- Color revolutions and Geopolitical ‘takeover of nations’ (Videos, Audio and Books).
- “Color revolutions” – and relevant Institutions and Brands
- Geopolitical ‘nation take-over’ games and Color Revolutions – ‘Must Read’ Documents (Download full Documents)
- “Color Revolution”: The Grassroots Takeover Technique (2009)
Strange that the educated and well articulate journalists have such difficulties to interpret a word of only three letters. The tens of thousands of banners and posters all over Greece as well as the approximately 4 million Greeks slogans on streets and squares in recent days, were not clear enough, says both the news parrots and their own government.
The panic among news readers, commentators and assorted “experts” in the Greek TV channels, was complete last night. So much drivel and hair-raising theories about how to interpret this NO. Most of them managed to twist it to that “NO meant NO to a break with the EU. And then the Swedish lawmakers on sex crimes claim that NO always is a NO. What about the rape of Greece?
The interpretations, over the whole range, of course was that NO actually means yes and that no one in Greece really wants to leave the euro and the EU. Despite the fact that people across the country have spoken of “NO to the occupation”, which we all see the Eurogroup’s and in particular the German government’s role in Greece as. These parrots need to broaden the horizons a little bit and stop drinking their coffee only to the highly polished in-cafés, where both staff and guests pose with the ridiculously bleached jaws and the ridiculously unnatural California-smiles.
Then came the real “turn off”, Tsipras own “victory speech”, in which he assured that he does not take the Greeks vote as if he had been commissioned to break with Europe, but to negotiate better terms for the “cooperation”. Firstly, you never call a choke leash “cooperation”, and secondly, we want him to throw off his choke leash and begin to actually lay the issues of debt legitimacy and agreements legitimacy on the table, and with the support in international law and even on the advice from the UN’s own human rights adviser, that Greece should refuse to pay the creditors and announce that it will not pay the debt and declare the debt and the loan agreement illegal. Let the international courts deal with the matter and in the meantime Greece will not pay a single euro of the unrecognized debt.
If someone, with such “wind in the sails” and with the main international legal bodies advice to refuse to pay, still doesn’t interpret a NO as a “NO to this sort of Europe”, one have different allegiances than what one show. So his own interpretation was thus NYES. Didn’t he read the banners and didn’t he hear the slogans, or didn’t he see the graffiti across Athens that said “NO” and “RAUS”? Didn’t his party members pass the people’s “don’t you dare” message to any further negotiations on the illegal debt and its inhumane choke leash called “loan agreement”?
This can force Tsipras to new elections and a wider coalition or a new technocrat government type Papademo’s government. In the worst case, a military dictatorship to put the Greeks in the “plaster cradle” again as that psychopath-colonel, dictator and CIA agent Papadopoulos put it, in April 21, 1967. It will be very interesting to see how the vast majority of SYRIZA will react to Tsipras, to say the least, treacherous NO interpretation. It is doubtful whether he can handle this to the end of the month, to not say the end of the week, as he again reappears to the negotiations in political “shorts” to communicate the Greek people’s position to the Brussels and Berlin commandants.
I sure hope they refueled the helicopters!
sign says we say NO to the ockupation
Big graffiti on wall in Athens
I must inform everyone who still believe the European news media’s version of what happens in Greece, and what they report about Greece and the referendum, that a huge “yes”-propaganda machinery has been unleashed from all those who with their “courts” have brought the country to this position. Of course with huge foreign support and help, since at least WWII.
EPAM’s general secretary the economist Dimitris Kazakis says:
“The YES-side is struggling to hide that YES means confiscation of deposits, salary, pension, private and public property of Greek citizens, as required by the lenders. YES means the release of layoffs without compensation, permanency of the interests of the employer, unemployment and temporary short-term work for the vast majority of Greeks. It means the continuance and increase of misery, soup kitchens, suicides and deaths because of lack of the basic necessities. All this that the lenders call bailout.
And the government? What is the government doing? At the same time that they are closing the banks, leaving them at the mercy of the deliberately caused panic among the pensioners and the private sector, in the Government Gazette, Sheet no. 1295, June 30, 2015, the government gives new guarantees in public to the Eurobank, so that this particular bank can sell its own bonds of around 1.91 billion euros, and to the Greek National Bank for 4.26 billion euros.
The government supports bankrupt banks and guarantees that the Greek taxpayer will pay their debts if these banks cannot. But when it comes to protect the people’s savings, wages and pensions, they hold up their hands. It closes banks, puts a ceiling on withdrawals and paves the way for “haircut” savings from the first euro.
At the same time, and while having announced a referendum, Mr. Tsipras submit an ostensibly own proposal based on which the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will redeem the IMF. In other words, it suggests that the Greek should be further burdened with the IMF debt with ESM money and with at least twice the rate.
And the worst, he proposes to put the whole country under the ESM, which operates as a super state with complete immunity and privileges capitulations. This will move away from the IMF, which is unable to declare Greece bankrupt the and thus surrender completely to the ESM. To a super state that has the ability to sell, dismantle, cut and maim entire Greece.
Even though he wants to hide it Mr. Tsipras can not. He is with the YES even if he in public says NO. As does the leadership of Perissos (head quarters of the communist-party) that very much would like to say yes, but for show throws in an invalid vote. The referendum has already clarified the cloudy landscape. Every crook goes back to his own counter and shows his true colors.”
The yes-side, everyone should know, are those who have become used to not work for their income, but want to keep a position in the corrupt system and the subservient Greece of the cartels and the European banksters. They exist in the top of all the established parties in Greece and in all top channels in Greece and all of them are dependent on money from the different private and political interests, domestic as foreign. It’s all those who want to keep Greece a plutocracy and an oligarchy in dependence and in the lap of the foreign vultures. And I am not talking about serious investors who have long-term interests in Greece and in accordance with the Greek people’s interests, but the vultures that roam from country to country waiting for national collapses and is pushing for such things to happen and who lives on blood money and crimes against humanity… These are the ones that EU generally mean when they talk about “investors” and those are the ones that the Eurogroup doesn’t want to disappoint.
Anyone who are advocating a “yes” in this referendum wants to put Greece in a final colonial status to Brussels and Berlin and the Greek people to become debt-serfs in their own country…
Since the images of fighting pensionaries’ stomping on eachother or chaos and havoc in ATM queues that the photographers wanted didn’t actually occur to extent that they expected, they simply arranged them or in some cases I even saw images from other parts of the world broadcasted by European media as if they were from Athens… Even a number of buses from Sofia was chartered by ND-members and filled with Bulgarians, who for 100 Euro per head acted as “yes-supporters” on Syntagma on the YES-rally. Friends tried to talk with some people and they talked some Slavic language they told me and many others discovered the same… The current European propaganda machinery is not only spreading a ridiculous kind of black “journalism” but it also is a great humiliation to the intelligence and the common sense of the European citizen. Well apart from a few remote and intellectually dark corners of Europe.
In Sweden where I happen to be at the moment, unfortunately as always almost everyone are more or less very supportive of EU’s “defend-the-criminals-and-blame-the-victims” policy, the austerity-policies and they are completely influenced by the European Brussels directed media, so they listen to and trust every imaginable crap that comes out of every media-parrot’s beak in TV. The alleged critical voices in main stream media are ludicrous and on a level that not even kids in first class would believe in Greece, Spain and Portugal. In Sweden those voices are the absolute limit for what they can handle.
But forget about the Swedes. The Europeans that are actually able to critically follow the current events are not that stupid or that well conditioned, so at this time in history the masks are falling and everyone will show their right faces and their right intents and I have quite solid reason to believe that the nations and the people in Europe with a spine will stand up and do their historic duty. The Swedes will read about it and get the point in the history books in 60 or 70 years.
by Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, Ambassador ad.H.
Published in Diario de Noticias 29.06.2015
After five months of fruitless negotiations between Greece and its lenders, the Greek Prime Minister blasted the Institutions for submitting proposals that would destroy Greece and humiliate its people. So he proposed that a referendum be held next Sunday with the question of whether or not the Greek people support the EU proposals. On Sunday morning parliament adopted the proposal and the referendum will be held next Sunday.
The EU proposals were rejected because they would have devastating effects on the country. They anticipated reduction of wages and pensions, increase in food prices and other measures affecting the middle and lower classes.
The EU never expected that the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras would dare ask for a referendum. Now attempts will be made by the EU and other circles to prevent the referendum from happening as was done in 2010. Already Christine Lagarde of the IMF made statements today saying that the Referendum will be invalid because after Tuesday the proposals will no longer exist. The Eurogroup also rejected a request from Greece to extend the exisiting program until after the referendum. Consequently as from Tuesday, the so-called financing of Greece from the institutions will stop and Greece will be obliged to pay its outstanding debt to the IMF. More attempts will take place during the week by creating panic to the people in the means of preventing access to their accounts, fomenting internal unrest etc. The EU is good in this. We saw what happened in Kiev in December 2013. But panic exists in the EU where the fear is spreading that the eurozone is collapsing.
If the outcome of the referendum is NO, then presumabely the government will inform the institutions of the will of the Greek people. It cannot be excluded that the Government denounces the Loan agreement of 2010 on the basis of articles 48-52 of the Vienna Treaty on Treaties which anticipate under which conditions an international treaty is null and void,and it covers the Greek case too. The denunciation in written form will be sent to the Secretary general of the UN, since the Vienna Treaty has been deposited at the UN, and Greece will legally stop all payments to the lenders since the Loan Agreement will be null and void. The money kept will help Greece in its road towards economic recovery. The next step will be the gradual and orderly exit of Greece from the eurozone, which will take place in a period of six months to one year. This position is also supported by the Unified Popular Front (EPAM), a party of which I am a member, and it will actively participate in support of the no vote.
If the outcome of the referendum is yes then the road for Greece to achieve colonial status will become a reality.
We are witnessing an incredible event, the EU destroying its member-states. During the last five years, the member states of the Eurozone, the EU as an institution, the IMF which is only a specialized agency of the UN, and the previous Greek governments,have violated most existing international treaties on the respect for human rights, i.e. the Lisbon treaty, the International Covenant of economic, social and cultural rights, the UN Charter etc, making them also criminally responsible for these violations. But this not our EU, it is not the EU that neither Greece, Portugal or Spain joined. It is an aberration.
I personally hope that this Greek revolution spreads to Portugal and Spain and to the other EU countries for the benefit of the peoples of Europe and of humanity.
Former Greek Diplomat and ambassador Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos talks with RT about the current situation in Greece.
Introduction: Over the past decade fundamental changes have taken place in Southern Europe, which have broken with previous political alignments, resulting in the virtual disappearance of traditional leftist ’parties, the decline of trade unions and the emergence of ‘middle class radicalism’.
New political movements, purportedly on the left, no longer are based on class conscious workers nor are they embedded in the class struggle. Likewise on the right, greater attention is paid to escalating the repressive capacity of the state instead of state intervention in pursuit of economic markets.
Radicalization of the right, including massive cutbacks in social spending, has demolished welfare programs. The dispossession of households has uprooted cohesive neighborhood-based social organizations.
In place of the class based traditional left, ‘non-leftist left’ movements have emerged. Their leaders embrace ‘participatory democracy’ but engage in vertical political practice.
On the right, politics no longer revolve around conserving national economic privileges. Rightwing leaders willingly subordinate their economies and society to imperial led crusades, which empty national sovereignty of any meaning while pillaging the national treasury.
This essay will proceed to discuss these complex changes and their meaning.
The ‘Non-Leftist Left’ in Southern Europe
The economic crisis, in particular the imposition of severe cuts in wages, pensions and other social welfare programs by rightwing and social democratic governments have led to widespread discontent, which the traditional workplace based leftist parties have been unable to address and mobilize the people. Prolonged and deepening unemployment and the growth of temporary employment have affected over 50% of the labor force.
Union representation has declined precipitously, further weakening the presence of traditional leftist parties in factories.
Large-scale evictions, foreclosure of mortgages and accompanying job losses have led to neighborhood-based anti-eviction movements and struggles. Millions of young workers now depend on their grandparents’ pensions and remain with two older generations in their parents’ home. For the young workers, the degradation of everyday life, the loss of personal autonomy and the inability to live independently have led to revolts for ‘dignity’.
The traditional left parties and trade unions have failed (or not attempted) to organize the unemployed. They have failed to attract the young and the downwardly mobile temporary workers in anything resembling class-based, class struggle-oriented movements.
Paradoxically despite the deepening crisis among most workers, the traditional left has declined. Its workplace orientation and its language of class struggle do not resonate with those without jobs or prospects. For the radicalized middle class the traditional left is too radical in seeking to overturn capitalism and too distant from power to realize changes.
The radicalized middle class includes public employees, professionals and self-employed private contractors who aspire to, and until recently, experienced upward mobility but have now found their path blocked by the austerity programs imposed by rightwing, as well as, social democratic parties.
Frustrated by the social democrats’ betrayal and facing downward mobility, the radicalized middle class are disoriented and fragmented. Many have joined amorphous street protests; some have even embraced, temporarily in most cases, the alternative traditional rightwing parties only to encounter even more brutal job cuts, insecurity and downward mobility.
The middle classes deeply resent being denied the opportunity for upward mobility for themselves and their children. They resent their formerly ‘moderately progressive’ Social Democratic leaders’ betrayal of their interests. Their radicalism is directed toward restoring their past access to social advancement. Their deep-seated hostility to the authorities is rooted in the loss of their previous status as a result of the crisis.
Middle class radicalism is tempered by nostalgia for the past. This radicalism is rooted in the struggle to restore the European Union’s social subsidies and growth policies. They remember a recent past of rising living standards and “social inclusion”, now denied their own children. This vision guides the rhetoric that the progressive middle class had earned and enjoyed theirrising incomes as a result of their own ‘merit’.
Today the radicalized middle class looks for practical, specifically defined and government-sponsored policies that can restore their past prosperity. They do not aim to ‘level the playing field’ for everyone but to prevent their proletariazation. They reject the politics of the traditional left parties because class struggle and worker-centered ideologies do not promote their own social aspirations.
For most radicalized middle class activists the culprits are ‘austerity’, the mega-bank swindlers and the political kleptocrats. They seek parties that can reform or moralize capitalism and restore ‘individual dignity’. They want to kick out corrupt officials. They demand ‘participatory democracy’ rather than the traditional left’s goal of public ownership under worker control.
Under the specific conditions generated by the current social crisis, a non-leftist left (NLL) has emerged throughout Europe. Spontaneous, amorphous, ‘anarchic’, extra-institutional and ‘street-centered’, the NLL has adopted an irreverent style. The NLL, in its origins, rejected political parties, well-defined programs and disciplined cadres in favor of spontaneity and irreverence toward institutions.
As the appeal of the NLL grew, the unemployed, the temporary workers, the insecure and unprotected non-unionized workers and the radicalized middle class joined demonstrations and found safety in the crowds. They were attracted by the appeals from ‘the street’ to oust the incumbent kleptocrats.
Emerging from this movement aimed at the downwardly mobile middle class’ anger, Podemosin Spain, Syriza in Greece and Five Stars in Italy have appealed to all the people disconnected from power, by promising a restoration of ‘dignity and respect.’ They made amorphous appeals to ‘end austerity’ with only a vague promise that they would create jobs.
The NLL leadership, however, is most clearly influenced by the non-radical resentments of the downwardly mobile middle class.
They never engaged in class struggles and have rejected class ideology. For the NLL leaders, social polarization is mostly a vehicle for building an electoral base. Their participation in small-scale local struggles was presented as ‘proof’ that the NLL leaders spoke to authentic popular aspirations.
The Non-Leftist Left’s Transition: From Street to Public Office
From the street, the NLL moved swiftly to elections and from elections they proceeded to form coalitions with traditional parties. Strategic decisions were taken by a small coterie of personalistic leaders: They redefined ‘participatory democracy’ to refer only to local neighborhood activism and issues – not national issues, which were the realm of ‘experts’.
Syriza, the first NLL to reach power, reflected the immense gap between the radical posturingof its leaders in opposition and their cringing conformity before Established Power (the Troika: IMF, European Commission, Central Bank) once elected to government.
Syriza embodied middle class resentment toward the Euro-technocratic elite in Brussels whom they blamed for their loss of past prosperity and job security and for the ongoing degradation of everyday life. Syriza denounced the Troika while it remained under its tutelage. It excoriatedthe EU elite in the highest moral tones for doing what its elite class interests dictated, that is, defend the EU bankers, extract debt payments and threaten their underlings. In practice,Syriza never applied any class analysis to the Troika’s policy as it continued to refer to their ‘EU partners’. ..even as they imposed brutall demands.
Once in power the Syriza leaders never mobilized a single mass protest and never even threatened a general strike in the face of EU colonial dictates.
Syriza’s personalist leader, Alexis Tsipra,s appointed right wingers from former regimes to key posts. He negotiated with the Troika and caved on all strategic issues dealing with debt payments, austerity and privatizations. Syriza never considered ‘going to the people’. Syriza’s‘moral crusade’ against capitalism ended by their embracing capitalism and the colonial Eurozone system.
Syriza’s lack of class analysis, class struggle and class mobilization and its total commitment to working within a moralized capitalism and the Eurozone to restore middle class status and security has resulted in the most abject conformity and surrender – punctuated by shameless buffoonery on the part of some leaders.
In the end, Syriza surrendered to the dictates of higher powers of the Troika ad their Eurozone acolytes, but not until it had emptied the Greek Treasury. The leaders have combined the worst of all worlds: a bankrupt national economy, a ‘protesting’ but fundamentally colonial regime and a disenchanted electorate.
Where Syriza wildly succeeded was in marginalizing the traditional left (the Greek Communist Party). It reaffirmed the historic pattern: free floating movements of the moment end up being run by personalistic leaders who presume to speak for “the people” while bending over to their overseas overlords.
NLL in Spain and Italy: Podemos and Five Stars
Podemos in Spain and Five Stars in Italy are ready to follow Syriza’s path of colonial subservience. They rejected and successfully marginalized the traditional left. They have gained mass support, organized mass protests and loudly rejected austerity and the dictates of the Troika.
While Podemos leaders talk of ‘participatory democracy’, a handful of leaders make all policy pronouncements, decide which candidates to support in the elections and determine what kind of post-election coalition governments they will join.
What gives Podemos and Five Stars their radical appearance is their opposition to the governing parties, their rejection of ‘austerity’, their criticism of neoliberalism – and their support for ‘micro-politics’ of local grassroots direct-action.
At no time or place have they counterpoised an alternative to capitalism. Nor have they repudiated illicit debts or supported the expropriation of the banks responsible for the pillage their economies.
Podemos and Five Stars deliberately obscure their politics: They are whatever any of their affiliates’ claim to be…
The leaders raise populist demands and speak about ‘dignity’, employment and punishment of corrupt officials. They call for an end to authoritarian measures, but avoid any real commitments to institutional change, especially of the repressive courts, police or armed forces.
Podemos and Five Stars criticize the EU’s austerity programs while staying in the EU as subordinate members of an organization dominated by German bankers. They promote popular mobilizations which they have turned into vote-gathering machines for electing their members to office.
The NLLs contradictory politics of populist gestures and institutional commitments reflect the politics of a frustrated and blocked middle class demanding a restoration of its past status and security. Podemos and Five Stars leaders put on the grand show of thumbing their noses at the establishment to promote limited middle class demands. On a much broader front, the leaders of the NLL have not organized any mass protests – let alone formed a mass movement which would seriously challenge the imperialist powers, NATO, the Middle East wars and US-EU sanctions against Russia.
Since most of their supporters are anti NATO, in favor of Palestinian independence and critical of the Kiev regime the popular base of the NLL will act on their own but will have no real impact on the current national leadership.
The reason for the disparity between leaders and followers is clear: The NLL leaders intend to form post-electoral coalitions with the corrupt and reactionary ‘center left’ parties so despised and rejected by their own electorate.
Following the nationwide Spanish municipal and regional elections, Podemos allied with corrupt Socialist Party (PSOE). In the municipality of Madrid, Podemos supported the left-center coalition Ahora Madrid (Madrid Now), which in turn has allied with the center-right Socialists to elect the ‘progressive’ mayoral candidate, Manuela Carmena.
While the entire ‘progressive camp’ celebrates the defeat of the hard-right Popular Party candidate –little has been said about consequential changes in the municipal and regional budgets, structures of economic power and class relations.
‘Five Stars’,( Movimento Cinque Stelle or M5S), Italy’s non-leftist left is dominated by a single ‘anti-leader’, Beppe Grillo, he defines the party’s programs and affiliations. He is known for making clownish, provocative gestures against the authorities, calling for a “Fuck the Parliament Day”.
It is Beppe who selects the candidates to run for Parliament. While in opposition, M5S loudly opposed all NATO wars in the Middle East, US military interventions in Latin America and free trade agreements. But now ensconced in the European Parliament, Beppe has aligned with the Libertarian Right.
Five Stars (M5S) central demands revolve around ‘direct democracy’ and ‘sustainable development’. It has captured the electoral support of the majority of the lower middle classgaining 26% of the vote (9 million voters) in the 2013 general elections.
While Beppe and his colleagues engage in fist fights within the Parliament, make radical gestures and spout belligerent rhetoric, ‘M5S’ has not supported a workers general strike. It participates in each and every election, but has stayed away from factory struggles.
Radicalism, as grand ‘gesture politics’, is an entertaining, non-threatening response to capitalism since there is no concerted effort to form class alliances with workers engaged in workplace struggles.
‘M5S’, like Podemos and Syriza, expresses the disorganized radicalism of the young, frustrated lower middle class raging against their downward mobility, while refusing to breakwith the EU .They rail against the concentration of power in the hands of the banks, but refuse to pursue their nationalization. M5S mobilized 800,000 people in Rome recently but led them nowhere. ‘Five Stars’ convokes crowds to meet and cheer its leaders and to ridicule the power brokers. Afterwards they all go home.
While the ‘NLL’ movements capture the support of the ‘indignant’, the mass of unemployed workers and the evicted householders, their leaders do not articulate a serious plan of action capable of challenging the economic power structures: they raise popular expectations via demands for ‘change’. However, these vague and deceptive slogans allow the NLL leaders to join in a medley of opportunist electoral coalitions and governmental alliances, with decidedly establishment personalities and parties.
In Greece, Italy and Spain the traditional left has either disappeared, or shrunk to a marginal force. With little or no base outside of the workplace and trade unions, they barely secure five percent of the votes.
The NLL has deepened the isolation of the traditional left and has even attracted a part of its social base. NLL’s rejection of the traditional left’s tight organization and top down leadership and its pluralistic rhetoric appeals to the young. Moreover, as the left trade unions have sought compromises with the bosses to save the jobs of employed workers and ignored the unemployed, the latter has looked to the ‘open and spontaneous’ NLL to express their opposition. In Spain’s municipal elections, the United Left, a Communist-led electoral formation, joined with Podemos to elect Manuela Carmena, the ‘insurgent mayor’ of Madrid.
While the Euro-US academic left has rightly celebrated the emergence of mass opposition to the rightist regimes in Southern Europe, they have failed to understand the internal dynamicswithin the NLL movements: the limitations of middle class radicalism and their conformists’ goals.
The example of Syriza in Greece is a warning of the fatal consequences of middle class leaders trying to realize radical changes, within the neo-liberal framework imposed by the EU.
Currently, the best example of the opportunism and bankruptcy of the NLL is found in the successful Mayor-elect of Madrid, Manuela Carmena, whose victory was hailed by Podemos as the ‘great victory for the people’ at recent celebration.
For her part, Mayor-elect Carmena has wasted no time repudiating all ‘five basic emergency reforms’ promised during the elections. In a press conference, the so-called ‘progressive Mayor of Madrid’ announced (with a cynical grin) that ‘promise number one’ – a public bank – was no longer needed because she was satisfied to work with the private banking oligarchy. She refused to pursue ‘promise number two’ – to provide subsidies for electricity, water and gas for poor families cut off from those services, claiming such support was too early and could wait until winter
Regarding Podemos ‘promise number three’ – a debt moratorium, Carmena insisted that “we will keep paying, for now”. On ‘promise number four’ favoring public over private contractors for municipal contracts, Carmena reversed the position: “We can’t change right away”.
Carmena even repudiated ‘promise number five’ – to immediately implement a summer meals program for poor children, insisting that she would rely on the inadequate programs of far right predecessor.
Moreover, Mayor-elect Carmena went even further, staffing her administration with far-right holdovers from the previous government to strategic policy-making positions. For example, sheappointed Carmen Roman, a former Director General of the far right Prime Minister Aznar, as Senior Executive of Madrid. She defended these reactionary decisions claiming that she was looking for “technocrats who are the best professional administrations”. Indeed, Carmen Roman had implemented mass firing of public workers and the dismantling of social programs in the ‘best professional’ manner possible!
Carmena further betrayed her Podemos electorate by insisting she looked forward to working with the hard right Prime Minister Rajoy and flatly rejected the idea of promoting a progressive alternative!
In less than one week, the euphoria over the victory of Podemos backed candidates has been dissipated by these acts of cynical opportunism: the non-leftist left has betrayed its electorate, from the very start!
Many countries in the world see the U.S. as the single greatest external threat to their societies.
During the latest episode of the Washington farce that has astonished a bemused world, a Chinese commentator wrote that if the United States cannot be a responsible member of the world system, perhaps the world should become “de-Americanized” — and separate itself from the rogue state that is the reigning military power but is losing credibility in other domains.
The Washington debacle’s immediate source was the sharp shift to the right among the political class. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been described sardonically — but not inaccurately — as a one-party state: the business party, with two factions called Democrats and Republicans.
That is no longer true. The U.S. is still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction: moderate Republicans, now called New Democrats (as the U.S. Congressional coalition styles itself).
There is still a Republican organization, but it long ago abandoned any pretense of being a normal parliamentary party. Conservative commentator Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute describes today’s Republicans as “a radical insurgency — ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition”: a serious danger to the society.
The party is in lock-step service to the very rich and the corporate sector. Since votes cannot be obtained on that platform, the party has been compelled to mobilize sectors of the society that are extremist by world standards. Crazy is the new norm among Tea Party members and a host of others beyond the mainstream.
The Republican establishment and its business sponsors had expected to use them as a battering ram in the neoliberal assault against the population — to privatize, to deregulate and to limit government, while retaining those parts that serve wealth and power, like the military.
The Republican establishment has had some success, but now finds that it can no longer control its base, much to its dismay. The impact on American society thus becomes even more severe. A case in point: the virulent reaction against the Affordable Care Act and the near-shutdown of the government.
The Chinese commentator’s observation is not entirely novel. In 1999, political analyst Samuel P. Huntington warned that for much of the world, the U.S. is “becoming the rogue superpower,” seen as “the single greatest external threat to their societies.”
A few months into the Bush term, Robert Jervis, president of the American Political Science Association, warned that “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.” Both Huntington and Jervis warned that such a course is unwise. The consequences for the U.S. could be harmful.
In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, the leading establishment journal, David Kaye reviews one aspect of Washington’s departure from the world: rejection of multilateral treaties “as if it were sport.”
He explains that some treaties are rejected outright, as when the U.S. Senate “voted against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2012 and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999.”
Others are dismissed by inaction, including “such subjects as labor, economic and cultural rights, endangered species, pollution, armed conflict, peacekeeping, nuclear weapons, the law of the sea, and discrimination against women.”
Rejection of international obligations “has grown so entrenched,” Kaye writes, “that foreign governments no longer expect Washington’s ratification or its full participation in the institutions treaties create. The world is moving on; laws get made elsewhere, with limited (if any) American involvement.”
While not new, the practice has indeed become more entrenched in recent years, along with quiet acceptance at home of the doctrine that the U.S. has every right to act as a rogue state.
To take a typical example, a few weeks ago U.S. special operations forces snatched a suspect, Abu Anas al-Libi, from the streets of the Libyan capital Tripoli, bringing him to a naval vessel for interrogation without counsel or rights. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry informed the press that the actions are legal because they comply with American law, eliciting no particular comment.
Principles are valid only if they are universal. Reactions would be a bit different, needless to say, if Cuban special forces kidnapped the prominent terrorist Luis Posada Carriles in Miami, bringing him to Cuba for interrogation and trial in accordance with Cuban law.
Such actions are restricted to rogue states. More accurately, to the one rogue state that is powerful enough to act with impunity: in recent years, to carry out aggression at will, to terrorize large regions of the world with drone attacks, and much else.
And to defy the world in other ways, for example by persisting in its embargo against Cuba despite the long-term opposition of the entire world, apart from Israel, which voted with its protector when the United Nations again condemned the embargo (188-2) in October.
Whatever the world may think, U.S. actions are legitimate because we say so. The principle was enunciated by the eminent statesman Dean Acheson in 1962, when he instructed the American Society of International Law that no legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its “power, position, and prestige.”
Cuba committed that crime when it beat back a U.S. invasion and then had the audacity to survive an assault designed to bring “the terrors of the earth” to Cuba, in the words of Kennedy adviser and historian Arthur Schlesinger.
When the U.S. gained independence, it sought to join the international community of the day. That is why the Declaration of Independence opens by expressing concern for the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
A crucial element was evolution from a disorderly confederacy to a unified “treaty-worthy nation,” in diplomatic historian Eliga H. Gould’s phrase, that observed the conventions of the European order. By achieving this status, the new nation also gained the right to act as it wished internally.
It could thus proceed to rid itself of the indigenous population and to expand slavery, an institution so “odious” that it could not be tolerated in England, as the distinguished jurist William Murray, Earl of Mansfield, ruled in 1772. Evolving English law was a factor impelling the slave-owning society to escape its reach.
Becoming a treaty-worthy nation thus conferred multiple advantages: foreign recognition, and the freedom to act at home without interference. Hegemonic power offers the opportunity to become a rogue state, freely defying international law and norms, while facing increased resistance abroad and contributing to its own decline through self-inflicted wounds.
Everybody on this planet knows very well that since WWII the US governments has managed to acquire the longest criminal record in the history of mankind.
Only the insane, the emotionally constipated and the long term victims of exactly the manufacturing of consent policies that Chomsky talk about in this interview wouldn’t see that. The American nation managed to go from a rather popular country to a widely hated country because of what US foreign-policy, the CIA-methods and the NSA-practices had developed into, in just a decade after the WWII.
They managed this primarily by saving, protecting, inheriting and developing the Nazi-policies, methods and tactics into American foreign policies and intelligence service’s methods and by justifying their existence through continuous bogus roomers and lies about non-existing threats, and through false-flag attacks. The infamous universal justification for aggression is the security of the nation and the safety of the citizens doctrines. Doctrines that only US, Israel and a couple of the former colonial powers in EU have the right to practice.
The whole post-war world had become pro-American and both in Asia, the Arab world and in Latin America people looked at the American Dream life-style that Hollywood, the American car industry, McDonald’s and Walt Disney promoted, and they deliberately connected these newly advertised, displayed and spread values and liberties as the modern democratic world’s step into a new era of freedom.
The USSR, the nation that actually fought the Nazis fiercely throughout the war and that had defeated them, had in the western world already been pictured and presented as the new cruel dictatorial state, “the threat to the free world”. So from then on everyone could easily compare what they had learned was trustworthy, adequate reports of facts, and what news they spread about the USSR and about America’s own rising pseudo-democratic, imperialistic super-power.
Although most thinking people in the world understands the difference between the American citizens and the American government, by now the world’s citizens sympathies are primarily on the side of the victims of America and Israel. And I have a strong reason to suspect that as long as young American’s continue to, quite non-critically, buy their government’s crap and really believe that they will implement democracy in this way, the further the generalization of American citizens will escalate and fewer and fewer will care about the lives of those who doesn’t care about ours.
The last 40 years of hate that American government policy and the different CIA-operations around the world, has provoked and brought upon themselves and the American people, is really NOT because people outside America “envy” their freedom or their “way of life”. Something that American officials and presidents always explains it with but they could never present a single survey that supported those highly ethnocentric assumptions. According to all American presidents since Johnson, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that USA have developed the most aggressive and lethal, globally spread, neo-colonial policies and legalized state-terror that one can find since the Nazis and the WWII.
Watch movies from other parts of the world from the 50’s and 60’s and see that from the Arab-world to the both Arctic regions and almost everything in between, apart from the USSR influenced parts people adored and copied American film industry, fashion and life-style. This, until the true backside of this coin became obvious through the Vietnam war and people could therefore see the lies and the fake promises of this new hypocritical super power.
It was two particular events that turned a big part of the citizens of the world against USA before the Vietnam war. The USA/UK-promoted Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the USA/UK interests in Iran and the toppling of the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh. These both events helped the Islamic fundamentalist movements more than anything else had since its birth in 622 AD. Those two world events was the first indications and shocking evidences of a new real imperialistic terror-state rising in the post-war world.
Hitler’s war crimes, crimes against humanity and dictatorial excuses for ruthlessness and terror, was USA’s expressed reasons when they, first after two years of Nazi-rule in Europe, joined WWII. So it wasn’t at all “to save Europe” or to “fight for Justice and Democracy”. It was to not miss the geopolitical grab-and-scramble meal between England and the Soviet Union after the war. Roosevelt saw the chance to display himself and the USA as the saviors of Europe. This false assumption is what still color the view on USA to many Europeans. Except those who saw what USA was really after.
The August 14, 1941 Atlantic Charter established a vision for a post-World War II world, despite the fact the United States had yet to enter the War. The participants hoped in vain that the Soviet Union, having been invaded in June by her previous ally Nazi Germany, would adhere as well. In brief, the eight points were:
1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;
2. territorial adjustments must conform to the people involved;
3. the right to self-determination of peoples;
4. trade barriers lowered;
5. postwar disarmament;
6. freedom from want and fear;
7. freedom of the seas;
8. an association of nations.
Yeah, that worked out well! Actually, as a lip-service manuscript it still works out, for those who want to defend anything USA do today outside their borders and condemn anything the dissidents of US policies point at.
Nowadays, when we know about all the false-flag-operations, the proxy wars, the dehumanizing propaganda and the torture in American or American led detention and correctional facilities, it definitely looks like if they entered the war to slap the former “terror-experts” on their fingers, take-over their “terror-gurus” and their methods, tactics and rhetorical excuses for cruelty based on their pseudo-history and racist-logic.
Through the several thousands of Nazi and Fascist war criminals that the US army saved from the hands of the Red Army in the end of the war, they developed and established CIA, NSA and further developed FBI. To support that paradigm the EU was formed on Nazi-policies and by Nazis. Five years before Mr Holtstein became the first head of the EU, he was still in Spandau prison for war crimes.
Those who still refuse and deny to see this in the light of International Law, UN-conventions, the fundamental democratic principles and pure humanity, are as guilty to the atrocities of today as the Nuremberg Trials found the German citizens to be, who lived close to the 23 main extermination camps or any of the 1200 sub-camps. The citizens themselves claiming that they “didn’t know” or “couldn’t believe the roomers” still were taken by armed escort to the extermination camps to see the hills and piles of dead bodies.
The interviewer here, as well as the absolute majority of the western main stream media’s broadcasters, news anchors and “experts”, have hypocrisy ear-plugs on and most of them are victims of this kind of programming. The tops of the hierarchies in media are very aware of where exactly these policies are leading and they gain a lot by paving the way for such policies. “A hypocrite is one who condemn other peoples crimes, but refuses to look at his own crimes” says Noam Chomsky in this interview, and nothing could be more profoundly true nowadays and no other frequent, behaviour could manifest the racist-ideology’s rise so well as the western mass media’s tolerance and obvious promotion of clearly dehumanizing and misanthropic sentiments in the world.
Articles further explaining these issues
In their broadcasting of 30.5.2015 by Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert drew parallels between austerity and policies imposed today by Germany in EU countries, with the austerity and other measures imposed on the colonies of the British Empire, which led to the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and they are urging Greeks to declare their independence from the EU, the IMF and the cleptocracy of Brussels.
Ελλάδα κήρυξε την ανεξαρτησία σου!
Στην εκπομπη τους της 30.05.2015 ο Max Keiser και η Stacy Herbert παραλληλίζουν την λιτότητα και τις πολιτικές που επιβάλλει σήμερα η Γερμανία στις χώρες της ΕΕ με την λιτότητα και άλλα σχετικά μέτρα που επέβαλε στις αποικίες της η Βρετανική Αυτοκρατορία, τα οποία προκάλεσαν την Αμερικανική Επανάσταση και τη Διακήρυξη της Ανεξαρτησίας το 1776 και προτρέπουν τους Έλληνες να κηρύξουν την ανεξαρτησία τους από την ΕΕ, το ΔΝΤ και την κλεπτοκρατία των Βρυξελλών.
Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos is a third generation diplomat and former Ambassador of Greece to Canada, Poland and Armenia. He was Director General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece and Secretary General of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization. Extremely knowledgable on issues of the EU and on what is happenning in Greece now, Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos was a junior diplomat in the team that negotiated Greece’s accession to the EEC. He is now against Greece’s membership to the EU and believes that the EU is destroying his country. He is a member of EPAM (Unified Popular Front), a movement that was founded in the wake of the protests of 2010 and 2011.
Julia Vladimirova met him.
“You were on the delegation that negotiated Greece’s accession to the European Community. Why are you now against it?”
” I was in the team that negotiated Greece’s accession to the EEC, as it was called then. The decision to join the EEC was taken in 1975 by Konstantinos Karamanlis and it was based on two political reasons : The first was to consolidate democracy in Greece, that had just been restored after a seven year dictatorship. The other was to give us some protection against Turkey that had just invaded Cyprus in July 1974. During that period the EEC was a serious organization. During the dictatorship it rendered enormous assistance to the democratic forces to fight against the military regime.”
“Now you want to take Merkel and Barroso to court and to leave the EU.What brought about such a radical change in your thinking?”
“In December 2009 I gave an interview to the Greek newspaper “Eleftherotypia” and the title of the interview was “Nightmare a fascist Europe”. It is true that the EU has become more and more undemocratic. It is no longer the democratic organization that we had joined back then. It is also destroying its member states. In Greece it is being done with the austerity measures that have been imposed upon us. Everything is being destroyed : our society, our economy, our culture, our education and our people. So why should we belong to an organization that destroys us. Only a masochist would. I would suggest that the EU be dismantled and be replaced by a new EU that would be working for the interests of the European people and not for the interests of the European bankers.”
“What advice would you give to the young people who believe in the EU? For example in Bulgaria we are also in crisis. There are protests in Sofia. All intellectuals, the elite, and also young educated people believe that their future lies within the EU and that it will help our country to reach higher standards, higher wages. What would you say to these people?”
“I would tell them to closely follow the events in Greece, since what happens to us most likely would happen to them. We are being told by the EU, that in order to become competitive, we must reach Bulgarian standards, as far as wages are concerned. However they will never tell you that you must reach Greek standards, but perhaps they might propose to you to reach Pakistani levels. However, I do not wish to impose my opinion upon them. Just let them follow the developments in Greece and reach their conclusions.”
“How was EPAM created? I know that it was created as a result of the protest movement of 2010.”
“EPAM’s members come from all aspects of politics. From the Communist left, center and right. It is a movement created by the demonstrations of 2010. It became a party about one and a half year ago. We participated in the first elections during the crisis and received 60000 votes or 1% of the total national vote, which can be considered as quite satisfactory for a six month old party. We believe that Greece needs a regime change. We do not recognize the debt or the memoranda. We support the formation of a provisional government and then the election of a Constitutional Assembly that will formulate the new constitution that would, for example, prohibit former politicians to run for parliament while allowing the new ones not to serve more than two terms and in this way end the profession of politicians. We shall also leave the eurozone as a first step and later on the EU. All those who have contributed to the destruction of the country will be tried. We shall also file charges against Brussels at the competent International courts for crimes against humanity, since about four thousand people have committed suicide because of the pressure of the crisis and also ask for reparations for the damage done. In brief this is the EPAM program.”
In politics, whoever can better influence the international media to push forward their views has the upper hand, say political communications insiders. And this isn’t just the case during election campaigns: in the European Union, decision-making power depends not only on the size of a given player’s economy, but also on how it deals with international media.
It’s no secret that in Brussels lies a well-oiled media machine, which can distribute information to all major media outlets across the continent in a matter of hours. The machine, which has risen in influence since the financial crisis broke in 2008, operates on the basis of maintaining the anonymity of journalists’ sources that feed it; one of the sacred principles of journalistic ethics.
However, here this principle of anonymity is also used to protect the Brussels media machine itself and ensuring it remains hidden from public view. No journalist in the Belgian capital is prepared to risk their job to expose how the system works, thus preserving a ‘code of silence’ around it.
The most influential group in the Brussels media machine is made up of the euro zone’s ‘hard core’ bloc. This means the Permanent Representation of Germany, located in Brussels, and assisted by political and financial satellite countries of Germany: Spain, Portugal, Slovakia and the Baltic states (among which, Latvia currently holds the EU presidency). France and Italy have clearly less influence and access in this system.
In terms of collection and distribution of news, the main players in the system are the three major European-level media outlets: the agencies Reuters and Bloomberg, and the Financial Times newspaper. Whatever this group reports, all other media outlets in Europe rush to reproduce. Thus – intentionally or not – articles published by the group are spread widely.
Information that enters the Brussels media machine comes from three sources: people working inside the EU bureaucracy who monitor critical meetings (interpreters as well as civil servants), the politicians themselves (or their aides) and senior officials of the European institutions. These sources are used to satisfy the need for timely, exclusive coverage of news events, which makes journalists extremely competitive in pursuing information on what is discussed during these meetings.
The most common means of communication from these sources to journalists is SMS. When it comes to more detailed leaks though, journalists from the three main media players (together with others from mostly German and British outlets) are invited to an unofficial press conference and briefed. This has been the case for the past few months.
In these meetings, the person doing the briefing is very often an official that also works at the European Commission’s Spokesperson’s Service. Of German origin, this man sets aside EU etiquette as well as the theoretical neutrality of his professional position.
A recent example that highlights how well this system functions was in Riga, during the recent Eurogroup meeting. On April 23, Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis participated in a dinner with his colleagues, in order to prepare the issues for the forthcoming meeting. Everything proceeded normally. But the following day, the media ‘revealed’ highly aggressive rhetoric against Varoufakis from his colleagues during the Eurogroup meeting itself.
That same senior official of the European Commission, moments after the conclusion of the Eurogroup meeting, invited eight journalists for the ‘established’ daily informal press conference. “There was a lot of anger towards the Greek delegation,” a Brussels-based journalist, who asked to remain anonymous, told us. “When we asked about Mr Varoufakis’ position in the meeting, the official said ‘The guy lives on another planet’, and made derogatory gestures. This isn’t something we’ve seen before – neither from EU officials nor this particular person.”
An identical ‘update’ was given by two further EU officials, one working for the Eurogroup and one from a diplomatic mission of a Southern European country. “They were equally aggressive; trying to present Mr Varoufakis as an ‘alien’”, said the journalist, who was present during these discussions. “When we got to the heart of the matter concerning the Greek economy, the ‘sources’ refused to say any more. They just blamed Varoufakis.” These briefings were followed by tough statements from various ministers, echoing the German government’s point of view.
This specific information about the events of the Eurogroup meeting in Riga was published in all three aforementioned major media outlets, giving the impression of a war-like atmosphere at the meeting and breaking the unwritten rule of maintaining a professional distance from harsh words. Following these events, the Greek delegation decided for Varoufakis to not attend the planned dinner on the evening of April 24, to express his displeasure with the way his colleagues treated him and Greece. However, the ‘aggression’ from ministers, EU officials and the media did not subside. On the contrary, Reuters presented Varoufakis as “isolated”, simply because he did not attend the dinner, without asking for a statement from the Greek side. They also commented on Varoufakis’ decision not to wear a tie.
The go-ahead for this latest smear campaign was given by SMS, from a German official to a journalist at one of the three major media outlets. The journalist in question then called some of his sources in Athens in order to warn them what was coming.
During the Eurogroup meetings last February, the Greek government tried to breach the seemingly impenetrable ‘media wall’ being built around it. “The fact that the draft of Jeroen Dijsselbloem’s ‘decision’ was leaked by the Greek delegation, which essentially subverted debate on it, outraged many people in Brussels,” the journalist told us. “War was declared, and from that point on, the Greek positions were repeatedly leaked to Peter Spiegel of the Financial Times,” he added.
“Will Mr Varoufakis be able to survive the pressure?” asked the journalist. “At least Mr Tsipras still trusts him,” we replied.
“Then inform them in Greece, both the government and the people, that they can expect even more of these attacks,” he said.
Syriza: Plunder, Pillage and Prostration. (How the ‘Hard Left’ embraces the policies of the Hard Right)
Introduction: Greece has been in the headlines of the world’s financial press for the past five months, as a newly elected leftist party, ‘Syriza’, which ostensibly opposes so-called ‘austerity measures’, faces off against the “Troika” (International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and European Central Bank).
Early on, the Syriza leadership, headed by Alexis Tsipras, adopted several strategic positionswith fatal consequences – in terms of implementing their electoral promises to raise living standards, end vassalage to the ‘Troika’ and pursue an independent foreign policy.
We will proceed by outlining the initial systemic failures of Syriza and the subsequent concessions further eroding Greek living standards and deepening Greece’s role as an active collaborator of US and Israeli imperialism.
Winning Elections and Surrendering Power
The North American and European Left celebrated Syriza’s election victory as a break with neo-liberal austerity programs and the launch of a radical alternative, which would implement popular initiatives for basic social changes, including measures generating employment, restoring pensions, reversing privatizations, reordering government priorities and favoring payments to employees over foreign banks. The “evidence” for the radical reform agenda was contained in the ‘Thessaloniki Manifesto’ which Syriza promised to be the program guiding their newly elected officials.
However, prior to, and immediately after being elected, Syriza leaders adopted three basic decisions precluding any basic changes: Indeed, these decisions set it on a reactionary course.
First and foremost, Syriza accepted as legitimate the foreign debt of over $350 billion dollars, although most had been signed by previous government Kleptocrats, corrupt banks, business, real estate and financial interests. Virtually none of this debt was used to finance productive activity or vital services which would strengthen the economy and Greece’s future ability to payback the loans.
Hundreds of billions of Euros were stashed away in foreign bank accounts and foreign real estate or invested in overseas stocks and bonds. After affirming the ‘legitimacy’ of the illicit debt, Syriza followed up by declaring its ‘willingness’ to pay the debt. The ‘Troika’ immediately understood that the new Syriza government would be a willing hostage to further coercion, blackmail and debt payments.
Secondly, and related to the above, Syriza declared its determination to remain in the European Union and Eurozone and thus accepted the surrender of its sovereignty and ability to fashion an independent policy. It declared its willingness to submit to the dictates of the Troika. Once under the thumb of the Troika, Syriza’s only policy would be to ‘negotiate’, ‘renegotiate’ and make further concessions to the EU overseas banks in a totally one-sided process. Syriza’s rapid submission to the Troika was their second strategic, but not their last, betrayal of its electoral program.
Once Syriza demonstrated to the Troika, its willingness to betray its popular program, the Troika escalated its demands and hardened its intransigence. Brussels discounted Syriza’sleftist rhetoric and radical theatrical gestures as blowing smoke in the eyes of the Greek electorate. The EU bankers knew that when it came time to negotiate new loan agreements, the Syriza leadership would capitulate. Meanwhile, the Euro-American Left swallowed Syriza’s entire radical rhetoric without looking at its actual practice.
Thirdly, on taking office, Syriza negotiated a coalition with the far-right, pro-NATO, xenophobic, anti-immigrant Independent Greeks Party, guaranteeing that Greece would continue to support NATO’s military policies in the Middle East, the Ukraine and Israel’s brutal campaign against Palestine.
Fourthly, the bulk of Prime Minister Tsipras cabinet appointees had no experience of class struggle .Worse still, most were academics and former PASOK advisers without any capacity or willingness to break with the dictates of the Troika. Their academic ‘practice’ consisted largely of theoretical ‘combat’, ill-suited for real-world confrontation with aggressive imperial powers.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
By capitulating to the EU from the outset, including accepting to pay the illegitimate debt, hooking up with the Far Right and submitting to the dictates of the Troika, the stage was set for SYRIZA to betray all its promises and to worsen the economic burden for its supporters. The worst betrayals include: (1) not restoring pension payments; (2) not restoring the minimum wage; (3) not reversing privatizations; (4) not ending austerity programs; and (5) not increasing funds for education, health, housing and local development.
The Troika and its publicists in the financial press are demanding that Syriza cut the Greek pension system even further ,impoverishing over 1.5 million retired workers. Contrary to the media’s planted ‘examples’ of fat pensions enjoyed by less then 5% of pensioners, the Greeks have suffered the deepest pension reductions in Europe over the past century. In just the last past 4 years the Troika cut Greek pensions eight times. The vast majority of pensions have been slashed by nearly 50% since 2010.The average pension is 700 Euros a month but 45%of Greek pensioners receive less than 665 Euros a month – below the poverty line. Yet the Troika demands even greater reductions. These include an end of budget subsidies for pensioners living in extreme poverty, an increase in the retirement age to 67, an abolition of pension provisions tied to hazardous occupations and for working mothers. The earlier regressive measures, imposed by the Troika and implemented by the previous right-wing coalition regime, severely depleted the Greek pension fund. In 2012, the Troika’s ‘debt restructuring’ program led to the loss of 25 billion Euros of reserves held by the Greek government in government bonds. Troika austerity policies ensured that the pension reserves would not be replenished. Contributions plummeted as unemployment soared to nearly 30% (Financial Times 6/5/15 p4). Despite the Troika’s frontal assault on the Greek pension system, Syriza’s “economic team” expressed its willingness to raise the retirement age, cut pensions by 5% and negotiate further betrayals of pensioners facing destitution. Syriza has not only failed to fulfill its campaign promise to reverse the previous regressive policies, but is engaged in its own ‘pragmatic’ sellouts with the Troika.
Worse still, Syriza has deepened and extended the policies of its reactionary predecessors. (1)Syriza promised to freeze privatizations: Now it vows to extend them by 3.2 billion Eurosand privatize new public sectors. (2) Syriza has agreed to shift scarce public resources to the military, including an investment of $500 million Euros to upgrade the Greek Air Force. (3) Syriza plundered the national pension fund and municipal treasuries of over a billion Euros to meet debt payments to the Troika. (4) Syriza is cutting public investments in job creating infrastructure projects to meet Troika deadlines. ( 5) Syriza has agreed to a budget surplus of 0.6% at a time when Greece is running a 0.7% deficit this year – meaning more cuts later this year. (6) Syriza promised to reduce the VAT on essentials like food; now it accepts a 23% rate.
Syriza’s foreign policy mimics its predecessors. Syriza’s far right Defense Minister, Panos Kammenos, has been a vocal supporter of the US and EU sanctions against Russia- despite the usual flurry of Syriza’s faked “dissent” to NATO policies, followed by total capitulation – to remain in good standing with NATO. The Syriza regime has allowed each and every well-known kleptocrat and tax evader to retain their illicit wealth and to add to their overseas holdings with massive transfers of their current ‘savings’ out of the country. By the end of May 2015, Prime Minister Tsipras and Finance Minister Varofakis have emptied the Treasury to meet debt payments, increasing the prospects that pensioners and public sector workers will not receive their benefits. Having emptied the Greek Treasury, Syriza will now impose the “Troika solution” on the backs of the impoverished Greek masses: either sign-off on a new “austerity” plan, lowering pensions, increasing retirement age, eliminating labor laws protecting workers’ job security and negotiating rights or face an empty treasury, no pensions, rising unemployment and deepening economic depression. Syriza has deliberately emptied the Treasury, plundered pension funds and local municipal holdings in order to blackmail the population to accept as a ‘fait accompli’ the regressive policies of hardline EU bankers – the so-called “austerity programs”.
From the very beginning, Syriza gave into the Troika’s dictates, even as they play-acted their ‘principled resistance’. First they lied to the Greek public, calling the Troika ‘international partners’. Then they lied again calling the Troika memorandum for greater austerity a ‘negotiating document’. Syriza’s deceptions were meant to hide their continuation of the highly unpopular ‘framework’ imposed by the previous discredited hard rightwing regime.
As Syriza plundered the country of resources to pay the bankers, it escalated its international groveling. Its Defense Minister offered new military bases for NATO, including an air-maritime base on the Greek island of Karpathos. Syriza escalated Greece’s political and military support for EU and US military intervention and support of “moderate” terrorists in the Middle East, ludicrously in the name of “protecting Christians”. Syriza, currying favor with European and US Zionists, strengthened its ties with Israel, evoking a ‘strategic alliance’ with the terrorist-apartheid state. From his first days in office, the hard right Defense Minister Kammenos proposed the creation of a “common defense space” including Cyprus and Israel – thus supporting Israel’s air and sea blockade of Gaza.
Syriza’s political decision to ‘embed’ in the EU and the Eurozone, at all costs, signals that Greece will continue to be vassal state, betraying its program and adopting deeply reactionary policies, even while trumpeting its phony leftist rhetoric, and feigning ‘resistance’ to the Troika. Despite the fact that Syriza plundered domestic pensions and local treasuries, many deluded Leftists in Europe and the US continue to accept and rationalize what they choose to dub its “realistic and pragmatic compromises”.
Syriza could have confiscated and used the $32 billion of real estate properties owned by the Greek Armed Forces to implement an alternative investment and development plan – leasing these properties for commercial maritime ports, airports and tourist facilities.
Syriza buried Greece even deeper into the hierarchy dominated by German finance,by surrendering its sovereign power to impose a debt moratorium, leave the Eurozone, husband its financial resources, reinstate a national currency, impose capital controls, confiscate billions of Euros in illicit overseas accounts, mobilize local funds to finance economic recovery and reactivate the public and private sector. The fake “Left sector” within Syriza repeatedly mouthed impotent “objections”, while the Tsipras -Varofakis sell-out charade proceeded to the ultimate capitulation.
