• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

vrijdag 1 juli 2016

Tom Engelhardt 171

June 30, 2016

Tomgram: Thomas Frank, Worshipping Money in D.C.

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Read today's piece and then get your hands on Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? It's the political must-read of this season if you want to know where liberalism went in the last two and a half decades. The next TomDispatchpost will be on Tuesday, July 5th. Tom]

I’m no stranger to shakedowns. I’ve experienced them, in one form or another, from Asia to Africa.

Sometimes the corruption is subtle. Sometimes it’s naked. Sometimes you press folded currency into someone’s palm. Sometimes there’s a more official procedure. Sometimes a payment is demanded outright. (A weapon might even be involved.) Other times, it’s up to you to suggest that we somehow work things out privately.

Luckily, I live in the United States, and if the 2016 presidential campaign has reminded me of anything, it’s that America is, by definition (and unlike so many of the other countries on the planet), a corruption-free zone. Mind you, no one would claim that the race for the Oval Office is free of unethical behavior. It’s just that the actions and efforts involved aren’t considered “corrupt” here.

Take an Associated Press (AP) exposé last week. It revealed that the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump had “plowed about $6 million” -- roughly 10% of his expenditures -- “back into Trump corporate products and services.” The campaign paid, for instance, about $520,000 in rent and utilities for its headquarters at Manhattan’s Trump Tower and an astounding $4.6 million to TAG Air, the holding company for the billionaire candidate’s airplanes.

The AP investigation found that the Trump campaign was “unafraid to co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way,” while noting that there is, in fact, “nothing illegal about it.” In other words, while it may seem shady, feel fraudulent, and -- to steal a Trumpism -- sound crooked, it’s all on the up and up according to our unique American system.

Today, Thomas Frank, author most recently of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, takes us on a tour of another dimly lit corner of corruption-free America, a completely legal and remarkably unethical world that comes with its own guidebook: a newsletter chronicling daily dalliances involving money, alcohol, and political influence. Though it may seem like a foreign world to those of us outside the Beltway bubble, it influences our daily lives in myriad ways.  Think of it as a circuit of cocktail hours and cocktail parties linked by a well-greased set of revolving doors; an endless series of social events attended by the influential, the influencers, and those looking -- for the right price -- to be influenced. If it seems like I’m using that word -- influence -- a little too much, it isn’t by chance. Let the influential Thomas Frank explain how influence and Influencehave warped Washington and the rest of our world. Nick Turse
The Life of the Parties 
 The Influence of Influence in Washington 
By Thomas Frank
Although it’s difficult to remember those days eight years ago when Democrats seemed to represent something idealistic and hopeful and brave, let’s take a moment and try to recall the stand Barack Obama once took against lobbyists. Those were the days when the nation was learning that George W. Bush’s Washington was, essentially, just a big playground for those lobbyists and that every government operation had been opened to the power of money. Righteous disgust filled the air. “Special interests” were much denounced. And a certain inspiring senator from Illinois promised that, should he be elected president, his administration would contain no lobbyists at all. The revolving door between government and K Street, he assured us, would turn no more.
Instead, the nation got a lesson in all the other ways that “special interests” can get what they want -- like simple class solidarity between the Ivy Leaguers who advise the president and the Ivy Leaguers who sell derivative securities to unsuspecting foreigners. As that inspiring young president filled his administration with Wall Street personnel, we learned that the revolving door still works, even if the people passing through it aren’t registered lobbyists.
But whatever became of lobbying itself, which once seemed to exemplify everything wrong with Washington, D.C.? Perhaps it won’t surprise you to learn that lobbying remains one of the nation’s persistently prosperous industries, and that, since 2011, it has been the focus of Influence, one of the daily email newsletters published by Politico, that great chronicler of the Obama years. Influence was to be, as its very first edition declared, “the must-read crib sheet for Washington’s influence class,” with news of developments on K Street done up in tones of sycophantic smugness. For my money, it is one of the quintessential journalistic artifacts of our time: the constantly unfolding tale of power-for-hire, told always with a discreet sympathy for the man on top.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.

