Καυκασος=Η Νεα Γιουγκοσλαβια εν Εξελιξη...

Caucasus: The War That Was, The World War That Might Have Been
Politicizing Ethnicity: US Plan to Repeat Yugoslav Scenario in Caucasus

by Rick Rozoff

.
Global Research, August 15, 2009
Stop NATO

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

StumbleUpon Submit



CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE
Copyright. John O'Laughlin, University of Colorado, Boulder

Matthew Bryza has been one of the U.S.'s main point men in the South Caucasus, the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia for the past twelve years.

From 1997-1998 he was an advisor to Ambassador Richard Morningstar, coordinating U.S. efforts in the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as in Southeastern Europe, particularly Greece and Turkey. Morningstar was appointed by the Clinton administration as the first Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State on Assistance to the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union in 1995, then Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy in 1998 and was one of the chief architects of U.S. trans-Caspian strategic energy plans running from the Caspian Sea through the South Caucasus to Europe. Among the projects he helped engineer in that capacity was the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan [BTC] oil pipeline - "the world's most political pipeline" - running from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean Sea.

Trans-Caspian, Trans-Eurasian Energy Strategy Crafted In The 1990s

In 1998 Bryza was Morningstar's chief lieutenant in managing U.S. Caspian Sea energy interests as Deputy to the Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State on Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy, where he remained until March of 2001, and he worked on developing what are now U.S. and Western plans to circumvent Russia and Iran and achieve dominance over the delivery of energy supplies to Europe.

Morningstar later became United States Ambassador to the European Union from 1999-2001 and this April was appointed the Special Envoy of the United States Secretary of State for Eurasian Energy, a position comparable to that he had occupied eleven years earlier.

In 2005 the George W. Bush administration appointed Bryza Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs under Condoleezza Rice, a post he holds to this day although he will soon be stepping down, presumably to become the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan, the nation that most vitally connects American geostrategic interests in an arc that begins in the Balkans, runs through the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea and then to Central and South Asia.

Last June Bryza delivered a speech called Invigorating the U.S.-Turkey Strategic Partnership in Washington, DC and reflected on his then more than a decade of work in advancing American energy, political and military objectives along the southern flank of the former Soviet Union. His address included the following revelations, the first in reference to events in the 1990s:

"Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev welcomed international investors to help develop the Caspian Basin’s mammoth oil and gas reserves. Then-Turkish President Suleyman Demirel worked with these leaders, and with Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, to develop a revitalized concept of the Great Silk Road in the version of an East-West Corridor of oil and natural gas pipelines.

"Our goal was to help the young independent states of these regions [the Caucasus and Central Asia] secure their sovereignty and liberty by linking them to Europe, world markets, and Euro-Atlantic institutions via the corridor being established by the BTC and SCP [South Caucasus Pipeline natural gas]pipelines....The Caucasus and Central Asia were grouped with Turkey, which the Administration viewed as these countries’ crucial partner in connecting with European and global markets, and with Euro-Atlantic security institutions.

"[C]ooperation on energy in the late 1990’s formed a cornerstone of the U.S.-Turkey strategic partnership, resulting in a successful 'first phase' of Caspian development anchored by BTC for oil and SCP for gas.

Iraq War Part Of Previous Geopolitical Plans

"Today, we are focusing on the next phase of Caspian development, looking to the Caspian Basin and Iraq to help reduce Europe’s dependence on a single Russian company, Gazprom, which provides 25 percent of all gas consumed in Europe.

"Our goal is to develop a 'Southern Corridor' of energy infrastructure to transport Caspian and Iraqi oil and gas to Turkey and Europe. The Turkey-Greece-Italy (TGI) and Nabucco natural gas pipelines are key elements of the Southern Corridor.

"Potential gas supplies in Turkmenistan and Iraq can provide the crucial additional volumes beyond those in Azerbaijan to realize the Southern Corridor. Washington and Ankara are working together with Baghdad to help Iraq develop its own large natural gas reserves for both domestic consumption and for export to Turkey and the EU." [1]

Bryza took no little personal credit for accomplishing the above objectives, which as he indicated weren't limited to a comprehensive project of controlling if not monopolizing oil and natural gas flows to Europe but also in the opposite direction to three of the world's four major energy consumers: China, India and Japan. Since the delivery of the presentation from which the above is quoted the U.S. and its Western European NATO allies have also launched the Nabucco natural gas pipeline which intends to bring gas from, as Bryza mentioned, Iraq and also eventually Egypt and possibly Algeria to Turkey where Caspian oil and gas will arrive via Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Energy Transit Routes Used For Military Penetration Of Caucasus, Central And South Asia

Previous articles in this series [2] have examined the joint energy-geopolitical-military strategies the West is pursuing from and through the sites of its three major wars over the past decade: The Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bryza himself made the connection in the above-cited speech of last year:

"The East-West Corridor we had been building from Turkey and the Black Sea through Georgia and Azerbaijan and across the Caspian became the strategic air corridor, and the lifeline, into Afghanistan allowing the United States and our coalition partners to conduct Operation Enduring Freedom." [3]

His work and his political trajectory - paralleling closely that of his fellow American Robert Simmons [4], former Senior Advisor to the United States Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs on NATO and current NATO Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia and Deputy Assistant Secretary General of NATO for Security Cooperation and Partnership - has continued through four successive U.S. administrations, those of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Barack Obama, and has taken him from the American embassy in Poland in 1989-1991 to that in Moscow in 1995-1997 to positions in the National Security Council, the White House and the State Department.

While in his current State Department role Bryza has not only overseen trans-Eurasian, tri-continental energy projects but has also been the main liaison for building political and military ties with the South Caucasus nations of Georgia and Azerbaijan and he remains the U.S. co-chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group monitoring the uneasy peace around Nagorno Karabakh, one of four so-called frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union.

Although Azerbaijan is one of the interested parties in the conflict and the nation's president, Ilham Aliyev, routinely threatens war to conquer Karabakh, often in the presence of top American military commanders, aside from being a supposed impartial mediator with the Minsk Group Bryza in his State Department role secured the use of an Azerbaijani air base for the war in Afghanistan. In 2007 he stated, “There are plenty of planes flying above Georgia and Azerbaijan towards Afghanistan. Under such circumstances we want to have the possibility of using the Azeri airfield.” [5]

Bryza also recently announced that U.S. Marines were heading to Georgia to train its troops for deployment to Afghanistan where in the words of a Georgian official "First of all, our servicemen will gain combat experience because they will be in the middle of combat action, and that is a really invaluable experience.

“Secondly, it will be a heavy argument to support Georgia’s NATO aspirations.” [6]

Oil For War: US, NATO Caucasus Clients Register World's Largest Arms Build-Ups

During his four-year stint as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs he has focused on the South Caucasus, and during that period Georgia's war budget has ballooned from $30 million a year when U.S.-educated Mikheil Saakashvili took power after the nation's "Rose Revolution" in 2004 to $1 billion last year, a more than thirty fold increase.

In the same year, 2008, Azerbaijan's military spending had grown from $163 million the preceding year to $1,850,000,000, more than a 1000% increase. In the words of the nation's president last year, "And it will increase in the years to come. The amount envisaged in the 2009 state budget will be even greater.” [7]

Much of the money expended for both unprecedented build-ups came from revenues derived from oil sales and transit fees connected with the BTC pipeline Bryza was instrumental in setting up.

Pentagon's Role In Last August's Caucasus War

Regarding neighboring Georgia, a German press report on the second day of last August's war between that nation and Russia stated that "US Special Forces troops, and later US Marines replacing them, have for the last half decade been systematically training selected Georgian units to NATO standards" and "First-line Georgian soldiers wear NATO uniforms, kevlar helmets and body armour matching US issue, and carry the US-manufactured M-16 automatic rifle...." [8]

On the first day of the war the Chairman of the Russia's State Duma Security Committee, Vladimir Vasilyev, denounced the fact that the Georgian President Saakashvili "undertook consistent steps to increase [Georgia's] military budget from $US 30 million to $US 1 billion - Georgia was preparing for a military action.” [9]

An Armenian news source the same day detailed that "Most of Georgia's officers were trained in the U.S. or Turkey. The country's military expenses increased by 30 times during past four years, making up 9-10 per cent of the GDP. The defense budget has reached $1 billion.

"U.S. military grants to Georgia total $40.6 million. NATO member states, including Turkey and Bulgaria, supplied Georgia with 175 tanks, 126 armored carriers, 67 artillery pieces, 4 warplanes, 12 helicopters, 8 ships and boats. 100 armored carriers, 14 jets (including 4 Mirazh-2000) fighters, 15 Black Hawk helicopters and 10 various ships are expected to be conveyed soon." [10]

"The procurement in recent years of new military hardware and modern weapons systems was indeed in line with Georgia's single-minded commitment to joining NATO." [11]

In addition to the country's standing army the Saakashvili regime has introduced a 100,000-troop reserve force, also trained in part by NATO.

In 2006 Saakashvili mandated a system of universal conscription in which "every man under 40 must pass military trainings" [12] and every citizen should “know to handle arms and if necessary should be ready to repel aggression.” [13]

Ten months later the government announced “a doctrine on total and unconditional defense” and that "service in the reserve troops would be compulsory for every male between the ages of 27 to 50." [14]

Matthew Bryza and his colleagues in the State Department and the Pentagon have served American and NATO interests in the South Caucasus and adjoining areas well over the past decade.

First US-Backed War In The South Caucasus: Adjaria

On August 10 Bryza, "who, as he himself put it, was a more frequent guest to Georgia than any other U.S. official," [15] was awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece by Georgia's Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

"Saakashvili thanked Bryza for assistance rendered in 2004 while solving problems in Adjaria." [16]. The allusion is to events early in that year when Saakashvili, flanked by then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, was inaugurated president after the putsch that was called the Rose Revolution and introduced his party flag as that of the nation, which as British journalist John Laughlin remarked at the time had not been done since Hitler did the same with the swastika in 1933.

Less than two months later Saakashvili threatened to invade the Autonomous Republic of Adjaria (Adjara), which had been de facto an independent country, and to "shoot down my plane" as Adjarian president Aslan Abashidze reported.

An Agence France-Presse report in March of 2004 said, "The situation was made all the more explosive because Russia has a military base in Adjara....Saakashvili warned in televised comments that 'not a single tank can leave the territory of the base. Any movement of Russia's military equipment could provoke bloodshed.'" [17]

An all-out war was only avoided because Russia capitulated and even flew Abashidze to Moscow, after which it withdrew from the Adjarian base.

Bryza's assistance to the Saakashvili government has also extended to backing it in its armed conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which in the second case escalated into all-out war a year ago.

State Department Passes The Baton To Veteran Balkans Hand

Now Bryza, the nominal mediator, is going to pass his role as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs to Tina Kaidanow.

But he will continue until next month as the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno Karabakh, where as recently as August 12 he met with Azerbaijani President Aliyev and either arbitrarily expanding the format of discussions or combining his dual functions he also discussed "bilateral relationship between Azerbaijan and the United States, energy cooperation and regional and international issues." [18]

It was also Bryza who recently announced that U.S. Marines were headed to Georgia to train troops for the war in Afghanistan. "Matt Bryza, the outgoing US deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, said the US would provide training and equipment for Georgian servicemen bound for Afghanistan." [19]

As seen earlier, a Georgian official said of the development that "First of all, our servicemen will gain combat experience because they will be in the middle of combat action, and that is a really invaluable experience," [20] which training under fire could only be intended for future combat operations against Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Russia.

