Neoliberalism is a species of fascism
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates’ Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress, of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an exte
nt that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics. Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions. A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: “There is no alternative.” Everything else is utopianism, unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn’t prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition, Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals, ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records. In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at the gates of the political world.
The security ideal
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for the poor, who will be sacrificed to “the security ideal”.
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to “give up” (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium, its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
Published in the Belgian daily Le Soir, 3.3.2016
translated from French by Wayne Hall
Germans Have Right to Oppose Migration, Greece Threatened by NATO Takeover. One of the most intelligent and interesting Greek politicians talks on different topics and today`s main geopolitical issues.
17-21 March 2016 gianalytics.org
One year ago, while in Athens, Greece, I interviewed Mr. Dimitris Kazakis, leader of United Popular Front (EPAM), a popular Left movement that emerged from the anti-memorandum protests of 2011. Mr. Kazakis is an erudite speaker, a socialist economist, and one who knows both the terrain of the social struggle and the high-end banking sector in London where he worked for many years.
At the time, Mr. Kazakis was not very optimistic about Syriza – the Left party governing Greece, if to say the least. He warned that Prime Minister Tsipras has no intention of breaking with austerity and that he will take on a new contract that will enslave the country further. The interview was conducted in February 2015, but it took me months to publish it since I wanted to give Syriza a chance. Mr. Kazakis was right. It happened exactly as he said. One year later, on February 17, 2016, I met Mr. Kazakis at the offices of EPAM in Athens again. Things are much worse in Athens now.
Mr. Kazakis covered almost all issues under the sun. He talked about the migration crisis, why he supports a Brexit, Greece’s economic predicament, the world economy, NATO in the Aegean, Erdogan and Merkel, NGOs dubious roles, nationalism, why cosmopolitanism is dangerous, the Germans, perpetual war, Venezuela and Cuba. Below is the full interview.
You actually predicted what will happen at the time because at the time what you said was that these negotiations are a sham, they are going to sign on another contract and so on. At the time when I wanted to publish the article, many people were warning me not to publish it, not to bring down Syriza, and it turned out that it happened exactly as you said. So that’s why I published it later, but at least, I published it before basically what was a betrayal of a promise.
I can understand that because when I went to a conference in Nice, in November, they asked me to explain what happened to Greece, what happened to the Left party, or to the Left government of Syriza. And I told them what exactly happened from day one. Right after the elections of the 25th of January, back in 2015. Everyone was astonished. There were French, Spanish, Italians, Germans. Everybody. And of course, afterwards, everybody came to me and told me that we are very very sorry. We were totally wrong in our estimation about Syriza the Left government.
The problem is that by then it was too late…
Yeah, exactly. Too late for us, especially. And for Europe. Because the system invested in the Syriza government, to show everybody, every European person, that no one can do anything with the whole system, the system of the European regime, of the banks, of the Euro. And in that way, they were trying to disappoint the society. Especially Greece and, of course, all over Europe. No one could understand what happened here in Greece. How the anti-memorandum coalition of Syriza and Kammenos [the Independent Greeks –ANEL] can do such things as sign a third memorandum against the people and produce such a politically incorrect situation here in Greece.
This brings me to a related question which I think is relevant. In Britain, the UK, the place where you lived in the past and also worked, there will be a vote on Britain leaving the European Union. So, if I may ask, do you support Britain leaving the European Union?
Yeah, of course.
And does that mean you would also support UKIP and the Eurosceptical people?
As EPAM, we have relations with the umbrella of the movements against the European Union in Britain. And I was asked by British colleagues, fighters against the EU, to go there on a speech tour. I don’t know if I can do that because of the political situation here in Greece…
Schengen, because of the everyday situation?
Exactly. And now we have a social – we are in the process of a social resurrection of the Greek society, so we have a lot to do in Greece. I don’t know if we have the spare time to go over in Britain on a speech tour. But, anyway, we support any movement that is against the European Union in terms of democracy. We are fighting for democracy. And in order to fight for democracy you have to fight for national sovereignty. That’s the basis of democracy. You cannot have democracy without national sovereignty of any people. British people, Greek people, the German people. And that’s the only way. So, yes. We support the NO campaign against the European Union. And we have discussed with certain members of the UKIP.
Of course we are on a different page in terms of social and economic policy. But that’s our difference. But we support them for Britain to leave the European Union. And they have to leave. Because otherwise they will face one way or the other the same sort of situation that we are facing.
How so? If you can elaborate on that a little bit….
You cannot have a European Union, you cannot participate in a union and have mainly the banks, patrons, and of course the banking elite, or the financial elite – the engine of the financial elite – as first and foremost against the people, and against the interests of the people, and on the same page have social security, or social insurance or a social security state, or provide for the unemployed and the poverty-stricken population. You cannot have social labor and democratic rights in a state that is participating in the European Union. Because the European Union was built from day one to support the financial elites’ interests. That’s why we believe that Britain has to go. It has to leave the European Union. It will make our struggle much easier. Because if Britain decides to get rid of the European Union, it will be much easier for us, to convince the Greeks that you don’t have to be afraid of anything. You see, bigger countries, huge economies, like the British, are leaving EU. So why not you? Simple.
As you told me one year ago, that basically the EU-led austerity – “made us less than human.” This is a general question. What is the current situation with pensions, social security, farmers? What is the economic situation in Greece at the moment since the past year?
I’ll give you official data: Now, if we take the middle family income, the average family budget. The income of this middle family budget is calculated according to the official data of 2014, because we don’t have any new data. We’re talking about 18,000 Euro per year. Ok? Back in 2010, it was 23,000. Now, we are at 18,000. Of course, you have enough money to buy the things you need, the consumer products, the things you need to support the family. To provide your family’s basic needs, you need 47,000 Euro. And you have an income of 18,000.
Is that all? No. You also have to pay for the bank loans another 2,500 per year. You have to pay extra taxes on your income. That’s another 3,700 per year. You also have to pay social insurance fees. That’s another 3,500 per year. If you put all this down, you’ll see that on an income basis of 18,000 per year, the obligations of the middle family, are up to 36,000-37,000 per year. Give me a situation similar to this and provide me with an alternative… There is no way you can get rid of that economic circumstances. You cannot even imagine how you can get rid of the depression we have here in Greece, and of course, how will the economy turn around. There is no way. There is just no way. We need more than double of the income for the middle family to keep up with the obligations. There is no way you can have that because we have to withstand austerity, we have the memorandums. Now in 2016, they say they need more than 2 to 4 billion more taxes out of the family budget, and this will destroy the basis of the social insurance system in order for the beneficiary to pay more fees and get less in pensions, in social security support.
What is the situation of homelessness at the moment?
We have a problem of homelessness, but right now because of the dispersion of the homes, in Greece, more than 75% of the population owns the apartments or the houses that they live in, so there is no huge problem. Of course, most of the families now own the houses of the apartments, but they were taken through loans from the banks, so the banks now are trying to confiscate the private property from them, but they didn’t dare, up till now, to do what they did in Spain or in the US.
Of course, they have the laws now. When we talked one year ago, they didn’t have the law, but now the banks do have the law on their side. The Left government provided the bankers with the legal status of what they have for foreclosures and confiscation, the same type of legal status they have in the US. This is the product of the Left government, not of the rightist or the Left government we had back then. The current Left government provides the legal tool for the banksters for foreclosures and to confiscate private property. It was out of the question, if we go back two or three years.
The Syriza government has been waiting for this issue of enacting foreclosures. And at some point, they will be forced to take action probably.
Yes, they will try. And they even voted for a law that allows the banks to sell overdue loans for the funds we call vultures. And right now one bank, one systemic bank, the Alpha bank, sold a package of overdue loans to a private fund for 3% of the nominal value. 3%. Right now in Greece we have 100 billion of overdue loans. Now, the bankers will sell these 100 billion overdue loans to vulture funds. For how much? For 3-5 billion. And I proposed to the government a simple solution: give the bankers the 3-5 billion, take the 100 billion nominal value of overdue loans and destroy them.
But they are not doing that…
No… not even to help the citizens who cannot pay for the labor men. They cannot provide because they don’t have jobs, they don’t have income. So, we pay the recapitalization of the banking system more than 60 billion Euros as taxpayers. 60 billion. And now Mr. Draghi wants the Greek taxpayer to pay another 14 billion Euros for the recapitalization of the bank system in Greece. Why don’t they give to the bankers at least 3 to 5 billion – that’s nothing, compared to what we gave already to the banks and what they are asking for – and take the bloody overdue loans and get rid of them. Leave the people alone.
But they aren’t doing it…
No. This government doesn’t do it.
I think it’s not even possible for the Government to take unilateral actions without the approval of the Troika…
Exactly. Because that’s the new matter about the Third Memorandum. We have a new memorandum, the third section of it. If you go back to the law that was passed by the Greek parliament on the 14 of August 2015, you will see in the third section of the memorandum that the government cannot do anything without the approval of the IMF or the European Commission and the European Central Bank. We are under an occupation regime. We are less than a colony. And we cannot provide even for the borders, to guard the borders of Greece. No. We do not even have a right to say a word about this thing. That is why we are less than a state, in international law terms.
This brings me to the question of the migration crisis which is facing Europe now. Obviously Greece has already so many big economic problems; now it also has to deal with Hotspots which are being imposed by the European Union, besides the fact that NATO decided to patrol in the Aegean supposedly to stop the coming of the migrants. This brings me to ask what do you think Greece should do about it if it could.
The first thing Greece has to do is to get rid of the Schengen Treaty and the Dublin Treaty in order to provide for the migrants and of course for the refugees coming from Syria. More than 60% of those coming from Syria, up to now, are refugees coming from the war. The first thing you have to do is to follow international law. And if you cannot afford to deal with the whole situation, if you have more than 1 million, a half a million refugees and migrants, call the United Nations agency to come in and provide financial help, provide for the infrastructure you need to provide for the refugees and migrants.
The first thing that you have to do is to get rid of the Dublin and the Schengen treaties, in order to follow international law. Let me give you an example: the same situation happened in Lebanon. Right now Lebanon is providing for more than 1,250,000 refugees. We’re talking about 25% of the Lebanon population. Who is talking about Lebanon? Nobody. Because Lebanon follows international law.
Since it is not a member of the European Union, Lebanon does not want to create a slave labor out of the refugees, and what they are doing is what international law provides in a similar situation. Draghi does not want that. The European Union also does not want that. They want to take the refugees and of course the migrants and provide their own labor markets with slave labor. And that’s the whole situation…
Let’s look at the things logically. The refugee coming from Syria or Iraq is going through the trouble. The first thing a law abiding state has to do is to provide him with all the papers the refugee needs, all the papers that say who a refugee is and who he is not.
Draghi does not do that. They subsidize the whole industry of providing slave labor to the EU through Greece. And of course, Greece as a state has to go to international bodies, like the International Maritime Organization and say: “look at Turkey, what are they doing? They are creating a situation in the Aegean. You have to take measures against that.”
Turkey is a member of the International Maritime Organization. The International Maritime Organization can decide that “we have a situation – a crisis – that is created by a member state, and we have to do something about it.” Now, Greece does not do that because it’s a member of the European Union. And the European Union decides what will happen to the Greek islands. And Greece is only a member of the whole thing. It is only to abide by the decisions made by Mr. Tusk, Mr. Juncker and Mr. Erdogan. That’s what we have right now. If we decide to provide the refugees the same type of asylum and infrastructure Lebanon provides it would be not a problem. Because you would give the refugee the same kind of international treatment as the international law provides and let him go wherever he likes. He wants to go to Germany – he may go to Germany.
And, we even could say that “Ok, we have refugees. From where? Syria. Who destroyed Syria? The United States. Ok, the United States must take 80% or 90% or 100% of the refugees from Syria.” You cannot destroy through war – a whole country – and then say “Oh, I have nothing to do with the refugee situation from that country.”
The same thing with Afghanistan and with Iraq. That’s the international law. If you remember back in Vietnam days when the southern Vietnam collapsed, what did the US do? They took more than a million Vietnamese refugees, I don’t remember for whatever reason, they took the Vietnamese refugees because they were involved in the Vietnam war. Now, what is going on in Syria? The same thing.