Western Mythology

Who Is Special Now?
The Mythology Behind the US-British Relationship

By Binoy Kampmark 

July 01, 2016 "Information Clearing House" -  To any historian buff, it should be a known fact that Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington has been a tough one, subjected to periods of bruising and disagreement. States caught in a web of imperial domination can only be special to a certain extent.
Despite this, the mythology of a special relationship between London and Washington continues to sound its tunes. That sense of closeness has been as much a cultural as political one. Together, Anglo-Saxons would triumph on a global scale in a messianic, racially adorned mission twittering about a liberal democratic order.
While the US Republic was perceived as founded upon a radical revolution, loyalist ties ran deep with the British empire. The strain of Anglo-Saxon bonding persisted. Joseph Galloway, a figure of prominence at the Continental Congress in 1774, would eventually break with the leaders in favour of the loyalist cause. Fleeing for Britain after being deemed by the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1778 a traitor, Galloway nursed fantasies of reunion, with Parliament assuming its role as sagacious mother and governor.
The flirtation with re-union persisted even as Britain increased its possessions. Writing in 1902, British journalist William Steadman considered the links in the unmistakably titled The Americanization of the World. “The lion’s share of the world is ours, not only in its bulk, but in tit-bits also.” This smug observation tended to ignore that large German speaking population within the US, the implications of that which would come out in the early part of the First World War.
While President Woodrow Wilson did eventually enter on the side of the Allies in 1917, aspirations to make the world safe for democracy proved troubling to the victorious imperial powers. An articulated right to self-determination was particularly problematic. The days of British Empire were numbered.
With the advent of the League of Nations, an organisation which refused to receive domestic American support, the US went into something of a slumber, hoping to avoid unnecessary entanglements through the 1920s and 1930s. (To this day, the myth persists that the US was entirely insular or even isolationist during this period.)
As the Second World War raged, the close relationship of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and that of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, did pay dividends. The 1942 Lend-Lease agreement was one such manifestation of this association. But the good will forged in war would not last in peace.
President Harry S. Truman was in little mood to be charitable, demanding British repayments in 1945 and rebuffing advances for new loans for reconstruction. The debt was subsequently reduced, and Congressional approval forthcoming for a loan amounting to half what was approved. (Churchill, now in opposition, had procured his begging bowl to convince Congress.[1])
The international order was transformed with the Bretton Woods institutions, much to the chagrin of Britain’s planners. The anti-colonial, open market agenda came across as another rich slap to the protectionist enclaves of empire.
Despite being in ruin, and a former enemy, Germany, at least its western part, became part of a US project of European finance and integration. Strategists were already banking on a revived German economy, with an industrial capacity superior to that of a crippled Britain. The European Coal and Steel Community had Washington’s blessing, while a snobbish Britain remained obsessed with its declining empire.
As Columbia University emeritus professor Volker R. Berghahn has observed, Germany may have failed on two occasions to attain primacy on the continent with military force but gained “hegemony in Europe without firing a single shot” after 1945, in no small part due to its relationship with the US.[2]
More rebuffs to Britain would follow from the bullish power across the Atlantic. Britain got a firm scolding from President Dwight D. Eisenhower for its Suez adventure against Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. During the next decade, Britain dug in its heels regarding the failed US engagement in Indo-China, refusing to deploy personnel to Washington’s own version of a bloody colonial adventure.
Be it a “special relationship” or an Anglo-American union, such ideas have bound the countries on both sides of the Atlantic, not always to the good. The fact that Britain has been a particularly noisy cheer leader for Washington’s interests during the post-Cold War world, be it in Europe or on the UN Security Council, could hardly have been surprising in its familial sense.
Much of it seemed to be an act of contrition for having gotten it wrong about the re-unification of Germany, which President George H.W. Bush backed; and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s continuous opposition to the European Economic Community.
Subsequent pro-US engagements made less sense politically. Under Prime Minister Tony Blair, this entailed unwarranted evangelical missions from 2003 into traditional areas of European and Western interference with calamitous outcomes. The Blairite mission in the Middle East was miserably characterised by obsequious endeavour. Instead of being a firm critic of US imperial bullying, Britain became a co-sponsoring companion.
With the Brexit vote, President Barack Obama’s reassurances that Britain remains one of the chosen has to be seen in the context of a mythology that produced it. Washington’s interests are as much, if not more tied, to such states as Germany, the European continent’s business motor. The fantasy of an Anglophone sphere of interests, typified by Boris Johnson’s school of thinking, is bound to persist. The economic realities will lie elsewhere.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com