Bryza has also played a role in attempting to insinuate European Union and American observers into the South Caucasus conflict zones.

His successor in the State Department position, Kaidanow, possesses a political curriculum vitae which provides insight into what can be expected from her.

This April, before getting the nod to replace Bryza, Kaidanow said "I worked in Serbia, in Belgrade and in Sarajevo, then in Washington, and I went back to Sarajevo and am now in Kosovo. I don't know where my next challenge will be. It is under discussion." [21]

Ms. Kaidanow is a veteran Balkans hand. She "served extensively in the region, as Special Assistant to U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill in Skopje [Macedonia] 1998-1999, with specific responsibilities focused on the crisis in Kosovo...." [22] Before that she served in Bosnia from 1997-1998.

Prior to that her first major post in the U.S. foreign policy apparatus began under President Bill Clinton, where she served as director for Southeast European Affairs at the National Security Council.

Kaidanow: From Rambouillet To Ambassador To Kosovo

After transitioning from advising the National Security Council on the Balkans to implementing the U.S. agenda there, Kaidanow attended the Rambouillet conference in February of 1999 where the American delegation headed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright threw down the gauntlet to Yugoslavia with the infamous Appendix B ultimatum and set the stage for the 78-day war that began on March 24.

From 2003-2006 she was back in Bosnia, this time as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy, from where she departed to become the Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires at the U.S. Office in Kosovo from July 2006 to July 2008; that is, while the Bush administration put the finishing touches to the secession of the Serbian province which resulted in the unilateral independence of Kosovo in February of 2008. Despite concerted pressure from Washington and its allies, a year and a half later 130 of 192 nations in the world refuse to recognize its independence and those who do include statelets like Palau, the Maldives, the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, San Marino, Monaco, Nauru, Liechtenstein and the Marshall Islands, presumably all paid handsomely for their cooperation.

Last year the Bush administration appointed Kaidanow the first U.S. ambassador to Kosovo, a post she took up on July 18, 2008.

Reproducing Kosovo In Russia's Southern Republics

On August 12 Russian political analyst Andrei Areshev spoke about her new appointment in reference to the lingering tensions over Nagorno Karabakh which pit Azerbaijan against Armenia and warned that "it is an attempt to sacrifice [Nagorno Karabakh's] interests to Azerbaijan's benefit and in regard to Moscow to give a second wind to the politicization of ethnicity in the North Caucasus with the possibility of repeating the 'Kosovo scenario,'" [23] adding that the same threat would also target Iran.

By the North Caucasus Areshev was referring to the Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia where extremist secessionist violence has cost scores of lives in recent months, including those of leading officials. The writer's message was not that the U.S. would simply continue its double standard of recognizing Kosovo's secession while arming Georgia and Azerbaijan to suppress the independence of Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh and South Ossetia - none of which "seceded" from anything other than new post-Soviet nations they has never belonged to - but that a veteran of the U.S. campaign to fragment and ultimately destroy Yugoslavia may be planning to do the same thing with Russia. As the author added, "the existing realities in the Caucasus, including the existence of three de facto states, two of which are officially recognized by Russia, still create plenty of opportunities to build different combinations, which would ultimately
result in a long-term military and political consolidation of the United States in the region." [24]

With reference to Areshev including Iran along with Russia as an intended target of such an application of the Yugoslav model, the clear implication is that the West could attempt to instigate separatist uprisings among the nation's Azeri, Arab and Baloch ethnic minorities in an effort to tear that nation apart also.

It is the politicizing of ethnic, linguistic and confessional differences that was exploited by the West to bring about or at any rate contribute to the dissolution of Yugoslavia into its federal republics and then yet further on a sub-republic level with Kosovo and Macedonia (still in progress).

Having worked under the likes of Christopher Hill and later Richard Armitage in the Rice State Department, Kaidanow surely knows how the strategy is put into effect. Much as does her former Balkans colleague Philip Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to Bolivia until that nation expelled him last September for fomenting subversion and fragmentation there based on the Balkans precedent.

Only a week before the announcement of Kaidanow's transfer from supervising the "world's first NATO state" (as a former Serbian president called it) in Kosovo, where the U.S. has built its largest overseas military base since the Vietnam War, Camp Bondsteel, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov again warned of the precedent Kosovo presented and admonished nations considering legitimizing it through diplomatic recognition to "think very carefully before making this very dangerous decision that has an unforeseeable outcome and is not good for stability in Europe." [25]

The situation Kaidanow will enter into is one in which a year ago a war had just ended and currently others threaten.

A Year Later: Resumption Of Caucasus War Threats

A year after the beginning of the hostilities of 2008, August 8, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev warned:

"Georgia's actions in the Trans-Caucasian region continue to cause serious anxieties. Georgia does not stop threatening to restore its 'territorial integrity' by force.

"Armed forces are concentrated at the borders near Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and provocations are committed." [26]

On August 1 the Russian Defense Ministry expressed alarm over renewed Georgian shelling of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and stated: "Events in August 2008 developed in line with a similar scenario, which led to Georgia unfolding military aggression against South Ossetia and attacking the Russian peacekeeping contingent." [27]

Two days later South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity announced that "Russian troops will hold drills in the republic. These will be preventive measures, everything will be done in order to ensure security and keep the situation under control." [28]

The following day Andrei Nesterenko, spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, said that "Provocations from the Georgian side ahead of the anniversary of the August events last year are not stopping. In connection with this, we have stepped up the combat readiness of Russian troops and border guards." [29]

On August 5 Russian Duma Deputy Sergei Markov wrote:

"Western countries' accountability for the war in South Ossetia is not recognized altogether. Politically, the West, primarily NATO, supports Saakashvili, and this support made him confident in the success of his military venture. Moreover, during the war preparations and onset of combat, high-ranking officials in Washington did not answer their telephone calls although they must have been in the office at 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. Moscow time....

"The U.S. Congress did not make any inquiry into the conduct of Vice President Dick Cheney or presidential nominee John McCain during the start of the war. Georgian troops were equipped with NATO weapons, and trained in line with NATO standards." [30]

At the same time the above-mentioned Andrei Nesterenko also said that "Georgia continues to receive Western arms and help in modernizing its army....Lasting peace...is way, way off. Over the past 12 months, the Georgians were responsible for about 120 firing incidents. Over the past seven days alone, South Ossetian villages came under Georgian mortar attacks multiple times." [31]

As a reflection of how thoroughly Georgian leader Saakashvili is an American creature and how inextricably involved Washington has been and remains with all his actions, a commentary of early this month reminded readers that:

"Under George Bush, Washington already committed itself to put all Georgian bureaucrats on its payroll, having paid a little more than $1 billion as a compensation for Saakashvili's small war. The first tranche of $250 million has already been transferred....[A] considerable part of these funds will be allocated for compensation and salaries of government officials of all ministries.... In other words, all of Georgia's government officials are already on the U.S. payroll, a fact which nobody even tried to conceal during the last few years of Bush's term." [32]

Russia wasn't alone in attending to the anniversary of the war. A U.S. armed forces publication reported a year to the day after its start that "U.S. European Command has its eyes firmly focused on the volatile Caucasus region, where tensions between Georgia and Russia continue to mount on the anniversary of last year's five-day war....[C]ommanders are on guard for any sign of a repeat.

"[W]ith Georgia prepared to commit troops to the effort in Afghanistan as early as 2010, pre-deployment counterinsurgency training will be taking place. EUCOM also will be working with the Georgians to develop the Krtsanisi National Training Center outside of Tbilisi into a modern pre-deployment combat training center....Following the war, EUCOM conducted an assessment of Georgian forces, which uncovered numerous shortcomings related to doctrine and decision-making." [33]

Last year's war began immediately after the completion of the NATO Immediate Response 2008 military exercises which included over 1,000 American troops, the largest amount ever deployed to Georgia. The day after the drills ended Georgia shelled the South Ossetian capital and killed several people, including a Russian peacekeeper.

The War That Was, The World War That Might Have Been

What a resumption of fighting between Georgia and South Ossetia will entail is indicated by an examination of the scale of the catastrophe that was narrowly averted a year ago.

A few days ago the government of Abkhazia shared information on what Georgia planned had its invasion of South Ossetia proven successful. The plan was to, having launched the war on the day of the Olympic Opening Ceremony in Beijing while world attention was diverted, have Georgian troops and armor rapidly advance to the Roki Tunnel which connects South Ossetia with the Russian Republic of North Ossetia and prevent Russia from bringing reinforcements into the war zone.

Then a parallel assault on Abkhazia was to be launched. The government of Abkhazia documented Georgia's battle plans earlier this week, stating "the attack could have been carried out from the sea and from the Kodori Gorge, where Georgian special forces were building their heavily fortified lines of defense.

"Most people in Abkhazia were almost certain that if Georgia succeeded in
conquering Tskhinvali, their republic would have been next....Military intelligence issued a warning that the Georgian army was planning to
invade Abkhazia from the sea. Another possibility was that the enemy would come from the Kodori Gorge, an area that Georgian special forces entered in 2006, violating international peace agreements.

"On August 9 last year, the Abkhazian army launched a preventive attack against Georgian troops in the Kodori Gorge." [34]

Last week Abkhazian Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba demonstrated that Georgia was not alone in the planned attack on and destruction of his nation when he said "[W]e have always emphasized that the U.S. bears considerable responsibility for the events that took place in August 2008 in South Ossetia.

"Therefore, we do not trust the Americans. All these years the U.S. has been arming, equipping and training Georgian troops and continues to do so, again restoring military infrastructure, and again preparing the Georgian army for new acts of aggression.

"What were the American instructors training the Georgian army for here, on Abkhazia's territory, at the upper end of the Kodori Gorge? For an attack on Abkhazia." [35]

An August 7 report from an Armenian news source substantiated that the plans for last August's war were on a far larger scale than merely Georgia's brutal onslaught against South Ossetia in an attempt to conquer and subjugate it and later Abkhazia. Stating that neighboring Azerbaijan was simultaneously planning for a war against Armenia over Nagorno Karabakh, a political analyst was quoted as saying, "Armenia would be in a state of war should Georgia's plan not have failed in 2008," adding that "last year Azerbaijan thrice attempted attacks on the NKR [the Nagorno Karabakh Republic], yet the attempts were frustrated thanks to NKR forces." [36]

A coordinated attack by Georgia on South Ossetia and Abkhazia and by Azerbaijan on Nagorno Karabakh would have led to a regional conflagration and possibly a world war. As indicated above, Armenia would have been pulled into the fighting and the nation is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) along with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

A week ago the secretary general of the CSTO, Nikolai Bordyuzha, was quoted as asserting:

"How will the CSTO react if Azerbaijan wants to get back Nagorno Karabakh in a military way and war begins between Azerbaijan and Armenia?"