In the end, Syriza has deepened poverty and unemployment, increased foreign control over the economy, further eroded the public sector, facilitated the firing of workers and slashed severance pay- while increasing the role of the Greek military by deepening its ties to NATO and Israel.
Equally important, Syriza has totally emptied leftist phraseology of any cognitive meaning: for them – national sovereignty is translated into international vassalage and anti-austerity becomes pragmatic capitulations to new austerity. When the Tsipras – Troika agreement is finally signed and the terrible toll of austerity for the next decades finally sinks into the consciousness of the Greek public, the betrayals will hopefully evoke mass revulsion. Perhaps Syriza will split, and the “left” will finally abandon their cushy Cabinet posts and join the disaffected millions in forming an alternative Party.
class=”pret_art”>Introduction: About 75% of US employees work 40 hours or longer, the second longest among all OECD countries, exceeded only by Poland and tied with South Korea. In contrast, only 10% of Danish workers, 15% of Norwegian, 30% of French, 43% of UK and 50% of German workers work 40 or more hours.
With the longest work day, US workers score lower on the ‘living well’ scale than most western European workers. Moreover, despite those long workdays US employees receive the shortest paid holidays or vacation time (one to two weeks compared to the average of five weeks in Western Europe). US employees pay for the costliest health plans and their children face the highest university fees among the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
In class terms, US employees face the greatest jump in income inequalities over the past decade, the longest period of wage and salary decline or stagnation (1970 to 2014) and the greatest collapse of private sector union membership, from 30% in 1950 down to 8% in 2014.
On the other hand, profits, as a percentage of national income, have increased significantly. The share of income and profits going to the financial sector, especially the banks and investment houses, has increased at a faster rate than any other sector of the US economy.
There are two polar opposite trends: Employees working longer hours, with costlier services and declining living standards while finance capitalists enjoy rapidly rising profits and incomes.
Paradoxically, these trends are not directly based on greater ‘workplace exploitation’ in the US.
The historic employee-finance capitalist polarization is the direct result of the grand success of the trillion dollar financial swindles, the tax payer-funded trillion dollar Federal bailouts of thecrooked bankers, and the illegal bank manipulation of interest rates. These uncorrected and unpunished crimes have driven up the costs of living and producing for employees and their employers.
Financial ‘rents’ (the bankers and brokers are ‘rentiers’ in this economy) drive up the costs of production for non-financial capital (manufacturing). Non-financial capitalists resort to reducing wages, cutting benefits and extending working hours for their employees, in order to maintain their own profits.
In other words, pervasive, enduring and systematic large-scale financial criminality is a major reason why US employees are working longer and receiving less– the ‘trickle down’ effect of mega-swindles committed by finance capital.
Mega-Swindles, Leading Banks and Complicit State Regulators
Mega-swindles, involving trillions of dollars, are routine practices involving the top fifty banks, trading houses, currency speculators, management fund firms and foreign exchange traders.
These ‘white collar’ crimes have hurt hundreds of millions of investors and credit-card holders, millions of mortgage debtors, thousands of pension funds and most industrial and service firms that depend on bank credit to meet payrolls, to finance capital expansion and technological upgrades and raw materials.
Big banks, which have been ‘convicted and fined’ for mega-swindles, include Citi Bank, Bank of America, HSBC, UBS, JP Morgan, Barclay, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsch Bank and forty other ‘leading’ financial institutions.
The mega-swindlers have repeatedly engaged in a great variety of misdeeds, including accounting fraud, insider trading, fraudulent issue of mortgage based securities and the laundering of hundreds of billions of illegal dollars for Colombian, Mexican, African and Asian drug and human traffickers.
They have rigged the London Interbank Official Rate (LIBOR), which serves as the global interest benchmark to which hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial contracts are tied. By raising LIBOR, the financial swindlers have defrauded hundreds of millions of mortgage and credit-card holders, student loan recipients and pensions.
Bloomberg News (5/20/2015) reported on an ongoing swindle involving the manipulation of the multi-trillion-dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) fix, a global interest rate benchmark used by banks, corporate treasurers and money managers to determine borrowing costs and to value much of the $381 trillion of outstanding interest rate swaps.
The Financial Times (5/23/15, p. 10) reported how the top seven banks engaged inmanipulating fraudulent information to their clients, practiced illegal insider trading to profit in the foreign exchange market (forex), whose daily average turnover volume for 2013 exceeded $5 trillion dollars.
These seven convicted banks ended up paying less than $10 billion in fines, which is less than 0.05% of their daily turnover. No banker or high executive ever went to jail, despite undermining the security of millions of retail investors, pensioners and thousands of companies.
The Direct Impact of Financial Swindles on Declining Living Standards
Each and every major financial swindle has had a perverse ripple effect throughout the entire economy. This is especially the case where the negative consequences have spreaddownward through local banks, local manufacturing and service industries to employees, students and the self-employed.
The most obvious example of the downward ripple effect was the so-called ‘sub-prime mortgage’ swindle. Big banks deliberately sold worthless, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to smaller banks, pension funds and local investors, which eventually foreclosed on overpriced houses causing low income mortgage holders to lose their down payments (amounting to most of their savings).
While the effects of the swindle spread outward and downward, the US Treasury propped upthe mega-swindlers with a trillion-dollar bailout in working people’s tax money. They anointed their mega-give-away as the bail out for ‘banks that are just too big to fail”! They transferred funds from the public treasury for social services to the swindlers.
In effect, the banks profited from their widely exposed crimes while US employees lost their jobs, homes, savings and social services. As the US Treasury pumped trillions of dollars into the coffers of the criminal banks (especially on Wall Street), the builders, major construction companies and manufacturers faced an unprecedented credit squeeze and laid off millions of workers, and reduced wages and increased the hours of un-paid work.
Service employees in consumer industries were hit hard as wages and salaries declined or remained frozen. The costs of the FOREX, LIBOR and ISDA fix swindles’ fell heavily on big business, which passed the pain onto labor: cutting pension and health coverage, hiring millions of ‘contingent or temp’ workers at minimum wages with no benefits.
The bank bailouts forced the Treasury to shift funds from ‘job-creating’ social programs and national infrastructure investment to the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector with its highly concentrated income structure.
As a result of the increasing concentration of wealth among the financial swindlers, inequalities in income grew; wages and salaries were frozen or reduced and manufacturers outsourced production, resulting in declines in production.
Employees, suffering from the loss of income brought on by the mega-swindles, found that they were working longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits. Productivity suffered. With the total breakdown of the ‘capitalist rules of the game’, investors lost confidence and trust in the system. Mega-swindles eroded ‘confidence’ between investors and traders, and made a mockery of any link between performance at work and rewards. This severed the nexusbetween highly motivated workers, engaged in ‘hard work, long hours’ and rising living standards, and between investment and productivity.
As a result, profits in the finance sector grew while the domestic economy floundered and living standards stagnated.
Financial Impunity: Regulatees Controlling the Regulators
Despite the proliferation of mega-swindles and their pervasive ripple effects throughout the economy and society, none of the dozens of federal or state regulatory agencies intervened to stop the swindle before it undermined the domestic economy. No CEO or banker was ever arrested for their part in the swindle of trillions. The regulators only reacted after trillions had ‘disappeared’ and swindles were ‘a done deal’. The impunity of the swindlers in planning and executing the pillage of hundreds of millions of employees, taxpayers and mortgage holders was because the federal and state regulatory agencies are populated by ‘regulatory administrators’ who came from or aspired to join the financial sector they were tasked with ‘regulating’.
Most of the high officials appointed to lead the regulatory agencies had been selected by the ‘Lords of Wall Street, Frankfurt, the City of London or Zurich.’ Appointees are chosen on the basis of their willingness to enable financial swindles. It therefore came as no surprise on May 28 2015 when US President Obama approved the appointment of Andrew Donahue, Managing Director and Associate General Council for the repeatedly felonious, mega-swindling banking house of Goldman Sachs to be the ‘Chief of Staff’ of the Security and Exchange Commission. His career has been typical of the Washington-Wall Street ‘Revolving Door’.
Only after fraud and swindles evoked the nationwide public fury of mortgage holders, investors and finance companies did the regulators ‘investigate’ the crimes and even then not a single major banker was jailed, not a single major bank was closed down.
There were a few low-level bond traders and bank employees who were fired or jailed as scapegoats. The banks paid puny (for them) fines, which they passed on to their customers. Despite pledges to ‘mend their ways’ the bankers concocted new schemes with their windfalls of billions of Federal ‘bailout’ money while the regulators looked on or polished their CV’s for the next pass through the ‘revolving door’.
Every top official in Treasury, Commerce and Trade, and every regulator in the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) who ‘retired to the private sector’ has ended up working for the same mega-criminal banks and finance houses they had investigated, regulated and ‘slapped on the wrist’.
As one banker, who insists on anonymity, told me: ‘The most successful swindlers are those who investigated financial transgressions’.
Mega-swindles define the nature of contemporary capitalism. The profits and power of financial capital is not the outcome of ‘market forces’. They are the result of a system of criminal behavior that pillages the Treasury, exploits the producers and consumers, evicts homeowners and robs taxpayers.
The mega swindlers represent much less than 1% of the class structure. Yet they hold over 40% of personal wealth in this country and control over 80% of capital liquidity.
They grow inexorably rich and richer, even as the rest of the economy wallows in crisis and stagnation. Their swindles send powerful ripples across the national economy, which ultimately freeze or reduce the income of the skilled (middle class) employees and undermine the living conditions for poor working-class whites, and especially under and unemployed Afro-American and Latino American young workers.
Efforts to ‘moralize’ capital have failed repeatedly since the regulators are controlled by those they claim to ‘regulate’.
The rare arrest and prosecution of any among the current tribe of mega-swindlers would only results in their being replaced by new swindlers. The problem is systemic and requires deep structural changes.
The only answer is to build a political movement independent of the two party system, willing to nationalize the banks and to pass legislation outlawing derivatives, forex trading and other unnatural parasitic speculative activities.
Because it’s Tradition!
USA, and its historic structural lack of democracy
The post-war US governments obvious irresponsibility and hypocrisy, worries many progressive, democratic scholars, intellectuals and the aware and critically thinking people in the world.
One by one, many powerful tribes have disappeared from the face of the earth – On the painting we see some of the Native American Nations that has been exterminated completely. A holocaust of 18 million people, a genocide that actually “worked out” for the killers.
Basing the republic on genocide and supremacy doctrines
Among the pilgrims and the settlers, some organized and some randomly gathered bands and groups of criminals, committed massacres on Native Americans on a regular basis. The pioneers’ community leaders at first, the revolutionaries later and then the American confederate and federal governments ignored this mass killings. So genocide was clearly an accepted takeover tactic from the very beginning.
Between 1530 – 1890, 18 million Native Americans was slaughtered and not 1 million as the official story in American media, schoolbooks and some encyclopedias suggests. Deliberately caused famine, intentional mass poisoning and fatal epidemics of diseases, that was brought there from Europe, “took care” of the majority of the Native Americans. The deliberate depopulation of North America was presented to the public as God’s providence and as a sign of God’s will. The majority of the people supported this depopulation doctrine from the start and in May 1830, “The Indian Removal Act” was passed.
One can’t find anything about this in main stream American literature or school books. Although articles by writers, scholars and intellectuals’ in The New York Times, the Weekly New York Tribune and the Philadelphia Evening Post, for instance, in the mid-19th century reveals a loathsome attitude around this matter. There one can read how this genocide was portrayed as an “all together humanitarian act”, “for their own best”, as the voices of the establishment in Washington and other “cultivated” cities expressed it. Does this rhetoric remind you of anything? Because it is the same rhetoric as is used in our days, when they are “helping” Afghans, Iraqis, Somalians, Libyans, Syrians, Palestinians and Yemenites find American corporate “democracy”, or their death. The same dictating and degrading, insulting tone, the same superiority attitude and the same masters & servants logic, when they speak about them, or to them.
US governments had, from its very birth as a nation, adopted the British imperial behavior very well, and used it frequently against the indigenous people, the minorities, the dissidents and their neighbours. The common view on the “native being” was already quite poisoned in the minds of the Europeans who came from colonial powers. Empires, kingdoms and nations that already for a few hundred years had given justifications for genocide in the colonies, on pure race-biological or theological explanations to its people.
“The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”
I will quote some lines here from Jefferson Morley’s essay on the matter, before I continue to point at USA’s and the western world’s structural lack of democracy.
“In his career as lawyer and public servant, Francis Scott Key spoke publicly of Africans in America as “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.”… “He saw them as a shiftless and untrustworthy population — a nuisance to white people…”
Amazingly, the song was the product of a humiliation. Francis Scott Key was a veteran of what some dubbed “the Bladensburg Races,” the total collapse of American forces during the British invasion of Washington in August 1814.
When the untrained American militia faced the dogged advance by British troops, backed by artillery fire, the Americans broke rank by the hundreds and then by the thousands.
They ran as fast as they could, hence the humorous reference to “The Races.” Most simply ran back toward Washington, including Lieutenant Key. In the Bladensburg Races, Francis Scott Key was a sprinter.
He is the man who fitted his words to a popular English drinking club song called, “To Anacreon in Heaven.” Originally, the song had four stanzas, although only one is sung today. In the now-forgotten final stanza, Key wrote:
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just / And this be our motto: “In God is our Trust.” / And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave / O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
In Key’s formative lyrics, America would conquer in the name of a just God.”
In the eyes of the rest of humanity today, USA have the longest criminal record in the human history. Always accompanied by the US governments with tales about the just and noble causes, rather than the truth. Actually, just by observing its practices, policies, strategies, methods and intentions, one can see that they are much more in accordance with the “characteristics” of another theological deity than God. Namely the one that is called Satan in the Bible. He is also called “the distorter”, “the deceiver”, “the liar” and “the serpent” there. We must always ask ourselves when American leaders talk about God: What godhood do they really talk about? Not only when American leaders talk about God, as a matter of fact. The western civilization claim Christian virtues, but promote, develop and prefer all the Anti-christian acts for what they call human progress.
Social-darwinism is a cornerstone for American democracy
US-governments have taken the term false-flag operations into the theological sphere. So, by lip-service values, surface virtues and reversed morals, we are convinced that a just God wants this WMD power to use Satan’s methods. There’s another WMD power in the Middle East, that have the same ambiguous theology.
Empathy erosion, the scientific term for Evil, was structurally and deliberately embedded in the German society under Nazi-rule and it is embedded in the American and the Israeli societies since the late 40’s. All three regimes was “democratically elected”.
USA has based its socioeconomic practices on social engineering and its foreign policies on enslavement-doctrines, covert operations, misleading information and a racist “theology” as justification propaganda. This, is wrapped in a quite unfitting “noble cause gloria”, and a structural hypocrisy they insist to call democracy. The first English, French and German settlers, clearly came to North-America as pioneers but with the mood and the motives of the conqueror. The mood to conquer in the name of a just God, have shaped their political and financial elite’s basic driving force, throughout their development as a nation and as a society. There have luckily almost always been progressive and very democratic voices and communities raised in USA which have seriously questioned the unjust actions that this just God requires. Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and journalist Naomi Klein and the journalist and war correspondent Chris Hedges are three of the absolute top international voices on theses issues today. Unfortunately though they don’t represent another option in the American political system. They are just allowed to express these very big truths and expose hidden facts about US-policies and the west’s racist-view on other people on the planet, because the US government has to pass as as at least, more democratic than “the enemies of USA”.
All the criminal acts and atrocities that all US-governments wants to pass as “a necessary evil for a good cause”, domestic as abroad, are based on lies towards its own citizens, and have always been. The structured and well preserved, Machiavellian “lack of democracy in democracy’s outfit”, is deliberately constructed that way to keep the superiority argument alive among its citizens. To keep us from shouting, “the king is naked”. Feeding the infamous “redneck-logic”: “Yeah, maybe our democracy isn’t perfect, but we are better and more civilized than them… We have free elections and we can criticize our leaders“. A hilarious assumption. The western citizen can criticize the puppet but never the puppeteer and for that matter in a democracy, its not enough to criticize, one must also act constitutionally upon that criticism.
Atrocities, cruelty, racism and social division, are in reality nothing else than regular and very traditional American government policies, and therefore they should not arouse any feelings of anger. Because its nothing new. They are just following the same patterns of self-glorifying tales and dehumanizing, imperial policies, as they have from the beginning. And as any of the cruelest empires in the history of mankind. They have the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany as immediate models, but of course with contemporary tools. Those tools are mainly:
- the modern medial, mass-psychological propaganda and manipulation industry
- the left-right divide & conquer dogma in the alleged democratic, political system
- the neo-liberal, anti-democracy lobby
- the current educational system in the west
Unless we lived under a rock since we were born – and really think that the evident lack of democracy in democratic nations is “just the way it is” – it’s completely irrational to expect anything different from them, than their regular policies and their regular cover up stories. Therefore it’s irrational to become angry anymore. Why does anyone still hope that real humanity, respect and decency, will come from that nation’s aggressive regimes? It has set the standards for what passes as democracy in the world since WWII, and in good support and cooperation with, UK, France and Germany since WWI. The current peoples in these countries have understood this today and actually doesn’t give their consent to this, but their media is doing its treasonous job hiding this widespread public opinion.
People allover the world has reached their limits of tolerating this hypocrisy. They know very well now, that all those they vote for are puppets and that they can never vote for the puppeteers. Or to actually walk out from their grand scale marionette theater of illusions, for that matter.
Puppets, puppeteers vs citizens and nations
The west ignores real democracy
The puppeteers don’t need truly educated people, who possesses critical thinking and have spiritual aims. No, this kind of people are dangerous to the establishment! They prefer well-trained puppets to direct robots,… human as well as manufactured robots.
The puppeteers want obedient puppets just intelligent enough to operate the machines, keep their fellow humans in line and keep the system running, but stupid enough to never ask questions.
Our elected leaders are well programmed puppets
A puppet doesn’t need to be smart! However, the puppeteer does! To get a granted position as a puppet it’s enough if it can serve as a good, well-oiled puppet. Otherwise it simply will be replaced. If the grand marionette theater of illusions is the stage, it of course has to be well carved and from young, flexible, workable wood. It must be carefully painted, adjusted, made up and dressed and it must go through continuous controls and tests so the strings stay firmly attached.
This metaphor on world politics and the western corporate and financial world, was used to show that the better someone is at being a puppet, the stupider he must be regarded as a human being. At least from an anthropocentric, utilitarian perspective. That means: To hold the survival and the thrive of Humanity, as the prime and major concern.
The puppeteers has been known, by their names and their faces for decades. They are quite well known by now and by more and more people for every day, but it takes a little bit more than just knowing who they are, in order to get rid of these particular puppeteers.
In their opinion, they are entitled to rule over the rest of us because they claim to be the direct descendants of the ancient gods and consider themselves royal. These families are:
- Rothschild (Bauer or Bower)
- Cavendish (Kennedy)
- De Medici
- Sinclair (St. Clair)
- Warburg (del Banco)
- Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gothe)
The Rothschild dynasty is unquestionably the most powerful – visible – bloodline on Earth and their estimated wealth is around $ 500 trillions!
If we agree on calling them puppets and puppeteers, metaphorically, we must also really grasp that it is essentially a grand scale marionette theater of illusions we are talking about. So, why so many people are till so unsuspectingly drawn into their fictive world of illusions, is an enigma to me. Particularly, when we the people are concerned about and speak about, real people, real life, real problems and real societies and the marionette theater doesn’t. In effect, the puppeteers and their puppets talk about human farms and human cattle. Isn’t it about time to just turn our backs to them? Not as sulking, angry, aggressive and in essence powerless children, but as aware, mature, insightful and united citizens, that knows how to unify around the real threats to the people. And how to exert political and legal pressure and a successful, democratic, liberation struggles. People have done it before, hundreds of times throughout history.
Courage, self-respect, solidarity and the urge to mobilize and unite against the real threats to the people and organize a determined, political resistance, has proved to be the most essential components that characterizes all successful liberation struggles against cruel monarchs, emperors, dictators and tyrants in history.
The only way to guarantee real democracy
A real democracy is not characterized by its government, but by its citizen. It’s the quality of the citizen that determines the quality of a democracy. But the alleged developed and “civilized” citizen in the self-justifying west, is still treating his elected government as if it was “an emperor” that doesn’t have the same legal obligations before its constitution as any other citizen. He treats his authorities as if it wasn’t he who pay their salaries and for a specific service only. He doesn’t know that he is actually prohibited by any real democratic constitution to give blank checks of consent and in advance to any elected official. And these citizens massively act as if elected officials and civil servants can’t be held to account in the court of Law. At the same time, this “citizen” still takes big pride in calling this democracy. Only that in a real democracy an elected official and a civil servant, on any level, CAN be held to account according to the constitution.
To any thinking human, the question must occur: Did the western citizen (particularly the citizen in the colonial nations) actually ever understand the basic principles of democracy, or is he still mentally and emotionally inclined to subservience in front of any “king”? Naked or dressed? In other words, did the Dark Middle Ages, the Catholic Church’s Inquisition, Colonialism, Feudalism and Zionism damage the European soul so deeply, that even now, serfdom and mental and emotional enslavement seem more attractive, than unified, social and political liberation actions for ones Freedom.
Freedom for a people depends on every citizens own level of self-respect and dignity. The human state of existence that most in the west have confused with negative character traits such as selfishness & narcissism and false pride & arrogance.
Before modern democracy arose in Europe, the countries or nation-states were called lands or nations, because they were kingdoms and private property of a handful of landowners, so today many confuse these names. Because they are not taught the real meaning of a nation-state in school. They are busy learning how to memorize without thinking and obey without questioning. Anyhow, from an international legal point of view and according to international conventions it’s first in a democracy that the word “nation-state” becomes meaningful.
To rule and dictate, as our current “democratic” governments do allover the western world, is something kings, emperors and dictators do. Democratically elected governments, GOVERN their peoples rights and interests. And to govern – which is, how “the handling and organization of a nation’s public affairs” is called in a democracy – is not to rule. To govern means to guard, protect, defend and ensure the peoples liberties, rights, security, territory, borders and the treasury and the nation-state’s public finances.
That’s is the actual legal and political reason, why nation-states ever occurred. They were a necessary step towards guaranteeing peoples freedom and peoples safety from invasions and enslavement. According to its own self-determination. If anyone of you know about any other, better way, to actually defend a whole people’s independence and human birthrights, please let me know. Because without truly democratic nation-states, we are all left to our own destiny before any tyrant or any totalitarian, bank and corporate dictatorship.
They were founded upon democratically voted constitutions and international conventions, so that a people should have a common legal ground to unite around and defend their human rights, their civil liberties and their borders from. Culturally, historically and geographically. To defend and protect the citizen’s rights and the nation-states rights, and to their best interest, is the only reason for a free people to elect an official to govern its public affairs and its common good. That is the only assignment and responsibility any official in a truly democratic government he can have towards the citizen. And the citizen will find himself oppressed and abused, only when he himself fail to understand that clear and only role of the elected official.
History have shown us that anytime a united, aware and determined people has been attacked and invaded, the aggressor even if tenfold larger in numbers or better equipped and armed, have lost and suffered serious damages. The Battle of Salamis was the first example of such thing, in history. The Vietnam War, is a very good example from our time, of the same thing…
In the “Odyssey”, when Odysseus men had killed the god Helios’s cows by mistake, the gods doomed them to forget about their homeland and their roots. Why, was this considered as one of the worse damnation’s in the ancient world? Because they knew very well, that without a homeland and thus the ability to defend ones freedom, as a united folk-group, one will become a serf with no real options to ever free oneself from serfdom.
Only with strong healthy roots the tree can stand upright, without roots it’s nothing else than a dry trunk to throw in the fire – Greek folk wisdom
That is what the current puppeteers are doing with the modern western individual over the last century. This, after they had practiced for some centuries and learned how to first massacre and enslave the native peoples in the colonies. Then, to feed their wars, they learned how to make these people refugees and immigrants in the west. Massive replacements of people and migration has proved to be very good ways to rob an individual or a folk group from a true identity, a belonging, a context. No past, no future, just millions and millions of people deprived of, or sold to, their basic needs so that the puppeteers and their puppets can exploit them and use them as peons and slaves, in the western world’s “slave-markets”.
Basic democratic principles missing from today’s “democracies”
If the citizens mainly constitutes “a mob divided in left and right” instead of “a people”, then the officials can’t be anything else than rulers. That is a profound truth in both USA and Europe and particularly so in the former colonial powers and present neo-colonial powers, France, England, Germany. This includes the obedient and complying satellite states, as for instance Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and a number of former eastern European states, including Ukraine, which now is used by USA, EU and NATO for aggressive, geopolitical and strategic reasons…
Instead we could have the kind of democracy that at least keep the basic principles of the classic Athenian democratic values and principles. In particular, those principles that are “comfortably forgotten” by everyone everywhere, ever since.
- its principle of, citizen’s rights to anarchic political action, disobedience and non-cooperative solidarity-actions against tyranny, dictatorship and monarchy
- its principle of, immediate recall of an elected official if his actions are against the common good and against his assignment from the people
- its principle of, elected officials being held personally accountable in a public supreme court if they are suspected for illegal, negligent or destructive handling of public affairs and finances
The ones that organized the country of USA in the way it is structured, had already structured Europe after the same principles and values, so there is no actual moral difference in the way both continents rape the concept of democracy so blatantly across the world. In the name of people’s freedom and liberty of course. Maybe it’s time to ask unanimously and in the open: Whose liberties are we really talking about here? Because it sure isn’t the liberties of the peoples.
Maybe we understand now why the ancient Athenians constitutionally ensured that the elected official can be recalled at any given moment, if he doesn’t fulfil his assignment. He is in his position for just one purpose: To legally and politically protect and ensure the peoples liberties, rights and the safety of the citizen and the nation. Which is the one and the same in a real democracy. A democratic nation-state where this is not followed in practice, can’t call itself democratic, because the citizen of that country is not a free citizen. He is a serf, an economic commodity.
The only true hope can only come from people’s own feeling of self-respect and solidarity, as individuals, as units and as communities and nations. Real hope, comes from that and their courage and their ability to unite determined and fight adequately against oppression.
I am talking about the aware and awake citizen who are able to see through the systematic propaganda tale and see the true threats.
The only true hope can under no circumstances come from a subservient masters & servants-programmed puppet, who await the oppressor to change his ways and show mercy. Because he might be tempted to even become submissive, obedient and supportive of the ruler’s crimes in order to stand a chance to sit at the masters table. Maybe he can be a useful tool to the ruler he thinks, neglecting the needs of his own people and his own dignity as a human.
The puppet is the actual common characteristic of all the alleged “democratic elected officials”, allover the western world’s governments right now. And first of all those of the global imperial powers and former colonial nations, the G7.
“Germany and the BRICS countries can create a new credit system for global construction and development!”
Three were the reasons that made Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis push for the accession of Greece to the EEC in 1975, as it was then called. The first was to consolidate democracy in a country that had just come out from a catastrophic seven year military dictatorship. It should be recalled that the then democratic EEC had countered the dictatorship with every means possible and particularly by freezing the Association Agreement it had with Greece and the Financial Protocol. NATO, on the other hand, had supported the Junta. The second reason was to protect Greece against Turkey that had invaded Cyprus in 1974 and the third was to advance the economic development of the country.
When Greece joined the EEC in 1981, it had a dynamic industry with a yearly rate of development of 7.4%, a dynamic agriculture and self-sufficiency in most products with 24,2% of the population working in this sector. Unemployment was then around 3 to 4%.Afterthe accession, Greece was obliged to limit its steel production since there was an overproduction of it in the EEC and do dismantle its nascent automobile industry. Greece reduced its olive oil production to help reduce the olive oil lakes existing in the EEC and thus restructured its agriculture, reducing the percentage of population actively employed in that sector to 10%. And for many years, by the purchase of military hardware, Greece kept the French and German workers employed in the arms industries of their countries. From 2005 to 2010, Greece was the first importer of arms from Germany, purchasing 15% of its total production and the third largest customer of France. In 2010, Greece spent 1 billion euro on arm purchases from France and Germany. The social budget was reduced by 1.8 billion within the austerity measures program. Of course, EU funds helped the development of Greece and many important infrastructure products were done with EU co-financing. As such we have the Venizelos Airport, the Athens Ringroad, the Egnatia Highway and the Athens Metro. Agriculture was also assisted, often through subsidies paid for reducing agricultural means and productions rather than increasing them, even though it remains unclear how much funding actually reached its objective.
On January 1, 2002 Greece joined the Eurozone -and after only a few years the problems started that resulted in today’s situation.
Let us examine now the EU economic crisis that started as a result of the global financial crisis of 2008. The Greek government was persuades to sign a Loan Agreement in May 2010. The idea was that it could – through austerity measures – reduce the public debt which in 2009 was 129% of the GNP or 299 billion euro in absolute numbers. The promised results forecasted by experts and the predicted recovery as result of these measures, first announced in 2009, did not take place. De facto, we are still waiting for it. After two memoranda and admittedly mistaken policies from the EU, the IMF and the Greek governments, Greece to is on the verge of disaster with an increased debt of 175% of the GNP or 321 billion euro in 2013. Today it is around 180% of the GNP. One of the reasons for the failure of these measures was that the human factor was not taken into consideration and as a result Greece is facing today a social disaster without precedence. Instead of enhanced investment, recovery and growth, the economy has significantly decreased GDP reduction of 12.7% in 2012), factories, industries, shops have closed down almost on a daily basis. Those countries and companies who have invested are ignoring all workers rights of the EU or making their profits outside of Greece due to tax-haven-arrangements through e.g. the Netherlands ike the gold mining company Eldorado. And, in spite of the fact that the “institutions” had acknowledged their mistakes, they continue to insist on the implementation of the same ineffective policies that are destroying a member-state of the EU. Fortunately, the new Greek Government that came out from the elections of January 25, is refusing to implement measures that are ineffective and disastrous for the country.
But it is not only that the measures are erroneous, they also have violated human rights in Greece as well as the Lisbon Treaty. On December 18,the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the Hellenic League for Human Rights published a report entitled ”Downgrading rights: the cost of austerity in Greece”, in which the legal responsibility and accountability of the Greek governments, the EU, its member-states and the IMF for violating human rights in Greece, are explained. The responsibility of these four actors is shared on the grounds that they jointly designed, negotiated, funded and implemented the two “economic assistance programs” which are the source of the violations.
Greece, as the sovereign state of the territory on which austerity measures were implemented, holds primary responsibility for failing to uphold its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all under its jurisdiction.
EU Member-states that took part in the negotiation, conclusion and financing of the adjustment programs were obliged to help Greece fulfill its obligations concerning the respect of human rights. They should have abstained from any action limiting the ability of Greece to respect its international obligations on human rights.
The European Union, being an Organization that enjoys a legal personality distinct from that of its members, should also be held accountable, since its accountability and responsibility are derived from EU primary law, as reflected in the founding instruments of the Union, as well as from customary rules of international law, on the responsibility of international organizations and universal human rights standards, that the EU has pledged to uphold and respect. By allowing its institutions and bodies, (Commission and the ECB) to be placed at the disposal of a group of States, seeking to incite Greece to adopt policies that will forseeably violate its human rights obligations, the EU has violated its obligations under article 2,3(1), (5) and 6 of the Treaty on the European Union.
The IMF is a specialized agency of the UN and as such should respect article 55 of the UN Charter, which includes universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
It should be mentioned here that German activists have filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court of the Hague (OTP CR 345/12) against unknown people for damage done to the health of the Greek people.
But what went wrong with the EU, why is it destroying its Member-States and peoples? Personally, I think it has to do with the “expertisms” that has infiltrated the governmental bodies. Lobbyism and “Big Companyism” have gained a power far exceeding what it was in the early days of the European Idea, when the EU was functioning in a satisfactory way with Ministers dealing themselves with the issues pertaining to the Budget, Agriculture as well as other technical issues without the presence of “experts”. They locked themselves in consultations until the wee hours of the morning, often even stopping the clock, and resolved the problems in direct dialogue. And of course, the basic priority was that any solution had to benefit the people, in contrast to what is happening today where new contracts and agreements are planned in which companies, big industrial players and global financial conglomerate get granted almost unlimited power (TTIP). The EU gradually fell under the control of lobbyists and bureaucrats. Negative effects were created by the constant celebratory statements of European Councils that created erroneous impressions by announcing after each Summit that all problems of the EU were even better resolved than before. However, what failed most was the 2000 Lisbon Strategy that had as aim to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic economy of the world by 2010 with better and more work positions and social cohesion. Look at the 27 nations today, those they call PIIGs, and the others whose letter are to be added shortly. There is not a single nation within the EU which is not suffering from increased unemployment, decreased social welfare, increased taxes and costs and decreased effective incomes – compared to the year 2000. In the meantime it has reached a point where nowhere in the EU a family can be maintained with one income, which was the standard in all European nations in the beginning days of the EEC.
The EU could have played an important role in maintaining global balance. Unfortunately it has left this role to the USA, Russia and China. And it seems, the USA is following a policy of confrontation vis-à-vis the other two countries that may endanger humanity. An answer to this may be the BRICs initiative. This is an initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the benefit of humanity. To that end they have created a Development Bank to invest billions in necessary development projects. China recently initiated the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), joined by over 20 Asian nations as founding members and has set up a Silk Road Development Fund. China has also proposed within BRICS the creation of a Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP).The incorporation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to the BRICS initiative could create a formidable power, which if remaining out of the control of the bankers and big companies’ lobbyists, could lead to a point that humanity indeed has a chance to reach global peace and end poverty through common human economic development. So, what is desperately needed is the cooperation of the USA and of the sovereign nations of Europe with the BRICS countries and their initiatives. Some European countries, to the annoyance of the USA, have already signed up. Hopefully this was done with an open mind and without a second agenda. To quote the declaration launched by the Schiller Institute of which I am a signatory: ”Only such an approach would restore the United States and Europe to their original purpose as expressed in the European Renaissance and the American Revolution …”
Because of Greece’s special relationships with China and Russia, Athens can play an important role within the BRICS initiative and also to cool down US aggressiveness towards these two nations.
Greece and Russia have always shared a special relationship. Not only because both countries are of the orthodox faith. There have been many occasions where Greeks and Russians have cooperated, worked together and helped each other. The first prime minister of a free Greece back in 1830, Ioannis Capodistrias, was Foreign Minister of Russia, before he took the helmet of a just freed Greece. General Orlof, sent by Catherine the Great, came to help the Greeks of the Peloponese to rise against the Turkish yolk. It may not have been successful at its time, but it gave the Greeks the courage to start it again in 1821. That the most famous export good of Russia, the caviar, has become exportable is thanks to Varvakis who discovered how to preserve it so shipment could be possible. Greeks have settled at the coastal area of what is Russia today since Jason was travelling with the Argo and as Greeks we can proudly say that we certainly have contributed to the Russian culture. This is some common ground that cannot just simply be discussed away or disappear due to some current differences in political views. These connections have lasted over the time and will continue to last. The visit earlier this month of the Greek Prime Minister to Moscow and the results it achieved are also due to this special relationship.
With China Greece shares the fact that both are ancient developed civilizations. Greece as well as China have travelled in the ancient times and helped to shape the cultures of the globe as they are today. The Chinese show a great respect to civilizations that existed in parallel with them, like the Greek one. Already this fact makes both of our nations respect each other thus facilitating cooperation on every level.
While criticizing the EU for the damage that it is doing to itself and to its members, the following solutions are proposed for Greece, the EU and for humanity:
– Greece : The new Government of Greece, has started negotiations with the lenders on a new basis meaning that it will no longer adopt measures hurting the people and that it will no longer receive orders from the lenders. If the EU continues to ask for measures that are unacceptable to Greece then a clash might happen that may have destructive consequences for Europe. We propose the following: The denounciation of the Loan Facility Agreement of May 2010,signed between Greece and the Member-States of the Eurozone, on the basis of articles 48-52 of the Vienna Convention concerning the Law of Treaties. These articles anticipate the invalidity of a Treaty if there was an error, fraud, coercion of a representative of a State etc. Greece will at the same time request compensation from the EU for the damage done to the country, which according to conservative estimates is about the amount of the so-called debt. The compensation claim will be based on article 41.3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, that is incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty. The cessation of payments with the denounciation of the Loan Agreement and the compensation that will be given in time to the country, will allow Greece to repair the damages done and instigate development. It will also withdraw, within a one year period from the Eurozone, in order to implement beneficial economic policies that it cannot under Eurozone rules. The Unified Popular Front (EPAM) a political party not in parliament yet, supports this policy. And in case of an impasse in the ongoing negotiations with the lenders, there is a possibility that the present government might be forced to follow such an approach.
-The EU : The transformation of the EU into an efficient organization having as sole priority the safeguard of the interests of the people and not of the bankers is imperative. A new constitutional document must replace the violated Lisbon Treaty. The new document must be drafted by movements of citizens of Member-States who will submit their proposals to a European Assembly composed of representatives of these movements.
-Humanity : The deletion of the global debt which is about 600 trillion USD, will allow humanity to restart on a new and healthy basis. There exist many examples in history of debt deletion: From the ancient Greek Sisahtheia to the Jubilee of ancient Hebrew Communities where every 50 years the debts were cancelled. Even during the 70’s the developed countries of the West deleted the debt of the non-aligned movement, thus allowing the economic boom of Yugoslavia. The BRICS movement can promote this while the decision must be taken by the G-20.Humanity as a whole will benefit because it will be able to restart on sound and healthy principles.
In order to implement the previously mentioned proposals, it is necessary to have politicians with imagination, vision and courage, politicians who care about progress of humanity and put a stop to the greed and grabbing of Banks, Financial Institutions and Companies. Such politicians do not exist today. It is the task of us, the voters, the people, the political and unpolitical movements to create them.
Reparations for WWII Atrocities – the Background (including the German satiric show exposing viral facts behind Greek reparation claim)
A VIRAL VIDEO BY A GERMAN SATIRE SHOW (DIE ANSTALT) EDUCATES PEOPLE ABOUT THE REAL BACKGROUND AND THE TRUE SITUATION OF THE GREEK REPARATIONS CLAIM.
April 12, 2015
Last week, many Germans came to an ugly realization. People had been so proud of how Germany dealt with the aftermath of WWII, the earnest self-questioning and rejection of nationalism, the many apologies. Now, many have been forced to realize that Germany has done too little in the way that matters most: compensating the surviving victims.
There have periodically been earnest newspaper articles and editorials on the subject of course, but most left it at “Germany paid in 1960″ and “Greece is now inventing debt to save their economy”. However, last week a German satire TV show took it upon themselves to educate people about all that the German governments did to avoid supporting the victims of the Nazis and blocking prosecution of the war criminals. The key passage of that satire show was posted online even before it aired on TV, it went viral and more than 2 million Germans and 1 million Greeks have seen it so far. [Athenianvoice’s comment: After the Greek comedian Lakis Lazopoulos aired parts of it in his popular show “Al Tsantiri News”, over 4 million Greeks inside and outside Greece have seen it.]
It cuts deep; many foreign commenters expressed astonishment that this was shown on a major German public TV channel. (That Germans produced this show, applauded/’liked’ and made it go viral is the only thought comforting me.)I have added English subtitles for you:
(If you don’t see subtitles, experiment with the buttons on the bottom right. If subtitles are visible but not readable, use the B, W, + and – keys on your keyboard)
Watch the video now. Below, I’ll recap how Germans were led to believe that they had done the honourable thing.
The History of Reparations
The Allies agreed in 1945, at the Yalta Conference and also in the Potsdam Agreement, that Germany would have to pay reparations to the victors for the damages caused in WWII.
Initially, this was very chaotic: the Soviet Union granted Poland a large chunk of German territory and the Red Army dismantled everything they could in their occupied zone, entire factories, almost every railway track. The Western Allies did similarly – especially the Brits and French plundered the industries while Americans were more interested in patents and foreign moneys of German companies. Additionally, German POWs were not released at the end of the war but used as slave labour for several years.
This way of taking reparations put those countries at a disadvantage who had been victims of the Nazis but did not have an occupied zone in Germany from which to take their compensation. So in 1946, the Paris reparations agreement created the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency (IARA) in order to calculate the sum of reparations and their fair distribution. However, this proved very difficult, for example Guatemala demanded 85 million dollars even though it hadn’t seen any war action. All in all, the IARA received demands for 1260 billion deutschmarks, that is 16 times the German GDP of the time. Only a big peace conference could possibly sort out all demands – but East and West were already entering the Cold War, so this conference never happened.
Germany’s European Allies, including Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland, signed peace treaties in 1947 and paid reparations. The reparations were significantly reduced from what was initially demanded – for example only 360 million dollars instead of 32 billion dollars from Italy. Greece received 105 million dollars from Italy and 45 million dollars from Bulgaria, only Germany didn’t pay anything because there was no peace treaty yet.
1950 to 1990
Because of the Cold War, neither the USA nor the Soviet Union were interested in their economically-ruined German puppet states having to pay huge amounts of reparations to other countries. They probably also remembered the consequences of the crushing Versailles Treaty. Because of this, the 1953 London Debt Agreement postponed all reparations until “united Germany” would sign a peace treaty – knowing that such a day was more than unlikely. Additionally, the Western powers, including Greece, accepted a haircut of 50% on German pre-war and post-war debt, not including war debt. At the same time, the Soviet Union abated Germany’s entire reparation debt and forced their puppet government in Poland to do the same – which the Poles now say is not valid because it wasn’t the act of a sovereign government.
With West Germany becoming an economic strong-house in the 1960s, Western European states no longer wanted to wait for an unlikely-looking reunification in order to get their compensation. West Germany signed individual agreements with 12 nations, including France, Britain, Austria and Greece. These agreements were not agreements about reparations though, they only concerned voluntary compensations for individual groups of victims. The agreement with Greece brought 115 million Deutschmark for Greek victims of the Nazi racist ideology, that is Holocaust victims but not the thousands of victims of massacres or 300,000 victims of deliberately-induced famine.
By 1989, nobody was expecting the reunification and subsequent peace treaty anymore. In order to have a legal defense against having to pay reparations (Poland alone was demanding 200-537 billion deutschmarks), the German government insisted on not calling the Two Plus Four Treaty a peace treaty, even though that’s what it was. They didn’t even deny that that’s the reason they didn’t want it to be called a peace treaty.
France, Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union were fine with that – they had taken a lot of reparations from the occupied zones already, didn’t particularly want a lot of money to flow into the unstable Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union additionally received large concessions in exchange for not calling it a peace treaty and not allowing Poland a seat at the table. So there are doubts whether the Two Plus Four Treaty will stand up to judicial scrutiny, given that it was a treaty at the expense of third parties in their absence. (The German government argues that since countries like Greece later ‘acknowledged’ the treaty and didn’t sue against it, they thereby consented to drop their claims for reparations. Reparations were conspicuously not mentioned in the treaty.)
Greece originally claimed 7.2 billion dollars at the value of 1938 dollars from the IARA and then agreed to postpone them in the London Debt Agreement. Since then, there have been regular requests for Germany to pay its debts, so contrary to how it is presented in the media, this is not something the new Greek government made up on the spot.
This doesn’t mean that their current demand of 279 billion euros is necessarily justified – for example, part of that is to compensate for the ruined economy after the occupation, a difficult claim as the Hague Conventions only require compensations for violations of international humanitarian law, not for all damages of war.
It’s debatable whether Germany should pay the IARA reparations now, but at the very least Germany should stop self-righteously pointing its finger at Greeceand shouting “Rules are rules. Debts must be paid. No tricks!” … The German governments were quite happy to ignore debts and use all tricks in the book.
(The only thing easy to determine is the forced loan that Greek authorities had to give to the Nazis to finance the Wehrmacht’s African campaign. It is quite likely that an international court of justice would insist on it being paid. A loan is a loan, paying it back is not even part of the reparations question. According to the Greek government, that would be 10.3 billion euros in today’s currency.)
Compensation for the Surviving Victims
It is unlikely that an international court of justice could force Germany to pay compensation to massacre survivors like Mr Sfountouris from the video, because a) individuals cannot sue states and b) the 1960 payment of 115 million deutschmarks for victims of Nazi racism does not specify what should be done for victims of non-racist crimes against humanity such as the “revenge” massacres.
There is also the problem that demands have been postponed for so long, some might say they’re beyond the statute of limitations – but this didn’t preventNorway from agreeing to pay reparations to Roma for racist policies and suffering under Nazis just a few days ago.
No matter what the legal standing is, and no matter what kind of snowball effect can be expected from finally starting to paying compensations, it is clear thatGermany has a moral obligation to the victims and it has abominably ignored this obligation for far too long. As a country priding itself on its morality, it is shameful for Germany to use legal loopholes to avoid compensating survivors of the atrocities, even if these loopholes exist.
- My answer to someone asking “Does it make sense for you when Greece demands €279bn from Germany in Nazi war reparations?” (bottom half)
- German editorial from yesterday (not mine): Debt and Atonement – I am ashamed to be German
Το ντοκυμαντέρ των Harald Schumann και Árpád Bondy που εξέπεμψε στις 9/3/15 το 1ο κανάλι της γερμανικής κρατικής τηλεόρασης ARD και ξεσήκωσε θύελλα αντιδράσεων. Μια πιο εκτεταμένη βερσιόν του είχε προβληθεί από το γαλλογερμανικό κανάλι ARTE στις 24/2/15 ( http://tinyurl.com/lq5bapk στα γερμανικά και http://tinyurl.com/om9nn3e στα γαλλικά). Με την ευκαιρία δείτε και το παρακάτω βίντεο για τον ESM : http://tinyurl.com/po8lgbd (δείτε το όλο! Φοβερές ομολογίες!)
The documentary of Harald Schumann and Árpád Bondy started broadcasting on 03.09.15 the first channel of German State Television ARD and roused a storm of reactions. A more extensive version had been viewed by the Franco-German channel ARTE on 24/2/15 http://tinyurl.com/lq5bapk in German and in French http://tinyurl.com/om9nn3e). By the way you see the video below for the ESM: http://tinyurl.com/po8lgbd (see all! Terrible confessions!)
Over the past 50 years the US and European powers have engaged in countless imperial wars throughout the world. The drive for world supremacy has been clothed in the rhetoric of “world leadership”, the consequences have been devastating for the peoples targeted. The biggest, longest and most numerous wars have been carried out by the United States. Presidents from both parties direct and preside over this quest for world power. The ideology which informs imperialism varies from “anti-communism”in the past to “antiterrorism”today.
Washington’s drive for world domination has used and combined many forms of warfare, including military invasions and occupations; proxy mercenary armies and military coups; financing political parties, NGO’s and street mobs to overthrow duly constituted governments. The driving forces in the imperial state , behind the quest for world power, vary with the geographic location and social economic composition of the targeted countries.
What is clear from an analysis of US empire building over the last half century is the relative decline of economic interests, and the rise of politico-military considerations. In part this is because of the demise of the collectivist regimes (the USSR and Eastern Europe) and the conversion of China and the leftist Asian, African and Latin American regimes to capitalism. The decline of economic forces as the driving force of imperialism is a result of the advent of global neoliberalism. Most US and EU multi-nationals are not threatened by nationalizations or expropriations, which might trigger imperial state political intervention.
In fact, MNC are invited to invest,trade and exploit natural resources even by post-neoliberal regimes . Economic interests come into play in formulating imperial state policies, if and when nationalist regimes emerge and challenge US MNC as is the case in Venezuela under President Chavez.
The key to US empire building over the past half-century is found in the political, military and ideological power configurations which have come to control the levers of the imperial state. The recent history of US imperial wars has demonstrated that strategic military priorities – military bases, budgets and bureaucracy – have expanded far beyond any localized economic interests of MNC. Moreover, the vast expenditures and long term and expensive military interventions of the US imperial state in the Middle East has been at the behest of Israel. The take-over of strategic political positions in the Executive branch and Congress by the powerful Zionist power configuration within the US has reinforced the centrality of military over economic interests
The ‘privatization’ of imperial wars – the vast growth and use of mercenaries contracted by the Pentagon- has led to the vast pillage of tens of billions of dollars from the US Treasury. Large scale corporations which supply mercenary military combatants have become a very ‘influential’ force shaping the nature and consequences of US empire building.
Military strategists, defenders of Israeli colonial interests in the Middle East, mercenary military and intelligence corporations are central actors in the imperial state and it is their decision-making influence which explains why US imperial wars do not result in a politically stable, economic prosperous empire. Instead their policies have resulted in unstable, ravaged economies, in perpetual rebellion..
We will proceed by identifying the changing areas and regions of US empire building from the mid 1970’s to the present. We then examine the methods, driving forces and outcomes of imperial expansion. We will then turn to describe the current ‘geo-political map of empire building and the varied nature of the anti-imperialist resistance. We will conclude by examining the why and how of empire building and more particularly, the consequences, and results of a half century of US imperial expansion.
Imperialism in the post Vietnam Period: Proxy Wars in Central America, Afghanistan and Southern Africa
The US imperialist defeat in Indo-China marks the end of one phase of empire building and the beginning of another: a shift from territorial invasions to proxy wars. Hostile domestic opinion precluded large scale ground wars. Beginning during the presidencies of Gerald Ford and James Carter, the US imperialist state increasingly relied on proxy clients. It recruited, financed and armed proxy military forces to destroy a variety of nationalist and social revolutionary regimes and movements in three continents. Washington financed and armed extremist Islamic forces world-wide to invade and destroy the secular, modernizing, Soviet backed regime in Afghanistan, with logistical support from the Pakistan military and intelligence agencies, and financial backing from Saudi Arabia.
The second proxy intervention was in Southern Africa, where the US imperial state financed and armed proxy forces against anti-imperialist regimes in Angola and Mozambique, in alliance with South Africa.
The third proxy intervention took place in Central America, where the US financed, armed and trained murderous death squad regimes in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to decimate popular movements and armed insurgencies resulting in over 300,000 civilian deaths.
The US imperial state’s ‘proxy strategy’ extended to South America: CIA and Pentagon backed military coups took place in Uruguay (General Alvarez), Chile (General
Pinochet) Argentina (General Videla), Bolivia (General Banzer) and Peru (General Morales). Empire building by proxy, was largely at the behest of US MNC which were the principal actors in setting priorities in the imperial state throughout this period.
Accompanying proxy wars, were direct military invasions: the tiny island of Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989) under Presidents’ Reagan and Bush, Sr. Easy targets, with few casualties and low cost military expenditures: dress rehearsals for re-launching major military operations in the near future.
What is striking about the ‘proxy wars’ are the mixed results.The outcomes in Central America, Afghanistan and Africa did not lead to prosperous neo-colonies or prove lucrative to US multi-national corporations. In contrast the proxy coups in South America led to large scale privatization and profits for US MNC.
The Afghan proxy war led to the rise and consolidation of the Taliban “Islamic regime” which opposed both Soviet influence and US imperial expansion. The rise and consolidation of Islamic nationalism in turn challenged US allies in South Asia and the Gulf region and subsequently led to a US military invasion in 2001 and a prolonged (15 year) war (which has yet to conclude), and most probably to a military retreat and defeat. The main economic beneficiaries were Afghan political clients, US mercenary military “contractors”, military procurement officers and civilian colonial administrators who pillaged hundreds of billions from the US Treasury in illegal and fraudulent transactions.
Pillage of the US Treasury in no way benefited the non-military MNC’s. In fact the war and resistance movement undermined any large scale, long-term entry of US private capital in Afghanistan and adjoining border regions of Pakistan.
The proxy war in Southern Africa devastated the local economies, especially the domestic agricultural economy, uprooted millions of laborers and farmers and curtailed US corporate oil penetration for over two decades. The ‘positive’ outcome was the deradicalization of the former revolutionary nationalist elite. However, the political conversion of the Southern African “revolutionaries” to neo-liberalism did not benefit the US MNC as much as the rulers turned kleptocratic oligarchs who organized patrimonial regimes in association with a diversified collection of MNC, especially from Asia and Europe.
The proxy wars in Central America had mixed results. In Nicaragua the Sandinista revolution defeated the US-Israeli backed Somoza regime but immediately confronted a US financed, armed and trained counter-revolutionary mercenary army (the “Contras”) based in Honduras. The US war destroyed, many of the progressive economic projects,undemined the economy and eventually led to an electoral victory by the US backed political client Violeta Chamorro. Two decades later the US proxies were defeated by a de-radicalized Sandinista led political coalition.
In El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the US proxy wars led to the consolidation of client regimes presiding over the destruction of the productive economy,and the flight of millions of war refugees to the United States. US imperial dominance eroded the bases for a productive labor market which spawned the growth of murderous drug gangs.
In summary, the US proxy wars succeeded, in most, cases in preventing the rise of nationalist-leftist regimes, but also led to the destructive of the economic and political bases of a stable and prosperous empire of neo-colonies.
US Imperialism in Latin America: Changing Structure, External and Internal Contingencies, Shifting Priorities and Global Constraints.
To understand the operations, structure and performance of US imperialism in Latin America, it is necessary to recognize the specific constellation of competing forces which shaped imperial state policies. Unlike the Middle East where the militarist-Zionist faction has established hegemony, in Latin America the MNC have played a leading role in directing imperial state policy. In Latin America, the militarists played a lesser role, constrained by (1)the power of the MNC, (2) the shifts in political power in Latin America from right to center-left (3) the impact of economic crises and the commodity boom.
In contrast to the Middle East, the Zionist power configuration has little influence over imperial state policy, as Israel’s interests are focused on the Middle East and, with the possible exception of Argentina, Latin America is not a priority.
For over a century and a half, the US MNC and banks dominated and dictated US imperial policy toward Latin America. The US armed forces and CIA were instruments of economic imperialism via direct intervention (invasions), proxy ‘military coups’, or a combination of both.
US imperial economic power in Latin America ‘peaked’ between 1975-1999. Vassal states and client rulers were imposed via proxy military coups, direct military invasions (Dominican Republic ,Panama and Grenada) and military-civilian controlled elections.
