France’s Yellow Vests: It’s just 1 protest…which has lasted 8 years

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

People think France is “socialist” because they have a great social safety net, but it remains a capitalist country because they tax labor and not the 1% / management to pay for this safety net.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he most important thing to understand about France’s Yellow Vest movement is that the Mainstream Media wants you to view it as an isolated incident which exists in a vacuum, when we are much better served to look at it in a continuum.

When the Yellow Vests started I was not foolish to say: “So what?”

After all, the Yellow Vest movement is dwarfed by France’s first major anti-austerity protests in the fall of 2010. When Nicolas Sarkozy backtracked on a promise to raise the retirement age France saw 7 marches in 8 weeks with (conservatively) 1.5 million marchers each time. Over just one week there were three different marches with perhaps 3 million people! The three Yellow Vest marches - and all are on Saturdays, to make it easier for people to attend - only reached 300,000 demonstrators one time. So we’re talking 10 times smaller than in 2010 per protest, and something like 30 times smaller if we compare the two movements overall.

Unsurprisingly, I have yet to read of this “ancient history” in any of the Anglophone Mainstream Media coverage of the Yellow Vests. It’s “vacuum versus continuum” in terms of journalistic approach.

I summarise the “continuum” approach in an original saying about journalism (at least I think it’s original): “A journalist without experience is just somebody with a notepad and a pen.”

Some Mainstream journalist who doesn’t know about 2010 - do they really grasp what the Yellow Vests are about? Because the Yellow Vests were definitely there back in 2010…but they remained in the car (Reflective yellow vests in your car are required by French law: in case you get a flat tire or something, you have the vest to put on for safety from oncoming traffic.).


Protests against Sarkozy in 2010—massive, and, as usual, poorly reported in the USA.


So, if we believe the living-in-a-vacuum Mainstream Media then the Yellow Vest protests are finished: President Emmanuel Macron just canceled the diesel tax hikes. The protests are no longer necessary, right?

Wrong.

There is no reason why AFP, AP, Reuters and everybody else spent all that time saying “diesel tax, diesel tax, diesel tax” other than: they are either purposely misleading people by viewing the diesel tax in total isolation from previous policies, or they are a bunch of inexperienced newbies, or they just want to be proven right for repeatedly making this absurd diesel tax claim. My point: it’s all bad journalism.

Second-most important thing to realize about austerity: it has accumulated

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] hear and read stories about the French in 2018 similar to what I used to read about Greece in 2012 - because austerity is cumulative.

It is not just one tax / measure / policy / reform: it is all of them combined. And we are talking about 8 years’ worth.

“Ramin, you are usually awfully long-winded. Do you get paid by the word? Even in your funny columns, you could use an editor. Just explain what you mean about this in real-world terms!”

Fine – hear ya go:

French inflation, according to my calculations, has increased by 14% since 2008: therefore, people have effectively taken a 14% wage cut in 10 years. This helps explain why “decreased purchasing power” has been the number one concern of the French year after year after year.

Salaries in France are already low to start with: 1,700 euros is the median net salary, which is far lower than Anglo-US-Germanic countries.

Ok, so you have a lousy salary to start with, which has lost 14% of its value in the last decade. But inflation is not caused by the policy of neoliberal / trickle-down / austerity economics, of course.

But France does have austerity, so 14% is not the only reduction: we must account for the impact on salaries of 8 years of cuts to social services, because a key plank of austerity is reducing the size of the government. This means YOU foot the bill for many services the government used to totally provide or subsidise.

So let’s say, conservatively, because it really depends on the size of your family and what their needs are, that this has effectively lowered your yearly salary 5% overall during the Age of Austerity. Your salary is now actually worth about 20% less than in 2008.


Demonstration in Orleans, 12 October 2010


Now let’s add in the new taxes imposed by austerity, because austerity means that the French state taxes workers and not capital, and more than ever. Did you expect that high finance would pay for their failed bets? Ha ha, you are funny - you probably say things like “France is socialist”, too. For example: two years ago they increased my council tax (the annual tax I pay for renting an apartment, so that I avoid things like getting rained on and assault-while-sleeping) by 60%. I don’t know how that’s legal or morally defensible, and I was enraged, but how could I stop them? It went from to €1,285 in 2016 to €2,134 in 2017.

So let’s say, conservatively, that the increased taxes imposed by austerity have taken just 5% of your salary over the last 10 years: your salary is now down 25% from 2008.

Of course, losing 25% of your wages in 10 years is no problem IF your wages have increased 25%.

In 2008 the government claimed the median salary was €1,580 per month for a full-time worker. In 2015, which is this year’s data from the government (why are they so behind schedule, probably because austerity means firing/not replacing government workers), the median salary was €1,692. This means that the median salary has only increased 7%.

So we can conservatively estimate that the median citizen has lost 18% of their salary in real terms since 2008, all thanks to following austerity economics.

For people making €1,700 per month in 2018…losing €306 per month is a huge, huge problem. For childless, former Rothschild bankers who married elderly chocolate heiresses/statutory rapists…€306 only means skimping on the wine tonight.

But wait, it’s worse!

Not only has austerity taken this huge cut out of your already-meagre salary, they have made it significantly more likely that you will lose your poorly-paying job due to long-standing, near-record unemployment levels in France.


But France does have austerity, so 14% is not the only reduction: we must account for the impact on salaries of 8 years of cuts to social services, because a key plank of austerity is reducing the size of the government. This means YOU foot the bill for many services the government used to totally provide or subsidise.
This pressure exists because another plank of austerity is the reduction of and/or the refusal to spend government money on job-creating infrastructure PLUS the insistence on giving tax breaks to corporations and businessmen WITH zero strings attached (such as the promise of jobs).

And, the coup de grace, austerity means reduced safety conditions, making firing easier and loosening oversight rules - as a way to encourage hiring - so your poor-paying job is even more disagreeable.

And who has arrived on the scene immune to these pressures, and thus just oozing life, but “old Mackie” Emmanuel Macron. Well, when the shark bites with his teeth, babe, and the scarlet billows start to spread - Mackie’s got them fancy gloves, so there’s never a trace of red. Never a trace of policy-sweat, either: he controls his brand-new political party, which has an absolute majority in Parliament. France is Macron’s little austerity laboratory, and he doesn’t care about public opinion nor does he have to.

So the “real-world terms” in France are: major cuts in take home pay, combined with job insecurity, combined with a mad neoliberal scientist who doesn’t believe he was elected to reflect the popular will but to rule as he technocratically thinks best.

Can you hear the Mainstream Media shouting to drown me out: “The problem is just the diesel tax, just the diesel tax I tell ya!”

Let’s be real journalists and do the math, and give the context, and recount the history

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ant me to quickly debunk Macron’s rationale for the diesel tax, which is dutifully placed at the top of every Mainstream Media report?

France’s auto industry made a failed bet on diesel in the 1980s. Result: a whopping 80% of French passenger cars now run on diesel. Pretty clear why the diesel tax is so widely unpopular, no?

Diesel is dirtier than regular gas, but has always been cheaper – until old Mackie came along. But Macron’s “this tax is needed to pay for a necessary ecological transition” is pure bull: Instead of taxing stockholders, corporations and car dealership owners for this failed bet (i.e., the ones who profited) Macron is capitalistically taxing labor (workers, households). There are myriad other ways to make the necessary auto-ecological transition than taxing the average person…but not in capitalism.