And I believe that the first countries that have to deal with the refugee problem are the United States and Russia. Because they are fighting on Syrian soil. And on top of that we need the Greek government, if we have a democratic government of course, to say, Ok, first and foremost, in order to deal with the refugee program, we need to stop the war in Syria. And of course, not only to stop the war, like they are doing right now, but establish law and order in Syria. And give back the situation to the lawful government – the Assad regime. Ok, I don’t believe in the Assad regime. But that’s the lawful government. And who is Mr. Obama or Mr. Putin or whoever to decide how many parts will be dissected, that Syria must be dissected, and for what reason…
Give back the national sovereignty to Syria. Take out the foreign armies and the mercenaries, everybody. And of course then you will see all the refugees, or most of the refugees, coming back to Syria. And let us provide investment infrastructure to Syria in order to rebuild Syria because they demolished the whole country. That’s how you deal with the refugee problem.
So I’m just trying to understand. This is a simple question. So the difference between Lebanon and Greece is that in the case of Lebanon, refugees are free to go elsewhere and in the case of Greece, the European Union…
They don’t have Hotspots. Of course, they do have infrastructure to provide for the refugees, with the help of the UN. But they are trying to deal with the problem in terms of the international law. With what international law provides for the refugee. A refugee is a sacred person. He’s escaping war or a regime. So you have to deal with him as a sacred person, to provide for him, and, of course, to give him the opportunity to go back to the country. He didn’t leave on his free will; he escaped from a situation. It’s not an opportunity for Germany or for France or for Poland or for the EU to have 2 million slave labor for their own labor market in order to bring down the wages and destroy the social infrastructure of the country so that the labor or the working class cannot fight against their own government or the European elite. A refugee is a sacred person. And you need to provide for him. And of course, do whatever you can, to stop the situation or to alter the situation that the refugee is escaping from. That’s our opinion.
How do you think the mechanism of the Hotspots will work in terms of slave labor?
It’s simple.In Greece, we already have a law passed back in 2012 that provides the ability for the government to take from the Hotspots whoever it is, either he’s an outlaw migrant or a refugee, and to provide labor supply in terms of whatever the government decides. For example, now we have a big situation with the farmers all over Greece. The government proposes to the farmers to give them free – without any charge – free slave labor from the Hotspots, and the government will subsidize the farmers for the slave labor of the migrants and the refugees working for them. That’s a way to buy out; it ‘s a way to buy the social consciousness of the farmers.
So why is the government subsidizing it, because it ends up being much cheaper?
Yes, of course. You’ll have cheap labor for yourself, and on top of that you’ll have all the income coming from the government, that normally will go for the refugees and the migrants – for the Hotspots – you’ll get the revenue as a farmer. And you’ll be provided with more income out of the slave labor you are using for every migrant or refugee you are occupying. It’s policy. It’s a policy proposition from the Greek government, the Left government for the farmers to keep them quiet and not to revolt against the memorandum policies. “I’ll provide for you slave labor, don’t worry. Go back to your farms.” That’s what the Left government is saying right now to the farmers.
But obviously for Greece to treat the refugees according to international law it would mean to leave the European Union first, but that’s impossible…
Yes. Because you have to get rid of Schengen Treaty and Dublin Treaty. The Dublin Treaty created a special situation in dealing with refugees and migrants for the EU. It created an international situation, because back then when they provided refugees with international law, back in the protocols in the 1950s, they thought of the refugee and the migrant situation as an international problem, not a European problem. An international problem. Now, the EU wanted to refurbish the whole situation as a European problem, which it isn’t.
That’s why they created the Dublin I and Dublin II treaties. For members of the EU to decide themselves what to do with refugees and migrants. Not according to international laws and protocols. No. But through their own private interests. That’s the privatization of an international problem.
Recently, as you obviously know, terrorists were found in Greece, trying to pass through. And what is very strange is how a caravan filled with AK47s and bullets managed to make its way, all the way, I think it was from Western Europe – Germany and Austria, all the way to Greece. Do you think there are flaws in the way the EU is managing its security?
Yeah, it’s a huge industry. And the banking system that supports this, the banking logistics – is based on the Greek bankers and the Cyprus banks. That’s why they are specially protected. No attorney, no justice system, can penetrate the banking system, and no one can say let’s see what is going on, who’s laundering money. Through what channels they are taking rights, or are there payoffs, things like that. We know that the Greek banking system and the Cypriot banking system, the systemic bank, they are first and foremost launderers of black money, coming from weapons, prostitution, and of course, migrants and refugees.
So the banks are complicit, in let’s call it, intentional lack of monitoring its security, allowing smuggling?
Exactly. That’s why they keep refinancing bankrupt institutions. Like the four systemic banks here in Greece that are bankrupt since 2009. And we know that. But they keep them afloat, although they are utterly bankrupt. We are under capital controls, as you know, from June 2015. Actually, we are under a banking moratorium. You cannot do free banking, or if you go to a bank and take the money out of your private account, you cannot do that here in Greece – since 27th of June if I remember correctly. They closed the banks from that point and on and they didn’t open them. And they are not going to open up the banks, only until they do a haircut to whatever they can to accounts, to whatever. So, they are totally bankrupt.
They are under – we are under – a banking moratorium or capital control as the Europeans call it, and on top of that we have to refinance and recapitalize the closed-down banks. That’s… as an economist I can say, that’s a historical phenomenon. You cannot do that. There is no other historical precedent… None. You cannot have a closed down banking system and refinance… Why do they do that? Because it’s the logistical basis of this huge laundering business. … for all Europeans. I’m talking about the cash flow coming from this, through Turkey, to the European banks.
The cash flow?
I’m talking about armaments, prostitution, and the commerce of human beings – refugees and migrants.
So I’ll just simplify so that people will understand. What you are saying is that there is the network of smuggling of prostitutions, of weapons, and also of drugs?
Of drugs also, it goes to Turkish banks, and from Turkish banks it gets laundered again…to the European Union.
Through Greece. They are going to the huge banks, Deutsche Bank and others banks in the Europe.
So they carry the money on their bodies?
Yes. They want a free market for this kind of business. And we are a free market for this kind of business. Because Mr. Tusk, Mr. Juncker and Mr. Erdogan decide what is going to happen. For example, I’ll give you an example you probably don’t know. What Mr. Erdogan said to Mr. Tusk and to Mr. Jucnker back in November. Probably it was Russian intelligence that took the conversation and gave it to the Greek newspaper. Probably Russian intelligence, I don’t know. But the newspaper printed a week ago a conversation between Mr. Tusk and Mr. Juncker with Mr. Erdogan, discussing the situation with the Greek islands, the refugee and the migrant problem. And Mr. Erodgan asked not 3 billion but 9 billion. And when Mr. Juncker said to him, “I cannot provide such funds for Turkey,” Mr. Erdogan said, “you saw the drowned body of the 4-year-old in the Greek island”? – “Yes.” “How about sending you 14,000 such bodies to Greek islands?” – That’s what Mr. Erdogan said to Mr. Juncker and Mr.Tusk. And when Mr. Juncker said: “What do you want? Are we dealing with like you are a prince”? And Mr. Erdogan said: “Yes, I am a Prince. I’m an Ottoman Prince.”
So, you see, we are under a political mafia. And no one, even in Turkey or in the EU, can deal with this Mafiosi because we don’t have democracy or even parliamentarism to provide the people with a voice, or to have some people who will deal with it. They negotiate in the dark rooms. What the people could say a few decades ago – it is something like Nazism. That’s why we say that we are facing not the European Union but a new European Reich. Full fledged.
So what does Erdogan do with the money he gets?
Mr. Erdogan wants to provide new funds to the industry we are talking about in Turkey. It’s official policy. And you can have illegal planning: take 100 refugees with your boat or whatever it is and bring them to the Greek islands. So you have the NGOs on the Greek islands. In my opinion, most of the NGOs working on the Greek islands are working for smugglers. Smuggling people.
Let me give you an example: more than 10,000 children coming out of the sea and identified by NGOs – “saved” by NGOs – they were lost afterwards. No trace. No trace at all. While going to the EU. About 10,000 children. Who is responsible for this? We’re talking about a massacre. Because, the children up to 14, 15 years old, are going to the European Union, for what? For prostitution and of course for illegal forms of human organs. 10,000 children. And that’s the situation the EU created in our armed forces with the support of our own government.
What do you think can be done about the fact that a lot of Greek people are simply apathetic and they don’t see the connection between the Euro and their own economic situation. The longer they wait, the worse it’s going to get. Because there are growing chances, the war in Syria is going to get much worse. If that happens, Greece, as a member of NATO will get involved in the war in Syria.
I know. And we are very very fearful right now about the rise of that possibility. Because NATO is in the Aegean not for the refugees or the migrants. They are here to confront Russia. Ok?
Russian forces in Syria?
Yes. We’re talking about a huge naval force from Russia coming from Crimea and the Baltics and for the first time after the 19th century the Aegean is closed off. They cannot get safe passage to Crimea. You can see what is going on?
But how will boats manage to block Russian forces?
Because the Aegean is now out of reach for the Greek government and nominally for the Turkish government. Who is going through the Aegean is up to NATO to decide, who is to have safe passage. NATO decides. Not Greece, not Turkey, not even international law. You can say that according to international law I can have safe passage… No! Because NATO is doing surveillance all over the Aegean and NATO decides who is going to pass. Because let’s say the Russian warships are working for refugees or for migrants, whatever. They can say whatever they like. Who is going to say otherwise? – Russia. Oh, so what. That’s what happened here in Greece.
Of course, we lost our sovereignty, and on top, we’re totally involved in the war creation process of NATO against Russia. And of course, that’s why the Russians, Mr. Putin, agreed on a set-back in Syria. Agreed on a ceasefire in Syria that provides for the mercenaries. Because the mercenaries were to use the ceasefire situation to refurbish their forces with new material and of course ammunition and, of course, men, coming especially from Turkey.
Then the talks in Geneva collapsed and then NATO decided to go to the Aegean…
The talks collapsed pretty much with the support of the US…
And now, Mr. John Kerry, can go to Lavrov and say to him: “Ok, you have two possible situations. Either your fleet is cut off from Crimea, and we’re talking about a huge fleet that’s with cruise missiles, the major ships of the Russian Crimea fleet. Either you lose your fleet, or we decide together to get rid the Assad Regime.”
And that’s right now what is happening. Of course, Russia tries to manipulate or whatever but what is happening right now in Syria is exactly that. Even with the declarations of Mr. Steinmeyer two days ago. What Mr. Steinmeyer, the secretary of the foreign policy of the German government said was that the only thing we need right now, is that Tehran and Moscow will persuade Mr. Assad lay down his arms. That’s the whole plan. To dissect Syria, into 3 or 4 zones. Similar to what they did in Tunisia, or Libya, or Iraq. Same situation. And after Syria, they will go on. They will go to Jordan, they will go to Iran, they will go to Turkey itself. And they will dissect again and again the whole Middle East region. And of course, us too… But we are easy to be dissected.
This leads me to a different question: The European elites must be aware of the social unrest here, so; how do you think they plan to continue?
I believe that by the end of 2017 – this is my own conclusion – we will not have Greek forces involved either in national defense or security. Inner security will be provided from NATO. Even the army of Greece will be demolished and only a few units will remain, just like in Bulgaria or Albania. And they are going to be totally submitted to NATO.
And right now, we have on the northern borders of Greece, Academi and Group 4 forces, provided with Frontex budgets, right now.
Sérres and Komotini. Greece and Macedonia – Greek Macedonia. And everybody knows that. The Greek army knows, the Greek police knows that. But it was decided by the Europeans.
But what are their purposes for being there exactly?
Officially to provide security service guarding the northern borders of Greece because Greece cannot provide such level of security. Let me give you an example of the whole situation, of how dire it is.
In the third memorandum, you will see that we have to provide less and less for our national defense. The state budget of 2016 provides 200 million, not billion, 200 million to the federal defense budget. In the 2015 budget, the national defense budget was 500 million. In one year’s time, the Europeans decided that the national budget must go down by 300 million. With only 200 million Euros, you cannot even pay the wages of the military personnel you employ as a state. On the budget of 2017, the memorandum says that the national budget will have to go down even further.
So in the future, we will see a situation whereamidst social unrest, Greeks will find themselves confronted by mercenaries, Academi?