"The 4th term of the Collective Security Treaty says that aggression against one member of Collective Security Treaty Organization will be regarded as aggression against all members." [37]

Even if the CSTO had not responded to an Azerbaijani assault on Karabakh which would have ineluctably dragged member state Armenia into the fighting as it was obligated to do, Turkey would have intervened at that point on behalf of Azerbaijan and being a NATO member could have asked the Alliance to invoke its Article 5 military assistance clause and enter the fray. Russia would not have stood by idly and a war could have ensued that would also have pulled in Ukraine to the north and Iran to the south. In fact the U.S. client regime in Ukraine had provided advanced arms to Georgia for last year's conflict and threatened to block the return of Russian Black Sea fleet ships to Sevastopol in the Crimea during the fighting.

Along with synchronized attacks on South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh, Ukraine may well have been ordered to move its military into the site of the fourth so-called frozen conflict, neighoring Transdniester, either in conjunction with Moldova or independently.

A year ago Russian maintained (and still has) peacekeepers in Transdniester, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and, while not in Karabakh, also in Armenia. Over 200 Russian soldiers were killed and wounded in the fighting in South Ossetia and if those numbers had been matched or exceeded in three other battle zones Russian forbearance might have reached its limits quickly.

After Yugoslavia, Afghanistan And Iraq: Pentagon Turns Attention To Former Soviet Space

In June of 2008 the earlier quoted Russian analyst Andrei Areshev wrote in article titled "The West and Abkhazia: A New Game" that "The prevention of a military conflict is Russia’s priority, but it is not a priority for our 'partners.'

"This should not be forgotten....As for experiments undertaken by the United States that acted so 'perfectly' in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, they do not spell any good." [38]

Two months before he had written "The U.S., the ground having slipped from under its feet in Iraq and Afghanistan, is now preoccupied with
gaining control over the most important geopolitical regions in the post-Soviet territory - Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Central Asia....

"The regions of Transcaucasia, integrated in NATO, Georgia in the first place (especially in case of the successful annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia), will serve U.S. interests aimed at destabilization of the North Caucasus." [39]

Last week a group of opposition Georgian scholars held a round table discussion in the nation's capital and among other matters asserted:

"The whole August war itself...served the interests of the US. The Americans tested Russia's readiness to react to military intervention, while at the same time ridding Georgia of its conflict-ridden territories so it could continue its pursuit of NATO membership.

"[H]ad Russia refrained from engaging its forces in the conflict, the nations [republics] of the Northern Caucasus would have serious doubts about its ability to protect them. This would in turn lead to an array of separatist movements in the Northern Caucasus, which would have the potential to start not only a full-scale Caucasian war, but a new world war." [40]

What the West's probing of Russia's defenses in the Caucasus may be intended to achieve and what the full-scale application of the Yugoslav model to Russia's North Caucasus republics could look like are not academic issues.

Armed attacks in the republics of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia have been almost daily occurrences over the last few months. In June the president of Ingushetia, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, was seriously wounded in a bomb attack and two days ago the republic's Construction Minister was shot to death in his office.

Similar armed attacks on and slayings of police, military and government officials are mounting in Dagestan and Chechnya.

The shootings and bombings are perpetrated by separatists hiding behind the pretext of religious motivations - in the main Saudi-based Wahhabism. Until his death in 2002 the main military commander of various self-proclaimed entities like the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the Caucasus Emirate was one Khattab (reputedly born Samir Saleh Abdullah Al-Suwailem), an ethnic Arab and veteran of the CIA's Afghan campaign of the 1980s, who also reportedly fought later in Tajikistan and Bosnia.

Assorted self-designated presidents and defense ministers of the above fancied domains have been granted political refugee status by and are living comfortably in the United States and Britain.

That plans for carving up Russia by employing Yugoslav-style armed secessionist campaigns are not limited to foreign-supported extremist troops was demonstrated as early as 1999 - the year of NATO's war against Yugoslavia - when the conservative Freedom House think tank in the United States inaugurated what it called the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. By the middle of this decade its board of directors was composed of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Haig, Steven Solarz, and Max Kampelman.

Members included the three main directors of the Project for the New American Century: Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Bruce P. Jackson. Jackson was the founder and president of the US Committee on NATO (founded in 1996) and the chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (launched months before the invasion of that nation in the autumn of 2002).

Other members of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya included past CIA directors, National Security Advisers, Secretaries of State and NATO Supreme Allied Commanders like the previously mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski and Alexander Haig and James Woolsey, Richard V. Allen and a host of neoconservative ideologues and George W. Bush administration operatives with resumes ranging from the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century like Morton Abramowitz, Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes and Norman Podhoretz.

The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya has evidently broadened its scope and is now called the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus. Its mission statement says:

"The American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC) at Freedom House is dedicated to monitoring the security and human rights situation in the North Caucasus by providing informational resources and expert analysis. ACPC focuses on Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachayevo-Cherkessia and Adygeya, as well as the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia."

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are of course in the South Caucasus and not in Georgia except in the minds of those anxious to expel Russia from the Caucasus, North and South, and transparently have been included as they are targets of designs by U.S. empire builders to further encircle, weaken and ultimately dismantle the Russian Federation.

Russian political leadership has been reserved if not outright compliant over the past decade when the U.S. and NATO attacked Yugoslavia, invaded Afghanistan and set up military bases throughout Central and South Asia, invaded Iraq in 2003, assisted in deposing governments in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Adjaria, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan to Russia's disadvantage and brazenly boasted of plans to drive Russia out of the European energy market.

But intensifying the destabilization of its southern republics and turning them into new Kosovos is more than Moscow can allow.

Notes

1) U.S. Department of State, June 24, 2008
2) Black Sea: Pentagon's Gateway To Three Continents And The Middle East
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12400
Eurasian Crossroads: The Caucasus In US-NATO War Plans
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13101
Azerbaijan And The Caspian: NATO's War For The World's Heartland
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13938
West's Afghan War And Drive Into Caspian Sea Basin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14316
3) Ibid
4) Mr. Simmons' Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12554
5) PanArmenian.net, March 31, 2007
6) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 6, 2009
7) AzerTag, January 1, 2008
8) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 9, 2008
9) Russia Today, August 8, 2008
10) PanArmenian.net, August 8, 2008
11) The Financial, June 27, 2008
12) Prime News (Georgia), August 10, 2006
13) Civil Georgia, April 2, 2007
14) Civil Georgia, December 7, 2006
15) Civil Georgia, August 11, 2009
16) Trend News Agency, August 11, 2009
17) Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2004
18) AzerTag, August 12, 2009
19) Rustavi 2, August 11, 2009
20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 6, 2009
21) World Investment News, April 22, 2009
22) Azeri Press Agency, August 12, 2009
23) PanArmenian.net, August 12, 2009
24) Ibid
25) Black Sea Press, August 6, 2009
26) Itar-Tass, August 8, 2009
27) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 1, 2009
28) Interfax, August 3, 2009
29) Daily Times (Pakistan), August 5, 2009
30) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 5, 2009
31) Voice of Russia. August 5, 2009
32) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 6, 2009
33) Stars and Stripes, August 8, 2009
34) Russia Today, August 9, 2009
35) Russian Information Agency Novosti, August 4, 2009
36) PanArmenian.net, August 7, 2009
37) Azeri Press Agency, August 6, 2009
38) Strategic Culture Foundation, June 12, 2008
39) Strategic Culture Foundation, April 18, 2008
40) Russia Today, August 7, 2009

Global Power & Global Government

Global War and Dying Democracy: The Revolution of the Elites
Global Power and Global Government: Part 5

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

.
Global Research, August 19, 2009



This article is the 5th and final part in the series, "Global Power and Global Government," published by Global Research.

Part 1: Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
Part 2: Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order
Part 3: Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
Part 4: Forging a “New World Order” Under a One World Government


Transnational Totalitarianism

Global trends in political economy suggest that “democracy” as we know it, is a fading concept, where even Western industrialized nations are retreating from the system. Arguably, through party politics and financial-corporate interests, democracy is something of a façade as it is. However, we are entering into an era in which even the institutions and image of democracy are in retreat, and the slide into totalitarianism seems inevitable.


The National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2025, stated that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[1] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.


The nature of totalitarianism is such that it is, “by nature (or rather by definition), a global project that cannot be fully accomplished in just one community or one country. Being fuelled by the need to suppress any alternative orders and ideas, it has no natural limits and is bound to aim at totally dominating everything and everyone.” David Lyon explained in Theorizing Surveillance, that, “The ultimate feature of the totalitarian domination is the absence of exit, which can be achieved temporarily by closing borders, but permanently only by a truly global reach that would render the very notion of exit meaningless. This in itself justifies questions about the totalitarian potential of globalization.” The author raises the important question, “Is abolition of borders intrinsically (morally) good, because they symbolize barriers that needlessly separate and exclude people, or are they potential lines of resistance, refuge and difference that may save us from the totalitarian abyss?” Further, “if globalization undermines the tested, state-based models of democracy, the world may be vulnerable to a global totalitarian etatization.”[2]


Russia Today, a major Russian media source, published an article by the Strategic Cultural Fund, in which it stated that, “the current crisis is being used as a mechanism for provoking some deepening social upheavals that would make mankind – plunged as it is already into chaos and frightened by the ghost of an all-out violence – urge of its own free will that a ‘supranational’ arbitrator with dictatorial powers intervene into the world affairs.” The author pointed out that, “The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle.” However, as the author noted, this time around, it’s different, as this “is the final stage in the ‘global control’ strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.”


The author explained that a global police state is forming, as “Intelligence activities, trade of war, penitentiary system, and information control are passing into private hands. This is done through so-called outsourcing, a relatively new business phenomenon that consists of trusting certain functions to private firms that act as contractors and relying on individuals outside an organization to solve its internal tasks.” Further, “he biggest achievements have been made over the last few years in the area of establishing electronic control over people’s identities, carried out under the pretext of counterterrorism. Currently, the FBI is creating the world’s biggest database of biometric indexes (fingerprints, retina scans, face shapes, scar shapes and allocation, speech and gesture patterns, etc.) that now contains 55 million fingerprints.”[3]



Global War



Further, the prospects of war are increasing with the deepening of the economic crisis. It must be noted that historically, as empires are in decline, international violence increases. The scope of a global depression and the undertaking of restructuring the entire global political economy may also require and produce a global war to serve as a catalyst for formation of the New World Order.


The National Intelligence Council document, Global Trends 2025, stated that there is a likely increase in the risk of a nuclear war, or in the very least, the use of a nuclear weapon by 2025, as, “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.”[4]


The report also predicts a resurgence of mercantilist foreign policies of the great powers in competition for resources, which “could lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.” In particular, “Central Asia has become an area of intense international competition for access to energy.”[5]


Further, “Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the most vulnerable region on Earth in terms of economic challenges, population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability. The weakness of states and troubled relations between states and societies probably will slow major improvements in the region’s prospects over the next 20 years unless there is sustained international engagement and, at times, intervention. Southern Africa will continue to be the most stable and promising sub-region politically and economically.” This seems to suggest that there will be many more cases of “humanitarian intervention,” likely under the auspices of a Western dominated international organization, such as the UN. There will also be a democratic “backslide” in the most populous African countries, and that, “the region will be vulnerable to civil conflict and complex forms of interstate conflict—with militaries fragmented along ethnic or other divides, limited control of border areas, and insurgents and criminal groups preying on unarmed civilians in neighboring countries. Central Africa contains the most troubling of these cases, including Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Central African Republic, and Chad.”[6]


In 2007, the British Defense Ministry released a report in which they analyzed future trends in the world. Among many of the things predicted within 30 years are: “Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. ‘Flashmobs’ - groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.”