People think France is “socialist” because they have a great social safety net, but it remains a capitalist country because they tax labor and not the 1% / management to pay for this safety net. That is the reason the median salary is so low compared with other Western nations. The diesel tax is not the only example of this - ALL French taxes are: It’s so bad that in 2018 all the wages of the average French worker from January 1 until July 27 went to the taxman, to give some real-world context. (In Iran, being so heavily socialist-inspired, 50% of the population pays zero taxes, including every farmer - the money comes from oil revenue (socialistically state-owned) and businesses.)

That’s some context for the latest austerity measure - the diesel tax -which is no different from a banker bailout because Macron wanted to capitalistically make the average person pay for the failures of high finance / alleged technocrats / the rich bosses once again. (Billionaires have increased their net worth far faster in France than in any other developed nation, including the US.—Eds)

But what about the many austerity measures which preceded this one? That laundry list is long and stinking, but I’ll make it brief because I think it matters:

The first austerity cuts were rushed through in 2011, with 2012 serving as France’s first official austerity budget. The reason: the “confidence fairy” and France’s AAA bond rating. Did the People want them? Sarkozy became the first French president not to be re-elected in 30 years.


François Hollande remains one of the worst examples of vassalage to Washington in the history of Modern Europe, not to mention betrayals of socialism.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] remember when Francois “The Ultimate Patsy” Hollande came along in 2012. He was a formerly-fat, witty, jovial, (alleged) Everyman from rural France. Surely HE would understand the popular will and do what he promised: break with the Austerity Party line enforced by Brussels, as his campaign was built around a promise to renegotiate the Orwellian-named EU Stability and Growth Pact. I really can’t express how high optimism was in May 2012 - evil Sarkozyites were traitors, and France was truly going to lead a Latin Bloc La Résistance against the arrogant Germans, Dutch and usurious Northern bankers.

Instead, Hollande broke the Socialist Party.

He backtracked on ending austerity on November 6, 2012, by announcing another round of it, which contained basically all the neoliberal, economically-regressive measures proposed by Sarkozy during the presidential campaign. It was Obama turning into Dubya Bush à la française. The very next day Hollande announced the approval of a draft law to legalise gay marriage and adoption. Funny how I never read about this connection in the Mainstream Media, ever, even though it was a simply atrocious act of societal and political manipulation of the media agenda. That alone was enough to turn many French off of politics for years. (Hollande was simply practicing la politique identitaire so successfuly used by the Anglos—Ed).

Yellow Vests were thus diverted to enormous anti-gay rights marches, instead of being at anti-austerity marches, but the vests still remained in the car.

How much time do you have to discuss incredibly repressive anti-government protests during the Hollande era? How about after the State of Emergency was imposed? How about the “France has free speech except for pro-Palestinians, whose marches we ban”? What about the 2014 months of protests, led by the rail workers - I dutifully filled up my car with gas (it’s such a fancy car that I was able to buy it entirely with €1 and €2 coins, LOL) in order to help provoke fuel shortages, which have only just barely begun in the current, far-weaker iteration of fuel depot blockades. What about the 2016 Labor Code reforms, when it was all-out war on Hollande?

I never did discover a Western presidential incumbent who was so unpopular that he couldn’t even run for re-election. Feel free to finally provide me with an answer to that trivia question, because for now Hollande is that punchline to that joke.

But Hollande sure did punch - protesters, that is. I don’t know what NGOs are doing but it’s not compiling this data, so off the top of my head - and after asking other journalists - I would estimate that at least 15-20,000 citizens were arrested at anti-government protests during the Hollande era, with 20-30,000 hurt (and truly countless tear-gassed and harassed by cops). Hey, you had 4,000 protesters taken to court by the government during the 2016 protests alone - how many got arrested but were not given court cases? And how many more would have been arrested had not over 600 demonstrations been banned by “liberté-loving" France during the 2-year State of Emergency, with countless others strangled in the cradle? The anal rape of a young Black man by cops with their truncheon in 2017 isn’t necessarily economic austerity-related, but it is evidence of emboldened state repression: my headline sums up the Hollande era when it comes to “France’s love for freedom of assembly”: Cop violence at Paris demo against cop violence.

And how much time do you have to discuss incredibly repressive anti-government protests during 18 months of Macron? The labor code part 2 reform, the rail reform, the education reform, hospital reform, normalization of the state of emergency reform – all have been met with majority-opposition from the People and the same state violence.

So when 400 people got arrested and over 130 anti-government protesters were hurt at the Arc de Triomphe protests last week - this is not seriously different from many other violent protests over the past 8 years!

I admit, I have never seen the Arc de Triomphe tagged with graffiti, but that’s the only real novelty - the violence is totally de rigeur in French political life and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a liar.

Or they are hypocrites, because violence against anti-government protesters is apparently ok…in Western countries. Since 2011 I have been saying on PressTV: “If this was Iran, Cuba, China or Venezuela the West would be calling for a humanitarian intervention to save the people from such anti-democratic aggression.”

I eventually stopped saying it - I just got tired of it, you know? Rather, the West’s hypocrisy just got acceptable. Terrible journalism on my part.

I guess I also stopped being upset over people getting hurt at demonstrations for the same reason - it became mundane, normal. More bad journalism - and bad humanity, and bad citizenship - on my part.

However, I didn’t do what the Anglophone media simply loves to do: I never blamed French protesters for the violence. My God, the Anglophones and their “Keep calm and carry on” worship of law and order at all costs…what a bunch of sheep, eh? They wouldn’t revolt under any circumstances, I’d say.

Of course, unlike those idiot commentators I have been at innumerable violent protests and choked down litres of tear gas. Fact one: if the cops fail to stop violence it is the fault of the cops, as that is their primary job. Fact two: if the government provokes violent protests, it is the fault of the government, as it is their job to promote policies which do not inspire citizen rebellion. Fact three: France’s armed-to-the-teeth riot police are inherently provoking to the increasingly-poor and increasingly-repressed Frenchmen who come to protest the government and not to get intimidated by it, so their whole plan is designed to fail…and purposely – we talk about the violence and not the reasons nor the past. More “politics in a vacuum and not a continuum”.

Future of Yellow Vests – going on vacation, I’m betting

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]f course the Yellow Vesters are going on vacation shortly – it’s December 6. The past 10 years of French history ALWAYS shows that the protesters - no matter how hot, blue and righteous - prefer taking a vacation to sustaining their political momentum. Nothing must stand in the way of several weeks off in December-January and August!  This is, of course, why they keep losing.

So here’s a real easy test for you to see if the Yellow Vests are different: If the French are seriously protesting on the couple days on either side of Christmas or New Year’s Eve - that would be a revolution in political norms.

But I’ve seen it year after year, so I predict the protests will stop after December 16, and then re-start in January but necessarily weakened. The French sure do make it easy for the politicians they truly despise.

But maybe not so weakened upon restarting….

Beyond the Arc de Triomphe graffiti, I am seeing things I’ve never seen before – like a motorcyclist in rush hour wearing a Yellow Vest with “General Strike – Let’s Stop It All”. Anybody who knows anything knows that a general strike – the only demonstration which actually hurts the pockets of the 1% - is the only way to get any true political change anywhere in the world and at any time (barring outright revolution and rebellion).