Exactly. When you will have such a situation in Greece, I can guarantee you, the Greek people will take arms. It was done back in the 20th century a lot of times and it will be done again. Of course, we don’t want that, to go down that road. But we will travel this road, if we cannot do otherwise. We will fight for our country. Our forefathers fought for our country. We will fight even with arms, if we are against foreign troops, mercenaries or whomever. We will fight.
Of course I believe that in 2016 there will be a social resurrection here in Greece, one way or the other. I don’t know which way the social unrest will go. But we will have social unrest. If you walk on the streets Greece you will see a lot of people now, saying: “Ok, the situation is over our heads. I cannot afford any longer to stay silent. I have to do something.”
Ok, we have the farmers. We have the lawyers. We have the medical workers. All over Greece, the social rage is climbing. We will have a social unrest… and we will try, through EPAM of course, to make it a participation, to pave social unrest and to create a situation that can end up in a social revolution. Because the only way we can get rid of the whole regime is through a social and political revolution.
When we are talking about creating a social revolution we are not talking about – in the same way – like we’re expecting an attack on the Winter Palace like the Russians did back in 1917. No. We are talking about the organization of a huge part – a major part of the Greek population in my opinion – that will demand the demolition of the whole regime.
We will see that. And I believe that we will see that in 2016. I don’t believe that it will be before August. After we see the weather in Greece opening up, you will see that most of the major movements, the social movements here in Greece, they are coming out like when Spring is coming. When we have spring in terms of the weather, it’s the same thing with society. Something like a natural biological process in society. You have a spring in society. And you will have that in 2016.
Otherwise, I don’t know what we will face in 2017 and in 2018. Probably, we will have to fight through other means.
By the way, speaking of Iran, I read a report on this on one website that Albania received about 2,000 fighters of an Iranian opposition group.
Yeah, that’s true.
Well, let me give you a scenario. I don’t know if it will come out… but it’s a kind of scenario that happens in Greece especially on a military level, and of course, with the security forces.
They are expecting some kind of a UÇK situation on Macedonia or even closer to the Albanian border. A UÇK situation is like a thousand, two thousand mercenaries, coming and creating a situation. Like the UÇK did in Serbia, in Kosovo.
Yes, the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army]. We call them the UÇK. Mercenaries. NATO mercenaries. It’s very easy nowadays. We don’t have the means to guard the borders of our country. By 2017, we will have foreigners guarding our borders. Especially mercenaries, Academi and Group 4. British multinationals and American multinationals – the corporation created out of Blackwater. They already have an agreement with the Frontex organization to provide security services.
So, it’s quite easy. Who is going to stop them? Nobody. Except of course the Greek people. And they have in their minds the same situation. They will create a monstrous regiment, leading the section of Macedonia, the mercenaries will probably invade, and come down to Athens. And when the Greek citizen sees refugees, Greek refugees, coming… they will be frightened so much, they will accept anything. That’s the NATO scenario.
Of course, our history is quite different. If the Greek sees a Greek citizen coming as a refugee from a foreign invasion, you will see what will happen. You will see the same thing that happened back in 1940. Barefoot, they went up to the Albanian mountains fighting against the Italian fascists. No guns. No political leadership. With the military dictatorship and fascist dictatorship here in Greece. And the Greek people went up there without even stopping. Because back then we had more casualties from the winter than from the Italian fascists. Because our forefathers had nothing. And they fought back then. Nobody believed back then…
Even Ciano who designed the Italian offensive in Greece said back then when a British diplomat asked him, “How sure you can be that through your offensive Greece will collapse in a few days”? And Ciano said, “We bribe the whole regime, the Metaxas regime.” It was a fascist regime. And what happened? Every Greek, even my grandfather, who walked with a limp, he was one leg short from birth, he went on foot from Kalamata to the Albanian border. We are talking about more than 1,000 KM. On foot. Without even a gun. He took a gun from a dead Italian fascist and fought down to the end. You will see the same thing happen again. They don’t know the Greek people.
Of course, it’s easy to say that if you take the Greek and close him in a dark room for days and then tell him “You know, don’t open the door because the light will blind you.” Well, probably most of the Greeks will decide not to open up the door. But when you squeeze him against the wall, he will decide, either to be a traitor or a hero. And most of them will decide to become heroes.
It’s easier for Greek, even if you see the history, to give up his life, rather than to give up his watches or his wallet or whatever. It’s easier for him, to decide to give up the life.
Why would NATO want to do such a thing? To prevent a social rest?
No, no. It wants to create a corridor in the Balkans.
Yeah. A corridor coming through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and Albania. It’s a buffer zone to control the whole Balkans.
And then NATO will come in to restore order…
Exactly. And through that you’ll have gas pipes, or installations, whatever. It’s only for foreign forces to control the whole Balkans. And of course, through the Balkans you control Central Europe. You control Russia. If you’ll go back you’ll see the same thing as the Truman Doctrine in the new situation. What we had back then – the Truman Doctrine that took us into a civil war in Greece – it’s the same thing.
They will create this buffer zone, they will reduce Southern Greece, in order to provide for an installation of Israeli forces and NATO forces, in order to have a lever, a foothold for Israeli defense. Because they want Israel to be like it is right now. It’s a constable for the US imperialism in the Middle East. They need it. By destroying the whole Middle East you need to provide Israel with a backbone of defense – a buffer.
Let’s go back to 1967, when Israel started the Six Day War against Egypt. The US asked the military junta we had back then – created by NATO here in Greece, – to provide Crete for military installations for the Israeli air force against Egypt. Back then even the military junta thought of the political reactions here in Greece and they didn’t accept. Right now, the Left government signed an SOFA , a treaty, with Israel. And now Israel is creating a military airport, in Kastelli in Crete, and bigger military installation of radars in Crete. They are creating installations all over Crete. Crete is another, you know, unsinkable airbase, it’s like a…
An aircraft carrier.
An unsinkable aircraft carrier for NATO. And the Left government signed all of this, for NATO and Israel. We are the only state, besides the United States, to have SOFA treaty with Israel. Nobody else, nobody else. Only us and the United States.
That’s why NATO and US allies like Israel need it: from Larissa downwards to south of Greece, for military and geostrategic purposes. From Larissa upwards – that’s Macedonian Greece – it’s going to become a buffer zone to control the whole Balkan situation.
But that’s obviously not a long-term solution for them. It just means perpetual war and conflict.
Exactly. We have a perpetual war on the financial market. So as long as we have that kind of functional situation of the world economy, we have perpetual war. 100%.
And in my opinion, we have a third world war. It started in 2014. Why? Because it was the first year that 11% of the world population was involved in military action or worse. The first time since the Second World War. And from that point and on, you will see every year, 2015, 2016, more people coming in… That’s world war. And we will probably the surpass the second world war.
But on a different plan, we will have perpetual war all over the place. With Rogue states, civil wars, demolition wars, the destruction of nations and states, things like that. That’s the new form of the world war.
And that is inevitable because of the financial support of the major world powers.
They need states, nations and people to be liquid as capital.
Maybe you can talk about that a little bit…
It’s easy. If I am Mr. Buffet, I know we are not talking about Buffet but a financial elite… in order to create new situation of more profit for my own investment capital, I cannot deal with different states. And I have more then, nominally, we have more than 327 trillion dollars in terms of investment capital worldwide. Controlled by 40 banks… even less. 40 banks. 327 trillion… We have a GDP, a world GDP, from 75 to 77 trillion dollars. And they are only for investment. We’re not talking about derivatives or other aspects of the financial market. We’re talking about 327 trillion dollars. So in order to create opportunities for my capital to provide new, or even more profit, for my portal, we have to destroy and re-destroy the whole… I cannot provide more out of the normal economic cycle. We have to destroy and recreate the cycle itself. And there’s no way I can do that if we have normal states or people or national economies, things like that. We tried that through financial means. We saw that. And we saw how the whole market was destroyed back in 2007 up to 2008. After that, they recreated the whole market and right now they have even a worse situation then back in 2007. So, in order to subsist that kind of a situation in the financial market, we need an army, we need political means – the economy cannot provide any more. You will see that the big international corporations are avoiding from investing. They keep the money on the coffers, and they are using it re-buying equities in the financial market. Things like that. They cannot…
They buy what?
Equities, their own equities. You will see the world commerce going down. So the normal world economy cannot afford to go up on the same level as the financial market. And the difference between the level of the real economy and of the fictitious economy is even bigger than that. What covers the difference is the political means. Creating opportunities for the fictitious capital. That’s the only way. There’s no other way.
That’s why when the equities market went down back in 2014, the US decided that “Ok, forget all about lowering the defense budget. No. Forget all about it. Give more bills to the defense budget.” From 2014, you have the advancement of the defense budget in the US. The same in all over neighboring countries. You will see, new wars erupting all over the planet.
How will they happen in NATO countries? The migrants or…
All over. Germany, went from 4 to 5 billion – if I remember the data correctly from the first budget – right now on 2015, do you know how much was the defense budget of the Federal Republic of Germany? 162 billion euros. That’s huge. And for what? To re-create a world-class army. That’s why the US wanted to give the leadership of the maritime mission of the NATO mission in the Aegean to Germany. It’s the first time after World War II, after the Bonn Treaty of 1951, for the Germans to only participate but to take leadership of a military mission. It’s the first time. And of course, Germany is a world class economy. And they want to keep that kind of status in the world economy. They tried a military partnership with Russia back in 2010. But, of course, the US destroyed that. They tried, through the EU, to create the so-called European Army, the European military force. But it was destroyed by NATO. And now, they are going through NATO military force with the agreement of the US.
That’s why they decided about the Aegean, 4 days after the General Secretary of NATO said it is Ok for the US to quadruple the military installations and military personnel in Europe. Ok? That’s a huge change in the US policy of NATO. And of course, “to defend Europe against Russian aggression.” All these political changes and developments you will see on the background of the situation in the financial markets. And what we have now is that even the BRICS economies cannot provide for the world economy. After 2008, we had the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, the world economy, even the US and, of course, the banks, the economies of capitalism and imperialism, and they had a way out. Through BRICS they invested a lot… and now the BRICS are coming down, especially in China or even in India, Brazil, even in Russia they have big problems. Of course, they cannot do anything. China cannot do anything. Because these are totally dependent on a world scale demand. If you don’t have a world demand for your own economy to grow 8% every year or 10% every year, then you have to recreate your own economy on a basis of a local market. But in doing that, you have to provide your own citizens with more income. More labor rights. And more protection for social situations. Can China, the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese Government do such a turn? No, I don’t believe that they can do it. Because it would be a fortune for the Chinese to get out of the economic model they had from the 1980s. They cannot do such a social political turn for their own economy. They will destroy the whole system, the political system in China. And if you do that, you will have a Chinese working class demanding more and more and more. And the capitalist world economy would lose the Chinese wage. So, the only way for the world system to go ahead is only through war. There is no other way. They cannot invest anymore. Only in a total destruction. Perpetual war.
But, obviously, that’s not a long-term solution. So we’re just going to see more and more wars throughout the EU?
Exactly. Or up to the point where you will have people’s revolutions – people who want to take back their own country and rebuild it. And in order to rebuild it they have to get rid of all the connections they have with the financial markets, the loan sharks, investment banks, or whatever. That’s the only solution. The alternative.
But any country which would do a revolution, of some kind of gain, any country which would reclaim its sovereignty… would find itself under attack, will find itself under debt, so…
Well, yes. But it’s difficult to find who will fight against sovereignty. It’s difficult for NATO or whomever to create a war situation against Greece because you don’t go up against people that are united and decisive enough to fight for their own country. That’s why they didn’t go against Iran. You will see them trying to use the difference between the government and the people, like they did in Syria. You have the regime, the Assad regime, which is not – you know – “people friendly” let’s say, and create a situation where you can demolish the social cohesion of the whole country. So if you have a social revolution or a popular revolution in Greece and the people are decisive enough to fight for the country, no NATO, no noone can go up against such a people. Or of course we will face an economic war. So what? We don’t want to be part of the financial market. We are not going out on the financial market for loans. We can do without loans. We are not in need of them. Greece is a small economy.
… Greece can be self-sustaining in terms of producing its own food.