It further reported that, “The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organisms but not buildings ‘might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world’. The use of unmanned weapons platforms would enable the ‘application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues’. The ‘explicit use’ of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and devices delivered by unmanned vehicles or missiles.” Further, “an implantable ‘information chip’ could be wired directly to the brain. A growing pervasiveness of information communications technology will enable states, terrorists or criminals, to mobilise ‘flashmobs’, challenging security forces to match this potential agility coupled with an ability to concentrate forces quickly in a small area.”


In regards to social problems, “The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.” Interestingly, “The thesis is based on a growing gap between the middle classes and the super-rich on one hand and an urban under-class threatening social order: ‘The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest’. Marxism could also be revived, it says, because of global inequality. An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the ‘sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism’.”


The report also forecasts that, “Globalisation may lead to levels of international integration that effectively bring inter-state warfare to an end. But it may lead to "inter-communal conflict" - communities with shared interests transcending national boundaries and resorting to the use of violence.”[7]


RAND corporation, a Pentagon-linked powerhouse think tank, connected to the Blderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, came up with a solution to the financial crisis in October of 2008: for the United States to start a major war. Chinese media reported that RAND “presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.” Further, “the target country would have to be a major influential power,” and Chinese media “speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country.”[8]


Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, the most highly respected trend forecaster in the United States, has been sounding the alarm over the trends to come in the next few years. Having previously predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the dot-com bubble burst, and the 2008 housing bubble burst, these forecasts should not be taken lightly.


Celente told Fox News that, “by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.” He stated that this will be “worse than the great depression.” In another interview, Celente stated that, “There will be a revolution in this country,” and, “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.” He further explained, “The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.”[9]


In June of 2009, Gerald Celente reported that, “The measures taken by successive governments to save the politically corrupt, morally bankrupt, physically decrepit [American] giant from collapse have served to only hasten its demise. While the decline has been decades in the making, the acceleration of ruinous policies under the current Administration is leading the United States — and much of the world — to the point of no return.” This coming catastrophe, which Celente refers to as “Obamageddon,” will become the “Greatest Depression.”[10]


In May of 2009, Celente forecasted that a major issue is the “bailout bubble” which is bigger than the dot-com bubble or the real estate bubble that preceded it, and is made up of 12.8 trillion dollars. He states that with the bursting of this bubble, the next trend would be what he calls “fascism light” and that it will be followed by war.[11] He stated that, “this bubble will be the last one. After the final blowout of the bailout bubble, we are concerned that the government will take the nation into war. This is a historical precedent that’s been done over and over again.” He elaborated, “So, it’s not the dollar that will survive. We may not even survive. Look at the German mess after WWI. It gave rise to Fascism and WWII. The next war will be fought with weapons of mass destruction.”[12]



The Imperial Project



War should not be understood as a recent phenomenon in regards to accelerating capitalism through expansion and transition, as this has been a continual theme throughout the history of capitalism. The notion of “surplus imperialism” is what describes the function and role of war and militarism within capitalism. The concept is built around the function of “constant war.”


Ellen Wood explains the notion of ‘surplus imperialism,’ in that, “Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time.”[13] Further, “Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world order.”[14]


Shortly after George Bush Sr. declared a “new world order coming into view,” in 1991, the US strategic community began setting forth a new strategy for the United States in the world. This first emerged in 1992, with the Defense Planning Guidance. The New York Times broke the story, reporting that, “In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union,” and that, “The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”


The main figure that drafted this policy was the Pentagon’s Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, who would later become Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, as well as President of the World Bank. Wolfowitz is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and is currently a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank.


The document places emphasis “on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe,” and that, “What is most important, it says, is ‘the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.’ and ‘the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated’ or in a crisis that demands quick response.” Further, “the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.” Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document “postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,” and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further “suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf.”[15] The Secretary of Defense at the time of this document’s writing was none other than Dick Cheney.


When George Bush Sr. was replaced by Bill Clinton in 1993, the neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report called, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that, “the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,”[16] that there is “need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,”[17] and that “the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.”[18] Further, “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”[19] In describing the need for massive increases in military spending, rapidly expanding the armed forces and “dealing” with threats such as Iraq, North Korea and Iran, they state, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[20]


Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carter’s administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.


In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy for America in the world. He wrote, “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power.” Further, “how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.”[21] Brzezinski explained that, “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”[22] Brzezinski also outlines Russia and China, in cooperation with Iran and possibly Pakistan, as the most significant coalition that could challenge US hegemony.


With the George W. Bush administration, the neo-conservative war hawks put into action the plans set out in their American imperial strategic documents. This made up the Bush doctrine, which called for “a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure that ‘[o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States’.”[23]


In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future. “Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.” The report “addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.” Further, “The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.”[24]


The War on Terrorism, as a war with invisible enemies and borderless boundaries, a truly global war, marks a major stage in the evolution of the constant war “surplus imperialism” of the American empire. The US military, while being used as a vehicle for surplus imperialism; is also creating and maintaining and expanding NATO. NATO is expanding its role in the world. The wars in Yugoslavia following the collapse of the Soviet Union were used to legitimize NATO’s continued existence, which was created to have an alliance against the USSR. When the USSR vanished, so too did NATO’s purpose, until it found a new calling: becoming a global policeman. NATO has undergone its first major war in Afghanistan and its expansion into Eastern Europe is enclosing Russia and China.


Ivo Daalder, the US representative to NATO, also a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs in which he advocated for a “global NATO” to “address the global challenges of the day.”[25] In April of 2009, NATO began to review its Strategic Concept “in order to stay relevant in a changing security environment,” and that, “The leaders envisage cyber-attacks, energy security and climate change as new threats to NATO, which would mean big changes in NATO's future operations.”[26] Since 2008, NATO has been re-imagining its strategy and moving to a doctrine of advocating for pre-emptive nuclear warfare.[27]


As George Orwell wrote in 1984, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”



The Revolution of the New World Order



The new system being formed is not one based upon any notion of competition or “free markets” or “socialist morality”, but is, instead a system based upon consolidation of power and wealth; thus, the fewer, the better; one government, one central bank, one army, one currency, one authority, one ruler. This is a much more “efficient” and “controllable” system, and thus requires a much smaller population or class to run it, as well as a much smaller population to serve it. Also, with such a system, a smaller global population would be ideal for the rulers, for it limits their risk, in terms of revolt, uprising, and revolution, and created a more malleable and manageable population. In this new capitalist system, the end goal is not profit, but power. In a sense, this is how the whole capitalist system has functioned, as profit has always acted as a means and lever to achieve power. Power itself, was the goal, profit was merely the means of achieving such a goal.


Shortly following the origins of the capitalist system, central banking emerged. It was through the central banking system that the most powerful figures and individuals in the world were able to consolidate power, controlling both industry and governments. Through central banks, these figures would collapse economies, destroying industry and thus, profits; bankrupt countries and collapse their political structures, destroying a base for the exercise of power; but in doing so, they would consolidate their authority over these governments and industry, wiping out competition and eliminating dissent. It is these individuals who have played the greatest roles in shaping and reshaping the capitalist system, and are the main figures in the current reorganization of world order.


However, such is the nature of individuals whose lives revolve around the acquisition and exercise of power. Like the saying goes, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Those who are driven by the lust for power often eliminate and remove all of those who helped them reach such a position. Hitler undertook the Night of Long Knives, in which a series of political executions were carried out, targeting prominent figures of the SA, who helped Hitler rise to power. Stalin similarly, also purged the Soviet Union of those who helped him rise to power.


Power alters the psychology of the individual that holds it. It is an extremely lonely condition, in which, once power is achieved, and with no more power to gain, the obsession turns to the preservation of power, and with that, paranoia of losing it. This is why those that assist the powerful in gaining more power are doomed to a fate that is similar or worse than those who fight against such a power. This, ultimately, is why it is futile to join forces with such systems of power, or ally oneself with such powerful figures.


Power is a cancer; it eats away at its host. The greater the power held, the more cancerous it is, the more malignant it becomes. The less power held by individuals, the less chance there is for growth of this cancer, or for it to become malignant. Power must be shared among all people, for the risk carried thus becomes a risk to all, and there is a greater degree of cooperation, support, and there is a more efficient and effective means through which everyone can act as a check against the abuse of power.



Theoretical Foundations of Global Revolution



Currently, we are witnessing, in the wake of the massive economic crisis, a revolution in the global political economy. This revolution, like all revolutions, is not simply a top-down or a bottom-up revolution. Historically, revolutions are driven by a combination of both the grassroots and the elite. Often, this materializes in clashes between social groups, such as with the American Revolution. Although, the American Revolution itself was primarily waged by the American landed elite against the foreign imperial elite of Great Britain. The French Revolution was the combination of the banking and aristocratic elite co-opting, manipulating and controlling the grassroots opposition to the established order. The Russian Revolution, also being able to see rising social tensions among the lower classes, was co-opted by an international banking elite.


Currently, the transnational elite are very aware of the increasing social tensions among the worlds majority. As the crisis deepens, tensions will rise, and the chances of revolt and revolution from below greatly increase. Governments everywhere, particularly in the Western industrialized nations are building massive police states to monitor and control populations, and are actively preparing for martial law and military rule in the event of such a situation unfolding.


However, the transnational elite are undertaking their own revolution from above. This revolution is encompassing the restructuring of the global political economy through their orchestrated economic crisis.


Neo-Gramscian political economic theory can help us understand how this revolution has been and is currently being undertaken. Neo-Gramscian IPE (International Political Economy) emerged in the 1980s within the critical camp of theory. Largely based off of the Italian Marxist writer, Antonio Gramsci, it places a great focus on analysis of global power, order and structure. There has been much analysis within Neo-Gramscian theory on the nature and structure of the transnational capitalist class. Among the analysis of transnational classes, Neo-Gramscian theory also places emphasis on the notions of hegemony and resistance, or counter-hegemony.


The Gramscian notion of hegemony differs from other perspectives in, particularly mainstream, Global Political Economy. With the Gramscian concept of hegemony, it does not focus simply on the use of state power at exerting power, but rather defines hegemony as a system of power that is dual; it requires both coercion and consent. Consent is key, as it implies the active consent of “subaltern” or “subordinate” groups (in other words, the great majority of the world’s people), to being submissive to the system itself. This hegemony is built around the notion of conformity; thus, conformity is an active consent to hegemony. By conforming, one is submitting to the system and their place within it. This is also an internationalizing concept, in that this hegemony is not nation-based, but transnational, and backed by the threat of coercive force.