Maybe this is the year Santa Claus is not the priority?

People outside of France ask me: will there be a revolution? Here is my stock answer:

No: a huge percentage of French are just as insanely committed and prideful about their outdated, 19th-century based system as the Americans. This is the true legacy of imperialism – unmerited arrogance about your system. Iranians use “arrogance” and “imperialism” interchangeably for very logical and obvious reasons.

But, once again, maybe not so arrogant after 8 years of austerity….

The far-left (true left) and far-right are making unprecedented calls for new elections, for referendums, for things which are rather radical. Let’s not forget that in the 2017 presidential first round vote 19.5% of the electorate voted for Jean-Luc Melenchon (just 2 points less than Marine Le Pen), whose platform included abolishing the 5th Republic. So in France you have an inordinate amount of arrogant jingoists whose parents grew up in French Algeria, but there definitely is a sizeable part of the population which knows things are fundamentally wrong about France’s Liberal-and-not-Socialist Democracy-influenced structure.

And the problem is definitely structural – it is not just the price of diesel.

Any true “Yellow Vest Revolution” would have to include a drastic rewriting of the rules of the European Union and especially the Eurozone, or else a Frexit. Both of those institutions were constructed in the heyday of the fall of the USSR , and thus at a time when socialism was at its absolute nadir. Their birth chart is significant because the two are designed with 1%-safety hatches to escape anything close to true popular democracy. The structure of these two institutions are truly the triumph of “Americanism”, and their neoliberal, self-cannibalizing socio-political thought. Indeed, the US runs on a system inspired by the English, French and Europe, but Continental Europe runs on a system inspired by the US…ironic. And unfortunate.

If the Yellow Vest movement proves to be different it will be largely because of this: they have, and they allow, no leaders or spokespeople. The Prime Minister admitted that he cannot meet with any Yellow Vests, because the ones he arranges to meet with keep getting death threats from fellow Yellow Vesters.

The reason this is so important is: the government cannot co-opt or buy off the movement.

Take French unions for example - there are nine big ones. There was a span lasting from 2010 to 2018 when they didn’t march together once, even though their members all hate austerity. Obviously, they are not united at all. What I have seen year after year in France is: there are anti-austerity strikes and hopes are high…but then the government buys off one or two of the unions with targeted concessions. Those unions say, “We’ve satisfied our members, as is our duty,” and they pull out. Thus, the strikes are now less impactful on the pockets of the 1%, and they are emboldened. Those still striking feel betrayed and see the lack of solidarity, and the strike soon collapses because too many people went back to work. It’s all as easy as pie for the ruling technocrats and 1%, whereas all an increasingly-poor average worker can say each year is: “This time it will be different.” It likely won’t be - French unions have signed off on every major austerity measure, after all.

All of that should go a long way in explaining why socialist countries like Iran, Cuba and China ban independent trade unions - for them the state IS the union.

You can be sure the Yellow Vests are certainly aware of the failure of the philosophy underpinning Western unionism, and thus they are trying to prevent being similarly co-opted or sold out. The death threats and opposition to any leadership are now given context: radicalization and the demand for new methods has accumulated, due to the accumulation of austerity; it is not merely the presence of (politically over-idealistic and step-skipping) French anarchism.

The Yellow Vest Movement also doesn’t even have a program or a list of clear demands which could be satisfied…and I say “right on”.

Their list of demands should be SO long and SO varied that it would take months just to compile it…because their demands are the combined demands of 8 years of anti-austerity protests.


A man wears a mask with the likeness of French president Emmanuel Macron as people take part in the nationwide yellow vests demonstrations.

Who are the Yellow Vests, after all? They are all those workers, students, pensioners, teachers, hospital staff, etc. who have been protesting and gotten only tear gas and failure for their efforts. They all have ignored demands which must be addressed, no?

So they don’t need a short & clear program which creates a quick fix because France’s problem is – just like the EU and the Eurozone – structural, cultural and endemic.

Is this a Yellow Vest Cultural Revolution, or just another failed anti-austerity protest?

People will mock me, but something like a Chinese or Iranian Cultural Revolution is clearly needed: several years of shutting down institutions and having major public political discussions in order to have both a huge rethink on societal structures and to get “Rebel Red Guards/Yellow Vests” into local positions of power.

Disagree? Ok, then answer this: How long can this go on?

I don’t mean the Yellow Vest protests - I mean citizen acceptance of anti-democratic austerity. Anything is possible, after all – give me a real figure, please: The Eurozone has had a Lost Decade (which the Mainstream Media never openly admits): will Eurozone citizens tolerate a Lost Score, like the Japanese did?

I say no: Japan is an island, ethnically and culturally homogenous, and they own their debt and cannot be foreclosed on. The Eurozone has none of these advantages.

Here’s another issue I’d like an actual answer on: How long can France have a president and a government which believes public opinion only matters once every five years? One more presidential election? Maybe you believe three more? I admit, anything is possible.

Again, I say no. The Socialist Party is smashed, the mainstream conservative party was routed almost as badly, and Macron’s party – at this rate – will be just a blip in France’s political history books, because they are even less popular than Hollande was at the same point in his term. So who is the party which will be running in 2027? We have no idea in France, much less in 2022.

So when I say that new people in local positions in power are not just needed, that is an understatement: they appear absolutely inevitable.

Another question requiring an actual answer: Where is the political party or grassroots movement which can tangibly implement the Yellow Vests’ will, once that will is known? I am not being obtuse - what is the political pathway for them?

The only alternatives which are not smashed (or soon to be discredited) and still within the realm of possibility are Le Pen and the far-left (real left).

But I don’t think such a Red-Brown alliance can happen in France, however: hatred for the National Front cannot be overestimated, and Le Pen permanently lost many by clowning against Macron in their 2017 debate instead of realising she had a chance to win. Uber-intense anti-Le Pen / Rassemblement National sentiment is the only explanation that France chose a 40-year old Rothschild banker 6 years into austerity. And we can’t overestimate the anti-leftist feeling in France: France neo-imperialist, France capitalist, France Islamophobic, etc. Melenchon came so very close in 2017, but he has the entire media landscape against him, and for many his past as a Socialist Party member until as late as 2008.

Therefore, a real political option – but only by default – is that the Yellow Vests turn into Italy’s Five-Star movement, because they lack any other route to translating their political will, when declared (or if declared, given French anarchism).

But Five-Star took 8 years to coalesce and win power - the Yellow Vests are still in month #1.

However, as my headline notes, this has essentially been the same protest for 8 years, going on 9, so maybe France as a whole is “there”? Maybe the timeline is speeded up in the digital age, too? That’s a significant psychological consideration, but Italy does not give us much hope for 4G political speed in France.

Given the 90,000 cops to be deployed on December 8, it appears that the Yellow Vests are still in “smash” mode, as they should be. Austerity has accumulated after the Great Recession, so there is much to demolish: namely, received wisdoms such as France is democratic, functioning well, rather-socialist, sovereign, etc; there’s also the pan-European ideas (beloved by the French elite) that these new institutions have been beneficial, successful, are the only thing preventing European War III, etc. Lotta nonsense to bring down to earth.

They say we can never predict a revolution, but we do know what precedes successful revolutions: years (if not decades) of nationwide, constant, family-splitting political discussion and involvement combined with drastic measures of self-sacrifice. That was the case in Russia in 1917 and in Iran in 1979 - thus their Revolutions were more aptly-termed bloodless “Celebrations”.

