Search This Blog


Tuesday, 3 May 2016

Greece:Imported Mass Multicultural Migration

The EU wants to assign migrant numbers to each EU nation state and it is to this end that all the political forces in Greece are working.

14 April 2016

"It is clear that if the right measures are taken to integrate (refugees) - by way of language skills, by way of labour skills, by way of housing support - it is a net positive for those countries that host." (Lagarde, IMF)


Hundreds of thousands arrived in Greece in 2015 under the guise of refugees fleeing war zones and bombs. The corporate mass media of disinformation started a global propaganda campaign of drowned babies in the Aegean and migrants fleeing alleged war zones (from over 50 nations worldwide), giving the appearance that we must already be in WW3, despite the fact that during the last war no one left Greece to go to Turkey or Syria, but that is another story.

Syriza, having abandoned its Thessaloniki Programme to alleviate the worst effects of the devastating economic crisis that the Troika imposed on Greece where official unemployment is currently 25%, but unofficial nearer to 40%, embarked on a programme of implementing what the previous government had stalled on: mass privatisations of trains, ports and airports as part of the package of the 3rd Bailout (airports, ports sold by Syriza, only trains left).

Alongside that was a range of cuts implemented in current and future pensions and massive increases in taxation which would wipe out the small farmer. A concerted campaign in reducing the hours farmers’ markets were open and fines of up to 500 Euros for all who broke the rules was implemented; creating conditions whereby only supermarkets that sold vegetables imported from abroad were accessible. Massive fines have also been imposed on all people who reconnected their electricity after being cut off due to an inability to pay or who had by force of circumstances broken the seal on their electricity box. Fines reach up to 2000 Euros in apartments that don’t even cost E10,000!!

Hotspots Everywhere

In order to sell the mass importation of multicultural labour in 2015, Syriza targeted a tourist island, Kos, and a famous historically named island, Lesvos. It did not target Crete. Drowned babies in the Aegean played the role as had been played previously during the first Gulf War (Saddam burying babies in the sand), which proved to be fake. Videos have also circulated from the Aegean where young children are allegedly drowning, when in reality they were standing in water up to their waist.  Recently, in protests in Piraeus by migrants, babies were raised high pretending to be thrown to the riot police. We also had migrants in the various camps around Greece pretending they would commit suicide. Most of these events are micromanaged and directed by Soros funded NGOs with the global corporate media on the spot to create a 'news report.’ It’s part of the 'psychological war of migration' in which dead and crying babies sell the concept.

Syriza’s strategy has been one of importing migrants and setting up hotspots (a ridiculous foreign name brought into Greece alluding to war zones) by stealth in almost every city or near one. It has received funding for this from the EU in Euros. It is difficult to find out how much, but the usual has been done; state facilities are used to get things done on the cheap as with every previous government, probably pocketing the difference. It has used conscript soldiers to build migrant reception centres (Hotspots), army catering facilities to deliver food, disused buildings (e.g. old Olympic Airways airport) and attempted to confiscate land to house unlimited numbers (as in Kos).

Syriza’s Real NWO Agenda

By creating mass migration reception centres a precedent has been created which the EU wants replicated all over the 28 nations of the EU; to park a few million in each country so as to then use them when necessary as a reserve army of unemployed when they break up the public services of each country as defined in the TTIP negotiations with the USA. US multinationals in alliance with European ones want to integrate their businesses on the corpse of the public sector, as well as to move into government services, health and education; the last bastions of state owned sectors of each European nation state. This obviously has to be tried out in states which are small and already function as protectorates of bigger states.

Illuminating is the fact the government announced 5000 part-time positions for the migrant reception centres as noted in a Sunday paper, Kontranews (10th April 2016).  Once over 40 migrant reception centres are set up and functioning they will be able to use that blueprint for all other countries. The aim, as has been noted before in a UN report, is to double the EU's population from 6% of the world to 15%, i.e. in-shoring of people instead of simply off-shoring businesses. Globalisation via mass migration, a new phase of the globalist EU.

NGOs have been ringing up estate agents as well, asking for properties to house migrants and advertising for Greeks to house migrants in their homes for money. Greece was also chosen to be used as an argument to spread migration around the EU. Everyone knows Greece is suffering under the Troikas economic genocide programme, now they are all saying this isn't solely a Greek crisis, and the rest of the EU needs to take the burden. Sandro Gozi, Italian minister of European Affairs, was on ERT TV stating (10th April): 'We need to alleviate Greece's burden'...

Idomeni and Piraeus

Residents, as reported in Idomeni, have started buying guns for self defense and many of the original inhabitants who opened up their houses to migrants have appeared on TV stating there have been many robberies, desecrated graveyards (only certain graveyards are ever reported by the global corporate media - those that have swastikas on them!), a Greek farmer who owns some land on the site was arrested for trying to clear his land, etc. The question remains; why was the camp chosen at Idomeni? The so-called Balkan route was chosen to force FYROM and Serbia to enter NATO and the EU when a route could easily have been chosen between Greece, Bulgaria and Rumania (an EU Balkan Route!).

Piraeus was chosen as it is the main tourist gateway and everyone would hear about it. Port regulations allow thousands to enter a port which is dangerous to those leaving and those arriving, which allows rubbish and disease to spread whilst port police are sent to hand out leaflets to those squatting there to move on. This is such a circus that it is beyond parody. When NGOs asked them to move on they directed some of them to go to the front of Parliament and set up shop there. The riot police moved them on. Daily there are fights between the various nationalities, robberies, stabbings, etc.