In discussing resistance to hegemony, or counter-hegemony, Gramsci identified two forms of resistance; the war of position and the war of movement. Robert Cox, the most well known Neo-Gramscian theorist, analyzed how Gramsci defined these notions by comparing the experiences of Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution as compared with experiences in Western Europe. As Cox explained, “The basic difference between Russia and Western Europe was in the relative strengths of state and civil society. In Russia, the administrative and coercive apparatus of the state was formidable but proved to be vulnerable, while civil society was undeveloped. A relatively small working class led by a disciplined avant-garde was able to overwhelm the state in a war of movement and met no effective resistance from the rest of civil society.”[28]


So a war of movement was characterized by a small vanguard seizing power and overthrowing the state. “In Western Europe, by contrast, civil society, under bourgeois hegemony, was much more fully developed and took manifold forms. A war of movement might conceivably, in conditions of exceptional upheaval, enable a revolutionary vanguard to seize control of the state apparatus; but because of the resiliency of civil society such an exploit would in the long run be doomed to failure.” As Gramsci himself noted, “In Russia, the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society, and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.”[29]


In this instance, a war of movement was impossible to achieve in Western Europe, and thus, “The alternative strategy is the war of position which slowly builds up the strength of the social foundations of a new state. In Western Europe, the struggle had to be won in civil society before an assault on the state could achieve success.” This undertaking is massive to say the least, as it implies as a necessity, “creating alternative institutions and alternative intellectual resources within existing society and building bridges between workers and other subordinate classes. It means actively building counter-hegemony within an established hegemony while resisting the pressures and temptations to relapse into pursuit of incremental gains for subaltern groups within the framework of bourgeois hegemony.” In other words, it is a “long-range revolutionary strategy,” as compared to social democracy, which is “a policy of making gains within the established order.”[30]


However, I wish to take the concept and notion of the “war of position” and re-imagine it, not as a means of counter-hegemony, but as a means of supra-hegemony. This is not a war of position on the part of a counter-hegemonic group (grassroots opposition, etc), but is rather a war of position on the part of an embedded international elite, or supra-hegemonic group. Supra is Latin for “above,” which implies that this group is above hegemony, just as supra-national institutions (such as the European Union) are above nations. This is the elite of the elite, beyond national elites, and composing the top tier of the hierarchy within the transnational superclass. In terms of composition, this group is the highly concentrated international bankers, the dynastic banking families such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who control the major banking institutions of the world, which in turn, control the international central banking system. Their centralized power is exemplified in the Bank for International Settlements.


I will refer to this group as the Global Cartel. This Cartel has usurped global authority and power through an incremental, multi-century spanning war of position. The Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, constituting two separate treaties, created the notion of the nation state and state sovereignty within Western Europe. Feudalism dominated Europe from the medieval period through the 16th century, and was slowly replaced by the emergence of Capitalism. Major European empires had, since the 15th century, been pursuing empire building, such as with the trans-Atlantic slave trade and expansion into the Americas. This formed the first truly global economy. The empires worked under and in service to the monarchies that oversaw them.


It was with the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 that a European group of bankers overtook one of the major European empires. Great Britain then became the dominant empire, experiencing the Industrial Revolution prior to any other nation, and became a global hegemon. With the French Revolution, these European bankers took over another major empire through the establishment of the Bank of France, and then financed and profited off of all sides of every major war, and expanded imperial reach.


Through the expansion of the central banking system, a highly concentrated group of European bankers were able to overtake the major nations of the world. The entire history of the United States is the story of a Republic’s struggle and battle against a central bank. Finally, the bankers usurped monetary authority with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and built up and created the American empire.


It was in the 20th century that the war of position of the cartel is most apparent. As the world globalized, so too did the war of position. The major banking dynasties founded powerful philanthropies, such as the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. These organizations shaped civil society in the United States and set their sights internationally in scope. Through the establishment of think tanks like the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in Britain and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States, this cartel was able to bring in and centralize the intellectual, academic, strategic, military, economic and political establishments under the cartel’s influence. This was expanded by the cartel through organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.


Centralizing and controlling debate and discussion within these vital socio-political-economic realms was a vital component of institutionalizing hegemony, as Gramsci understands it, in that the cartel used their monetary and financial hegemony (controlling the printing and value of currencies) to stimulate an active consent among the socio-political-economic elite. National elites consented to the hegemony of the cartel, whose coercive hegemony was in their ability to destroy a national economy through monetary policy.


This hegemony, both coercive and consenting, based within the elite class themselves, facilitated the war of position of the cartel to advance their interests and proceed with their incremental revolution. The aim of this cartel, like many tyrants and power-hungry people before it, was world domination. Bankers command no army, lead no nation, and motivate no people. Their influence lies in co-opting the commanders, controlling the leaders, and manipulating motivation.


Thus, it was of absolute necessity for the cartel to undertake their ultimate aim of world domination and world government through a war of position, as no person would fight for, surrender a nation to, or be motivated to help any banker achieve their own selfish goals. Rather, they had to slowly usurp power incrementally; control money, buy politicians, own economies, build empires, engineer wars, mold civil society, control their opposition, overtake educational institutions and ultimately, control thought.



Conclusion



As George Orwell wrote, “Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”


The more people that think for themselves; the worse it is for the cartel. People, free thinking individuals, are the greatest threat to this cartel and their war of position. That is why the answer and solution to exposing the supra-hegemonic war of position, challenging and triumphing over the New World Order, lies in the free-thinking individual. The challenge is global and globalized; the solution is local and localized. The problem is conformity and controlled thought; the answer is individuality and free thought.


While humanity is faced with such monumental crises the likes of which in scope and size, we have never before faced, so too, are we faced with the greatest opportunities for an ultimate change in the right direction. While people are controlled and manipulated through crisis and disorder, so too can people be awoken to seeing the necessity of knowledge and critical thought. When one’s life is thrown into disorder and chaos, suddenly observation, information and knowledge become important in understanding how one got into that situation, and how one can escape it.


With this in mind, while facing the potential for the greatest struggle humanity has ever faced, so too are we facing the greatest potential for a new Enlightenment or a new Renaissance; an age of new thought, new life, new potential, and peace. No matter how much elites think they control all things, life has a way of making one realize that there are things outside the control of people. With every action, comes an equal and opposite reaction.


We may not reach a new age of thinking and peace before we enter into a new age of oppression and war. In fact, the former may not be possible without the latter. People must awake from their slumber; their immersion in consumerist society and pop culture distractions, and awake to both the malevolence of world systems and the wonder of life and its potential. Through crisis, comes control; through control, comes power; through power, comes resistance; through resistance, comes thinking; through thinking, comes potential; through potential, comes peace.


We may very well be entering into the most oppressive and destructive order the world has yet seen, but from its ruins and ashes, which are as inevitable as the tides and as sure as the sun rises, we may see the rise of a truly peaceful world order; in which we see the triumphs of individualism merge with the interests of the majority; a people’s world order of peace for all. We must maintain, as Antonio Gramsci once wrote, “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”



Notes



[1] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 70-72: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html



[2] David Lyon, Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond. Willan Publishing, 2006: page 71



[3] Olga Chetverikova, Crisis as a way to build a global totalitarian state. Russia Today: April 20, 2009: http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-20/Crisis_as_a_way_to_build_a_global_totalitarian_state.html



[4] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 67: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html



[5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 63: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html



[6] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 56: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html



[7] Richard Norton-Taylor, Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future. The Guardian: April 9, 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news



[8] Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai, RAND Lobbies Pentagon: Start War To Save U.S. Economy. Prison Planet: October 30, 2008: http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-lobbies-pentagon-start-war-to-save-us-economy.html



[9] Paul Joseph Watson, Celente Predicts Revolution, Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012. Prison Planet: November 13, 2008: http://www.prisonplanet.com/celente-predicts-revolution-food-riots-tax-rebellions-by-2012.html



[10] Gerald Celente, Obamageddon — 2012. Prison Planet: June 30: 2009: http://www.infowars.com/obamageddon-2012/



[11] CNBC, Gerald Celente. May 21, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akH5C3f4aTI



[12] Terry Easton, Exclusive Interview with Future Prediction Expert Gerald Celente. Human Events: June 5, 2009: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32152



[13] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144



[14] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157



[15] Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March 8, 1992. http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm



[16] PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000, page 6: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm



[17] Ibid. Page 8



[18] Ibid. Page 9



[19] Ibid. Page 14



[20] Ibid. Page 51



[21] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages 30-31



[22] Ibid. Page 36



[23] Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160



[24] Jim Garamone, Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance. American Forces Press Service: June 2, 2000: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289



[25] Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier, Global NATO. Foreign Affairs: Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 85, Issue 5



[26] Xinhua, NATO changes to stay relevant. Xinhua News Agency: April 5, 2009: http://www.china.org.cn/international/2009-04/05/content_17554731.htm



[27] Ian Traynor, Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told. The Guardian: January 22, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/nato.nuclear



Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life". Global Research: February 11, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048



[28] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: pages 164-165



[29] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: page 165



[30] Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2: page 165



Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Σομαλο η Αφγανο Προεδρο στον Συν-Συριζα;

Αφου δεν φαινεται να τα βρουν Τσιπρας και Αλαβανος και η διαλυση στο ΠΑΣΟΚ τουλαχιστον για μια μεριδα απο αυτους θα ειναι η λιγοτερη εποδυνη λυση γιατι δεν προτεινουν μαζικη παραιτηση και να αναλαβη την ηγεσια κανενας Σομαλος η Αφγανος για να δειξουν με αυτον τον τροπ την αλληλεγγυη τους στο ζητημα της λαθρομεταναστευσης.

Αυτο εξ'αλλου ειναι το ζητημα που τους εστειλε στο εκλογικο αποσπασμα καιρος δεν ειναι να αλλξουν τους συσχετισμους των δυναμεων και να αποκυρηξουν την εθνοτητα τους και τις βουλευτικες τους καρριερες?

Θα μπορουν τοτε εαν βγουν αλλοδαποι βουλευτες να κανουν πραξη το συνθημα τους 'νομιμοποιηση των ναρκωτικων'.

Οποιο παντου δωρεαν σε καθε πλατεια εργατικη της Αττικης...

ΤΑ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ ΗΞΕΡΑΝ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΛΑΘΡΟΜΕΤΑΝΑΣΤΕΥΤΙΚΗ ΛΑΙΛΑΙΠΑ

ΒΟΥΛΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ

Διακομματική Κοινοβουλευτική Επιτροπή

Για τη μελέτη του δημογραφικού προβλήματος της χώρας και διατύπωση προτάσεων
για την αποτελεσματική αντιμετώπισή του.

ΠΟΡΙΣΜΑ

Πρόεδρος: Βασίλειος Σωτηρόπουλος, Βουλευτής Αργολίδας, Νέας Δημοκρατίας
Αντιπρόεδρος: Βασίλειος Γερατίδης, Βουλευτής Β΄ Θες/νίκης, ΠΑΣΟΚ
Γραμματέας: Μανόλης Δρεττάκης, Βουλευτής Α΄ Αθηνών, Συνασπισμού


ΑΘΗΝΑ
ΦΕΒΡΟΥΑΡΙΟΣ 1993

ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΟ ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ ΠΡΟΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗ ΤΟΥ

Σελ. 1.
Στην χώρα μας, στην οποία σήμερα η γεννητικότητα είναι από τις χαμηλότερες στην Ευρώπη, το δημογραφικό πρόβλημα παίρνει τεράστιες εθνικές διαστάσεις, που μπορεί να απειλήσουν την εθνική μας ανεξαρτησία και εδαφική ακεραιότητα.