The Empire

Washington’s Not-So-Invisible Hand: It’s Not Economics, It’s Empire

Scottish philosopher Adam Smith famously noted the “invisible hand” of the market that shaped the character of economies near and far. The rightwing neoliberal capitalist movement, dominant in the West since the early Seventies, has turned this phrase into the sacrosanct dictum of its secular religion. All human behavior must be submitted to the “free market.” (This is the notional credo, but in practice corporate elites are subsidized, bailout out, and given every possible taxpayer benefit to ensure higher private profits.) So now, when nations fail, it is typically said in the media to be the product of a) a crazed dictator threatening counterintuitive genocide on his own people; or b) foolish state interventions by deranged socialist ideologues.
In other words, if only these benighted nations would embrace free markets and free elections, all would be well. Imagine Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss admonishing “emerging” nations amid the collapsing scenery of the “developed” world. What’s more, the media conflates free markets with free elections in a risible construct called “free-market democracy,” despite the fact that markets are neither free nor a foundation of democracy, as the construct suggests.
Moreover, absolutely free markets would instantly prohibit democracy, which is why democracy, and often free elections, must be thoroughly undermined to even enable free-market thinking to reign.
In reality, it isn’t the market’s hidden hand at work in country after country, but Washington’s. It is Washington that intervenes to prop up failed businesses at the behest of corporate campaign donors. It is Washington that stages humanitarian interventions to unlock a guarded nation’s resources under the guise of defending the defenseless. It is Washington that negotiates supply gluts in the oil market, crashing the “market price” of crude and producing needless economic trouble for enemies Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others.
Just as critically, it is Washington that publicly fines miscreant financial concerns in a show of faint justice. It is Washington that first produces a sham publicity campaign slandering a targeted leader in the press, ensuring that, once it summons the requisite cloak of international legitimacy (bogus UN Security Council resolution, a shambling coalition of supplicant nations, etc.), it can prosecute its war of aggression with minimal public agitation. It is Washington that uses engineered capital strikes, commodity price collapse, and debilitating sanctions to cobble together sufficient isolated data points (price of bread, rise in poverty, etc.) to lay the target nation’s economic woes at the foot of imbecile socialists who naturally blaspheme the free market faith by using the heavy hand of the state to steer the economy. As such, Russia is authoritarian and imperialist, Iran rabidly ideological, and Venezuela morbidly statist. In short, it is Washington that guides the economic fate of numberless nations around the world.
Pariahs Three
The aforementioned countries form the demonic trifecta that Barack Obama has spent a good chunk of his feckless presidency antagonizing. He annually declares Venezuela to be a national security threat to the United States, and an extraordinary one at that. The White House actually puts such ideological nonsense in writing, backed with all the pomp of an executive order. Of course, what Obama is really doing is condemning any alternative to neoliberal capitalism and its war and austerity agenda. He’s especially afraid of successful alternatives, as Bolivarian socialism proved to be during the Chavez era. But now, with oil prices cutting the legs out from under the state’s subsidy program, some ham-fisted economic management by the Maduro administration and a capital strike by private producers have Venezuela in a tailspin.