So many are arriving and continuing to arrive in Greece that migrant squatter camps have been set up on various islands, and when they found out that they may be staying in the so called Hotspots they made a run for it, leading to fights and residents’ protests as they blocked ports, e.g. the island of Chios. Illuminating is the fact that no new mass arrivals have occurred in Kos and none have arrived in Crete (despite reports of ships full of migrants being turned back by residents who blocked a port). The mass media plays down all reactions by local people and replays conflicts with Golden Dawn hinting that anyone opposed to enforced globalism where people arrive literally from anywhere on earth have the right to ...asylum.

What form the mass movement of populations will take in the future is difficult to tell but one thing is certain: These events are organised and orchestrated by state and parastate forces (NGOs) and they are working in tandem whilst appearing to be opposed. The EU wants to assign migrant numbers to each EU nation state and it is to this end that all the political forces in Greece are working.


Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Why BREXIT? A Message from Troika Occupied Grece

The EU's regime of open borders in capital and goods has meant produce from around the world flooded Greek markets, destroying all indigenous production to the point of making it extinct.

23 April 2016

“It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it”.
-An American General after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre

After arriving six years ago in May 2010, the Troika (IMF,EU, ECB) took full control of the Greek economy to allegedly save the country from bankruptcy, but in reality bankrupted the people, by saving the Eurozone.  After the US's fake 'War on Terror' which launched global interventions in Afghanistan and the Arab world, the explosion of the Greek crisis and the ensuing foreign economic supervision was required to save the Greek economy by destroying it.

If there ever was an argument why Brexit is necessary it can be found in the experience of Greece. A small tourist-based agricultural economy, on the periphery of Europe, Greece joined the then EEC (without any electoral mandate) in 1981 under the guise that it would become industrialised as its Northern European neighbours. Instead, it became a fully fledged EU protectorate whose whole economy is micromanaged from Brussels. Basic parliamentary democracy no longer exists and laws pertaining to the country’s debt are set in London which contravenes the national sovereignty of Greece and its constitution.

In the longest recession in peacetime’s history of any semi-developed state now going into its 7th year, there has been no let up in austerity and cuts. Without actually being in a real war, over 30k Greeks have so far committed suicide, deaths since 2011 now overtake births, schoolchildren faint in schools from malnutrition, and over 40% of all hospital facilities have been cut. Thousands are homeless and the only real booming industries are gold sales to money launderers, soup kitchens, alongside burglaries with a massive increase both in domestic and imported prostitution. Despite voting in a new government in 2015, all its modest proposals of ensuring the unemployed had some form of income with housing benefit never ever arrived. At present, according to Eurostat statistics, 22.6% of the Greek population is below the official poverty line, the largest percentage in any Eurozone state, whilst 600,000 children are below the poverty line, according to UNICEF. [1] No global UN celebrities or Greek MPs have visited any of the above. Real poverty doesn't sell.

In the realms of trade union rights everything has been ripped apart, from the right to strike (return of 1970's Junta laws banning strikes in metros, teachers, seafarers etc.), rights to compensation due to being fired, the gutting of all work-based pension schemes and actual pension payments, and the mass arrival of four hourly part time contracts with differentiated rates of pay depending on age. The minimum wage has been reduced by 30% to around 500 euro for those under 25, and most bosses, to avoid national insurance contributions, pay around a third of that under the table. A Syriza MP Mihelogiannakis said that real unemployment is probably around 40% and not the official 25%, as many leave once their unemployment pay is over (paid for only 6 months) since there is no point in having an unemployed status. [2]

Banks - used to be 13, are now down to 4 systemic ones, and are linked directly to the ECB.  There’s no more an agricultural bank and there is 300 billion euro in bank bailouts. This is the EU's proposal in resolving the crisis, centralising money in fewer and fewer institutions and introducing capital controls in an alleged single currency with now negative interest rates in Brussels but 2% interest in the most economically devastated economy of the EU. Loans and mortgages are now a dream of the past and economic activity is so dire, that bartering has returned in certain parts of the economy as has a non-payment crisis for many workers. 400,000 loans are in the red and the Troika on behalf of the banksters has been pushing for mass repossessions. It’s just that negative equity is is so bad with prices having dropped as much as 60% that banks don’t want the properties to be placed in auctions as this would drop values even further...[3]

Under terms of successive bailouts (which are just a logistical accounting tricks to keep on piling debt upon debt to keep interest flowing indefinitely to parasitic hedge funds), the economy is under permanent siege. The EU's regime of open borders in capital and goods has meant produce from around the world flooded Greek markets, destroying all indigenous production to the point of making it extinct. The logic of EU policies is such that a regime of percentages in agricultural produce has meant that whilst Greece for instance had salt factories, they were bought out by Poland, and now Greece imports salt at a higher price. Enforcing budget surpluses as a percentage of GDP is absurd with the Troika demanding a 3.5% budget surplus for 2018 when unemployment continues indefinitely and austerity is built in to all budgets.