The results were the dismantling of the welfare state and the imposition of neo-liberal policies. The MNC led imperial state and its international financial appendages (IMF, WB, IDB) privatized lucrative strategic economic sectors, dominated trade and projected a regional integration scheme which would codify US imperial dominance.
Imperial economic expansion in Latin America was not simply a result of the internal dynamics and structures of the MNC but depended on (1) the receptivity of the ‘host’ country or more precisely the internal correlation of class forces in Latin America which in turn revolved around (2) the performance of the economy – its growth or susceptibility to crises.
Latin America demonstrates that contingencies such as the demise of client regimes and collaborator classes can have a profound negative impact on the dynamics of imperialism, undermining the power of the imperial state and reversing the economic advance of the MNC.
The advance of US economic imperialism during the 1975-2000 period was manifest in the adoption of neo-liberal policies, the pillage of national resources, the increase of illicit debts and the overseas transfer of billions of dollars However, the concentration of wealth and property, precipitated a deep socio-economic crises throughout the region which eventually led to the overthrow or ouster of the imperial collaborators in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Nicaragua. Powerful anti-imperialist social movements especially in the countryside emerged in Brazil and the Andean countries.
Urban unemployed workers movements and public employees unions in Argentina and Uruguay spearheaded electoral changes, bringing to power center-left regimes which‘renegotiaed’ relations with the US imperial state.
US MNC influence in Latin America waned. They could not count on the full battery of military resources of the imperial state to intervene and re-impose neo-liberal clients because of its military priorities elsewhere: the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.
Unlike the past, the US MNC in Latin America lacked two essential props of power:
the full backing of the US armed forces and powerful civilian-military clients in Latin America.
The US MNC’s plan for US centered integration was rejected by the center-left regimes. The imperial state turned to bilateral free trade agreements with Mexico, Chile,
Colombia, Panama and Peru. As a result of the economic crises and collapse of most Latin American economies, “neo-liberalism” ,the ideology of imperial economic penetration, was discredited. Neo-liberal advocates marginalized.
Changes in the world economy had a profound impact on US – Latin America trade and investment relations. The dynamic growth of China and the subsequent boom in demand and the rising prices of commodities, led to a sharp decline of US dominance of Latin American markets.
Latin American states diversified trade, sought and gained new overseas markets, especially in China. The increase in export revenues created greater capacity for selffinancing. The IMF, WB and IDB, economic instruments for leveraging US financial impositions (“conditionality”), were sidelined
The US imperial state faced Latin American regimes who embraced diverse economic options, markets and sources of financing. With powerful domestic popular support and unified civilian-military command, Latin America moved tentatively out of the US sphere of imperialist domination.
The imperial state and its MNC , deeply influenced by their “success” in the 1990’s, responded to the decline of influence by proceeding by ‘trial and error’, in the face of the negative constraints of the 21st century. The MNC backed policymakers in the imperial state continued to back the collapsing neo-liberal regimes, losing all credibility in Latin America. The imperial-state failed to accommodate changes – deepening popular and center-left regime opposition to “free markets” and the deregulation of banks. No large scale economic aid programs, like Presideny Kennedy’s effort to counter the revolutionary appeal of the Cuban revolution by promoting social reforms via the ‘Alliance for Progress”, were fashioned to win over the center-left,probably because of budget constraints resulting from costly wars elsewhere.
The demise of neo-liberal regimes, the glue that held the different factions of the imperial state together, led to competing proposals of how to regain dominance. The ‘militarist faction’ resorted to and revived the military coup formula for restoration: coups were organized in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras and Paraguay . . . all were defeated, except the latter two. The defeat of US proxies led to the consolidation of the independent, anti-imperialist center-left regimes.Even the “success”of the US coup in Honduras resulted in a major diplomatic defeat,as every Latin American government condemned it and the US role,further isolating Washington in the region.
The defeat of the militarist strategy strengthened the political-diplomatic faction of the imperial state. With positive overtures toward ostensibly ‘center-left regimes’, this faction gained diplomatic leverage, retained military ties and deepened the expansion of MNC in Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Peru. With the latter two countries the economic imperialist faction of the imperial state secured bilateral free trade agreements.
A third MNC – military faction, overlapping with the previous two, combined diplomatic-political accommodations toward Cuba, with an aggressive political destabilization strategy aimed at “regime change” (coup) in Venezuela.
The heterogeneity of imperial state factions and their competing orientations, reflects the complexity of interests engaged in empire building in Latin America and results in seemingly contradictory policies, a phenomenon less evident in the Middle East where the militarist -zionist power configuration dominates imperial policymaking.
For example the promotion of military bases and counter-insurgency operations in Colombia (a priority of the militarist faction) is accompanied by bilateral free market agreements and peace negotiations between the Santos regime and the FARC armed insurgency (a priority of the MNC faction).
Regaining imperial dominance in Argentina involves, (1) promoting the electoral fortunes of the neo-liberal governor of Buenos Aires Macri, (2) backing the pro- imperial media conglomerate , Clarin, facing legislation breaking up its monopoly (3) exploiting the death of prosecutor and CIA-Mossad collaborator, Alberto Nisman to discredit the KirchnerFernandez regime(4)backing NewYork speculaters’ (vulture)investment fund attempting to extract exorbitant interest payments and, with the aid of a dubious judicial ruling, blocking
Argentina’s access to financial markets
Both the militarist and MNC factions of the imperial state converge in backing a multi-pronged electoral – and coup approach, which seeks to restore a US controlled neoliberal regimes to power.
The contingencies which forestalled the recovery of imperial power over the past decade are now acting in reverse. The drop in commodity prices has weakened post neoliberal regimes in Venezuela, Argentina and Ecuador. The ebbing of anti-imperialist movements resulting from center-left co-optation tactics has strengthened imperial state backed right-wing movements and street demonstrators. The decline in Chinese growth has weakened the Latin American market diversification strategies. The internal balance of class forces has shifted to the Right, toward US backed political clients in Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Paraguay.
Theoretical Reflections on Empire Building in Latin America
US empire building in Latin America is a cyclical process, reflecting the structural shifts in political power, and the restructuring of the world economy – forces and factors which ‘override’ the imperial state and capital’s drive to accumulate.Capital accumulation and expansion does not depend merely on the impersonal forces of “the market” – because the social relations under which the “market” functions, operate under the constraints of the class struggle.
The centerpiece of imperial state activities-namely the prolonged territorial wars in the Middle East – are absent in Latin America. The driving force of US imperial state policy is the pursuit of resources (agro-mining), labor power ( low paid autoworkers), markets (size and purchasing power of 600 million consumers). The economic interests of the MNC are the motives for imperial expansion.
Even as, from a geo-strategic vantage point, the Caribbean, Central America as well as South America are located most proximate to the US, economic not military objectives predominate.
However, the militarist-Zionist faction in the imperial state, ignore these traditional economic motives and deliberately choose to act on other priorities – control over oil producing regions, destruction of Islamic nations or movements or simply to destroy antiimperialist adversaries. The militarists-Zionist faction counted the “benefits” to Israel, its Middle East military supremacy, more important than the US securing economic supremacy in Latin America. This is clearly the case if we measure imperial priorities by state resources expended in pursuit of political goals.
Even if we take the goal of “national security”, interpreted in the broadest sense, of securing the safety of the territorial homeland of the empire, the US military assault of Islamic countries driven by accompanying Islamophobic ideology and the resulting mass killings and uprooting a millions of Islamic people, has led to “blowback”: reciprocal terrorism. US “total wars” against civilians has provoked Islamic assaults against the citizens of the West.
Latin America countries targeted by economic imperialism are less belligerent than Middle Eastern countries targeted by US militarists. A cost/benefits analysis would demonstrate the totally “irrational” nature of militarist strategy. However,if we take account of the specific composition and interests that motivate particularly imperial state policymakers, there is a kind of perverse “rationality”. The militarists defend the
“rationality” of costly and unending wars by citing the advantages of seizing the ‘gateways to oil’ and the Zionists cite their success in enhancing Israel’s regional power.
Whereas Latin America, for over a century was a priority region of imperial economic conquest, by the 21st century it lost primacy to the Middle East.
The Demise of the USSR and China’s conversion to Capitalism
The greatest impetus to successful US imperial expansion did not take place via proxy wars or military invasions. Rather, the US empire achieved its greatest growth and conquest, with the aid of client political leaders, organizations and vassal states throughout the USSR, Eastern Europe, the Baltic States the Balkans and the Caucuses. Long term, large scale US and EU political penetration and funding succeeded in overthrowing the hegemonic collectivist regimes in Russia and the USSR, and installing vassal states. They would soon serve NATO and be incorporated in the European Union. Bonn annexed East Germany and dominated the markets of Poland,the Czech Republic and other Central European states. US and London bankers collaborated with Russian-Israeli gangster-oligarchs in joint ventures plundering resources, industries, real estate and pension funds. The European Union exploited tens of millions of highly trained scientists, technicians and workers – by importing them or stripping them of their welfare benefits and labor rights and exploiting them as cheap labor reserves in their own country.
“Imperialism by invitation” hosted by the vassal Yeltsin regime, easily appropriated Russian wealth. The ex-Warsaw Pact military forces were incorporated into a foreign legion for US imperial wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Their military installations were converted into military bases and missile sites encircling Russia.
US imperial conquest of the East, created a “unipolar world” in which Washington decision-makers and strategists believed that, as the world’s supreme power, they could intervene in every region with impunity.
The scope and depth of the US world empire was enhanced by China’s embrace of capitalism and its ruler’s invitation to US and EU MNC to enter and exploit cheap Chinese labor. The global expansion of the US empire, led to a sense of unlimited power, encouraging its rulers’ to exercise power against any adversary or competitor.
Between 1990 and 2000,the US expanded its military bases to the borders of Russia.
US MNC expanded into China and Indo-China. US backed client regimes throughout Latin America dismantled the national economies, privatizing and denationalizing over five thousand lucrative strategic firms. Every sector was affected- natural resources, transport, telecommunications and finance.
The US proceeded throughout the 1990’s to expand via political penetration and military force. President George H. W. Bush launched a war against Iraq. Clinton bombed
Yugoslavia and Germany and the EU joined the US in dividing Yugoslavia into ‘mini states’
The Pivotel Year 2000: the Pinnacle and Decline of Empire
The very rapid and extensive imperial expansion, between 1989-1999, the easy conquests and the accompanying plunder, created the conditions for the decline of the US empire.
The pillage and impoverishment of Russia led to the rise of a new leadership under
President Putin intent on reconstructing the state and economy and ending vassalage.
The Chinese leadership harnessed its dependence on the West for capital investments and technology, into instruments for creating a powerful export economy and the growth of a dynamic national public-private manufacturing complex. The imperial centers of finance which flourished under lax regulation crashed. The domestic foundations of empire were severely strained. The imperial war machine competed with the financial sector for federal budgetary expenditures and subsidies.
The easy growth of empire, led to its over-extension. Multiple areas of conflict, reflected world-wide resentment and hostility at the destruction wrought by bombings and invasions. Collaborative imperial client rulers were weakened. The world-wide empire exceeded the capacity of the US to successfully police its new vassal states. The colonial outposts demanded new infusions of troops, arms and funds at a time when countervailing domestic pressures were demanding retrenchment and retreat.
All the recent conquests – outside of Europe – were costly. The sense of invincibility and impunity led imperial planners to overestimate their capacity to expand, retain, control and contain the inevitable anti-imperialist resistance.
The crises and collapse of the neo-liberal vassal states in Latin America accelerated.
Anti-imperialist uprisings spread from Venezuela (1999), to Argentina (2001), Ecuador (2000-2005) and Bolivia (2003-2005). Center-left regimes emerged in Brazil, Uruguay and Honduras. Mass movements, in rural regions,among Indian and mining communities gained momentum. Imperial plans formulated to secure US centered integration were rejected.
Instead multiple regional pacts excluding the US proliferated-ALBA,UNASUR,CELAC. Latin America’s domestic rebellion coincided with the economic rise of China. A prolonged commodity boom severely weakened US imperial supremacy. The US had few local allies in Latin America and over ambitious commitments to control the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.
Washington lost its automatic majority in Latin America: its backing of coups in Honduras and Paraguay and its intervention in Venezuela (2002) and blockade of Cuba was repudiated by every regime, even by conservative allies.
Having easily established a global empire, Washington found it was not so easy to defend it. Imperial strategists in Washington viewed the Middle East wars through the prism of the Israeli military priorities ,ignoring the global economic interests of the MNC.
Imperial military strategists overestimated the military capacity of vassals and clients, ill-prepared by Washington to rule in countries with growing armed national resistance movements. Wars, invasions and military occupations were launched in multiple sites. Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan were added to Afghanistan and Iraq. US imperial state expenditures far exceeded any transfer of wealth from the occupied countries.
A vast civilian – military – mercenary bureaucracy pillaged hundreds of billions of dollars from the US Treasury.
The centrality of wars of conquest, destroyed the economic foundations
and institutional infrastructure necessary for MNC entry and profit.
Once entrenched in strategic military conceptions of empire, the military-political leadership of the imperial state fashioned a global ideology to justify and motivate a policy of permanent and multiple warfare. The doctrine of the ‘war on terror’ justified war everywhere and nowhere. The doctrine was ‘elastic’ – adapted to every region of conflict and inviting new military engagements: Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Lebanon were all designated as war zones. The ‘terror doctrine’, global in scope, provided a justification for multiple wars and the massive destruction (not exploitation) of societies and economic resources. Above all the “war on terrorism” justified torture (Aba Gharib) and concentration camps (Guantanamo), and civilian targets (via drones)anywhere. Troops were withdrawn and returned to Afghanistan and Iraq as the nationalist resistence advanced.. Thousands of Special Forces in scores of countries were active, purveying death and mayhem.
Moreover, the violent uprooting, degradation and stigmatization of entire islamic people led to the spread of violence in the imperial centers of Paris, New York, London,
Madrid and Copenhagen. The globalization of imperial state terror led to individual terror.
Imperial terror evoked domestic terror: the former on a massive, sustained scale encompassing entire civilizations and conducted and justified by elected political officials and military authorities. The latter by a cross section of ‘internationalists’ who directly identified with the victims of imperial state terror.
Contemporary Imperialism: Present and Future Perspectives
To understand the future of US imperialism it is important to sum up and evaluate the experience and policies of the past quarter of a century.
If we compare, US empire building between 1990 and 2015, it is clearly in decline economically, politically and even militarily in most regions of the world, though the process of decline is not linear and probably not irreversible.
Despite talk in Washington of reconfiguring imperial priorities to take account of MNC economic interests, little has been accomplished… Obama’s so-called “pivot to Asia” has resulted in new military base agreements with Japan, Australia and the Philippines surrounding China and reflects an inability to fashion free trade agreements that exclude China. Meantime, the US has militarily re-started the war and reentered Iraq and
Afghanistan in addition to launching new wars in Syria and the Ukraine. It is clear that the primacy of the militarist faction is still the determinant factor in shaping imperial state policies.
The imperial military drive is most evident in the US intervention in support of the coup in the Ukraine and subsequent financing and arming of the Kiev junta. The imperial takeover of the Ukraine and plans to incorporate it into the EU and NATO, represents military aggression in its most blatant form: The expansion of US military bases and installations and military maneuvers on Russia’s borders and the US initiated economic sanctions, have severely damaged EU trade and investment with Russia.. US empire building continues to prioritize military expansion even at the cost of Western imperial economic interests in Europe.
The US-EU bombing of Libya destroyed the burgeoning trade and investment agreements between imperial oil and gas MNC and the Gadhafi government… NATO air assaults destroyed the economy, society and political order, converting Libya into a territory overrun by warring clans, gangs, terrorists and armed thuggery.
Over the past half century, the political leadership and strategies of the imperial state have changed dramatically. During the period between 1975 – 1990, MNC played a central role in defining the direction of imperial state policy: leveraging markets in Asia; negotiating market openings with China; promoting and backing neo-liberal military and civilian regimes in Latin America; installing and financing pro-capitalist regimes in Russia, Eastern Europe, the Baltic and Balkan states. Even in the cases where the imperial state resorted to military intervention, Yugoslavia and Iraq, , the bombings led to favorable economic opportunities for
US MNC .The Bush Sr regime promoted US oil interests via an oil for food agreement with
Saddam Hussein Iin Iraq
Clinton promoted free market regimes in the mini-states resulting from the break-up of socialist Yugoslavia .
However, the imperial state’s leadership and policies shifted dramatically during the late 1990’s onward. President Clinton’s imperial state was composed of long-standing MNC represntatives , Wall Street bankers and newly ascending militarist Zionist officials.
The result was a hybrid policy in which the imperial state actively promoted MNC opportunities under neo-liberal regimes in the ex-Communist countries of Europe and Latin America,and expanded MNC ties with China and Viet Nam while launching destructive military interventions in Somalia, Yugoslavia and Iraq.
The ‘balance of forces’ within the imperialist state shifted dramatically in favor the militarist-Zionist faction with 9/11:the terrorist attack of dubious origens and false flag demolitions in New York and Washington served to entrench the militarists in control of a vastly expanded imperial state apparatus. As a consequence of 9/11 the militarist-Zionist faction of the imperial state subordinated the interests of the MNC to its strategy of total wars. This in turn led to the invasion, occupation and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan (instead of harnessing it to MNC expansion). The US colonial regime dismantled the Iraqui state (instead of re-ordering it to serve the MNC). The assassination and forced out -migration of millions of skilled professionals, administrators, police and military officials crippled any economic recovery (instead of their incorporation as servants of the colonial state and MNC).
The militarist-Zionist ascendancy in the imperial state introduced major changes in policy, orientation , priorities and the modus operandi of US imperialism. The ideology of the “global war on terror” replaced the MNC doctrine of promoting “economic globalization”.
Perpetual wars (“terrorists” were not confined to place and time) replaced limited wars or interventions directed at opening markets or changing regimes which would implement neo-liberal policies benefiting US MNC.
The locus of imperial state activity shifted from exploiting economic opportunities, in
Asia, Latin America and the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe to wars in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa – targeting Moslem countries which opposed Israel’s colonial expansion in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.
The new militarist – power configuration’s conception of empire building required vast – trillion dollar – expenditures, without care or thought of returns to private capital. In contrast, under the hegemony of the MNC, the imperial state, intervened to secure concessions of oil, gas and minerals in Latin America and the Middle East.The costs of military conquest were more than compensated by the returns to the MNC. The militarist imperial state configuration pillaged the US Treasury to finance its occupations, financing a vast army of corrupt colonial collaborators, private mercenary ‘military contractors’and,soon to be millionaire, US military procurement (sic) officials.
Previously, MNC directed overseas exploitation led to healthy returns to the US Treasury both in terms of direct tax payments and via the revenues generated from trade and the processing of raw materials.
Over the past decade and a half, the biggest and most stable returns to the MNC take place in regions and countries where the militarized imperial state is least involved – China, Latin America and Europe. The MNC’s have profited least and have lost most in areas of greatest imperial state involvement.
The ‘war zones’ that extend from Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan are the regions where imperial MNC have suffered the biggest decline and exodus.
The main “beneficiaries” of the current imperial state policies are the war contractors and the security-military-industrial complex in the US.Oversees the state beneficiaries include Israel and Saudi Arabia…In addition Jordanian, Egyptian, Iraqui , Afghani and Pakistani client rulers have squirreled away tens of billions in off-shore private bank accounts.
The “non-state” beneficiaries include mercenary, proxy armies .In Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Ukraine , tens of thousands of collaborators in self-styled “nongovernmental” organizations have also profited.
The Lost-Benefit Calculus or Empire-Building under the Aegeus of the Militarist-
Zionist Imperial State
Sufficient time has passed over the past decade and a half of militarist-Zionist dominance of the imperial state to evaluate their performance.
The US and its Western European allies, especially Germany successfully expanded their empire in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Baltic regions without firing a shot. These countries were converted into EU vassal states. Their markets dominated and industries denationalized. Their armed forces were recruited as NATO mercenaries. West Germany annexed the East. Cheap educated labor, as immigrants and as a labor reserve, increased profits for EU and US MNC. Russia was temporarily reduced to a vassal state between 1991 – 2001. Living standards plunged and welfare programs were reduced. Mortality rates increased. Class inequalities widened. Millionaires and billionaires seized public resources and joined with the imperial MNC in plundering the economy. Socialist and Communist leaders and parties were repressed or co-opted.In contrast imperial military expansion of the 21st century, was a costly failure. The ‘war in Afghanistan’ was costly in lives and expenditures and led to an ignominious retreat. What remained was a fragile puppet regime and an unreliable mercenary military. The US-Afghanistan war was the longest war in US history and one of the biggest failures. In the end the nationalist-Islamist resistance movements – the so-called “Taliban” and allied ethno-religious and nationalist anti-imperialist resistance groups- dominate the countryside, repeatedly penetrate and attack urban centers and prepare to take power.
The Iraq war and the imperial state’s invasion and decade long occupation decimated the economy . The occupation fomented ethno religious warfare. The secular Ba’thist officers and military professionals joined with Islamist-nationalists and subsequently formed a powerful resistance movement (ISIS) which defeated the imperial backed Shia mercenary army during the second decade of the war. The imperial state was condemned to re-enter and engage directly in a prolonged war. The cost of war spiraled to over a trillion dollars. Oil exploitation was hampered and the US Treasury poured tens of billions to sustain a “war without end’.
The US imperial state and the EU, along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey financed armed Islamic mercenary militias to invade Syria and overthrow the secular, nationalist, anti-
Zionist Bashar Assad regime. The imperial war opened the door for the expansion of the Islamic –Ba’thist forces—ISIS– into Syria . The Kurds and other armed groups seized territory, fragmenting the country. After nearly 5 years of warfare and rising military costs the US and EU MNC have been cut off from the Syrian market.
US support for Israeli aggression against Lebanon has led to the growth in power of the anti-imperialist Hezbollah armed resistance. Lebanon, Syria and Iran now represent a serious alternative to the US,EU, Saudi Arabia, Israeli axis.
The US sanctions policy toward Iran has failed to undermine the nationalist regime and has totally undercut the economic opportunities of all the major US and EU oil and gas
MNC as well as US manufacturing exporters.China has replaced them
The US-EU invasion of Libya led to the destruction of the economy and the flight of billions in MNC investments and the disruption of exports.
The US imperial states’ seizure of power via a proxy coup in Kiev, provoked a powerful anti-imperialist rebellion led by armed militia in the East (Donetsk and Luhansk) and the decimation of the Ukraine economy.
In summary, the military-Zionist takeover of the imperial state has led to prolonged, unwinnable costly wars which have undermined markets and investment sites for US MNC. Imperial militarism has undermined the imperial economic presence and provoked long-term, growing anti-imperialist resistance movements, as well as chaotic, unstable and unviable countries out of imperial control.
Economic imperialism has continued to profit in parts of Europe, Asia , Latin America and Africa despite the imperial wars and economic sanctions pursued by the highly militarized imperial state elsewhere.
However, the US militarists’ seizure of power in the Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia have eroded EU’S profitable trade and investments in Russia. The Ukraine under IMF-EU-US tutelage has become a heavily indebted , broken economy run by kleptocrats who are totally dependent on foreign loans and military intervention.
Because the militarized imperial state prioritizes conflict and sanctions with Russia, Iran and Syria, it has failed to deepen and expand its economic ties with Asia, Latin America and Africa. The political and economic conquest of East Europe and parts of the USSR has lost significance. The perpetual, lost wars in the Middle East, North Africa and the Caucuses have weakened the imperial state’s capacity for empire building in Asia and Latin America.
The outflow of wealth, the domestic cost of perpetual wars has eroded the electoral foundations of empire building. Only a fundamental change in the composition of the imperial state and a reorientation of priorities toward centering on economic expansion can alter the current decline of empire. The danger is that as the militarist Zionist imperialist state pursues losing wars, it may escalate and raise the ante ,and move toward a major nuclear confrontation: an empire amidst nuclear ashes!
Introduction: The Greek government is currently locked in a life and death struggle with the elite which dominate the banks and political decision-making centers of the European Union. What are at stake are the livelihoods of 11 million Greek workers, employees and small business people and the viability of the European Union.
If the ruling Syriza government capitulates to the demands of the EU bankers and agrees to continue the austerity programs, Greece will be condemned to decades of regression, destitution and colonial rule. If Greece decides to resist, and is forced to exit the EU, it will need to repudiate its 270 billion Euro foreign debts, sending the international financial markets crashing and causing the EU to collapse.
The leadership of the EU is counting on Syriza leaders abandoning their commitments to the Greek electorate, which as of early February 2015, is overwhelmingly (over 70%) in favor of ending austerity and debt payments and moving forward toward state investment in national economic and social development (Financial Times 7-8/2/15, p. 3). The choices are stark; the consequences have world-historical significance. The issues go far beyond local or even regional, time-bound, impacts. The entire global financial system will be affected (FT 10/2/15, p. 2).
The default will ripple to all creditors and debtors, far beyond Europe; investor confidence in the entire western financial empire will be shaken. First and foremost all western banks have direct and indirect ties to the Greek banks (FT 2/6/15, p. 3). When the latter collapse, they will be profoundly affected beyond what their governments can sustain. Massive state intervention will be the order of the day. The Greek government will have no choice but to take over the entire financial system . . . the domino effect will first and foremost effect Southern Europe and spread to the ‘dominant regions’ in the North and then across to England and North America (FT 9/2/15, p. 2).
To understand the origins of this crises and alternatives facing Greece and the EU, it is necessary to briefly survey the political and economic developments of the past three decades. We will proceed by examining Greek and EU relations between 1980 – 2000 and then proceed to the current collapse and EU intervention in the Greek economy. In the final section we will discuss the rise and election of Syriza, and its growing submissiveness in the context of EU dominance, and intransigence, highlighting the need for a radical break with the past relationship of ‘lord and vassal’.
Ancient History: The Making of the European Empire
In 1980 Greece was admitted to the European Economic Council as a vassal state of the emerging Franco-German Empire. With the election of Andreas Papandreou, leader of the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Party, with an absolute majority in Parliament, hope arose that radical changes in domestic and foreign policy would ensue.1/ In particular, during the election campaign, Papandreou promised a break with NATO and the EEC, the revoking of the US military base agreement and an economy based on ‘social ownership’ of the means of production. After being elected, Papandreou immediately assured the EEC and Washington that his regime would remain within the EEC and NATO, and renewed the US military base agreement. Studies in the early 1980’s commissioned by the government which documented the medium and long-term adverse results of Greece remaining in the EEU, especially the loss of control of trade, budgets and markets, were ignored by Papandreou who chose to sacrifice political independence and economic autonomy in favor of large scale transfers of funds, loans and credit from the EEC. Papandreou spoke from the balcony to the masses of independence and social justice while retaining ties to the European bankers and Greek shipping and banking oligarchs. The European elite in Brussels and Greek oligarchs in Athens retained a stranglehold on the commanding heights of the Greek political and economic system.
Papandreou retained the clientelistic political practices put in place by the previous right-wing regimes – only replacing the rightist functionaries with PASOK party loyalists.
The EEC brushed off Papandreou’ phony radical rhetoric and focused on the the fact they were buying control and subservience of the Greek state by financing a corrupt, clientelistic regime which was deflecting funds for development projects to upgrade Greek economic competitiveness into building a patronage machine based on increased consumption.
The EEC elite ultimately knew that its financial stranglehold over the economy would enable it to dictate Greek policy and keep it within the boundaries of the emerging European empire.
Papandreou’s demagogic “third world” rhetoric notwithstanding, Greece was deeply ensconced in the EU and NATO. Between 1981-85, Papandreou discarded his socialist rhetoric in favor of increased social spending for welfare reforms, raising wages, pensions and health coverage, while refinancing bankrupt economic firms run into the ground by kleptocratic capitalists. As a result while living standards rose, Greece’s economic structure still resembled a vassal state heavily dependent on EEC finance, European tourists and a rentier economy based on real estate, finance and tourism.
Papandreou solidified Greece’s role as a vassal outpost of NATO; a military platform for US military intervention in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean; and market for German and northern European manufactured goods.
From October 1981 to July 1989 Greek consumption rose while productivity stagnated; Papandreou won elections in 1985 using EEC funds. Meanwhile Greek debt to Europe took off … EEC leaders chastised the misallocation of funds by Papandreou’s vast army of kleptocrats but not too loudly. Brussels recognized that Papandreou and PASOK were the most effective forces in muzzling the radical Greek electorate and keeping Greece under EEC tutelage and as a loyal vassal of NATO.
Lessons for Syriza: PASOK’s Short-term Reforms and Strategic Vassalage
Whether in government or out, PASOK followed in the footsteps of its rightwing adversary (New Democracy) by embracing the NATO-EEC strait-jacket.
Greece continued to maintain the highest per capita military expenditure of any European NATO member. As a result, it received loans and credits to finance short-term social reforms and large scale, long-term corruption, while enlarging the party-state political apparatus.
With the ascent of the openly neoliberal Prime Minister Costas Simitis in 2002, the PASOK regime “cooked the books”, fabricated government data on its budget deficit, with the aid of Wall Street investment banks, and became a member of the European Monetary Union. By adopting the euro, Simitis furthered deepened Greece’s financial subordination to the non-elected European officials in Brussels, dominated by the German finance ministry and banks.
The oligarchs in Greece made room at the top for a new breed of PASOK kleptocratic elite, which skimmed millions of military purchases, committed bank frauds and engaged in massive tax evasion.
The Brussels elite allowed the Greek middle class to live their illusions of being ‘prosperous Europeans’ because they retained decisive leverage through loans and accumulating debts.
Large scale bank fraud involving three hundred million euros even reached ex-Prime Minister Papandreou’s office.
The clientele relations within Greece were matched by the clientele relations between Brussels and Athens.
Even prior to the crash of 2008 the EU creditors, private bankers and official lenders, set the parameters of Greek politics. The global crash revealed the fragile foundations of the Greek state – and led directly to the crude, direct interventions of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission – the infamous “Troika”. The latter dictated the ‘austerity’ policies as a condition for the “bail-out” which devastated the economy, provoking a major depression; impoverishing over forty percent of the population, reducing incomes by 25% and resulting in 28% unemployment.
Greece: Captivity by Invitation
Greece as a political and economic captive of the EU had no political party response. Apart from the trade unions which launched thirty general strikes between 2009 – 2014, the two major parties, PASOK and New Democracy, invited the EU takeover. The degeneration of PASOK into an appendage of oligarchs and vassal collaborator of the EU emptied the ‘socialist’ rhetoric of any meaning. The right wing New Democracy Party reinforced and deepened the stranglehold of the EU over the Greek economy. The troika lent the Greek vassal state funds(“bail-out”) which was used to pay back German, French and English financial oligarchs and to buttress private Greek banks. The Greek population was ‘starved’ by ‘austerity’ policies to keep the debt payments flowing-outward and upward.
Europe: Union or Empire?
The European economic crash of 2008/09 resounded worst on its weakest links – Southern Europe and Ireland. The true nature of the European Union as a hierarchical empire, in which the powerful states – Germany and France – could openly and directly control investment, trade, monetary and financial policy was revealed. The much vaunted EU “bailout” of Greece was in fact the pretext for the imposition of deep structural changes. These included the denationalization and privatization of all strategic economic sectors; perpetual debt payments; foreign dictates of incomes and investment policy. Greece ceased to be an independent state:it was totally and absolutely colonized.
Greece’s Perpetual Crises: The End of the “European Illusion”
The Greek elite and, for at least 5 years, most of the electorate, believed that the regressive (“austerity”) measures adopted – the firings, the budget cuts, the privatizations etc. were short-term harsh medicine, that would soon lead to debt reduction, balanced budgets, new investments, growth and recovery. At least that is what they were told by the economic experts and leaders in Brussels.
In fact the debt increased, the downward economic spiral continued, unemployment multiplied, the depression deepened. ‘Austerity’ was a class based policy designed by Brussels to enrichoverseas bankers and to plunder the Greek public sector.
The key to EU pillage and plunder was the loss of Greek sovereignty. The two major parties ,New Democracy and PASOK, were willing accomplices. Despite a 55% youth (16 – 30 years old) unemployment rate, the cut-off of electricity to 300,000 households and large scale out-migration (over 175,000), the EU (as was to be expected) refused to concede that the ‘austerity’ formula was a failure in recovering the Greek economy. The reason the EU dogmatically stuck to a ‘failed policy’ was because the EU benefited from the power, privilege and profits of pillage and imperial primacy.
Moreover, for the Brussels elite to acknowledge failure in Greece would likely result in the demand to recognize failure in the rest of Southern Europe and beyond, including in France Italy and other key members of the EU (Economist 1/17/15, p. 53). The ruling financial and business elites in Europe and the US prospered through the crises and depression, by imposing cuts in social budgets and wages and salaries. To concede failure in Greece, would reverberate throughout North America and Europe, calling into question their economic policies, ideology and the legitimacy of the ruling powers. The reason that all the EU regimes back the EU insistence that Greece must continue to abide by an obviously perverse and regressive ‘austerity’ policy and impose reactionary “structural reforms” is because these very same rulers have sacrificed the living standards of their own labor force during the economic crises (FT2/13/15, p. 2).
The economic crises spanning 2008/9 to the present (2015), still requires harsh sacrifices to perpetuate ruling class profits and to finance state subsidies to the private banks. Every major financial institution – the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the IMF – toes the line: no dissent or deviation is allowed. Greece must accept EU dictates or face major financial reprisals. “Economic strangulation or perpetual debt peonage” is the lesson which Brussels tends to all member states of the EU. While ostensibly speaking to Greece – it is a message directed to all states, opposition movements and trade unions who call into question the dictates of the Brussels oligarchy and its Berlin overlords.
All the major media and leading economic pundits have served as megaphones for the Brussel oligarchs. The message, which is repeated countless times, by liberals, conservatives and social democrats to the victimized nations and downwardly mobile wage and salaried workers, and small businesspeople, is that they have no choice but to accept regressive measure, slashing living conditions (“reforms”) if they hope for ‘economic recovery’ – which, of course, has not happened after five years!
Greece has become the central target of the economic elites in Europe because, the Greek people have gone from inconsequential protests to political powers. The election of Syriza on a platform of recovering sovereignty, discarding austerity and redefining its relations with creditors to favor national development has set the stage for a possible continent-wide confrontation.
The Rise of Syriza: Dubious Legacies, Mass Struggles and Radical (Broken) Promises
The growth of Syriza from an alliance of small Marxist sects into a mass electoral party is largely because of the incorporation of millions of lower middle class public employees, pensioners and small businesspeople. Many previously supported PASOK. They voted Syriza in order to recover the living conditions and job security of the earlier period of “prosperity” (2000-2007) which they achieved within the EU. Their radical rejection of PASOK and New Democracy came after 5 years of acute suffering which might have provoked a revolution in some other country. Their radicalism began with protests, marches and strikes were attempts to pressure the rightwing regimes to alter the EU’s course, to end the austerity while retaining membership in the EU.
This sector of SYRIZA is ‘radical’ in what it opposes today and conformist with its nostalgia for the past. –the time of euro funded vacation trips to London and Paris, easy credit to purchase imported cars and foodstuffs, to ‘feel modern’ and ‘European’ and speak English!
The politics of Syriza reflects, in part, this ambiguous sector of its electorate. In contrast Syriza also secured the vote of the radical unemployed youth and workers who never were part of the consumer society and didn’t identify with “Europe”. Syriza has emerged as a mass electoral party in the course of less than five years and its supporters and leadership reflects a high degree of heterogeneity.
The most radical sector, ideologically, is drawn mostly from the Marxist groups which originally came together to form the party. The unemployed youth sector joined, following the anti-police riots, which resulted from the police assassination of a young activist during the early years of the crisis. The third wave is largely made up of thousands of public workers, who were fired, and retired employees who suffered big cuts in their pensions by order of the troika in 2012. The fourth wave is ex PASOK members who fled the sinking ship of a bankrupt party.
The Syriza Left is concentrated at the mass base and among local and middle level leaders of local movements. The top leaders of Syriza in power positions are academics, some from overseas. Many are recent members or are not even party members. Few have been involved in the mass struggles – and many have few ties with the rank and file militants. They are most eager to sign a “deal” selling out the impoverished Greeks
As Syriza moved toward electoral victory in 2015, it began to shed its original program of radical structural changes (socialism) and adopt measures aimed at accommodating Greek business interests. Tsipras talked about “negotiating an agreement” within the framework of the German dominated European Union. Tsipras and his Finance Minister proposed to re-negotiate the debt, the obligation to pay and 70% of the “reforms”! When an agreement was signed they totally capitulated!
For a brief time Syriza maintained a dual position of ‘opposing’ austerity and coming to agreement with its creditors. It’s “realist” policies reflected the positions of the new academic ministers, former PASOK members and downwardly mobile middle class. Syriza’s radical gestures and rhetoric reflected the pressure of the unemployed, the youth and the mass poor who stood to lose, if a deal to pay the creditors was negotiated.
EU – SYRIZA: Concessions before Struggle Led to Surrender and Defeat
The “Greek debt” is really not a debt of the Greek people. The institutional creditors and the Euro-banks knowingly lent money to high risk kleptocrats, oligarchs and bankers who siphoned most of the euros into overseas Swiss accounts, high end real estate in London and Paris, activity devoid of any capacity to generate income to pay back the debt. In other words, the debt, in large part, is illegitimate and was falsely foisted on the Greek people.
Syriza, from the beginning of ‘negotiations’, did not call into question the legitimacy of the debt nor identified the particular classes and enterprise who should pay it.
Secondly, while Syriza challenged “austerity” policies it did not question the Euro organizations and EU institutions who impose it.
From its beginning Syriza has accepted membership in the EU. In the name of “realism” the Syriza government accepted to pay the debt or a portion of it, as the basis of negotiation.
Structurally, Syriza has developed a highly centralized leadership in which all major decisions are taken by Alexis Tsipras. His personalistic leadership limits the influence of the radicalized rank and file. It facilitated “compromises” with the Brussels oligarchy which go contrary to the campaign promises and may lead to the perpetual dependence of Greece on EU centered policymakers and creditors.
Moreover, Tsipras has tightened party discipline in the aftermath of his election, ensuring that any dubious compromises will not lead to any public debate or extra-parliamentary revolt.
The Empire against Greece’s Democratic Outcome
The EU elite have, from the moment in which Syriza received a democratic mandate, followed the typical authoritarian course of all imperial rulers. It has demanded from Syriza (1)unconditional surrender (2) the continuation of the structures, policies and practices of the previous vassal coalition party-regimes (PASOK-New Democracy) (3) that Syriza shelve all social reforms, (raising the minimum wage, increasing pension, health, education and unemployment spending (4) that SYRIZA follow the strict economic directives and oversight formulated by the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) (5) that SYRIZA retain the current primary budget surplus target of 4.5 percent of economic output in 2015-2017.
To enforce its strategy of strangulating the new government, Brussels threatened to abruptly cut off all present and future credit facilities, call in all debt payments, end access to emergency funds and refuse to back Greek bank bonds – that provide financial loans to local businesses.
Brussels presents Syriza with the fateful “choice”, of committing political suicide by accepting its dictates and alienating its electoral supporters. By betraying its mandate, Syriza will confront angry mass demonstrations. Rejecting Brussels’ dictates and proceeding to mobilize its mass base, Syriza could seek new sources of financing, imposing capital controls and moving toward a radical “emergency economy”.
Brussel has “stone-walled” and turned a deaf ear to the early concessions which Syriza offered. Instead Brussels sees concessions as ‘steps’ toward complete capitulation, instead of as efforts to reach a “compromise”.
Syriza has already dropped calls for large scale debt write-offs, in favor of extending the time frame for paying the debt. Syriza has agreed to continue debt payments, provided they are linked to the rate of economic growth. Syriza accepts European oversight, provided it is not conducted by the hated “troika”, which has poisonous connotations for most Greeks. However, semantic changes do not change the substance of “limited sovereignty”.
Syriza has already agreed to long and middle term structural dependency in order to securetime and leeway in financing its short-term popular impact programs. All that Syriza asks is minimum fiscal flexibility under supervision of the German finance minister-some “radicals”!
Syriza has temporarily suspended on-going privatization of key infrastructure (sea- ports and airport facilities) energy and telecommunication sectors. But is has not terminated them, norrevised the past privatization. But for Brussels “sell-off” of Greek lucrative strategic sectors is an essential part of its “structural reform” agenda.
Syriza’s moderate proposals and its effort to operate within the EU framework established by the previous vassal regimes was rebuffed by Germany and its 27 stooges in the EU.
The EU’s dogmatic affirmation of extremist, ultra neo-liberal policies, including the practice of dismantling Greece’s national economy and transferring the most lucrative sectors into the hands of imperial investors, is echoed in the pages of all the major print media. The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Le Monde are propaganda arms of EU extremism. Faced with Brussel’s intransigence and confronting the ‘historic choice’ of capitulation or radicalization, Syriza tried persuasion of key regimes. Syriza held numerous meetings with EU ministers. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Finance Minister Yanis Vardoulakis traveled to Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and Rome seeking a “compromise” agreement. This was to no avail. The Brussels elite repeatedly insisted:
Debts would have to be paid in full and on time.
Greece should restrict spending to accumulate a 4.5% surplus that would ensure payments to creditors, investors, speculators and kleptocrats.
The EU’s lack of any economic flexibility or willingness to accept even a minimum compromise is a political decision: to humble and destroy the credibility of SYRIZA as an anti-austerity government in the eyes of its domestic supporters and potential overseas imitators in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland (Economist 1/17/15, p. 53).
The strangulation of Syriza is part and parcel of the decade long process of the EU’s assassination of Greece. A savage response to a heroic attempt by an entire people, hurled into destitution, condemned to be ruled by kleptocratic conservatives and social democrats.
Empires do not surrender their colonies through reasonable arguments or by the bankruptcy of their regressive “reforms”.
Brussel’s attitude toward Greece is guided by the policy of “rule or ruin”. “Bail out” is a euphemism for recycling financing through Greece back to Euro-controlled banks, while Greek workers and employees are saddled with greater debt and continued dominance. Brussel’s “bail out” is an instrument for control by imperial institutions, whether they are called “troika” or something else.
Brussels and Germany do not want dissenting members; they may offer to make some minor concessions so that Finance Minister Vardoulakis may claim a ‘partial victory’ – a sham and hollow euphemism for a belly crawl
The “bail out” agreement will be described by Tsipras-Vardoulakis as ‘new’ and “different’ from the past or as a ‘temporary’ retreat. The Germans may ‘allow’ Greece to lower its primary budget surplus from 4.5 to 3.5 percent ‘next year’ – but it will still reduce the funds for economic stimulus and “postpone” raises in pensions, minimum wages etc.
Privatization and other regressive reforms will not be terminated, they will be “renegotiated”. The state will retain a minority “share”.
Plutocrats will be asked to pay some added taxes but not the billions of taxes evaded over the past decades.
Nor will the PASOK – New Democracy kleptocratic operatives be prosecuted for pillage and theft.
Syriza’s compromises demonstrate that the looney right’s (the Economist, Financial Times, NY Times, etc.) characterization of Syriza as the “hard left” or the ultra-left have no basis in reality. For the Greek electorate’s “hope for the future” could turn to anger in the present. Onlymass pressure from below can reverse Syriza’s capitulation and Finance Minister Vardoulakisunsavory compromises. Since he lacks any mass base in the party, Tsipras can easily dismiss him, for signing off on “compromise” which sacrifices the basic interests of the people.
However, if in fact, EU dogmatism and intransigence forecloses even the most favorable deals, Tsipras and Syriza, (against their desires) may be forced to exit the Euro Empire and face the challenge of carving out a new truly radical policy and economy as a free and independent country.
A successful Greek exit from the German – Brussels empire would likely lead to the break-up of the EU, as other vassal states rebel and follow the Greek example. They may renounce not only austerity but their foreign debts and eternal interest payments. The entire financial empire – the so-called global financial system could be shaken . . .
Greece could once again become the ‘cradle of democracy’.
Post-Script:Thirty years ago, I was an active participant and adviser for three years (1981-84) to Prime Minister Papandreou. He, like Tsipras, began with the promise of radical changes and ended up capitulating to Brussels and NATO and embracing the oligarchs and kleptocrats in the name of “pragmatic compromises”. Let us hope, that facing a mass revolt, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Syriza will follow a different path. History need not repeat itself as tragedy or farce.
 The account of the Andreas Papandreou regime draws on personal experience, interviews and observations and from my co-authored article “Greek Socialism: The Patrimonial State Revisited” in James Kurth and James Petras, Mediterranean Paradoxes: the Politics and Social Structure of Southern Europe (Oxford: Berg Press 1993/ pp. 160 -224)
James Petras was Director of the Center for Mediterranean Studies in Athens (1981-1984) and adviser to Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou (1981-84). He resigned in protest over the PM expulsion of leading trade unionists from PASOK for organizing a general strike against his ‘stabilization program’.
Petras is co-author of Mediterranean Paradoxes: The Politics and Social Structure of Southern Europe. His latest books include Extractive Imperialism in the Americas (with Henry Veltmeyer); and The Politics of Empire: the US, Israel and the Middle East.
This post contains:
- Brief information about color revolutions
- Relevant institution
- Color revolutions brands
- Other posts on this topic
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the reader wonder what a “color revolution” is, keep reading.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
“Color revolution(s) is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000’s. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave.
“Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organizing creative non-violent resistance.
“These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution(2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005), in Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq’s Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989), but failed in Iran’s Green Revolution (2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.”
“Color revolutions” are foreign funded psycho-social operations of deception
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding (State Department, Private corporations and affiliated “NGO’s”), and at least a notion that color revolutions are clear psycho-social operations of deception.
It’s a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and “channel” local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, one can argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive, so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often – or in what context – they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last fourteen years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by that we mean desire. All that, drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences’ intellect, the real target being emotional, often times even subconscious.
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (a situation in which a leader is removed from power by the people who have worked with him or her) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy – only a tool – the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ. It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive) is necessary to understand the purpose of the color revolution.
The rest of this post highlights specific institutions of power
“Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this, therefore it is false.’ One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge.” – Apothegm of Narada
SCROLL DOWN FOR LINKS TO RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS AND FURTHER DOWN FOR COLOR REVOLUTION BRANDS
The following institutions are central to the topics addressed here. (click on image to visit their home sites):
«Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible». These are the words from «1984», George Orwell’s fictional novel and eerily correct prognostication of future events from geopolitics to the loss of privacy and the rise of the surveillance state. Oceania fictionally represented the British Isles, North and South America, southern Africa, and Australasia. In Orwell’s world, Eurasia was comprised of Russia and Europe while another power, Eastasia, included China, Korea, and Japan.
Today, a modified form of the dystopian future world map of Orwell is becoming reality as Russia and China increasingly cooperate economically, politically, and militarily to ensure that the forces of Oceania – centered in Washington, London, Berlin, and Paris – do not overrun Eurasia.
At last month’s third annual International Security Conference in Moscow, a conclave sponsored by the Russian Defense Ministry, Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, General Valery Gerasimov stated that Western-financed and organized «color revolutions», such as those employed twice in Ukraine and once in Georgia, represent a form of irregular warfare against Eurasia. Gerasimov’s statement about North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, which resemble Orwell’s Oceania, launching irregular warfare against Eurasia could have been torn from the pages of «1984». Gerasimov cited information warfare, economic sanctions, and support for «proxy criminal organizations» and extremist groups as part of the West’s irregular warfare construct directed against Eurasia.
Gerasimov also said that color revolutions were part and parcel of Western military strategy against Eurasia since the non-military tactics employed were often followed by military force to bring about regime change. This is now the case with the Ukrainian government’s NATO-supported military offensive against federalists in eastern Ukraine, as well as in NATO support for Islamist rebels battling against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Military intervention, including air attacks, was also employed by NATO after the Islamist uprising in eastern Libya that eventually forced Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from power.
Gerasimov’s comments about color revolutions was supported by none other than Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a non-profit think tank that often reflects the views of the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department. Cordesman said color revolutions sponsored by the West were a new form of warfare against Russia and China.
Belarusian Defense Minister Yury Zhadobin cited the «godfather» of CIA-financed themed uprisings and revolutions, Gene Sharp, the director of the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston as the prime motivator of the uprisings witnessed in Europe and the Middle East. The armed forces of Russia, China, and Belarus now consider the West’s support for regime change through color revolutions as being part of the military doctrines of the United States and NATO. The military planners in Moscow, Beijing, and Minsk also view Western private military contractors – mercenaries — such as the former Blackwater, now Academi, as being part of the West’s regime change scenario after the outbreak of color revolutions.
The reasons for the West’s color revolution and regime change project for Eurasia are clear. With Russia and China at the forefront of developing new Eurasian energy schemes involving natural gas and new transportation routes evoking memories of the old Silk Road, the West feels threatened by the emergence in Eurasia of a dynamic new market that could not only rival but eclipse the European Union and Washington’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The emergence of a new Eurasian identity has alarmed the political leaders of de facto Oceania. Eurasia places economic development and respect for traditions over what many in Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other countries of the region see as a Western «culture» that emphasizes pop culture, homosexuality, destruction of social safety nets, disrespect for religion, destruction of the traditional family unit, and unbridled vulture capitalism that promotes draconian austerity.
The Moscow security conference met at about the same time that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the fourth Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) held in Shanghai. There, Xi emphasized that Asia has entered the 21st century at that the Cold War mentality should be abandoned. Observers from Japan and the United States looked on as Asian delegates roundly rejected President Barack Obama’s Cold War military «pivot to Asia» and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s revanchist imperial military buildup in east Asia. In many respects, the United States Pacific forces and Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea represent the militaristic «Eastasia» of «1984», an entity that was allied for a period of time with Oceania.
Not only was the «Power of Siberia» natural gas pipeline, which will begin pumping natural gas from Siberia to China in 2018, agreed upon in Shanghai but there are plans to restore the old Silk Road as a major trans-Eurasian highway that will link China to Europe via the trans-Siberian highway and Europe’s E-30 highway. Eventually, an A-class motor highway will link Amsterdam with Beijing via the Asian Highway Network. This network of modern highways will restore the ancient Silk Road of Asia and move goods and passengers throughout Eurasia and, in the process, build new infrastructures in the remotest parts of the Eurasian heartland. This prospect has the banking houses of Europe and America concerned since they will be locked out of the financial sweepstakes.
Eurasia’s leaders, from Putin and Xi, to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Afghan President Hamid Karzai are well aware how the color revolutions that have wracked Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan have been financed. The «Euromaidan» overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who rejected a union with the European Union and appeared ready to forge ties with Eurasia, was part of the West’s (or «Oceania’s) first indirect military aggression against Eurasia.
Some Eurasian leaders are aware that the West is trying to derail the developing Eurasian Union. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed transforming CICA into a new Organization for Security and Development in Asia (OSDA), which would be the closest thing to a Eurasian counterpart to NATO. Stressing Eurasia’s rejection of Western «values», Nazarbayev stressed that OSDA would be built upon Asian «tradition and values». Nazarbayev appeared to be speaking for a number of Eurasian leaders in rejecting the lewd permissiveness of Western culture as witnessed by «Pussy Riot’s» and FEMEN’s displays of vulgarity and gratuitous nudity in places of religious worship in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries.
There is a new competitor to America’s version of Oceania now emerging in Orwell’s Eurasia. Halford John Mackinder’s «Heartland Theory», which was espoused in his book «The Geographical Pivot of History», postulated that the power that controlled Eurasia’s heartland between the Volga and Yangtze and the Arctic Sea and Himalayas would control the destiny of the world.
If the Eurasian Union becomes a successful political and economic union, the United States, Britain, Western Europe, and Japan will be confined to an economically anemic and socially decadent coastal «Rimland» where the few remaining assets will be fought over by the hungry jackals of the banking houses of Wall Street, City of London, and Frankfurt. The outbreak of wars in Syria, Ukraine, and Iraq are but the first shots of the impending war between «Oceania» and «Eurasia».
Zoe Konstantopoulou, is the youngest in age and the second woman president of the Parliament. She was elected with 235 votes out of 298 MP’s who took part in the vote. The first official, purely democratic guidelines to the Greek parliament in long time, was given in the opening speech by Mrs. Zoe Konstantopoulou.
The first bright glimpse of sunshine shone on the Greeks, when the black clouds for the first time in five years scattered a little bit. It was a verbal ray, but it came from somewhere it hasn’t come for a very long time in Greece, or in Europe for that matter. It was the official, deeply democratic, patriotic and concrete positioning of the new President of the Parliament, in her opening speech.
For the first time since the bloody civil war, someone in that position, officially express and personally commits themselves to the very basic foundations of Democracy, so crystal clear. She pointed out that the Parliament’s biggest task is to first and foremost defend and guarantee these basic, democratic principles and values and the Greek nations historic right to them. She specifically mentioned the indisputable rights that the Greek nation and the Greek people in particular have, due to its heroic struggles and gigantic sacrifices for democracy and freedom, throughout history. Very firmly she declared, that whoever tries to deprive the Greeks these rights – from now on – will meet a wall with the democratic basic principles in practice. They will meet the original spirit of international law, the substantial essence of the UN-conventions and the Greek people’s constitutional rights, in action. And they will meet a parliament that will, first and above anything else, defend those historic rights and guarantee them to these historic defenders of them.
She gave a very thirsty and almost dehydrated people, a few shots of fresh spring water, after so many decades of drinking toxic and dirty water served with the great powers nicely packaged, bottled, latrine-water. She spoke directly to the hearts of over 80% of the Greeks (including the diaspora). That fact is the reason why Mr Varoufakis looked so worried and was twisting and turning like a “Lord Voldemort on coke”, during Mrs Konstantopoulous speech. Her words were as painful, distorted high noises in his ears, because he wears Soro’s headphones. To all neo-liberal powers on the planet, particularly the bankers that speech was like the sound of a metal knife cutting against an empty plate.