Exactly. It’s easy. It’s easy for us to find the oil we need for our economy. Or the industrial profits, or the industrial technology we need. If we want to rebuild our own industries of textiles, we’ll go to Bangladesh, we won’t go to the US. In Bangladesh we can find whatever we like, in industrial technology, in the textile industry. And we will rebuild it.
But I’m not sure how… if you already made the case that NATO and the financial system, at the current crisis that we’re in, how it profits from and encourages and is causing more and more wars. By that same logic then, if we follow that logic, any place that would have a revolution, NATO would attack that place…
Yeah. They will try…
Maybe the people will fight back, as in the case if they would have invaded Iran. But they would still try…
They will try. They will try by going from the backdoor, you know. Not through the front door. Because by going from the front door you risk a revolution in your own country. And they don’t want that. They want to be legitimized in the people’s eyes, even in their own country. The people would have to say that the Greeks are wrong, and NATO is right. For what? Because the Greeks asked for the country back? And because they said no loans, no nothing, we don’t need anything from you?
“We’re going to work our country and prosper. That’s the only thing we are asking for… And of course, we want democracy.”
They need some kind of an excuse. They cannot go and destroy… For example, in Libya, they had the excuse of Gaddafi. In Syria, Assad. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein. In Iran, the Mullahs. In Greece, what? They are leaving the EU? They want to rebuild their own country with their own abilities? And to rely on whatever their own country can provide? It’s quite difficult. Of course, they can say whatever they like. But if we do a good job, if we provide for the people, which is what we are saying. If we create a new kind of a situation, a real democratic situation – not, you know, a sign of democracy – but a real democracy, it’s very very difficult, even for the CIA, to create a situation like this. Even to create a situation we see in Venezuela. They forgot that a revolution everywhere in the world, if you want a revolution, you have to trust the people, not the regime, whatever good it is, not the party, no. The people. The grassroots. And if you forget that, you will pay for that. And that’s what happened back in the Chavez era in Venezuela. Now they are paying for that. Create a grassroots democracy. Take to the people your own things. Give the people the ability to decide…
How are they paying for it in Venezuela?
Because they create a democratic regime, Ok. But they have an election system that provides for someone who takes 44% of the electorate to have 65% in the national assembly. Why? Of course, the Chavistas say this is all work of the reactionary forces. Ok. And now they are facing their own medicine. That’s why I’m talking about going to the people, giving them the ability to decide themselves. Through communes, through councils, through whatever you can find. Let the people’s imagination decide.
Since I was there and studied a little bit my impression of Venezuela is that… their mistake was that they didn’t follow the Cuban way. I’ll tell you what I mean. Basically, first of all, Maduro wasn’t strong enough about crime, there’s a lot of hoarding done by poor people…
And secondly, when you have elections every four years, and you have a socialist government running, you create a situation where you have populism. You just give free goods to the people and you don’t try to do anything that would be painful, like cracking down on crime. And then at some point, the more populist you become, the more they get tired of you, and then they throw you away.
The opposition had two major weapons against Maduro: inflation and crime. What can you do? First of all, socialize the money circulation process. They did not do that.
How do you do that?
You take the banks and destroy the private banking system. Destroy it. Through their own means, through money. Give money to the people, in terms of income or in terms of jobs.
They didn’t do that…
No. They let the private banking system create money through debt. That’s totally destructive. Even nowadays the Venezuelan government is indebted to Goldman Sachs. Are you crazy? What are you doing? And the other situation is exactly the corruption and the crime problems.
The crime situation: You can deal with it in two separate ways. One is the security forces problem. And they had the security forces problem. That’s why we had in 2002 and 2004 a situation of a coup d’état, through the security forces in Venezuela. So they didn’t solve that. They did a, you know, tried to solve it through the personality of Chavez. But that’s Ok; that’s one way to say “Kill my leader in order to leave me without a head and then deal with me easily.” The other way is to provide for the society itself to fight against crime, especially in barrios, and organize the society. We know that. Even from the US history of fighting crime back in the Roosevelt years. The society itself. Not the police, or the justice system. The society itself. Organize.
What would be the incentive? You had a situation in Venezuela where people could get a PhD, they could do a Master and instead they chose to join a gang. What would be the incentive for communities to crack down on crime…?
You provide good jobs for the people.
When you nationalize the…
Yes. And good income out of the good jobs. And more leisure time in order to get involved in the political situation. Provide more of a decision-making process for the people. For, let’s say, a convention in every neighborhood. Call the people from every neighborhood to decide what to do in the neighborhood. And whatever the people decide, it will be implemented. They will implement their own decision. Through that, they will fight to implement their own decision. They will be responsible for implementing their own decision. And through that you will fight gangs, you will fight everything. Most of the people who join gangs do that because they want a different type of an organization. And they find that through gangs. No. They can give them a different organization, and through that organization, they can decide and implement what they decide. They have the first and the last word in their own situation. In the social and political situation they are facing. And through that, who is going to join the opposition or to vote for multimillionaire that doesn’t care even for the people who are working for them. Nobody. Well, you know only the elite or a quasi-elite. How much? 5% of the population? 10% of the population? Whatever.
That’s the same conclusion you draw from the revolutionary process all over Europe from day one. Even if you go back to the great French revolution, or the Paris Commune’s revolution or whatever. You will see the same pattern. If you lose track of money, and if you lose track of grassroot democracy, you will lose permanently. That’s what happened even in the Russian revolution.
But in Cuba they are…
Well, yeah. But in Cuba, it’s a very different story. Because what they realized, even the American elite, realized by now is that the Cuban Revolution survived because of the encirclement of the American hegemony. Because the people, the patriotic people, the Cuban people, created a huge form against any foreign oppression or invasion. So even if the Cubans have any complex about the Castro regime or whatever, Ok, leave it aside, we’ll fight against any kind of foreign invasion and recreation of the Batista regime.
Now, the American polity, the political elite, acknowledge that by going through the back door. They tell to Raul Castro, “Ok. Let’s talk. Let us give you a little bit of money, a few dollars. Instead of having the Americans flying through Canada, Vancouver or Montreal and going to Cuba, Ok, let them go in easily.” They will do the same thing, or try – let’s hope that the Cubans, or the Cuban Party, draw the conclusions we are drawing right now. If they keep the bureaucracy, the party, the state bureaucracy in tact, they will lose the country. One way or another. Because when you have the bureaucracy, it’s easy for someone like the US to buy out their way into the country. No questions asked. We saw that back in the Soviet Union. In a few years’ time, you will see the same. The same one, in a few years’ time, I’m talking about 3 or 4 years, became the worse type of Capitalism in Russia. Party of state bureaucrats. The same thing with Cuba.
I don’t believe that Cuba has any other way out because it has to go through negotiations with the US. But it has to recreate the state apparatus. Give more freedom. Let go of the war-type organization of the society and the economy. Give more space for the people. Invest in the people’s opinion and give them more. Give them more. It’s the only way to defend the regime, of course, and the party – against the new invasion, the invasion of US “friendship” and the takeover of Cuba…
You can fight it easily, but you have to change your own mindset. You see. The type of Ernesto Che Guevara or Fidel Castro type with military clothes has passed… You cannot fight the imperialism, the new stage of imperialism, through these things. Of course, you have to keep up your military alert up to the most possible scenario… you can have a US invasion against you in matter of days. But through that, give more power to the people. Grassroots power, to decide their own decisions. Give them the space to make mistakes. So what?
Going back to Venezuela, some people suggested that if the pro-Chavista military will take over the country that could stabilize things more, they can bring back order…
I don’t know.
Because the way things are going now the opposition will take over the country.
I know, I know. And I see Maduro’s declarations. It’s a very very risky business. If the military decides to come in, you create a precedent that everyone can use. Even the opposition. And the opposition is far more advanced in these matters than you are, then a movement like the Chavistas or Maduro’s PSUV party. The opposition can do whatever they like. They have the backing of the US.
But there are generals who are different, who have good relations with Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran…
I know, I know. But what about a civil war?
That will happen anyway.
I believe that if they try that, they will have the possibility to create a situation of a civil war for decades. Like in Colombia. You see, a civil war since the 1960s. It’s very difficult, a situation like this.
Either way, if the opposition takes over the Chavistas will do a civil war…
I don’t believe it’s an easy way out right now. What they had to do- they didn’t do, years back. Now, it’s very difficult to choose. Whatever you chose, you’ll have cons and…
But in this kind of a situation you have to make an imperfect decision.
…And I think the military can make the situation better for everyone.
If you have the military, and at the same time you will have a popular movement, and the popular movement will try to recreate from the bottom-up the whole situation- that’s a good thing. Of course, it’s a risky business, but that’s a good thing. But in order to do that, you cannot stop at anything. If you use a knife, use it well, without any hesitation. I’m talking in a matter of time, and I’m for it, Ok. If you have to use it, use it. You don’t mess around, use it. If you decide that the whole situation is up to cutting some throats, cut them. No questions asked. Cut them. In a few day’s time, in order to pacify the whole situation. If you prolong it, you create more strife. And that’s my opinion. If you decide that the only way out is using the military, do it. And do it in 24 hours, get rid of them all. And then find a way to legitimize. Are they traitors? Ok, they are traitors. Hang them. And let history judge.
From that time on, you will work to put the people in front of the whole situation. And from that point on you will recreate the whole regime, from the bottom-up. A grassroots democracy. And through that everybody, at the end, will say, Ok, it was a situation. And of course, go out to the people and take the blame yourself. You will say that “Ok, it was my fault, as a movement, that we came to that point. We made certain mistakes. We are not going to do that anymore. We will fight for our country because we are facing an invasion, it is a new type of invasion than Syria, but we will fight,” if you decide to use the military. And tell to the people: “Ok, we made the situation worse but we will rectify, with you. And from that point and on, you [the people] will decide, and we will follow.” That’s the only way, if you come to this. And that’s what we said about Greece. If we come to this situation where we have to use weapons or arms to deal with the enemy, we will do that. No hesitation. No way around it. No. We will do that. And we will do that with the most resourceful and efficient way we can do that. In order to resolve the whole situation in the smallest possible time. No prolonging, no nothing. We will fight. We will get rid of them. And then our recreate our own country, we will build a true democracy. And that’s what back in the 40s, the national revolution movement against the Nazi occupation did. Up in the mountains. From day one, they created a democracy for the people. It was very good. But they did the same mistake again. They didn’t trust the people, the grassroots people. And on a specific… the leadership was not adequate to deal with the political situation and accepted the presence of the British military in the country and that was the start of the civil war.
Their mistake was that they didn’t believe in the people. They fought for the people, but they didn’t believe…
The people need to be educated for you to really believe in them…
No. I believe that the people, when they start to fight, they learn from their own experience. Let’s see, you can see the Egypt situation. When the people without a political leadership or a political program, learn how to deal with the government, and how to dethrone a government or a regime – the Mubarak regime – it’s something that, you know, it’s written on the genes, on the people’s genes. They know the way. If they get rid of the fear of dealing with the regime or the government, then it’s easy, to topple one government, and then topple another government. Of course, when you have a political program it is easy to topple a government and create a new political situation. That’s the deficiency of the Egypt situation right now. But the people know how to deal with them…
But that’s only possible when the people reclaim their rights.
Exactly. You cannot have a successful revolution or social insurrection without a political program, a very specific political program. Ok, we don’t want them. We have to know what we want. What will succeed after the toppling of the government or the regime.
That’s where we are trying to organize, and we are trying to educate the people politically. You know, we need democracy. But what kind of democracy? We don’t need any type of democracy; we need grassroots democracy. We need the people to decide, not only every four years but every time any serious situation involving the people comes. To involve the citizens. To create a situation that even one citizen can make a difference.
Why in the world would Merkel want to accept millions of migrants to Germany after she said in the past that multiculturalism failed?
The main problem of the German economy is the export of capital. The net investment position of the German economy is about 26% of the German GDP. It’s a huge provider of capital for the national market. 26%, out of 20% before the EU. So the main strength of the German economy is to keep exporting capital. It’s a more typically imperialist economy compared to the US. Like an old European imperialist economy. Where I need to export capital in order to provide for the financial and economic elite.
In order to do that, it has to squeeze down all the labor costs and the social costs.