France is a long way from celebrating anything but Christmas, but I can report that all anybody is talking about is the Gilet Jaunes. However, we are truly only on the 6th day of this nationwide ferment, though, so…some perspective.

But, as far as my 2 centimes, I predict they will take Christmas and New Year’s off. And when they come back the same problems will be there. This is a very cynical and depressing point of view - maybe after 10 years here I have become French? - but those are the facts and the historical pattern.

What is also a fact is that the Yellow Vests may or may not change things, but that things in France and the Eurozone simply must change. And they will - someday. See, I’m not that French – I’m optimistic!

And for damn sure I am a Yellow Vest. So is everyone else I’ve talked to, and that means something big…at least for now.

About the author
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

horiz-long grey

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]black-horizontal




‘Most cops support Yellow Vest protesters over Macron’ – France police union chief to RT

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.



[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he French president’s proposed fuel tax is just as unpopular with police as it is with ordinary citizens, and they feel uneasy having to suppress ‘Gilets Jaunes’ protests that “in their heart” they back, their union chief says.

“Most of us back the Gilets Jaunes [Yellow Vests], because we will be directly affected by any rise in fuel prices,”Alexandre Langlois, the secretary-general of the VIGI police union, told RT France from their studio in Paris. “Most of us can’t live where we work, because it is either too expensive, or we would be arresting our next-door neighbors, so we drive significant distances.”

“Our tax contributions are going up in several areas, but there are no commensurate wage rises… It is hard to accept these cruel measures,” continued Langlois, 35, whose own law enforcement background is in border control and domestic intelligence.

The role of the police has come under intense scrutiny as the protests, which have brought tens of thousands to streets and motorways across France each of the past three weeks, have grown increasingly violent.

On Saturday at least 90 people were hurt – including 16 officers – during clashes at the Champs Elysees in central Paris, after tear gas, water cannon and stun grenades were unleashed against a crowd of radically-minded protesters, over 260 of whom were arrested. The interior ministry has called them “casseurs” (agitators) who “came to fight.

Langlois agrees that the movement has been exploited by more radical elements, but says that cops are still reluctant to be sent out against the Yellow Vests, who took their name from the hi-visibility road workers’ jackets they have chosen as their symbol.

“It is difficult, because in our heart we support the protesters,” said Langlois. “The assigned cops tell themselves: ‘We will again look like villains, like attack dogs for the ministry and the government.’”

While Langlois is clear that some areas, such as the heart of the French capital are volatile and dangerous arenas for demonstrations, he also blames the higher-ups for repeatedly mishandling the response.

“Our colleagues on the ground have no operational freedom, they are merely following orders issued by those sitting somewhere else in police headquarters. At least once it would be right if the blame was assigned to the bosses, not those on the streets, who are doing what they can,” said Langlois.


Alexandre Langlois

In the wake of such fierce opposition to his measures, intended to discourage the environmental impact of traditional petrol-driven cars, president Emmanuel Macron has already offered to compromise on the exact format of the tax, and how it would be applied during periods of high fuel prices. But he says he will not totally abandon the levy, due to come in from January.

But now the protesters, who count left and right-wingers among their number, are demanding a range of other measures, including a slowdown in the pace of transition to green cars, a tax reduction across the board and a rise in state-mandated minimum wages.

The ebb and flow of passions: acts of violence mixed with acts of fraternity and even compassion. After all, it's really just one class in the streets—the working class.

More from RT.com:

5 striking VIDEOS that reveal the violence & compassion of France’s Yellow Vest protests

A shirtless man battling a water cannon; a cadre of riot cops beating a curled up demonstrator; the City of Lights awash in flames – these are the images that have shocked the world after nearly three weeks of protests in France.

The upheaval over soaring fuel prices has spread across the country, with the French government mulling the suspension of a fuel tax in order to placate the Yellow Vest protesters. Videos of the demonstrations, which began in mid-November, have captured both the extreme violence and acts of compassion that have emerged from the ongoing unrest.

Shirtless ‘piano man’ stares down a water cannon

Ironically, one of the heroes to emerge from the Yellow Vest protests is a vest-less (and shirtless) man who took on a water cannon.



As demonstrations heated up in Paris on November 24, one protester decided to exchange his vest for a pair of swimming goggles. A video of the shirtless Frenchman bravely enduring a thorough soaking from a water cannon gained notoriety, after what appeared to be a piano rolled through the already-dramatic scene. Actually, the wheeled wooden object turned out to be an old desk, but the scene still looked like it was lifted from an artsy fartsy French film.

Violence averted after cops remove helmets

The protests have not been devoid of compassion, however.

In the town of Pau, in southwestern France, police found a way to peacefully disperse protesters.

Footage posted on social media over the weekend shows a group of about two dozen police officers in riot gear removing their helmets while standing just meters away from demonstrators who were reportedly preparing to storm town hall. The crowd welcomed the peace gesture by applauding the police and singing the French national anthem.

Riot police curb-stomp a protester

Unfortunately not all of the videos to emerge from the protests are so whimsical or heart-warming. Footage purportedly taken at Rue de Berri, Paris – about a half a mile from the Arc de Triomphe – on Saturday shows a cowering protester being beaten by around ten riot cops.


In the video, the demonstrator is thrust to the ground by two officers, who then begin to kick and hit the curled-up man. Several other policemen then join in, using their batons and feet to beat the protester.

Urban warfare

A particularly gripping video, shot from a balcony by an onlooker, reveals the combat-like intensity of the clashes between the Yellow Vests and riot police. The footage shows a group of policemen attempting to stop the advance of a crowd of protesters.


At first, only a few demonstrators engage the cops. However, the mob of Yellow Vests quickly rallies and completely overwhelms the group of police. With the cops making a hasty retreat, more protesters swarm in from a side street, hurling objects as they close in on the police. With projectiles being thrown in all directions, the onlooker abruptly pulls the camera away and begins to shout.

Rekindling France’s revolutionary spirit?

A standoff at the Arc de Triomphe led some to draw parallels between the Yellow Vest protests and France’s revolutionary past. Footage of the encounter between protesters and riot police near the iconic monument shows a man kneeling in front of the arch, with his hands stretched out.

He is then joined by another demonstrator, clad in a yellow vest, who waves two French flags as he stands behind the kneeling man. The display of flag-waving fearlessness was seen as some as a modern-day rendition of Eugene Delacroix’s classic revolutionary painting, ‘Liberty Leading the People’.

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/445527-yellow-vest-france-protests/


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Revolutionary wisdom

Words from an Irish patriot—

 

People in the center are cowards.
They are sheep.
They don’t want to offend, or to think. They have no opinions of their own. They agree with the last person they spoke with.
And they presume that the center is safe.
How can anyone criticize a moderate?
Easily, it turns out.
Moderates are the casualties in all conflicts.
They are the enemy of both the right and the left.
They are without morality, conscience, principles, or common sense.
They are like a stumbling drunk in the middle of a highway, at risk of being run over by cars going in both directions.


—Roland Vincent, Armory of the Revolution

 




Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya


 


The empire’s signature on Libya—this time mostly inflicted by its abject NATO European vassals, the junior murderers around the planet.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he summit meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance that is expanding its deployments of troops, combat and surveillance aircraft and missile ships around Russia’s borders, took place on July 11-12 and was a farce, with Trump behaving in his usual way, insulting individuals and nations with characteristic vulgarity.