Mr Varoufakis might have taken the European media and the politically correct left-pretenders by storm, but if he doesn’t follow the wide majority of the party’s and the members standpoint on the debt, he will have many battles within the party. Mrs Konstantopoulou views are more rooted in SYRIZA than Varoufakis “austere livelihood” program, the get-used-to-being-poor-program. That he is a brilliant economist there is no question, but to be a brilliant economist is not enough for the position he has. He have to first and foremost work for the Greek people’s interests and nobody else’s. Dr Mengele was also a brilliant physician but his loyalties and his employer posed a lethal threat to many million people. It is for what and for who they work that matters. In his case it’s quite clear that he don’t work for the best of the Greek people.
Mrs Konstantopoulou showed a slightly different line than Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis who has been ensuring the debt and in reality just talks about “stretching it out over a longer time”. She spoke about deletion of the majority of the debt, as was promised. She also stressed that she herself will take initiative to promote the Greek claims of deleting most of the Greek debt and the Development clauses.
Due to the President of Parliament, Mrs Konstantopoulou’s unprecedented, official clarity and sharpness on the basic democratic principles, in contrast with what goes on in the Trojan Horse led parts of the government, it is evident that two ‘SYRIZA’ are in action right now… The Trojan Horse serves the great-powers’ interests, and the others, whose spirit together with the vast majority of the Greek people’s common spirit, spoke through the new President of the Greek Parliament on Friday.
This is the only really good news so far, but only if the new President of the Parliament’s official standpoint is also defended in practice and in action, of course.
Her constitutionally protected position, as President of the Greek Parliament, gives her very big freedom to set the rules and the guidelines for the parliament’s democratic, practical procedures in accordance with the fundamental democratic principles. In practice that means, to actively guarantee and defend the basic democratic rights for the Greek people and it must be based on the people’s requests.
The speech has not been broadcasted in its entirety anywhere in western media yet, except some excerpt (minutes and seconds from the 24 minutes of the speech). I tried to find it translated on YT, but not even an excerpt anywhere. That speech was a painful noise to the bankers and the global elite. As it always is when democracy’s fundamental principles, international laws and UN conventions are officially pointed out by government members, judges or the President of Parliament in a nation’s government.
I upload it here for you who understand Greek
This is an analysis from the Strategical Cultural Foundation, that with further details confirms my conclusions in my own article “SYRIZA’s new Greek government is just PASOK “updated” – Soro’s edition”.
A Soros «Trojan Horse» inside the New Greek Government?
Wayne MADSEN | 29.01.2015 | 00:00
As Greece celebrates the inauguration of its anti-austerity government, the euphoria should be tempered with a bit of realism. Although new Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who named his son «Ernesto» after Cuban revolutionary Ernesto «Ché» Guevara, and the vast majority of his new Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) government have good left-wing and pro-labor credentials, the same cannot be necessarily said of the man Tsipras chose to be Greece’s new finance minister. Yanis Varoufakisis a citizen of Australia who was educated in Britain and worked as a professor at the University of Texas. Europe has witnessed such dual nationals with conflicting loyalties take power in countries in Eastern Europe, most notably in Ukraine, where American Natalie Jaresko became finance minister in order to deliver International MonetaryFund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) austerity «poison pills» to Ukraine.
Today, the nations of eastern and central Europe are populated with globalists, overt types and those of the «crypto» variety, with many of them, like Varoufakis, citizens or past legal residents of other nations. Romania’s finance minister, Ioana Petrescu, is a Wellesley and Harvard graduate and former fellow for the U.S. Republican Party’s National Republican Institute at the neo-conservative and anti-Russian American Enterprise Institute (AEI). She is also a past professor at the University of Maryland. Although Petrescu’s right-wing connections to Washington appear at odds with Varoufakis’s ties to the neo-liberal Brookings Institution, in the world of «make believe» political differences, Petrescu and Varoufakis are two sides of the same coin. When one follows the money that helped create these two finance ministers, as well as Jaresko, all roads lead back to Washington and entities that suckle from the teat of the Central Intelligence Agency and its myriad of front entities.
Varoufakis’s curriculum vitae, like that of Jaresko’s, reeks of George Soros-intertwined globalist links. For a finance minister who is to — if we believe the dire warnings from the corporate press — challenge the austerity measures dictated to Greece’s previous failed conservative and social democratic governments by the «Troika» of the IMF, ECB, and European Commission, Varoufakis has had a past close relationship with the global entities with which he is expected to battle.
Varoufakis also served as «economist-in-residence» for the Valve Corporation, a video game spinoff of the always-suspect Microsoft Corporation of extreme globalist Bill Gates.
The warning signs that Varoufakis is a «Trojan horse» for the global bankers are abundant. First, Varoufakis served as an economic adviser to the failed PASOK social democratic government of Prime Minister George Papandreou, the man who first put Greece on the road to draconian austerity measures. Varoufakis now claims that he was ardently opposed to Papandreou’s deal with the «Troika» but no one will ever know how much the now-anti austerity finance minister agreed to while he was advising Papadreou on the proper course of action to settle Greece’s enormous debt problem.
Varoufakis is a close friend and co-author of American economist and fellow University of Texas professor James K. Galbraith, the son of the late «eminence grise» of American economists, John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith’s ties to the global banking elite are exemplified by his guest scholar position at the elitist Brookings Institution in Washington. In other words, although Tsipras’s biography suggests a bona fide leftist, Varoufakis’s background indicates that Greece’s new finance minister is at home and comfortable with the banker elites who carved out Greece’s national soul with a sharp blade of austerity cuts to social security, public health, and other basic public services.
The foreword to Varoufakis’s book, «A Modest Proposal, which deals with Europe’s financial crisis and which he co-wrote with James Galbraith and former British Member of Parliament Stuart Holland, was written by former French Prime Minister Michael Rocard. Rocard has called for the EU to appoint a European «strongman» and Rocard’s choice is European Parliament president Martin Schulz, the very same man who has warned the new SYRIZA government to abide by the austerity agreements concluded by the past PASOK and conservative governments.
Holland, an adviser to former Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, along with French President François Mitterand, helped craft the 1986 Single European Act, one of the charters that helped create the European Union financial system that has been used to emaciate the Greek economy in the name of austerity.
Varoufakis’s commitment to work within the IMF and European banking system is obvious from what the Greek finance minister wrote on his website. After calls by American financial writers Paul Krugman and Mark Weisbrot for Greece to follow the example of Argentina and default on its debts and exit the Eurozone altogether, Varoufakis argues that Greece must «grin and bear» the measures imposed on it by the bankers and the German government as a member of the Eurozone. And that means the SYRIZA finance minister surrendered to the whims of the bankers long before SYRIZA’s electoral victory. Considering the unquestionable leftist credentials of many members of the Greek government, the bankers have, at the very least, a willing accomplice as finance minister on the Greek side of the negotiating table on the future of the nation’s economy and the unpopular Troika-imposed austerity measures that swept SYRIZA to power.
Although Varoufakis stands ready to cut deal after deal with the global and European bankers, his colleagues in the coalition government SYRIZA crafted with the anti-EU but right-wing Independent Greeks party, will not follow EU diktats when it comes to such matters as agreeing to continued austerity, as well as EU sanctions against Russia. No sooner had Tsipras become prime minister, he criticized the EU for issuing a warning about further sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Tsipras said an anti-Russia European Council statement had been issued without the consent of Greece.
Greece’s new foreign minister, Nikos Kotzias, is, like Varoufakis, an academic. However, unlike Varoufakis, Kotzias, a former Communist, has been a professor at a Greek, not a foreign, university. Kotzias and Tsipras are following through with their promises of opposing current and future EU sanctions against Russia, something that will not endear them to the Soros elements who have their clutches on Varoufakis. Kotzias has the power to veto new or renewed sanctions against Russia. Kotzias is opposed to German domination over Europe and was such a staunch Communist, he supported the crackdown by Polish Communist leader Wojciech Jaruzelski on the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland in the 1980s, a fact that places him at complete loggerheads with EU Polish President Donald Tusk, an early activist within the Solidarity movement, who wants to impose further punitive measures on Russia. In what can only send EU and NATO interventionists into a tail spin, Kotzias will find himself more at home in Moscow than he will in Brussels or Berlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already started the process of establishing close relations with the new government in Athens. The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has likely commenced «surge» surveillance of all official communications links between Athens and Moscow and it has also certainly placed Greece, like Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Hungary, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon into the category of a hostile «target» nation for the purposes of collecting signals intelligence or «SIGINT».
Greece, which pioneered the Trojan horse weapon used against Troy, must be on guard against Trojan horses like Varoufakis who have been implanted in the new Greek government.
The SYRIZA government’s inner circle and its first week doesn’t give much hope
The names in the new Greek government that was announced last Tuesday, gave many of us the shivers. Even we that didn’t believe in all the promises thought at least, that by getting rid of the ruthless, previous “Brussels- och Berlin-servants”, we could breathe out.
On the contrary, we had to abruptly digest the fact that Tsipras really can’t keep many of his main promises to the people. Not with these neo-liberal, “Soro’s boys and girls”, in the inner circle of ministers and vice ministers.
There is no doubt that the people’s choice in the elections was a ‘good step’, it was a step in the right direction but it was really nothing more than just one single step. And that little step is not expressed in the election of a Tsipra’s government, but in the decision of getting rid of the Samara’s government.
A brief analysis was made on Monday by Dimitris Kazakis, the economist and general secretary of the democratic, resistance movement E.PA.M* (the United Popular Front). He commented on some very suspicious members in SYRIZA’s lead, some of the former members of PASOK, the “dirty” members with an unresolved past. He commented on these names, because they are found in minister and vice minister posts, and in the negotiating team of the new government. After one look at the names, one understand that it is more likely that there will be sessions of sheer bargaining, rather than true negotiations about the Debt, the Austerity and the Democracy.
He speaks about the ministers and the members of the negotiation team as, the new finance minister Yanis Varoufakis (a George Soros “boy”), vice prime minister Giannis Dragasakis and the minister of infrastructure, shipping and tourism, Georgos Stathakis, These are the Greek “Dalton brothers from the old PASOK” – Averel is missing, because he started his own party and got 2,4% from family and ‘friends’. All three are the bankers wolves. So the big bankers victory, also in this European ‘left-government’, is obvious.
He speaks about, “negotiator” Nikos Christodoulakis (Minister for Kostas Simitis, one of the most hated prime ministers, because he indebted the Greeks massively, with the infamous stock market fraud and various bribe scandals), Deputy Minister for combating unemployment, Rania Antonopoulou (from Levi Institute and active in several of George Soro’s organizations), “negotiator” Louka Katseli (voted for the first Memorandum and said afterward that she was not even familiar with the figures for the debt, because she didn’t read what she voted through), Nikos Kotsias the new reckless foreign minister (George Papandreou’s Foreign Minister, Pagalo’s helper, and Mr. Papandreou’s secretary – has been Pagalos-trained for many years).
It seems that the failed and fatal, neo-liberal Papandreou prescription will be restyled and ensured, instead of seriously questioned and condemned by those ministers. We see a poorly disguised PASOK, governing Greece now.
In Soro’s service
The new finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, revealed in his very first interview as a finance minister – given to BBC by the way, and not to a Greek channel – for who he really work and on whose behalf he really will negotiate. It stands clear that he is in this position to ensure and protect Soro’s, Levi’s & Co interests, and not to really negotiate on behalf of the Greek people. He is not there to, with the support in constitutional and international law and UN resolutions, question the debt. He is not there to demand a legal and financial investigation of the debt and the neo-colonial agreement with the Eurogroup/IMF/ECB. Even if that was one of the clear, actual assignments, from the people. With a few leftish, ‘cosmetic’ adjustments, and some socioeconomic ‘lollipops’ to the suffering, he will try to pass a new kind of “Memorandum”, a permanent one.
He will do this by continuing the Papandreic reasoning. This Narcissus, didn’t call the Greeks lazy, as Papandreou did, but he was equally degrading when he indirectly acknowledged the debt, instead of telling the truth to the Europeans, about the ‘Greek loans’. He should have! Because that’s what SYRIZA promised us. He felt instead that he had to calm down the nervous investors and the Eurogroup, before he could start posing as a “left” finance minister.
He actually deliberately lied to the Europeans, when he told them that they have ever paid one nickel from their pockets, for their governments loans to Greece. That their governments and their media have lied to them and told them that they tightened their citizens’ lives, because of the “lazy Greeks”, is an entirely different thing. That thing, is something that these citizens should take up with their governments, not with the Greeks. How are the Germans, the Slovenians and other European citizens paying for the Greeks?
Doesn’t Varoufakis know that Germany as a nation, borrowed Greece 15,2 billion euro within the framework of the “help-packages”, but made over 75 billion euro, only from the different interest rates on these loans? The loans that went to Greece was money that didn’t come from the citizens pockets, as this new finance minister implies. These countries governments borrowed money from the ECB with much lower interest rate than they lent to Greece. He also know more than well, that these countries didn’t lend Greece 240 billion euro in 5 years, but 55 billion euro, which 16 countries shared. The remaining 185 billion were provided by the EFSF, ie the temporary European Fund for controlled bankruptcy mechanism, which in its turn was borrowed from the markets by issuing its own debt securities. Thus they offered the citizens to speculate financially, to invest in another country’s bankruptcy, instead of asking them if they feel like supporting the EFSF or not. No one can ask the Greeks, neither legally nor morally, to feel any responsibility for the fact that these citizens lost money when they themselves accepted to speculate on people’s misery through such a disgusting pyramid game.
He didn’t tell the European citizens, that their governments actually made tens of billions of euros in profit by lending out money to Greece, and that they intentionally lied to them about it.
SYRIZA promised the Greeks, that they would pass the message to the Europeans about this and not continue Papandreous blame games, while acting as the “hard negotiator”. Indeed an odd view our times “left-wing governments” have on the term, speaking on behalf of the people.
We did not want the government to calm down the bankers and lenders. We wanted the government to upset them and determinedly and with the support of international law, really challenge them.
The European peoples hope against neo-liberalism?
If Tsipras have chosen to accommodate EU’s, the Euro-groups and the banker’s “wishlists”, he will not be well treated at all by the progressive parts of SYRIZA, the majority of their new voters and the bigger part of the Greek people. The majority of the voters voted for SYRIZA, for they committed themselves to “not back down” from the following promises:
- the condemnation and the demand for a judicial review, of the illegally imposed colonial loan agreements, in an international court
- a radical, democratic change in the current party controlled, customer based, political system
- the proper taxation of all the richest
- all the responsible – domestic and foreign – for the Greek peoples suffering and Greece’s destruction, to be held to account in the court of law”, for their crimes
The Greek people will not be satisfied or trust any government, before it show in practice that it doesn’t back away from these people’s “red lines”, in all aspects of these four crucial questions.
Tsipras, should know – because most of his constituents and many of his party members know – that the main ongoing, immediate threats that daily deepens our concerns, fueling our anger and extend our grief are:
- the enforced colonial agreements, the conditions and the debt serfdom of the Greek people (through the illegally signed resignation from any rights to defend its natural wealth, its sovereignty and its independence, on the demand of the Eurozone and Papandreou’s government),
- the planned, systematic, impoverishment, exhaustion and humiliation of the Greek people
- the increasing number of people who die as a direct result of ‘austerity’, all the suicides and the young migrating population
- the dismantling of democracy, the human and the constitutional rights in Greece
- the highly biased and propagandist media (that blatantly lies and instead of informing, withholds the truth from the people, polarize it and act like spokesmen for the Germany led, neo-liberal, neo-Nazi promoting and supporting, EU)
I will not comment at all on the small social-economic, tiny “soothers”. Once the above issues are treated with respect and according to the will of the people, I can feel myself compelled to applaud some of the ‘soothers’ too. I know that the submissive attitude towards the lenders were not at all what the Greeks voted for, nor a pimped Papandreou solution. We did not want the government to calm down the bankers and lenders, but to upset them. We wanted the government to determinedly challenge them, with the support of international law. But the Mr Kotsias, like any other of the current European moral cripples, they wave away international law, UN and international agreements and joins the psychopaths ‘war games’.
The Greek government foreign policy opened up for EU’s step two against Russia
One first positive thing, that could have been said about this government, would have been if Kotsias would have proceeded to the use of veto on the Ukraine issue, against the rest of EU. It would have been good if Greece’s media-baptized, “radical left” government, could have stopped the escalating involvement in the neo-Nazis massacres of the population of Ukraine, and not just adjust to the existing, highly toxic aggressiveness towards Russia. But the foreign minister Mr Kotsias (the Pangalos-apprentice) didn’t… He just pointed out some incorrect procedure and then he dropped the key comment “the sanctions do not work”, which in foreign policy language basically means we should proceed to the next step against Russia. He could have been the one who, with the support of international law and UN treaties, put his veto against “the EU’s ambition to be able to unilaterally declare war and start a war against a sovereign nation and from a third nation’s land”. That not a single representative, from any other member country, saw any problems with the fact that EU want to violate international law and existing UN treaties and resolutions, was not the problem according to Kotsias. But that they “ignored the prescribed procedure for Greece’s consent,” was certainly something he would not tolerate.
We know from historical facts that the comment “sanctions do not work” means let us go to step two. Airstrikes, drones, cluster bombs, create or support local “west-friendly ‘butchers and when that “does not work”, go to step three, land invasion (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Argentina, Serbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya etc.). Only in cases where they did not dare to actually declare war, they continued with sanctions for decades, such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea. That the Greek government did not use its veto against the EU and its neo-liberal crusade against Russia, is a position that is in direct conflict with the majority of the Greek people’s view and so will every submissive, customer minded Greek government be.
No, I can not really understand why some evil-minded, suspicious people, strongly doubts that this really is “the European peoples best hope against the bankers, the EU’s neo-colonial austerity policies and the neo-Nazi, ethnic cleansings”? Can you?
Syriza-regeringens inre krets och dess första vecka ger inte mycket hopp.
Namnen i den nya grekiska regeringen som tillkännagavs i tisdags, gav många av oss rysningar. Även vi som inte trodde på alla löften, trodde åtminstone att genom att bli av med de hänsynslösa, föregående “Bryssel och Berlin-tjänarna”, skulle vi kunna andas ut.
Tvärtom tvingades vi plötsligt smälta faktumet att Tsipras i verkligheten, inte kan hålla många av sina främsta löften till folket. Inte med dessa nyliberala “Soro’s pojkar och flickor”, i den inre kretsen av ministrar och viceministrar.
Det råder ingen tvekan om att folkets röst i valet var ett ‘bra steg’, det var ett steg i rätt riktning, men det var verkligen inte något annat än ett endaste, litet steg. Och det steget beskrivs inte, av beslutet att rösta för en Tsipras-regering, utan av beslutet att bli av med Samaras-regeringen.
En kort analys gjordes redan förra måndagen av Dimitris Kazakis, ekonomen och generalsekreteraren för den demokratiska motståndsrörelsen E.PA.M (Enad Folklig Front). Han kommenterade några mycket misstänkta medlemmar i Syrizas ledning, några av de tidigare medlemmarna ur PASOK, de “smutsiga” medlemmarna med ett olöst förflutet. Han kommenterade dessa namn, eftersom de återfinns i minister och vice ministerposter och i förhandlingsgruppen för den nya regeringen. Efter en blick på namnen, förstår man att det är mer sannolikt att det kommer att bli sittningar av köpslagning, snarare än verkliga förhandlingar om Skulden, Åtstramningspolitiken och Demokratin.
Han talar om ministrarna och medlemmarna i förhandlingsgruppen som, den nya finansministern, Yanis Varoufakis (en Soro’s “pojke”), vice premiärminister Giannis Dragasakis och ministern för infrastruktur, transport och turism, Georgos Stathakis, De här är de grekiska “Dalton bröderna från gamla PASOK “- Averel saknas, eftersom han startade sitt eget parti och fick 2,4%, från familj och “vänner”. Alla tre är bankirernas vargar. Så storbankirenas seger också i den här Europeiska’vänster-regeringen’, är uppenbar.
Han talar om,”förhandlaren” Nikos Christodoulakis (minister under Kostas Simitis, en av de mest hatade premiärministrarna för att han verkligen skuldsatta grekerna, med det ökända börs-bedrägeriet och diverse mut-skandaler), biträdande ministern för att bekämpa arbetslösheten, Rania Antonopoulou (från Levi Institute och aktiv i flera av George Soro’s organisationer), “förhandlaren” Louka Katseli (röstade för Memorandum I och sa efteråt att hon inte ens var bekant med siffrorna för skulden, för hon hade inte ens läst det hon röstat igenom), Nikos Kotsias den nya utrikesministern (var George Papandreou’s, utrikesminister, Pangalo’s hjälpreda, och även herr Papandreou’s rådgivare – han har blivit Pangalos-tränad i många år).
Det verkar som det misslyckade och dödliga, nyliberala Papandreou receptet skall stylas om och säkerställas, istället för att på allvar ifrågasätts och fördömas av dessa ministrar. Vi ser alltså endast ett dåligt förklätt PASOK regera Grekland nu.
I Soro’s tjänst
Den nya finansministern, Yanis Varoufakis, avslöjade i sin allra första intervju som grekernas finansminister – som gavs till BBC förresten, och inte till någon grekisk kanal – för vem han verkligen jobbar och för vems räkning han i verkligheten kommer att förhandla. Det är uppenbart att han är där för att försäkra och skydda Soro’s, Levi’s & Co intressen, och inte för att verkligen förhandla för det grekiska folkets räkning. Han är inte där för att, med stöd av konstitutionell och internationell rätt och FN:s resolutioner, ifrågasätta skulden och kräva en rättslig och ekonomisk utredning av alla de nykoloniala avtalet med Eurogruppen/ IMF/ ECB. Även om just detta var ett av de klara, faktiska uppdragen ifrån folket. Med hjälp av ett fåtal vänsteraktiga, “kosmetiska” justeringar, och några socialekonomiska “slickepinnar” till de lidande, kommer han att försöka driva igenom ett nytt sorts “Memorandum”, ett permanent sådant.
Han kommer att göra detta, genom att fortsätta det nyliberala Papandreiska resonemanget. Denna Narcissus, kallade förvisso inte grekerna lata, som Papandreou gjorde, men han var lika kränkande när han indirekt erkände skulden, istället för att berätta sanningen om ‘de grekiska lånen’, för européerna. Det borde han gjort! För det är vad Syriza lovade oss. Han kände istället att han ville lugna ner de nervösa investerarna och Eurogruppen, innan han kunde börja posera som en “vänster-regerings” finansminister.
Han ljög faktiskt medvetet för européerna, när han sa till dem att de någonsin har betalat ett nickel från sina fickor för sina regeringars lån till Grekland. Att deras regeringar och deras media ljög för dem och sa till dem att det var p.g.a “grekernas lathet”, som man måste strama åt deras liv, är en helt annan sak. Den saken får dessa medborgare ta upp och göra upp med sina regeringar, inte med grekerna. Hur betalar tyskarna, slovenernas och andra EU-medborgare för grekerna?
Vet inte Varoufakis, att Tyskland som nation lånade Grekland 15,2 miljarder euro inom ramen för “hjälppaketen”, men tjänade över 75 miljarder euro, endast från de olika räntorna på dessa lån? De lån som gick till Grekland var pengar som inte kom från medborgarnas fickor, så som den här nya finansministern antyder. Dessa länders regeringar lånade pengar från ECB med betydligt lägre ränta än vad de lånat ut till Grekland. Han vet också mer än väl, att dessa länder inte lånade Grekland 240 miljarder euro under 5 år, utan 55 miljarder euro, som 16 länder delade på. Resterande 185 miljarder kom från EFSF, dvs den tillfälliga europeiska fonden för mekanismen för kontrollerad konkurs, vilka i sin tur lånades från marknaderna genom att man gav ut egna skuldebrev. Regeringarna erbjöd alltså sina medborgare att spekulera i skuld, att investera i, ett annat lands konkurs, istället för att fråga dem om de har lust att stödja EFSF eller ej. Ingen kan be grekerna att varken lagligt eller etiskt, känna något ansvar inför faktum att dessa medborgare förlorat pengar, när de själva accepterat att spekulera i människors elände genom ett sådant motbjudande pyramid spel.
Herr Varoufakis talade inte om för de europeiska medborgarna, att deras regeringar faktiskt har gjort tiotals miljarder euro i vinst genom att låna ut pengar till Grekland, och att de avsiktligt ljög för dem om det.
Syriza lovade grekerna, att de skulle vidarebefordra meddelandet om denna lögn till européerna och inte fortsätta Papandreous skuld-lekar, och samtidigt spela “de hårda förhandlarna”. Verkligen besynnerlig uppfattning, som vår tids “vänsterregeringar” har om begreppet, tala för folkets räkning.
Vi ville inte att regeringen skulle lugna ner bankirerna och långivarna. Vi ville att regeringen skulle uppröra dem och beslutsamt och med stöd i internationell rätt, verkligen utmana dem.
De europeiska folkens hopp emot ny-liberalismen?
Om Tsipras har valt att tillmötesgå EU’s, Eurogruppens och bankirernas “önskelistor”, kommer han inte att behandlas väl alls av de progressiva delarna av Syriza, majoriteten av sina nya väljare och större delen av det grekiska folket.
Majoriteten av väljarna röstade på SYRIZA för att de förband sig att “inte backa” från följande löften:
- ett fördömande och krav om rättslig prövning, av de olagligt påtvingade koloniala låneavtalen, i internationell domstol
- en radikal, demokratisk förändring i det nuvarande parti-topps-kontrollerade, kundbaserade, politiska systemet
- den korrekta beskattningen av ALLA de rikaste
- att alla de ansvariga – inhemska och utländska – för det grekiska folkets lidande och Greklands förstörelse, skall ställas till svars i domstol för sina brott
Det grekiska folket kommer inte att nöja sig och lita på någon regering, innan den visar i praktiken att den inte backar från dessa folkets “röda linjer”, i alla aspekter av dessa fyra mycket avgörande frågor.
Tsipras, borde veta – eftersom de flesta av hans väljare och många av hans partimedlemmar vet – att de viktigaste pågående, omedelbara hoten som dagligen fördjupar vår oro, spär på vår vrede och förlänger vår sorg är:
- de påtvingade koloniala avtalen, villkoren och det grekiska folkets skuldlivegenskap (genom en olagligen undertecknad resignation från alla rättigheter att försvara naturrikedomar, suveränitet och självständighet, på begäran av Eurozonen och Papandreous regering)
- den planlagda, systematiska, utarmningen, utmattningen och förnedringen av det grekiska folket
- det ökande antalet människor som dör som direkt följd av ‘åtstramningarna’, alla självmorden och den utvandrande unga befolkningen
- nedmonteringen av demokratin, mänskliga och konstitutionella rättigheter i Grekland
- de mycket partiska och propagandistiska medierna (som uppenbarligen ljuger och istället för att informera, undanhåller sanningen från folket, polariserar det och agerar som talesman för det Tysklands-ledda, nyliberala, nynazist-främjande och -stödjande, EU)
Jag kommer inte att kommentera alls på de små socialekonomiska, ynka “tröstnapparna”. När ovanstående frågor behandlas med respekt och enligt folkets önskan kan jag känna mig manad att applådera några av ‘tröstnapparna’ också. Jag VET att den undergivna attityden mot långivarna inte alls var vad den grekerna röstade för och inte heller en pimpad Papandreou-lösning. Vi ville inte att regeringen skulle lugna ner bankirerna och långivarna, utan att oroa dem. Vi ville att regeringen målmedvetet skulle utmana dem, med stöd i internationell folkrätt. Men Herr Kotsias, precis som alla andra av de nuvarande fega, moraliska krymplingarna till utrikesministrar, så viftar han bort folkrätten, FN-konventioner och internationella fördrag och stämmer in i psykopaternas krigslekar.
Grekiska regeringens utrikespolitik öppnade vägen för EU’s steg två mot Ryssland
En första positiv sak, som kunde ha sagts om denna regering, skulle varit om Kotsias gått vidare till att använda sitt veto i Ukraina frågan, emot resten av EU. Det skulle nämligen ha varit bra om Greklands medie-döpta “radikala vänster”, kunde ha stoppat den eskalerande inblandningen i nynazistiska massakrer av befolkningen i Ukraina och inte bara anpassa sig till den befintliga, mycket giftiga aggressiviten emot Ryssland. Men det gjorde inte utrikesminister Kotsias (Pangalos-lärlingen)… Han påpekade bara några felaktiga ordningsrutiner och släppte sedan nyckel-kommentaren “sanktionerna fungerar inte”, som i utrikespolitiskt språk betyder vi bör gå vidare till nästa steg mot Ryssland. Han skulle kunnat varit den som, med stöd i grundläggande internationella lagar och FN-fördrag, lagt sitt veto emot “EU’s strävan till att ensidigt kunna förklara krig och starta krig emot en suverän nation. Att inte en enda representant från något annat medlemsland, såg några problem med faktum att EU vill bryta emot internationell rätt och befintliga FN-fördrag och resolutioner, var inte problemet enligt Kotsias. Men att de “ignorerade det föreskrivna förfarandet för Grekland samtycke”, var något han minsann inte skulle tåla.
Vi vet genom historiska fakta att kommentaren “sanktionerna fungerar inte” betyder låt oss gå till steg två. Flyganfall, drönare, kluster-bomber, skapa eller stödja lokala “väst-vänliga” slaktare och när det “inte fungerar”, gå till steg tre, mark invasion (Korea, Vietnam, Kambodja, Argentina, Serbien, Somalia, Afghanistan, Irak, Libanon, Syrien, Libyen etc.). Endast i de fall då man inte vågade att de facto gå till attack, fortsatte man med sanktionerna i flera årtionden, som exempelvis emot Sovjetunionen, Kina, Kuba och Nordkorea. Att den grekiska regeringen inte använde sitt veto mot EU och dess nyliberala korståg mot Ryssland, är en position som är i direkt konflikt med majoriteten av det grekiska folkets uppfattning och det kommer alla undergivna, kund sinnade grekiska regeringar vara.
Nä, jag kan verkligen inte förstå, varför några illasinnade, misstänksamma personer, starkt tvivlar på att de här verkligen är “de europeiska folkens bästa hopp emot bankirerna, EU:s nykoloniala åtsramnings-politik och de nynazistiska, etniska rensningarna”? Kan du?
Leo Panitch says it is the first left party to come to power since the 2007-2008 crisis of neoliberalism
Dimitri Lascaris says breaking up the troika and the power of oligarchs that control Greece is not going to be an easy task
Published time: January 26, 2015 14:01
Syriza’s Greek election win has dealt a blow to Eurocrats’ austerity agenda. As the European left celebrated the triumph, UK Prime Minister David Cameron warns the result will prompt further “economic uncertainty” in Europe.
Cameron made the comment after Syriza beat Greece’s ruling center-right New Democracy party in Sunday’s election, paving the way for a potential confrontation with international creditors.
Throughout its electoral campaign, the left-wing party pledged a series of deeply transformative policies.
Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras vowed to renegotiate Greece’s £179 billion bailout, and address clauses that make the Greek government’s implementation of harsh austerity measures mandatory.
He also said the party would demand the cancellation of over 50 percent of Greek debt owed predominantly to the ECB and Eurozone states, and place a new debt deal with the EU at the heart of its agenda.
As Syriza swept the ruling conservative New Democracy party from power, warnings that incoming Greek PM Tsipras’s party will prompt a crisis in the euro began to circulate.
‘There is no alternative’
Reflecting on the anti-austerity party’s electoral triumph, Cameron said the UK must stick to its economic plan of fiscal rectitude. In a climate of increasing economic insecurity in Europe, British policy makers must strive to deliver “security at home,”he warned.
Chancellor George Osborne suggested Syriza’s radical demands will require Greece’s exit from the eurozone.
He said the anti-austerity party’s pre-electoral mandate would be “very difficult” to deliver on and is ultimately “incompatible with what the eurozone currently demands of its members.”
In an effort to defend the austerity agenda that underpins his long-term economic plan for Britain, Osborne claimed Greek votes on Sunday weren’t against austerity, but against economic policies that had failed the Mediterranean state.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, the chancellor echoed Cameron’s stance that the election result would increase economic uncertainty in Europe.
But Euroskeptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader, Nigel Farage, took a more critical stance.
“Greece’s elections are a cry for help from those who have been impoverished by the euro,” he said.
Farage argued Syriza’s victory marked the beginning of a “game of poker” with German Chancellor and EU austerity architect Angela Merkel.
He also suggested the ECB will be “powerless” as this political game unfolds.
‘Hope has won’
Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said austerity hasn’t worked for Greece, for Britain or for the wider EU.
Lauding Syriza’s victory as “fantastic,” he argued investment in growth must replace savage cuts in Britain and Europe.
Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, said “hope has won.”
She said she was “inspired” by the large proportion of Greeks who voted for Syriza, and that the time had come for the EU to listen to economists and Greek citizens and “respond with debt forgiveness and support.”
Left-wing comedian and political activist Russell Brand also weighed in, calling for a new party in Britain that could emulate Syriza’s radical position.
Brand said he would abandon his propensity not to vote if a similar party emerged on Britain’s political horizon.
In response to Cameron’s claim that Syriza’s victory would increase economic uncertainty in Britain and elsewhere, Brand said: “It will increase economic uncertainty for corporations, the city and you, ‘Dave.’”
Despite concern amid Eurocrats and financial institutions that a Syriza victory could spell disaster for the eurozone and the euro itself, European stocks have remained relatively stable since Sunday.
Analysts suggest recent European Central Bank stimulus measures pursued by the bank’s chief Mario Draghi have neutralized fears over the anti-austerity party’s victory.
‘Rage against the dying of the light’
Writing in the Spectator magazine, Swedish economist Frederick Erixon said Greece’s election result had inevitably paved the way for “turbulence ahead, both in Greek and eurozone politics.”
But Yanis Varoufakis, a leading economics professor based in Athens, contests this view.
He argues, “Greek democracy resolved to rage against the dying of the light” on Sunday in a bid to place Greece on a path of “sustainable prosperity.”
“The people of Greece gave a vote of confidence to hope.”
“They used the ballot box, in this splendid celebration of democracy, to put an end to a self-reinforcing crisis that produces indignity in Greece and feeds Europe’s darkest forces.
While it remains unclear whether Greece will leave the euro, how Syriza’s policies will affect the single market currency and what they will mean for Britain and eurozone member states in the long term, one thing is certain: Syriza have proved it’s possible to build a successful political movement that can challenge austerity, and the governments and international creditors that propel it.
Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras will be officially sworn in on Monday afternoon as Greece’s new prime minister.
As his party begins its task of restructuring Greece’s political and economic position on a fraught European stage, leftist parties in Britain and Europe will be watching closely.
A quick look at the minefield we are walking into in 2015
Where are we headed in 2015? According to a new Associated Press-Times Square Alliance poll, 48% of Americans believe that 2015 will be a better year than 2014 was, while only 11% think it will be worse. Is this (vague) optimism realistic? Does it take into account the events unfolding around the world right now? Let’s take a look at our current trajectory.
The Ukraine War
The war in Ukraine isn’t over. Relations between the U.S. and Russia are more tense than they’ve been since the Cuban missile crisis, and the stakes are getting higher in each round.
Kiev has put their so called “anti-terrorist” operations in eastern Ukraine mostly on hold for the winter (though shelling has continued), and they’ve engaged the separatists in peace talks, but many believe that this is just a ploy to give them time to regroup and rearm (with some help from Washington).
These aren’t just empty suspicions. In December, the Ukrainian government announced their intention to double their military budget and conscript 40,000 new soldiers for an offensive against the East. Also the U.S. government is moving to supply the Ukrainian government with more weapons and training over the next year.
When such an offensive would kick off is uncertain, but we’ll be watching events in the region closely as Spring approaches.
One of the most important signals heading into 2015 was the Ukrainian government’s decision toannul their nonaligned status with NATO in December of 2014. This doesn’t mean that NATO membership will be granted right away (France & Germany have voiced their oposition), but it is a sign that they intend to make a bid.
Why is this dangerous? Because the NATO agreement compels each of its members to defend all other members militarily if attacked. Now we saw Washington’s muppets in Kiev claiming that they were being invaded by Russia over and over throughout 2014. No evidence was provided, but the U.S. government and their lapdogs in the media repeatedly took their claims at face value andused them as talking points against Russia (which is after all the real target here). If Ukraine were a NATO member these claims could trigger military deployments. Considering the fact that this is a scenario that NATO is actively preparing for, this has to be taken seriously.
The Oil Price Squeeze
We can’t talk about the showdown with Russia without looking at the dramatic drop in oil prices that began in 2014. Obviously there are conflicting narratives on this topic, but according to Guardian and SALON (What really happened in Beijing: Putin, Obama, Xi — and the back story the media won’t tell you), in September of 2014 John Kerry instructed the Saudis to raise production and to cut its crude price.
Now the Saudis have indicated that they have no intention of slowing down oil production anytime soon, but the elephant in the room here is U.S. oil production from fracking, which has been dramatically ratcheted up as well.
This move might seem absurd since it is going to hurt U.S. oil producers as well, but it is clearly going to hurt Washington’s key opponents (namely Iran, Venezuela and Russia) far more since their economies are far less diversified.
The drop in oil prices has already had a massive impact on the value of the Rubble and combined with the sanctions there is a good chance the Russian economic situation could degrade even more in the coming year.
The drop in the Rubble has also interfered with Russia’s efforts to establish trade agreements which bypass the dollar. With the Rubble going through bouts of hyperinflation, even their closest allies are hesitant to accept payments in Rubbles.
You’ll hear people (like CFR member Ian Bremmer) describe Russia as a dangerous, wounded beast that may do something unpredictable. That’s like a teenager poking a bear with a sharp stick and then warning that the bear might bite. Yes it might bite, so stop poking it.
The Syrian War
The conflict in Syria isn’t going away. In fact 2014 was the most deadly year on record, with some76,000 killed.
U.S. airstrikes will continue in 2015, but they won’t destroy ISIS, or even weaken it significantly. Though ISIS established its position with the help of U.S. arms and funding, at this point they seem to have procured their own revenue streams through taxation and oil sales. In the long run this makes them a liability, but in the short term ISIS is doing most of Washington’s dirty work by weakening Assad.
The Syrian government will most likely continue to slowly weaken throughout 2015. We could however, see some surprises that completely alter the playing field. For example ISIS might make good on their threats to attack targets in the West.
Remember the group did get a hold of 88 pounds of uranium in Iraq this past summer. In December of 2014 ISIS announced that not only have they built dirty bombs with this material, but that theyhad already smuggled them into Europe.
Now, dirty bombs aren’t all that deadly, but people don’t need to be in real physical danger in order to panic. An event like this would put a full fledged invasion of Syria on the table, and would obviously be used to justify an even greater expansion of surveillance and police powers.
Watch “The Covert Origins of ISIS“ for more on this topic.
The Ebola story has obviously dropped off the mainstream radar, but it didn’t go away in the real world, and the chart is still moving in the same direction (up).
Sierra Leone has dramatically escalated their containment effort, but according to the Red Cross, the number of cases has in fact spiked in recent weeks, and the situation is far from being under control. Liberia has also seen a resurgence of cases in the past month, and 800 aid workers have been infected at this point with 500 of them dying.
The virus is mutating as fast (or faster than) the seasonal flu, so, every day that it remains active in west Africa, increases the chances of a game changing adaptation. Until this Ebola is completely eradicated, it remains a dangerous wildcard heading into 2015. Remember this entire outbreak began with one case.
Watch “Ebola – Fear, Lies & The Evidence” for more information on this topic.
Racial Tensions in the U.S.
Heading into 2015 race relations in the U.S. are a gas can waiting for a match. You can’t predict the kinds of events that act as sparks, but we’ve seen from 2014 that the threshold for outrage (and violence), is getting lower. This trend isn’t likely to reverse in the coming year.
The danger on this front heading into 2015 is not so much physical, but rather that it could deepen divisions and make it totally impossible to unify the people against their common enemy. Who benefits from that scenario?
The TPP and TTIP
In the realm of politics, as a lame duck president, Obama himself is a wildcard. Though his influence is declining and he may not be able to get much through Congress at this point, he has already made it very clear that he is willing to use executive orders, and he really has nothing to lose. 2015 presents a window of opportunity to push through unpopular policies before the media starts hyping the 2016 elections.
The fact that Obama has nothing to lose in 2015 is likely to factor in on issues like the TPP (whichObama says he intends to support in spite of resistance from the left), he also supports the TTIPwhich is slated for a renewed push in 2015 as well.
These agreements contain provisions which would hand even more power to multi-national corporations, and implement SOPA and CISPA through backdoor channels.
The only reason we know anything about these treaties is from leaked drafts. The negotiations are being conducted in secret, and the final versions could end up being much worse.
The future isn’t set in stone (at least until the concrete dries). Every choice we make, influences the world around us, sometimes in ways we couldn’t even begin to imagine. Let’s go into 2015 with our eyes open and make the best of what comes.
Fox News pundit Steve Emerson drew international ridicule for claiming Birmingham, England, was a “no-go zone” for non-Muslims (FAIR Blog,1/12/15). But he was far from alone on Fox in advancing this xenophobic fantasy of urban areas lost to Western civilization.
Fox generally characterized these “no-go zones” as isolated, predominantly Muslim areas under Sharia law that are breeding grounds for terrorists. Critically, they claimed that police and other non-Muslims were barred entry from such neighborhoods.
As supposed proof of these “no-go zones,” Fox pointed to French government lists of officially designated Zones urbaines sensibles, or “sensitive urban zones.” In reality, these are not areas that the French have ceded to Islamists, but rather neighborhoods targeted for urban redevelopment and eligible for special tax incentives, similar to the US “enterprise zone” concept.
But reality didn’t hold back Fox host Sean Hannity (1/8/15), who while law enforcement was still pursuing the perpetrators of the Paris attack asked a correspondent this leading question:
Are the police also searching in these areas that we call the no-go zones, where non-Muslims are usually not allowed, not even police and fire departments, usually? Are those the areas that they’re searching right now?
Correspondent Amy Kellogg neither confirmed or denied Hannity’s dubious description of “no-go zones.”
The next day on Hannity (1/9/15), Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer, aleading proponent of Islamophobia, elaborated on these “no-go areas”: “Essentially, the police have no authority, the French state has no authority, and Islamic law prevails. These places are incubators!”
On Fox & Friends (1/10/15), journalist Nolan Peterson claimed he “witnessed young men wearing Osama Bin Laden T-shirts” in one of these zones. (He would later issue a partial apology, claiming he was only describing his 2005 trip to Paris.)
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (Special Report, 1/14/15) claimed that certain terrorist groups “have the small elements in the small no-go zones in Europe, especially in France. And that is the new territory of Islamism.” Although host Bret Baier informed Krauthammer that the French government rejected the term “no-go zone,” Krauthammer dismissively replied, “That’s what they say,” insisting these areas are “ruled by either gangsters or by Sharia and clerics” due to the lack of police.
Perhaps to add European credibility to its flimsy claims, Fox invited Nigel Farage (Hannity, 1/12/15), the leader of the far-right anti-immigrant UK Independence Party, to confirm, “We’ve got no-go zones in most of the big French cities.”
The UK’s Telegraph (1/15/15) dedicated a story to debunking Farage’s claims. Guillaume Delbar, the mayor of Roubaix–a “sensitive urban zone” with the largest Muslim population in France–called Farage’s claims “simply nonsense,” while an unnamed young resident retorted: “That is just bullshit! I can only laugh.”
The Local (1/15/15) interviewed residents of La Goutte d’Or, a sensitive urban zone within Paris, to test Fox News‘ claims. According to the report, every resident disagreed with Fox News‘ antagonistic characterizations, with many characterizing La Goutte d’Or is welcoming. “A Muslim in his twenties added that anyone calling neighborhoods in Paris ‘no-go zones’ were racist,” The Local reported.
But another resident delved deeper as to why Paris is segregated into sensitive urban zones:
I think this is because officials in Paris are trying to push the poorer population to the edges of the city and to the suburbs by tearing down old buildings and replacing them with newer, more expensive ones that those people can’t afford any longer.
So instead of being communities of terrorism, these “no-go zones” appear to be neighborhoods with typical urban struggles of poverty and gentrification.
Bloomberg Businessweek (1/14/15) also debunked Fox News‘ “no-go zone” alarmism. Notably, it quoted Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes, who credited himself as the coiner of the “no-go zone” phrase in 2006. Pipes now says, based on his definition as “a place where the government has lost control and cannot enforce the rule of law,” that there are “no European countries with no-go zones.”
In 2013, Businessweek related, Pipes observed after a tour of immigrant and Muslim neighborhoods in Paris and five other European cities:
For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe, too, but there things look fine…hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds and order prevails…. Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.
Clearly, Fox News didn’t get the memo.
From the CIA-NATO run Operation Gladio, to 9/11 to the 7/7 bombings in London to Sandy Hook to Charlie Hebdo and most points in between, a majority of the terror events through which we suffer are planned and carried out by intelligence agencies and their minions. As the mainstream mockingbird media gleefully parrots the official story in every case, appealing to our emotions instead of our intellect, we ask WHY? THIS is why.
NEWS ARTICLES MENTIONED:
PARIS SIEGE PATSIES LIQUIDATED – Webster Tarpley
GLADIO REVISITED – Corbett Report
Charlie Hebdo And Tsarnaev’s Trial: Cui Bono?
21st Century Wire: Paris Siege: New ‘Anti-Semitic’ and ‘Al-Awlaki’ Narratives Emerge
MH17 FALSE FLAG, PUBLIC ENEMY PUTIN & THE BANKSTER’S NEW WORLD WAR
Corroborating claims by French security agencies, a bizarre interview conducted just before the death of terror suspect Chérif Kouachi reveals that he had been in Yemen and in direct contact with none other than Anwar Al Awlaki – the notorious Al Qaeda leader allegedly killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
|Image: The Kouachi brothers, arrested twice for terrorism, convicted and imprisoned for terrorism, having met senior leadership of Al Qaeda, having trained with and fought alongside Al Qaeda, French intelligence would – 6 months ago –|
The UK Mirror in an article titled, “Paris shootings: Listen to terrorist Amedy Coulibaly’s bizarre conversation with hostage during supermarket siege,” quoted Kouachi as saying:
Not only was Anwar Al Awlaki a senior leader in Al Qaeda, he also infamously spent dinner with top brass at the Pentagon shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington, New York, and over Pennsylvania.
CBS News would report in their article, “Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11,” that:
Anwar al-Awlaki – the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner – was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.
Awlaki was invited as “…part of an informal outreach program” in which officials sought contact “…with leading members of the Muslim community,” the official said. At that time, Awlaki was widely viewed as a “moderate” imam at a mosque in Northern Virginia.
At the same time, the FBI was also interviewing Awlaki about his contacts with three of the 9/11 attackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al Midhar and Hani Hanjour – who were all part of the crew of five that hijacked the American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon.
Indeed, Anwar Al Awlaki would admit to having met Hazmi – in yet another incident the general public is supposed to believe is simply an astonishing coincidence.
The list of “coincidences” and “accidents” is so far impressive and include the following:
1. French authorities arrested and imprisoned Chérif Kouachi in 2005 for terrorism. He would be released in 2008 after sentencing was suspended for “time served,” this despite evidence suggesting Kouachi may have even gone as far with his plot as travel to Yemen. Slate Magazine would report in their article, “The Details of Paris Suspect Cherif Kouachi’s 2008 Terrorism Conviction,” that:
Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.
2. Kouachi and brother Said would be implicated in another terrorist plot again in 2010 but were not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. The BBC in their report titled, “Charlie Hebdo attack: Suspects’ profiles,” would state:
In 2010 Cherif Kouachi was named in connection with a plot to spring another Islamist, Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, from jail – a plot hatched by Beghal, according to French anti-terror police.
Belkacem used to be in the outlawed Algerian Islamic Armed Group (GIA) and was jailed for life in 2002 for a Paris metro station bombing in 1995 which injured 30 people.
Said Kouachi, 34, was also named in the Belkacem plot, but the brothers were not prosecuted because of a lack of evidence.
3. With French intelligence agencies’ knowledge, the Kouachi brothers would then travel to Yemen in 2011, receiving weapons training directly from Al Qaeda. CNN’s report titled, “France tells U.S. Paris suspect trained with al Qaeda in Yemen,” would report:
A U.S. official says the United States was given information from the French intelligence agency that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen as late as 2011 on behalf of the al Qaeda affiliate there. Once in Yemen, the older brother of the two received a variety of weapons training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the affiliate in Yemen — the official said, including on how to fire weapons. It is also possible Said was trained in bomb making, a common jihadist training in Yemen. Two other U.S. officials confirmed that information about the Yemeni travel was passed to the U.S. from French intelligence agencies.
In addition, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview broadcast on CNN International that one of the brothers traveled to Yemen in 2005. Taubira would not say which brother.
Admissions that one of the brothers had traveled to Yemen in 2005, suggests the possibility he may indeed have received weapons training from Al Qaeda before his arrest and imprisonment later that same year.
4. It was reported that the brothers then fought in Syria before returning last summer, approximately 6 months ago. USA Today would report in an article titled, “Manhunt continues for two French terror suspects,” that:
The brothers were born in Paris of Algerian descent. Cherif was sentenced to three years in prison on terrorism charges in May 2008. Both brothers returned from Syria this summer.
5. Also about 6 months ago, French intelligence decided the suspects’ serial offenses along with their direct contact with Al Qaeda – including the receiving of terrorist training and battlefield experience fighting along side them in Syria – were “low risk” cases and therefore not worthy of their attention.
Astoundingly, UK’s Daily Mail would report in their article, “Revealed: Police stopped watching Paris killers six months ago after terror cell of kosher deli attacker and his crossbow jihadi wife – who has fled to Syria – were deemed ‘low-risk’,” that:
The world’s most wanted female terrorist has fled to Syria, it was revealed last night – as police admitted they stopped surveillance on her deadly Parisian cell six months ago because they were deemed ‘low-risk’.
The Daily Mail would go on to report on other cell members including Amedy Coulibaly, also killed by police during the recent shootings and attacks in Paris – also a notorious serial offender, known terrorist, and also previously arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison for terrorism.
Who decided this cell was “low risk” six months ago? That is probably where the French people should begin searching for justice – if justice is in fact what they seek.
Six months, coincidentally, is also about the typical length (6-10 months) of security and intelligence “sting operations” targeting terrorists. It provides an appropriate time frame within which an event like the recent attacks could have been planned, funded, and eventually carried out. The public is expected to believe this obvious terror cell who had been in and out of prison for terrorism over the course of a decade and in direct contact with Al Qaeda, was suddenly dropped from the attention of French intelligence just in time for them to carry out their most spectacular crime to date?
Who decided this cell was “low risk” six months ago? That is probably where the French people should begin searching for justice – if justice is in fact what they seek.
Europe Has Been Here Before
Unfortunately, these “coincidences” and “accidents” are not coincidences and accidents at all. They fit an obvious pattern of staged provocations within the context of an intentionally engineered “strategy of tension,” identical but scaled up from what NATO was exposed to have committed during the Cold War as part of its “stay behind networks,” more commonly known as “Operation Gladio.”
Indeed, if NATO could carry out attacks during the Cold War, targeting Western Europeans in deadly brutality designed to appear as the work of NATO’s enemies, why would NATO now be suddenly excused from the investigation as a prime suspect? With the “coincidences” and “accidents” described above, those occupying the highest of France’s political, military, and intelligence offices, should be removed, tried, and imprisoned for criminal negligence at the very least.
As the puzzle pieces continue to fit together, the picture that appears is one of brazen, intentional provocation either to divide society at home, or wage war abroad, or both. And as this picture comes into focus, the rhetoric designed to distract the public from seeing it will reach a fever pitch.
Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.
On July 24, 2011, two days after Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people, mostly teenagers, in Norway to call attention to his view that Muslim immigration was a bad thing, NBC‘s Meet the Press didn’t mention the words “Breivik” or “Norway.” Nor did CBS‘s Face the Nation.
On ABC, This Week With Christiane Amanpour–who prided herself on her international perspective–did have 258 words on the massacre. No discussion, but we did hear there were “some incredible survivor stories.”
Fast forward three-and-a-half years, after another politically motivated killing spree in Europe, this one resulting in the deaths of 20 people. This European violence was decidedly more interesting to Meet the Press, which previewed its January 11 episode:
PARIS TERROR ATTACK: As the French authorities dissect how these horrific acts of violence were committed in the name of Islam, Chuck Todd will ask Attorney General Eric Holder how the US government is dealing with potential home-grown terrorists in this country….
PLUS: The attack on Charlie Hebdo once again highlights the vulnerability of the West to deadly terrorist attacks that can paralyze a major city. How does religion encourage some people to choose violence? And can these attacks be prevented? Our panels weigh in.
After a series of terror attacks in Paris that left more than a dozen people dead this week, many questions remain about the perpetrators and their motives.
But the big question in the United States is: Are we safe here at home? We’ll ask the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, who will appear on Face the Nation from Paris where he plans to attend an international summit on terrorism.
Holder will meet with top European officials to discuss one of the gravest challenges of our day: preventing Westerners from traveling to the Middle East, training with terror groups, and bringing their terror home.
We’ll also talk to Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.
Then Scheiffer said he would bring on Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to “discuss the GOP agenda, which in the House includes withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security in protest of President Obama’s recent executive order on immigration. In light of the Paris terror attacks, is this really the right time for a showdown on funding the department that keeps us safe?”
Scheiffer also promised another segment that would talk about “bigger questions about the influence of radical Islam and how to prevent these ‘lone wolf’ incidents from continuing in the future.”
