money. It has been a vicious circle, feeding more and more the monster of nepotism and cultivating the ethics of competition and individualism.
Greeks should be taught that politics is something they should actively be involved. So we need education. We also need the sense of injustice to be restored. We need decisive measures for the punishment of the perpetrators and the establishment of transparency and substantive legality. There must be a wide campaign with the aid of media, social networks and activist actions. I am afraid though, that it is extremely hard for this to work under the circumstances of crisis and strict austerity measures. This is not only about Greece. It is also about EU and the whole world.