Before the jamboree, NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg (one of those selected for a Trumpian harangue), recounted in a speech on 21 June that “NATO has totally transformed our presence in Afghanistan from a big combat operation with more than 100,000 to now 16,000 troops conducting training, assisting and advising.”  But then he had a bit of a rethink when he was asked a question about whether NATO had learnt any lessons that might make it think about “intervening in the future.” To give him his due, Stoltenberg replied that he thought “one of the lessons we have learned from Iraq, from Afghanistan, from Libya, is that military intervention is not always solving all problems.”

He is absolutely right about that, because the US-NATO military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been catastrophic.

It is intriguing that NATO’s secretary general can at last admit that military muscle doesn’t solve every problem, but he did not expand on the subject of Libya, which unhappy country was destroyed by US-NATO military intervention in 2011, and it is interesting to reflect on that particular NATO debacle, because it led directly to expansion of the Islamic State terrorist group, a prolonged civil war, a vast number of deaths, and hideous suffering by desperate refugees trying to flee from Libya across the Mediterranean.

Towards the end of the West’s seven-month blitz on Libya its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was murdered by gangs supported by US-NATO, which caused the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to giggle “We came; we saw; he died” in an interview on CBS, which was a good indicator of how the peace-loving West approached its devastation of a country whose president had plenty of flaws but whose main mistake was to threaten to nationalize his country’s oil resources, which were in the hands of US and European oligarchs.


Once again, the imperialist media proved their fealty to their overlords by acting with their usual bombastic chauvinism.

Gaddafi was a despot who persecuted his enemies quite as savagely as the Western-supported dictator Hosni Mubarak in neighboring Egypt, but life for most Libyans was comfortable, and the BBC had to admit that Gaddafi’s “particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare and subsidized housing and transport,” although “wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite” (which doesn’t happen anywhere else, of course).  The CIA World Factbook noted that in 2010 Gaddafi’s Libya had a literacy rate of 82.6% (far better than Egypt, India and Saudi Arabia), and a life expectancy of 77.47 years, higher than 160 of the 215 countries assessed. But the West was intent on getting rid of Gaddafi, and managed to fudge a UN Resolution to begin the war. (Germany, under the wise leadership of Angela Merkel, refused to have anything to do with the long-planned carnival of rocketing and bombing.)

Gaddafi was murdered on October 20, 2011, in particularly disgusting circumstances, and ten days later the US-NATO alliance ended its blitzkrieg. The normally sane Guardian newspaper of the UK reported that the operation had demonstrated “a unique combination of military power that could set a model for future warfare” while the secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, proclaimed the end of “a successful chapter in Nato’s history.”

The “successful chapter” involved 9,600 airstrikes that amongst other destruction “debilitated Libya’s water supply by targeting critical state-owned water installations, including a water-pipe factory . . that manufactured pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipes for the Great Manmade River project, an ingenious irrigation system transporting water from aquifers beneath Libya’s southern desert to about 70% of the population.” As the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2010, “the Great Man-Made River, which is leader Muammar Qaddafi’s ambitious answer to the country’s water problems, irrigates Libya’s large desert farms. The 2,333-mile network of pipes ferry water from four major underground aquifers in southern Libya to the northern population centers. Wells punctuate the water’s path, allowing farmers to utilize the water network in their fields.”   Not any more, they don’t, and there is now a critical water shortage

One recent observation was that “The water crisis is a powerful symbol of state failure in a country that was once one of the wealthiest in the Middle East but has been gripped by turmoil since a 2011 uprising unseated [sic] Muammar Gaddafi. For Libyans the chaos has meant power cuts and crippling cash shortages. These are often made worse by battles between armed groups vying for control of the fractured oil-rich state and its poorly-maintained infrastructure.”  Thank you, US-NATO, for liberating Libya.

Two prominent figures involved in the US-NATO war on Libya were Ivo Daalder, the US Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013,  and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, the US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period.  As they ended their war, on  October 31, 2011, these two ninnies had a piece published in the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “As Operation Unified Protector comes to a close, the alliance and its partners can look back at an extraordinary job, well done. Most of all, they can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited force — precisely applied — can affect real, positive political change.”

Well, there’s no doubt that “limited force” — if you call 9,600 airstrikes “limited” — can produce political change, but it is difficult to see how even these two twits could think for an instant that it would be “positive.”  Then Rasmussen lobbed in to Tripoli on 31 October and announced that “It’s great to be in Libya, free Libya. We acted to protect you. Together we succeeded. Libya is finally free.”

Washington Post), but such organizations as Human Rights Watch keep the world informed about what is going on. (1) Its 2018 World Report records that “Political divisions and armed strife continued to plague Libya as two governments vied for legitimacy and control of the country, and United Nations’ efforts to unify the feuding parties flagged . . . Armed groups throughout the country, some of them affiliated with one or the other of the competing governments, executed persons extra-judicially, attacked civilians and civilian properties, abducted and disappeared people, and imposed sieges on civilians in the eastern cities of Derna and Benghazi.”

Thank you US-NATO, and especially thank you, President Obama and Messrs. Rasmussen, Stavridis and Daalder, and all the brave pilots who had a wonderful blitzing shindig, and all the brave button-pressers on US and UK Navy ships whose Tomahawk missiles blasted the cities.  The country you wrecked will take decades to recover from your use of what you called “limited force,” and the amount of human suffering you caused is incalculable.

NATO’S Jens Stoltenberg seems to have learned the lesson, albeit belatedly, that military force does not solve what NATO regards as problems.  That’s to be welcomed, and what would be even more welcome would be realization that provocation and the threat of force don’t work, either, and therefore that it would be wise to stay out of wars and to draw-down the confrontational US-NATO deployments along Russia’s borders.

(1) 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]




Trump Treats EU Like Bozos by Finian Cunningham + NATO Needs To End by Pat Elder

by Finian Cunningham
CROSSPOST WITH fraternal site Dandelion Salad & SPUTNIK


Image by Miguel Discart via Flickr


[dropcap]Y[/dropcap]ou can’t really blame Trump for treating European leaders with contempt. Frankly, it’s because they deserve it, and Trump knows it. This week, the American president joins European allies at the NATO summit in Brussels, and the gathering is expected to be a bruising one. The Europeans are fearing a drubbing from Trump over financial commitments.

Last month at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, the brash US president gave his counterparts a tongue-lashing, telling them that the NATO military alliance was obsolete due to their lack of financial support.

Holding back no punches, Trump followed up with a letter to European leaders warning if they don’t shell out more on NATO then he would consider withdrawing US troops from Europe.

Well, don’t you know, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron have reportedly jumped to it, to sign off on massive increases in their countries’ military budgets, in line with Trump’s demands, just ahead of his arrival in Brussels this week.

Other European states are also cranking up the military budgets out of fear of an ear-bashing from the man in the White House.

Merkel has suddenly begun talking up the importance of NATO as a defender of Europe against alleged Russian aggression.

As Deutsche Welle reported: “In her weekly podcast, the German chancellor has made the case for higher defense spending and the significance of NATO.”