On This Week, the topic of the day was likewise to be “Terror in Paris”:
On Sunday, This Weekcovers the latest on the terror attack in Paris, with Attorney General Eric Holder, and Sen.Richard Burr, R-N.C., the new chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Why is that Islamist violence is drop-everything fascinating to US corporate media, while a bloodbath by a right-wing anti-Muslim zealot doesn’t seem to be even worth talking about? Is it because Muslims are the only people who commit political attacks in the United States? Well, no–the vast majority of political terrorism in the United States is perpetrated by non-Muslims (Extra!,5/11).
In fact, the day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, a bomb went off outside the NAACP office in Colorado Springs, which the FBI was investigating as a potential terrorist attack (Democracy Now!, 1/9/15). The person wanted for questioning in the incident is described as “a white male around the age of 40.” But don’t expect corporate media to spend much time discussing the possible threat posed by middle-aged white guys.
Introduction: The balance sheet for 2014 and the prospects for 2015 provide us with a complex panorama of negative and positive outcomes. In most cases the advances, are not earth-shattering but open possibilities for further progress. The negative developments, however, have greater and more threatening systemic outcomes.
We will proceed in a telegraphic fashion to outline the positive and negative developments in 2014 and their real and potential symbolic and substantive impacts. In the second part of the essay we will sketch out some of the most important events and the way in which the positive and negative outcomes of 2014 will play out in 2015.
Positive Developments in 2014
While most leftist and progressive writers have emphasized the negative events of 2014, a more nuanced analysis will reveal ten important positive outcomes.
(1) The revelations that the US National Security Agency was engaged in a world-wide long-standing and continuous spying operations against hundreds of millions of Americans, allies and adversaries, citizens and leaders provoked deep distrust and questioning of Washington’s claims of upholding democracy and respecting the sovereignty of nations. The revelations led to greater vigilance among countries and domestic demands for reform.
(2) The US Senate revelations that the CIA engaged in widespread and repeated torture of political suspects, documented the growth of a police state apparatus and provoked a world-wide demand to prosecute prominent US leaders for crimes against humanity.
(3) The growth of economic, political and military ties between Russia and China augurs a rebalancing of global power – fostering a multi-polar world, which can act as a deterrent to future western imperial aggression.
(4) China’s President Xi’s deepening anti-corruption campaign has led to the arrest of leading business and political leaders and has encouraged popular denunciations and demands for ‘good government’ and greater attention to social demands.
(5) President Putin’s support for the Eastern Ukraine resistance to the Kiev puppet regime and for Crimean separatists, and his moves to restrict and, in some cases, prosecute criminal behavior among oligarchs has successfully countered Western efforts to encircle, undermine and revert Russia to a vassal state. US-NATO backed neo-liberals within Russia have been severely weakened Western sanctions may strengthen efforts to socialize the economy.
(6) The opening of a dialogue with Cuba, and Washington’s recognition that its half century blockade has only isolated the US in Latin America, is a step in the right direction. The increase in tourism and economic missions may increase demands for the end of the blockade.
(7) The growth and spread of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS)against
the Israeli occupation of Palestine has reached major trade unions, student and religious organizations ,which in turn has influenced numerous political leaders to recognize Palestine, overcoming massive opposition from the Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish organizations in the US and their counterparts overseas.
(8) The Iranian – US peace and nuclear negotiations have lessened the prospect of an Israeli promoted regional war. The ongoing negotiations have led to some advances, mostly concessions by Iran, but, at least, have favored diplomacy over US military aggression.
(9) Latin America witnessed a near sweep by ‘left of center’ regimes against US backed ‘hard right’ neo-liberals, in Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador and Bolivia. While these election outcomes will not in any way challenge capitalism or lead to the expropriation of the agro-mineral and financial elite, they do indicate a relative degree of independence from US militarist foreign policy. The election of President Santos in Colombia, and the defeat of the far right opposition candidate, allowed for the peace negotiations with the FARC, the popular insurgency, to proceed toward a definitive agreement.
(10) The widespread dissemination of multi-media recordings of prominent scientists testifying to and documenting the evidence demonstrating that the collapse of the World Trade Center could only be a controlled demolition and not a result of the plane crashes, has led to widespread calls for a new investigation of 9/11.
Negative Events in 2014
Major events and policies in 2014 which have had a profoundly negative effect on the prospects for peace and social justice are equally numerous.
(1) The US and EU installation of a puppet regime in the Western Ukraine (Kiev) and its conversion into an economic vassal state of the European Union and NATO outpost on Russia’s border is a major blow against democracy and boost to Ukrainian neo-fascist political leaders. The militarization of the Ukraine, as an adversary of Russia, threatens a global nuclear war.
(2) The military coup in Egypt and the violent purge, jailing and torture of elected officials and secular dissidents, ensures the return of US influence in North Africa and reinforces Israel’s blockade of Gaza and colonization over the West Bank. Food and transport subsidies were ended in accord with the IMF. In 2014 as a result of the military dictatorship’s pro-business policies, the Egyptian stock market index returned 30% to foreign and domestic speculators. Between the coup in mid-2013 to the end of 2014, the M5CI stock index of Egypt doubled.
(3) The US re-entry in the Iraq civil war, its air war in Syria to counter the advance of ISIS, and the decision to retain thousands of troops in Afghanistan means that the militarist policies of the past decade continue to define US foreign policy in the Middle East. Civilian casualties are mounting and the wars are showing no signs of ending. The devastation wrought by the US-NATO military intervention in Libya continues to provoke Islamic extremism and civilian flight.
(4) US repeatedly supported Israeli seizures and colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Jerusalem and Israel’s savage murder of 2000 Palestinians and 5 billion dollar devastation of property in Gaza. Under the prodding of Zionist multi-billionaires and AIPAC, the US blocked the PLOs effort to gain UN membership via arm-twisting of African representatives in the Security Council.
(5) The President and Congress’s defense of NSA spying and CIA responsibility for torture has further weakened residual constitutional guarantees.
(6) The electoral victories by the hard right in the US legislative elections will present major problems in proceeding with peace negotiations with Iran, in ending the economic blockade of Cuba and lessening the Government’s purge of immigrants.
(7) The Ferguson protest against the police assassination of a young black man grew into a nationwide protest (“black lives matter”) against the police impunity and violence, and had all the makings of a popular movement to democratize the state. Instead the police officials and police unions launched a massive counter-attack and mobilization, defending police power, by exploiting the killing of two policemen in New York City by a deranged individual.
(8) The US success in imposing sanctions against Russia, with the backing of the European Union, the escalation of military exercises on Russia’s Baltic frontiers and in the Caucuses, threaten a nuclear confrontation.
(9) Washington’s promotion of Asian-Pacific economic pacts excluding China, the military base agreements with Japan, Australia and the Philippines, and the expansion of provocative air and sea surveillance of China’s coastlines, has dimmed any prospect that Washington is willing to accommodate China’s ascent as a world power.
(10) Economic policies continue to concentrate wealth in the upper 1%, while investment bankers escape jail sentences for on-going multi-billion dollar swindles and illicit operations, laying the bases for a new financial crisis.
Looking Toward the New Year
The prognosis for 2015 is not promising. For one thing the positive changes that took place in 2014 are not sustainable and will be under threat by the further rightward shift in US policy.
The likelihood is that the new rightwing majority in Congress will do everything possible to prevent the ending of the US economic blockade of Cuba. The powerful Israel power configuration in the Congress, mass media and in the Treasury will likely impose such onerous and unilateral demands on Iran as to undermine any meaningful agreement. In Israel far right neo-fascist parties are likely to take power, early in 2015, and accelerate the seizure and colonization of Palestinian land foreclosing any prospects of a negotiated agreement. The Zionist power configuration in Washington will guarantee continued US backing.
The Obama Administration, blinded by its success in securing EU support for sanctions against Russia, will push harder for a full scale economic war, in hopes of overthrowing the Putin government.
Incremental increases in troops and military commitments in South Asia, the Middle East and the Baltic regions will further heighten economic tensions with China and North Korea as well as Russia.
Obama will work with the new rightwing Congress to lower corporate taxes, to secure fast track passage of free trade agreements with Europe (excluding Russia) and Asia (excluding China) and to strengthen the arbitrary police power of the CIA, NSA, and FBI.
The police, organized and mobilized, will further subordinate civilian authorities, and launch a full scale war on the movement to curtail police violence against Afro-Americans. New York City’s giant pro-police show of force is a dress rehearsal for 2015.
The US economy will become even more lopsided, unequal and subject to financial volatility. Middle and working class Americans will become further alienated from the parties, legislature and executive – abstention will increase. However, many Americans will struggle to elect popular representatives in local elections and initiatives.
Overseas the US will fail to secure any decisive military victory in any major theater of war. ISIS in Syria and Iraq is likely to continue to occupy wide swaths of territory and to sustain a long term war. The Taliban will eventually surround the big cities and garrisons in which US advisers are holed up. Libya will continue to be a failed sate. The Ukraine will likely descend into economic bankruptcy. In southern Europe the left-socialist party SYRIZA will probably win the elections and attempt to impose a moratorium on debt payments and stimulate the economy. The neo-liberal political regimes in Italy, Spain and Portugal will continue to deteriorate. In France the Socialist regime’s embrace of a pro-business agenda will provoke major conflicts with trade unions and may fracture. The National Front may become the leading party, adopting positions on the Right (anti-immigrant) and Left (anti EU austerity). Leftist, populist and far –right parties and movements are likely to increase support in eight scheduled elections in the EU this year.
Turmoil, wars, and sanctions will lead to new political alignments. Just as Russia and China move to realign, so too, political forces in North and South America, Asia and the Middle East may find new de facto alignments. Saudi and Israel, Iran and Iraq, Turkey and Russia, Brazil and Venezuela…
Unpredictable challenges may emerge from minor and major players: Greece’s new Syriza government, by refusing to abide by Berlin’s austerity agenda, may provoke a major crises in the EU. China’s anti-corruption campaign could lead to heighten mass protests. North and South Korea may open long sought negotiations – excluding the US.
With the beginning of 2015 we enter a journey to the end of the night…
Introduction: The US Senate Report documenting CIA torture of alleged terrorist suspects raises a number of fundamental questions about the nature and operations of the State, the relationship and the responsibility of the Executive Branch and Congress to the vast secret police networks which span the globe – including the United States.
CIA: The Politics of a Global Secret Police Force
The Senate Report’s revelations of CIA torture of suspects following the 9/11 bombing is only the tip of the iceberg. The Report omits the history and wider scope of violent activity in which the CIA has been and continues to be involved. CIA organized large scale deathsquad activities and extreme torture in Vietnam (Phoenix Project); multiple assassinations of political leaders in the Congo, Chile, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, the Middle East, Central America and elsewhere; the kidnapping and disappearance of suspected activists in Iraq and Afghanistan; massive drug-running and narco-trafficking in the “Golden Triangle” in Southeast Asia and Central America (the Iran-Contra war).
The Senate Report fails to locate the current acts of CIA terror and torture in a broaderhistorical context – one which would reveal the systematic use of torture and violence as a ‘normal’ instrument of policy. Contrary to White House and Senate claims that torture was a “policy error” committed by “incompetent” (or deranged) operatives, the historical record demonstrates that the long term extensive and intensive use by the CIA of torture, assassinations, kidnappings are planned and deliberate policies made by highly qualified, and experienced policymakers acting according to a global strategy approved by both Executive and Congressional leaders.
The Report treats torture as a “localized” set of events, divorced from the politics of empire building. In point of fact, torture is and always has been an integral part of imperial wars, colonial military occupations and counter-insurgency warfare.
Imperial wars and occupations provoke widespread opposition and nearly unanimous hostility. ‘Policing’ the occupied country cannot rely on community-wide support, least of all providing voluntary ‘intelligence’ to the imperial officials. The imperial armed forces operate out of fortresses surrounded by a sea of hostile faces. Bribes and persuasion of local collaborators provides limited information, especially regarding the operations of underground resistance movements and clandestine activists. Family, neighborhood, religious, ethnic and class ties provide protective support networks. To break this web of voluntary support network, the colonial powers resort to torture of suspects, family members and others. Torture becomes “routinized” as part and parcel of policies sustaining the imperial occupation. Extended occupation and intensive destruction of habitation and employment, cannot be compensated by imperial “aid” – much of which is stolen by the local collaborators. The latter, in turn, are ostracized by the local population, and, therefore, useless as a source of information. The “carrot” for a few collaborators is matched by torture and the threat of torture for the many in opposition.
Torture is not publicized domestically even as it is ‘understood’ by ‘knowing’ Congressional committees. But among the colonized, occupied people, through word and experience, CIAand military torture and violence against suspects, seized in neighborhood round-ups, is aweapon to intimidate a hostile population. The torture of a family member spreads fear (and loathing) among relatives, acquaintances, neighbors and colleagues. Torture is an integral element in spreading mass intimidation – an attempt to minimize co-operation between an active minority of resistance fighters and a majority of passive sympathizers.
The Senate Report claims that torture was “useless” in providing intelligence. It argues that victims were not privy to information that was useful to imperial policymakers.
The current head of the CIA, John Brennan rejects the Senate claim, while blithely admitting “some errors” (underwater submergence lasted a minute too long, the electric currents to the genitals were pitched to high?), he argues that “torture worked”. Brennan argues that his torturer colleagues did obtain “intelligence” that led to arrests of militants, activists and “terrorists”.
If torture “works” as Brennan claims, then presumably the Senate and the President wouldapprove of its use. The brutalization of human life, of family members and neighbors is not seen as, in principle, evil and morally and politically repugnant.
According to the explicit rules of conduct of Brennan and the implicit beliefs of the Senate, only “useless” torture is subject to censure – if an address is obtained or a torture victim names a colleague a ‘terrorist’ to avoid further pain, then by the criteria of the Senate Report torture is justified.
According to the operational code of the CIA, international law and the Geneva Conventions have to be modified: torture should not be universally condemned and its practioners prosecuted. According to the Senate only torture that “doesn’t work” is reprehensible and the best judge of that is the head of the torturers, the CIA director.
Echoing Brennan, President Obama, leaped to the defense of the CIA, conceding that only some ‘errors’ were committed. Even that mealy mouth admission was forcibly extracted after the President spent several years blocking the investigation and months obstructing its publication and then insisting on heavily editing out some of the most egregious and perverse passages implicating NATO allies
The Senate Report fails to discuss the complicity and common torture techniques shared between Israel’s Mossad and the CIA and Pentagon. In defense of torture, the CIA and White House lawyers frequently cited Israel’s Supreme Court ruling of 1999 which provided the “justification “for torture. According to Israel’s Jewish judges, torturers could operate with impunity against non-Jews (Arabs) if they claimed it was out of “necessity to prevent loss of or harm to human life”. The CIA and Harvard law professor and uber-Zionist zealot, Alan Dershowitz echoed the Israeli Mossad “ticking time bomb” justification for torture, according to which “interrogators can employ torture to extract information if it prevents a bombing”. Dershowitz cited the efficiency of Israel’s torturing a suspect’s children.
The CIA officials frequently cited the Israeli ‘ticking bomb’ justification for torture in 2007, at Congressional hearings in 2005, and earlier in 2001 and 2002. The CIA knows that the US Congress, under the control of the Zionist power configuration, would be favorably disposed to any official behavior, no matter how perverse and contrary to international law, if it carried an Israeli mark of approval or ‘logo’.
The US CIA and Israeli’s Mossad share, exchange and copy each other’s’ torture methods. The US torturers studied and applied Israel’s routine use of sexual torture and humiliation of Muslim prisoners. Racist colonial Israeli tracts about techniques on destroying the ‘Arab Mind’ were used by US intelligence. Israeli officials borrowed US techniques of forced feeding hunger strikers. Mossad’s technique of ‘Palestinian hanging’ was adopted by the US. Above all, the US copied and amplified Israel’s extra-judicial ‘targeted’ killings – the center piece of Obama’s counter-terrorism policy. These killings included scores of innocent bystanders for every ‘successful target’.
The Senate Report fails to identify the intellectual authors, the leading officials who presided over and who ultimately bear political responsibility for torture.
Top leaders, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Senate Intelligence Committee chairperson, Diane Feinstein, resort to the Nazi war criminals plea “we didn’t know”, “we were misled” and “the CIA didn’t tell us”.
No judge at the Nuremberg Trials believed them. Nor will any international court of law believe US political leaders’ pleas of ignorance of the CIA’s decade-long practice of torture – especially after former Vice President Cheney lauded the practice on US television and boasted he would implement the same policies again. (One has to wonder about the ‘source’ of Cheney’s transplanted heart…)
During the administration of President Bush, Jr., CIA leaders submitted detailed reports on intelligence, including the sources and the methods of obtaining the information, on a routine basis – with videos and ‘live feeds’ for the politicians to view. Nothing was ‘held back’ then and now, as current CIA head John Brennan testifies. From 2001 onward torture was the method of choice, as testimony from top military officials revealed during the Abu Ghraib investigation.
National Security Agency (NSA) meetings, attended by the President, received detailed reports extracted from CIA “interrogations”. There is every reason to believe that every NSA attendee ‘knew’ how the ‘intelligence’ was obtained. And if they failed to ask it was because torture was a ‘normal, routine operating procedure’.
When the Senate decided to investigate the “methods of the CIA”, half a decade ago, it was not because of the stench of burning genitals. It was because the CIA exceeded the boundaries of Senate prerogatives –it had engaged in pervasive and hostile spying against US Senators, including the Uber-Senator Feinstein herself; CIA crimes were compromising client regimes around the world; and most of all because their orgy of torture and dehumanization hadfailed to defeat the armed resistance in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
The Senate Report is an exercise in institutional power – a means for the Senate to regain political turf, to rein in CIA encroachment. The Report goes no further than to chastise “inappropriate” techniques: it does not proceed from crimes of state to prosecute officials responsible for crimes against international and domestic laws.
We know, and they know, and as every legal authority in the world would know, that withoutthe punishment of political leaders, torture will continue to be an integral part of US imperial policy: Impunity leads to recidivism.
Richard Cheney, Vice-President under President George W. Bush, notorious war criminal on many counts, and prime advocate of torture, publically declared on December 10, 2014 that President Bush specifically authorized torture. He bragged that they were informed in detail and kept up to date.
In the political world of torture, practiced by Islamic extremists and US imperialists, how does the decapitation of non-combatant prisoners, match up with the CIA’s refrigeration of naked political suspects? As for “transparency”, the virtue claimed by the Senate Report publicists in publishing the CIA’s crimes, as “refurbishing the US image”, the Islamists went one step further in “transparency”: they produced a video that went global, revealing their torture by beheading captives.
The Senate Report on CIA torture will not result in any resignations, let alone prosecutions or trials, because over the past two decades, war crimes, police crimes, spy crimes, and financial swindles have not been prosecuted. Nor have any of the guilty officials spent a day in court. They are protected by the majority of political leaders who are unconditional defenders of the CIA, its power, techniques and especially its torture of captives. The vast majority of Congress and the US President repeatedly approve over $100 billion annual budgets for the CIA and its domestic counterpart, Department Homeland Security. They approved the annual budget voted on December 10, 2014, even as the “revelations” rolled in. Moreover, as the tempest over CIA torture proceeds, Obama continues to order the assassination by drone of US citizens “without ever crossing the door of a judge”.
Despite over 6,000 pages of documents and testimony, recording crimes against humanity, theSenate Report is unlikely to trigger any reforms or resignations. This is not because of the actions of some mysterious “deep state” or because a ballooning national security apparatus has taken power. The real problem is that the elected officials, Presidents and Congress people, Democrats and Republicans, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives, are deeply embeddedin the security apparatus and they share the common quest for world supremacy. If Empire requires wars, drones, invasions, occupations and torture, so be it!
Torture will truly disappear and the politicians will be put on trial for these crimes, only when the empire is transformed back to a republic: where impunity ends justice begins.
James Petras latest book, The Politics of Imperialism: The US, Israel and the Middle East(Atlanta: Clarity Press 2014)
December 18, 2014 | By Stephen Lendman
911 on steroids …
Longstanding US plans call for regime change in Russia. Targeting its sovereign independent government. Its main Eurasian rival.
Washington wants pro-Western stooge governance installed. By color revolution or war. US hegemonic ambitions threaten world peace.
Things are more dangerous today than any time since events preceding WW II. Russian economist/political analyst Mikhail Delyagin expects a major anti-Russian provocation.
Expressing his views on Pravda radio, saying “things and information of a unique character…threaten us all very much.”
Ukraine is a pretext. A US-led NATO platform. A dysfunctional, criminal Washington installed neo-Nazi regime.
Economically bankrupt with no legitimacy whatever. Dependent on outside support for survival. America’s newest colony.
Controlling policy, calling the shots, what Washington says goes. Kiev’s stooge regime salutes and obeys. Otherwise it’s replaced. Color revolution 3.0 installing another.
“Why did the Ukrainian crisis happen,” Delyagin asked? “What is the fundamental reason? Why did the Americans get into it so deep(ly)?”
Because Washington, China and the EU are the “three (major) global players,” says Delyagin. Destroying “EU cooperation with Russia eliminates it as an independent participant in global competition, which is what we see now.”
Leaving America and China the two remaining dominant world players. A “real cold war” exists.
Hot war in Ukraine. EU/Russian trade is important. European sentiment favors “restor(ing) relations,” Delyagin believes.
Washington wants Russia “rip(ped)” from Europe. Unsuccessful so far. The MH17 false flag provocation failed.
Russia had nothing to do with it. Nor Donbas freedom fighters. Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 warplane cannon fire was responsible.
Verifiable satellite/radar data showed its aircraft tailing MH17 before destruction. Fuselage penetration holes were consistent with cannon rounds.
“The sequel is coming,” said Delyagin. “There will be another provocation…We got some information. (I)ndirectly confirm(ed) from the West.”
Saying Ukraine’s army “goes on (a fake) offensive. (I)t pretends to attack. (S)oldiers carry out a massive artillery preparation.”
Then “a tactical nuclear warhead explodes in the zone of the offensive of the Ukrainian army.”
Russia is blamed. Unjustifiably. Perhaps to no avail. America alone ever used nuclear weapons. Doing it again “is not so difficult,” said Delyagin.
Estonia’s Paldiski port has warehouse stored radioactive waste. US-led NATO “reportedly delivered (radioactive) cargo.” Not “waste to be disposed of.”
The scheme goes like this, said Delyagin. Unable to blame Russia for MH17, “we will explain to everyone that the damned Russian barbarians had used nuclear weapons against the defenseless Ukrainian army.”
Putin gets blamed. No one in Russia “can deploy a tactical nuclear weapon without the direct order from the Supreme Commander.”
At issue is destroying EU/Russian relations. Disrupt trade. Sever normal political ties. Perhaps block Russian media in Western countries and Japan.
Given the infinite cynicism of our American, as many say, “colleagues.” Nothing too outrageous is beyond their scheming.
Even detonating a nuclear device. False flag criminality blaming Russia. 9/11 on steroids. Too grave to ignore.
With no evidence to photograph for forensic examination. Unlike MH17. “(T)o prove it’s not us.”
Attempts so far to blame Russia for Ukrainian crisis conditions failed. Evidence, or lack of it, debunked Western claims.
Nuclear detonation is different, said Delyagin. Leaving no fingerprints. Perhaps before Christmas. For holy day shock value.
Delyagin predicted Ukraine’s coup. Expected it last February. On Sochi’s winter Olympics first day. It came at the end. Two weeks later. On February 22.
Whether he’s right or wrong about a nuclear false flag remains to be seen. Lunatics in Washington make anything possible.
The unthinkable could follow mass nuclear casualties. Perhaps successfully isolating Russia. Then direct East/West confrontation.
Conflict launching nuclear war. What decades of MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented. Perhaps no longer.
It remains to be seen. Not for long if Delyagin’s before Christmas scenario proves right.
On Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met John Kerry in Rome. Their 17th meeting this year.
Resolving nothing. Washington entirely to blame for Ukrainian and most other world conflict conditions.
A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said:
“When discussing bilateral relations Lavrov stressed that their development is possible only on the basis of equality and mutual interests, while any attempts to pressure Russia have no prospect,”
Lavrov and Kerry discussed Ukraine. The Russian diplomat stressing the importance of observing Geneva and Minsk agreements.
Ones Kiev spurned. Violated straightaway. On orders from Washington. Showing no credible signs of observing now. Conflict conditions remain. Lavrov hopes otherwise saying:
“In the context of the situation in southeastern Ukraine, the consistent implementation of the Minsk agreements is paramount, as well as the convening of a contact group for this purpose as early as possible.”
Illegitimate oligarch president Petro Poroshenko is Washington’s man in Ukraine. A convenient stooge. Obeying orders. On command.
Intending more war. His phony “regime of silence” is head-fake deception.
Saying it helps him regroup. Build troop strength. Rearm. Restore combat readiness. Prepare for more conflict. On orders from Washington.
Current conditions reflect the calm before the storm. Whether by nuclear false flag deception, another US/Kiev provocation, or other pretext remains to be seen.
It bears repeating. Washington wants pro-Western stooge governance replacing sovereign Russian independence.
Its master plan calls for world conquest. Perhaps using nuclear confrontation to achieve aims. Madness by any standard.
A Final Comment
Russia Today interviewed Mikhail Gorbahev. Soviet Russia’s last leader. Now aged 83.
Saying America needs Perestroika reforms. Restructuring. Politically. Economically. Militarily.
“They can call it any name they want,” said Gorbachev. “(I)t’s not easy for them. (W)ith the society they have.”
Creating nonexistent enemies. Stoking tensions. Creating instability. Bullying other nations. Shifting responsibility.
“Whenever tensions are high, whenever there’s instability in a certain country or throughout the region, it’s an opportunity for (Washington) to intervene,” said Gorbachev.
“I am quite familiar with this policy from my own experience,” he explained. It’s up to Europe to prevent a new Cold War, he believes.
One potentially much more dangerous. Deescalation is vital. When things risk spinning out of control. Sparking more serious confrontation.
Risks too dangerous to permit. Washington bears full responsibility. Fueling anti-Russian sentiment is unacceptable.
Gorbachev believes time remains to change things. At the same time, knowing what Russia faces.
Washington needs enemies, said Gorbachev. To exert “pressure. They can’t live without it. They are still enslaved by their old policy.”
Ukraine is America’s pretext for whatever follows. For its anything goes policy.
For sparking East/West confrontation. What no responsible government would permit. What Washington prioritizes.
Furthering its hegemonic aims. It bears repeating. Madness by any standard.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
| By James Hall
“Let’s remember, the CIA’s job is to go out and create wars.” – Jesse Ventura
The motives behind the expose report on CIA practices of torture misses the critical issue surrounding the “Agency”. Most Democrats and many left wing partisans enjoy pointing the dagger at George W. Bush and his cabal of dedicated conspirators. While the first family of fascist facilitators are certainly an indefensible clan of criminals, the essential element about the Central Intelligence Agency is that gathering and interrupting clandestine tradecraft, produces little effect to enhance an American First foreign policy.
Those treasonous NeoCons, who infiltrated both parties, are dire hard globalists bent on fostering an international interventionist empire. Defending the use of a handbook for torture techniques is a task that only a sociopathic and deranged authoritarian undertakes.
The Hill report, Ex-CIA director defends rectal rehydration, is an exercise in fatuousness.
“Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden on Thursday defended revelations from Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats that the agency used rectal rehydration on detainees.
“These were medical procedures,” Hayden said during a tense interview on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” He added that the method was used because detainees were dehydrated, and that giving them intravenous fluids with needles would be dangerous.”
Prancing out Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney to brag about his record of enhanced interrogation is consistent with the culture of obscene de-humanization that is always rationalized as protecting the “Homeland”.
The video, Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation on Democracy Now provides an overview of CIA practices.
Melvin A. Goodman article, Torture Report Exposes Sadism and Lies argues that,
“The senior operations officer who ran the CIA’s torture and abuse program, Jose Rodriquez, has been permitted to write a book and a long essay in the Washington Post that argue the interrogation techniques were legal and effective. Their charges are completely spurious and their credibility is non-existent.
CIA directors Tenet and Hayden, who signed off on the enhanced interrogation program, were involved in numerous efforts to politicize the work of the CIA. In addition to deceiving the White House on the efficacy of the torture program, Tenet provided misinformation to the White House on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. His role on Iraqi WMD has been comprehensively and authoritatively documented in the reports of the Robb-Silberman Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.”
How did the Agency become the refuge of nihilism? Start with looking into the reasons for installing a mole like James Jesus Angleton, as head of the Counterintelligence Staff, which illustrates the danger of entrusting national security to compromised loyalists. Fast forward to today and elevating John O. Brennan: CIA Drone Director to head up the Agency proves that the killing machine is more important than the analysis of intelligence.
Review the impact from the Continued Policy of Torture that goes on under different names and locations. Tracing the record of torture is mild outrage when compared to the actual operations of the Shadow Forces Behind Government.
The CIA has a damaging pattern of not providing accurate intelligence. The reason is simple, for their mission has changed from the original charter and their purpose is now the elimination of all opposition to the rule of the “REAL” establishment. The CIA’s own site and library says:
“Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.”
“From the creation of the Agency in 1947 until the establishment of the permanent select committees on intelligence in the mid-1970s, there was relatively little legislation in this area. Only three statutes, in fact, fell into the aforementioned categories, and all were developed largely by the Agency and supported by the administration in power. With the advent of the select committees, however, Congress began to develop and enact more legislation affecting the Agency’s mission, authorities, and organization. Not only did the annual authorization bills for intelligence developed by the select committees offer new opportunities to bring legislation affecting the CIA to the floor, but the committees themselves increasingly took the initiative to propose such legislation.”
Much of the research and condemnation of the deadly intervention from covert operations has been assembled from the likes of the late Alexander Cockburn, who wrote back in 2009 in “A Damned Murder Inc.”
“What about targets of assassination attempts by the CIA, acting on presidential orders? We could start with the bid on Chou En-lai’s life after the Bandung Conference in 1954; they blew up the plane scheduled to take him home, but fortunately for him, though not his fellow passengers, he’d switched flights. Then we could move on to the efforts, ultimately successful in 1961, to kill the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, in which the CIA was intimately involved, dispatching among others the late Dr Sidney Gottlieb, the Agency’s in-house killer chemist, with a hypodermic loaded with poison. The Agency made many efforts to kill General Kassim in Iraq. The first such attempt on October 7, 1959 was botched badly, and one of the assassins, Saddam Husssein, was, spirited out to an Agency apartment in Cairo. There was a second Agency effort in 1960-1961 with a poisoned handkerchief. Finally they shot Kassim in the coup of February 8/9, 1963.”
Even the U.S. government admitted the rattling impact of covert actionable ops as seen in the Senator Frank Church Committee Reports providing documentation on CIA operation abuses.
“The Interim Report documents the Church Committee’s findings on U.S. involvement in attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, and General Rene Schneider of Chile. It also contains findings on the development of a general “Executive Action” capability by the CIA.”
The list of Directors of Central Intelligence (DCI) includes some of the most infamous names in post War II sub-rosa governance. The likes of Allen W. Dulles, Richard M. Helms, James R. Schlesinger, William E. Colby, George H. W. Bush, William J. Casey and George J. Tenet each had their secrets but all were agents in protecting the NWO “Nefarious Warrior Organism” Empire.
This background sets the stage for the latest chapter of CIA = Murder Inc.
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. references President Obama’s Secret CIA Hit Squad Detailed in “The Way of the Knife” in the New American. “The story behind the development and deployment of this presidential killing corps is told in The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth, the latest book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Mark Mazzetti.”
Mr. Wolverton goes on to sum up.
“The “new American way of war” includes not declaring war. Rather than submit to the constitutional authority of the legislative branch’s exclusive power to declare war, presidents for decades have marched brigades of U.S. armies through the barriers that separate the powers of the White House and Capitol Hill.
Admittedly, when the president assumes the power to designate people as enemies of the state, then he feels legally justified in skirting (or completely disregarding) the myriad constitutional and moral checks on the prosecution of war.
For example, President Obama’s nearly daily approval of drone-delivered assassinations is an effrontery to over 650 years of our Anglo-American law’s protection from autocratic decrees of death without due process of law. When any president usurps the power to place names on a kill list and then have those people summarily executed without due process, he places our republic on a trajectory toward tyranny and government-sponsored terrorism.”
The need for valid intelligence should not be compromised with the culture of unaccountable execution for the “National Security” of government thugs. The CIA has proven to be an enemy of the American People. Honest conservatives need to accept and adopt that protecting surreptitious enforcers is not the same as defending the nation.
A list of US Intelligence and Security Agencies shows there is no shortage of government departments that have the capacity of conducting justifiable intelligence collection. Allowing the CIA to wage secretive wars is entirely outside the lawful traditions upon which this country was founded.
The circumstance of the mysterious death of William E. Colby strongly indicates that he was murdered. Who Killed William Colby? – provides the following deduction. “A CIA director can make a lot of enemies which Colby managed to do in spades. Perhaps his biggest sin was his willingness to honestly answer Congress the questions they put to him. In fact his candor caused Kissinger to instruct President Ford to fire him which he did in November 1975. Twenty years later Colby was scheduled to speak before Congress again and the spooks at Langley wanted to take no chances of more family jewels being cast before swine.”
Matthew 26:52 applies to CIA DCI’s – “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
12.06.2014 :: Analysis
Introduction: The principle Nazi ideological prop that secured massive financial and political support from Germany’s leading industrialists was the Communist and Soviet threat. The main Nazi military drive, absorbing two-thirds of its best troops, was directed eastward at conquering and destroying Russia.
The ‘Russian Threat’ justified Nazi Germany’s conquest and occupation of the Ukraine, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, with the aid of a substantial proportion of local Nazi collaborators.
After Germany’s defeat , division and disarmament, and with the extension of Soviet power, the US reinstated the Nazi industrial and banking giants, officials and intelligence operatives.At first they were engaged in rebuilding their domestic economy and consolidating political power, in collaboration with the US military occupation forces.
By the late 1960’s Germany regained economic primacy in Europe and was at the forefront of European ‘integration’, in association with France and England. It soon came to dominate the principle decision – making institutions of the European Union(EU). The EU served as Germany’s instrument for conquest by stealth. Year by year, through ‘aid’ and low interest loans,the EU facilitated German capitalist’s market penetration and financial expansion,through out south and central Europe. Germany set the agenda for Western Europe, gaining economic dominance while benefiting from US subversion and encirclement of Eastern Europe, Russia and the Baltic and Balkan states.
Germany’s Great Leap Forward: The Annexation of East Germany and the Demise of the USSR
Germany’s projection of power on a world scale would never have occurred if it had not annexed East Germany. Despite the West German claims of beneficence and ‘aid’ to the East, the Bonn regime secured several million skilled engineers, workers and technicians, the takeover of factories, productive farms and, most important, the Eastern European and Russian markets for industrial goods, worth billions of dollars. Germany was transformed from an emerging influential EU partner, into the most dynamic expansionist power in Europe, especially in the former Warsaw Pact economies.
The annexation of East Germany and the overthrow of the Communist governments in the East allowed German capitalists to dominate markets in the former Eastern bloc .As the major trading partner, it seized control of major industrial enterprises via corrupt privatizations decreed by the newly installed pro-capitalist client regimes. As the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgarian, the Baltic States “privatized” and “de-nationalized” strategic economic, trade, media and social service sectors, ‘unified’ Germany was able to resume a privileged place. As Russia fell into the hands of gangsters, emerging oligarchs and political proxies of western capitalists, its entire industrial infrastructure was decimated and Russia was converted into a giant raw-material export region.
Germany converted its trade relations with Russia from one between equals into a ‘colonial’ pattern: Germany exported high value industrial products and imported gas, oil and raw materials from Russia.
German power expanded exponentially, with the annexation of the “other Germany”, the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe and the ascendancy of client regimes eager and willing to submit to a German dominated European Union and a US directed NATO military command.
German political-economic expansion via ‘popular uprisings’, controlled by local political clients, was soon accompanied by a US led military offensive – sparked by separatist movements. Germany intervened in Yugoslavia, aiding and abetting separatists in Slovenia and Croatia .It backed the US-NATO bombing of Serbia and supported the far-right, self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army ( KLA),engaged in a terrorist war in Kosovo . Belgrade was defeated and regime change led to a neo-liberal client state. The US built the largest military base in Europe in Kosovo. Montenegro and Macedonia became EU satellites.
While NATO expanded and enhanced the US military presence up to Russia’s borders, Germany became the continent’s pre-eminent economic power.
Germany and the New World Order
While President Bush and Clinton were heralding a “new world order”, based on unipolar military supremacy, Germany advanced its new imperial order by exercising its political and economic levers. Each of the two power centers, Germany and the US, shared the common quest of rapidly incorporating the new capitalist regimes into their regional organizations –the European Union (EU) and NATO– and extending their reach globally. Given the reactionaryorigins and trajectory into vassalage of the Eastern, Baltic and Balkan regimes, and given their political fears of a popular reaction to the loss of employment, welfare and independence resulting from their implementation of savage neoliberal “shock policies”, the client rulers immediately “applied” for membership as subordinate members of the EU and NATO, trading sovereignty, markets and national ownership of the means of production for economic handouts and the ‘free’ movement of labor, an escape valve for the millions of newly unemployed workers. German and English capital got millions of skilled immigrant workers at below labor market wages, and unimpeded access to markets and resources. The US secured NATO military bases, and recruited military forces for its Middle East and South Asian imperial wars.
US-German military and economic dominance in Europe was premised on retaining Russia as a weak quasi vassal state, and on the continued economic growth of their economies beyond the initial pillage of the ex-communist economies.
For the US, uncontested military supremacy throughout Europe was the springboard for near-time imperial expansion in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Latin America. NATO was ‘internationalized’ into an offensive global military alliance: first in Somalia, Afghanistan then Iraq, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine.
The Rise of Russia, The Islamic Resistance and the New Cold War
During the ‘decade of infamy’ (1991-2000) extreme privatization measures by the client rulers in Russia on behalf of EU and US investors and gangster oligarchs, added up to vast pillage of the entire economy, public treasury and national patrimony. The image and reality of a giant prostrate vassal state unable to pursue an independent foreign policy, and incapable of providing the minimum semblance of a modern functioning economy and maintaining the rule of law, became the defining view of Russia by the EU and the USA. Post-communist Russia, a failed state by any measure, was dubbed a “liberal democracy” by every western capitalist politician and so it was repeated by all their mass media acolytes.
The fortuitous rise of Vladimir Putin and the gradual replacement of some of the most egregious ‘sell-out’ neo-liberal officials, and most important, the reconstruction of the Russian state with a proper budget and functioning national institutions, was immediately perceived as a threat to US military supremacy and German economic expansion. Russia’s transition from Western vassalage to regaining its status as a sovereign independent state set in motion, an aggressive counter-offensive by the US-EU. They financed a neo-liberal-oligarchy backed political opposition in an attempt to restore Russia to vassalage via street demonstrations and elections .Their efforts to oust Putin and re-establish Western vassal state failed. What worked in 19991 with Yeltsin’s power grab against Gorbachev was ineffective against Putin. The vast majority of Russians did not want a return to the decade of infamy.
In the beginning of the new century, Putin and his team set new ground-rules, in which oligarchs could retain their illicit wealth and conglomerates, providing they didn’t use their economic levers to seize state power. Secondly, Putin revived and restored the scientific technical, military, industrial and cultural institutions and centralized trade and investment decisions within a wide circle of public and private decision makers not beholden to Western policymakers. Thirdly, he began to assess and rectify the breakdown of Russian security agencies particularly with regard to the threats emanating from Western sponsored ‘separatist’ movements in the Caucuses, especially, in Chechnya, and the onset of US backed ‘color revolutions’ in the Ukraine and Georgia.
At first, Putin optimistically assumed that, Russia being a capitalist state, and without any competing ideology, the normalization and stabilization of the Russian state would bewelcomed by the US and the EU. He even envisioned that they would accept Russia as an economic, political, and even NATO partner. Putin even made overtures to join and co-operate with NATO and the EU. The West did not try to dissuade Putin of his illusions .In fact they encouraged him, even as they escalated their backing for Putin’s internal opposition and prepared a series of imperial wars and sanctions in the Middle East, targeting traditional Russian allies in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
As the ‘internal’ subversive strategy failed to dislodge President Putin, and the Russian state prevailed over the neo-vassals, the demonization of Putin became constant and shrill. The West moved decisively to an ‘outsider strategy’, to isolate, encircle and undermine the Russian state by undermining allies, and trading partners
US and Germany Confront Russia: Manufacturing the “Russian Threat”
Russia was enticed to support US and NATO wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in exchange for the promise of deeper integration into Western markets. The US and EU accepted Russian co-operation, including military supply routes and bases, for their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The NATO powers secured Russian support of sanctions against Iran. They exploited Russia’s naïve support of a “no fly zone” over Libya to launch a full scale aerial war. The US financed so-called “color revolutions” in Georgia and the Ukraine overt, a dress rehearsal for the putsch in 2014 Each violent seizure of power allowed NATO to impose anti-Russian rulers eager and willing to serve as vassal states to Germany and the US.
Germany spearheaded the European imperial advance in the Balkans and Moldavia, countries with strong economic ties to Russia. High German officials “visited” the Balkans to bolster their ties with vassal regimes in Slovenia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia. Under German direction, the European Union ordered the vassal Bulgarian regime of Boyko “the booby” Borisov to block the passage of Russian owned South Stream pipeline to Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and beyond. The Bulgarian state lost $400 million in annual revenue . . . Germany and the US bankrolled pro-NATO and EU client politicians in Moldavia – securing the election of Iurie Leanca as Prime Minister. As a result of Leanca’s slavish pursuit of EU vassalage, Moldavia lost $150 million in exports to Russia. Leanca’s pro-EU policies go counter to the views of most Moldavians – 57% see Russia as the country’s most important economic partner. Nearly 40% of the Moldavian working age population works in Russia and 25% of the Moldavians’ $8 billion GDP is accounted for by overseas remittances.
German and the US empire-builders steamroll over dissenting voices in Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia, as well as Moldova and Bulgaria, who’s economy and population suffer from the impositions of the blockade of the Russian gas and oil pipeline. But Germany’s, all out economic warfare against Russia takes precedent over the interests of its vassal states: its theirs to sacrifice for the ‘Greater Good’ of the emerging German economic empire and the US – NATO military encirclement of Russia. The extremely crude dictates of German imperial interests articulated through the EU, and the willingness of Balkan and Baltic regimes to sacrifice fundamental economic interests, are the best indicators of the emerging German empire in Europe.
Parallel to Germany’s rabid anti-Russian economic campaign, the US via NATO is engaged in a vast military build-up along the length and breadth of Russia’s frontier. The US stooge, NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg, boasts that over the current year, NATO has increased 5-fold the warplanes and bombers patrolling Russian maritime and land frontiers, carried out military exercises every two days and vastly increased the number of war ships in the Baltic and Black Sea.
What is absolutely clear is that the US and Germany want to return Russia to the vassalage status of the 1990’s. They do not want ‘normal relations’. From the moment Putin moved to restore the Russian state and economy, the Western powers have engaged in a series of political and military interventions, eliminating Russian allies, trading partners and independent states.
The emergent of extremist, visceral anti-Russian regimes in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania served as the forward shield for NATO advancement and German economic encroachment. Hitler’s ‘dream’ of realizing the conquest of the East via unilateral military conquest has now under Prime Minister Merkel taken the form of conquest by stealth in Northern and Central Europe , by economic blackmail in the Balkans ,and by violent putsches in the Ukraine and Georgia.
The German economic ruling class is divided between the dominant pro-US sector that is willing to sacrifice lucrative trade with Russia today in hopes of dominating and pillaging the entire economy in a post-Putin Russia (dominated by ‘reborn Yeltsin clones’); and a minority industrial sector, which wants to end sanctions and return to normal economic relations with Russia.
Germany is fearful that its client rulers in the East, especially in the Balkans are vulnerable to a popular upheaval due to the economic sacrifices they impose on the population. Hence, Germany is wholly in favor of the new NATO rapid deployment force, ostensibly designed to counter a non-existent “Russian threat” but in reality to prop up faltering vassal regimes.
The ‘Russian Threat’, the ideology driving the US and German offensive throughout Europe and the Caucuses, is a replay of the same doctrine which Hitler used to secure support from domestic industrial bankers, conservatives and right wing overseas collaborators among extremists in Ukraine, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.
The US-EU seizure of power via vassal political clients backed by corrupt oligarchs and Nazi street fighters in Ukraine detonated the current crisis. Ukraine power grab posed a top security threat to the very existence of Russia as an independent state. After the Kiev take-over, NATO moved its stooge regime in Kiev forward to militarily eliminate the independent regions in the Southeast and seize the Crimea .thus totally eliminating Russia’s strategic position in the Black Sea.
Russia the victim of the NATO power grab was labelled the “aggressor”. The entire officialdom and mass media echoed the Big Lie.
Two decades of US NATO military advances on Russia’s borders and German-EU economic expansion into Russian markets were obfuscated. Ukraine is the most important strategic military platform from which the US-NATO can launch an attack on the Russian heartland and the single largest market for Germany since the annexation of East Germany
The US and Germany see the Ukraine conquest as of extreme value in itself but also as the key to launching an all-out offensive to strangle Russia’s economy via sanctions and dumping oil and to militarily threaten Russia. The strategic goal is to reduce the Russian population to poverty and to re-activate the quasi-moribund opposition to overthrow the Putin government and return Russia to permanent vassalage.
The US and German imperial elite, looking beyond Russia, believe that if they control Russia, they can encircle ,isolate and attack China from the West as well as the East.
Wild-eyed fanatics they are not. But as rabid proponents of a permanent war to end Russia’s presence in Europe and to undermine China’s emergence as a world power, they are willing to go to the brink of a nuclear war.
The ideological centerpiece of US-German imperial expansion and conquest in Europe and the Caucuses is the “Russian Threat”. It is the touchstone defining adversaries and allies. Countries that do not uphold sanctions are targeted. The mass media repeat the lie. The “Russian Threat” has become the war cry for cringing vassals – the phony justification for imposing frightful sacrifices to serve their imperial ‘padrones’ in Berlin and Washington – fearing the rebellion of the ‘sacrificed’ population. No doubt, under siege, Russia will be forced to make sacrifices. The oligarchs will flee westward; the liberals will crawl under their beds. But just as the Soviets turned the tide of war in Stalingrad, the Russian people, past the first two years of a bootstrap operation will survive, thrive and become once again a beacon of hope to all people looking to get from under the tyranny of US-NATO militarism and German-EU economic dictates.
When 28 civilians were killed in Athens, it wasn’t the Nazis who were to blame, it was the British. Ed Vulliamy and Helena Smith reveal how Churchill’s shameful decision to turn on the partisans who had fought on our side in the war sowed the seeds for the rise of the far right in Greece today
“I can still see it very clearly, I have not forgotten,” says Títos Patríkios. “The Athens police firing on the crowd from the roof of the parliament in Syntagma Square. The young men and women lying in pools of blood, everyone rushing down the stairs in total shock, total panic.”
And then came the defining moment: the recklessness of youth, the passion of belief in a justice burning bright: “I jumped up on the fountain in the middle of the square, the one that is still there, and I began to shout: “Comrades, don’t disperse! Victory will be ours! Don’t leave. The time has come. We will win!”
“I was,” he says now, “profoundly sure, that we would win.” But there was no winning that day; just as there was no pretending that what had happened would not change the history of a country that, liberated from Adolf Hitler’s Reich barely six weeks earlier, was now surging headlong towards bloody civil war.
Even now, at 86, when Patríkios “laughs at and with myself that I have reached such an age”, the poet can remember, scene-for-scene, shot for shot, what happened in the central square of Greek political life on the morning of 3 December 1944.
This was the day, those 70 years ago this week, when the British army, still at war with Germany, opened fire upon – and gave locals who had collaborated with the Nazis the guns to fire upon – a civilian crowd demonstrating in support of the partisans with whom Britain had been allied for three years.
The crowd carried Greek, American, British and Soviet flags, and chanted: “Viva Churchill, Viva Roosevelt, Viva Stalin’” in endorsement of the wartime alliance.
Twenty-eight civilians, mostly young boys and girls, were killed and hundreds injured. “We had all thought it would be a demonstration like any other,” Patríkios recalls. “Business as usual. Nobody expected a bloodbath.”
Britain’s logic was brutal and perfidious: Prime minister Winston Churchill considered the influence of the Communist Party within the resistance movement he had backed throughout the war – the National Liberation Front, EAM – to have grown stronger than he had calculated, sufficient to jeopardise his plan to return the Greek king to power and keep Communism at bay. So he switched allegiances to back the supporters of Hitler against his own erstwhile allies.
There were others in the square that day who, like the 16-year-old Patríkios, would go on to become prominent members of the left. Míkis Theodorakis, renowned composer and iconic figure in modern Greek history, daubed a Greek flag in the blood of those who fell. Like Patríkios, he was a member of the resistance youth movement. And, like Patríkios, he knew his country had changed. Within days, RAF Spitfires and Beaufighters were strafing leftist strongholds as the Battle of Athens – known in Greece as the Dekemvriana – began, fought not between the British and the Nazis, but the British alongside supporters of the Nazis against the partisans. “I can still smell the destruction,” Patríkios laments. “The mortars were raining down and planes were targeting everything. Even now, after all these years, I flinch at the sound of planes in war movies.”
And thereafter Greece’s descent into catastrophic civil war: a cruel and bloody episode in British as well as Greek history which every Greek knows to their core – differently, depending on which side they were on – but which remains curiously untold in Britain, perhaps out of shame, maybe the arrogance of a lack of interest. It is a narrative of which the millions of Britons who go to savour the glories of Greek antiquity or disco-dance around the islands Mamma Mia-style, are unaware.
The legacy of this betrayal has haunted Greece ever since, its shadow hanging over the turbulence and violence that erupted in 2008 after the killing of a schoolboy by police – also called the Dekemvriana – and created an abyss between the left and right thereafter.
“The 1944 December uprising and 1946-49 civil war period infuses the present,” says the leading historian of these events, André Gerolymatos, “because there has never been a reconciliation. In France or Italy, if you fought the Nazis, you were respected in society after the war, regardless of ideology. In Greece, you found yourself fighting – or imprisoned and tortured by – the people who had collaborated with the Nazis, on British orders. There has never been a reckoning with that crime, and much of what is happening in Greece now is the result of not coming to terms with the past.”
Before the war, Greece was ruled by a royalist dictatorship whose emblem of a fascist axe and crown well expressed its dichotomy once war began: the dictator, General Ioannis Metaxas, had been trained as an army officer in Imperial Germany, while Greek King George II – an uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh – was attached to Britain. The Greek left, meanwhile, had been reinforced by a huge influx of politicised refugees and liberal intellectuals from Asia Minor, who crammed into the slums of Pireaus and working-class Athens.
Both dictator and king were fervently anti-communist, and Metaxas banned the Communist Party, KKE, interning and torturing its members, supporters and anyone who did not accept “the national ideology” in camps and prisons, or sending them into internal exile. Once war started, Metaxas refused to accept Mussolini’s ultimatum to surrender and pledged his loyalty to the Anglo-Greek alliance. The Greeks fought valiantly and defeated the Italians, but could not resist the Wehrmacht. By the end of April 1941, the Axis forces imposed a harsh occupation of the country. The Greeks – at first spontaneously, later in organised groups – resisted.
But, noted the British Special Operations Executive (SOE): “The right wing and monarchists were slower than their opponents in deciding to resist the occupation, and were therefore of little use.”
Britain’s natural allies were therefore EAM – an alliance of left wing and agrarian parties of which the KKE was dominant, but by no means the entirety – and its partisan military arm, ELAS.
There is no overstating the horror of occupation. Professor Mark Mazower’s book Inside Hitler’s Greece describes hideous bloccos or “round-ups” – whereby crowds would be corralled into the streets so that masked informers could point out ELAS supporters to the Gestapo and Security Battalions – which had been established by the collaborationist government to assist the Nazis – for execution. Stripping and violation of women was a common means to secure “confessions”. Mass executions took place “on the German model”: in public, for purposes of intimidation; bodies would be left hanging from trees, guarded by Security Battalion collaborators to prevent their removal. In response, ELAS mounted daily counterattacks on the Germans and their quislings. The partisan movement was born in Athens but based in the villages, so that Greece was progressively liberated from the countryside. The SOE played its part, famous in military annals for the role of Brigadier Eddie Myers and “Monty” Woodhouse in blowing up the Gorgopotomas viaduct in 1942 and other operations with the partisans – andartes in Greek.
By autumn 1944, Greece had been devastated by occupation and famine. Half a million people had died – 7% of the population. ELAS had, however, liberated dozens of villages and become a proto-government, administering parts of the country while the official state withered away. But after German withdrawal, ELAS kept its 50,000 armed partisans outside the capital, and in May 1944 agreed to the arrival of British troops, and to place its men under the officer commanding, Lt Gen Ronald Scobie.
On 12 October the Germans evacuated Athens. Some ELAS fighters, however, had been in the capital all along, and welcomed the fresh air of freedom during a six-day window between liberation and the arrival of the British. One partisan in particular is still alive, aged 92, and is a legend of modern Greece.
In and around the European parliament in Brussels, the man in a Greek fisherman’s cap, with his mane of white hair and moustache, stands out. He is Manolis Glezos, senior MEP for the leftist Syriza party of Greece.
Glezos is a man of humbling greatness. On 30 May 1941, he climbed the Acropolis with another partisan and tore down the swastika flag that had been hung there a month before. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1942, was tortured and as a result suffered from tuberculosis. He escaped and was re-arrested twice – the second time by collaborators. He recalls being sentenced to death in May 1944, before the Germans left Athens – “They told me my grave had already been dug”. Somehow he avoided execution and was then saved from a Greek courtmartial’s firing squad during the civil war period by international outcry led by General de Gaulle, Jean-Paul Sartre and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rev Geoffrey Fisher.”