The coming collapse in Caracas has been aided by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Reagan-era front for U.S. subversion, has deposited millions into the hands of the neoliberal opposition both political and media. The assumption with thesedonations is that the country in question is desperately in need of institutional reform along the lines of Washington-defined “democratic” principles. This pays for the propaganda cliches produced by embedded journalists and the street violence perpetrated by the so-called pro-democracy groups it funds. To some effect, since the Maduro ticket was soundly beaten in Congressional elections last year. And yet a recent radio debate between two Venezuelan analysts, declared the left-leaning, mild-mannered associate professor George Ciccariello-Maher to be the “radical”, while contemptuous Venezuelan journalist Francisco Toro was the mainstream voice of reason, despite his petty hysterics. This is very much the typical outcome of domestic propaganda and direct state subversion abroad.
Iran is slowly learning that it was foolish to negotiate in good faith with the United States. Washington rarely keeps its word. The State Department is less a source of policy prescriptions than the media-facing front for Pentagon and White House initiatives. The anti-nuclear pressure Secretary of State John Kerry’s department has applied to Tehran is simply part of a larger imperial plan dating back decades, recently reflected in Paul Wolfowitz foreign policy planning for the Clinton administration. Now Tehran, much to the growing disgust of the sharp-tongued Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are pinioned in a vice of an unprecedentedly intrusive IAEA inspections regime. (In the past, the U.S. has contemptuously brushed aside international efforts to monitor its nuclear activity more closely, as has Israel, which insults the world with its policy of “deliberate ambiguity.”) But the larger point is that the United States lifted some nuclear sanctions but of course left non-nuclear sanctions in place, which has predictably deterred investment from European and U.S. banks and businesses because they fear falling afoul of these sanctions, incurring the lavish fines administered to firms like HSBC and Deutsche Bank and smaller ones like Epsilon Electronics. The Department of the Treasury, the punitive financial arm of Washington’s virulent anti-indepedence jihad, uses these publicity ops to cast a gloss of legitimacy over its sanctions regime.
Russia is naturally the kingpin of the trifecta, as the largest and most favorably placed country to influence the development of Eurasia. Washington seems to be mortally afraid of the Chinese-inspired “One Belt, One Road” project that envisions pipelines and power grids and highways and railroads from Vladivostok to Lisbon. Russia and China are cornerstone players in this project, stand to reap substantial economic benefits, and have of course deepened their economic and military ties as a consequence. Yet the central idea of Zbigniew Brzezinski–still jousting with Henry Kissinger for preeminence in the geostrategic Rushmore of their minds–ought to be printed on the entrance to the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House: “Thou Shalt Tolerate No Rivals.”
The Visionary
It is Brzezinski, cribbing from Sir Halford Mackinder, and being avidly parroted by Wolfowitz, that placed the monomaniacal emphasis on Eurasia. He claimed that whoever dominated this parcel of earth would necessarily control Western Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. God forbid it be anyone but Washington. Rather than pausing to ask himself what right the United States had to assert its authority halfway across the planet, the venerable don of the Carter administration forged ahead declaring America to be the “indispensable nation”, as President Clinton said, later to be echoed by myriad imperial shills including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (the template on which Hillary Clinton has built her depressingly repugnant image) and that erstwhile champion of change Barack Hussein Obama. Brzezinski quickly got to the point in his book The Grand Chessboard: the U.S. must prevent the rise of a single state or a coalition of states “that could challenge America’s primacy.” According to the Grand Wizard of Geopolitics, this will take quite a lot of “political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation.” It might have benefited President Hassan Rouhani to take heed of Brzezinski’s ideas and the degree to which they’ve been internalized by Washington’s neoconservative and faux progressive communities.