The EU is only about merging Big Business, gutting all workers’ rights  and globalising labour forces so they have no history or tradition. It’s about offshoring, outsourcing and inshoring. Labour is now just an appendage of capital. Mass emigration took place out the region of at least 600,000 in the last six years - which is equivalent to around 15% of the working age population. [4] This is obviously countered by the mass importation of labour both from outside the EU as from within the EU. It’s essentially a game of musical chairs where unemployed workers move from one country to another in a permanent race to the bottom. Since the Soviet Union collapsed Greece has received 2-3million workers, nearly enough to 75% of its total labour force, in almost every sector: agriculture, industry and services. Such vast numbers of surplus labour in a shrinking economy which has seen a 25% collapse in GDP ensures there is no possibility of any effective union action as bosses have an endless surplus of labour to choose from and as the tax base constantly shrinks so do taxes constantly go up in a never ending cycle.  Less tax is actually raised in taxes with every new bailout. When there are over 1 trillion euro in private and public debt, it is impossible to kick start basic economic activity, or to push for Special Economic Zones in areas where migrants have been dumped i.e. over 30,000 in Macedonia-Thrace (which happens to have a pre-existing Muslim population!) [5]

Due to the excessive taxation, around 60,000 businesses have re-registered in Bulgaria, and a newspaper in that country published a big welcome for providing so much work! So ridiculous is the EU that it has no minimum standards either in pay, health, safety, taxation etc. and modern business is just about using disparities in the EU to their corporate advantage, nothing more. [6]

Since the Troika arrived in Greece no single group of workers or any social group has achieved any gains whatsoever, nor has it managed to stabilise any. All the union led strikes have been more about sustaining the union leaderships in their parasitic existence (they get pensioned off after two terms) and they have been saved by successive governments using a twin track approach (riot police attacks and banning of strikes). Having been directly in control the Troika has revealed the actual full neoliberal nature of the EU in a period of capitalist decline. It will stop at nothing to eradicate basic democratic rights at the workplace.

When Greeks occupied their squares in the spring-summer of 2011, the riot police repeatedly baton charged them and dropped so much teargas in the whole of central Athens that one could smell it for days. Dispersal of all legitimate protests by riot police using mobile tear gas charges, stun grenades and baton charges has been the norm under the Troika. [7]

All the arguments in Greece by the governments in power have been to compare the country with Bulgaria and to argue that Greeks are still better off. Gone are the days of talking about Swedish style standards of living (like they did during the 1980s). Returning to recovery is such a joke that it has been repeated so often that one loses count, yet no recovery has occurred or will ever occur insofar as the Troika is in charge irrespective which government comes to power under whatever label  it provides for itself (socialist-PASOK, centre right-New Democracy, or left-Syriza).

The economy requires a general overhaul by defaulting on the alleged debts (Greeks have paid more than three times the original debt in interest payments alone),  introducing a regime of less work but work for all to ensure the unemployed aren't left to rot, and breaking away from the Eurozone and the EU by defaulting on all debts. Without that as a start there can be no national programme of recovery nor can the power of big business be curtailed till it is overthrown. It will only get stronger and stronger until the race to the bottom is enshrined in all EU laws, all voting is abolished and any resistance is met by military, not police force. Let’s not forget the Greek OXI Referendum had all the previous PMs, the leaders of the Greek TUC, Brussels’ politicians, Greek celebrities etc. pushing for a YES vote, which the population instinctively understood as being a class vote and in less than a week 62% went against the EU. The future is already present in Greece. Brexit can offer hope in derailing the EU juggernaut, setting a precedent as ignoring a possible Leave vote,  by a big European power, may prove to be a step to far.



1. UNICEF figures:

2. Skai TV 11am 7th April

3. Neoliberal Pensions in era of EU:

4.ELSTAT Greek statistic service 600k Greeks have emigrated:

5. 'Kontra' newspaper p.4, 19th April, 2016

6. 60,000 Greek businesses relocate to Bulgaria:

7.  How the IMF broke Greece Eyewitness Reports:

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

On Wikileaks' Revelations - IMF - Merkel Syriza: Triumvirate of the Absurd

On Wikileaks’ Revelations – IMF- Merkel - Syriza: Triumvirate of the Absurd

We have Paul Mason raising the ‘bad’ IMF vs. the ‘good’ Ms Merkel when he pretends the IMF is interested in ‘debt relief’ for Greece (which Germany opposes).

04 April 2016

Recent Wikileaks revelations, allegedly exposing a conversation between Poul Tomsen (head of IMF’s European Department) and Delia Velkoulescu (IMF Mission Chief for Greece, or Draculescu, as she is known in Greece) about wanting a credit event in Greece prior to the Brexit referendum is so absurd that one finds difficulty in working out what is being played out right before our eyes.  Supposedly, the need to create a credit event was due to unbridgeable differences regarding Greece’s future fiscal position vis a vis IMF loans and debts - due to the constant postponement of the ‘review’ of the 3rd Bailout.

If Thomsen did say “Look, you are Ms Merkel. You face a question, and you have to think about what is more costly: to go ahead without the IMF (would the Bundestag complain that ‘The IMF is not on board’?), or to pick debt relief that we think that Greece needs in order to keep us on board?’, then in that case,  the IMF is once more threatening a fake pullout to officially default Greece. This circus has been going on for so long in the last six years that one needs to ask, when will the act actually change?

We have Paul Mason raising the ‘bad’ IMF vs. the ‘good’ Ms Merkel when he pretends the IMF is interested in ‘debt relief’ for Greece (which Germany opposes). In reality, the stumbling block has been pensions and tax changes alongside the demand by creditors for wide scale repossessions for ‘bad’ loans. In other words, they can’t jointly finance the 3rd bailout other than with new deadly austerity measures. They are therefore separately finding a scapegoat to justify the indefensible.

Having abandoned their so-called ‘alternative programme’ of Thessaloniki, Syriza alongside all the parties in parliament bar Golden Dawn (GD) and the Communist Party (KKE) voted for a 3rd Bailout which could only realistically be financed by squeezing even more taxes from the crippled Greek economy. In the meantime other issues took priority, for example, the mass importation of labour for the German Fourth Reich. This issue could have been previously agreed on and allowed for Syriza’s forced rise to power (after the refusal to vote for President at the end of 2014 which brought down the previous government).