Σελ. 2.
Στην Εθνική Αντιπροσωπεία συνεζητήθηκαν, επίσης, δύο επερωτήσεις του κ. Μανόλη Δρεττάκη (12/2/79 και 14/2/86) και πρόταση νόμου βουλευτών του ΠΑΣΟΚ «κίνητρα για την αντιμετώπιση του δημογραφικού προβλήματος της χώρας» στις 7 και 28 Νοεμβίου 1991.

Την επιτροπή αποτέλεσαν αρχικά οι βουλευτές:
1. Σωρηρόπουλος Βασίλειος
2. Ανδρακτάς Παναγιώτης
3. Βαρδαρινός Βασίλειος
4. Γεωργολιός Κωνσταντίνος
5. Κανελλοπούλου Κρινιώ
6. Καραγκούνης Ανδρέας
7. Μπακογιάννη Ντόρα
8. Πάλλη Πετραλιά Φάνη
9. Παπαγεωργόπουλος Ελευθέριος
10. Παπανικολάου Ελευθέριος
11. Τατούλης Πέτρος
12. Χωματάς Ιωάννης
13. Γερανίδης Βασίλειος
14. Κρητικός Παναγιώτης
15. Κωνσταντινίδης Ελευθέριος
16. Μπαλτάς Αλέξανδρος
17. Παπαδόπουλους Βασίλειος
18. Παπαθεμελής Στυλιανός
19. Πάχτας Χρήστος
20. Σμπώκος Ιωάννης
21. Δρεττάκης Μανόλης (ΕΑΡ)
22. Κοσιώνης Παναγιώτης (ΚΚΕ)

Τα μέλη της επιτροπής Καραγκούνης Ανδρέας, Μπακογιάννη Ντόρα, Πάλλη Πετραλιά Φάνη αντικαταστάθηκαν αργότερα, λόγω αναλήψεως από μέρους τους υπουργικών καθηκόντων, από τους βουλευτές Γεωργιάδη Θεόδωρο, Δημόπουλο Δημήτριο και Κατσίκη Θεόδωρο, ενώ τη θέση του αποβιώσαντος τον Ιούλιο του 1992 Παπαδόπουλου Βασιλείου έλαβε ο βουλευτής Σκουλάκης Εμμανουήλ.

Σελ. 15.
Ο επαναπατρισμός των πολιτικών προσφύγων και η μαζική έλευση ομογενών (Ποντίων και Βορειοηπειρωτών) με σωστή πολιτική παρέμβαση θα έχει θετικά αποτελέσματα. Η πολιτεία πρέπει να τους βοηθήσει να εγκατασταθούν και να εργαστούν, όχι μόνο στα αστικά κέντρα αλλά κυρίως σε αγροτικές και ημιαστικές περιοχές και να δώσουν μία νέα δυναμική σε πολλές αγροτικές περιοχές κυρίως της Βορείου Ελλάδος. Οι κοινές πολιτιστικές ρίζες και η Ορθοδοξία βοηθούν πολύ στην προσαρμογή και αφομοίωση τους από την ελληνική κοινωνία.
Ιδιαίτερη προσοχή απαιτεί η είσοδος και η απασχόληση εκατοντάδων χιλιάδων ξένων μεταναστών νομίμως (και παρανόμως κυρίως) εισελθόντων στη χώρα μας στις δύο τελευταίες δεκαετίες. Αν και το ποσοστό ανεργίας στη χώρα μας είναι 8% περίπου σε πολλούς κλάδους υπάρχει έλλειψη εργατικών χειρών, που καλύπτεται κυρίως από ξένους λαθρομετανάστες.
Με την αθρόα είσοδο λαθρομεταναστών - αλλοδαπών κυρίως μουσουλμάνων από Αφρικανοασιατικές χώρες, η Ελλάς μεταβάλλεται σε τόπο υποδοχής μεταναστών που δημιουργούν σοβαρά κοινωνικοοικονομικά προβλήματα (προστριβές στην αγορά εργασίας, αύξηση της εισφοροδιαφυγής με μεγάλες συνέπειες στους ασφαλιστικούς οργανισμούς, αύξηση εγκληματικότητας, διακίνηση ναρκωτικών κλπ) και δεν μπορούν να προσαρμοστούν προς την ελληνική κοινωνία λόγω του τελείως διαφορετικού πολιτισμού του Ισλάμ, που δεν είναι μόνο θρησκεία αλλά και τρόπος ζωής.

Κοινωνικοοικονομικοί παράγοντες που επιδρούν στο δημογραφικό πρόβλημα.

Σελ. 24.
-Η απομάκρυνση από τα παραδοσιακά πρότυπα ζωής και η κοινωνική παρακμή με την υπονόμευση των αξιών γάμου, της οικογένειας και των τέκνων έχουν σημαντική επίδραση στο δημογραφικό.
-Ο υπέρμετρος ευδαιμονισμός, η χαλάρωση των ηθών, τα ναρκωτικά, το AIDS και γενικά η κοινωνική υποβάθμιση και η παγκόσμια ανασφάλεια επιδρούν αρνητικά στο δημογραφικό.

Μελλοντική πληθυσμιακή εξέλιξη της Ελλάδος

Σελ. 27.
Αν όμως οι δημογραφικοί δείκτες δεν βελτιωθούν και διατηρηθεί ο ίδιος δείκτης γεννήσεων του 1990 (1,4 μέσος όρος τέκνων ανά γυναίκα) και αν δεν προκύψουν σημαντικά γεγονότα (πόλεμος, μετανάστευση) τότε ο συνολικός πληθυσμός της χώρας μας το 2015 θα είναι μειωμένος κατά 500.000 άτομα από το σημερινό αριθμό. Η επιδείνωση αυτή των δημογραφικών δεικτών που άρχισε από το 1985 δημιουργεί σοβαρά πληθυσμιακά προβλήματα στη χώρα μας. Τα κενά που δημιουργούνται καλύπτονται κατά το μεγαλύτερο μέρος από Πόντιους και Βορειοηπειρώτες αλλά και από μουσουλμάνους της Ασίας και της Αφρικής και από άλλους που εισδύουν παράνομα στον Ελληνικό χώρο (και παραμένουν με ποικίλες ψευτοϊδιότητες, προσθέτοντας νέα προβλήματα).

Δημογραφικές επιπτώσεις

Σελ. 30.
Η χώρα μας με τη δραματική μείωση των γεννήσεων την τελευταία δεκαετία διατρέχει μεγάλους κινδύνους (που επιτείνονται λόγω της γεωγραφικής της θέσης και της έλλειψης συγγενικών λαών):
- Η μείωση των γεννήσεων στην δεκαετία του 80 κατά την οποία ο δείκτης έπεσε από 2,09 παιδιά ανά γυναίκα το 1982 σε 1,4 το 1990, απειλεί πλέον σοβαρά την ανανέωση και διαιώνιση της ελληνικής μας φυλής.
- Τα πληθυσμιακά κενά που δημιουργούνται σε διάφορα γεωγραφικά διαμερίσματα (Νησιά Αιγαίου, Ιονίου κλπ) υπάρχει ο κίνδυνος να καλυφθούν από αλλοδαπούς (κυρίως Μουσουλμάνους) με εξαιρετικά απώτερα επακόλουθα.
- Στις ένοπλες δυνάμεις θα δημιουργηθεί σοβαρό πρόβλημα λόγω της μείωσης του αριθμού των στρατευσίμων.

Σελ. 31.
Εάν για την ανανέωση του εργατικού μας δυναμικού και γενικά την πορεία της οικονομίας μας και των ασφαλιστικών ταμείων στηριχθούμε στους μετανάστες της Ασίας και της Αφρικής πολύ γρήγορα θα δημιουργηθούν προβλήματα σοβαρά με κοινωνικές και εθνικές προεκτάσεις σύμφωνα με την εμπειρία των περασμένων 10ετιών σε χώρες της Δ. Ευρώπης. Οι μουσουλμάνοι έχουν άλλα πρότυπα, άλλα ιδανικά και διαμορφώνουν άλλες κοινωνίες διαφορετικές του δυτικού πολιτισμού.

Στόχοι της Ελληνικής Δημογραφικής πολιτικής - Προτάσεις

Σελ. 36.
- Να τονώνεται σε κάθε κατάλληλη στιγμή η Ελληνική παράδοση και το θρησκευτικό συναίσθημα (πρακτικά με πρωτοβουλία της Εκκλησίας).

Διοικητικά μέτρα

Σελ. 40.
- Η αθρόα και εύκολη είσοδος λαθρομεταναστών από τις χώρες της Ασίας και της Αφρικής είτε απ’ ευθείας είτε μέσω των χωρών της ΕΟΚ πρέπει να προσεχθεί ιδιαίτερα για πολλούς κοινωνικοοικονομικούς και εθνικούς λόγους. Πρέπει να γίνεται αυστηρός έλεγχος για την νομιμότητα της εισόδου στη χώρα μας και για την νόμιμη παραμονή και απασχόληση.


Αθήνα 10 Φεβρουαρίου 1993


Τα αποσπάσματα αυτά τα επέλεξε φίλη που διάβασε την μελέτη και τις προτάσεις της διακομματικής κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής (ολόκληρος τόμος). Είχε την ευγενή καλοσύνη να μας τα δώσει για δημοσίευση. Απ’ το έγγραφο αυτό διαπιστώνεται ότι όλα τα κόμματα γνώριζαν και το δημογραφικό πρόβλημα της χώρας και τις κοινωνικοοικονομικές και εθνικές συνέπειες της λαθρομετανάστευσης, αρκετά πριν αρχίσει να τις νιώθει στο πετσί της η ελληνική κοινωνία. Κι όμως οι πολιτικοί ταγοί(!) μας όχι μόνο δεν πήραν μέτρα στην κατεύθυνση των συμπερασμάτων της μελέτης, αλλά έπραξαν και συνεχίζουν να πράττουν τα ακριβώς αντίθετα, μέχρι που σκέπτεται κανείς αν ανατέθηκε η μελέτη αυτή για να δουν κάποιοι ποιος είναι ο πιο αποτελεσματικός και γρήγορος τρόπος για να μας αφανίσουν ως έθνος από προσώπου γης.
ΤΑ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ ΗΞΕΡΑΝ!

Τρομοκρατικες Αμερικανοποιημενες Αλλοδαπες Συμμοριες...

Στην δεκαετια του 1980 ο Αμερικανικος ιμπεριαλισμος προσπαθωντας να αναγεννηθει απ'το στραπατσο του Βιετναμ και του Ιραν δημιουργησε μια νεα πολιτικη πραγματικοτητα στον διπλανο του κηπο, την Κεντρικη Αμερικη.

Οργανωσε και εκπαιδευσε ταγματα εφοδου, παραστρατιωτικα κυκλωματα της ΣΙΑ, που χρησιμοπιουσαν εθελοντες αντι-κομμουνιστες ντοπιους για τον γκαγκστερισμο τους. Οποιος διαβασει κανα βιβλιο για τις βιαιοπραγιες των Αμερικων στην Κ Αμερικη του σηκωνεται η τριχα καγκελο. Χρησιμοποιουσαν τρυπανια σε ανθρωπους, εκοβανα χερια, αυτια για να ζητανε λητρα, εκαναν ληστειες, εβαζαν βομβες σε ξενους τουριστες και παει λεγοντας. Ολα αυτα εχουν αναβιωσει και στις μερες μας στην κατοχη στο Ιρακ. Τα ιδια Αμερικανικα καθαρματα οργανωσαν την κατοχη εκει, πχ. ο Νεγροποντε. Οι ιδιοι διαμελισαν και την Γιουγκοσλαβια. Υπευθυνοι επισης ειταν για τις Τσετσενικες και Γεωργιανες ομαδες κρουσεις.