Seventy years later, he is an icon of the Greek left who is also hailed as the greatest living authority on the resistance. “The English, to this day, argue that they liberated Greece and saved it from communism,” he says. “But that is the basic problem. They never liberated Greece. Greece had been liberated by the resistance, groups across the spectrum, not just EAM, on 12 October. I was there, on the streets – people were everywhere shouting: ‘Freedom!’ we cried, Laokratia! – ‘Power to the People!’”
The British duly arrived on 18 October, installed a provisional government under Georgios Papandreou and prepared to restore the king. “From the moment they came,” recalls Glezos, “the people and the resistance greeted them as allies. There was nothing but respect and friendship towards the British. We had no idea that we were already giving up our country and our rights.” It was only a matter of time before EAM walked out of the provisional government in frustration over demands that the partisans demobilise. The negotiations broke down on 2 December.
Official British thinking is reflected in War Cabinet papers and other documents kept in the Public Record Office at Kew. As far back as 17 August 1944, Churchill had written a “Personal and Top Secret” memo to US president Franklin Roosevelt to say that: “The War Cabinet and Foreign Secretary are much concerned about what will happen in Athens, and indeed Greece, when the Germans crack or when their divisions try to evacuate the country. If there is a long hiatus after German authorities have gone from the city before organised government can be set up, it seems very likely that EAM and the Communist extremists will attempt to seize the city.”
But what the freedom fighters wanted, insists Glezos “was what we had achieved during the war: a state ruled by the people for the people. There was no plot to take over Athens as Churchill always maintained. If we had wanted to do that, we could have done so before the British arrived.” During November, the British set about building the new National Guard, tasked to police Greece and disarm the wartime militias. In reality, disarmament applied to ELAS only, explains Gerolymatos, not to those who had collaborated with the Nazis. Gerolymatos writes in his forthcoming book, The International Civil War, about how “in the middle of November, the British started releasing Security Battalion officers… and soon some of them were freely walking the streets of Athens wearing new uniforms… The British army continued to provide protection to assist the gradual rehabilitation of the former quisling units in the Greek army and police forces.” An SOE memo urged that “HMG must not appear to be connected with this scheme.”
In conversation, Gerolymatos says: “So far as ELAS could see, the British had arrived, and now some senior officers of the Security Battalions and Special Security Branch [collaborationist units which had been integrated into the SS] were seen walking freely in the streets. Athens in 1944 was a small place, and you could not miss these people. Senior British officers knew exactly what they were doing, despite the fact that the ordinary soldiers of the former Security Battalions were the scum of Greece”. Gerolymatos estimates that 12,000 Security Battalionists were released from Goudi prison during the uprising to join the National Guard, and 228 had been reinstated in the army.
Any British notion that the Communists were poised for revolution fell within the context of the so-called Percentages Agreement, forged between Churchill and Soviet Commissar Josef Stalin at the code-named “Tolstoy Conference” in Moscow on 9 October 1944. Under the terms agreed in what Churchill called “a naughty document”, southeast Europe was carved up into “spheres of influence”, whereby – broadly – Stalin took Romania and Bulgaria, while Britain, in order to keep Russia out of the Mediterranean, took Greece. The obvious thing to have done, argues Gerolymatos, “would have been to incorporate ELAS into the Greek army. The officers in ELAS, many holding commissions in the pre-war Greek army, presumed this would happen – like De Gaulle did with French communists fighting in the resistance: ‘France is liberated, now let’s go and fight Germany!’
“But the British and the Greek government in exile decided from the outset that ELAS officers and men would not be admitted into the new army. Churchill wanted a showdown with the KKE so as to be able to restore the king. Churchill believed that a restoration would result in the return of legitimacy and bring back the old order. EAM-ELAS, regardless of its relationship to the KKE, represented a revolutionary force, and change.”
Meanwhile, continues Gerolymatos: “The Greek communists had decided not to try to take over the country, as least not until late November/early December 1944. The KKE wanted to push for a left-of-centre government and be part of it, that’s all.” Echoing Glezos, he says: “If they had wanted a revolution, they would not have left 50,000 armed men outside the capital after liberation – they’d have brought them in.”
“By recruiting the collaborators, the British changed the paradigm, signalling that the old order was back. Churchill wanted the conflict,” says Gerolymatos. “We must remember: there was no Battle for Greece. A large number of the British troops that arrived were administrative, not line units. When the fighting broke out in December, the British and the provisional government let the Security Battalions out of Goudi; they knew how to fight street-to-street because they’d done it with the Nazis. They’d been fighting ELAS already during the occupation and resumed the battle with gusto.”
The morning of Sunday 3 December was a sunny one, as several processions of Greek republicans, anti-monarchists, socialists and communists wound their way towards Syntagma Square. Police cordons blocked their way, but several thousand broke through; as they approached the square, a man in military uniform shouted: “Shoot the bastards!” The lethal fusillade – from Greek police positions atop the parliament building and British headquarters in the Grande Bretagne hotel – lasted half an hour. By noon, a second crowd of demonstrators entered the square, until it was jammed with 60,000 people. After several hours, a column of British paratroops cleared the square; but the Battle of Athens had begun, and Churchill had his war.
Manolis Glezos was sick that morning, suffering from tuberculosis. “But when I heard what had happened, I got off my sick bed,” he recalls. The following day, Glezos was roaming the streets, angry and determined, disarming police stations. By the time the British sent in an armoured division he and his comrades were waiting.
“I note the fact,” he says, “that they would rather use those troops to fight our population than German Nazis!” By the time British tanks rolled in from the port of Pireaus, he was lying in wait: “I remember them coming up the Sacred Way. We were dug in a trench. I took out three tanks,” he says. “There was much bloodshed, a lot of fighting, I lost many very good friends. It was difficult to strike at an Englishman, difficult to kill a British soldier – they had been our allies. But now they were trying to destroy the popular will, and had declared war on our people”.
At battle’s peak, Glezos says, the British even set up sniper nests on the Acropolis. “Not even the Germans did that. They were firing down on EAM targets, but we didn’t fire back, so as not [to harm] the monument.”
On 5 December, Lt Gen Scobie imposed martial law and the following day ordered the aerial bombing of the working-class Metz quarter. “British and government forces,” writes anthropologist Neni Panourgia in her study of families in that time, “having at their disposal heavy armament, tanks, aircraft and a disciplined army, were able to make forays into the city, burning and bombing houses and streets and carving out segments of the city… The German tanks had been replaced by British ones, the SS and Gestapo officers by British soldiers.” The house belonging to actor Mimis Fotopoulos, she writes, was burned out with a portrait of Churchill above the fireplace.
“I recall shouting slogans in English, during one battle in Koumoundourou Square because I had a strong voice and it was felt I could be heard,” says poet Títos Patríkios as we talk in his apartment. “‘We are brothers, there’s nothing to divide us, come with us!’ That’s what I was shouting in the hope that they [British troops] would withdraw. And right at that moment, with my head poked above the wall, a bullet brushed over my helmet. Had I not been yanked down by Evangelos Goufas[another poet], who was there next to me, I would have been dead.”
He can now smile at the thought that only months after the killing in the square he was back at school, studying English on a British Council summer course. “We were enemies, but at the same time friends. In one battle I came across an injured English soldier and I took him to a field hospital. I gave him my copy of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnappedwhich I remember he kept.”
It is illuminating to read the dispatches by British soldiers themselves, as extracted by the head censor, Capt JB Gibson, now stored at the Public Record Office. They give no indication that the enemy they fight was once a partisan ally, indeed many troops think they are fighting a German-backed force. A warrant officer writes: “Mr Churchill and his speech bucked us no end, we know now what we are fighting for and against, it is obviously a Hun element behind all this trouble.” From “An Officer”: “You may ask: why should our boys give their lives to settle Greek political differences, but they are only Greek political differences? I say: no, it is all part of the war against the Hun, and we must go on and exterminate this rebellious element.”
Cabinet papers at Kew trace the reactions in London: a minute of 12 December records Harold Macmillan, political advisor to Field Marshal Alexander, returning from Athens to recommend “a proclamation of all civilians against us as rebels, and a declaration those found in civilian clothes opposing us with weapons were liable to be shot, and that 24 hours notice should be given that certain areas were to be wholly evacuated by the civilian population” – ergo, the British Army was to depopulate and occupy Athens. Soon, reinforced British troops had the upper hand and on Christmas Eve Churchill arrived in the Greek capital in a failed bid to make peace on Christmas Day.
“I will now tell you something I have never told anyone,” says Manolis Glezos mischievously. On the evening of 25 December Glezos would take part in his most daring escapade, laying more than a ton of dynamite under the hotel Grande Bretagne, where Lt Gen Scobie had headquartered himself. “There were about 30 of us involved. We worked through the tunnels of the sewerage system; we had people to cover the grid-lines in the streets, so scared we were that we’d be heard. We crawled through all the shit and water and laid the dynamite right under the hotel, enough to blow it sky high.
“I carried the fuse wire myself, wire wound all around me, and I had to unravel it. We were absolutely filthy, covered [in excrement] and when we got out of the sewerage system I remember the boys washing us down. I went over to the boy with the detonator; and we waited, waited for the signal, but it never came. Nothing. There was no explosion. Then I found out: at the last minute EAM found out that Churchill was in the building, and put out an order to call off the attack. They’d wanted to blow up the British command, but didn’t want to be responsible for assassinating one of the big three.”
At the end of the Dekemvriana, thousands had been killed; 12,000 leftists rounded up and sent to camps in the Middle East. A truce was signed on 12 February, the only clause of which that was even partially honoured was the demobilisation of ELAS. And so began a chapter known in Greek history as the “White Terror”, as anyone suspected of helping ELAS during the Dekemvriana or even Nazi occupation was rounded up and sent to a gulag of camps established for their internment, torture, often murder – or else repentance, as under the Metaxas dictatorship.
Títos Patríkios is not the kind of man who wants the past to impinge on the present. But he does not deny the degree to which this history has done just that – affecting his poetry, his movement, his quest to find “le mot juste”. This most measured and mild-mannered of men would spend years in concentration camps, set up with the help of the British as civil war beckoned. With imprisonment came hard labour, and with hard labour came torture, and with exile came censorship. “The first night on Makronissos [the most infamous camp] we were all beaten very badly.
“I spent six months there, mostly breaking stones, picking brambles and carrying sand. Once, I was made to stand for 24 hours after it had been discovered that a newspaper had published a letter describing the appalling conditions in the camp. But though I had written it, and had managed to pass it on to my mother, I never admitted to doing so and throughout my time there I never signed a statement of repentance.”
Patríkios was among the relatively fortunate; thousands of others were executed, usually in public, their severed heads or hanging bodies routinely displayed in public squares. His Majesty’s embassy in Athens commented by saying the exhibition of severed heads “is a regular custom in this country which cannot be judged by western European standards”.
The name of the man in command of the “British Police Mission” to Greece is little known. Sir Charles Wickham had been assigned by Churchill to oversee the new Greek security forces – in effect, to recruit the collaborators. Anthropologist Neni Panourgia describes Wickham as “one of the persons who traversed the empire establishing the infrastructure needed for its survival,” and credits him with the establishment of one of the most vicious camps in which prisoners were tortured and murdered, at Giaros.
From Yorkshire, Wickham was a military man who served in the Boer War, during which concentration camps in the modern sense were invented by the British. He then fought in Russia, as part of the allied Expeditionary Force sent in 1918 to aid White Russian Czarist forces in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. After Greece, he moved on in 1948 to Palestine. But his qualification for Greece was this: Sir Charles was the first Inspector General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, from 1922 to 1945.
The RUC was founded in 1922, following what became known as the Belfast pogroms of 1920-22, when Catholic streets were attacked and burned. It was, writes the historian Tim Pat Coogan, “conceived not as a regular police body, but as a counter-insurgency one… The new force contained many recruits who joined up wishing to be ordinary policemen, but it also contained murder gangs headed by men like a head constable who used bayonets on his victims because it prolonged their agonies.”
As the writer Michael Farrell found out when researching his bookArming the Protestants, much material pertaining to Sir Charles’s incorporation of these UVF and Special Constabulary militiamen into the RUC has been destroyed, but enough remains to give a clear indication of what was happening. In a memo written by Wickham in November 1921, before the formation of the RUC, and while the partition treaty of December that year was being negotiated, he had addressed “All County Commanders” as follows: “Owing to the number of reports which has been received as to the growth of unauthorised loyalist defence forces, the government have under consideration the desirability of obtaining the services of the best elements of these organisations.”
Coogan, Ireland’s greatest and veteran historian, stakes no claim to neutrality over matters concerning the Republic and Union, but historical facts are objective and he has a command of those that none can match. We talk at his home outside Dublin over a glass of whiskey appositely called “Writer’s Tears”.
“It’s the narrative of empire,” says Coogan, “and, of course, they applied it to Greece. That same combination of concentration camps, putting the murder gangs in uniform, and calling it the police. That’s colonialism, that’s how it works. You use whatever means are necessary, one of which is terror and collusion with terrorists. It works.
“Wickham organised the RUC as the armed wing of Unionism, which is something it remained thereafter,” he says. “How long was it in the history of this country before the Chris Patten report of 1999, and Wickham’s hands were finally prised off the police? That’s a hell of a long piece of history – and how much suffering, meanwhile?”
The head of MI5 reported in 1940 that “in the personality and experience of Sir Charles Wickham, the fighting services have at their elbow a most valuable friend and counsellor”. When the intelligence services needed to integrate the Greek Security Battalions – the Third Reich’s “Special Constabulary” – into a new police force, they had found their man.
Greek academics vary in their views on how directly responsible Wickham was in establishing the camps and staffing them with the torturers. Panourgia finds the camp on Giaros – an island which even the Roman Emperor Tiberius decreed unfit for prisoners – to have been Wickham’s own direct initiative. Gerolymatos, meanwhile, says: “The Greeks didn’t need the British to help them set up camps. It had been done before, under Metaxas.” Papers at Kew show British police serving under Wickham to be regularly present in the camps.
Gerolymatos adds: “The British – and that means Wickham – knew who these people were. And that’s what makes it so frightening. They were the people who had been in the torture chambers during occupation, pulling out the fingernails and applying thumbscrews.” By September 1947, the year the Communist Party was outlawed, 19,620 leftists were held in Greek camps and prisons, 12,000 of them in Makronissos, with a further 39,948 exiled internally or in British camps across the Middle East. There exist many terrifying accounts of torture, murder and sadism in the Greek concentration camps – one of the outrageous atrocities in postwar Europe. Polymeris Volgis of New York University describes how a system of repentance was introduced as though by a “latter-day secular Inquisition”, with confessions extracted through “endless and violent degradation”.
Women detainees would have their children taken away until they confessed to being “Bulgarians” and “whores”. The repentance system led Makronissos to be seen as a “school” and “National University” for those now convinced that “Our life belongs to Mother Greece,’ in which converts were visited by the king and queen, ministers and foreign officials. “The idea”, says Patríkios, who never repented, “was to reform and create patriots who would serve the homeland.”
Minors in the Kifissa prison were beaten with wires and socks filled with concrete. “On the boys’ chests, they sewed name tags”, writes Voglis, “with Slavic endings added to the names; many boys were raped”. A female prisoner was forced, after a severe beating, to stand in the square of Kastoria holding the severed heads of her uncle and brother-in-law. One detainee at Patras prison in May 1945 writes simply this: “They beat me furiously on the soles of my feet until I lost my sight. I lost the world.”
Manolis Glezos has a story of his own. He produces a book about the occupation, and shows a reproduction of the last message left by his brother Nikos, scrawled on the inside of a beret. Nikos was executed by collaborators barely a month before the Germans evacuated Greece. As he was being driven to the firing squad, the 19-year-old managed to throw the cap he was wearing from the window of the car. Subsequently found by a friend and restored to the family, the cap is among Glezos’s most treasured possessions.
Scribbled inside, Nikos had written: “Beloved mother. I kiss you. Greetings. Today I am going to be executed, falling for the Greek People. 10-5-44.”
Nowhere else in newly liberated Europe were Nazi sympathisers enabled to penetrate the state structure – the army, security forces, judiciary – so effectively. The resurgence of neo-fascism in the form of present-day far-right party Golden Dawn has direct links to the failure to purge the state of right-wing extremists; many of Golden Dawn’s supporters are descendants of Battalionists, as were the “The Colonels” who seized power in 1967.
Glezos says: “I know exactly who executed my brother and I guarantee they all got off scot-free. I know that the people who did it are in government, and no one was ever punished.” Glezos has dedicated years to creating a library in his brother’s honour. In Brussels, he unabashedly asks interlocutors to contribute to the fund by popping a “frango” (a euro) into a silk purse. It is, along with the issue of war reparations, his other great campaign, his last wish: to erect a building worthy of the library that will honour Nikos. “The story of my brother is the story of Greece,” he says.
There is no claim that ELAS, or the Democratic Army of Greece which replaced it, were hapless victims. There was indeed a “Red Terror” in response to the onslaught, and on the retreat from Athens, ELAS took some 15,000 prisoners with them. “We did some killing,” concedes Glezos, “and some people acted out of revenge. But the line was not to kill civilians.”
In December 1946, Greek prime minister Konstantinos Tsaldaris, faced with the probability of British withdrawal, visited Washington to seek American assistance. In response, the US State Department formulated a plan for military intervention which, in March 1947, formed the basis for an announcement by President Truman of what became known as the Truman Doctrine, to intervene with force wherever communism was considered a threat. All that had passed in Greece on Britain’s initiative was the first salvo of the Cold War.
Glezos still calls himself a communist. But like Patríkios, who rejected Stalinism, he believes that communism, as applied to Greece’s neighbours to the north, would have been a catastrophe. He recalls how he even gave Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader who would de-Stalinise the Soviet Union “an earful about it all”. The occasion arose when Khrushchev invited Glezos – who at the height of the Cold War was a hero in the Soviet Union, honoured with a postage stamp bearing his image – to the Kremlin. It was 1963 and Khrushchev was in talkative mood. Glezos wanted to know why the Red Army, having marched through Bulgaria and Romania, stopped at the Greek border. Perhaps the Russian leader could explain.
“He looked at me and said, ‘Why?’
“I said: ‘Because Stalin didn’t behave like a communist. He divided up the world with others and gave Greece to the English.’ Then I told him what I really thought, that Stalin had been the cause of our downfall, the root of all evil. All we had wanted was a state where the people ruled, just like our [then] government in the mountains, where you can still see the words ‘all powers spring from the people and are executed by the people’ inscribed into the hills. What they wanted, and created, was rule by the party.”
Khrushchev, says Glezos, did not openly concur. “He sat and listened. But then after our meeting he invited me to dinner, which was also attended by Leonid Brezhnev [who succeeded Khrushchev in 1964] and he listened for another four and a half hours. I have always taken that for tacit agreement.”
For Patríkios, it was not until the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, that the penny dropped: a line had been drawn across the map, agreed by Churchill and Stalin. “When I saw the west was not going to intervene [during the Budapest uprising] I realised what had happened – the agreed ‘spheres of influence’. And later, I understood that the Dekemvriana was not a local conflict, but the beginning of the Cold War that had started as a warm war here in Greece.”
Patríkios returned to Athens as a detainee “on leave” and was eventually granted a passport in 1959. Upon procuring it, he immediately got on a ship to Paris where he would spend the next five years studying sociology and philosophy at the Sorbonne. “In politics there are no ethics,” he says, “especially imperial politics.”
It’s the afternoon of 25 January 2009. The tear gas that has drenched Athens – a new variety, imported from Israel – clears. A march in support of a Bulgarian cleaner, whose face has been disfigured in an acid attack by neo-fascists, has been broken up by riot police after hours of street-fighting.
Back in the rebel-held quarter of Exarcheia, a young woman called Marina pulls off her balaclava and draws air. Over coffee, she answers the question: why Greece? Why is it so different from the rest of Europe in this regard – the especially bitter war between left and right? “Because,” she replies, “of what was done to us in 1944. The persecution of the partisans who fought the Nazis, for which they were honoured in France, Italy, Belgium or the Netherlands – but for which, here, they were tortured and killed on orders from your government.”
She continues: “I come from a family that has been detained and tortured for two generations before me: my grandfather after the Second World War, my father under the Junta of the colonels – and now it could be me, any day now. We are the grandchildren of the andartes, and our enemies are Churchill’s Greek grandchildren.”
“The whole thing”, spits Dr Gerolymatos, “was for nothing. None of this need have happened, and the British crime was to legitimise people whose record under occupation by the Third Reich put them beyond legitimacy. It happened because Churchill believed he had to bring back the Greek king. And the last thing the Greek people wanted or needed was the return of a de-frocked monarchy backed by Nazi collaborators. But that is what the British imposed, and it has scarred Greece ever since.”
“All those collaborators went into the system,” says Manilos Glezos. “Into the government mechanism – during and after the civil war, and their sons went into the military junta. The deposits remain, like malignant cells in the system. Although we liberated Greece, the Nazi collaborators won the war, thanks to the British. And the deposits remain, like bacilli in the system.”
But there is one last thing Glezos would like to make clear. “You haven’t asked: ‘Why do I go on? Why I am doing this when I am 92 years and two months old?’ he says, fixing us with his eyes. “I could, after all, be sitting on a sofa in slippers with my feet up,” he jests. “So why do I do this?”
He answers himself: “You think the man sitting opposite you is Manolis but you are wrong. I am not him. And I am not him because I have not forgotten that every time someone was about to be executed, they said: ‘Don’t forget me. When you say good morning, think of me. When you raise a glass, say my name.’ And that is what I am doing talking to you, or doing any of this. The man you see before you is all those people. And all this is about not forgetting them.”
Timeline: the battle between left and right
Late summer 1944 German forces withdraw from most of Greece, which is taken over by local partisans. Most of them are members of ELAS, the armed wing of the National Liberation Front, EAM, which included the Communist KKE party
October 1944 Allied forces, led by General Ronald Scobie, enter Athens, the last German-occupied area, on 13 October. Georgios Papandreou returns from exile with the Greek government
2 December 1944 Rather than integrate ELAS into the new army, Papandreou and Scobie demand the disarmament of all guerrilla forces. Six members of the new cabinet resign in protest
3 December 1944 Violence in Athens after 200,000 march against the demands. More than 28 are killed and hundreds are injured. The 37-day Dekemvrianá begins. Martial law is declared on 5 December
January/February 1945 Gen Scobie agrees to a ceasefire in exchange for ELAS withdrawal. In February the Treaty of Varkiza is signed by all parties. ELAS troops leave Athens with 15,000 prisoners
1945/46 Right-wing gangs kill more than 1,100 civilians, triggering civil war when government forces start battling the new Democratic Army of Greece (DSE), mainly former ELAS soldiers
1948-49 DSE suffers a catastrophic defeat in the summer of 1948, with nearly 20,000 killed. In July 1949 Tito closes the Yugoslav border, denying DSE shelter. Ceasefire signed on 16 October 1949
21 April 1967 Right-wing forces seize power in a coup d’état. The junta lasts until 1974. Only in 1982 are communist veterans who had fled overseas allowed to return to Greece
Greece – The Hidden War
This is a British political documentary produced in 1986 and shown for just one and only time in British television, thereby being BANNED, concerning the involvement of the British Government in Greece’s political affairs during and after WW2, that is argued to have been the main catalyst in the breaking out of the Greek Civil War, followed by American involvement in the Civil War Battle (in line with the Truman Doctrine).
Introduction: Over the past 30 years, wealth has grown exponentially and has become increasingly concentrated foremost in the upper .01%, then the .1%, followed by the 1% and the upper 10% – 20%.
The large scale, long-term concentration of wealth has continued through booms and busts of the real economy, the financial and IT crises. Wealth grew despite long-term economic recessions and stagnation, because the so-called recovery programs imposed austerity on 80% of the households while transferring public revenues to the rich.
The so-called ‘crises of capitalism’ has neither reversed nor prevented the emergence of an international class of billionaires who acquire, merge and invest in each other’s activities. The growth of wealth has been accompanied by the pillage of accumulated profits from productive sectors which are stored as wealth not investment capital.
The dispossession of capital and its conversion to private wealth subsequently led to the rapid expansion of the financial and real estate sector. Capital accumulation of profits has been thesource of private accumulation of wealth at the expense of wages, salaries, public welfare, and state revenues.
The growth of private wealth at the expense of productive investments is a world-wide phenomenon which has been facilitated by an international network of banks, political leaders and ‘regulators’ centered in the United States and England.
The single most important aspect of private wealth accumulation on a world-scale is criminal behavior by the elites in multiple locations and involves the violation of multiple laws and regulations.
The Chain of Illegality: From Exploitation of Labor to the Pillage of the Nation
The original source of private wealth is the exploitation of labor by capital,of which a small percentage of the profits are reinvested in expanding production in the ‘home market’ or overseas. The bulk of the profits are transferred into financial networks which in turn illicitly channel the funds into overseas accounts.
The movements of profits ‘overseas’ takes multiple forms (transfer pricing, phony invoices, etc.) and they are primarily converted to private wealth. These ‘international movements’ of profits are largely composed of mega-thievery or plunder by political and business leaders from ‘developing countries’. According to the Financial Times (17/11/14, p2). “Up to $1 trillion (dollars) is being taken out of developing countries every year through a web of corrupt activities involving anonymous shell companies that typically hide the identity of their true owners”. (my emphasis)
The $1 trillion of stolen profits and revenues from the ‘developing countries’ (Africa, Asia, South America) are part of a “corruption chain” which is organized, managed and facilitated by the major financial institutions in the US and UK. According to a World Bank report in 2011 “70 percent of the biggest corruption cases between 1980 and 2010 involved anonymous shell companies. The US and UK were among the jurisdictions most frequently used to incorporate legal entities that held proceeds of corruption” (Financial Times, 17/11/14, p2.).
This process of “taking out” or pillage of developing countries feeds into rent seeking, conspicuous consumption and other non-productive activity in the ‘developed countries’ or more accurately the imperialist states. The principle beneficiaries of the pillage of ‘developing countries’ by the local elites are their counterparts in the top 1% of the imperial countries, who control, direct and manage the financial, real estate and luxury sectors of their economies.
The very same financial institutions in the imperial countries (and their related accountancy, legal and consultancy arms) facilitate the pillage of trillions from the ‘developed’ countries to offshore sites, via massive tax evasion operations, hoarding wealth instead of investing profits or paying taxes to the public treasury.
Long-term, large scale pillage and tax evasion depends on the central role, at both ends of the world economy, of the financial sector. This results in the ‘imbalance of the economy’ – predominance of finance capital as the final arbiter on how ‘profits’ are disposed.
The extremely narrow membership in the dominant financial sectors means that its growth will result in greater inequalities between classes. A disproportionate share of wealth will accrue to those who pillage the revenues and profits of the productive sector. As a result so-called ‘productive capitalists’ hasten to join and lay claims to membership in the financial sector.
The links between ‘productive’ and ‘fictitious’ capital or financial swindle capital, defy any attempt to find a progressive sector within the dominant classes. But the effort to enter the charmed circle of the dominant financial 1% is fraught with dangers and risks . . . because the financial sector has a very dynamic and super-active capacity for swindles.
The entire process of de-capitalizing the economy is underwritten in the US by the financial elite’s controls over the executive branch of government, especially the ‘regulatory’and enforcement agencies -Security Exchange Commission, the Treasury and Justice Departments.
Financial institutions facilitate the inflow of trillions of dollars from the kleptocrats in the developing countries as well as the outflow of trillions of dollars by multi-nationals to off-shore tax havens. In both instances the banks are key instruments in the process of dis-accumulation of capital by dispossessing nations and treasuries of revenues and productive investments.
The ‘hoarding’ of MNC profits in offshore shell companies does not in any way prevent speculative activity and large scale swindles in the for-ex, equity and real estate markets. On the contrary, the boom in high-end real estate in London, New York and Paris, and the high growth of luxury goods sales, reflects the concentration of wealth in the top .01%, .1% and 1%. They are the beneficiaries of ‘no risk’ pillage of wealth in developing countries, receiving lucrative commissions and fees in laundering the illicit inflows of wealth and outflows by tax dodging multi-nationals.
The Inverted Pyramid of Wealth
A small army of accountants, political fixers, corporate lawyers, publicists, financial scribblers, consultants and real estate promoters make-up the next 15% of the beneficiaries of the pillage economies. Below them are the 30% upper and lower middle classes who experience tenuous affluence subject to the economic shocks, ‘market volatility and risks of downward mobility. Below them, the majority of wage, salaried and small business classes experience declining incomes, downward mobility, rising risks of mortgage foreclosure, job-loss and destitution among the bottom 30%.
Despite wide variations in the class structure between ‘developing’ neo-colonial and developed imperial states, the top 1% across national boundaries has forged economic, personal, educational, and social ties. They attend the same elite schools, own multiple private residences in similar high end neighborhoods, and share private bankers, money launderers and financial advisors. Each elite group has their own national police and military security systems, as well as political influentials who also co-operate and collaborate to ensure impunity and to defend the illegal financial flows for a cut of the wealth….
The investigatory authorities of each developed country tend to specialize in prosecuting rivalfinancial institutions and banks, occasionally levying fines – never imprisonment – for the most egregious swindles that threatens the ‘confidence’ of the defrauded investors.
Yet the basic structure of the pillage economy, continues unaffected – in fact thrives – because the ‘show’ of ‘oversight’ and judicial ‘charges’ neutralizes public indignation and outrage.
The Decisive Role of Dis-Accumulation in the World Economy
While orthodox economists elaborate mathematical models that have no relationship to the operations, agencies and performance of the economy and ignore the real elite actors which operate the economy, Leftist economists similarly operate with theoretical premises about capital and labor, profits and capital accumulation, crises and stagnation, which ignore the centrality of pillage, dis-accumulation, and the dynamic growth of wealth by the international 1%.
The research center, the Capital Financial Integrity Group provides a vast array of data documenting the trillion dollar illicit financial flows which now dominate the world economy.
US MNCs have ‘hoarded’ over $1.5 trillion dollars in overseas shell companies, ‘dead capital’, to avoid taxes and to speculate in stocks, bonds and real estate.
Mexico’s ruling elite organizes massive illicit financial flows, mostly laundered by US banks, ranging from $91 billion in 2007 to $68.5 billion in 2010. The massive increase in illicit financial flows is greatly facilitated by the de-regulation of the economy resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Contrary to most leftist critics the mainbeneficiaries of NAFTA are not Canadian mine owners or US agro-business or auto manufacturers- it is the US and Canadian financial and real estate money launderers.
From 1960 to 2010 the Brazilian 1% pillaged over $400 billion dollars. These illicit financial flows are laundered in New York, Miami, London, Switzerland and Montevideo. In recent years the rate of pillage has accelerate: between 2000 -2012 illicit financial flows averaged $14.7 billion a year. And under the self-styled ‘Worker’s Party” (PT) regime of Lula DaSilva and Dilma Rousseff, $33.7 billion in illicit outflows were laundered annually – 1.5% of the GDP. Much of the pillage is carried out by private and public “entrepreneurs” in the so-called “dynamic” economic sectors of agro-minerals, energy and manufacturing via ‘trade mispricing’, import overpricing and export underpricing invoices.
According to a study published in the Wall Street Journal, (10/15/12), China’s elite’s illicit financial flows top $225 billion a year – 3% of national economic output. China’s 1%, the business-political elite, finance their children’s overseas private education, providing them with half million dollar condos. Illicit flows allow Chinese ‘investors’ to dominate the luxury real estate markets in Toronto, Vancouver, New York and London. They hoard funds in overseas shell companies. The Chinese corporate kleptocrats are the leaders in the drive to deregulate China’s financial markets – to legalize the outflows.
The scale and scope of China’s elite pillage has provoked popular outrage that threatens the entire capitalist structure – provoking a major anti-corruption campaign spearheaded by China’s President Xi Jinping. Thousands of millionaire officials and business people have been jailed, causing a sharp decline in the sales of the world’s luxury manufacturers.
India’s capitalists- as kleptocrats – have long played a major role in de-capitalizing the economy. According to the Financial Times (11/24/14, p3) the Indian elite’s illicit financial flows totaled $343 billion dollars from 2002 to 2011. The Indian Finance Ministry immediately threw up a smoke screen on behalf of the 1%, claiming the Indian elite had only $1.46 billion in Swiss accounts. Most of India’s wealthy have taken up with holing their illicit wealth to Dubai, Singapore, the Cayman and Virgin Islands as well as London
India’s neo-liberal policies eased the illegal outflows. Massive corruption accompanied the privatization of public firms and the allocation of multi-billion dollar assets such as mobile phones, coal fields and energy.
Indonesia, – percentage-wise is the leader in the outflow of illicit flows – fully 23% of annual output. The 1% elite of foreign and domestic capitalists, plunders natural resources, timber, metals, agriculture and dis-accumulates. Profits flow to foreign accounts in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Los Angeles, London and Amsterdam.
Ethiopia, with per-capita income of $365 dollars, is the site of vast pillage by its ruling elite. From 2000 to 2009, over $11.7 billion dollars in illicit financial flow was laundered mostly by US banks. These outflows enriched the Ethiopian and the US 1% and provoked famine for Ethiopia’s 90%.
The illicit financial flows surpass the capital invested in productive activity. The process of dis-accumulation of capital through relocation is channeled to overseas shell corporations and private bank accounts and beyond into financial holdings and real estate. The accumulation of private wealth exceeds the sums invested in productive activity generating investments and wages. Massive perpetual tax evasion means higher regressive taxes on consumers (VAT) and wage and salaried workers, reductions in social services, and austerity budgets targeting food, family and fuel subsidies
The past thirty years of deregulated capitalism and financial liberalization, is a product of the financial takeover of state regulatory agencies. The signing of free trade agreements has provided the framework for large scale long-term illicit financial flows.
While illicit financial flows have financed some productive activities, the bulk has vastly expanded the financial sector. The absorption of illicit flows by the financial elite has led to greater inequalities of wealth between the 1% – 10% and the rest of the labor force.
Illicit earnings via mega swindles among the largest and most respected US and EU banks, has curtailed the amount of capital which is available for production, profits, wages and taxes. The circuits of illicit capital flows militate against any form of long-term economic development – outside of the wealth absorbing elites which control both the financial and political centers of decision-making.
The growth and ascendancy of financial elites which pillage public treasuries, resources and productive activity, is the result of an eminently political process. The origins of de-regulation, free trade and the promotion of illicit flows are all made possible by state authorities.
First and foremost, finance capital conquered state power – with the cooperation of “productive capital”. The peaceful transition reflected the interlocking directorates between banks and industry, aided and abetted by public officials rotating between government and investment houses.
The entire African continent was pillaged by billionaire rulers, many former nationalistpoliticians (South Africa), ex-guerilla and ‘liberation leaders’ (Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau), in collaboration with US, EU, Chinese, Russian and Israeli oligarchs. Trillions of dollars were laundered by bankers in London, New York, Zurich, Tel Aviv and Paris. Growth of the commodity sector bolstered Africa’s decade long expanding GDP – and the mega-outflows of illicit earnings.
World-wide, billionaires multiplied profits ‘received’, but wages, salaries, pensions and health coverage declined! Swindles multiplied as outflows accelerated in both directions. The higher the growth in China, India, Indonesia and South Korea the bigger and more pervasive the corruption and outflows of wealth-led by “Communist” neo-liberals in China, Indian “free marketers” and Russian “economic reformers”.
The World Bank’s and IMF’s proposed “economic reforms” ‘freed’ the incipient political kleptocrats of controls and unleashed two-sided illicit financial flows – laundering funds from abroad and establishing trillion dollar offshore tax dodging citadels.
Illicit swindles dwarfed earnings from ‘capital accumulation’. The relations between capital and labor were framed by the organization and policies dictated by the directors and operators of the trillion-dollar financial networks based on the pillage of treasuries and the wealth of nations.
The center of China’s growth is shifting from manufacturing and the exploitation of labor, to real estate and “financial services”, as worker’s demand and secure double-digit increases in wages. The exploiters of labor turned predators of the national treasury. Under the pretext of “stimulating” the construction sector, real estate speculators in tow with Communist Party officials, absconded with over a trillion dollars from 2009 to 2014. According to Jonathan Anderson of the Emerging Advisors Group “over a trillion dollars” has gone missing in China in the past five years (Financial Times, 28/11/14, p 1.).
Factories still produce, agro-business still exports, the paper value of high tech companies has risen into the high billions, but the ruling 1% of the system stands or falls with the illicitfinancial flows drawn from the pillage of treasuries. To replenish pillaged treasuries, regimes insist on perpetual ‘austerity’ for the 90%: greater pillage for the 1%, less public revenues for health care which results in more epidemics. Less funds for pensions means later retirement– work til you die.
The plunder of the economy is accompanied by unending wars – because war contracts are a major source of illicit financial flows. Plunder oligarchs share with militarists a deep and abiding belief in pillage of countries and destruction of productive resources. The one reinforces the other in an eternal embrace – defied only by insurgents who embrace a moral economy and who proclaim the need for a total change – a new civilization.
Introduction: On November 9, 2014, Germany and its Western Allies, celebrated the ‘Fall of the Berlin Wall’ and the subsequent‘re-unification’of the ‘two Germanys’. Prime Minister Merkel described the ‘historic event’ as a “victory of freedom for all peoples in Europe and across the world.”
The entire Western media and officialdom echoed Merkel’s rhetoric, as 300,000 Germans gathered at the Brandenburg Gate hailed their leader as she spoke of ‘one people, one nation and one state in freedom, peace and prosperity…’ But Merkel’s discourse is a self-serving chauvinist fabrication which distorts the real consequences of a united Germany. Moreover, the Western celebration of ‘fallen walls’ is very selective.
The notion that Germany was ‘unified’ democratically is of dubious historical accuracy. The consequences of a powerful unified Germany have not led to a peaceful prosperous Europe and Germany’s current role in world politics, particularly its policies toward the Middle East, North Africa and the Ukraine, has been anything but peaceful.
The Walls of Freedom and the Walls of Prison
While NATO regimes celebrate the ‘Fall of the Berlin Wall’ as the highest expression of freedom, these same political leaders support, finance and promote the construction of oppressive walls throughout world: Unified Germany and its NATO partners have supported Israel’s Separation Wall dividing and caging millions of Palestinians for the better part of two decades. Apparently there are progressive and reactionary ‘walls’ – ‘good walls’ and ‘bad walls’. Unlike the Palestinians, Berliners were never deprived of basic necessities and subject to random displacement or even murder – the Western airlift provided all for West Berliners. Israel’s Separation Wall results in division and seizure of Palestinian land, ancestral homes, farms, schools and cultural sites while centuries-old olive groves are razed – depriving their owners of productive income.
The US has built its own massive ‘Security Wall’ along its Mexican border, incarcerating and even shooting refugees fleeing Washington’s militarization of Central America and Mexico. The US ‘Security’ Wall condemns millions of Mexicans and Central Americans to live in terror and misery in murderous US client narco-states. In the past seven years, over 100,000 Mexican civilians have been killed under the reign of US-backed Presidents, who were elected through fraud, as they relentlessly pursue the US mandated “War on Drugs”. Similar levels of killings ravage Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala where narco-gangs, with the backing of corrupt political, police and military officials, terrorize the cities and countryside. The death toll from US military interventions in Central America far exceeds those by the former-Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The US border wall ensures that the survivors of this terror will remain exposed to the brutal rule of US-backed regimes.
At the same time, the civilized ‘European Union’ has erected its land and sea ‘Walls against refugees’ from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Palestine, fleeing NATO directed invasions and proxy wars in their countries. According to the UN Commission on Refugees, 13 million civilians have been displaced by US wars in Iraq and Syria. Many fleeing the war zones crash up against the European ‘legal walls’ – immigration restrictions, concentration or “internment” camps and prolonged detentions welcome their “flight to freedom”.
Chancellor Merkel chose not to mention these ‘civilized’ walls against people fleeing NATO’s ‘humanitarian interventions’. Nor have the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Europe or the US and its ‘ally’ Israel acknowledged the deaths and suffering…because these are their Walls, their own ‘barriers to freedom’.
Democratic Re-Unification or Annexation by Force
Merkel glosses over the crucial fact that the East Germans were never consulted or allowed to hold a free election to decide what kind of relation they would like with the West German regime. They were never asked under what terms and in what time frame “reunification” would take place. The West German regime seized control and dictated economic and social policies that destroyed their eastern neighbors’ economy by fiat. Hundreds of thousands of East German factory-workers faced brutal arbitrary firings as the capitalist ‘West’ shut closed state factories. East German farmers looked on helplessly as their prosperous, stable co-operatives were dissolved on the orders of West German officials. Where was the democracy in this policy of brutal annexation and political viciousness that slashed the former ‘East’ Germans living standards, multiplied unemployment ten-fold, greatly prejudiced the welfare benefits and employment of female workers and devastated pensioners.? Over 1.5 million Eastern German workers were uprooted and became economic refugees in the ‘West’ where wages were double the rate in ‘liberated’ East Germany. The wages were higher, but so was the job insecurity and the loss of social welfare provisions of the East. And if the death of 138 East Germans during 28 years, trying to escape over the Wall, was a tragedy, then what should we call thethousands who have drowned or died other horrible deaths trying to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe or to scale the Wall separating the US and Mexico, or Israel’s Wall strangling six million Palestinians?
There are many ‘death strips’ denying Latin Americans, Palestinians, Middle Easterners their freedom from want, blocking their escape from US-NATO wars and Israeli genocide. But those‘atrocious walls’ were not mentioned by Chancellor Merkel at the Brandenburg Gate as she celebrated the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The scribes and scribblers from the New York Times, the Financial Times and the Washington Post did not mention these real, contemporary walls and their brutal toll. The selective denunciation of certain Walls contrasts with the politics of erecting ‘other’, more formidable Walls. Western walls of exclusion carry with them a denial of responsibility for the political and economic conditions that has driven millions of refugees to flee Central America, Palestine, the Middle East and North Africa.
US intervention and support of proxy death-squad regimes and the brutal military in Central America, from the 1960’s to the 1990’s, resulted in over 250,000 civilian deaths and the displacement of over 2 million refugees.
US-EU invasions and proxy wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria for over a decade have uprooted more than 13 million people and killed well over million civilians.
Israel’s wars and occupation against the Palestinian people have resulted in over 500,000 Jewish colonial settlers grabbing Palestinian land since 1967.The self-proclaimed Jewish state forcibly displaced hundreds of thousands and killed, maimed and jailed over 300,000. To admit that the West constructs and maintains its own system of atrocious walls inevitably points to the policy of decades of prolonged bloody imperialist wars leading to millions of refugees.
Imperial wars are characterized by the construction and maintenance of complex ‘Western Walls’, far deadlier and brutal than the Berlin Wall and less likely to fall. In fact, Western Walls are multiplying and being fortified by the latest surveillance technology. Larger budgets and more lethal arms for anti-immigrant police, has led to the brutal hunt, capture and incarceration of refugees – as Western regimes become more like police states .
The Malignant Consequences of the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Annexation of East Germany
The annexation of East Germany vastly increased the economic power of Germany, providing German capital with several million skilled workers and trained engineers at no cost. Germany’s enhanced power dictated the course of the European Union’s economic policy. With the onset of the economic crisis, Germany’s capitalist and political elite were well positioned to dictate the terms of ‘recovery’ – and impose the entire burden on the working and middle classes of Southern Europe and Ireland. Germany’s ruling class, in firm control of the EU directorate, forced “austerity programs” on Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland. These regressive policies, which ensured that creditors would recover their loans with interest, led to spiraling unemployment rates, in some cases of over 50% for young people, and long-term, large-scale decline in living standards. ‘Unified Germany’ flexed its newly found economic muscle and extended its hegemony over the EU and ensured debt payments from its European subjects.
Unified Germany’s economic power led to renewed political and military aspirations to engage and assert its presence in the US led imperial wars in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the Ukraine. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century ‘united Germany’ was profitably supplying weapons, logistics and military missions in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. It provided Israel with weapons and economic aid while Palestinians were expelled from their homes and land. Merkel’s imperial ambitions were revealed in her wholehearted backing of the far-right coup in Ukraine. Subsequently Germany imposed sanctions against Russia and supported the Kiev regime’s savage military blitz against the Donbass. In the Ukraine, Germany once again, as in the 1930’s, found allies among neo-Nazi collaborators and thugs willing to slaughter ethnic Russian speaking federalists in the East. Merkel’s dream is to convert the Ukraine into a German-American client state, where German exports would replace Russian goods and German agro-mineral investors can exploit the country’s raw materials.
It is obvious that Merkel, Obama and other imperialist rulers have a double standard with regard to ‘Walls’ – they denounce ‘Communist Walls’ while supporting murderous ‘Capitalist Walls’ against refugees; they celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall while they build bloodier Walls against the victims of their imperial wars.
Apart from the cant and hypocrisy of Western officialdom, there is a political logic guiding these policies. The West’s criteria , for deciding which Walls are worthy of support and whichWalls should fall, runs along the following lines: Walls that keep out victims of imperialist wars are progressive and necessary for ‘national security’; Walls that protect Communist, nationalist or leftist regimes are repressive, dehumanizing and must fall.
If we consider the larger political consequences of an event, like the fall of the Berlin War and the subsequent arbitrary annexation of the East, it is clear that ‘re-unified’ Germany’s exercise of power has had a profoundly negative impact on the economies of Southern Europe and has concentrated dictatorial political powers in the hands of German decision-makers operating through EU headquarters in Brussels. Unified Germany has renounced its passive role and re-asserted its role in world politics: slowly at first as a passive junior partner to US imperialist wars in the Middle East and now, more decisively, by linking up with Ukraine rightists and thugs and imposing economic sanctions on Russia.
Germany’s ‘great fall’ after World War II required a half century to “put all the pieces together again”. But once in place, Germany seeks to project world power, particularly through its proxies in the EU and NATO, in alliance with US imperialism. The Fourth Reich increasingly looks back to the Third Reich.
Introduction: There are clear signs that a major war is about to break out in Ukraine: A war actively promoted by the NATO regimes and supported by their allies and clients in Asia (Japan) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia).
The war over Ukraine will essentially run along the lines of a full-scale military offensive against the southeast Donbas region, targeting the breakaway ethnic Ukraine- Russian Peoples Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk, with the intention of deposing the democratically elected government, disarming the popular militias, killing the guerrilla resistance partisans and their mass base, dismantling the popular representative organizations and engaging in ethnic cleansing of millions of bilingual Ukraino-Russian citizens. NATO’s forthcoming military seizure of the Donbas region is a continuation and extension of its original violent putsch in Kiev, which overthrew an elected Ukrainian government in February 2014.
The Kiev junta and its newly ‘elected’ client rulers, and its NATO sponsors are intent on a major purge to consolidate the puppet Poroshenko’s dictatorial rule. The recent NATO-sponsored elections excluded several major political parties that had traditionally supported the country’s large ethnic minority populations, and was boycotted in the Donbas region. This sham election in Kiev set the tone for NATO’s next move toward converting Ukraine into one gigantic US multi-purpose military base aimed at the Russian heartland and into a neo-colony for German capital, supplying Berlin with grain and raw materials while serving as a captive market for German manufactured goods.
An intensifying war fever is sweeping the West; the consequences of this madness appear graver by the hour.
War Signs: The Propaganda and Sanctions Campaign, the G20 Summit and the Military Build Up
The official drum- beat for a widening conflict in Ukraine, spearheaded by the Kiev junta and its fascist militias, echoes in every Western mass media outlet, every day. Major mass media propaganda mills and government ‘spokesmen and women’ publish or announce new trumped-up accounts of growing Russian military threats to its neighbors and cross-border invasions into Ukraine. New Russian incursions are ‘reported’ from the Nordic borders and Baltic states to the Caucuses. The Swedish regime creates a new level of hysteria over a mysterious “Russian” submarine off the coast of Stockholm, which it never identifies or locates – let alone confirms the ‘sighting’. Estonia and Latvia claim Russian warplanes violated their air space without confirmation. Poland expels Russian “spies” without proof or witnesses. Provocative full-scale joint NATO-client state military exercises are taking place along Russia’s frontiers in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and Ukraine.
NATO is sending vast arms shipments to the Kiev junta, along with “Special Forces” advisers and counter-insurgency experts in anticipation of a full-scale attack against the rebels in the Donbas.
The Kiev regime has never abided by the Minsk cease fire. According to the UN Human Rights office 13 people on average –mostly civilians –have been killed each day since the September cease fire. In eight weeks, the UN reports that 957 people have killed –overwhelmingly by Kiev’s armed forces.
The Kiev regime, in turn, has cut all basic social and public services to the Peoples’ Republics’, including electricity, fuel, civil service salaries, pensions, medical supplies, salaries for teachers and medical workers, municipal workers wages; banking and transport have been blockaded.
The strategy is to further strangle the economy, destroy the infrastructure, force an even greater mass exodus of destitute refugees from the densely populated cities across the border into Russia and then to launch massive air, missile, artillery and ground assaults on urban centers as well as rebel bases.
The Kiev junta has launched an all-out military mobilization in the Western regions, accompanied by rabid anti-Russian, anti-Eastern Orthodox indoctrination campaigns designed to attract the most violent far right chauvinist thugs and to incorporate the Nazi-style military brigades into the frontline shock troops. The cynical use of irregular fascist militias will ‘free’ NATO and Germany from any responsibility for the inevitable terror and atrocities in their campaign. This system of ‘plausible deniability’ mirrors the tactics of the German Nazis whose hordes of fascist Ukrainians and Ustashi Croats were notorious in their epoch of ethnic cleansing.
G20-plus-NATO: Support of the Kiev Blitz
To isolate and weaken resistance in the Donbas and guarantee the victory of the impending Kiev blitz, the EU and the US are intensifying their economic, military and diplomatic pressure on Russia to abandon the nascent peoples’ democracy in the south-east region of Ukraine, their principle ally.
Each and every escalation of economic sanctions against Russia is designed to weaken the capacity of the Donbas resistance fighters to defend their homes, towns and cities. Each and every Russian shipment of essential medical supplies and food to the besieged population evokes a new and more hysterical outburst – because it counters Kiev-NATO strategy of starving the partisans and their mass base into submission or provoking their flight to safety across the Russian border.
After suffering a series of defeats, the Kiev regime and its NATO strategists decided to sign a ‘peace protocol’, the so-called Minsk agreement, to halt the advance of the Donbas resistance into the southern regions and to protect its Kiev’s soldiers and militias holed-up in isolated pockets in the East. The Minsk agreement was designed to allow the Kiev junta to build up its military, re-organize its command and incorporate the disparate Nazi militias into its overall military forces in preparation for a ‘final offensive’. Kiev’s military build-up on the inside and NATO’s escalation of sanctions against Russia on the outside would be two sides of the same strategy: the success of a frontal attack on the democratic resistance of the Donbas basin depends on minimizing Russian military support through international sanctions.
NATO’s virulent hostility to Russian President Putin was on full display at the G20 meeting in Australia: NATO-linked presidents and prime ministers, especially Merkel, Obama, Cameron, Abbott, and Harper’s political threats and overt personal insults paralleled Kiev’s growing starvation blockade of the besieged rebels and population centers in the south-east. Both the G20’s economic threats against Russia and the diplomatic isolation of Putin and Kiev’s economic blockade are preludes to NATO’s Final Solution – the physical annihilation of all vestiges of Donbas resistance, popular democracy and cultural-economic ties with Russia.
Kiev depends on its NATO mentors to impose a new round of severe sanctions against Russia, especially if its planned invasion encounters a well armed and robust mass resistance bolstered by Russian support. NATO is counting on Kiev’s restored and newly supplied military capacity to effectively destroy the southeast centers of resistance.
NATO has decided on an ‘all-or-nothing campaign’: to seize all of Ukraine or, failing that, destroy the restive southeast, obliterate its population and productive capacity and engage in an all-out economic (and possibly shooting) war with Russia. Chancellor Angela Merkel is on board with this plan despite the complaints of German industrialists over their huge loss of export sales to Russia. President Hollande of France has signed on dismissing the complaints of trade unionists over the loss of thousands French jobs in the shipyards. Prime Minister David Cameron is eager for an economic war against Moscow, suggesting the bankers of the City of London find new channels to launder the illicit earnings of Russian oligarchs.
The Russian Response
Russian diplomats are desperate to find a compromise, which allows Ukraine’s ethnic Ukraine- Russian population in the southeast to retain some autonomy under a federation plan and regain influence within the ‘new’ post-putsch Ukraine. Russian military strategists have provided logistical and military aid to the resistance in order to avoid a repeat of the Odessa massacre of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian fascists on a massive scale. Above all, Russia cannot afford to have NATO-Nazi-Kiev military bases along its southern ‘underbelly’, imposing a blockade of the Crimea and forcing a mass exodus of ethnic Russians from the Donbas. Under Putin, the Russian government has tried to propose compromises allowing Western economic supremacy over Ukraine but without NATO military expansion and absorption by Kiev.
That policy of conciliation has repeatedly failed.
The democratically elected ‘compromise regime’ in Kiev was overthrown in February 2014 in a violent putsch, which installed a pro-NATO junta.
Kiev violated the Minsk agreement with impunity and encouragement from the NATO powers and Germany.
The recent G20 meeting in Australia featured a rabble-rousing chorus against President Putin. The crucial four-hour private meeting between Putin and Merkel turned into a fiasco when Germany parroted the NATO chorus.
Putin finally responded by expanding Russia’s air and ground troop preparedness along its borders while accelerating Moscow’s economic pivot to Asia.
Most important, President Putin has announced that Russia cannot stand by and allow the massacre of a whole people in the Donbas region.
Is Poroshenko’s forthcoming blitz against the people of southeast Ukraine designed to provoke a Russian response – to the humanitarian crisis? Will Russia confront the NATO-directed Kiev offensive and risk a total break with the West?