When certain details emerged of the 3rd Bailout, such as the taxing of farmers out of existence, a constant round of pension cuts on top of the seven inaugurated by Syriza, and the forced repossession of business and mortgage loans, Greek society started mass resistance with farmers’ blockades, pensioner protests and court blockades against repossessions. We then had postponement after postponement of the new wide-ranging austerity measures (first October, then December, then late January, and now end of April) as Syriza acted fully by Merkel’s dictated and ensured over a million migrants arrived in Greece. On top of this Syriza was told to build an endless amount of Hotspot migrant camps primarily in military bases (so staged terror events could occur easily) and the militarisation of societies with permanent state of emergencies could be used against the native population under whatever guise those that ruled saw fit.

Syriza’s electoral prospects have tanked on latest polling and it is going back to where it originally started from (less than 5%). It has achieved nothing other than turning Greece into a new laughing stock of the planet, pretending open borders is the new status quo and pushing through the destruction of its last remaining industries, tourism and farming via new taxation.  By turning successful tourist islands into migrant squatter camps (e.g. Kos) Syriza requires something to sell the public, so a departure of the IMF may be it. It’s too soon to tell what is behind these ‘revelations’ and what can politically be gained from them, but when it comes to Greece nothing is what it appears at first hand and whether default will be allowed to occur which would affect the existence of the Eurozone is another matter altogether. If IMF does pull out of the bailout, Germany would have to take on the IMF ‘loans’ and force Greeks to pay for them. By allowing such vast numbers of migrants to arrive they may have decided they have enough numbers on the ground to achieve their aims of destroying the Greeks once and for all.

The foreign creditors wanted a broad-based coalition last time round but the Greek electorate didn’t give them the pleasure. By pushing for new elections here and now perhaps hoping New Democracy’s Mitsotakis (after his recent visit to Brussels) will win, the ‘credit event’ may be the incentive to force them onto the Greek Government. What they are expected to achieve is anybody’s guess.