So, here’s a curious contradiction. Trump is clobbering European leaders to raise financial contributions to NATO, supposedly necessary for their defense, yet the American leader is the most relaxed among NATO counterparts when it comes to pursuing friendlier relations with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Trump has recently talked about hoping to develop a good relationship with Putin from their forthcoming summit in Helsinki on July 16.

The American president has even mooted the possibility of recognizing Crimea as officially part of the Russian Federation, and, in doing so, dropping the whole tedious Western narrative accusing Moscow of “annexing” the Black Sea peninsula, when the latter territory voted in a referendum in March 2014 to rejoin “Mother Russia”.

Trump has also proposed that Russia be re-admitted to the Group of Seven forum of leading international nations – much to the consternation of European leaders.

Evidently, the American leader does not seem to view Russia or President Putin as a terribly menacing threat to security – despite the hullabaloo among Russophohic ideologues in Washington.

If that’s the case, then it begs the question why Trump is so gung-ho about getting European members of NATO to spend vastly more sums of money on the alliance?

If Russia were such an existential danger to European security, as the official Western mantra would have you believe, would an American leader be really considering pulling out some 60,000 US troops from Europe?

Obviously then, Russia is not actually presenting a threat to Europe, or any one else for that matter. The whole narrative about Russia being “aggressive” and “expansionist” is a risible, baseless charade. One suspects that Trump knows that too. That’s why he has no qualms about meeting Putin next week, straight after his NATO summit.

The question is then: why is Trump obsessively hounding European states to spend more money on NATO, if Russia is not such a menace?

Partly, the American motive is to force European economies to plow more cash into the NATO alliance as a form of subsidizing the US military-industrial complex. Out of 29 NATO members, the US accounts for some 70 per cent of the total military budget. Wouldn’t it be more desirable for the Americans if the other members carried more of the financial burden, and allocated more money to buying US-made fighter planes, tanks, missile systems and warships?

In short, it is not really about defending Europe from Russia. The real issue is finding ways to maintain gargantuan financial subsidies to keep a grotesque military machine rolling and rolling.

Germany and France are reportedly aiming to spend an extra $18 billion each on military budgets over the next few years, largely as a result of Trump bullying them for not pulling their weight.

Rather than these two countries and other NATO members dedicating precious financial resources to productive economic activities and life-enhancing public services, they are instead going to throw the money into feeding a military behemoth.The bitter irony in all this is that Europe’s security is actually more threatened by the reckless buildup of NATO forces along Russia’s Western borders. This totally unjustified escalation is a provocation to Russia and to international peace. Yet, here we have European leaders falling over each other to commit more valuable resources to create greater instability for Europe on the dubious say-so of Washington.

Former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was quoted this week as saying European leaders are “scared to death” that Trump may withdraw forces from Europe.

Scared to death? The pro-NATO politicians in Europe are not worthy of the description “leaders”. Most European citizens would be only too glad and relieved to see a general de-escalation of military forces on the continent, and in particular the removal of American troops which have been present for more than seven decades following the Second World War.

A Washington Post editorial remarked that Trump “has kept security officials across Europe sleepless in anticipation of a possible blowup like he initiated at last month’s Group of Seven meeting”.

Again, what a crowd of craven deadbeats European citizens have for their “leaders” when they can be induced to have sleepless nights based on such spurious concerns.

It’s hardly surprising therefore that there is a popular revolt underway across Europe for alternative political parties. These so-called “populist” parties are usually a lot more sane when it comes to viewing Russia as a natural partner, and wanting a return to normal relations.

The establishment parties and governments in Europe have completely lost the plot with their misunderstanding about what actually constitutes a threat.

Years of slavishly acquiescing to Washington’s criminal wars across the Middle East and North Africa have produced a destabilizing refugee problem which is straining the very institutional seams of the EU.

Again, slavishly following Washington’s hostility towards Russia under Bush and Obama, Trump’s predecessors, has cost Europe painfully with economic sanctions, while the US economy is relatively unscathed. This week, the EU has moved to extend sanctions on Russia into next year. Nearly five years of such measures, largely initiated by Washington over the CIA-backed coup d’état in Ukraine, has cost European workers, farmers and businesses dearly. Yet, the proverbial European turkeys continue to vote for Christmas.

It is Washington under Trump, not Moscow, that is damaging Europe’s economies with punitive tariffs and a trade war.

It is Washington under Trump that is leveraging Europe to spend more on NATO escalation, leading to more tensions with Russia, when in fact the American president seems to be sanguine about establishing friendly relations with Moscow.

The rife contradictions and double-think among European politicians leads to a stark conclusion. They are a bunch of bozos. Hence, Trump is treating them as they deserve.


About the author
  Finian Cunningham, is a columnist at the Strategic Culture FoundationSputnik, and a Writer on Dandelion Salad. He can be reached at cunninghamfinian@gmail.com. 

 

NATO Needs To End

by Pat Elder
World Beyond War,  July 10, 2018

Remarks Delivered by Pat Elder for World BEYOND War at the No to War No to NATO Summit, Brussels, July 8, 2018


[dropcap]A[/dropcap]ren’t there any American flags flying here? Are we going to salute the troops? Pledge allegiance to the flag? No? What kind of empire is this?

A largely ignorant American public is the propane that fires the stove of Trump’s brand of fascism.

An overwhelming majority of the American public is convinced that Trump is a liar who does not “share their values” or “care about people like them.” At the same time, many believe that he can “get things done.”

The neo-liberal order we loathe involves dumbing down the American public to accept 18thcentury notions of unbridled capitalism. The high school textbooks glorify war and empire. God and the flag and the church and the military and Jesus and America and mom and apple pie are mixed in a kind of patriotic pablum that is fed daily to the masses.

And they’re buying it. Trump’s support is up to 42.5%, a remarkable achievement. His support is split between the most ignorant on the one hand and the wealthiest segments of the electorate whose politics are reduced simply to what is best for quarterly shareholder statements, on the other hand. The American capitalists look forward to the continued prospect for lower tax rates and the elimination of regulations that have been in place since Roosevelt that aim to provide a measure of protection to human beings and the environment from the ravages of unbridled capitalism.

Now, all of this is important in helping to understand the newest American monster. It was Lenin who said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” I would say a multitude of lies mixed with statements of truth and sincerity create a cocktail of confusion. People don’t know what to believe. It is too much for them to consume so they turn it off and it is in that vacuum where Trump operates best. And it’s easy to turn off, just as it is easy to turn on the television for latter-day mind control and programming. Buy this and buy that. Don’t worry about the rest. We’ll tell you what to think.

Trump brilliantly manipulates deeply-held and emotionally powerful beliefs of the American people, especially the notion that Europeans owe the Americans tons of money for all the times the US government bails them out financially.

Here’s Trump regarding the US relationship with European NATO states, “Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.” This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.” End quote.

Not.

Here’s Trump again, “Germany pays far less than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” As Trump put it, “America would support its allies if they fulfill their obligations to us.”

Trump says America pays 90% of NATO’s budget. “We’d like to help out,” he said. “But it helps them — they’re in Europe! It helps them a lot more than it helps us. We’re very far away!” end quote.


NATO is an organization that threatens the world.

And, gosh! That’s just not fair. You Europeans are freeloading on us freedom-loving, hard-working Americans. You have socialist economies and you rely on us to defend you and we lend you money when your pathetic systems collapse. Why should Americans have to work so hard to protect you from yourselves and the Russians? You Europeans have always fought amongst yourselves. We sacrifice so much while our President does what he can to help you.