This is, of course, why we are through NATO building up rapid response forces and stacking armory and munitions along Russia’s Western borders. This is why we are bribing and blackmailing Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, among others, to let us build bases on its sovereign territory in order to surround China with ships, jets, and artillery. This is why Beijing is the conspicuous absence from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) that Obama sees as part of his own majestic legacy. It’s about establishing control over Eurasia, largely by weakening Eurasia’s constituent parts, and ensuring as well that Western Europe and Russia don’t form a dreaded community of states that might pose a challenge to American hegemony.
Fiefs in Tow
You might imagine that Europe would have had enough of this neocolonialism, but it hasn’t. Perhaps German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande fear regime change should they attempt to do what they were hired to do, namely represent the interests of their own people, not those of the Washington elite. Instead of cutting deals with Russia and China and laying the westernmost foundations of the New Silk Road, Europe continues to enforce Washington’s fatuous sanctions against Russia, its natural trade partner, aiding the demise of European economies. Washington couldn’t care less so long as Paris and Berlin toe the line. Through NATO, European nations join the U.S. in illegal attacks on the Middle East, which create waves of refugees that are soon massing on the doorstep of the EU. Another negative outcome for Europeans as a consequence of their subservience to America. Finally, the EU crushes Greece to pay Wall Street creditors and fully reveals itself for the anti-democratic poser every insider already knows it to be. Dismembering national economies and auctioning off the patrimony of sovereign states is no great thing for Brussels, so long as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and hedge funds that hold European debt are “made whole.”
So when a country like Britain, always a Eurosceptic, votes to sever ties with America’s unelected marionettes in Brussels, it shouldn’t surprise anyone outside of 10 Downing Street. Instead, our elite-owned Western presses hyperventilate about the doomsday outcomes of Brexit. Economic collapse is promised. Punitive social cuts are threatened. Petulant cries emerge from Berlin. British citizens are uniformly denounced as racist xenophobes warped by fascist nationalism. But perhaps they conceive the unaccountable corporate nature of the European Union, as they did during the raucous debates about it and the Euro during the late Nineties. Perhaps they intuit the counterintuitive stupidity of neoliberal austerity. Perhaps they understand after all that the EU (and its NATO military arm) is a project of American force projection and a tool to consolidate and control Europe under a single bureaucratic umbrella.
But the parties of the one percent, the one percent itself, and their media empire, would never concede as much. The sooner the working class comes to understand that this media hegemony does not represent its views, but merely those of an extremist fringe, the more rapidly that false consensus will falter as an engine of consent. It seems to already be happening. Flaws and misguided notions aside, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece, are all symptoms of a global populace that can no longer stomach the lies of the one percent and its increasingly fangless propaganda. Seems the once-invisible hand of Washington has been revealed for the disfiguring implement of war and conquest that it has always been.
Jason Hirthler is a veteran of the communications industry and author of The Sins of Empire: Unmasking American Imperialism. He lives in New York City and can be reached at jasonhirthler@gmail.com.
More articles by:

De Neoliberale Uitverkoop

Italiaans bankensysteem op omvallen: EU pompt € 150 miljard ‘om paniek te voorkomen’
Brussel doodsbang voor Italeave referendum - Regering Rutte stelt met steun van D66 en GroenLinks de facto honderden miljarden in Nederlandse pensioenfondsen ter beschikking aan Brussel = aan de failliete banken
Dit treffende plaatje maar weer eens uit het archief getrokken. Omdat het zo toepasselijk is op wat er nu wéér gebeurt.
De Europese Commissie heeft achter de schermen de Italiaanse overheid toestemming gegeven om maar liefst € 150 miljard in het compleet failliete bankensysteem te pompen, om te voorkomen dat dit instort, de bevolking in paniek raakt en er een massale run op de banken ontstaat. Nu weten we gelijk waarom de Nederlandse regering in alle stilte de honderden miljarden uit de Nederlandse pensioenpotten de facto ter beschikking heeft gesteld aan Brussel, waardoor er in de niet al te verre toekomst voor werkelijk niet één Nederlander die dit artikeltje nog met zijn volle verstand kan lezen, ook nog maar een cent pensioen over zal zijn.
De Duitse bondskanselier Angela Merkel was zowaar tegen de noodmaatregelen, maar de Europese Commissie toverde één van de vele voor zichzelf opgestelde speciale regels uit de hoed, te weten de ‘buitengewone crisisregels voor staatssteun’. De Wall Street Journal bericht dat de directe kapitaalinjectie in de Italiaanse banken bovenop de € 40 miljard komt waarmee de Italiaanse overheid eind vorig jaar in het geheim, maar met instemming van de EU, al vier failliete banken overeind heeft gehouden.
Alle Italiaanse banken zijn failiet
De € 150 miljard aan overheidsgaranties zijn volgens een woordvoerder van de Commissie ‘enkel bedoeld voor solvente banken’, wat een tamelijk amusante verklaring is als bedacht wordt dat de Italiaanse banken –dankzij ECB president Mario Draghi, tenminste, toen hij nog aan het hoofd van de Italiaanse centrale bank stond- voor een duizelingwekkende € 360 miljard aan slechte leningen bezitten, wat betekent dat ALLE Italiaanse banken feitelijk totaal failliet zijn, en dus in aanmerking komen voor het steunprogramma.
Volgens een ingewijde bij de Italiaanse regering hoopt premier Matteo Renzi met de staatssteun paniek op de beurzen en een massale bankrun te voorkomen. Het behoeft geen uitleg dat die angst enkel kan bestaan als het Italiaanse bankensysteem inderdaad op omvallen staat, of beter gezegd: reeds is omgevallen, en alleen nog met honderden miljarden belastinggeld overeind kan worden gehouden, net als in de periode 2008 – 2010 in heel Europa gebeurde.
EU doodsbang voor Italeave referendum
Het lijkt er dan ook sterk op dat het Brexit van vorige week de eurocraten in Brussel eigenlijk heel goed uitkomt, omdat de gigantische overheidssteun voor het omgevallen Italiaanse bankensysteem nu valselijk op het Brexit kan worden afgeschoven – en dat terwijl de problemen dus al jarenlang bekend zijn, maar voor het grote Europese publiek doelbewust verborgen worden gehouden – zoals onze lezers weten deklassieke standaard werkmethode van de Europese Unie. (1)
In Brussel en andere Europese hoofdsteden is men tevens doodsbang dat na het uitbreken van chaos en paniek in Italië een referendum over het lidmaatschap van de eurozone en de EU zeer waarschijnlijk wordt, en de uitkomst dan vrijwel gegarandeerd is: Italeave, wat na het Brexit zonder twijfel de doodsklap voor de door steeds meer mensen gehate Eurodictatuur zal zijn.
Nederlandse pensioenen beschikbaar voor Brussel = voor de banken
Gehaat, zeker als het Nederlandse volk in de gaten begint te krijgen dat ‘onze’ regering de rijk gevulde Nederlandse pensioenpotten à € 1400 miljard de facto aan Brussel ter beschikking gaat stellen. Dat is weliswaar niet letterlijk gebeurd, maar het komt er wel op neer. Gaat u maar na: VVD, PvdA, D66 en GroenLinks, de belangrijkste Haagse globalistische elitepartijen, hebben namelijk tegen een motie van het CDA, die ondertekend was door alle overige partijen, gestemd waarmee moest worden voorkomen dat andere EU-landen via Brussel ooit een greep in onze pensioenen kunnen doen. (2)(3)(4)
En dat dit eerder vroeger dan later nodig zal zijn, bewijst niet alleen het omgevallen Italiaanse bankensysteem, en eerder het Cypriotische en Griekse, maar ook de al even falliete banken in Spanje, Portugal, Frankrijk... en ga zo maar door. Zelfs de Deutsche Bank is niet door de recente Amerikaanse stresstest gekomen.
Ons geld weggeroofd, met onze instemming?
Conclusie: ‘2008’ was een ‘walk in the park’ vergeleken bij wat er nu en in de komende jaren gaat gebeuren, namelijk dat met volledige instemming en medewerking van de meeste politieke partijen zowel het Nederlandse pensioen- als spaargeld volledig zal worden weggeroofd en in de banken zal worden gestoken.
En ook met uw instemming overigens, tenminste, als u volgend jaar zich gewoon wéér laat inpakken door dezelfde loze beloften en glasharde leugens, waarmee bovengenoemde partijen in Den Haag aan de macht wisten blijven of überhaupt zetels wisten te winnen. Hier kunt u overigens een petitie ondertekenen waarmee het ontslag van het kabinet Rutte 2 wordt geëist.