James Petras latest book is THE POLITICS OF IMPERIALISM:THE US,ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST (CLARITY PRESS:ATLANTA)
I’m sure you know by now. The hard working people at the ECB led by it’s VP Vítor Constâncio, kept themselves busy throughout the weekend of 25-26 October (hopefully they did charge the appropriate overtime) in order to complete the much needed stress tests for the Greek banks and also the rest of the E.U.’s banks.
The first obvious observation that someone could make is the fantastic technical expertise that was used to cook up the numbers in the 172 page document . The second thing that can be observed is the top positions that 2 of out indigenous banks have acquired, given that they are sitting at the first and third positions in the list of mentioned banks. A little lower, at position 14 we can spot the third Greek bank, which means that 3 our of four Greek banks are having some issues…It would also be impossible not to be amazed by the “high marks” that our fellow Cypriot banks got, in addition to quite a few other monetary institutions around the E.U. Finally, one could not be oblivious to the frantically happy announcements of the Greek governmental regime that the stress tests have concluded that we have a complete and utter success. At the same time however, there is not a single human being in Greece that has not thought about the possibility that something is amiss here. And they are right…
A quick and deeper analysis
One thing that the unsuspecting reader of this report must keep in mind, is that the subject matter here is bank stress testing. And therefore, if a banking institution is mentioned in this document, there must be a very good reason for it. The next thing one must consider seriously, is why exactly these institutions are mentioned. If we have a look at the table that is present in page 10 of the document, we will see the column titled “Capital shortfall”. Upon addition of the numbers for the Greek banks, we see that the shortfall for these banks is 8.72 billion and that the total shortfall reaches 24,62 billion euros. This means that about 35,4% of the total European banking system’s shortfall, belongs to the Greek banks.
One thing must already have become apparent. One could not claim that this 35,4% deficit as compared to all other EU institutions, creates a positive picture. But unfortunately for us, there are more issues to be found in the report. Take for example the total absence of any mention of the deflation rates that are present in 8 of the Eurozone member states [Fig 1], which, if nothing else, should be a major and heavy parameter in any model that attempts to predict the financial future in any of these 8 countries.
|Fig 1 |
This absence of any mention to deflation is a very serious matter, not only because taking such a serious parameter out of your models can lead to grossly wrong results. But because this presence of deflation, makes it clear that the deficits should be even larger than reported, simply because deflation is an expression of the markets low activity.
This leads naturally to a first analysis of the expectations that are presented in the report: In another column of the same report we see the title “Net eligible capital raised”, which essentially expresses some forecasts on how much of the shortfalls which were mentioned above, will somehow be replenished. To total of this “net capital” which “will be raised” for the Greek banks, is 6,36 billion and based on this number, we see that there will still be a deficit of about 2,36 billion for the Greek banks and 6,03 billion respectively for the whole EU banking system, keeping in mind that this is always based on the models employed by the ECB for this specific test run. But once one realizes that the economic reality (such as the deflation values) of these economies are essentially ignored, then the positive interpretations of this report can only be seen as a fraud of unprecedented proportions…
These results are leading inevitably to more mandatory “corrections”…
So there we have it. The real data as presented by the ECB stress test farce, show the indisputable negative condition of Greece’s banking system, but also in the European South. What is truly impressive, is not the way the Greek regime tries to show and unreal positiveness and this audacious reversing of reality. It is more than clear that the whole banking system is drowning in huge, bad debt. But still, no one in Greece, with the exception of the United Popular Front (E.PA.M.), will dare to ask the glaringly obvious questions: HOW did these shortfalls come to being, and WHO managed these institutions while these deficits were piling up? Will anyone ever pay for this massive squandering of peoples savings?
But it seems that these kind of questions are irrelevant to the Greek regime and it’s Mainstream Media outlets, who are seemingly doing everything they can to avoiding asking these questions. Instead, they are already promoting the idea and are priming the Greek population to the idea that these so called “shortfalls” will have to be paid. After all, what is a measly 2,36 billion to an already debt ridden and dying nation? Nothing much, apparently, even though this means that more more blood sucking will ensue.
These deficits will need to be corrected we are told, because it is a well known fact that our regimes here in Greece have a standing policy: Bow down to the demands of whomever supports the salvation of the banksters. And what are the methods by which Greece’s undemocratic powers save the banksters? The answer is well known and one does not need to look very far or be too creative. Bail ins, taxing to death and the general looting of everything. That was to be expected, some will say. But it was not expected, to some at least, that even the political opposition would rise as yet another defender of the poor banks, leaving the Greek people completely undefended in the political arena. And what was even more unexpected, is the fact that the majority of Greeks let this whole thing become so unbelievably nasty and are still expecting some third party to offer them salvation.
 AGGREGATE REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT, October 2014 –https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/aggregatereportonthecomprehensiveassessment201410.en.pdf
* S Katsoulis is a member of the P.S. of the United Popular Front Greek political party(Ε.ΠΑ.Μ.).
To women, he promised to protect and expand their social rights and end the gender gap in wages and salaries. To human rights and civil liberties activists, he promised to end police state surveillance and torture, and to close the Guantanamo concentration camp, which had denied political prisoners a fair and open trial. To blacks, he promised higher living standards and greater racial equality in income. To Latino-Americans, he promised immigration reform facilitating a path to citizenship for long-term residents. Overseas he spoke in Cairo of a “new chapter” in US policy toward the Muslim world. To Russia, he promised President Putin he would ‘reset relations’ – toward greater co-operation.
Obama’s rhetorical flourishes attracted millions of young activists, women and minority voters and leaders to work for his election and the Democratic Party. He won a resounding victory! And the Democrats took control of the House and Senate.
Obama Embraces the Rightwing Agenda
The rhetorical exercise was a massive smoke screen. For his electoral campaign Obama raised over one billion dollars from the ‘1%’ – Wall Street bankers, Hollywood media moguls, Silicon Valley venture capitalists, Chicago Zionists and the Mid-Western business elite. Obama was clearly playing a double game – talking to “the people” and working for ‘the bosses’.
A few analysts cut through the demagogy and identified Obama as the ‘Greatest Con-Man of recent times”, the Washington counterpart of the great contemporary Wall Street swindler Bernard ‘Bernie’ Madoff.
According to the somewhat more skeptical liberals and progressives, Obama would have to ‘choose’ between those who elected him and those who groomed and bankrolled him.
Obama quickly and decisively resolved the progressives’ ‘dilemma’. He re-appointed the two central officials who designed disgraced President Bush Jr’s war policy and Wall Street bailout: Robert Gates was confirmed as Secretary of Defense and Timothy Geithner was renewed as Treasury Secretary. Obama followed by teaming up with the head of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Shalom Bernacke and Treasury Secretary Geithner to launch a multi-year trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street, while hundreds of thousands of Obama voters had their mortgages foreclosed and millions of workers, who voted Democratic were fired and remained unemployed, because Washington prioritized Wall Street recovery of profitability over funding job-creating public works.
In response, millions of indignant citizens repudiated the Washington bailout and Congresstemporarily shelved approval. However, the White House and the Democratic majority in both Houses, reversed course and approved the biggest State –to- Bankers handout in US – or for that matter, world – history.
If the Obama’s ‘First Wave of Reaction’ appointed powerful Wall Street clones and Pentagon war hawks to his cabinet and the ‘Second Wave of Reaction’ led to sacrificing workers’ incomes, employment and living standards, so that Wall Street could return to profitability, and the ‘Third Wave of Reaction’ was the escalation of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has dispatched tens of thousands of US combat troops to ‘end the war by expanding the war’!
The Democratic Electorate Strikes Back: 2010
By the end of 2010, sufficient masses of Obama and Democratic voters were disenchanted to the point of not voting in the Congressional elections: The Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.
The most lucid and clearheaded progressives understood that nothing more was to be gained by waiting patiently ‘at the gate, like benighted pilgrims’ for their president Obama’s gaze to ‘turn left’ or for the Democrats to reverse course in Congress. Hundreds of thousands of citizens shook off the trickster’s spell and took to the streets blocking financial districts.‘Occupy Wall Street’ – direct action in the streets, citizens clearly targeted the principle source of the economic crisis and the real power behind the demagogic rhetoric of the White House confidence man.
Federal, state and local police broke up, arrested and incarcerated the peaceful activists. The Occupy Wall Street movement, under massive and coordinated police-state siege, and without political direction, dispersed and disintegrated.
The ‘Fourth Wave of reaction’ was illuminated by the Snowden revelations of National Security Agency (NSA) intrusive spying into the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans as well as allied leaders in four continents – and unimaginable numbers of citizens in countries around the world. The White House gave unconditional backing to the entire, gargantuan police state apparatus and its unconstitutional intervention into everyday life of individuals and their families. Hundreds of thousands of civil libertarians, human rights activists and attorneys and millions of liberal democrats were shocked by Obama’s blatant refusal to rein-in or even acknowledge the enormous scope of illegal domestic spying.
The ‘Fifth Wave of Reaction’ was the cumulative impact of five years of nurturing Wall Street profits and ignoring working and middle class income and declining living standards. Thanks to virtually free federal ‘bailout’ money, Wall Street borrowed and invested overseas -reaping returns triple the miniscule interest rates in the US. They speculated on the stock market. The ‘D-J boom’ continued for five years while real incomes of most Americans continued to decline. Young Democratic voters, who had believed the con-man, remained mired at entry level jobs barely paying room and board. The ‘Audacity of Hope’ became the ‘Humiliation of Return’ into their parents’ homes for millions of young workers unable to support themselves…
Millions of Latino citizens, who were conned into believing that Obama would provide a ‘road-map to citizenship’ for twelve million fellow immigrants, discovered that the real Obama policy toward immigrants was a ‘road map to violent arrest, incarceration and deportation’: A recordtwo million immigrants were expelled in five years, exceeding the totals of all previous Presidents, even the most rabid rightwing Republicans.
Probably the most egregious and cynical con-job of all was the mega-con Obama perpetrated on Afro-Americans. More than any other group in the US, Afro-Americans have supported Barack Obama: Ninety-five percent voted for the ‘First Afro-American President’.
Under President Obama, Afro-Americans have lost more personal wealth than under any president since the Great Depression. Many key indicators show that the economic conditions of Afro-Americans have worsened dramatically under Obama.
According to the US Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances, between 2009-2014, non-white household incomes have declined by nearly a tenth to $33,000 a year. Median incomes fell by five percent. Data on net wealth – assets minus liabilities – tells an even more brutal story. The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 – almost a fifth lower than it was when Obama took office. In contrast, white median wealth increased by one percent to $142,000. In 2009 white households were seven times richer than blacks; that gap is now eightfold. Both in relative and absolute terms, black Americans are doing much worse under President Obama. His ‘Wall Street First’ agenda (bailing out the banksters and mortgage swindlers) has relegated Afro-Americans to last place. Racial inequalities have deepened because Obama, who may have ‘shot some hoops’ on an urban ghetto playground and dressed up as a ‘black role model’, in fact, oversaw an increasingly segregated and deteriorating school system. In Washington, he marginalized African-American concerns about double digit rates of unemployment in Detroit and other urban centers, while offering pompous, stern ‘moral’lectures to unemployed blacks about their ‘family responsibilities’.
Obama’s demagogy and deceptive populist posturing bamboozled most progressive voters for a period of time, but after five waves of reaction, many of the activists ‘wised up’ – first in the streets and then in the elections – by refusing to vote for Democrats running in the Congressional elections of 2014.
The Democratic Debacle of 2014
The major reason for the Democrat’s debacle in the ‘mid-term elections’ was the high rate of abstention and lack of activists getting out the vote. In many states, where the Democrats lost, the overall rate of abstention among eligible voters approached seventy percent. And there is reason to believe that the vast majority of non-voters (aka – the ‘none of the above’ voters) were Democrats, people disenchanted or hostile to Obama’s betrayals and, in particular, voters who believed that he had deceived or ‘conned them’.
Young people’s participation in this election, a major factor in mobilizing voters for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and doubly deceived, were notable by their absence: Young voters’ share of the electorate declined from 19% in 2012 to 13% in 2014. Parallel declines were documented in Latino-American and Afro-American turn-outs.
For those who voted, nearly half (45%) said that the ‘economy was the key consideration’ and by economy they didn’t mean Wall Street’s booming profits, or record high Dow Jones Stock quotes, which White House Democrats had hailed as their ‘economic success’. For the American middle and working class voters ‘ the economy’ that drove some to vote on November 4, 2014, was measured in the deterioration of affordable health insurance coverage and pension plans, the decline of living standards and the growth of ‘dead-end’ low-paid, contingent employment that rendered the lives and future increasingly unstable.
Most former Obama voters did not defect to the Republicans: They realized that both Democrats and Republicans were responsible for the domestic economy-busting decade-long wars and Wall Street hand-outs. They did not vote: Most abstained! Some former Democrats and Independents, and not a few Republicans, turned their anti-Obama animus into a rabid racist rant against the black President and extended their anger toward people of color in general. Obama’s con game has aroused deep racist undercurrents in US politics.
If his image as the first African-American President inspired a moment of hope and promise for greater racial equality in this country, his reactionary economic policies in practice allowed rightwing politicians to divert white worker and middle class economic discontent away from the criminals and swindlers on Wall Street to racist hostility toward the beleaguered black communities.
Post-Elections: The Con-Man is Cornered
The new Republican Congressional majorities will continue to implement the fundamental economic and foreign policies of the Obama regime. Wall Street profits will continue to grow, income disparities between capital and labor will continue to sharpen and the highly militarized foreign policy of the last six years will become more overtly bi-partisan. The Democratic President will join with the Republican Congress in pursuing military confrontations in the Ukraine and in sending more US troops to Syria and Iraq. Under pressure from Israel and its powerful US supporters, increased sanctions against Iran will scuttle US negotiations with Tehran. Obama’s blockade of Cuba will continue, as will bi-partisan hostility to center-left governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and Argentina. The grotesque narco-state terror and mass murder in Mexico and Central America will continue to fuel the massive refugee pressure on the US border and expose the hypocrisy of Washington’s humanitarianmilitary missions in the Middle East.
The Republicans rode to power by exploiting discontent with Obama’s ‘Five Waves’ of reactionary policies; they will now co-operate with him in launching a ‘6th Wave’. The Republican Congressional majority will embrace Obama’s proposal to ‘fast-track’ free trade treaties covering Asia and Europe, currently blocked by House Democrats and opposed by US trade unions.
The Republicans will join with Obama in backing corporate tax ‘reform’, which substantially reduces the tax on US multinational corporations’ overseas earnings in order to end the hoarding of profits in low tax countries – while intensifying austerity on American workers and the poor.
In other words, Obama will now openly coordinate with his Republican counterparts on an agenda they have shared from the first day he took office. This time Barack Obama, the Con-Man, will have to play it straight and cut the populist palaver– Republicans and their business partners demand economic payoffs and overseas military victories. Obama, the ‘cowering Con-Man’, has been unmasked by progressives and is cornered by the Republicans… and they have no further use for his congab
James Petras latest book is “The Politics of Empire:The U.S, Israel and the Middle East“
The following are excerpts of Putin’s speech delivered at the Valdai conference in Sochi, just a few days ago. The speech was directed at Western elites.
“Russia will no longer play games with the United States and engagein back-room negotiations… Russia is prepared for serious agreements, but only if these agreements are conducive to collective security… All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all and the party responsible for the destruction of global collective security is The United States of America…
…The builders of the New World Order have failed by having built a sand castle…Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified…
…Russia has no intention of building an empire of their own, but will not go fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos…
…Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory)…Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind. Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she has in the past…
…Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, todayRussia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war, nor does she fear it…
…Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order, However, Russia will oppose their efforts if they begin to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain…
…Russia’s will rely not on the elites to set the tone for the future, and these decisions will result from the will of the people…”
Russia Is In War Mode
The RAF has intercepted Russian military aircraft as they neared UK airspace for the second time in the past week. This incident follows Norwegian interception of two Russian bombers last Wednesday.
The Baltic countries are also witnessing a dramatic increase in Russian military violations of NATO air space in which the Russians appear to be testing their ability to penetrate NATO’s air defenses.
Even the number of times that Japanese fighter jets have been forced to scramble to intercept Russian military aircraft has more than doubled in the last six months, amid the escalating diplomatic tensions between Japan and Russia.
Russia has even violated American airspace in Alaska with multiple air incursions designed to test and discover the sophistications of America’s ability to detect and intercept Russian fighters and nuclear bombers.
Coupled with the air incursions, Putin has the Russian economy in war mode. He even has the Russian military prepared to militarily seize the “resource rich” Arctic.
Putin has warned that “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” Putin said. “This is a reality, not just words.”
The United States would be wise to prepare in kind. Is anyone else concerned that our first and last line of defense is Barack “let’s play nine” Obama?
Video of the Valdai Speech
Introduction: In order to overcome massive US and world public opposition to new wars in the Middle East, Obama relied on the horrific internet broadcasts of ISIS slaughtering two American hostages, the journalists James Foley and Steve Sotloff, by decapitation. These brutal murders were Obama’s main propaganda tool to set a new Middle East war agenda – his own casus belli bonanza!
This explains the US Administration’s threats of criminal prosecution against the families of Foley and Stoloff when they sought to ransom their captive sons from ISIS.
With the American mass media repeatedly showing the severed heads of these two helpless men, public indignation and disgust were aroused with calls for US military involvement to stop the terror. US and EU political leaders presented the decapitations of Western hostages by the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) as a direct and mortal threat to the safety of civilians in the US and Europe. The imagery evoked was of black-clad faceless terrorists, armed to the teeth, invading Europe and the US and executing innocent families as they begged for rescue and mercy.
The problem with this propaganda ploy is not the villainy and brutal crimes celebrated by ISIS, but the fact that Obama’s closest ally in his seventh war in six years is Saudi Arabia, a repugnant kingdom which routinely decapitates its prisoners in public without any judicial process recognizable as fair by civilized standards – unless tortured ‘confessions’ are now a Western norm. During August 2014, when ISIS decapitated two American captives, Riyadh beheaded fourteen prisoners. Since the beginning of the year the Saudi monarchy has decapitated more than 46 prisoners and chopped off the arms and limbs of many more. During Obama and Kerry’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, horrendous decapitations were displayed in public. These atrocities did not dim the bright smile on Barak Obama’s face as he strolled with his genial royal Saudi executioners, in stark contrast to the US President’s stern and angry countenance as he presented the ISIS killing of two Americans as his pretext for bombing Syria.
The Western mass media are silent in the face of the Saudi Kingdom’s common practice of public decapitation. Not one among the major news corporations, the BBC, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS and NPR, have questioned the moral authority of a US President who engages in selective condemnation of ISIS while ignoring the official Saudi state beheadings and the amputations.
Decapitation and Dismemberment: By Dagger and Drones
The ISIS internet videos showing gaunt, orange-suited Western prisoners and their lopped-off heads have evoked widespread dismay and fear. We are repeatedly told: ‘ISIS is coming to get us!’ But ISIS is open and public about their criminal acts against helpless hostages. We cannot say the same about the decapitations and dismemberments of the hundreds of victims of US drone attacks. When a drone fires its missiles on a home, a school, wedding party or vehicle, the bodies of living people are dismembered, macerated, decapitated and burned beyond recognition – all by remote control. The carnage is not videoed or displayed for mass consumption by Obama’s high commend. Indeed, civilian deaths, if even acknowledged, are brushed off as ‘collateral damage’ while the vaporized remnants of men, women and children have been described by US troops as ‘pink foam’.
If the brutal decapitation and dismemberment of innocent civilians is a capital crime that should be punished, as I believe it is, then both ISIS and the Obama regime with his allied leadersshould face a people’s war crimes tribunal in the countries where the crimes occurred.
There are good reasons to view Washington’s close relation with the Saudi royal beheaders as part of a much broader alliance with terror-evoking brutality. For decades, the US drug agencies and banks have worked closely with criminal drug cartels in Mexico while glossing over their notorious practice of decapitating, dismembering and displaying their victims, be they local civilians, courageous journalists, captured police or migrants fleeing the terror of Central America. The notorious Zetas and the Knights Templar have penetrated the highest reaches of the Mexican federal and local governments, turning state officials and institutions into submissive and obedient clients. Over 100,000 Mexicans have lost their lives because of this ‘state within a state’, an ‘ISIS’ in Mexico – just ‘South of the Border’. And just like ISIS in the Middle East, the cartels get their weapons from the US imported right across the Texas and Arizona borders. Despite this gruesome terror on the US southern flank, the nation’s principle banks, including Bank of America, CitiBank, Wells Fargo and many others have laundered billions of dollars of drug profits for the cartels. For example, the discovery of 49 decapitated bodies in one mass in May 2014 did not prompt Washington to form a world-wide coalition to bomb Mexico, nor was it moved to arrest the Wall Street bankers laundering the ‘beheaders bloody booty’.
Obama’s hysterical and very selective presentation of ISIS crimes forms the pretext for launching another war against a predominantly Muslim country, Syria, while shielding his close ally, the royal Saudi decapitator from US public outrage. ISIS crimes have become another excuse to launch a campaign of ‘mass decapitation by drones and bombers’. The mass propaganda campaign over one crime against humanity becomes the basis for perpetrating even worse crimes against humanity. Many hundreds of innocent civilians in Syria and Iraq will be dismembered by ‘anti-terrorist’ bombs and drones unleashed by another of Obama’s ‘coalition’.
The localized savagery of ISIS will be multiplied, amplified and spread by the US-directed ‘coalition of the willing decapitators’. The terror of hooded beheaders on the ground will be answered and expanded by their faceless counterparts in the air, while delicately hiding the heads rolling through the public squares of Riyadh or the headless bodies displayed along the highways of Mexico … and especially ignoring the hidden victims of US-Saudi aggression in the towns and villages of Syria.
09.12.2014 :: Analysis
The result was a junta, composed of neo-liberal puppets, rightist nationalists and fascists, which immediately proceeded to purge the Ukrainian legislature of any politicians opposed to the coup and Kiev’s submission to the European Union and NATO. The NATO-sponsored client regime then moved swiftly to extend its control by centralizing power and overturning the official policy of bilingualism (Russian and Ukrainian) in the southeastern regions. It was preparing to break its long-standing agreement over the huge Russian naval base in Crimea and renege on its massive debts to Russia for gas and oil imports.
These extremist measures by a violent coup regime amounted to a radical break with existing economic, cultural and political institutions and, naturally, provoked a robust response from large sectors of the population. The overwhelmingly Russian speaking majority in Crimea convoked a referendum with 90% voter participation: 89% voted to secede and rejoin Russia. The ethnic Russian and bilingual, industrialized southeast regions of Ukraine organized their own referenda, formed popular militias and prepared for an armed response from what they viewed as an illegal junta in Kiev. Threatened by the new measures against their language and traditional and economic ties with Russia, the resistance drew its fighters from the vast reservoir of skilled industrial workers, miners and local business people who understood that they would lose thousands of jobs and access to the Russian markets as well as cultural and family links under the boot of the EU-NATO puppet in Kiev.
For critical sections of Ukraine, the Kiev junta was illegitimate, so the NATO overseers, cooked up an election with a pre-selected candidate, Petro Poroshenko, a millionaire oligarch, willing to serve as a ‘reliable’ proxy, despite his history of dubious ‘business’ deals, who would implement the Euro-US agenda. Despite large sectors boycotting the sham elections, the ‘victorious President’ Poroshenko immediately joined the EU, shredding the heavily subsidized and generous gas and oil agreements with Russia as well as cutting Ukraine off from its main export markets. He proposed to join NATO and convert Ukraine into a launching pad aimed at Russia. He eagerly signed an IMF agreement ending critical subsidies for low income Ukrainians, privatizing public enterprises and raising the cost of basic public services and food. He launched an all-out military campaign against the Donbass region, using missiles, air strikes, artillery and ground forces while assuring his masters in Washington and Brussels that he could easily smash all resistance to his dictatorial fiats and impose their radical retrograde agenda.
The scope and depth of the changes and the unilateral manner in which they were formulated and implemented provoked a widespread popular uprising in the southeast that cut across the entire social spectrum. The popular democratic nature of the opposition in the east attracted support throughout the region, reaching beyond the borders of Ukraine. The resistance easily captured Ukrainian military outposts while conscripted soldiers, ex-soldiers and local police units joined the resistance, bringing their arms with them.
The Kiev regime and its increasingly fascist shock troops responded with terror tactics, bombing civilian infrastructure and neighborhoods. In the ethnically-mixed city of Odessa, with its substantial Russian-speaking population, Kiev-based fascists torched the city’s main trade union building where civilian protesters had sought refuge, burning alive or later slaughtering over 40 trapped citizen demonstrators.
The terrorist tactics of the Kiev government spurred thousands more to join the resistance. Horrified and demoralized Ukrainian conscripts, who had been told they were fighting ‘Russian invaders’ defected or surrendered in large numbers. The spectacle of surrender and demoralization among its armed forces and police undermined this phase of Kiev’s offensive and led to a ‘legitimacy’ crisis.
The US-EU propaganda campaign intensified denying civilian resistance in the southeast any authenticity as an independent, democratic, national force by labeling them as ‘Russian separatists’ and ‘invaders’. Together with their puppet-‘President’ Petro Poroshenko, the US-EU tried to discredit the popular resistance via a major provocation: Ukrainian government air controllers in Kiev re-directed a civilian air liner, Malaysian Airlines Flt. 17, to fly directly over the war zone, shot it down killing almost 300 passengers and crew. The puppet in Kiev and their masters in Brussels and Washington then blamed the resistance, as well as Russia, for the crime!
The NATO-backed proxy regime’s tactic of terror boomeranged and caused even more outrage! More Ukrainian troops refused to fire on the own compatriots .The puppet regime in Kiev had to rely on the special fascist battalions eager to kill ‘Russians’. Many ordinary soldiers deserted rather than obey orders to fire heavy artillery shells into densely populated urban neighborhoods full of trapped civilians. Other troops crossed over into the safety of neighboring Russia where they surrendered and turned their arms over to the resistance.
The incredible strength of the southeast regional resistance came from several sources: First and foremost, they were defending home turf: their families, relatives, friends, neighbors, homes, workplaces, transport systems, hospitals and schools and they increasingly saw themselves as a nation confronting the ravages of a foreign-imposed dictatorship arbitrarily selling their principle economic enterprises and means of livelihood while submitting to the dictates of the US-EU controlled International Monetary Fund. This popular resistance was bolstered morally and materially by pro-democracy activists and militants from Euro-Asia, who understood that a NATO victory in Ukraine would lead to more coups in sovereign countries, more civil wars and brutal conquests throughout the region – a formula for economic and social disaster affecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people.
NATO’s heavy-handed presence behind the putsch in Kiev spurred a national liberation struggle in Ukraine and the growth of anti-NATO internationalism regionally. The battle was joined. The Kiev blitzkrieg halted in confusion. The battles for Donetsk and Lugansk turned the tide. The Resistance went on the offensive. Over 800 Kiev soldiers were killed. Thousands more were wounded, captured or deserted.
The Resistance was advancing westward and to the south threatening to create a land bridge to the Crimea and encircle an entire regiment. The puppet regime in Kiev panicked and pleaded for its EU and US patrons to intervene directly. Divisions within the junta deepened: the fascists demanded an all-out war against the Russian-speaking population and total mobilization. The neo-liberals, for their part, begged for direct NATO intervention.
Meanwhile, the EU and US imposed wide economic sanctions against Russia, unwilling to believe that the citizens in the Donbass region of southeast Ukraine would successfully resist their puppet in Kiev. They drank their own propaganda swill and blamed ‘Putin’, the Russian President, for the debacle. The increasing economic sanctions against Russia had no effect on the popular resistance in Ukraine as it took on the character of a national liberation struggle. However, the sanctions did provoke painful counter-measures from Russia, which slapped major embargos on EU and US agricultural products, deepening Europe’s economic recession. And there was a build up of NATO troops and joint military exercises on Russia’s borders in Poland, the Baltic States and over the Black Sea.
Finally the NATO powers realized that their puppet’s military conquest of the East was not going to be another ‘cake walk’, indeed it was turning into a brutal farce. From top to bottom, the junta’s armed forces were in shambles. The continued advance of the popular resistance and the onset of winter without Russian oil and gas could topple the regime in Kiev and force new elections free from NATO, the CIA and the machinations of US Assistant Secretary ‘F… the EU’ Victoria Nuland, Obama’s key strategist for Eastern Europe.
With NATO’s and Washington’s fears in mind, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a ‘compromise’ for Poroshenko, an immediate ceasefire and negotiations leading to a political settlement between Kiev and the rebels. In the face of a military debacle in the East and growing internal fissures, the puppet in Kiev agreed to the ceasefire.
Prospects for Peace with Justice
Poroshenko and his NATO overseers eagerly grabbed onto Putin’s peace plan to stave off the advance of the popular resistance and gain time to re-group, rebuild and re-supply Kiev’s armed forces. NATO leaders are counting on a ‘political’ settlement where they trade easily-broken political promises in exchange for the resistance demobilizing and disarming under Kiev’s authority. There is no indication that the NATO-Kiev axis intends to abandon their strategic goal of turning Ukraine into a NATO base and vassal state of the EU.
As the cease fire comes into effect, the NATO powers have organized two sets of military exercises within Ukraine and on its immediate border – clearly undermining Russia’s strategic interests. The ongoing military build-up is a sign that NATO intends to participate directly in crushing the popular resistance in the next round. It is just a matter of time for NATO and Kiev to trot out some pretext to end the ceasefire. Meanwhile, NATO is increasing the flow of arms, advisers and contract mercenaries to Kiev. The oligarch in Kiev, Poroshenko is attempting to bolster his ground forces by imposing a highly unpopular universal conscription. Even the citizens in the west of Ukraine can see the war is going badly with the return of wounded soldiers and caskets holding their sons and brothers.
Tactically Poroshenko/NATO may offer paper concessions, greater ‘autonomy’ . . . under the rule of the Kiev junta, and the acceptance of bilingualism, but political, administrative, legal and fiscal powers will not devolve to the democrats in Donesk and Lugansk to design and implement their own policies and protect their rights. The regime will demand the re-entry of ‘its army’ on the pretext of guarding borders against Russia. There will be no reparations for the massive loss of life and infrastructure in the region. Kiev will seek to surround and fragment the Resistance and eliminate the key cross-border sanctuary with Russia. The ultimate goal would be to squeeze and oust resistance-led regional self-government.
The prolongation of negotiations will be used to build-up Kiev’s military capabilities. Meanwhile more US-imposed EU economic sanctions against Russia give Washington greater power to expand its influence in Europe and deepen political and trade polarization between the EU and Moscow. The Ukraine crisis is only one part of the Obama regime’s strategy of global military escalation, which includes re-entry into Iraq, direct bombing of Syria (including Damascus) and increased sanctions against companies and banks trading with Iran and Cuba, as well as the encirclement and provocation of China.
An independent Russia is the real target and the annexation of the Ukraine is a mere stepping stone on the way to Moscow. Under this strategic (and insane) vision, the US and EU will never accept a neutral (NATO-free), independent, democratic Ukraine. The popular resistance in the country’s southeast must clearly understand this strategic vision and continue the fight. They must recognize that the only means to establish democracy and self-rule, free from NATO and IMF dominance, and free from the marauding gangs of Kiev-led Nazi thugs – the terrorist Azov, Aidar and Donbass battalions – is via a plebiscite for total national independence.
The current cease fire is a Trojan horse: within the bowels of these negotiations, Kiev warlords are busily preparing to unleash more of their military excrement – fascist hordes and the oligarchs’ private armies, the monstrous spawn of the NATO-armed Azov battalion under Nazi banners, sporting swastika tattoos and hate-filled insignias. The choice is clear.
The latest Washington lie, this one coming from NATO, is that Russia has invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops and self-propelled artillery.
How do we know that this is a lie? Is it because we have heard nothing but lies about Russia from NATO, from US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, from assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, from Obama and his entire regime of pathological liars, and from the British, German, and French governments along with the BBC and the entirety of the Western media?
This, of course, is a good reason for knowing that the latest Western propaganda is a lie. Those who are pathological liars don’t suddenly start telling the truth.
But there are even better reasons for understanding that Russia has not invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops.
One reason is that Putin has invested heavily in diplomacy backed by unprovocative behavior. He would not risk his bet on diplomacy by sending in troops too few in number to have a decisive effect on the outcome.
Another reason is that if Putin decides he has no alternative to sending the Russian military to protect the Russian residents in eastern and southern Ukraine, Putin will send in enough troops to do the job quickly as he did in Georgia when the American and Israeli trained Georgian army invaded South Ossetia and was destroyed in a few hours by the Russian response. If you hear that 100,000 Russian troops accompanied by air cover have invaded Ukraine, it would be a more believable claim.
A third reason is that the Russian military does not need to send troops into Ukraine in order to stop the bombing and artillery shelling of the Russian populations by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev. The Russian air force can easily and quickly destroy the Ukrainian air force and artillery and, thereby, stop the Ukrainian attack on the secessionist provinces.
It was only two weeks ago that a fabricated report spread by the UK Guardian and the BBC that a Russian armored convoy entered Ukraine and was destroyed by the Ukrainian Military. And two weeks prior to that we had the hoax of the satellite images allegedly released by the US State Department that the corrupt US ambassador in Kiev spread around the world on social media allegedly showing that Russian forces were firing into Ukraine. One or two weeks from now we will have another lie, and another a week or two after that, and so on.
The cumulative effect of lie piled upon lie for most people is to build the view that the Russians are up to no good. Once this view is established, Western governments can take more serious moves against Russia.
The alleged entry of 1,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine has been declared by NATO Brigadier General Niko Tak to be a “significant escalation in Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.” The champion liar Samantha Power told the US Security Council that “Russia has to stop lying.” The UK ambassador to the UN said that Russia was guilty of “a clear violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory.” UK prime minister Cameron warned Russia of “further consequences.” German chancellor Merkel announced that there would be more sanctions. A German Security Council advisor declared that “war with Russia is an option.” Polish foreign minister Sikorski called it Russian aggression that required international action. French president Hollande declared Russia’s behavior to be “intolerable.” Ukraine’s security council imposed mandatory conscription.
This suicidal drive toward war with Russia by Europe’s leaders is based entirely on a transparent lie that 1,000 Russian troops crossed into Ukraine
Of course the Western media followed in lock-step. The BBC, CNN, and Die Welt are among the most reckless and irresponsible.
The mountain of lies piled up by Western governments and media has obscured the true story. The US government orchestrated the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and imposed a US puppet in Kiev. Washington’s puppet government began issuing threats and committing violent acts against the Russian populations in the former Russian territories that Soviet leaders attached to Ukraine. The Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine resisted the threat brought to them by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.
Washington continually accuses the Russian government of supporting the people in the territories who have voted their separation from Ukraine. There would be no war, Washington alleges, except for Russian support. But, of course, Washington could easily stop the violence by ordering its puppet government in Kiev to stop the bombing and shelling of the former Russian provinces. If Russia can tell the “separatists” not to fight, Washington can tell Kiev not to fight.
The only possible conclusion from the facts is that Washington is determined to involve Europe in a war with Russia or at least in an armed standoff in order to break up Europe’s political and economic relations with Russia.
Europe’s leaders are going along with this because European countries, except for Charles de Gaulle’s France, have not had independent foreign policies since the end of World War II. They follow Washington’s lead and are well paid for doing so.
The inability of Europe to produce independent leadership dooms Russian President Putin’s diplomacy to failure. If European capitals cannot make decisions independently of Washington, there is no scope for Putin’s diplomacy.
Notice that the very day after Putin met with Washington’s Ukrainian vassal in an effort to resolve the situation, the new lie of Russian invasion was issued in order to ensure that no good can come of the meeting in which Putin invested his time and energy.
Washington’s only interest is in hegemony. Washington has no interest in resolving the situation that Washington itself created in order to bring discomfort and confusion to Russia. With the caveat that the situation could be resolved by Ukrainian economic collapse, otherwise the longer Putin waits to resolve the situation by force, the more difficult the task will be.
Assisi (Italy), 23 August 2014.
The National Coordination of the Italian Left against the Euro held its “European Forum 2014″ in Assisi (Italy) from 20 to 24 August 2014 which brought together a large number of participants, including countries in the European Union but also Ukraine and Russia. On this occasion the leaders of several radical political organizations of the European Union adopted a declaration in favour of withdrawing from the euro and the European Union.
In all countries of the EU and especially in the euro area, violent anti-social policies are pursued relentlessly by the European Union and its member governments : massive decline in social spending, wage deflation by blocking wages, lower payroll taxes, unjustified subsidies to large corporations supposedly to create jobs, privatization, dismantling of public services and social security, financialization of the economy and public budgets … The result is an exponential increase in mass unemployment and lack of job security.
The origin of this is to be found in the policies of the European Union, fully blocked by the Lisbon Treaty. The latter is based on all the neoliberal dogma that have already demonstrated their damage value to the interests of the working and middle classes. In the euro area the trade gaps between countries have worsened. The euro is a weapon of mass destruction against employment. The single currency is only used to protect the return on shareholders’ investment by maintaining a permanent and voluntary high level of unemployment.
The very essence of this European construction is based on the values and interests of the Western ruling classes : europeanism, atlanticism, capitalism, authoritarianism. Such a system cannot change its nature, it cannot be improved from within. It must be dismantled in order to build something radically new. The European Union is indeed the most sophisticated system in the world founded on an attempt to build a civilization based on market forces. The European Union is a horrendous system of domination and alienation from which the peoples need to be emancipated.
The European Union is a cornerstone of the neoliberal world order, with its giant multinational firms, and supranational institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, NATO, EU, OECD). The system has a main characteristic: to act relentlessly to dissolve the sovereignty of peoples on a national scale. It is indeed the best way to enable, the domination of big business to increase with no bounds as evidenced by TAFTA. Destroying the nations is the guarantee for the dominant classes that there is no turning back to neoliberal “reforms”. As the sovereignty of the people cannot exist without national sovereignty, eliminating the nation is to eliminate democracy. It is therefore the means to suppress the capacity for the people to act and decide on their future. The fact that the European Union is one of the mainstays of the Kiev fascistic regime demonstrates its full alignment with NATO and American imperialism.
After years of exercise of power by Socialist, Labour or Social democratic parties in several countries of the European Union, it is now possible to take stock of their record. The assessment is overwhelmingly excruciating as can be seen in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and France … These parties are now openly neoliberal, they do not even pretend any longer to try to defend the working classes. They are all making way for large German-style coalition governments (governments uniting left and right parties), similar to those already implemented by the European Union in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. If the divide between the ruling class and the working classes is clearer from year to year, the one between the left and right is becoming increasingly blurred. Nothing essential separates the left from the right in many countries. The above-mentioned political forces are shaping the political environment that develops and enhances the growth of the far right, by allowing the gradual assimilation of the nation with an essentially ethnocultural definition of the extreme right, whereas for us the nation is strictly constitutional and political. To leave this central political concept of identity definition of the nation in the hands of the far right is seriously irresponsible, and shows that all these parties have given up the essential conditions of the very existence of both politics and democracy.
The reasons for the rise of far-right parties in the member countries of the EU are mainly due to the policies of austerity for working and middle classes which strike people with poverty and force them to compete. The far right is now alone to appropriate the idea and the symbols of the nation. And conversely the idea of nation ends up being equated with the extreme right. But the far right advocates a narrow view of the nation reduced to its sole identity dimension. Far from being anti-system, as it claims, the far right is actually an indirect agent serving the system and the ruling classes. These parties are the most nauseating in their xenophobic, chauvinistic and anti-union attitudes and prejudiced against all organizations that collectively represent the interests of the working classes.
It is urgent to rebuild a thought, a method of practice and a program in favour of the interests of the working classes and the middle classes. Key elements for us are:
– Total elimination of unemployment and job insecurity.
– Plans for the re-industrialization and nationalization of key strategic sectors of industry and services.
– The dismantling of financial markets.
– The cancellation and overthrow of the public debt.
– National protectionist measures in the framework of the universal Havana Charter of 1948.
– An environmental transformation in the mode of production.
– The withdrawal from supranational institutions that maintain the neoliberal world order, NATO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, EU and the euro.
We call this de-globalization. The core of this strategy and this program is to claim and assume the necessity of regaining national sovereignty for each country. That is to say, the decisive struggle for each country to preserve the authentically political characteristics of its society, where the people have the legal and institutional capacity to decide and implement what they consider corresponds to the general interest.
The signatories will organize a new international meeting at an even larger level. Aiming at bringing together widely all forces working to defend the interests of working and middle classes, for the withdrawal from NATO, the European Union and the euro, for full employment.
- Borotba (Struggle): Sergei Kirichuk, Ukraine.
- Committee “Euro Exit” (“Out of the euro ‘Committee): Wilhelm Langthaler, Austria.
- National Coordinamento Sinistra contro Euro (National Coordination of Left against the Euro) Moreno Pasquinelli, Italy.
- Frente Civico (FC – Civic Front): Manolo Pérez Monereo, Spain.
- People’s United Front (EPAM): Antonis Ragousis, Greece.
- Left Co-March, Kostas Kostopoulos, Greece.
- Political Movement for the Emancipation of the People (M’PEP): Jacques Nikonoff and Joel Perichaud, France.
- Plan B: Nasia Pliakogiammi, Greece.
If Argentina were in a high-stakes chess match, the country’s actions this week would be the equivalent of flipping over all the pieces on the board.
August 27, 2014 “ICH” – Argentina is playing hardball with the vulture funds, which have been trying to force it into an involuntary bankruptcy. The vultures are demanding what amounts to a 600% return on bonds bought for pennies on the dollar, defeating a 2005 settlement in which 92% of creditors agreed to accept a 70% haircut on their bonds. A US court has backed the vulture funds; but last week, Argentina sidestepped its jurisdiction by transferring the trustee for payment from Bank of New York Mellon to its own central bank. That play, if approved by the Argentine Congress, will allow the country to continue making payments under its 2005 settlement, avoiding default on the majority of its bonds.
Argentina is already foreclosed from international capital markets, so it doesn’t have much to lose by thwarting the US court system. Similar bold moves by Ecuador and Iceland have left those countries in substantially better shape than Greece, which went along with the agendas of the international financiers.
The upside for Argentina was captured by President Fernandez in a nationwide speech on August 19th. Struggling to hold back tears, according to Bloomberg, she said:
When it comes to the sovereignty of our country and the conviction that we can no longer be extorted and that we can’t become burdened with debt again, we are emerging as Argentines.
. . . If I signed what they’re trying to make me sign, the bomb wouldn’t explode now but rather there would surely be applause, marvelous headlines in the papers. But we would enter into the infernal cycle of debt which we’ve been subject to for so long.
The Endgame: Patagonia in the Crosshairs
The deeper implications of that infernal debt cycle were explored by Argentine political analyst Adrian Salbuchi in an August 12th article titled “Sovereign Debt for Territory: A New Global Elite Swap Strategy.” Where territories were once captured by military might, he maintains that today they are being annexed by debt. The still-evolving plan is to drive destitute nations into an international bankruptcy court whose decisions would have the force of law throughout the world. The court could then do with whole countries what US bankruptcy courts do with businesses: sell off their assets, including their real estate. Sovereign territories could be acquired as the spoils of bankruptcy without a shot being fired.
Global financiers and interlocking megacorporations are increasingly supplanting governments on the international stage. An international bankruptcy court would be one more institution making that takeover legally binding and enforceable. Governments can say no to the strong-arm tactics of the global bankers’ collection agency, the IMF. An international bankruptcy court would allow creditors to force a nation into bankruptcy, where territories could be involuntarily sold off in the same way that assets of bankrupt corporations are.
For Argentina, says Salbuchi, the likely prize is its very rich Patagonia region, long a favorite settlement target for ex-pats. When Argentina suffered a massive default in 2001, the global press, including Time and The New York Times, went so far as to propose that Patagonia be ceded from the country as a defaulted debt payment mechanism.
The New York Times article followed one published in the Buenos Aires financial newspaper El Cronista Comercial called “Debt for Territory,” which described a proposal by a US consultant to then-president Eduardo Duhalde for swapping public debt for government land. It said:
[T]he idea would be to transform our public debt default into direct equity investment in which creditors can become land owners where they can develop industrial, agricultural and real estate projects. . . . There could be surprising candidates for this idea: during the Alfonsin Administration, the Japanese studied an investment master plan in Argentine land in order to promote emigration. The proposal was also considered in Israel.
Salbuchi notes that ceding Patagonia from Argentina was first suggested in 1896 by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, as a second settlement for that movement.
Another article published in 2002 was one by IMF deputy manager Anne Krueger titled “Should Countries Like Argentina Be Able to Declare Themselves Bankrupt?” It was posted on the IMF website and proposed some “new and creative ideas” on what to do about Argentina. Krueger said, “the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises,” adding that the IMF believes “this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US”.
These ideas were developed in greater detail by Ms. Krueger in an IMF essay titled “A New Approach to Debt Restructuring,” and by Harvard professor Richard N. Cooper in a 2002 article titled “Chapter 11 for Countries” published in Foreign Affairs (“mouthpiece of the powerful New York-Based Elite think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations”). Salbuchi writes:
Here, Cooper very matter-of-factly recommends that “only if the debtor nation cannot restore its financial health are its assets liquidated and the proceeds distributed to its creditors – again under the guidance of a (global) court” (!).
In Argentina’s recent tangle with the vulture funds, Ms. Krueger and the mainstream media have come out in apparent defense of Argentina, recommending restraint by the US court. But according to Salbuchi, this does not represent a change in policy. Rather, the concern is that overly heavy-handed treatment may kill the golden goose:
. . . [I] n today’s delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elite’s plans for an “orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture” that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?)
Breaking Free from the Sovereign Debt Trap
Salbuchi traces Argentina’s debt crisis back to 1955, when President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted in a very bloody US/UK/mega-bank-sponsored military coup:
Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentina’s sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the “Paris Club” to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something they’ve been doing until today.
Many countries have been subjected to similar treatment, as John Perkins documents in his blockbuster exposé Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. When the country cannot pay, the IMF sweeps in with refinancing agreements with strings attached, including selling off public assets and slashing public services in order to divert government revenues into foreign debt service.
Even without pressure from economic hit men, however, governments routinely indebt themselves for much more than they can ever hope to repay. Why do they do it? Salbuchi writes:
Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations need“investment and investors” if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras . . . .
But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead?
Neoliberal experts shout back that government-created money devalues the currency, inflates the money supply, and destroys economies. But does it? Or is it the debt service on money created privately by banks, along with other forms of “rent” on capital, that create inflation and destroy economies? As Prof. Michael Hudson points out:
These financial claims on wealth – bonds, mortgages and bank loans – are lent out to become somebody else’s debts in an exponentially expanding process. . . . [E]conomies have been obliged to pay their debts by cutting back new research, development and new physical reinvestment. This is the essence of IMF austerity plans, in which the currency is “stabilized” by further international borrowing on terms that destabilize the economy at large. Such cutbacks in long-term investment also are the product of corporate raids financed by high-interest junk bonds. The debts created by businesses, consumers and national economies cutting back their long-term direct investment leaves these entities even less able to carry their mounting debt burden.
Spiraling debt also results in price inflation, since businesses have to raise their prices to cover the interest and fees on the debt.
From Sovereign Debt to Monetary Sovereignty
For governments to escape this austerity trap, they need to spend not less but more money on the tangible capital formation that increases physical productivity. But where to get the investment money without getting sucked into the debt vortex? Where can Argentina get funding if the country is shut out of international capital markets?
The common-sense response, as Salbuchi observes, is for governments to issue the money they need directly. But “printing money” raises outcries that can be difficult to overcome politically. An alternative that can have virtually the same effect is for nations to borrow money issued by their own publicly-owned banks. Public banks generate credit just as private banks do; but unlike private lenders, they return interest and profits to the economy. Their mandate is to serve the public, and that is where their profits go. Funding through their own government-issued currencies and publicly-owned banks has been successfully pursued by many countries historically, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, China, Russia, Korea and Japan. (For more on this, see The Public Bank Solution.)
Countries do need to be able to buy foreign products that they cannot acquire or produce domestically, and for that they need a form of currency or an international credit line that other nations will accept. But countries are increasingly breaking away from the oil- and weapons-backed US dollar as global reserve currency. To resolve the mutually-destructive currency wars will probably take a new Bretton Woods Accord. But that is another subject for a later article.
*Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are atEllenBrown.com.
Το έχω ξαναπεί. Πιστεύω ότι ο κ. Τσίπρας δεν κατοικοεδρεύει σε τούτη τη χώρα. Γιατί αν κατοικούσε θα έπρεπε να είχε ακούσει το βροντερό ΟΧΙ του ελληνικού λαού στο δημοψήφισμα της Κυριακής. Αν το είχε ακούσει θα ήταν αδύνατο να προχωρήσει σε σύσκεψη με τους πολιτικούς αρχηγούς του ΝΑΙ για να συμφωνήσουν τι;
“Η πρόσφατη ετυμηγορία του Ελληνικού Λαού δεν συνιστά εντολή ρήξης, αλλά εντολή συνέχισης και ενίσχυσης της προσπάθειας για την επίτευξη μιας κοινωνικώς δίκαιης και οικονομικώς βιώσιμης συμφωνίας.” Μα, αν ο Τσίπρας και οι δικοί του συμφωνούν στο κομβικό αυτό σημείο με τους αρχηγούς του ΝΑΙ, τότε γιατί έγινε το δημοψήφισμα; Γιατί υπήρχε ΝΑΙ ή ΟΧΙ; Γιατί τέτοια άγρια επίθεση από τα κέντρα εντός και εκτός Ελλάδος εναντίον του ελληνικού λαού προκειμένου να μην ψηφίσει ΟΧΙ;
Και το κυριότερο. Αν συμφωνεί ο Τσίπρας με τα κόμματα που θέλησαν να υποτάξουν το λαό στη θέληση των δανειστών, τότε ποιά είναι η διαφορά της κυβέρνησής του από τις προηγούμενες; Άλλωστε στο κοινό ανακοινωθέν οι αρχηγοί του ΝΑΙ συμφώνησαν με τον Τσίπρα τα εξής:
“Προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση (της υποταγής στους δανειστές) η Κυβέρνηση αναλαμβάνει την ευθύνη για την συνέχιση των διαπραγματεύσεων. Και ο κάθε Πολιτικός Αρχηγός θα συμβάλλει, αντιστοίχως, στο πλαίσιο του θεσμικού και πολιτικού του ρόλου.
Κοινός στόχος είναι η επιδίωξη λύσης η οποία θα διασφαλίζει:
Την επαρκή κάλυψη των χρηματοδοτικών αναγκών της Χώρας.
Αξιόπιστες μεταρρυθμίσεις, με κριτήριο την δίκαιη κατανομή των βαρών και προώθηση της ανάπτυξης, με τις κατά το δυνατόν λιγότερες υφεσιακές επιπτώσεις.
Ισχυρό, εμπροσθοβαρές, αναπτυξιακό πρόγραμμα, πρωτίστως για την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας και την ενθάρρυνση της επιχειρηματικότητας.
Δέσμευση για την έναρξη ουσιαστικής συζήτησης ως προς την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος της βιωσιμότητας του ελληνικού δημόσιου χρέους.
Άμεση προτεραιότητα αποτελεί η αποκατάσταση της ρευστότητας στο χρηματοπιστωτικό σύστημα, σε συνεννόηση με την ΕΚΤ.”
Που ακριβώς βρίσκεται η διαφορά με τη γλώσσα, τη λογική και την πραγματικότητα των μνημονιακών πολιτικών που επιβάλλονται τα τελευταία 5 χρόνια στην πατρίδα μας; Τι μας υπόσχονταν από το πρώτο μνημόνιο; Τα ίδια. Όσο πιο σκληρό γινόταν το μνημόνιο, τόσο μας υπόσχονταν βελτιώσεις που ποτέ δεν είδαμε και είναι αδύνατον να δούμε.
Τι ζητάνε ο Τσίπρας και οι Πολιτικοί Αρχηγοί του ΝΑΙ; Να εξαρτηθεί ακόμη περισσότερο η Ελλάδα από τους δανειστές για τις άμεσες χρηματοδοτικές ανάγκες της χώρας. Φορτώνοντας το λαό και την πατρίδα με μεγαλύτερη χρέη των τραπεζών, που εύκολα ύστερα μετακυλίονται στα γνωστά υποζύγια. Με αντάλλαγμα τις γνωστές πολιτικές άγριας λιτότητας και διάλυσης που πάντα εμφανίζονταν ως αναγκαίες μεταρρυθμίσεις, ως ανατπυξιακός μονόδρομος.
Όσο για το χρέος, ο Τσίπρας και οι Πολιτικοί Αρχηγοί του ΝΑΙ αρκούνται στο εξής: “Δέσμευση για την έναρξη ουσιαστικής συζήτησης ως προς την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος της βιωσιμότητας του ελληνικού δημόσιου χρέους.” Ούτε διαγραφή, ούτε απομείωση, ούτε τίποτε. Αρκεί η “έναρξη ουσιαστικής συζήτησης”. Πιάσε το αυγό και κούρευτο.
Τα πράγματα είναι καθαρά για όποιον δεν ξεπουλάει την αξιοπρέπεια και την ψήφο του. Ο Τσίπρας και οι δικοί του πρότειναν ένα δημοψήφισμα για να ψηφίσει ο λαός ΝΑΙ. Έκαναν τα πάντα για να περάσει ο εκβιασμός. Έκλεισαν τις τράπεζες, ενώ θα μπορούσαν να τις κρατήσουν ανοιχτές, έστησαν τους συνταξιούχους στις ουρές για 120 ευρώ έναντι, επέτρεψαν μια οργιώδη προπαγάνδα τρομοκράτησης του λαού από τα ΜΜΕ, επέτρεψαν το χτύπημα του ιδιωτικού τομέα της οικονομίας.