Sunday, 3 April 2016


Continuing the story of how leftists became protecting illegal immigrants and why immigration is not necessarily a war consequence
27 March 2016
When the Left didn’t support all refugees: The example of Vietnam. Part two.
“Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities.” L. Trotsky [i]
Vietnam was the story of a country, which, unable to become independent with the collapse of the European empires, ended up in a liberation war with the world’s strongest power on earth at the time, the USA, which led to millions of deaths, near absolute devastation of its land and infrastructure and showed that a country which seeks independence can fight until the end and come out victorious whomever the enemy happens to be. Its tenaciousness, integrity and self-sacrifice have only been matched by the Serbs’ struggle for independence in the 20th century.
The French Left had an abysmal record when it came to anti-colonial struggles. It was in government (1945-1947) when a revolt occurred in Vietnam after the collapse of the Japanese occupation. The Parti Communiste France (PCF) didn’t support the anti-colonial struggle, it voted for war credits and agreed to an expeditionary force going to Vietnam to put down the independence struggle.  It’s also absurd to believe that whilst participating in France’s imperialist government from 1945-47, that the PCF had an interest in anti-imperialism when it was in government with the imperialists themselves! Here is what they wrote:
 “Are we, after having lost Syria and Lebanon yesterday, to lose Indochina tomorrow, North Africa the day after?” (L’Humanité (24 July 1946)
As early as September 1945, the Saigon committee of the French CP “warned [the Viet Minh] that any ‘premature adventures’ in Annamite independence might ‘not be in line with Soviet perspectives.’” That same month the French government (including several CP ministers) proposed a military budget of 193 billion francs, including 100 billion for the Expeditionary Force in Indochina; the CP voted for the bill. [21] In July 1946, smelling a victory in the next elections, the Communists took up a virulent nationalist stance: “Are we, after having lost Syria and Lebanon yesterday, to lose Indochina tomorrow, North Africa the day after?” wrote L’Humanité (24 July 1946). Two days later the CP deputies voted for a constitutional definition of the French Union which made Vietnamese “independence” purely fictional! [ii]
Once the French were defeated in Vietnam and the country was divided up at the 54th parallel, the Americans initially sent in advisers who then became military personnel and by the time LBJ had taken over as President in the USA, 500,000 troops were stationed there. Vietnam witnessed all sorts of wars - land, air based, chemical warfare, you name it, and more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than on any other place in the whole of WW2, apparently. Yet they didn’t give up. They only went abroad to neighbouring countries to re-group and fight anew. They didn’t leave their country en masse in boats and ask for refugee status.  Nixon became infamous for carpet bombing in a secret war in Cambodia where the Viet Minh ran to regroup. Neither did 80% of their adult males leave as is happening in our times. So in what way can one explain the mass movement nowadays?
In analyzing what happened in Vietnam and what the US strategy was we see clearly that it was related to ensuring food independence was at zero and pushing people into cities that couldn’t cope. Let’s see in this statement called ‘Those That Leave’ issued by the Republic of Vietnam, what occurred:
“The American strategy aimed at killing two birds with one stone: on the one hand, to weaken the Vietnamese by 'draining away the water', i.e. the people; on the other, to turn those same people into mer­cenaries of Washington. For those men who roamed the pavements of the towns had no other recourse than to enlist in Thieu's army and police. In this way 1,200,000 men were pressed into that army and police commanded by more than 50,000 officers, well-trained, indoc­trinated and supervised by tens of thousands of American advisers. If one adds to these numbers the civil servants, political agents, and leaders of various anti-communist parties and organisations, one will find that at least 1.5 million people were living from salaries paid by the American budget — not to mention the taxes paid by the local population.
To serve that war machine, a whole commercial network to import luxury goods consumed by the Americans and the privileged strata - a 'tertiary' set-up of banks, insurance companies, coffee-houses, bars, hotels, brothels, and drug traffickers - mus­hroomed.
On liberation day, 300,000 Saigon households were regis­tered as 'traders' at least twice the number of factory workers. Ameri­can military aid averaged 1.3 billion dollars a year, economic aid 600-800 million dollars; not to mention the on-the-spot expenditures of the American expeditionary corps and services, the CIA for instance, which maintained at least 30,000 'pacification agents', not to mention, too, aid from other capitalist powers: France, Japan, Great Britain, West Germany. All that money — 2 billion dollars a year on average — allowed several million people to live without participating in any productive work. One understands why there were in South Viet Nam on the day of liberation:
— More than 3 million unemployed people;
— Several hundred thousand prostitutes and drug addicts;
— Several dozen thousand gangsters and other criminals, whose number later increased with the release of the former Thieu police, paratroops and rangers;
— One million tubercular people;
— Several hundred thousand people affected by venereal diseases;
— Four million illiterate people.” [iii]
So the US occupation economy was based on two factors: removing agricultural independence(so the guerrillas could be starved out) and utilising the urban unemployed to become a coercive collaborationist tool in implement US war aims. In what way is any of the above different in Greece today? The farmers are being evicted and destroyed to not be able to provide any form of resistance to the economic genocide unleashed by 6 years of the IMF-ECB by ensuring an independent food supply, and tens of thousands of migrants are being imported to become a reactionary social force to be used against Greeks if resistance becomes armed (indications are that it has started in some isolated areas)[iv]. It was inevitable therefore, when the US occupation ended that a whole layer of Vietnamese society was left exposed and retributions would start, so they made a run for it.
If there were militant solidarity movements in opposition to imperialist interventions abroad in the Western countries, it would have stopped them from invading so quickly. The anti-war movement grew in America in opposition to the Vietnam War, primarily as a consequence of military conscription, and for almost two decades after America’s defeat in Vietnam, there were no significant direct military interventions until the Soviet Union collapsed.
The first big such intervention was for the oil-igarchs of ‘poor little Kuwait,’ where the dictator, Saddam, was burying babies in the sand. Imperialism also learned to avoid conscription and only use soldiers who volunteered to join the military whilst at the same time creating paramilitary organisations like Blackwater, Inc. to further their geopolitical interests. This is where the first big change occurred. Imperialists adopted the Kurds in Iraq for their own geopolitical interests, i.e. to weaken the integrity and viability of the Iraqi state after they had used them in the war against Iran’s revolution. That did not imply that the West had suddenly become pro-Kurdish independence, but they adopted the Kurds as an issue and ensured tens of thousands were given refugee status in Europe. First they came across Turkey to Greece and then they moved further north. [v]
Once the Vietnamese took control in the south of their own country a massive wave of migrants started. It is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the first wave was comprised of direct collaborators of the US occupation. The second wave was made up of people who were generally small businessmen, probably with a reactionary outlook. None of those that left Vietnam were progressive one iota. The third wave consisted of those returning back to Vietnam from the West.
American leftists were clear at the time and an excerpt from a zero refugee campaign regarding ‘welcoming Vietnamese Refugees’ is cited below:
“The big Vietnamese war criminals and mass murderers were spirited out with the aid of their U.S. masters right after the fall of Saigon in 1975. We were utterly opposed to giving any kind of sanctuary to these butchers, declaring, "No Asylum for Vietnamese War Criminals!" The wave of Vietnamese "boat people," which came somewhat later, originated in a social layer which included former petty traders and entrepreneurs whose shops were nationalized. In the eyes of the U.S. and its allies, these would-be migrants were of marginal use and thus dispensable. At the same time, a racist outcry was whipped up against the "boat people."[vi]
Why is it today that all those that leave Afghanistan for instance, are progressive and not ultra-reactionary? Within the corporate media the Taliban are beyond the pale but the Occupation apparently is ok as it is …liberating women, whilst at the same time doing zero regarding the Bacha boys? Why is it British generals have led campaigns about importing Afghan collaborators of the occupation?
Social Imperialism in the Service of Neo-Colonialism
NATO had adopted the fake left theory of mass migration as a consequence of war, yet I have shown in just three examples that there were no mass migrations as a direct consequence of the war in the three cases mentioned. There was a mass migration after Euro-American colonial entities collapsed and revolutionary regimes took over. Not before. Now NATO argues that because of the Russian bombing of Syria, which started late 2015, Europe has had mass migrant flows despite the fact that they occurred way before the Russian bombing. So it appears everyone has a theory to justify their politics. If you are a globalist, it’s just wars that create migrations so ‘everyone is welcome.’ If you are a globalist but anti-Russian as well, then it’s Russia creating the migrant flows. Either way, it happens naturally, it’s not organised and no single entity is inviting them in like Germany, in an organised manner. [vii]
The irony of history is that we have various globalists today like Eric Draitser of ‘Stop Imperialism,’ Sukant Chandan of ‘Sons of Malcolm’ or various ‘Solidarity with Refugees’ movements whosupport and promote the hyper-globalism of Wall St. and the City of London (re-location of peoples to other continents erg. Afro-Asian continents to the EU) and act as if the various Left parties in the centres of imperialism were actively involved in the liberation of the colonies when nothing is further from the truth. Yet this is the tradition they defend in totality today. Let no one be fooled with the labels or the titles. They are a globalist smokescreen much like Syriza, with the ‘radical left’ label branding by the corporate media, if not something more sinister (Chandan has been in joint publications with ex-Afghan CIA station chief). [viii]
Where were the solidarity movements when the struggles of the colonies were actually going on in the Left Parties (communist or social democratic)? A whole raft of countries had brutal wars for national liberation - Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya, Cyprus, Yemen, etc. There were no solidaritymovements. There were paper declarations. But more importantly, where there was influence in Parliament the votes were always with the powers that be (PCF voting record during Vietnamese and Algerian Independence Labour Party during Kenyan, Cypriot Independence struggles), just like they are today (Syriza supports NATO operations the world over and its Foreign Minister Kotzias was seen singing songs with the other NATO members). [ix]
It’s no coincidence that in a broadcast once more on RT on George Galloway’s programme, which invited Sukant Chandan (of Indian descent)[x] with the misnamed title of “Sons of Malcolm,” Chandan pretends that he agrees with the Mau May resistance, and George Galloway, a staunch Labourite, almost had a heart attack, which is obviously logical as the Labour Party never had, nor ever created a solidarity movement in any parts of its Empire.  One cannot find one big solidarity movement for Indian, Kenyan, Cypriot, or Yemen independency from the British Empire. Throughout the present day, mass population movements are presented as if they are part of a global conflict with imperialism. How come those that left Cuba, Algeria and Vietnam were never involved in any subsequent left movement? Why is it in our time ‘solidarity’ movements have emerged by the kilo for ‘refugees,’ supplemented by hundreds of NGO’s? Even Generals are now on board in solidarity with Afghan ‘refugees’ (read quislings).[xi]
Hyper-globalists are nowadays two for a penny and are quick to draw conclusions that imperialism organised the Arab Spring, overthrew all the regimes (that had been in power for decades), and everything is controlled by Washington, but mass migration (isn’t this how the USA was created?) apparently isn’t a US sponsored and engineered event, but is solely the by-product of turmoil, economic dislocation and invasion. In other words, if there were no turmoil there would be no mass migration. So what explains the arrival of 1 million Albanians in the 1990s into Greece or the 3-4 million Poles in the UK? Cheap travel? Or the bosses’ desire to replace indigenous labour? The whole of the Arab Spring is orchestrated from Washington, but mass migration is its natural offshoot. To put it more succinctly, Washington is able to command such day to day micromanagement in distant countries, but it cannot control migration flows. They occur solely as… blowback. This is the type of nonsense that inaugurated the Project for a New American Century and the fake ‘war on terror.’ Allegedly, Saudi hijackers blew up the three skyscrapers in New York and Afghanistan and Iraq paid the price, whilst recently a New York judge ruled Iran has to cough up the cost of the damage to the tune of $10 billion. Shades of Lockerbie again, on a grander level. The fake Left has been selling this line for over a decade. It no longer washes; in particular, with state infiltration of the events around 9/11, which has created an industry of doubters (truthers).
With no class analysis of capitalism in decline, which has features of  mass unemployment, mass disparities in currencies, the breakdown of permanent unionised labour, the rise of the black market in labour, the fall of profits by bosses in western countries, etc. and the turn by the ruling class of each country into importing the US model, i.e. migrant labour, we must understand that what is happening is not classless nonsense about a ‘Global South’ (a Kuwaiti oligarch has nothing in coming with an Egyptian labourer other than they are both Arabs). A Russian oligarch arriving in London to recycle stolen booty in the banking and property sector isn’t a political refugee we must ‘all welcome’ despite that being his official status. Now deceased Russian oligarch Berezovsky comes to mind as an example.
Current ‘solidarity’ movements, which adopt a classless approach to mass migration alleging they are all war torn refugees or economic migrants due to imperialist dislocation, justifies all, and that is precisely what their purpose is. Anyone raising objections to the process is branded with the modern fascist ‘antifascist’ stick of racism. Seeking to maintain national independence and integrity is perceived as being reactionary, but those who seek population movements like those of the old British Empire (of Indians into Africa or of European Jews into Palestine) are considered progressive.
Up until the mid-1970s, many working environments had closed shops. One had to belong to a union in order to work there. Now it’s a globalist free for all; a musical chair for labour with conditions akin to those shown in the film of US Dockers ‘On the Waterfront’ with Marlon Brando in the 1950s. This is the actual present that the hyper-globalists want extended into all the areas of social life. That is their political mission whether they are paid or not. They are the ‘left’ promoters of the NWO.
However, history never remembers the turncoats, the quislings, the collaborators, or the defenders of regimes in disarray. Neither will it remember those like Syriza’s Tsipras, who recently stated that “national rights cannot supersede the rights of the EU.” If history is any guide to action, then the current migrants in a situation of severe economic crisis will be isolated and looked down upon as societies descend into an economic free-for-all for non-existent resources.
The extent of this globalist stupidity and the most extreme example in the EU is the idea that they will park a few million migrants in Greece, subsidise them with free housing, food and money whilst the indigenous population languishes in dire poverty and unemployment, and is made homeless due to rapacious banksters. This whole process is a recipe for social conflict and disaster, and as the referendum on Merkel’s policies have shown in three states in less than a year, things will get much, much worse before they can get better.