Ok, they did that for 20 years. Now they are facing a social situation. They cannot squeeze now, even more, the German labor or the German working class. They need some external force. The Germans know. The Germans know from the 60s. In order to create a German miracle back then they wanted millions of immigrants. That’s the same thing right now. But the difference is back then, it was a different world situation and European situation. A different capitalism, let’s say. They tried, most of them, especially the German trade unions, they tried to take most of the immigrant people, to take them and create a new kind of a German citizen. Now there is no more of that. “We need, immigrants for the specific time of staying in Germany.” “We need – the German oligarchy needs – a few hundred thousand or 1 million immigrants only for a specific time now. We need to get rid of them as soon as they start asking for rights.”
And how will they do that?
Easy. They take them back to Greece. Easy.
It will create a civil war. You can just do that easily…
So what. They did that.
So there could be a civil war in Germany?
Yes. Because the Germans now – the German worker or the German middle class will lose everything. And that’s why you see Nazi parties in Germany coming up, especially in Bavaria. All over Germany you see people, political factions, that they say that they are not Nazis but Ok, over the political rhetoric you will see that Nazism is coming up again in Germany. Based on the social situation created by that policy.
But not everyone who opposes migration in Germany is a Nazi. They have a right, would you say they have a right to oppose migration?
Yeah, of course. I do. The difference between the Nazis, is the same thing like in the middle war years. The Nazis weren’t against migration. They were for migration, of course using them as slave labor. During the Nazi regime there were 7.5 million migrants working in Germany as slaves. There were more migrants than at any other time in German history. So, they were not against migration; they were for.
Of course, you had… it was like Marx said. The capitalists are for migration using them in order to bribe their own working class. The same thing happened with the Nazis. They were using slave labor in order to bribe the German working class to accept the Nazi regime. Bribing them or through the army or providing more for the Germans against the slave labor force from Eastern Europe or from all over Europe. They were working for jobs the German working man didn’t want; the jobs were not respectful enough. They were working for less than trash, Ok? And of course, all during the war, the German soldier coming from the working class, had the ability to loot the whole Europe to provide for the family. And that’s how, more or less, it was a blind eye, even for the German working class, a blind eye for what the Nazis did all over Europe, and of course, the death camps and things like that. It’s something you know; it was a bribe. Of course, it was quite different under a totalitarian regime. But it was exactly the utmost scale of what the British imperialists did with the British working class using the slave labor of the Irish back in the 19th century. That’s why Engels and Marx said you have to get rid of the bulk of the Irish, in order for the British working class to become revolutionary. And first and foremost, you have to give national sovereignty for the Irish in order for them to stay in their own country and not to come into Britain. It’s the same thing.
What I found interesting is as you said, just as there is a farmers protest here and entire farms are being taken over by corporations and Monsanto’s power grows more and more, we’re seeing the same crisis in the US. Because the government is taking – from what I learned – the government is taking land from private farmers and ranchers, to create a national park, and then they sell off the area to private corporations, even areas with uranium. So what happened now in Oregon, is that a lot of farmers and ranchers, white farmers and ranchers, came out to protest against the government. But the interesting thing is, that the American Left who you would think would be the first ones to join – didn’t join. So what is your opinion about that?
Well, in my opinion, most of the Left, even in Europe and the United States, lost the ability to know or to acknowledge the real problems. In order to provide a revolutionary movement, let’s say. If we consider the Left to be a revolutionary force, you have to know the grassroots’ problem. You are fighting for the working class, that in order become a dominant class, it has to be a dominant class for the nation. That is what the Communist Manifesto said back in 1845. Marx said that the working class doesn’t have countries. But at the same time he said that since the working class has to gain power, it must become the dominant class of the nation. A nation is not something you sign off at the doorsteps of the country or on the constitution. Nation is something that comes from the bottom-up that creates a society. A place where someone can fight for rights, for the rights to self-government. If you lose sight of that, it’s easy to cross sides and to become part of the dominant class and adopt the ideology of imperialism. See how easy it is nowadays internationally to become mixed up with cosmopolitanism – the ideology of imperialism. “You don’t need nations.” Even in our own country, we have Left forces, saying that because of the migrants and the refugee crisis, “Let’s get rid of the national borders.” Ok. NATO did that for us. That’s what NATO did. So, the extreme left, let’s say, the most radical left, by saying “Let’s get rid of the national borders,” invited actually NATO to do that. That’s why I went out and said that “Ok, the radicals of Left saying that are only agents of NATO imperialism.” It’s the same thing. We’re fighting for the people first and foremost, for everyone who has the right to own a land in the country, as a farmer or as a citizen, to have his own traditions, beliefs, even a religion. I don’t believe in any religion but I will fight to death for my people to have their right to have their own religion. That’s what Ernesto Che Guevara said about the theology of liberation in Latin America. He was not a religious man. But he fought and said that a revolutionary or liberation theology was part of parcel of national liberation movements in Latin America. You can see that even in Greece.
For the people in order to become free, first and foremost they have to have national self-determination. National sovereignty. To become a nation. To become a nation is where the last of the last of the citizens has the right to create the state that the citizen lives in. That’s what nations is all about. And on top of that he has the ability, has the right, to create his own tradition, it’s own art, civilization. We don’t have to earn a civilization. We have it. Human civilization, created from different cultures, different historical types of civilization. Every type of civilization, of people’s civilization, has the right, to become the dominant civilization in its own country. And by dominant civilization, I don’t mean “get rid of the minority.” No. Every citizen has the right. In order to do that we have to have national sovereignty. I believe in the Greek tradition. I’m proud of the Greek tradition. Because I know the Greeks that have fought for, the Greeks that came out of the revolution or war of independence, like the US historical textbook I am talking about, and the major slogan from the period was “Freedom or Death.” We were the first people who said “Freedom or Death.” Not “Patria O Muerte” [Homeland or Death] like the Latin Americans. We said that also. But we said “Freedom or Death.” We were fighting not only against Ottomans but against all the empires of Europe, the holy alliance. And I am proud of that tradition. And I have the right to keep to that tradition. And to keep calling myself “I am a Greek.” And since I am a Greek I have a huge tradition looking back. And since I am a Greek, I am living in Greece, I have to fight for democracy. Because it’s my tradition. It’s not only a political demand, it’s my tradition. It was here that the first fight for democracy, real democracy, took place, going back to the classical time. So it is my tradition.
It’s only a world tradition. It’s my tradition, first and foremost. And that’s why they are fighting against Greece. They want to destroy the Greeks. That’s why they slander Greeks. That they are nowadays Jews for Europe. What the Nazis said about the Jews back in the middle war years, they are saying now about the Greeks. Why? Because they want to destroy the classical tradition of Greece. And the classical tradition of Greece was about democracy. Was about how to provide for the people. Demos we called that. The power of Demos, the power of the people. And they recreate the whole classical tradition, through their own imperialist aims.
They say in Berlin, in Paris, in London, and even in Washington, that they are the continuers of the classical tradition. No, the continuers are us. That’s why I see a civilizational collusion. Different civilizations. And I’m not talking about high from bullshit. I’m talking about real civilizations. Our civilization, even through our religion, it’s not mine but most of the Greeks, we’re talking about free will. The Greek Orthodox Church is based on free will. It’s not like Catholicism or Protestantism. We believe in free will. Because even Christianity had to adopt to the classical Greek tradition. And that’s why in the Greek Orthodox Church you will see even the most religious person talking about free will. The free will of the human.
For us, we are fighting for human freedom. And we are facing the Protestant tradition in terms of economics and politics that says first and foremost it’s submission. No. For us, it’s free will. It’s freedom. Freedom to do whatever we like in terms of the person inside a society. That’s the difference between the Greek culture. Even now the European elite call us stubborn, we don’t cooperate with what they say. Their vision of cooperation is the submission of the person to the totality. A totalitarian view of cooperation. No. We say that we can be different. Quite different. For a different road. But we can fight together. That’s how the Greek city-states back in the fourth century BC fought against the Persians. They were fighting each other before, but in the critical moment, the Athenians decided to leave their own city-state in order to go to Salamis to fight effectively against the Persians. And of course, they were fighting for freedom and democracy against Eastern despotism. That’s the whole meaning. And it’s even today. We are very different. We can fight easily each other. Easily. You can see it even in our own close relations. But at the critical moment, we will find a way to unite and fight the common enemy.
And that’s the difficult part also. We’re not soldiers, like the Germans. Following the leader, the Führer. No. We are quite different. You see, our national hero, one our national heroes is Kolokotronis. Kolokotronis is like, I can translate it in English, Kolos is in us, and kotrona is a stone. It means “us, as a stone.” Kolokotronis.
No. Actually, he had a forefather that could jump easily more than 10 meters from a stationary position. And the Albanians, the Turkish Albanians back then said – he was admired by the Albanians, you know, back then, they were very renowned fighters. And the Albanians called him Kolokotronis, he has an “us” out of a stone in order to jump out of a stationary position ten meters away. That’s why he was called Kolokotronis. Kolokotronis said “it’s easy.” He fought for Napoleon and for the English as a mercenary back in the early 19th century. When he was the leader, one of the military leaders of the Greek revolution, he said “It’s easy to lead a European army. It’s easy. You are the general, you have a staff, you deploy your plan, and then you give the orders to your staff, and the commanders and the staff decide what to do next. It’s very difficult to lead a Greek army. Because a Greek army, you have to go out and say good things about someone, say bad things about the other, give presents to the other, and things like that. It’s very difficult. No European can lead a Greek army.” It’s the Greek society, it’s the Greek flavor, it’s the Greek culture. But that’s what we are. That’s our Greek temperament. That what differentiates us from all over Europe and the Balkans. And that’s what we want to keep. If we go back to the 16th century, the 17th century, if you read the Europeans that came here as travelers, you will see the same thing. When they were coming to Ottoman Greece, they were expected to see philosophers discussing philosophy matters and things like that. Instead they met poor people subjected to a very despotic regime, the southern regime. But they liked the term “freedom.” That’s why all over the place, you’ll see easily, you’ll find the names Elefteris and Eleftheria. Elefteris is a very common name, Elefteris means “free,” “freedom.” Eleftheria means “Freedom” in Greek. And you’ll see that all over even in the 16th century. English, Germans, French travelers came here, to Ottoman Greece, from all over the place and heard everywhere people saying to each other “Yasu Elefteris” [Hi Eleftheria]. Elefteris is the Greek name for freedom, or Elefteria – the female name. It’s something, you know, you have to… It goes back centuries. And, we are proud of it, we are not going to get rid of it, and we don’t want to get rid of it, to become a German type of society. And that’s why the human center of civilization started from here, something to do with the climate, and of course, as Hippocrates said back then, “The Greeks are much better fighters than Asians because they are not under a despotic regime.”
It’s the same thing right now. Of course we are trying to keep up because we don’t have a political situation that is free and democratic but it’s inside every Greek. And you want something like that. They didn’t have… We try to fight, our people fought for that kind… it’s easy for the Greeks when they start fighting to find a way to create a democratic situation. It’s easy for us. We did that back in the war. And if you remember the partisans were fighting up in the mountains. And in the villages are the most socially backward socieities, but in these villages a new kind of democracy was created. And it was easy for the most backward village to adapt that type of democracy, a new type. The villagers created their own judges, they created their own political system and they decided themselves what to do. Under an occupation. Even the intelligence secret agents that fought in Greece, who were of course against the Partisans…
Yes. Mr. Woodhouse. Even he said, in his own book, afterwards, that in a period of three years of fighting over the mountains, the Greeks managed to civilize the most uncivilized place, the mountains in Central Greece, because you know it’s something with the Greek people. It’s the same thing. The difficult thing for us to start, but after that it’s easy. It’s our tradition. It will come up. We will find our way to create the most fantastic and admirable democracy. The only problem is to convince people you have to get rid of the whole regime, not only a party or a government. Otherwise, you will lose and die.
Thank you very much. Efhartiso poly.
The volunteer battalion of the ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Right Sector group is illegal, according to Ukraine’s Judge Advocate General, who slammed the group for its failure to integrate into Ukraine’s military.
The Right Sector battalion has over the past two years failed to decide whether it wanted to join the ranks of Ukraine’s army or of National Guards, the Judge Advocate General said in an interview. “According to all juridical norms and practices, and to the Ukrainian Constitution, speaking in meager legal terms, the Right Sector volunteer battalion is an illegal armed group,” Judge Advocate General Anatoly Matios told Ukraine’s Public Radio.