Ο μόνος λόγος που ο Τσίπρας πήρε θέση υπέρ του ΟΧΙ, είναι για να του δοθεί η δυνατότητα της ηρωικής εξόδου από την κυβέρνηση. Κι όμως ο λαός, προς μεγάλη έκπληξη του Τσίπρα, ψήφισε ΟΧΙ. Αυτό το ΟΧΙ δεν μπορούσε ο Τσίπρας και οι δικοί του. Και τι έκαναν; Συμπεριφέρονται λες και ο λαός ψήφισε ΝΑΙ.
“Τρελοί είμαστε να θέλουμε τη ρήξη,” δήλωσε ο επικεφαλής της αριστερής πλατφόρμας Π. Λαφαζάνης χθες στον Ευαγγελάτο. Τα παιδεία παίζει. Νομίζουν ότι μπορούν να παίζουν με την ψήφο και τις διαθέσεις του ελληνικού λαού.
Δεν έχουν αντιληφθεί ότι αυτοί είναι που θα την πληρώσουν για όλους και για όλα. Δεν έχουν αντιληφθεί ότι η χειρότερη μοίρα προορίζεται πάντα για τους σαλτιμπάγκους της πολιτικής, που νομίζουν ότι μπορούν να πουλάνε ατιμώρητα φρούδες ελπίδες στον λαό. Έρχονται κρεμάλες στο Σύνταγμα και να δούμε ποιός θα είναι ο πρώτος που θα γευθεί αυτό που στην ιστορία ονομάζεται “νόμος της κοινωνικής ανταπόδωσης”.
Ο κ. Τσίπρας και η κυβέρνησή του πρόκειται να διαπράξει ένα ακόμη τραγικό σφάλμα. Εναποθέτει το άνοιγμα των τραπεζών στη συνδρομή ELA της ΕΚΤ. Εγκληματική επιλογή. Η παροχή έκτακτης ρευστότητας δεν είναι δωρεάν χρήμα από τον Ντράγκι, αλλά επαχθής δανεισμός. Όσο περισσότερο δανείζονται οι συστημικές τράπεζες από το ευρωσύστημα, τόσο αυξάνει το χρέος τους προς αυτό, τόσο πιο επιτακτική γίνεται η νέα ανακεφαλαιοποίησή τους για να μην καταρρεύσουν.
Ήδη οι τράπεζες έχουν χρέος προς το ευρωσύστημα που υπερβαίνει τα 120 δις ευρώ. Η ΕΚΤ ήδη έχει θέσει σε κίνηση τον μηχανισμό bail in, ο οποίος περιλαμβάνει κούρεμα καταθέσεων (χαμηλότερα των 100 χιλιάδων), κούρεμα συμμετοχών και τραπεζικών ομολόγων. Αυτός είναι κι ο λόγος που οι τράπεζες κυριολεκτικά οργίασαν το τελευταίο εξάμηνο να εκδίδουν δικά τους ομόλογα (αξίας άνω των 54 δις ευρώ) με εγγύηση της κυβέρνησης.
Οι τράπεζες λοιπόν πρέπει να ανοίξουν άμεσα με ίδια μέσα. Χωρίς προσφυγή στην ΕΚΤ. Κι αυτό μπορεί να γίνει μόνο αν παρθούν τα εξής μέτρα:
- Επιβολή έκτακτης φορολογίας άνω του 40% για κάθε ευρώ που τοποθετείται στο εξωτερικό με αναδρομική ισχύ εξαμήνου. Μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο θα αναχαιτιστεί η διαρροή καταθέσεων και χρήματος στο εξωτερικό, που στο εξάμηνο έχει υπερβεί τα 38 δις ευρώ.
- Εγκατάσταση ειδικών εκκαθαριστών στις συστημικές τράπεζες συνοδεία εισαγγελέων για να αναλάβουν την εκκαθάριση ενεργητικών και παθητικών. Η εκκαθάριση θα είχε σαν στόχο να ομαλοποιήσει την κατάσταση και να αποκαταστήσει την εμπιστοσύνη στο τραπεζικό σύστημα. Ταυτόχρονα θα αποκαλύψει τυχόν ατασθαλίες, θαλασσοδάνεια, ξέπλυμα χρήματος, κοκ., προκειμένου να λογοδοτήσουν όσοι ενέχονται σ’ αυτά.
- Υπό την ευθύνη των εκκαθαριστών θα πρέπει να ανοίξουν τα ταμεία συναλλαγής με το κοινό και να αξιοποιηθούν τα διαθέσιμα περιουσιακά στοιχεία των τραπεζών για να πληρωθεί το σύνολο των συντάξεων και να διευκολυνθεί άμεσα ο ιδιωτικός τομέας. Οι τράπεζες διαθέτουν χαρτοφυλάκιο επενδύσεων αξίας 52 δις ευρώ κυρίως σε κρατικά ομόλογα Βρετανίας και Λουξεμβούργου. Το χαρτοφυλάκιο αυτό δεν είναι υπό τον έλεγχο της ΕΚΤ και πρέπει να χρησιμοποιηθεί υπέρ της ελληνικής οικονομίας και κοινωνίας.
Η κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα έχει τεράστια ευθύνη, αν η χώρα οδηγηθεί σε bail in. Δεν μπορεί η διάσωση των τραπεζών και των τραπεζιτών να είναι προτεραιότητα για την κυβέρνηση, επειδή έτσι διατάζουν οι δανειστές. Προτεραιότητα έχει η προστασία του εισοδήματος των εργαζομένων, των συνταξιούχων και των μικρομεσαίων. Όπως και η λύτρωση επιτέλους από το υφιστάμενο σαράφικο, τοκογλυφικό και εντελώς αυθαίρετο τραπεζικό σύστημα.
Στο χθεσινό δημοψήφισμα 61,3% ψήφισε ΟΧΙ και 38,7% ψήφισε ΝΑΙ. Σάρωσε το ΟΧΙ παρά κι ενάντια σε Θεούς και δαίμονες. Ωραία. Αν ακούσει όμως κανείς τα πορνοκάναλα και τους δημοσιοκάφρους, που όλο το προηγούμενο διάστημα οργίασαν εναντίον του ΟΧΙ, τώρα μας λένε ότι δεν τρέχει τίποτε. Είτε ΝΑΙ ψήφισε ο ελληνικός λαός, είτε ΟΧΙ, είναι το ίδιο και το αυτό. Ψήφισε υπέρ της Ευρώπης.
Μάλιστα ο κ. Τσίπρας ανακάλυψε κάτι καταπληκτικό: “Ο Ελληνικός λαός σήμερα έδωσε απάντηση στο ερώτημα: Ποια Ευρώπη θέλουμε. Και απάντησε γενναία: θέλουμε την Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης και της δημοκρατίας.” Που ήταν αυτό το ερώτημα; Σε ποιό δημοψήφισμα; Πότε τέθηκε έτσι το δίλημμα; Και τέλος πάντων που βρίσκεται αυτή η Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης και της δημοκρατίας; Πάντως όχι στην ευρωζώνη και την ΕΕ, που ο ίδιος ο Τσίπρας έχει καταγγείλει για εκβιασμούς, τελεσίγραφα, κατάλυση της δημοκρατικής έκφρασης του λαού, κοκ.
Ο κ. Τσίπρας ζει στη Νεφελοκοκκυγία. Όχι του Αριστοφάνη, αλλά της Ευρώπης του Καρλομάγνου. Έτσι εξηγείται και το γεγονός ότι μέχρι προσφάτως είχε ως υπουργό οικονομικών έναν Τσαλαπετεινό. Την ίδια ώρα που ετοιμάζεται κάποιος Μπούφος για να τον αντικαταστήσει.
Κι ενώ ο κ. Τσίπρας ανακάλυψε ένα ανύπαρκτο ερώτημα στο δημοψήφισμα, βρήκε επίσης ότι η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία έκανε, “μια πολύ γενναία επιλογή. Ωστόσο, έχω πλήρη συνείδηση ότι η εντολή που μου δίνετε δεν είναι εντολή ρήξης με την Ευρώπη αλλά εντολή ενίσχυσης της διαπραγματευτικής μας δύναμης για την επίτευξη βιώσιμης συμφωνίας. Με όρους κοινωνικής δικαιοσύνης, με όρους προοπτικής και απεγκλωβισμού από τον φαύλο κύκλο της λιτότητας.” Τρία πουλάκια κάθονται…
Μάλιστα. Δεν ήταν εντολή ρήξης, αλλά εντολή διαπραγμάτευσης. Και μάλιστα με όρους ανέφικτους μέσα στο ευρώ. Εκτός κι αν φαντασιώνεται ο κ. Τσίπρας ότι μπορεί να υπάρξει ευρώ και ευρωζώνη χωρίς λιτότητα, ανισότητες και βίαιες κοινωνικές αδικίες. Ίσως. Στη Νεφελοκοκκυγία όπου κατοικοεδρεύει, τα πάντα είναι πιθανά.
Επίσης κατά τον κ. Τσίπρα το δημοψήφισμα “δεν απάντησε στο ερώτημα μέσα ή έξω από το ευρώ. Αυτό το ερώτημα πρέπει να φύγει οριστικά από τη συζήτηση. Δεν μπορεί η Ευρώπη να είναι ο μονόδρομος των μνημονίων της λιτότητας.” Αφήστε με να το καταλάβω. Δεν έχω δα και την ευφυία των κομματικών κούκων της Νεφελοκοκκυγίας του Τσίπρα.
Είναι αλήθεια ότι το δημοψήφισμα αυτό δεν απάντησε στο ερώτημα μέσα ή έξω από το ευρώ. Όμως το έθεσε ξεκάθαρα στην ημερήσια διάταξη. Το όργιο τρομοκρατίας που ασκήθηκε εναντίον του ΟΧΙ, θέτοντας ξεκάθαρα ότι ΝΑΙ σημαίνει παραμονή στο ευρώ, ενώ το ΟΧΙ ισοδυναμεί με έξοδο, επιβάλλει τουλάχιστον τον ανοιχτό πολιτικό διάλογο για το ζήτημα.
Με ποιό δικαίωμα ο κ. Τσίπρας θέλει το ερώτημα αυτό “να φύγει οριστικά από τη συζήτηση”; Ποιόν εξυπηρετεί κάτι τέτοιο; Πάντως όχι τον ελληνικό λαό. Διότι η λογική αυτή οδηγεί στο ευρώ πάση θυσία. Πάση θυσία του λαού. Πότε ο ελληνικός λαός έδωσε τέτοια εντολή; Μα στο δημοψήφισμα είπε ξεκάθαρα – για όποιον θέλει να τον ακούσει – ότι όχι ευρώ πάσει θυσία, καμιά σε βάρος του λαού συμφωνία, ακόμη κι αν χρειαστεί να αποχωρήσει η Ελλάδα από το ευρώ. Αυτό είναι το ηχηρό μήνυμα του ΟΧΙ.
Ποτέ άλλοτε ο ελληνικός λαός δεν ήταν τόσο έτοιμος όχι μόνο να συζητήσει, αλλά και να πειστεί για την αναγκαιότητα να φύγουμε από το ευρώ και την ΕΕ προκειμένου να αποφασίζουμε εμείς οι ίδιοι για το τι θα γίνει στον τόπο μας. Τη διάθεσή του αυτή την απέδειξε η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία του λαού, όταν δεν λύγισε μπροστά στο όργιο τρομοκρατίας που του έλεγε ότι έτσι και ψηφίσεις ΟΧΙ σημαίνει ότι θα η Ελλάδα θα φύγει από το ευρώ. Κι αν συμβεί αυτό θα πέσει ο ουρανός να μας πλακώσει.
Ο μόνος που φαίνεται να το πιστεύει αυτό στην πλευρά του ΟΧΙ, είναι ο Τσίπρας και η παρέα του. Σου λέει ο άνθρωπος, άμα πέσει ο ουρανός, τι θα απογίνει η Νεφελοκοκκυγία μου; Γι’ αυτό και οι δηλώσεις του για το αποτέλεσμα ήταν σαν να νίκησε το ΝΑΙ. Αλήθεια τι διαφορετικό θα δήλωνε αν υπερίσχυε το ΝΑΙ; Τίποτε. Εκτός ίσως από την παραίτηση της κυβέρνησής του για να αναλάβει άλλος.
Ο κ. Τσίπρας επέλεξε στρατόπεδο μετά το ηχηρό ΟΧΙ. Κι αυτό είναι το στρατόπεδο του ΝΑΙ. Να γιατί ζήτησε τη σύγκλιση του συμβουλίου αρχηγών από τον Πρ. Παυλόπουλο. Όχι για να θέσει ζήτημα κατάλυσης του πολιτεύματος από την οργανωμένη εκστρατεία ΜΜΕ, κομμάτων και κέντρων εξουσίας εντός κι εκτός Ελλάδας. Όχι βέβαια. Αλλά για να βρεθούν όλοι μαζί οι αρχηγοί ώστε να διατρανώσουν με ουρανομήκεις ιαχές ότι δεν μπορούμε να διανοηθούμε την Ελλάδα εκτός Ευρώπης και ευρωζώνης, όπως δήλωσε ο κ. Παυλόπουλος στον κ. Τσίπρα σήμερα.
Το υπερήφανο ΟΧΙ του ελληνικού λαού μπορεί να τρομάζει ντόπιους και ξένους λύκους, αλλά το ίδιο τρόμαξε και τον κ. Τσίπρα. Το επόμενο δίμηνο θα είναι ιδιαίτερα σκληρό για τον ελληνικό λαό με μια κυβέρνηση που άγεται και φέρεται από τους δανειστές. Το πλήγμα που έχει δεχθεί η ελληνική οικονομία από τα τελεσίγραφα των δανειστών και τον ενδοτισμό της κυβέρνησης, είναι ανεπανόρθωτο εντός ευρώ.
Η στάση των δανειστών θα σκληρύνει και οι εκβιασμοί θα ενταθούν με μια κυβέρνηση ανίκανη κι ανήμπορη να προστατεύσει τη χώρα και τον λαό της. Ετοιμάστείτε για ένα ρόλερ κόστερ τρόμου, υπό την αιγίδα της κυβέρνησης Τσίπρα. Μέχρις ότου τουλάχιστον η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία του ελληνικού λαού αποφασίσει να μετατρέψει το ΟΧΙ σε αποφασιστική δράση που θα μας απαλλάξει μια και καλή από τα δεσμά της υποδούλωσης στο νέο Ευρωπαϊκό Ράιχ.
Européernas “experter” och “allvetare” får spekulera, gnida sina grå och förstå, eller inte förstå, bäst fan de vill. Så länge de inte vågar fråga våra verkliga röster, är de alldeles för arroganta för att ens anses förnuftiga.
I frågor kring skuld, nationell valuta och demokrati har ekonomen och motståndsrörelsen EPAM’s generalsekreterare herr Dimitris Kazakis (till vänster) klargjort och förklarat varje detalj med fakta och referenser som ingen annan och detsamma har konstitutionsprofessorn George Kasimatis (mitten) och f.d ambassadören Leonidas Chrysanthipoulos (till höger) gjort. För att nämna tre bland en handfull andra oerhört kunniga, erfarna och hos folket betrodda personligheter. Dessa människor anser det samlade ”hundspannet” som kallar sig journalister i de stora kanalerna och de stora tidningarna, alltså de enögda propagandatränade ”experterna”, inte vara värda att bjuda in och höra deras argument kring EU och skulden. Varför?
Ni som läser mig då och då och vill ge mig förslag på lösningar på Greklands problem, gör inte det utan att först ha satt er ordentligt in i EPAM’s förslag, lösningar och de tydliga och de pricksäkra analyserna av den verkliga grundproblematiken. Om ni inte gör det, skall ni åtminstone erkänna att ni inte känner till tillräckligt och i synnerhet inte det som krävs, för att kunna ge adekvata råd eller förslag till oss greker som dagligen, de senaste fem åren satt oss in i just denna fråga och med tillbörligt allvar. För oss är inte detta enbart ännu en brännhet, internationell fråga, utan vår livskamp. Visa tillbörlig respekt för detta.
Jag vet alltför väl att ingen av EU-papegojorna VÅGAR exponera dessa mäns analyser och förslag på lösningar, för dessa förslag är alldeles för logiska, enkla och kan snabbt bli populära bland de europeiska folken. De lösningarna går inte ut på att rädda parasitbankerna genom en totalitär ny-kolonial superstat, utan att “riva ner” både dem och den totalitära superstaten,.. och tillsammans med de andra självständiga europeiska folken bygga ett Europa med fria, självständiga och jämställda national-stater där solidariteten och rättvisan och demokratin fungerar, och på folkens och den breda massans villkor, inte på de dysfunktionella investmentbankernas villkor. Och den politiska tjänar-elitens och affärselitens villkor. Detta kan ske mycket enkelt genom vissa politiska, vissa rättsliga och vissa ekonomiska och finansiella, nödvändiga åtgärder. Helt i enlighet med internationell lagstiftning och med största säkerhet, generalförsamlingens överväldigande stöd i FN, om bara en grekisk premärminister lägger fram saken i generalförsamlingen.
Därför ser man ingen av dem i någon kanal i Europa, fast de borde vara i varje kanal och varje dag, nu när detta EU allt snabbare driver iväg in i nazismens och fascismens farvatten.
Vem eller vilka av de Europeiska kanalerna har någonsin bjudit in Herr Kazakis? Han är ju först och främst nonchalerad i de grekiska kanalerna, förutom i några av de oberoende lokalkanalerna. Vem av de utländska nyhetskanalerna har brytt sig om vad den mannen och de andra ur EPAM säger de senaste fem åren? Denna mediala utfrysning sker nu i fem år, trots att Kazakis demokratiska motståndsrörelse har 110 lokalkontor över hela Grekland och tiotusentals aktiva medlemmar. Han, EPAM, herr Kasimatis och herr Chrysanthopoulos nonchaleras i yttrandefrihetens namn naturligtvis. Om den friheten försäkrades vi ju av “the Hall of Shame-cirkusen”, de hycklande världsledarna, som helt skilda från folkmassorna och i skydd av polis marcherade i Paris för yttrandefriheten.
Trots att EPAM anordnat både nationella och internationella konferenser om skulden, nationell valuta och demokratin så är de inga man behöver intrvjua eller fråga anser “de som vet vad Grekland behöver”. Kazakis sänder ett radioprogram dagligen som tusentals följer och han far varje vecka runt i Grekland och talar till folket på deras hemmaplan och det har han gjort under snart 4 år. Dessutom så ”lånar” faktiskt de regeringar som vill föreställa att de tänker på folkets bästa, Kazakis meningar och EPAM’s förslag, fast den urvattnade light-versionen förstås. Alltså de stympade, kraftlösa och halvfärdiga åtgärderna i förhållande till de mycket detaljerade, omfattande och ytterst demokratiska original-förslagen från EPAM.
Trots denna nonchalans och ovetskap, så kommer nu alltså återigen alla möjliga förslag till mig och andra aktiva greker och alla har lösningarna eller åtminstone så har man tänkt på något som inte vi kan ha tänkt på, menar man. I alla dessa förslagen, hur olika de än kan vara, är det alltid underförstått att man inte ens ifrågasätter om grekerna verkligen måste vara i beroendeställning till stormakterna. Och det är just detta som äcklar oss fria, kämpande greker. Kan ni ana hur jävla trötta vi är på alla skygglappsförsedda yr-pannor som på grund av ett, eller några sketna diplom på väggen uppenbarligen tror alldeles för mycket om sig själva. Främst för att det är tydligt att man inte är intresserad av de seriösa rösterna i Grekland i denna debatt, utan bara av vissa, nämligen dem som uttrycker sig i enlighet med finans och politiska elitens intressen.
Jag och många greker med mig kan därför inte alls ta de uppenbara översittar-råden på allvar, då de bygger på era journalisters och TV-“experters” kontinuerliga underskattning av oss. Ni gör det stora misstaget att jämföra “slapptaskarna” och deras “hov” som styrt Grekland och utgjort landets finansiella och politiska elit, med det övriga folket. Det grova misstaget gjorde hela den europeiska politiska, finansiella och journalistiska etablissemanget också åren och månaderna innan den 28 Oktober 1940.
Jag har hört era ”experter”, på tre olika språk och jag har hör de inhemska seriösa rösterna, så innan jag ser att ni också har hört alla sidor och ingående, så undanber jag mig helt enkelt råd, vilka varken jag eller de övriga fria och kämpande grekerna bett om. Vi vet vad vårt land och vårt folk behöver, ni gissar och tolkar utifrån bristfälliga kunskaper och propaganda om problemets grundorsaker. Återkom med de goda förslagen när ni behagar sätta er in i frågan som sig bör och när ni kan ta våra kunskaper, insikter och strävan på allvar.
Vad ni kan göra däremot, om ni vill göra något av verkligt värde är att fråga er media och era “journalister”, varför de inte intervjuar och frågar Dimitris Kazakis, George Kasimatis och Leonidas Chrysanthopulos om dessa frågor, och fråga er själva varför får ingen av er höra deras förslag och sedan själva avgöra? Fråga er samtidigt, hur rätt måste denna man ha och hur rätt har alla hans farhågor visat sig vara, om hela det Europeiska “hundspannet” i princip bannlyst honom från både grekisk och Europeisk media?
Detta millenium’s “gamla greker”, dem som alla era barnbarn och barnbarnsbarn kommer att lära sig om i skolan, kläcks och skapas i dagens Athen och i dagens Grekland, vare sig ni vill förstå detta eller ej.
Konstigt att de utbildade och välartikulerade journalisterna har sådana svårigheter att tolka ett ord på endast tre bokstäver. De tiotusentals banderollerna och affischerna över hela Grekland samt de ca 4 miljoner grekers slagord på gatorna och torgen de senaste dagarna var inte tydliga nog, menar alltså både nyhetspapegojorna och den egna regeringen.
Paniken bland nyhetsuppläsarna, kommentatorer och diverse “experter” i de grekiska TV-kanalerna, var fullständig igår kväll. Så mycket dravel och hårresande teorier om hur man skall tolka detta NEJ. De flesta av dem lyckades få det till att NEJ betydde nej till en brytning med EU. Och sedan påstår de svenska sexlagsstiftarna att ett NEJ alltid är ett NEJ. Vad gäller för våldtäkten av Grekland?
Tolkningarna, över hela registret, var förstås att NEJ egentligen betyder JA och att ingen i Grekland egentligen vill lämna Euron och EU. Trots att det över hela landet har talats om ett NEJ till ockupationen, som vi alla ser Eurogruppens och i synnerhet Tyska regeringens roll i Grekland. Dessa dumburk-papegojor måste vidga vyerna lite och sluta dricka sitt kaffe endast på de välpolerade innekaféerna, där både personal och gäster poserar med de löjligt överblekta käftarna och de löjligt onaturliga Kalifornia-leendena.
Sedan kom den verkliga “avtändningen”. Tsipras’ eget ”segertal”, där han försäkrade att han inte tolkar grekernas röst som om han fått uppdraget att bryta med Europa, utan att förhandla om bättre villkor för “samarbetet”. För det första så kallas aldrig ett strypkoppel för “samarbete”, och för det andra så vill vi att han slänger av sig strypkopplet och börjar på allvar lägga fram folkets åsikt och inställning kring skuldens legitimitet och avtalens legitimitet och det med stöd i internationell rätt och t.o.m. med rådet ifrån FN’s egen folkrättsrådgivare att vägra betala långivarna och förkunna skulden och lånevatalet ogiltligt. Låt internationella domstolar syssla med frågan och under tiden betalar inte Grekland en endaste euro på den oerkända skulden.
Vill man, med sådan “vind i seglen” – som NEJ-rösten innebär – och med de främsta internationella rättsliga organens råd om att vägra betala, fortfarande inte tolka ett NEJ som ett “NEJ till det diktrande och beordrande sortens EU”, har man andra lojaliteter än vad man visar. Så hans egen tolkning blev alltså NJA. Läste han inte banderollerna och hörde han inte slagorden eller har han inte sett graffittin över hela Athen som säger “NEIN” och “RAUS”? Har inte hans partimedlemmar förmedlat folkets aja-baja för vidare förhandlingar om den olagliga skulden och dess omänskliga strypkoppel som kallas avtal?
Detta kan tvinga Tsipras till nyval och till en bredare koalitionsregering eller en helt ny teknokrat-regering typ Papademos-regeringen. I värsta fall, en militärdiktatur för att lägga grekerna i “gips-vagga” igen, som psykopat-översten, diktatorn, och CIA-agenten Papadopoulos 1967 uttryckte det. Skall bli mycket intressant att se hur den breda majoriteten inom Syriza kommer att reagera på Tsipras minst sagt förädiska NEJ-tolkning. Det är tveksamt om han klarar månaden ut för att inte säga veckan ut, då han återigen dyker upp i politiska “kortbyxor” på förhandlingarna för att framföra det grekiska folkets ställning till Bryssel- och Berlin-kommendanterna.
Jag hoppas att de tankat helikoptrarna!
Ο ναζισμός και ο φασισμός γεννήθηκε σε μια Ευρώπη όπου οι πιο ισχυροί τραπεζίτες και χρηματιστές ήθελαν να καθυποτάξουν λαούς και χώρες υπό καθεστώς μόνιμης ελεγχόμενης χρεοκοπίας. Το 1929 έριξαν την ευρωπαϊκή οικονομία στα βράχια γιατί απαιτούσαν να πληρωθούν χρέη που ήταν αδύνατο να πληρωθούν παρά μόνο με το αίμα των λαών. Τα κράτη το ένα μετά το άλλο χρεοκοπούσαν. Οι τεράστιες χρεωστικές απαιτήσεις των μεγάλων κερδοσκόπων κινδύνευαν.
Ο φασισμός κι ο ναζισμός, όπως έγραφε ο Φραντζ Νόιμαν, είναι γέννημα θρέμα του χρηματιστικού κεφαλαίου, όπως ονομάζονται οι μεγάλοι χρηματιστές, επενδυτές χρήματος και τραπεζίτες. Κι όταν αυτό κινδύνευσε να χάσει τα δάνεια με τα οποία είχε αλυσοδέσει λαούς και χώρες, τότε ανέλαβε η “πολεμική οργάνωσις” του, όπως χαρακτήριζε το φασιστικό πολίτευμα ο Αλέξανδρος Σβώλος, να οικοδομήσει με τα όπλα μια Ενωμένη Ευρώπη. Την Ευρώπη των μεγάλων χρηματιστών και τραπεζιτών.
Το 1933 αναριχάται στην εξουσία ο ναζισμός και μετά από ένα όργιο χρηματοδότησης από το χρηματιστικό κεφάλαιο αναλαμβάνει να επιβάλλει την νέα Τάξη Πραγμάτων στην Ευρώπη, όπου οι ισχυροί δεν θα νοιάζονταν πια για την αντίσταση των λαών, είτε για το αν χρεοκοπεί ένα κράτος, ή όχι. Οι λαοί θα έχουν υποδουλωθεί για πάντα. Τα κράτη τους θα έχουν εξαλειφθεί οριστικά και η Ενωμένη Ευρώπη υπό το σκήπτρο τους θα είναι γεγονός. Τα κεφάλαια των μεγάλων χρηματιστών και κυρίως οι χρεωστικές απαιτήσεις τους θα είναι καθεστώς, υπέρτατος νόμος, υπεράνω της ζωή των λαών.
Την Ενωμένη Ευρώπη του ναζισμού, οι λαοί της Ευρώπης χρειάστηκε να την πολεμήσουν με τα όπλα και με εκατόμβες εκατομμυρίων νεκρών. Την συνέτριψαν διεκδικώντας εθνική ανεξαρτησία και ελευθερία. Η μικρή μας χώρα κι ο λαός της, υπό καθεστώς φασιστικής τυρανίας και η ίδια, το φερε η ιστορία και ήταν από τις πρώτες που θα έπρεπε να απαντήσει αν θα ενσωματωνόταν οικειοθελώς στην Ενωμένη Ευρώπη του φασισμού, ή όχι.
Αυτό το νόημα είχε το τελεσίγραφο Γκράτσι τις πρώτες πρωινές ώρες της 28ης Οκτωβρίου 1940. Ο δικτάτορας πρωθυπουργός Μεταξάς, παρά το γεγονός ότι ήταν ομοιδεάτης, αναγκάστηκε να πει ένα δειλό ΟΧΙ. Ήταν ο μόνος Έλληνας που είπε ΟΧΙ, ενώ θα μπορούσε να είχε πει ΝΑΙ, όπως είπε χαρακτηριστικά ο Γ. Καφαντάρης στη δίκη της Ελευθερίας το 1946. Ο Μεταξάς και το καθεστώς του υπολόγιζε στην ταχύτατη συντριβή του μετώπου στην πρώτη εβδομάδα των μαχών.
Όμως ο ελληνικός λαός μετέτρεψε αυτό το ΟΧΙ σε νικητήρια πολεμική ιαχή, σε έπος, στην πρώτη καθοριστική νίκη εναντίον του άξονα των δυνάμεων της Ενωμένης Ευρώπης. Ένας έπος που έδωσε τη δυνατότητα μιας νέας εθνικής, πατριωτικής και λαικής ενότητας κατά την κατοχή.
Το ίδιο συμβαίνει και σήμερα. Η Ενωμένη Ευρώπη του χρηματιστικού κεφαλαίου έκανε το λάθος να δώσει τελεσίγραφο στον ελληνικό λαό. Κι ένας άλλος πρωθυπουργός, ο Τσίπρας, δήλωσε το ίδιο δειλό ΟΧΙ, το ίδιο μ’ εκείνο που ξεστόμισε ο Μεταξάς το 1940. Με την ίδια λογική και τις ίδιες προσδοκίες.
Όμως ο ελληνικός λαός ξέρει να λέει το δικό του ΟΧΙ. Και το δικό του ΟΧΙ μοιάζει εκπληκτικά μ’ εκείνο που είπε εναντίον του φασίστα Ευρωπαίου εισβολέα στα βουνά της Ηπείρου και της Αλβανίας. Κανένας δεν μπορεί να το χειραγωγήσει, ούτε να το οδηγήσει στην ήττα. Το δικό μας ΟΧΙ είναι η πρώτη ήττα της σύγχρονης φασιστικής Ευρώπης, του νέου άξονα που θέλει να καθυποτάξει λαούς και να διαλύσει χώρες.
Ψηφίζουμε λοιπόν ΟΧΙ, όχι για τον Τσίπρα. Όπως και το ΟΧΙ που είπαν οι Έλληνες στα πεδία των μαχών το 1940, δεν ήταν το όχι του Μεταξά. Είναι κάτι πολύ περισσότερο. Είναι η ίδια πολεμική ιαχή όπως και τότε για την ελευθερία της πατρίδας. Για να μην επιτρέψουμε την αναβίωση της ναζιστικής Ευρώπης, του Ευρωπαϊκού Ράιχ.
Svenska journalister, sluta vifta med era “blodiga pekfingrar” emot offren utan att skämmas och sluta försvara gärningsmännen
Varje torg i Grekland fylldes i fredags och igår med ett rungande NEJ som svar till all Brysseldikterad skrämselpropaganda
Den logik som genomsyrar hela Grekland idag bland folket är: “Titta noga på vilka jävla typer det är som förespråkar ett JA och rösta därför NEJ”. Den samlade grekiska rövareliten, deras politiska betjänter tillsammans med journalistspannet, prästerskapet och de inhyrda JA-supportrarna från Skopje, har nämligen gått man ur huset hela förra veckan för JA-sidan. Det hade nog varit mycket bättre för JA-sidan om dessa ökända rövare och banditer inte visat sig och yttrat sig offentligt i frågan.
Vem styr egentligen Grekland?
Svenska journalister som uttalar sig om Grekland, i de stora tidningarnas eller kanalernas räkning, vill inte tala om att Grekland idag och sedan ca tre år tillbaka faktiskt inte regeras av regeringen så som det ser ut, utan av Herr Declan Costello. Det är nämligen namnet på den icke folkvalda tjänstemannen i Bryssel som är den som ansvarar och beslutar om vilka politiska åtgärder och förändringar som alla regeringar inom EU måste genomdriva i sina länder. En vanlig tjänsteman som alltså inte har några som helst juridiska skyldigheter gentemot något lands regeringar eller folk, utan tvärtom har livslång åtalsfrihet för sina beslut och handlingar, beslutar om 600 miljoner Européers liv och framtid.
I Greklands fall och enligt de två första memorandum-paketen och med den här regeringens nuvarande permanenta memorandum-avtal, så regeras landet idag och sedan två år tillbaka genom ultimatum per e-mail eller sms från Bryssel och Berlin, som grekiska ministrar skriver under och sedan skickar tillbaka till Eurogruppen som egna förslag. Detta är de marknadsförda “hårda förhandlingarna” som median genom en välregisserad pjäs sålt in till er alla och även stora delar av det grekiska folket de senaste fem månaderna. Detta sker så att EU-median kan låtsas som om det faktiskt är flera parter med i detta spel. De enda två verkliga parterna är EU-oligarkerna och deras tjänar-regeringar med sin propaganda-apparat på ena sidan, och de Europeiska folken förutom dess finans, affärs och politiska elit på andra sidan. Flera av de frågor som flera svenska journalister menar att grekerna måste ta ställning till, borde därför rimligtvis först och främst riktas till de som för närvarande dikterar den grekiska regeringens förehavanden och underminerar och nonchalerar det grekiska folkets verkliga kamper.
Det är oerhört viktigt att förstå att ingen analys angående Greklands ekonomi och politiska förehavanden kan bli sanningsenlig eller ens något vidare begriplig, om man inte i densamma också nämner de minst sagt otillbörliga kraven, ingreppen och utpressningarna som utländska regeringar bedrivit emot landets ekonomi, affärsliv och politik under hela efterkrigstiden. En trovärdig analys måste alltså, klargöra vilka det de facto är som återkommande hindrat det grekiska folket från att göra upp med sin korrupta, skrupelfria, kriminella och kollaboratörsbenägna elit en gång för alla. Vad gör EU-median t.ex. de senaste fem åren och i synnerhet under de massiva protestaktionerna 2010 till 2013. Jo, den samlade EU-median underminerar och förvanskar medvetet folkets rop på rättvisa och demokrati. Slagorden på banderollerna och ur människornas munnar går inte att misstolka, såvida man inte prompt måste porträttera grekerna som lata och bedrägliga bråkstakar som inte vill betala för det de lånat.
Jag var där på Syntagma alla de tre åren och vet mycket, mycket väl vad den absoluta majoriteten av de över 4 miljoner greker som var ute på gator och torg över hela Grekland ville då och fortfarande vill. Vi ville och vill, det den absoluta majoriteten av oss alltid velat genom hela vår mångtusenåriga historia och som vi sedan “Sjöslaget vid Salamis” återkommande uttryckt också i praktiken. Inte minst genom befrielsekriget emot Ottomanerna och den moderna grekiska nationens födelse 1821. Vi vill ha “Demokratin verklig och Friheten mänsklig” som våra kämpar emot nazisterna skrev på väggarna i städerna under den dåvarande Tyska ockupationen.
Med näbbar och klor har stormakterna underhållit och skyddat den grekiska rövareliten
Till och med genom att skapa och göda inbördeskrig och diktaturer i landet har stormakterna ständigt förhindrat det grekiska folket från att skapa sin demokrati och sin egen form av samhälle efter sitt eget självbestämmande. Numera kommer förstås inte Européerna undan sitt ansvar längre, då också denna nyvakna generation av greker har börjat inse vad som pågått de senaste 70 åren, och vad det i verkligheten betytt för grekerna att vara medlemmar i ett oligarkiskt och imperialistiskt EU.
I slutet av andra världskriget, valde Churchill att avväpna frihetskämparna och stödja fascisterna, nazist-kollaboratörerna och bödlarna som utgjorde ca 10% i Grekland för att rensa ut EAM/ELAS, d.v.s den motståndsrörelse som ca 80% av den grekiska befolkningen anslutit sig till och stött i frihetskampen emot nazisterna. Inbördeskriget 1944 – 1949 var en direkt efterföljd av Churchills beslut. De som utan minsta tvekan skulle ha blivit en överväldigande majoritetsregering i Grekland efter kriget förföljdes, jagades och mördades av högerextrema militier, kriminella mördare och delar ur den grekiska engelsk-styrda armén på CIA’s uppdrag, långt efter att inbördeskriget tagit slut. De som alltså som kämpande nation och som ett helt folk bjudit på Europas starkaste och effektivaste motstånd, och som kört ut nazisterna ifrån Grekland utan någon avsevärd hjälp utifrån, fick p.g.a Churchill aldrig bilda regering.
Ett annat exempel på stormakters inblandning och stöd till de korrupta i Grekland är ett exempel från slutet av 60-talet, närmare bestämt den 21 april 1967, då CIA valde att planera, sanktionera och stödja en grym, fascistisk militärjunta, när folket försökte hitta vägar att göra upp med sina CIA-styrda, korrupta politiska ledare och affärsmän. Detsamma efter juntan och 17:e November-revolten 1973, då främst USA och England pekade ut vilken enda kandidat som var tänkbar som den nya demokratiskt valda premiärministern i Grekland. Detta, trots en handfull andra stora och betrodda politiska personligheter som folket främst hade i åtanke. Så fortsatte stormakterna hålla den grekiska finansiella och politiska korrumperade eliten kvar på plats, enda in i våra dagar.
De europeiska stormakterna och USA, har med hjälp av invasionskrig, inbördeskrig och grymma diktaturer hållit den korrupta eliten kvar i sina positioner i de länder man behagat. I Greklands fall så är det så illa att många av dem som var kända nazist-kollaboratörer under kriget blev rikligt belönade med antingen nyckelplatser i det politiska livet eller i den nya affärseliten i landet några decennier senare. Idag så ser vi – förutom några av dem själva (över 90 år idag), sönerna, döttrarna och barnbarnen till dem som gick bredvid nazist-befälen med huva på huvudet och pekade ut det grekiska folkets frihetskämpar för exekutionsplutonernas kommendanter – sitta i politiska nyckelpositioner och de utgör den finansiella och politiska eliten också idag. Omklappade och omkramade av dagens EU-politiker och EU-bankirer och med samma kollaboratörsinställning och förrädarattityd som deras fäder och förfäder.
Numera, efter de senaste tio årens cirkus är det tyvärr en tragikomisk fars att se vad grekerna går till val för och vad de sedan tvingas att utstå, och detta med Européernas goda minne och de senaste fem åren med medlemsländernas viftandes sina löjliga pekfingrar. Denna Europeiska pjäs är vad som utspelar sig på grekernas bekostnad under krisens 5 år.
De journalister som ännu yrar om att ”grekerna måste ta sitt ansvar”, borde först och främst och en gång för alla fatta att de måste beakta två specifika saker innan de från en av historiens mest avlägsna “stå-läktare” kräver mer ansvar av grekerna. DEN FÖRSTA ÄR ATT GREKERNA MER ÄN NÅGOT ANNAT EUROPEISKT FOLK VERKLIGEN HAR FÖRSÖKT ATT FÅ BORT DESSA KORRUPTA PARASITER FRÅN SITT SAMHÄLLE, OCH DET ANDRA ÄR ATT VARJE GÅNG DETTA INTE LYCKATS SÅ ÄR DET UTLÄNDSKA REGERINGAR OCH INTRESSEN SOM RÄDDAR DERAS SKIN OCH HÅLLER DEM KVAR OCH INTE GREKERNA SJÄLVA. Grekerna må de senaste två decennierna ha fallit offer för en hutlös propaganda och en psykologisk terror och de må ha lurats av både inhemska och utländska intressen att välja ledare kortsiktigt och utan något egentligt hopp om någon grundlig förändring, men ingen kan säga att det grekiska folket inte alltid gjort sin historiska plikt när det väl kallats. Oftast tyvärr med de påstådda “vännerna” och de påstått allierade som främsta motståndare.
Oavsett vad den precisa frågeställningen för folkomröstningen vore så vet jag och de flesta andra som följer detta på nära håll att det överväldigande NEJ som grekerna kommer att säga idag är till mycket hög grad ett “far åt skogen” till den här sortens Europa. Det är ett NEJ till varje vidare förödmjukelse från Schäuble, Merkel och deras EU och Eurogrupp, ett NEJ till vilken grekisk regering som helst som inte orkar axla folkets verkliga uppdrag. Det är ett NEJ till den olagliga skulden och de olagliga låneavtalen och om det alltså skulle behövas även till EU-medlemskapet. Det är ett NEJ till ett ny-nazismens och folkmordens Europa och ett stort och bestämt NEJ till Greklands kolonialisering. Grekerna kommer att be det nyliberala EU “fara o flyga” oavsett hur resultatet kommer att tolkas av regeringen som ju säkerligen kommer att försöka hitta vägar inom EU:s ramar för att bemöta långivarna. Folket som inte alls vill något sådant kommer att straffa den regering som inte fattar vad folkets NEJ i detta nu faktiskt betyder. Grekerna förstår nämligen numera att utan en nationell valuta och folkets kontroll över sin egen centralbank kommer aldrig folket att befrias från den olagliga skuldbördan och de europeiska asätarna.
Varenda grek utom parasiterna, alltså de som lärt sig att tjäna storkovan utan att jobba själva, känner innerst inne att de värderingar, den människosyn och den hycklande logik som detta Europa så lätt faller in i och så självklart praktiserar, har absolut ingenting alls med det grekiska folkets och den grekiska kulturens grundvärderingar och människosyn att göra. Den sortens Europa kan tyrannerna, tyrann-tjänarna och de som accepterar den sortens Europa behålla för sig själva. Grekland har ingen som helst anledning – ekonomisk, kulturell, andlig eller intellektuell – att tillhöra ett Europa som strävar efter värderingar och normer som vi för länge sedan både kasserat och fördömt i vår folksjäl och i vårt folkminne.
Det klassiska grekiska arvet utgör således inte det här Europas och den här västvärldens grundvalar hur mycket man än vill hävda detta. Man får titta på Roms värsta tyrann-perioder, på Karl den stores och Adolf Hitlers Europa för att hitta grundvalarna till Schäubles, Merkels, Dijsselbloems, Junckers, Schultz och Draghis Europa. Den sortens Europa representerar med andra ord allt det som faktiskt för ca 2500 år sedan föranledde den klassiska Athenska demokratins uppkomst. Förbered er på liknande omdaningar i vår tid de närmaste åren eftersom Spanien, Portugal, Italien och Frankrike kommer att följa Grekland tätt ut ur detta fjärde rike-EU.
Tror ni att någon av de seriösa av oss tar era journalisters löjliga pekfingrar på allvar, när vi så väl vet vart dessa fingrar rör i för grytor bakom kulisserna? Blodiga fingrar kan inte vifta åt ett folk som till sådan grad spillt sitt blod för att bekämpa dem ni så skrämda och kuvade tjänar. Journalister och politiker från folken vars historia är kantad av blodtörst, grymhet och folkmord kan inte “vifta med fingret” åt ett folk som genom hela historien gjort sig känt för att ha bekämpat just detta.
De allra flesta folken i Europa är bestämt på det grekiska folkets sida. Detta blev solklart under den vecka som passerat med alla de tusentals meddelanden som kom till Athen och det grekiska folket från hela Europa och hela världen. Några få bror-duktig-nationers folk står fast vid tyrannens linje och placerar sig själva därmed i historiens skamvrå.
När man väl förstått graden av de grova brott som ständigt begåtts emot Grekland och dess folk av de Europeiska stormakterna sedan nationens födelse, skall man också beakta följande faktum. Under bara de senaste 7 åren, så har Greklands skuld fördubblats i förhållande till vad den gjort under den moderna grekiska nationens hela 170-åriga historia. Även en jubelidiot bör kunna ana ugglor i mossen efter en sådan typ av ”hjälp” från EU till Grekland.
Såsar man trots detta vidare på ”grekerna-måste-ta-sitt-ansvar linjen” och snurrar in sig i endast vissa siffror men aldrig ens vill ta i andra siffror, så som i princip hela det svenska ”hundspannet” som kallas journalister gör, så lider man av ett kraftigt mjukvarufel i sin tankeförmåga. Eller åtminstone av ett förstoppat känsloliv och en kraftig och kronisk ryggradslöshet. Eller så är man helt enkelt en fascist som tycker att det visst går att kvitta en olaglig skuld, eller vilken offentlig skuld som helst med miljontals människoliv och ett helt lands existens. Man skiter då med andra ord fullständigt i vad folkrätten och de internationella konventionerna säger och vad all internationell lagstiftning som gäller säger kring långivarens och skuldinnehavarens ansvar, rättigheter och skyldigheter vid statliga lån.
Vår styrka som folk genom historien har nästan aldrig varit endast vältränade och välutbildade krigare, tapperhet eller klipska strategiska drag, utan det simpla faktumet att vi haft rätten på vår sida och det har gjort oss oövervinneliga emot de största monstren i historien och idag om något har vi den rätten på vår sida igen, och vi har återigen ett monster emot oss.
EU’s och Eurogruppens egentliga krigsförklaring emot oss gör ju bara dem svagare och oss starkare.
Φίλες και Φίλοι,
Την Κυριακή 5 Ιουλίου καλούμαστε όλοι να απαντήσουμε σ’ ένα απλό δίλημμα. Θέλουμε να συνεχίσουμε στον ίδιο δρόμο της απελπισίας, του αδιεξόδου, της καταράκωσης κάθε ανθρώπινης αξιοπρέπειας, ή Όχι;
Θέλουμε να συνεχίσουν να μας δημεύουν τις συντάξεις, τους μισθούς, να μας στερούν τη δουλειά και τα προς το ζείν για να πληρωθεί ένα χρέος, που απ’ όλους τους διεθνείς οργανισμούς έχει χαρακτηριστεί πλέον ως παράνομο, αθέμιτο και απεχθές; Ναί ή Όχι;
Πρέπει να αποφασίσουμε. Τι προέχει; Τα κέρδη των δανειστών, των τραπεζών και των αγορών; Ή η ζωή και η ελευθερία ενός ολόκληρου λαού;
Επί χρόνια οι κυβερνήσεις χρηματοδοτούσαν τη δική τους ρεμούλα και των ημετέρων τους με απανωτά δάνεια. Έτσι δημιούργησαν ένα ολόκληρο καθεστώς όπου η καρφίτσα για το δημόσιο στοιχίζει όσο ένα αεροπλανοφόρο.
Οι επενδυτές των αγορών δάνειζαν και ξαναδάνειζαν ικανοποιημένοι αυτό το σαθρό και απόλυτα διεφθαρμένο σύστημα διακυβέρνησης. Δεν νοιάστηκαν ούτε στιγμή για τον καλπασμό του χρέους, γιατί είχαν ως εγγύηση αφενός ένα εξαγορασμένο πολιτικό προσωπικό και αφετέρου τα διευθυντήρια του ευρώ.
Μόνο μέσα σε 7 χρόνια (στα χρόνια του ευρώ) το χρέος των προηγύμενων 170 χρόνων του ελληνικού κράτους υπερδιπλασιάστηκε.
Λογοδότησε κανείς για όλα αυτά; Κανένας. Κι έτσι η ρεμούλα που τροφοδοτούσε το χρέος, αλλά και τα δάνεια που τροφοδοτούσαν την ρεμούλα συνέχισαν με ξέφρενους ρυθμούς.
Κι όταν πλέον η πολιτική τάξη που κυβερνά τον τόπο δεν μπορούσε να βρει νέα δάνεια από τις αγορές, έριξε τη χώρα στα σκυλιά.
Έβαλε τον απλό λαό, τους εργαζόμενους να πληρώσουν με το μισθό, τη δουλειά και τη σύνταξη τα δικά της εγκλήματα. Γιατί όλοι μαζί τα φάγαμε, όπως μας είπαν ξεδιάντροπα.
Επιτρέψαμε σαν λαός να διαφεντεύει την πατρίδα μας ο υπόκοσμος της πολιτικής, της οικονομίας και των σαλονιών.
Αυτός ο υπόκοσμος μας ζητά σήμερα να ψηφίσουμε ΝΑΙ για να μην αλλάξει τίποτε.
Για να μην λογοδοτήσει για όσα έκανε και κάνει.
Για να συνεχίσουμε όλοι εμείς να πληρώνουμε τα δικά του χρέη.
Μας λένε ότι αν ψηφίσουμε ΝΑΙ είναι για την Ελλάδα. Ποιά Ελλάδα; Τη δική τους Ελλάδα.
Την Ελλάδα της ρεμούλας με κρατικό και τραπεζικό χρήμα.
Την Ελλάδα της αυθαιρεσίας, της ασυδοσίας, της διαφθοράς.
Την Ελλάδα της αρπαχτής, της αγυρτείας και της απάτης.
Την Ελλάδα του ρουσφετιού και της πελατειακής σχέσης.
Την Ελλάδα της ανύπαρκτης δικαιοσύνης για τον πολίτη.
Την Ελλάδα που έχει μετατρέψει την οικογένεια, ακόμη και τη θρησκεία σε ιδιοτελή επιχείρηση.
Την Ελλάδα της υποτέλειας και της εθελοδουλείας.
Την Ελλάδα της ψωροκώσταινας.
Μας λένε ότι η Ευρώπη είναι το κοινό μας σπίτι. Το ίδιο έλεγαν και οι εκπρόσωποι του Ράιχ με τον αγκυλωτό στο μανίκι. Την ίδια ώρα που έστελναν εκατομύρια στα κρεματόρια γιατί διεκδικούσαν το δικαίωμα στην αυτοδιάθεση.
Ποιός άλλος εκτός από τους οπαδούς του Ράιχ θα έθετε τη διάσωση των τραπεζών και των αγορών πάνω από τη ζωή και την ευημερία των λαών;
Μας λένε ότι έτσι και ψηφίσουμε ΟΧΙ θα εκθέσουμε τη χώρα σε εθνικούς κινδύνους. Και μας το λένε αυτοί που δημιούργησαν τα Ίμια, που αποδέχθηκαν τις γκρίζες ζώνες, που διέλυσαν κυριολεκτικά την εθνική άμυνα και χάρις στον ενδοτισμό τους οι εξωτερικές απειλές πληθαίνουν και αποθρασύνονται.
Δείτε ποιοί μας λένε να ψηφίσουμε ΝΑΙ.
Οι ίδιοι που πριν μερικά χρόνια είχαν οργιάσει για να εξαναγκάσουν τους Κυπρίους να ψηφίσουν ΝΑΙ στο σχέδιο Ανάν.
Τα ίδια που λένε σήμερα, έλεγαν και τότε. Οι Κύπριοι τους αγνόησαν και ψήφισαν ΟΧΙ. Για φανταστείτε να είχαν λυγίσει από τον εκφοβισμό; Για φανταστείτε να είχαν ψηφίσει ΝΑΙ.
Σήμερα η Κύπρος θα ήταν μια ανάμνηση.
Για να μην γίνουμε και μεις ανάμνηση.
Για να σταματήσουμε οριστικά τον οδοστρωτήρα των μνημονίων και των εκβιασμών.
Για να κερδίσουμε την πατρίδα μας.
Για να κερδίσουμε την ελευθερία και την εθνική μας αξιοπρέπεια, για μας και τα παιδιά μας.
Για να γίνουμε κυρίαρχος λαός κι όχι γιουσουφάκι ντόπιων και ξένων μανδαρίνων.
Για να ξεφορτωθούμε επιτέλους όλον αυτόν τον υπόκοσμο που μας οδήγησε στη χρεοκοπία και κάνει τα πάντα για να πληρώσουμε με τη ζωή μας, με τη ζωή των παιδιών μας, με τη ζωή της πατρίδας μας τα δικά του χρέη.
Οφείλουμε την Κυριακή να ψηφίσουμε ΟΧΙ. Τα πράγματα είναι εξαιρετικά απλά.Το ΝΑΙ σημαίνει τα ίδια και χειρότερα.
Το ΟΧΙ συνιστά την απαρχή μιας ριζικής στροφής, μακρυά από όλους κι όλα όσα μας οδήγησαν στο σημερινό αδιέξοδο.
Σκεφτείτε λοιπόν ποιός σας ζητά να ψηφίσετε ΝΑΙ και ψηφίστε με όλο σας το είναι ΟΧΙ για να αλλάξουν επιτέλους ριζικά τα πράγματα.
*Μύνημα του Δημήτρη Καζάκη ως Γ.Γ. του ΕΠΑΜ από την κρατική τηλεόραση (3/7) με αφορμή το δημοψήφισμα της Κυριακής.
Το ΔΝΤ έδωσε στη δημοσιότητα την Πέμπτη την έκθεσή του για την βιωσιμότητα του ελληνικού δημόσιου χρέους. Ο κ. Τσίπρας βγήκε δημόσια και την υιοθέτησε χωρίς δεύτερη σκέψη. Να τι είπε χθες σε μήνυμά του προς τον ελληνικό λαό:
“Χθες είχαμε ένα γεγονός βαρύνουσας πολιτικής σημασίας. Είδε το φως της δημοσιότητας η έκθεση του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου για την ελληνική οικονομία. Έκθεση που αποτελεί μια μεγάλη δικαίωση για την ελληνική κυβέρνηση, καθώς επιβεβαιώνει το αυτονόητο, ότι δηλαδή το ελληνικό χρέος δεν είναι βιώσιμο. Ο μόνος τρόπος, λένε οι ίδιοι, για να καταστεί βιώσιμο το χρέος και να ανοίξει ο δρόμος στην ανάκαμψη, είναι να κουρευτεί κατά 30% και να δοθεί 20ετής περίοδος χάριτος. Μόνο που αυτή η θέση δεν παρουσιάστηκε ποτέ απο τη πλευρά των δανειστών στην ελληνική κυβέρνηση στους πέντε μήνες της διαπραγμάτευσης, πέντε μήνες τώρα που διαπραγματευόμαστε. Έλειπε από την τελική πρόταση των θεσμών που την Κυριακή καλείται να εγκρίνει ή να απορρίψει ο ελληνικός λαός. Η έκθεση του ΔΝΤ δικαιών