Trump says he sympathizes with European NATO states. He said, “I understand the domestic political pressures against greater government expenditures as I also expended considerable political capital to increase America’s defense spending.” End quote.

Nonsense. The military is America’s most trusted institution with three-quarters of the people expressing great confidence.

Trump has said he feels the NATO alliance is “obsolete.” Oh, and he also says he strongly supports Article 5.

It’s predictable how all of this plays out in the minds of the American public. Why should all of those American soldiers fight and die for you ungrateful Europeans? It seems the Europeans don’t appreciate the American sacrifice for their freedom and quality of life. The Americans just aren’t appreciated for what they do for Europe.

At least Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg appreciates the Americans. “Trump is really having an impact because … allies are now spending more on defense.” Trump is happy to report that money is “starting to pour into NATO.”

But it is not. And that is a good thing.

When Trump says: buy more weapons and fund more NATO or NATO will be scaled back or disbanded, the correct answer from NATO members should be: yes please, don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out.

Think of the sociopathy involved in proposing to fund more war based on a percentage on an economy, so that if you have more money you should fund more war. Think of the decades of propaganda it takes to prevent such a thing sounding crazy.

Back in 2003, when U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld threatened to move NATO out of Belgium if Belgium proceeded with legislation that would allow the prosecution of U.S. war criminals, the correct answer from Belgium would have been: Goodbye, Donald, take your death machine with you and the blowback it produces.

When another Donald, the current king of the United States — a country that doesn’t have fancy pretend kings but does give super-royal powers to one lunatic at a time — said NATO’s days might be ended, liberals in the US jumped to NATO’s defense.

The left in the United States is big on promoting hostility toward Russia because they have swallowed a fantasy about Trump and Putin rigging a U.S. election. The proper response should have been fine, shut down NATO.

The United States generates most of the wars and does most of the fighting, but Europe gets the majority of the terrorist blowback. What kind of a deal is that for Europe? War endangers us all; it does not protect us. It is the top drain on our finances, the top destroyer of our natural environment, the top eroder of our liberties, the top corroder of our cultures and teacher of hatred and violence. We need to replace it with useful spending on human and environmental needs, nonviolent global relations, and the rule of law — yes, including prosecutions of war makers even when they are not from Africa.

Many in the United States are doing everything they can to oppose the war machine. And many would love for the war machine to lose the cover that NATO gives it. The only reason that the United States is not universally recognized as a rogue criminal enterprise is its junior partners in crime, its coalitions, its so-called international community consisting of a handful of unrepresentative rulers and NATO. And the junior partners join in the wars because of NATO. Canadians are so against U.S. wars that if they had to send soldiers to Afghanistan simply to accompany the United States they might never have done it, but NATO is a different story.

Humanitarian warriors in the United States are completely dependent on NATO as well. Most Americans think that the United Nations authorized a war on Afghanistan in 2001, because NATO in their minds is very muddled with the idea of international legal legitimacy. Just adding NATO to a war, even after the fact, is thought of as more or less the same thing as having had the United Nations on board from the start. A U.S. crime remains a crime when it is perpetrated under NATO. Destroying Libya is no more or less evil or illegal because NATO does it.

The U.S. Congress adores NATO as well, because when a war is labeled a NATO war, the Congress doesn’t have to oversee it or hold anyone accountable for any of the endless atrocities that comprise each war.

But I don’t think anyone loves NATO more than the weapons dealers. We have Pentagon officials openly telling reporters that the new Cold War with Russia is driven by the need for a NATO mission and the need to sell more weapons. But how do you move U.S. troops to Russia’s border through numerous neutral countries? You end their neutrality, that’s how. You use NATO to edge the world toward apocalypse.

If NATO were a European creation, why would Colombia be made part of it? NATO is a tool of U.S. global domination, and it deserves zero support from anyone anywhere in the world. We need boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against the U.S. military and we must begin by ending all cooperation and assistance.

If Trump is shocked to learn that there are lots of U.S. troops in Germany, let’s take that opportunity to get them out, and not to move them to Poland. When U.S. activists lobby the U.S. Congress against new U.S. military bases, the Congress members want to know, “If we don’t put it in your town, where should we put it?” The answer must always be the same: Don’t put it anywhere. Bring the troops home. Give them decent educations and training and peaceful jobs improving the world.

If the United States is intent on hostility with Iran or Russia or North Korea, the rest of the world needs to advance peaceful relations with those nations, not run barking after them like a pack of Tony Blair-like poodles.

How was a massive bombing of Syria prevented in 2013? By public opposition in the United States and in Europe, including in the British Parliament. Now, after more recent attacks on Syria, some in Britain want what the United States has and consistently ignores, namely a legal requirement that only the legislature make war.

Be careful what you ask for.

Our next annual World BEYOND War conference will be on the International Day of Peace, September 21st and 22nd in Toronto, Canada, and you’re all invited.

Then comes November 10th when Trump plans a weapons parade war celebration through the streets of Washington. That’s my town. We’re gonna mess it up.

The next day, November 11th is Armistice Day 100. That holiday was for years said by the U.S. government to be a holiday for peace. It was transformed into a holiday for war in the 1950s. Renamed Veterans Day it became a pro-war celebration in which groups of veterans favoring peace are banned from Veterans Day parades in various cities. This year a large coalition is asking people to come out to resist the weapons parade.

We would also respectfully ask the French not to have any more weapons parades in Paris, at least not when Trump is there.

November 16th to 18th there will be a conference in Dublin, Ireland, with people from all over the world opposing U.S. and NATO military bases and strategizing on how to close them.

This week, by the way, the Irish Parliament took steps to create a Peace, Neutrality and Disarmament Group. Every parliament should have one!

Next April, NATO will turn 50 [70], if we allow it. World BEYOND War is eager to work with anyone on using that occasion to say 50 [70] years is more than enough. No 51st [71st ]birthday for NATO. No NATO. No collaboration with crime.

It’s time to create a better world together nonviolently. Thank you.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Pat Elder is the Director of the National Coalition to Protect Student Privacy, an organization that opposes military recruitment in the high schools, www.studentprivacy.org. Pat is the author of Military Recruiting in the United States, www.counter-recruit.org.
Republished with permission from David Swanson at World Beyond War

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]




RUSSIA’S ILL-WISHERS CONFOUNDED IN SAINT PETERSBURG

horiz-long grey

MAKE SURE YOU CIRCULATE THESE MATERIALS! BREAKING THE EMPIRE'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE DEPENDS ON YOU.

This headline on the Financial Times, one of the West's most vociferous Russia defamers, says it all, admitting that the Forum is a success. They could have chosen a better picture of Putin, but that is too much to ask.


hen will they grasp not just the criminality, but the futility of economic sanctions? Could they not learn from the sixty-year abject failure of their sanctions to bring to heel even the tiny island of Cuba? Western "experts," who may have thought that they could dish out to Russia the Iraq sanctions treatment, so that Nikki Haley (instead of Margaret Albright) could comment on national television that the induced death of half a million Russian children was "worth it," now after the just closed St Petersburg World Economic Forum (May 24 - 26,2018) have abundant reasons to question the soundness of their doctrines.
 