Matios has condemned certain incidents when the Right Sector volunteer battalion militants violated Ukrainian legislation.
“It is unacceptable that a [military] unit, even acting under the slogans of patriotism, should be lurking well-armed in rearward areas, playing firing on police checkpoints. Whether police is right or wrong is a question of law and its application,” Matios said.
In July 2015 the Right Sector militants clashed with police in western Ukraine’s Mukachevo. Kiev called the incident an “act of terror,” while the group said its forces would stand against the authorities across the country. The incident left four civilians and three police officers injured. One civilian was killed by Right Sector gunmen. The ultranationalist group said two of its fighters were killed and four injured in the incident.
If Ukrainian authorities go on with covering up general crime with patriotism, “chaos will devour Ukraine,” Matios said.
He however described Right Sector as “extreme patriots of the state” and their fallen fighters as “heroes, the country’s elite”.
Members of the Right Sector group took an active role in events on Maidan which resulted in a government coup in Ukraine in 2013 that led to the deposition of President Viktor Yanukovich.
In Russia the group’s activities were banned under a Supreme Court decision in January 2015. In addition, Russia’s Investigative Committee started criminal cases against several members of the radical Ukrainian group over charges of fighting against the Russian military in the Chechen wars of the 1990s.
On January 19 Ukrainian nationalists, largely represented by Right Sector, marched through the center of the Ukrainian capital of Kiev to commemorate the two year anniversary of Ukraine’s Euromaidan events. The crowd marched with Ukrainian flags and the flags of the far-right Right Sector group and gathered piles of tires setting them ablaze in front of the governmental buildings.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
The bitter truth on Ukraine and the “Revolution of Dignity”
The documentary is a good clue of what actually went on when the entire western media kept so quite about the real facts on Ukraine’s “revolution”. I chose to put the word revolution in quotes, because when a small fascist minority together with allied criminal gangs hijack a massive, democratic, uprising through ultra violence and overthrows the government to form a “government”, a regime, of its own liking, it’s called a coup d’etat. It is of course completely coincidental that exactly this development in Ukraine happened to serve US foreign policy and NATO geo-strategic goals extremely well.
An actual revolution, according to the historical, political, social and legal meaning, is when a large portion of the people from different sectors unite and organize, through a democratic resistance struggle and even armed resistance if necessary, in order to overthrow a tyrant regime. The right to self-determination by armed struggle against tyranny is permissible under the UN charter’s article 51, concerning self-defense. But it is very exact on the fact that it only defends democratic, popular uprisings and not coup d’etats. This documentary shines some good lights in the shadows where US’s and NATO’s plans for Russia are laid.
The hard-hitting documentary by Paul Moreira “Ukraine, les masques de la révolution” [Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution], released on Monday night by Canal+, created a turmoil both in Ukraine and France well before the premiere. On Sunday the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry reported in Facebook that their Ambassador in France had sent an outraged letter to Canal+ where he condemned the documentary as a “a pamphlet at the height of the worst disinformation traditions” “using primitive methods of journalistic manipulation, including the handling of comments of respondents, distorted in translation and facts and purely fabricated images“. The same day Le Monde doubled the pressure on Canal+. Paul Moreira has calmly and respectfully responded to his critics by a detailed post translated into English here. To the credit of Canal Plus’ management, the documentary was screened in time:
Please watch it attentively. And let’s try to understand why it has infuriated the official Kiev so much.
To be fair, the masterpiece did not reveal anything new. So far there were a lot of separate investigations by international organizations, NGOs, concerned individuals etc on different aspects of the “Revolution of Dignity“: who actually killed the “heavenly hundred“, what happened in Odessa in May 2014, what is going on in the zone of “anti-terrorist operation” in the South-East of Ukraine, where are the “Russian troops” and where are the Western mercenaries there… But most of them were successfully ignored by the mainstream Western media, stick to their comfortable myths about Euromaidan.
The principal danger of Paul Moreira heartbreaking 50-minutes long documentary is that it exposed all critically important lies and silenced facts about “Revolution of Dignity” and its agents in a concentrated form at the established French TV channel.
Paul Moreira did not do anything but showed a simple and honest truth – there was no dignity in that “revolution”. There is no “free civilizational choice” and “independent and legitimate authorities” in today’s Ukraine. There are gangsters licensed to kill and rob, psychopaths and criminals in the “democratic parliament”, parallel Nazi-inspired army, foreign officials who manipulate the political process in a sovereign country, media under total nationalist control etc. His argumentation and picture are so evident, eloquent and bright that there is no reasonable way to refute them. Here is the cause of hysteria and calls to ban (which paradoxically has triggered unprecedented public attention to the movie far beyond France) – they understand that an open and fair discussion would lead further undesirable revelations against the interim rulers in Kiev.
One more pleasant outcome of this story is that the rumors about clinical death of the independent journalism in the West are apparently somewhat exaggerated…
The filmmaker’s own words
By Paul Moreira, published in French on his blog on Mediapart.fr, Jan 30, 2016, translated to English by New Cold War.org
When I started this investigation on Ukraine, I was astonished to discover the degree to which the massacre in Odessa [May 2, 2014] had faded from memory. Forty five people were killed in a huge fire in the heart of a major European city in the middle of the 21stcentury. Everything was filmed by dozens of cameras and cell phones. Yet around me, no one remembered.
Forty five Ukrainians of Russian origin died in a fire inside a building [the Trades Union House in the city center of Odessa] caused by the Molotov cocktails of Ukrainian nationalist militias. After a quick investigation, I discovered that the event had not been censored. It had been addressed, discussed, but never investigated. As though too embarrassing to discuss.
Why no investigation? Probably because the victims were of Russian origin. These victims were reported as “persons” but without knowing who they were, who killed them and why they were dead. “Persons” who were nobodies.
In speaking of these deaths, our democracies should have expressed some sympathy, officially, solemnly. There should have been strong reactions by chancelleries. Press releases by ministries of foreign affairs. [However], following the Russian invasion of Crimea, Russian-speaking populations in the conflict were assigned the roles of villains.
What happened on that May 2, 2014, in Odessa? I discovered the answer after viewing hours of video shootings, interviewing dozens of witnesses, finding victims and aggressors and comparing the stories until I pieced together facts that make sense of this fury. Important fact: I interviewed and have broadcast only direct witnesses of events–the people I saw on videos– in order to filter to some extent the exaggerations and lies that arise in such a circumstance, on the side of the attackers as well as victims. The result of this painstaking work is at the heart of the film to be broadcast Monday evening [February 1] by Canal Plus [Canal +].
During my investigation into this massacre of little exposure, I saw the importance of Ukrainian nationalist militias. They were at the forefront of street fighting on Maidan Square (January-February 2014], and later formed battalions to fight Russian troops in the east of the country. But these battalions were merged into the army. They did not exercise the same discipline. They were able to serve as auxiliaries to the government; or become a parallel police. And, yes, in their ranks, the signs of neo-Nazi ideology were obvious.
My investigation went against the commonly accepted narrative. I knew I was going to meet strong opposition, that we would be accused of playing into the hands of Putin, to voice elements of Russian propaganda. I did not expect to meet with such huge denial, bordering on hysteria at times. On a Ukrainian website, I am called a “terrorist” in the pay of the Russian secret service. The site calls for a ban on the film. Even the Ukrainian ambassador to France pressured Canal Plus [not to screen the film]. That is what surprises me the most. For it seems to me that Ukraine must ask itself about these paramilitary groups. They are, as stated in the film, the greatest threat to Ukrainian democracy. To renounce saying what one knows to be the truth because “it plays into Russian propaganda” is to become a propagandist oneself. One omits, not because we are liars but because we are full of good intentions. But never forget that from such omissions, the worst conspiracy theories are born.
In France, the accusations against the film have come mainly from two militant blogs and an unusually violent writing by the reporter in charge of Ukraine in Le Monde, Benoit Vitkine. In all three publications, the arguments are similar. It is said I did not nuance enough my perception of the extreme right, which ranges from dark brown neo-Nazism to light-beige nationalism. I exaggerated the importance of the paramilitary groups, armed with Kalashnikovs and sometimes with tanks. I have not stressed enough their heroic role in their fight against the Russians. I exaggerated the influence of Americans in the regime change [of February 2014].
And then certain factual errors are pinpointed. I’ll try to answer them here.
To question the rigor of my documentary, Benoit Vitkine cites one, sole example. He accuses me of having created out of my imagination the manufacture of a new generation of tanks by the nationalist battalion Azov (for which he seems to feel a fond indulgence). But it’s the truth. Andriy Biletsky, the head of the battalion, sang to me its praises [manufactured tank] with much pride. 1.2 meters of armored shield in the front and steering video cameras used to steer it. The technical details of this new beast of war can be found here.
Benoit Vitkine is well aware that Andriy Biletsky comes from the most radical extreme right. His electoral standing is low (although he is a Rada deputy), but his standing in steel and in battle-hardened men is strong.
Then Benoit Vitkine insinuates, without citing anything in support, that my purpose is to highlight “the installation of a new fascism in Ukraine”. Vitkine must be very angry to write such things. I never said that fascism had settled in Ukraine. The key phrase of my documentary is: “The Ukrainian revolution has created a monster that will soon turn against its creator.” And then I tell how far-right groups attacked the parliament and killed three policemen in August 2015. I have never suggested that the attackers were in power. Even if those who are in power were able to use them.
The only “good point” which Benoit Vitkine wants to award me is that I worked on the massacre of Odessa, a “frequently overlooked episode”. You said it yourself, dear colleague…
Anna Colin Lebedev writes a blog on Mediapart.fr. She, on the other hand, reproaches me precisely for my treatment of the “drama” of Odessa. She is careful to never write the word “massacre” or “butchery”, to never precisely name the savagery of the murders. Anna Colin Lebedev affirms that this “drama” is not at all ignored. The only proof she offers are papers published … a year after the fact. Those of Le Monde (Benoit Vitkine) and The Economist. A blogger, Olivier Berruyer, conducted an analysis of article headings in the days immediately following the massacre. This analysis is available on his website. It is most eloquent.
Anna Colin Lebedev accuses me of creating a story “centered on the tears of victims”. That’s true, I gave voice to a mother who lost her 17 year old son, Vadim Papura. She spoke reluctantly, she was certain that I would not use her statements, that the West does not care about their fate. I also give voice to Ukrainian nationalists, some of whom even voice remorse. I interviewed eyewitnesses from all sides. According to Anna, everything is the fault of the police, who were not sufficiently effective [in stopping the violence that day]. This is what the film should have focused on, she says. Not on militiamen who threw Molotov cocktails on the trade union building or who finished off the wounded lying on the ground [after jumping from windows to escape the burning building]. Not on the fact that none of the killers has been imprisoned and that the Ukrainian government has sabotaged any judicial inquiry, as recalled in the article in The Economist [May 8, 2014] which she kindly quotes as reference but which she probably has not taken the time to read.
That’s it for the specific criticisms. From there, we descend into tiny details.
Thus, Anna Colin Lebedev tells me that I mention the presence of the symbol of Azov on Maidan while the battalion had yet to be created. It will be formed three months later. Sure, but for me, it was just a name change: the symbol was everywhere on Maidan, it is the same symbol as the group ‘Patriots of Ukraine’, who have the same leader, Biletsky, the same men and who will go on to form a military battalion to fight in Mariupol [Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine].
So for clarity, I made the editorial decision not to go into such levels of detail. The fact that this famous [Azov] symbol is borrowed from an SS division, Das Reich, does not seem to move my critics.
Igor Moysichuk, according to Anna Colin-Lebedev, was not the spokesman for Pravy Sektor [Right Sector] however he was introduced as such in this televised debate. Igor Moysichuk is a member of nationalist splinter groups that sailed between Azov and Pravy Sektor but he was mostly a crook playing for his personal account. He joined the Radical party of Oleg Lyashko and he was arrested, in front of our camera, after extorting 100,000 Hryvnia from some guy from his party.
In the blog Comité Ukraine [Ukraine Committee] by Renaud Rebardy, I am accused of not reporting that the Azov battalion had integrated into the regular army. Renaud Rebardy will have misheard and, especially, misunderstood the nature of relations between the Ukrainian government and Azov. Here is a verbatim commentary from the film when I talk to Azov: “Officially, this brigade obeys the Ukrainian national army. And yet, many of them remain masked.”