Οι βιαοπραγιες λοιπον που πραγματοποιυνται καθημεριαν απο αλλοδαπες ομαδες κρουσεις στην Ελλαδα απο που εμαθαν το επαγγελμα τους? Γιατι μονο επαγγελματιες δολοφονοι βιαζουν και ληστευουν ετσι ανανδρα 80χρονες γιαγιαδες. Μονο ξενα αντι-κομμουνιστικα ρεμαλια, δοσιλογοι της Αμερικης της κατοχης του Ιρακ και του Αφγανισταν οπου δεν δισταζουν να δολοφονουν γυναικοπαιδα μερα μεσημερι για χαρη του μαυρου και λευκου χρυσου, αναπαραγουν τις ιδιες βιαοπραγιες σε ελληνικο εδαφος. Καποιοι καπου τους ελεγχουν, τους δινουν την πρασινη καρτα και τους αφηνουν ελευθερα μερα μεσημερι να κυκλοφορουν.

Καποιοι θα πληρωσουν για αυτα τα εγκληματα. Οσο τα συνεχιζουν και αφηνουν τον ελληνικο λαο ερμαιο της τυχης του, αλλο τοσο δεν θα μπορουν να κανουν τιποτα οταν θα προσπαθει να βρει την πραγματικη του τυχη, κοντρα στις τρομοκρατικες συμμοριες που αλονιζουν ελευθερα στην νεα Αμερικανικη κατοχη

Βηχο-Τζουμας Ο νεοταξιτης Υπερ των Αμερικανικων Συνομοσιων

Ενω γραφει χωρις να ξερει τι γραφει λεει ο Βηχος οτι σωστα η κλικα του Σαββα υποστηριξε τον Χιλυ και τον Χομεινι και τον Γκανταφι και τον Αραφατ.
Παραλληλα οτι ειναι εναντια στις συνομοσιολογιες. Οτι κυνηγαει φασιστες, και οτι τους βρηκε στο σαιτ του ΠΑΤΑΡΙου. Δηλαδη δεν εχει προβλημα να δημιουργη δικια τους συνομοσιολογικη θεωρια για ανυπαρκτο εχθρο αλλα την ιδια ωρα να κανει τις πλατες στους πραγματικους. Η λαθρομετανασταση μας λεει αλλου ειναι νομοτελεια του καπιταλισμου.

Τι ειναι η νομοτελεια δεν μας εξυγει. Αφου ολα ειναι νομοτελεια τι καθεται να ασχοληθει με τετελεσμενα γεγονοτα? Και οι λαθρομεταναστες στην πλ. του Αγ Παντελεημονα τελελεσμενο γεγονος ειταν εως οτου δεν ειταν. Την μονη διαλεκτικη εξυγηση για ολα τα φαινομενα ειναι τα ΜΜΕ. Αυτα παρουσιαζουν τον ιμπεριαλισμο σαν νομοτελεια το Βηχο-Τζουμας το επαναλαμαβανει σαν να διαβαζη τη βιβλο σε κατηχητικο.

Το οτι την περασμενη εβδομαδα ο κυριος εκροσοπος του ραδιοσταθμου στο BBC Radio 4 John Humphreys που ειταν στην Ελλαδα στις τελευταιες φωτιες οπως και στις προηγουμενες επαναλαμβανε την 'θεωρια' του Βηχο-Τζουμα. Οτι οικοπεδοφαγοι τις εβαλαν. Οι ιδιοι οικοπεδοφαγοι που εχουν 200,000 ακινητα απουλητα. Βαζουν φωτιες λοιπον για να καιγονται τα βουνα, τα δαση για να χτιζουν σπιτια που δεν μπορουν να πουλησουν...

Κατι σαν την ιστορια του διαβατρηριου που βρεθηκε μετα την εκρηξη στους Διδυμους Πυργους που ενοχομποιουσε αραβες 'τρομοκρατες'. Τετοιο σοβαρο επιπεδο εχει ο κλοον στο ΠολιτικοΛαθρομεταναστευτικοΚαφενειο. Οτι σαβουρα, οτι ψευτια οτι απατεωνια κυκλοφορει στα ΜΜΕ για οποιαδηποτε ζητημα, απ'τον 'χαμενο μικρο Αλεξ' μεχρι στο κυνιγι με σιδηρολοστους ναρκοεμπορους Αφγανους πρεπει να το χαβουμε οχι επειδη το λενε τα ΜΜΕ αλλα επειδη το λεει ο Βηχο-Τζουμας, ο θεατρινος φαφλατας που μιλαει με τις ωρες μονος του στο διαδυκτιο για να εχει λογω υπαρξης...

Η Ελλάδα και πάλι φλέγεται

Η Ελλάδα και πάλι φλέγεται

Η συστηματική πυρπόληση των δασών είναι φαινόμενο της μεταπολίτευσης αποκλειστικά. Το ίδιο και η τρομοκρατία-φάντασμα, αυτό το κατά συνθήκη ψεύδος, που χρησιμοποιούν οι αμερικάνικες κυβερνήσεις για την άσκηση της πολιτικής τους, εντός των ΗΠΑ και διεθνώς. Η χρονική σύμπτωση της εμφάνισης των δύο φαινομένων, από μόνη της, όσο και αν την παραβλέπουν μερικοί, αποκαλύπτει το κρυμμένο στα αποκαΐδια μυστικό.
Αλλά όταν δεν βλέπεις πέρα απ’ τη μύτη σου, επειδή το οπτικό σου πεδίο ορίζουν τα ιδιοτελή συμφέροντα σου, για να αιτιολογήσεις τις καταστροφές φτιάχνεις σενάρια με οικοπεδοφάγους. Και όταν αυτά δεν είναι αρκετά πειστικά επιστρατεύεις άλλες εκδοχές, που κατά περίπτωση εμφανίζονται ως αιτία των πύρινων καταστροφών. Μπορεί να είναι βοσκοί, απρόσεκτοι αγρότες, καπνιστές, πυλώνες της ΔΕΗ, ακραία καιρικά φαινόμενα, χωματερές, πυρομανείς ή ο συνδυασμός όλων. Μ’ άλλα λόγια φταίει, όπως συνήθως, το θύμα τού εγκλήματος. Ο Έλληνας. Που είναι εμπρηστής, καταπατητής, πυρομανής και όλα τα εις «ης»!
Τι να πει κανείς… Είναι δυνατό να εκδηλώνονται τριακόσιες πυρκαγιές σε μια μέρα, σε όλη την έκταση της ηπειρωτικής και νησιωτικής Ελλάδας και να είναι αυτό έργο καταπατητών; Τόση οργάνωση, τόσο άριστο συντονισμό, τόση γνώση εδάφους και μετεωρολογίας οι οικοπεδοφάγοι; Να υπενθυμίσουμε ότι καμία τις σκόπιμες ή τυχαίες αιτίες πυρκαγιών δεν λειτούργησε το 2004, καλοκαίρι των Ολυμπιακών αγώνων; Το 2002, όταν ξένοι πράκτορες, μετά των εγχώριων παραγιών τους, «εξάρθρωναν» την «τρομοκρατία»; Το 1997, καλοκαίρι των παγκόσμιων αγώνων στίβου στην Αθήνα, πρόκριμα για την ανάθεση των Ολυμπιακών (ελέω Αμερικάνων) στην Ελλάδα του Σημίτη; Πως εξηγούνται αυτά τα γεγονότα με την θεωρία των καταπατητών ή του τυχαίου;
Και πως εξηγείται η επικέντρωση σε επιλεγμένους στόχους -αρχαιολογικούς, τουριστικά θέρετρα, καλλιέργειες, (4,5 εκατομμύρια ελαιόδεντρα κάηκαν στην Ηλεία, το 2007) κτηνοτρο-φία, ηλεκτροπαραγωγή, ανθρώπινες ζωές;
Και το ερώτημα των ερωτημάτων: για ποιο λόγο οι εμπρηστές μένουν ασύλληπτοι εδώ και 35 χρόνια; Γιατί κανένα κόμμα εξουσίας δεν έφερε αυτό το ζήτημα για δημόσια συζήτηση στο Κοινοβούλιο; Γιατί τα κόμματα της ψευδεπίγραφης Αριστεράς δεν ζήτησαν ποτέ εξηγήσεις γι’ αυτή την εσκεμμένη, (λέμε εμείς) αδράνεια των διωκτικών αρχών, γιατί δεν κατέβασαν ποτέ τον λαό στους δρόμους ν’ απαιτήσει, εδώ και τώρα, εξάρθρωση της εγκληματικής μαφίας, όποια κι αν είναι αυτή;
Υπάρχει μια μόνο εξήγηση: Πίσω απ’ τους εμπρησμούς, όχι μόνο στην Ελλάδα αλλά και στην Ισπανία, την Γαλλία, την Ιταλία, την Αυστραλία, στην Καλιφορνία της Αμερικής κλπ, υπάρχει μια παράφρον υπερεθνική δύναμη που χρησιμοποιεί την καταστροφή της χλωρίδας σα μοχλό των γεωστρατηγικών της σχεδίων, αλλά και σα μέσο εκβιασμού και εκδίκησης των ατακτούντων υποτελών.
Αυτό το επιβεβαίωσε και εκδοτικό συγκρότημα, που ο λόγος του έχει την βαρύτητα ανακοινώσεων του Στέιτ Ντιπάρτμεντ. Όταν ο Καραμανλής συμφώνησε (κατ’ αρχήν) με τον Πούτιν για την διέλευση του ενεργειακού αγωγού Σάουθ Στριμ μέσω Ελλάδας - Ιταλίας, ζήσαμε μια Αθήνα που είχε σκοτεινιάσει, μέρα μεσημέρι, απ’ τους καπνούς της φλεγόμενης Πάρνηθα. Τότε ακριβώς (ούτε πριν ούτε μετά) ο βοηθός υφυπουργός Εξωτερικών των ΗΠΑ, Ματ Μπράιζα, απαίτησε με πρωτοσέλιδη παρουσία του στην εφημερίδα ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ την «απεξάρτηση τής Ελλάδας από το ρωσικό αέριο». Ο Λαμπράκης, σεβόμενος την νοημοσύνη του Ελληνικού λαού, περισσότερο από τους αχρείους νεοταξίτες κάθε μάρκας, που τολμούν ακόμα να υποδύονται τούς αριστερούς, δημοσίευσε στην πρώτη σελίδα της πρωινής εφημερίδας του, την παρακάτω σύντομη και σε πλαίσιο Ανακοίνωση, που εμμέσως πλην σαφώς, αιτιολογούσε την πύρινη λαίλαπα. Διαβάστε τη και βγάλτε τα συμπεράσματα σας.

ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ

Το παιχνίδι είναι μεγάλο και
η χώρα μας μικρή. Η βιασύνη
του Πούτιν και οι αντίδράσεις
των Αμερικάνων δείχνουν ότι
η Ελλάδα έχει εμπλακεί σε μια
σκληρή αναμέτρηση.
Αυτονόητο είναι ότι χρειάζονται
προσεκτικές αποφάσεις και
ευέλικτες κινήσεις. Η Ελλάδα
πρέπει να βγει κερδισμένη και
να μη γίνει στόχος εκδικητικής
μανίας, διότι όλοι γνωρίζουμε
πλέον πως αντιδρούν οι μεγάλες
δυνάμεις…

ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ

METANΑΣΤΕΣ=Η ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΙΘΜΩΝ

Πηγή: http://area51gr.blogspot.com/2009/08/35.html

Σήμερα έλαβα ένα μήνυμα:
-------
Η αλήθεια των αριθμών...

Η αλήθεια των αριθμών
http://www.thermopilai.org/content/e-aletheia-ton-arithmon

Διαβάστε κύριοι, να δείτε πως μας δουλεύουν κανονικά οι αλήτες του κυνοβουλευτισμού. Στην κλασσική ερώτηση, που έχει διατυπωθεί και εντός βουλής, πόσοι είναι οι λαθρομετανάστες, απαντούν με μισόλογα του τύπου ε, θα 'ναι, δεν θα 'ναι;.

Η αλήθεια είναι όμως ότι γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά, όπως προδίδει η στατιστική υπηρεσία. Εφ' όσον τα μη ενεργά άτομα είναι 148.323 που αντιστοιχούν στο 6,3%, με την απλή μέθοδο των τριών βρίσκουμε ότι το 100% του αλλοδαπού πληθυσμού, του ικανού προς εργασία, είναι 2.354.333 άτομα. Αν σε αυτά προσθέσουμε τα μικρά παιδιά και κάποιους -λίγους- ηλικιωμένους, μιλάμε για έναν πληθυσμό της τάξεως 3.500.000+ . Δηλαδή με απλά Ελληνικά, η χώρα επιβαρύνεται με 31+% πληθυσμό επιπλέον του γηγενούς!

31+%, το οποίο έρχεται σε εμάς χωρίς να έχει πάει ποτέ του σε γιατρό και καταλαμβάνει τα μισά κρεβάτια των νοσοκομείων, έχει προτεραιότητα σε παιδικούς σταθμούς, τους μαθαίνουμε γράμματα χωρίς να έχουν πληρώσει ποτέ τους φόρους.

Η μείωση των δημοσίων δαπανών πρέπει να ξεκινήσει από τα χρήματα που ξοδεύονται για αυτά τα ρεμάλια, τα οποία περνούν τα σύνορα με το έτσι θέλω και ζητάνε και τα ρέστα μετά!

Η κοινωνική πολιτική έχει ένα σοβαρό κόστος, το οποίο πληρώνει ο Ελληνικός λαός, όπως έχει υποχρέωση, ακόμα και από το υστέρημά του, για να στηρίξει τον συμπατριώτη του, τον συνάνθρωπό του. Ο λαθρομετανάστης ούτε είναι ούτε θα γίνει ποτέ του συμπατριώτης και συνάνθρωπος. Είναι ένας εκμεταλλευτής της καλοσύνης και της ανεκτικότητάς μας.

Διαβάζουμε στη Καθημερινή:

ΕΣΥΕ: Στο 6,3% η ανεργία στους αλλοδαπούς

Σύμφωνα με την έρευνα, τα μη ενεργά άτομα αλλοδαπής ιθαγένειας ανέρχονται σε 148.323.

Στο 6,3% ανέρχεται η ανεργία στα άτομα αλλοδαπής ιθαγένειας σύμφωνα με την ειδική έρευνα για τη θέση στην αγορά εργασίας των μεταναστών και των αμέσων απογόνων τους που διεξήγαγε η Εθνική Στατιστική Υπηρεσία της Ελλάδος (ΕΣΥΕ).

Η πλειοψηφία των ατόμων που έχουν γεννηθεί στο εξωτερικό ήρθε στην Ελλάδα για να βρει εργασία το ποσοστό αυτό είναι ιδιαίτερα υψηλό στα άτομα που έχουν γεννηθεί σε κάποια από τις 12 νέες χώρες -μέλη της ΕΕ (60,4%). Τα άτομα που έχουν γεννηθεί σε κάποια από τις 15 παλαιότερες χώρες-μέλη της ΕΕ δηλώνουν κατά πλειοψηφία (59,8%) ότι έχουν έρθει στην Ελλάδα για προσωπικούς λόγους (π.χ. γάμος με Έλληνα/Ελληνίδα ή άλλος λόγος).

Ένα σημαντικό ποσοστό ατόμων με αλλοδαπή ιθαγένεια δήλωσε ότι έχει περιορισμένη άδεια παραμονής στη χώρα (47,9%) ενώ το ποσοστό ατόμων που δήλωσε ότι δεν έχει άδεια παραμονής ανέρχεται σε 2,9%.

Εξάλλου, ένα ποσοστό 46,4% δήλωσε ότι έχει άδεια παραμονής αόριστης διάρκειας. Τέλος, ένα σημαντικό ποσοστό των αλλοδαπών δήλωσε ότι σχεδιάζει να παραμείνει στην Ελλάδα μόνιμα (46,6%) ή πάνω από πέντε έτη (23,4%) ή από ένα έως πέντε έτη (9,9%).
-------

Τα σχόλιά μου:
-------
1. Για την ακρίβεια αν έχουμε 11εκ. Έλληνες σήμερα, τα 3.5εκ αλλοδαπών αντιστοιχούν στο 24% (3,5εκ/(11εκ+3,5εκ)). Δηλαδή ένας στους 4 είναι αλλοδαπός.

2. Η ανεργία των Ελλήνων τελευταία κυμαίνεται γύρω στο 9,5% ενώ σύμφωνα με τον ΟΟΣΑ «ποσοστών ανεργίας σε 9,5% φέτος και 10,3% το 2010, από 7,7% που ήταν το 2008». Τι σημαίνει αυτό; Ότι αν τα Ελληνικά Ενεργά άτομα είναι περίπου 7,5εκ, τότε έχουμε περίπου 710χιλ ανέργους Έλληνες

3. Από την άλλη έχουμε (2,35εκ-148χιλ =) 2,2εκ ενεργούς αλλοδαπούς, για τους οποίους αν και δεν γίνεται λόγος για το αν είναι νόμιμοι ή όχι, δέχομαι πως είναι νόμιμοι γιατί έγινε καταγραφή. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι πληρώνουν φόρους κτλ. Αν βάλουμε όμως μέσα και τους παράνομους, τότε τα ποσοστά αυξάνουν κατά πολύ, τόσο που να μην γίνονται και πιστευτά!

4. Σημαντικό πράγμα που δεν πρέπει να παραλείπεται είναι τα Εμβάσματα που στέλνουν οι αλλοδαποί στο εξωτερικό, βγάζοντας το χρήμα έξω από τη χώρα.

Στην τελική, με βάση τα παραπάνω στοιχεία και πρόχειρους υπολογισμούς, η Ελλάδα θα μπορούσε να έχει πολύ μικρότερα ποσοστά ανεργίας κοντά στο 1-2%, αλλά και να υποστηρίξει όριο μεταναστών μέχρι και 10% χωρίς ανεργία. Αντίθετα τώρα έχουμε όριο μεταναστών να ξεπερνάει το 20% και ένα 10% άνεργους Έλληνες, όπου το 20% των μεταναστών βγάζει το χρήμα με μεγάλους ρυθμούς έξω από τη χώρα.
-------

Χαρακτηριστικό comment από το link στις «θερμοπύλες»:
-------
Μην ξεχνάμε και τα εμβάσματα προς το εξωτερικό που φθάνουν τα 17 δις εκατομμύρια ευρώ! Το χρήμα που παίρνουν οι λαθρομετανάστες, στη μεγάλη πλειονότητα μαύρο, εξάγεται αντί να μπεί στην Ελληνική αγορά.
-------







http://www.neos-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14536&sid=f4db55233c08ee576796295108afae59

Υπαρχει Ελληνικο Κεφαλαιο αλλο οχι Ελληνικο Εθνος...

Ενα απ'τα επιχειρηματα των νεοταξιτων ειναι οτι αφου το 'ελληνικο' κεφαλαιο διεσδυει στα Βαλκανια αρα τοτε οι λαθρομεταναστες απ'τα Βαλκανια εχουν το ιδιο δικαιωμα διεσδυσεις σε αλλες χωρες για εργασια.

Με λιγα λογια η 'ελληνικοτητα' του πολυεθνικου κεφαλαιου γινεται το επιχειρημα για την πολυπολιτισμικοτητα και την λαθρομεταναστευση. Ο παγκοσμιοποιημενος καπιταλισμος γινεται εθνικος και το εθνος γινεται πολυεθνικο. Αλλη μια γριφος του νεοταξιτη που δεν λυνεται με λογικους παραμετρους.

Αφου λοιπον δεν υπαρχουν πολυεθνικα εθνοι παρα μονο πολυεθνικα κεφαλαια τον λυνουν το γριφο με την ρετσινια του ...ρατσισμου. Οποιος αντιτιθεται στην πολυεθνικοτητα του κεφαλαιου και λεει επειδη ανοιξαν επιχειρησεις στα Βαλκανια οι εργοδοτες αυτο δεν σημαινει οτι τους δινεται δικαιωμα να εισαγουν ενα απειρο ποσο λαθρομεταναστων, χρησιμοποιουν την αρχη του αφεντικου για την αφετηρια σε καθε επιχειρημα που γραφουν. Και ποιος ειπε οτι το δικιο του αφεντικου ειναι δικιο του εργατη?

Μετα γραφουν για νομοτελιακη εξελιξη. Αυτα εχει ο καπιταλισμος μας λενε αρα δεν γινεται τιποτα και εαν ο καπιταλισμος θελει να μεταφερει ΟΛΟΚΛΗΡΟ το Μπαγκλατες στην Ελλαδα για να υπαρχει ενας γυαλοκαθαριστιρας σε καθε τετραγωνο τοτε ειναι διακαιωμα του οπως δικαιωμα του ειναι να μεταφερει επιχειρησεις σε αλλες βαλκανικες χωρες.

Αρα δεν ασχολουνται με τα κοινα προβληματα των εργατων, την επιβιωση τους, τους δρομους οπου πρεπει να κυκλοφορησουν αυτοι και τα παιδια τους αλλα μονο με τα δικαιωματα και τα ιερα και τα οσια των αφεντικων.

Μονο η ελληνικοτητα του κεφαλαιου υπαρχει γι'αυτους, οχι των εργατων.
Ανθελληνες μεχρι το μεδουλι, γλυφτες των κοκκαλων της Αμερικης, μισανθρωποι εφιαλτες ενος νεου μεσαιωνα, θελουν ολα τα βαρη της πτωσης της Αμερικης να τα πληρωσει ο φτωχος λαος.

Και ας ειναι ο Σπυρος Λατσης σχεδον μονιμα κατοικος της Ελβετιας...