Not that they will, of course. It takes cojones to reexamine dilettantish policies dictated by base passions and bankrupt ideology. Cojones they manifestly lack, as well as reasonable intelligence; all they have is the arrogant obstinacy of those who try a failed scheme a hundred times, in the hope that it will work the hundred and first time. That, by the way, is Albert Einstein's definition of lunacy.
 
From its opening about a week ago, this year's St Petersburg XXII Economic Forum struck everyone with eyes wide open to see as a resounding success: 14,000 participants, including many top western business leaders and even representatives of the British oligarchy (to the great chagrin of London Times).  And on the sidelines, be it noted, top world political leaders came to pay their respects to You Know Who: French President Emmanuel Macron, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, IMF chief Christine Lagarde, Chinese Vice President Wang,  as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who paid their obeisance separately a bit earlier in Sochi.  Even American Ambassador Jon Huntsman turned up in Saint Petersburg, no doubt to check up on Vladimir Putin's isolation and write home a gloating report about it.
 
As a seasoned observer of Russian affairs wrote the other day, "now that the 'economic block' of the Russian government is firmly in the hands of the Atlantic Integrationists and even Alexei Kudrin declares that the impact of the economic sanctions to only 0.5% of the Russian GDP, and against the background of US arrogance gone berserk (see Pompeo’s 12 point ultimatum to Iran or Trump’s sudden cancellation of his planned meeting with Kim) thereby deeply frightening many European investors, Russia appears to be an island of comparative stability and predictability.  Turns out, there are billions of dollars to be made in Russia, who would have thought?"
 
Indeed. The Saint Petersburg Economic Forum, let us recall, is an annual affair consisting of a gathering of global economic leaders keen to consider key economic issues facing Russia, developing markets, and the world at large.
 

Each year the gathering brings together over 10,000 participants from more than 60 countries, including business and political leaders, leading scientists, public figures and media. The format includes panel sessions, round tables, and business dialog, all devoted to the economic development of Russia, its integration within the global economic space, and cooperation with the world's leading economic structures. This year's Forum was held under the motto of  «Создавая экономику доверия», or Let's build an economy of mutual trust. The overarching topic was economic growth under new conditions indicating that the world economic crisis is subsiding. Accordingly, the event was divided into four major and significantly titled discussion blocks: "Global economy in a period of change," "Russia: realizing its growth potential," "Human capital in the digital economy," and "Technology for leadership."


Western unity fractures before our eyes. "Looking at Donald Trump's latest moves," comments European Council President Donald Tusk, "it might well be said that with such friends one does not need enemies. But, let us say it openly, the EU should be grateful to him. Our thanks for helping us to discard our illusions."

 
Even US ambassador John Huntsman, who cut a rather lonely figure at what -- according to the official dogma -- should have been a celebration of Russia's isolation, was moved to observe that "now it is very important to discuss future US - Russia economic relations."
 
Russo-German relations were undoubtedly among the hottest topics at the St Petersburg economic summit. Little wonder, as for the first time in five years trade between the two countries is again experiencing growth. According to the data disseminated by the Federal Statistical Bureau in Wiesbaden, in 2017 German manufacturers  exported 25.9 billion euros worth of merchandise to Russia, while Russia exported 31.4 billions to Germany.
 
An understandably important discussion topic was the impact of US anti-Russia sanctions on German firms doing business in Russia. Resorting to an elegantly congruent measure, just the EU is planning to monitor European firms cooperating with American sanctions against Iran, the Russian Duma is ready to adopt a law whereby Russian and foreign firms cooperating with US anti-Russia sanctions will be put on a "watch list." Such a measure would necessarily also impact some German firms in Russia, which employ about 300,000 workers.
 
To put it another way, the Germans are in a bind. That is clearly reflected in the recent statement by the Russian-German Foreign Trade Chamber to the effect that "these actions [sanctions] are holding international business hostage to sanctions. Moscow and the West must find ways to settle the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, counting on de-escalating the conflict instead of its escalation" and "putting pressure on German or any other business, as well as demanding that certain companies take sides in this spat would send an ultimately wrong signal".
 
These expressions of concern make sense from both countries' perspectives, given that, according to German Bundesbank data, last year German firms invested 1.6 billion euros directly in Russia. In Russia there are currently operating 4,900 German companies; in Germany there are about 1,000 registered Russian firms.
 
Prospective losses for German firms resulting from the new round of US anti-Russia sanctions may amount, in the short to medium term, to 1,5 billion euros, while in the long term losses are bound to be significantly more massive. Yet, in spite of the elaborate obstacle course built to obstruct German-Russian trade and other relations, the German economic portal www.ostexperte.de says that three-quarters of German enterprises doing business in Russia plan to maintain their activities at the present level, 20 percent plan to increase their scope, and only 10 percent are anticipating cutbacks. Not a resounding success, to be sure, for the "sanction - isolation" regime with regard to one of the world's leading economies and traditionally Russia's major trade partner, Germany.
 
  "The Russian market," Dr Frank Schauff, CEO of the Association of European Business in Moscow, said recently, "is geographically very accessible to European firms and there are strong cultural and historical links. For me, it has been interesting to watch as Russia's regions have been getting increasingly professional in their dealings with investors over the last few years. Bureaucratic barriers are being lowered. There are no infrastructure problems blocking setting into motion new investment projects."
 
In similar vein, Rainer Lindner, head of Schaeffler AG, one of the largest German firms doing business in Russia, looks on economic links as one of the major pillars of cooperation: "When political relations are tense, economics often facilitates the preservation of an ongoing relationship."
 
At the same time, Donald Trump is using gas delivery as a tool of political pressure against Moscow. Last month, on the occasion of the German chancellor's visit to the US, President Trump proposed a new trade agreement with the EU in return for Germany's giving up the "North Stream 2" gas pipeline. He threatened that, in case the Europeans failed to obey, they might be hit with painful customs duties in their trade with the US.
 
Russian senator Alexey Pushkov wryly called it a "dirty game played by a nervous superpower," adding that sanctions (which is what the threatened anti-European trade barriers in practice would amount to) imposed by Washington on its own allies merely serve to further dramatize the latter's already manifest vassalage.
 
Western unity fractures before our eyes. "Looking at Donald Trump's latest moves," comments European Council President Donald Tusk, "it might well be said that with such friends one does not need enemies. But, let us say it openly, the EU should be grateful to him. Our thanks for helping us to discard our illusions."
 
To which the chairman of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker chimes in with the trenchant remark that the EU must take upon itself a global leadership role. His premise for that conclusion is that Trump's decision to break off the Iranian agreement sends the message that the US is no longer prepared to act in cooperation with other governments, while turning away from friendly intercourse with the rest of the world with "striking fury." 
 
"We must replace the US on the world stage because it is faltering and its influence is in long-term decline," added Juncker. And ditto Frau Merkel who said as much, in as many words, when the US pulled out of the Iranian deal.
 
Germany finds itself between a rock and a hard place in the tension zone between the US and Russia. It has a legitimate right to search for its proper place.  
[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

 

About the Author
Born in Belgrade, Serbia (1950), STEFAN KARGANOVIC  is a U.S. citizen. Graduate of the University of Chicago and Indiana University School of Law. Member of several defense teams at the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Founder and president of NGO “Srebrenica Historical Project,” registered in the Netherlands and in Serbia. Currently engaged in research on events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995. Author and co-author of several books on Srebrenica and the technology of “color revolution.”


horiz-long grey


black-horizontal