And this is what their leader Andriy Biletsky told me about their financial means: “Well, if we talk about finances, for acquiring armaments, it is provided by the state, as is part of our equipment. The rest comes from the work of activists among whom there are small and medium businessmen. They invest money and make all of this possible. ”
During the interview and in comments that I finally edited out, Biletsky utters a veiled threat against the government he deems too corrupt. The subtlety of Azov is that they are officially in the army but they retain a wide margin of autonomy.
Then Renaud Rebardy says that there have “never been talks” to remove Russian as an official language in 13 Ukrainian regions. The facts: the Ukrainian parliament proposed to do so on February 23, 2014, and the day after, the war started. Russian-speaking populations were worried about their future and Putin took advantage of that to launch military manoeuvres. On February 28, the [interim] Ukrainian president repealed the measure. But it was too late, the devil had escaped from the box.
The same Renaud Rebardy chides me for reporting that the new Ukrainian Minister of Finance is a former U.S. diplomat. Natalie Jaresko became a naturalized Ukrainian in December 2014 in order to join the government. Before that, she worked first as a diplomat at the State Department, specializing in Eastern European countries, from 1989 to 1995, and then she maintained a strong relationship with the U.S. government after taking over the presidency of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), an investment fund that invests money from a U.S. state agency (USAID) in the Ukrainian economy. She remained there (in addition to her position at the private investment fund she ran, Horizon Capital) until she took a job in the Ukrainian government [as finance minister]. These are not trivial matters, correct?
Benoit Vitkine accuses me of reporting that the new ministers of the economy are “pro-business”. Yet this is the politics from which they declare themselves “aggressively pro-business,” I have it in my video recordings. This explains, for example, the fourfold increase in natural gas prices. Among other things.
Rebardy also accuses me of being too harsh with Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the Svoboda Party. I describe him: “Historically, he belongs to the neo-Nazi movement.” This man has many times said that he wants to rid the country of the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”; he often uses the term “Yid”. He was also the founder of the Social National Party (does that name remind you of something?).
Another criticism came from the militant Euromaidan blog: I gave voice to Alexis Albu, a communist activist of Odessa whom they accuse of being homophobic and red-brown.
Why did I interview Albu? Not because of his opinions but because I discovered on amateur video his presence in the building of Odessa on the famous May 2, 2014. And let me remind you, my goal was to find people who are seen in videos and then gather their comments on what they saw. I try to establish the facts. What interested me in Albu is that we see him walking out of the union building intact and shortly thereafter, he is laying on the ground, gravely wounded in the head. What happened in between?
Finally Anna Colin Lebedev noted a sentence written in the presentation of the website ofPremières Lignes announcing my documentary: “No one has really asked who they (the Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries) were.” This sentence is obviously factually false. But if she saw the movie and, most of all, listened to it, she knows that this sentence is not in there. It was written to “sell” the film on the website of the production house and can therefore be attributed to clumsy marketing.
All this said, if one sits at the level global public perception, it is clear that the general public knows nothing about the importance of Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups, nor the existence of the massacre of Odessa of May 2, 2014. That`s because this issue has been underreported (which is not to say not reported at all). We know from the Russian side, it is said that far-right nationalists went to fight in the Donbass. But we know less on the other side.
To conclude, I invite everyone to watch the film on Monday night on Canal Plus and make your own judgment. Because the people who insult me and threaten me on social networks are precisely those who have not seen the documentary. They imagined it. Faith is a powerful drug.
You can watch the February 1, 2016 broadcast of ‘Ukraine: The Masks of the Revolution’ on channel ‘Canal Plus’ here (in French, 54 minutes), or click on the screen below. English-language promo and other information on the film is here.
Vadå “aldrig igen”? Och vilka var egentligen de andra 9 miljonerna?
Två frågor som alla i dagens Europa har all rätt att fråga sig och framförallt fråga sina regeringar och sin media.
Nu, så här på förintelsedagen; varför vet vi så väldigt lite om de 9 miljoner övriga européer som förintades i dessa läger?
Att minnas förintelsens offer är mänskligt och oerhört viktigt, men varför minns vi endast den delen av offren som var judar? Att hela västvärlden förbiser majoriteten av de övriga offrens identitet och endast talar om de 6 miljoner som var judar, är för många av de antinazistiska demokraternas och motståndsmännens barn, barnbarn och anhöriga direkt stötande. De kräver förstås att deras offer och förluster också skall uppmärksammas och hedras så att uppmaningen “aldrig mer” även kan gälla ideologisk och socialekonomisk förföljelse och förintelse.
Det beräknas ha dött över 15 miljoner människor i de 23 största tyska förintelselägren och i de över 1 200 underlägren mellan åren 1939 och 1945. 6 miljoner var judar och 9 miljoner var inklusive romerna främst européer från Ryssland, Baltstaterna, Östeuropa och Balkan. Oavsett om någon inte vill hålla med om siffrorna, så är det denna fördelning av dödsoffren som gäller. 1/3 var judar och 2/3 var till sin majoritet utpekade nazistmotståndare och de klassade som undermänniskor.
Den 27 januari 1945 befriades fångarna från Auschwitz-Birkenau koncentrationsläger och därför uppmärksammas detta med en internationell förintelsedag så att ”vi aldrig skall glömma” och låta detta hända igen.
Men de 9 miljoner människor som mördades och som inte var judar, har vi för länge sedan glömt och därför förföljs idag människor med demokratiska åsikter eller s.k vänsteråsikter igen. Civilrätts- och människorätts rörelser och demokratiska aktivistgrupper misstänkliggörs och demoniseras igen i Europa, precis som då. Borde inte Förintelsedagen hedra minnet av förintelsens ALLA offer?
Alla som idag öppet talar emot eller motsätter sig EU:s nyliberala kolonialism, alltså raserandet av både civila och mänskliga rättigheter, och som istället föredrar demokrati och rättvisa – framför de politiska och finansiella oligarkierna – är ideologiska ättlingar till majoriteten av de icke-judar som förintades i de tyska lägren då.
Då kallades de alla ”kommunister”, men mycket långt ifrån alla var verkligen kommunister. De klassades så därför att Röda Armén var de som piskade nazisterna värst, så alla motståndsrörelser i Europa oavsett karaktär “färgades röda” av nazisterna. Tyvärr har den feltolkningen följt med in i våra dagar. Inte minst genom den nuvarande Europeiska medians försorg, d.v.s. nyliberalismens propagandamaskineri. I verkligheten var motståndsrörelserna i Europa, i sin grund socialistiska och demokratisk-patriotiska.
Väldigt många av de intellektuella, poeterna, artisterna, förläggarna, skribenterna, motståndsmännen och rebellerna i de kämpande, fria delarna av Europa då var liberaler, demokrater, socialister och vanliga arbetare, bönder och bybor som tog till vapen främst som nazistbekämpande patrioter. Ja, t.o.m. vissa konservativa nazimotståndare fanns bland de 9 miljoner icke-judiska offren. Det handlade om människor som helt enkelt inte var beredda att lämna över sitt land till Hitler utan strid, och detta var också den absolut vanligaste drivkraften till att man anslöt sig till motståndsrörelsen.
Som första nation befriades Grekland den 10 Augusti 1944, då EAM/ELAS själva och utan stöd från vare sig allierade eller Sovjet, slutligen tvingade ut nazisterna från landet. Faktiskt, så var det enda landet där judar aktivt och organiserat kunde bekämpa Nazisterna, den grekiska motståndsrörelsen ELAS. Och tusentals grekiska judar gjorde detta också.
Det största och mest effektiva verkliga motståndet emot nazisterna under 2:a världskriget var faktiskt inte de allierades arméer i Europa, de hade ju åkt på stryk överallt, utan motståndsrörelserna och deras betydande sabotage- och motstånds-krigsföring, främst i Östeuropa, Grekland, Frankrike, Belgien och Norge. Och det är just den utvecklingen som dagens nyliberaler och nynazister vill strypa redan innan de demokratiska krafterna hinner organisera sig i en genuin och effektiv befrielsekamp igen, precis som då. Därför slätar man skamligt nog över de 9 miljoner offren som inte var judar i dagens förintelseminne.
I enlighet med tidsandan låg dock nazisternas och den Europeiska och Amerikanska finanselitens ”kommunist-paranoia” till grund för den västeuropeiska allmänhetens uppfattning av dessa motståndsrörelser, så för icke-judarna blev samlingsnamnet för nazistmotståndet i Europa, ”kommunister” , vare sig de var kommunister eller ej. Den groteska generaliseringen görs än idag av högerextrema och högkonservativa och har gjorts sedan 1945. Till sådan grad att de europeiska parlamenten och den europeiska median idag har anpassat sig till den fascistiska logiken. Att vara demokrat och aktivt värna om civila och mänskliga rättigheter och rättvisa ses av EU-oligarkins parlament som “upprorsmakeri”.
Så nu när Europa och Tyskland återigen blivit en hemvist för nazistideologin och dess krigshets återigen sprids, är det av absolut största vikt att var och en vågar stå rakryggat och ta upp några specifika frågor enligt rubrikens frågeställningar. I synnerhet då nyliberalismens och nynazismens propagandaapparat inte någonsin tänker göra det. Inte sedan 1939, har den så kusligt samstämmiga Tysk-Europeiska politiken och median varit en så uppenbar anstiftare till ökad rasism, samhällssplittring, fattigdom, massakrer på civila, inbördeskrig, folkmord och krigsbrott. Libyen, Grekland, Ukraina, Syrien, Yemen är några av exemplen. Endast Grekland har av dessa klarat sig undan krig. Än så länge.
Jag är sannerligen inte ensam om att efterlysa att några ytterligare frågeställningar kring förintelsen lyfts idag vid sidan av den Europeiska, Bryssel- och Berlin-styrda media apparaten. Som exempelvis:
- Varför accepterar dagens EU-medborgare så enkelt politiska åtgärder, ekonomiska modeller och medial propaganda som uppenbarligen föder nazism, fascism och rasism?
- Vilka verkliga åtgärder vidtar det civila samhället i Europa idag för att inte muslimerna och de av Europeisk media utpekade syndabockarna, skall behöva uppleva samma skräckvälde som bl.a. judarna och nazistmotståndarna gjorde under slutet av 30-talet och första hälften av 40-talet i Europa?
- Vilka var egentligen de 9 miljoner icke-judar som förintades under 2:a världskriget och varför just dessa?
What “never again”? And who were really the other 9 million?
Two questions that all Europeans today have every right to ask, their governments and their media.
Now, on Holocaust Day; Why do we know so little about the 9 million other Europeans who were exterminated in these camps?
Remembering the Holocaust is human, and extremely important, but why do we only remember the part of the victims that were Jews? That the entire Western world ignores the majority of the other victims identities and only talks about the 6 million that were Jews, is downright offensive to the anti-Nazi Democratic Resistance fighters children, grandchildren and relatives. They of course demand that also their sacrifices and losses should be recognized and honored, so the call “never again” can apply also to ideological and socio-economic persecution and annihilation.
It is estimated that over 15 million people died in the 23 largest German extermination camps and the over 1,200 sub-camps, between 1939 and 1945. 6 million were Jews and 9 million were including the Romes, mostly Europeans from Russia, the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and the Balkans. If someone does not want to agree with the figures, still this is the accurate percentage of distribution of deaths. One third were Jews and two thirds were mainly Nazi opponents.
On 27 January 1945 prisoners from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp was freed and therefore we honor the memory of the victims with an international Holocaust Day, so that “we shall never forget,” and “never let it happen again”.
But the 9 million people who were murdered and who were not Jews, we have forgotten long ago, and therefore people with democratic views, or so called left-wing views, are today again persecuted. The new civil and human-rights movements and democratic activist groups are discredited and demonized again in Europe, just as they were then. Shouldn’t the Holocaust Day honor the memory of ALL the victims of the Holocaust?
All those who today openly talk against or oppose the EU’s neoliberal colonialism, ie the destruction of civil and human rights and who prefer democracy and justice instead of the political and financial oligarchies, are the ideological descendants of the majority of the non-Jews who were exterminated in the German camps because they were against Nazism.