French Resistance Against Neoliberalism

Vanuit Toulon:

France: Protestors Rise Up In Their Millions Against Ruling Class

French protestors are rising up in their millions against a ruling class determined to take away their rights. There is anarchy on the streets of France as the mainstream media continues to suppress the scale of events.

Thousands of masked protesters and police fought running street battles in France this week, with police using water cannon to quell rioters who hurled projectiles at them and destroyed storefronts, joining the millions of French citizens who have protested against new anti-worker laws that are designed to protect and enrich a wealthy elite at the expense of ordinary people.
The protesters in Paris represent all working class people united, mobilized, and resisting the greed of globalist elites. Police involved are violently fighting against the people and protecting the interests of the ruling class.
However as the government, police and mainstream media continue to suppress this important movement’s progress, the people continue to rise up.
Western mainstream media continues to suppress information regarding the scale and intensity of the revolution taking place on French streets.
While the world distracted by the Euro 2016 football championships in France, the elites are taking away people’s rights and blood is being shed on the streets.
La à en 4 images Disponibles ici :
There is anarchy in the streets and the police are having trouble keeping pace. They have begged the protestors to stop the relentless protests, complained of exhaustion, and have even held their own protest against ‘the brutality of the protestors’ – that resulted in a police car getting torched.
The government have also tried to make protesting illegal, while they attempt to push the new laws through the lower house without a vote using a constitutional manoeuvre. With the two chambers unlikely to agree a final version, the lower house will have the final say, and the government is expected to use the same manoeuvre to pass the bill into law without a vote.
According to an opinion poll published on Tuesday, 73 percent of the French would be “shocked and appalled” by such a move.
: Barricades in Lille set against labor law . 8 unionists detained by police.
The new law is referred to by the name of the Minister of Labour Myriam El Khomri, and was first presented by her in February, sparking a series of relentless protests that show no sign of stopping.
The El Khomri legislation was introduced in its original French as the “draft legislation aimed at implementing new freedoms and protections for businesses and workers.” To refer to this law as a new freedom or protection for workers is laughable, and is really a kick in the face for the people. What the law really does is expand protections and freedoms for the wealthy elite and no one else.
The protests began on March 9 with the movement being called “Nuit debut,” translated roughly as “standing up all night.” The French ruling class is trying keep control through the police baton in order to keep the masses down. The El Khomri bill essentially boils down to stripping people of their rights and giving more control to the elites. The French job market reform is outrageous for a country struggling with a high unemployment rate of 10 percent and a stagnant economy.
Although the movement is centered primarily around the job market reform bill, there are much broader concerns involved, such as: universal basic income, opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), amnesty for undocumented workers, solidarity with refugees, and the gender pay gap. France’s mobilized collective are on a progressive mission to create another world to realize social justice and demand dignity for ordinary people.
President Hollande and Prime Minister Manual Valls say they will not listen to the millions of protesters or the massive majority of citizens who disapprove of the law. Since the French protests began attempts have been made to hinder their cause. Every measure to dismiss the protesters has been attempted; everything from police teargas to the Prime Minister Valls portraying protestors as “rioters” and “ultra-violent youths.” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve had the gall to tell protesters “to find within themselves a little humanity, tolerance and respect. “
Even the police have tried to garner sympathy away from protesters when they claimed they were too “exhausted” to deal with continued protests. French leaders have threatened a ban on protests, with even tougher crackdowns by police, after Valls claimed that the protesters were out “to kill a police officer.” The threatened ban by the French government on demonstrations was reverted on June 22 after falling under harsh criticism and backlash.