[v] Jeffery Archer Tory Chairman and the Kurds

[x] Sukant Chandan on RT with George Galloway

Monday, 21 March 2016

When the Left Hated Mass Migration and Didn't 'Welcome All Refugees' Part One


There was a time in the past when the Left hated immigrants and didn’t ‘Welcome All Refugees’. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, it became fashionable in the West to support mass migration in the name of helping the ‘poor’, promoting ‘diversity’ and combatting hate crimes all in the name of ‘tolerance’.
20 March 2016
When the Left Hated Mass Migrations and Didn’t ‘Welcome All Refugees’: Part One
“The purpose of this importation (of labour during a tailoring strıke in Britain) is the same as that of the importation of Indian coolies to Jamaica, namely the perpetuation of slavery. If the masters succeeded through the import of German labour, in nullifying the concessions they had already made, it would inevitably lead to repercussions in England.”
-Karl Marx, 1866
Globalist pseudo-humanitarianism has now fully gone mainstream.
Never a day stops when bleeding heart humanitarians are on TV, in the media, on talk shows, towering above all and sundry selling us drowned or crying babies, people in tents on muddy and wet campsites, showing us images of boat people  either drowned or with life jackets whilst at the same time supporting the militarisation of everything. It’s as if the world has turned on its head and suddenly the migrant is now viewed as a new Promethian god recreating a new and better humanity from its old rotting corpse[i]. The core essence as to whom they are and why they are coming has been lost. No one questions the corporate propaganda campaign, journalists or politicians. The Left just repeats it.
But there was a time in the not too distant past when the migrant flows were deemed to bedubious and reactionary. Insofar as the Soviet Union existed the Left kept at arms bay from imperialist ‘humanitarianism’, now it’s as if all other issues no longer exist and this is their raison d’etre. Three historical cases from the recent past come to light: Cuba, Algeria and Vietnam. It’s the political equivalent of Goldman Sachs doing charity and donning a philanthropic costume, while at the same time looting pensions, destroying nations and exporting real economic and social genocide. Let no one be fooled times may have changed but the core essence of mass migration in the imperialist era remains the same. We will look at the first two in Part One and at Vietnam and the implications of  ‘Welcoming All Refugees’ in Part Two.
The Example of Cuba
The Cuban Revolution, which initially was more about agrarian land and democratic reforms against the hated neo-colonial Batista regime and eventually turned into a full blown Russian style revolution with the adoption of communism by Fidel Castro, had seen a two decades long period of a mass exodus by certain sections of the population. Initially, those that fled were close to Batista’s regime and after the failed US invasion in the Bay of Pigs thousands more fled. In total around 10% of Cuba’s population, 1m people fled. They mostly went across in boats to Miami USA.
The Heritage Foundation writes (emphasis added): “Since 1959, Cubans have been engaged in one of the most significant migrations, proportionally, in modern times. Over eight percent of the island's population has gone into exile with around 700,000 coming to the U.S. prior to 1980 in several phases. Between January 1, 1959 and the October 22, 1962 Missile Crisis, 248,070 migrated to the United States. In early 1959 members of the political and military elite fled, followed by members of the propertied and professional sectors, who by 1961 comprised 45 percent of the registrants with the Cuban Refugee Program”[ii].
Fidel Castro labelled all those fleeing as gusanos (worms), which is what in reality they were. They supported the re-invasion of Cuba, the overthrow of the revolutionary regime, and the return of the hated Batista dictatorship. Failure to achieve the overthrow of the Revolution they became involved in terrorist activity against Cuba and all those that traded with it. The assistance of the American security services was obviously invaluable.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970’s they went around bombing various targets even to the extent of bringing down a Cuban Airliner killing everyone on board[iii]. It was only with a change of US strategy towards Cuba, after it was clear that the Revolution couldn't be overthrown by force, that the US sponsored terrorist activity dried up in the 1980’s.
Nowadays with the large mass migrant flows into the EU, it is easy to entrap them into your own security service agenda as they are migrants. If they don’t do as you say, you can threaten to send them back to where they came from. Also, if they are on the margins of society and are dodgy characters back home, if they are caught by the police of the new country they are residing in, they can be turned and used by the security services for their own narrow agenda. So let no one be fooled that US/EU security services aren’t going to use migrant patsies to further their NWO agenda as after all some of them were recipients of US-EU aid in their respective countries, and have ulterior motives which may not be progressive, but doubly reactionary.  Without any checks or balances, any independent controls, any cross verification of stories anyone can claim anything about their past as they most certainly do, gaining  an asylum status brings in a certain number of privileges, not least to those who profit from this (rental agencies, politicians in kickbacks, businesses in the form of cheap labour etc.) and ensures that the right of permanent stay becomes the norm[iv].
The example of Algeria, France’s main colony for decades, is illuminating for we have a mass exodus after independence of the old colonial settlers and as it illuminates the role of the French Left. While both Vietnam and Algeria were French colonies, Vietnam became half independent first but soon fell to neo-colonialism due to America’s intervention, and Algeria became fully independent. Yet they are both interrelated in terms of strategy and occupation.
Once the French lost Vietnam, withdrew and handed over the reins to American imperialism, they focused on Algeria. What Vietnam taught them was that they had to be doubly tough against the Algerian struggle for independence. At the time (1950’s) the French Communist Party wasn’t in government and there were two resistance groups in Algeria against the French occupation. Which one did the CP support? The one of course that ended up collaborating openly with the Occupation under De Gaulle’s France. Below we see the role of the French PCF:
“Nor was the French Communist Party’s record on Algeria any better. From the PCF’s original positive involvement in setting up the Algerian immigrant labourers’ organisation L’Etoile du Nord Africaine it was all downhill. The PCF described the revolt in Constantine as ‘fascist’, even after the natives had been bombed into submission. In 1956 it voted special powers to Guy Mollet’s socialist government to repress the Algerian revolution.[1] The PCF had opposed Algerian independence since Massali Hadj first proposed it in 1937. In 1955 the PCF complained against charges of disloyalty to the Algerians: ‘Have we not already shown that we support a policy of negotiation with the peoples of North Africa for the creation of a true “Union française"?’[2] — as if the Algerian people were demanding a true Union française! But with the outbreak of war, the PCF faced some criticism for this uncomradely betrayal of the Algerian people. Rather than take responsibility for the policy outright, they sought to deflect responsibility by shifting the blame onto the working class. In a speech to students, the PCF spokesman Laurent Casanova asked them to take into account ‘the spontaneous attitude of the French popular masses on the question’.[3] Writer Francis Jeanson, who undertook clandestine work for the FLN, remembers Casanova speaking more bluntly. ‘He used to say, “The working class is racist, colonialist and imperialist.”’[4] In fact it was the Communist Party above all that was responsible for spreading chauvinist attitudes towards the Algerian struggle amongst working class people. ‘Victims of the myth of French Algeria,’ wrote Fanon, ‘the parties of the Left create Algerian sections of the French political parties on Algerian territory’. The truth was that it was they, before it was the working class, who assumed the right of France to rule over Algeria. In fact, the Communist Party of Algeria (PCA) recruited heavily amongst white settlers in Bab el Oued and Belcourt, according to Michael Farrell, who also charges that many PCA members were later active in the reactionary OAS[v].
It was left to an obscure Greek Michel Raptis (Pablo) who was in exile in France to organise a solidarity movement with the Algerian revolution, organise tens of engineers around the world to go set up mobile arms production factories in neighbouring countries and to smuggle weapons in for the resistance[vi]. He was eventually caught trying to overthrow the Algerian economy by flooding it with fake French currency, was put on trial in Amsterdam, and had his French residency withdrawn being put in prison in Holland for two years. Between 1962 and 1965 he became a core minister of Ben Bella’s first liberation government and was instrumental in forcing the mass exodus of the over one million French settlers in Algeria those who became known as Pieds Noir[vii].
Pablo was put in prison and had his status revoked by Holland, and only a sole  British Labour MP came to his defence. This is what he said in justifying his support for Algerian Independence:
“I will limit myself to a few words on the Algerian drama, which is at the heart of the affair that you are judging, Monsieur President, Messieurs Judges. I wonder if the Christian and civilized men and women of Western Europe, wallowing in their current relative material comfort, realize deep down what has been going on for the past seven years in Algeria, what is currently happening in the hell of Angola, or the drama, for example, of the Congolese children dying of hunger in the thousands. If they realize to what point our civilization is
only a matter of an epidermis that it suffices to scratch for an incredible potential for cruelty, violence and injustice toward our brothers – the people of color cruelly oppressed and exploited – to escape”.
“Have we in Western Europe truly realized the horrors of the colonial war in Algeria, that fact that there have been seven years of massacres and torture, around a million deaths on the Algerian side, more than two million poor peasants chased from their villages, displaced, “regrouped” in temporary camps, more than 250,000 Algerian refugees in Morocco and Tunisia, most of whom are elderly, women, and children who are war orphans, more than 300,000 Algerians in prisons and concentration camps in France itself? Yet these figures appear in the official French press and the countless literary and other documents that have been produced by this colonial war, the most atrocious of our century[viii].”
Once Pablo joined the Ministerial Department of Agriculture, 1m French settlers fled the country out of a population of 10m Algerians by FMLN policy of land distribution. Agriculture was returned once more to its rightful owners, and food production was geared to the needs of the domestic economy as a priority, not to serve solely the interests of imperialist France[ix].
No subsequent French Left organisation led campaigns for the poor refugees from Algeria nor did they go round in a mass hysteria of ‘welcome the refugees’. This was obviously logical  as they didn’t do much to support the anti-colonial resistance despite having a Parliamentary representation and commanding a significant percentage in elections (being the number one party in 1945 with 5m votes!). After betting on the wrong horse in Algeria (and supporting Mejj Hadji) they sure as hell didn’t want to be seen supporting the Pieds Noir so they kept silent, as opposed to the experience in our times where supporting every last migrant is evidence of …socialism and the revolution around the corner! The Algerian events led to deep turmoil in many of the French PCF militants, as they were formally against imperialism but in practice defenders of colonial France.
Indeed, all the way till the early 1980’s the French Communist Party maintained a position of strict intransigence to waves of immigration to France and one could argue that this position predated the conflicts in East Germany today, with many attacks noted by towns with Communist Party mayors against the resettlement of migrants in their districts. The 1980’s French elections under the leadership of George Marchais was partly fought on the platform of No Open Borders. Up until early 2000 in Calais where the PCF had electoral strength, closing of the Sangatte migrant squatter camp was one of its priorities. As indeed it did[x].
The Algerian exodus was one of a pattern of post-colonial societies. They had to go through the motions of getting rid of the settlers just to develop as societies on a human level. Without that, they could go nowhere. Imperialism, of course, tried to put every hurdle in the way, but we didn’t live in the era where they would be labelled openly as ‘racists’. That came much later as evidenced when Mugabe got rid of white farmers who allegedly had their land …stolen from them, land which they acquired at the point of a gun.

Ian Birchall, Revolutionary History: European Revolutionaries and Algerian Independence 1954-1962

The War in Algeria 1961 Declaration of Michel Raptis at the Amsterdam Trial
Source: Sylvain Pattieu, Les Camarades des freres. Aris, Syllepse, 2002;
First Published: Quatriéme Internationale no. 14, November 1961;
Translated: for by Mitch Abidor.

George Marchais, On Immigration