Then, they were all called “communists”, but very far from all were really Communists. They were classified as that because the Red Army was the one that whipped the Nazis the worst, so all resistance movements in Europe regardless of character were “colored red” by the Nazis. Unfortunately, this incorrect interpretation followed into our days. Not least through the current European media’s auspices, ie, the neo-liberal propaganda machinery. In reality, the resistance movements in Europe then, in their basics, were democratic-patriotic.
Very many of the intellectuals, poets, artists, publishers, writers, resistance fighters and rebels in the fighting, free parts of Europe, were liberals, democrats, socialists and ordinary workers, farmers and villagers who took up arms, primarily as an anti-Nazi and anti-occupation, patriotic act. Yes, even some conservative Nazi opponents, were among the 9 million non-Jewish victims. It was about people who simply were not willing to handover their country and themselves to Hitler without a fight, and this was by far the most common driving force for joining the resistance movements then.
Greece was the first liberated nation, in August 10, 1944, by EAM/ELAS themselves and without support of either the Allies or the Soviets, who finally forced the Nazis out of the country. In fact the only country in all of Europe where Jews, on massive scale, really could fight the Nazis was in the Greek resistance ELAS. And thousands of Greek Jews did this too.
The largest and most effective real resistance against the Nazis during World War 2 was actually not the allied armies in Europe, because they got quite whipped the first three years of the war. The English Army which was used to colonize so their strategy was to fight an “imperial war” also on European ground instead of fighting a “liberation war”. An imperial war is slow and demands a takeover of the infrastructure, the resources and the administration of the country. Therefore the resistance movements in Eastern Europe, Greece, France, Belgium and Norway, that in some cases were working together with Allie units, and in other cases with the Red Army, was the most effective and real resistance against the Nazis throughout the war. And it is precisely this development that today’s neoliberals, conservatives and neo-Nazis want to strangle before the democratic forces have time to organize themselves in a genuine and effective liberation struggle again, just like then. Therefore in today’s Holocaust Day they will once again shamefully smooth over the 9 million victims who were non-Jews.
In accordance with the time-spirit however, the Nazi and the European and American financial elite’s “communist paranoia”, formed the basis for the Western European public opinion of these resistance movements, so “communists” became the collective name for Nazi resistance in Europe, whether they were communists or not. This grotesque generalization is made also today, by the extreme right, the right-wing conservatives and the neoliberals, and has been ever since 1945. To the extent that the European Parliaments and the European media today have adapted themselves to this fascist logic. Being a democrat and actively defend the civil and human rights and justice, is seen as being “seditious” by the EU-oligarchy’s parliaments.
So now, when Europe and Germany once again become the continent of the Nazi ideology and its warmongering is spread again, it is of crucial importance that each and one of us dares to stand tall and raise the specific issues from the headline. In particular, when the neoliberal, neo-Nazi propaganda is never going to do it. Not since 1939 has the so creepy concordant German-European policy and the European media been such an obvious instigator of increased racism, social fragmentation, poverty, civilian massacres, civil wars, genocide and war crimes. Libya, Greece, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, are some of the examples. Of those only Greece has avoided war… So far.
I am certainly not alone in calling for few further questions concerning the Holocaust day, alongside the European, Brussels and Berlin-run, media apparatus. Such as:
- Why does today’s European citizens so easily accept policies, economic models and media propaganda that so obviously gives birth to Nazism, fascism and racism?
- What real actions is the civil society in Europe today taking, so that Muslims and the by the European media designated scapegoats, should not experience the same terror the Jews and the Nazi-resisting Europeans did during the late 30’s and the 40’s in Europe?
- Who were really the 9 million non-Jews who were exterminated during the 2nd World War and why these?
Demokratins “muskler” må vara förtvinade, men den är inte död såvida inte vi låter bödlarna “vårda” den
De absolut bästa stunderna i samtalen i de sociala medierna för mig är när någon med huvudet på skaft, lyfter en fråga eller ställer en fråga med den upplystes insikt, som i sin tur lockar till eftertanke innan man svarar,.. om man har svar vill säga.
Min fb-vän Kjell-Erik Andersson, som är administratör för facebook-sidan Graasroot International lockade under ett “samtal” på sidan till följande svar, som jag vill dela med resten av er. Att EU håller på att braka ihop var huvudinlägget.
KL: “EU har egentligen brakat ihop redan 2012, men hålls vid liv på konstgjord väg genom en påtvingad “ekonomisk respirator” (privatiseringar, åtstramningar och raserandet av civila och mänskliga rättigheter och internatiuonell rättvisa, “för att rädda” de mest kriminella “investerarna” och de mest omoraliska bankirerna)… Detta kommer att bli uppenbart så fort Draghi inte kommer att kunna trycka upp och sprida fler värdelösa papperslappar i form av skuld-Euro… Ju fortare “vi” (de Europeiska folken) stänger av “respiratorn” (aktiv dödshjälp) desto snabbare kan återhämtningen via VERKLIGA ekonomier börja för alla de Europeiska nationerna och folken…”
K-E A: “Kanske helt rätt men känns väldigt jobbigt. Det kommer att krävas gigantiska nedskalningar i den reala ekonomin, alternativt mycket stora skuldavskrivningar. Med åtföljande sociala konflikter. Det kommer att ställas mycket höga krav på ledare, som vi inte har i dagsläget.”
KL: Skuldavskrivningarna och även ogiltigförklaringen av olagliga skulder har stöd i internationell rätt och det har FN’s Human Rights rådgivare redan påpekat sedan 2013 till de länder som skuldsatts oskäligt och olagligt (i synnerhet Grekland men också Spanien, Portugal o.s.v)… Däremot så har dessa länder precis som de flesta andra EU-länder försetts med neoliberalismens agenter – som regeringar – som gått storfinansens ärenden istället för att se till att fullfölja det uppdrag de fått av sina folk. Grekernas NEJ-röst som tolkades som ett JA av Tsipras låtsas-vänster är det mest groteska exemplet i Europa så här långt… Samaras så kallade success-story som hela Europa gick på, var en likadan storlögn som syftade till att kasta sand i ögonen på EU-medborgarna tills utförsäljningen fullföljts.
Och du har helt rätt att det ställs stora krav på ledarna, men de kraven skall ställas till verkliga ledare och inte på de ryggradslösa bank-tjänarna till ledare vi har idag (från vänster till höger i nyliberalismens tecken). Folken behöver ersätta dessa mediokra slapptaskar med riktiga ledare som förstår och respekterar demokratins fundamentala huvudprinciper, d.v.s. sådana som ser efter sitt folks bästa, försvarar folkrätten, de offentliga finanserna och landets produktion först och främst – och inte bankernas och de fiktiva marknadernas bästa… I annat fall spelar vi de mörkaste krafterna sedan Hitler rakt i händerna.
K-E A: Mycket bra och initierat skrivet! Frågan är då bara hur folkets nominering av sina rättmätiga ledare ska gå till. Förslag?
KL: “Upplysta och aktiva medborgare som har förmågan att se värdet i solidaritetsprincipen och det sociala tänkandet är det enda svaret för en demokrati med “stuns” och kraft nog att stå emot nykolonialism och fascism… Så länge vi lämnar över våra liv i händerna på ledare som bara ser oss som ekonomiska spelbrickor kommer vi också att förbli sådana tills vi inte ens är det, utan endast skuldslavar och tjänare utan rättigheter. Dagens ledare och dagens s.k. demokratiska regeringar vill uppenbarligen inte ha medborgare utan medbrottslingar och därför ägnar de sådan enorm energi på att förvrida våra uppfattningar om verkligheten och att marknadsföra den nya Europeiska imperialismens allra mest stötande doktriner som nödvändiga. Ledare som lämpar sig för en verklig demokrati d.v.s. ledare som verkligen regerar istället för att styra och administrera finanselitens önskemål, hittar man bland folk som vet hur det ”dagliga brödet” tjänas och som vet vad det innebär att arbeta för sina pengar. Folk som vet hur ett hushåll sköts och hur de grundläggande behoven säkras för ALLA.
Vi kommer aldrig att hitta sanna demokrater som tar sitt uppdrag på allvar bland proffspolitiker och partipolitiska broilers eller hos “experterna”. En tumregel är: Om man behöver experter för att leda en demokratisk stats angelägenheter är det ingen demokrati, utan en oligarki. En “bättre vetande”, oftast självutnämnd elit som leder ett helt folk i “koppel” via skräckpropaganda och komplicerat dravel skapar livegna och slavar. Om vi fortsätter att leta bland “experter” och proffspolitiker eller proffs-syndikalister, kommer vi att fortsätta hitta endast imperie-behjälpliga karriärister och ansvarslösa demagoger som inte har ryggrad nog att ta de rätta besluten. Vi kommer att fortsätta se förhandlingsbara samveten bedra oss efter varje val. Vi behöver vanliga, upplysta medborgare med integritet och ryggrad nog att stå emot frestelser och yttringar av själviskhet och girighet på det offentligas bekostnad.
Svaret finns i några av de sedan antiken ignorerade klassiska, demokratiska huvudprinciperna… I synnerhet de principer som “bekvämt glömts bort” av alla, sedan dess. Nämligen:
- Principen om medborgarens rättigheter till ”anarkistiskt” motstånd (i bemärkelsen spontan självorganisering), civil olydnad och organisering av icke samarbets-, och solidaritets-åtgärder mot grymma monarkier, oligarkier, diktaturer och tyranni i allmänhet.
- Principen om omedelbart återkallande av en förtroendevald om hans handlingar går emot det allmännas bästa och emot sina grundläggande skyldigheter gentemot folket
- Principen om personligt ansvar inför en högsta domstol för alla förtroendevalda vid misstanke om olaglig, försumlig eller äventyrlig hantering av offentliga angelägenheter och statskassa – även retroaktivt, om misstanke om korruption, stöld eller förräderi uppstår. Även strävan till sådana aktiviteter skall behandlas enligt samma princip.
Det finns ett antal sådana grundläggande demokratiska principer som allmänt ignoreras i dag, av alla “demokratiska regeringar”. Principer, som vi vet ansågs så grundläggande i det antika demokratiska Aten, att de var tvungna att uttryckas som praktiserade medborgerliga rättigheter före alla andra. De som nämns här och många fler var tänkta att fungera som säkerhetslås för skyddandet av själva demokratin och för att överhuvudtaget kunna undvika korruption, infiltration och oligarki. Atenarna då visste något om den mänskliga naturens värsta ”avloppsbrunnar” och som vi sedan dess ignorerat till förmån för girighet, makt och megalomani hos våra ledare och finanselit. Istället för att ge bort ytterligare friheter och rättigheter bör vi kunna ta ett steg framåt och återerövra dem vi nyligen förlorat… (ursäkta för den långa texten).
En grundlig förklaring av de grundläggande demokratiska principerna, dess etik och det jag kort säger här finns (men tyvärr bara på engelska än så länge) i introduktionen och grundsynen till min blog, för den som är intresserad.
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16888
From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not affected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge of monopolizing life itself.
Noam Chomsky 2015 Videos 2015 Noam chomsky conference 2015 noam chomsky debate 2015 noam chomsky conversation 2015 noam chomsky interview
Noam Chomsky: America (US) is The Biggest Terrorist in the world (2015) https://youtu.be/272vNvH0-jc
Noam Chomsky: “The Emerging New World Order (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
Noam Chomsky 2015 in new conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
The entire interview here:
Charlie Rose told lie after lie for his CIA masters! If you see nothing else go to the 6:53 mark in the interview and watch Putin absolutely DESTROY Charlie Rose and the Fake News outlet 60 Minutes on the issue of Ukraine! Charlie Rose actually has the gall to ask Putin if he believes the US had something to do with the coup! This has been admitted by George Soros who said we paid $5 billion to take out Ukraine! There have been releases of telephone conversations from US puppets in Ukraine bragging about it!
Go to 6:53 to see Putin destroy the lies of the fake news! He hints about the US doing an illegal coups in Ukraine and other countries. At which point, disgusting Rose says ”You believe the US had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovch?”
Putin responds with
“We Know Who and Where, When, Who Exactly Met with Someone and worked with those that ousted Yanukovch, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in what countries and who those instructors were, we know everything!” (at this point Charlie has to insert that for the record the lying US government denies any involvement!) (what a joke!)