A response to your Calais report:
Admitting thieves, rapists, drug dealers, sexists, racial supremacists, religious bigots, terrorists, carriers of disease etc into our land is NOT beneficial to the people.
Respected Comrades,
I am not disputing what you yourselves saw in Calais or seeking to invalidate the feelings it aroused.
Such reports as you brought back are valuable. On the other hand, it was not from msm but from the personal experience of my sister - who also visited Calais to check out the situation. I should add that my sister also worked in the Medical Institute for the Victims of Torture - where she got to know the harrowing stories of many ‘illegals’. Then there is the situation in Paris, from where accounts are quite different: for example of refugees sleeping on the streets in having their blankets and sleeping bags stolen by police while being violently forced to move on, a report has found. Men, women and children being beaten and tear gassed by officers in the French capital, despite government pledges to shelter vulnerable people. Eritrean families who said they were told to “get out of France” as police tore away children’s blankets, leaving them without protection as the bitter temperatures plummeted to -7C. According to one young Afghan man: “If we question them or say we have nowhere to go, they bring out the tear gas.” Then there is Dunkirk, where as you may know there are accounts by volunteers, medics, refugees and security officials which reveal that sexual abuse is common within the large camp there and that children and women are forced to have sex by traffickers in return for blankets or food or the offer of passage to the UK. As a result legal proceedings will be issued against the British Home Office, which is accused of acting unfairly and irrationally by electing to settle ONLY minors from CALAIS, ignoring the child refugees gathered in Dunkirk, 40 miles away along the coast.I think also of a friend of mine, one of the ‘do-gooders’ you refer to, who gave accommodation to a most gentle young Afghan man with no religious or racial bigotry - but the most extraordinary European style artistic gifts.
My questions:
To begin with, I ask you to accept there are alternative narratives that also based on first-hand experience.
As for the men and youths you observed, I ask you to also consider the question of WHY they are in France at all? Can anyone seriously believe that they hatched some fiendish plan in their war-torn or war-ruined countries of origin to somehow get all the way to England with the sole intent to rob, rape, drug deal and spread bigotry?
I ask you to consider too, whether English youths - who are not all gentlemen themselves and so many of whose lives have been already blighted by vicious austerity - often leading into a life of drug-taking as a result - would bother learn a foreign language even if only to seek employment and escape the bleakness of their lives in England. And if they were put in some refugee camp for illegals near the border of a more stable country with better employment opportunities, what would they do - and how would they behave - without work, any prospects of life fulfilment - or even a room of their own in an actual house? This is not just a hypothetical question by the way - even though Britain is not a war-ruined country.
But these questions are all purely preliminary.
What I see as important are historical and political background to the question of WHY so many refugees, illegals or whatever you want to call them are here in Europe in the first place. I will not need to remind socialist comrades of the Zionist-backed wars of aggression deliberately planned and launched against so many nations such as Iraq and Libya which previously had stable and essentially secular social nationalist governments - Syria, as we all know being the last in line. I do not need to remind you also of the 4 MILLION or more Muslim deaths caused by the so-called ‘War on Terror’ (the real ‘Holocaust’) or the resulting sectarian civil wars and rise of Islamic extremism - not to mention the millions of refugees from Palestine and Iraq which countries in the Middle East like Jordan are struggling to contain with little help from the West. The msm are principally responsible for under-reporting the many hundreds of Iraqis who have died every month from terrorist bombings by ISIS and other anti-Shia groups every single year since the U.S. ceased its own terrorist bombing - and compared with which the number of victims of of terror attacks in Britain, Europe is almost negligible. I will not need to remind you also of the role of the US-Zionist-Saudi axis in not just laying the groundwork for but actively funding ISIS - just as they did Al Qaida (again to pursue regime change in what was then a stable country under Soviet protection - and thus to bring down the USSR). Now US ground troops are actively killing civilians and children in Yemen too - Saudi bombs having failed to kill enough Shia rebels. And of course Iran - a country with no history of aggression or terrorism - will be the next target of US-Zionist aggression, threatening a war which Americans will be able to view in comfort on their TVs while Europeans bear its possible nuclear brunt.
4. If the SWPE is indeed not brown on the outside and red on the inside - but, as it claims, red through and through - should not these global realities count in its analysis of the refugee problem? Should not America and Israel - rather than fear of the possible criminality of their largely helpless and pathetic victims - be made to pay for their actual and massive war crimes? Is it not political and moral cowardice to primarily target some close-at-hand victims of the US-Zionist-Saudi criminals - even if some of these victims do present some dangers - rather than attacking the criminals themselves, who are happy to turn Europe into a dumping ground for victims of their crimes and in this way weaken Europe further. Should not Europe should ask America and Israel to make reparations for its war crimes and pay the bills for refugee problems? But of course Europe is now just a colony of the US and the bankers from which National Socialism freed Germany. Today of course, even Germany is still a country under US occupation - and still enslaved by a 1949 treaty that allows America to keep all German gold, spy on its government, control its press and force it to publish CIA propaganda. Only one person predicted Europe would become such a weak and disunited colony of the US empire if Germany was defeated in WW2. Adolf Hitler. But where is any socialist critique of America’s ‘invasion of Europe’ - the photo subtitle of your report?
5. I would like to remind the SWPE that socialism and social nationalism has a venerable history not just in Europe but also and particularly in the Arab world. Indeed the only party actually calling itself Social Nationalist is itself Syrian - the Syrian Social Nationalist Party - and even though its social nationalist ideology was founded by an Orthodox Christian - it is still the biggest legal opposition party in Syria itself. But I would hate to see the SWPE sink into something more like ‘Daily Mail Socialism’ than true red and Socialist Nationalism.
6. A final but central point in this whole context. Let us not forget history comrades!
I find it truly ironic that no one in any nationalist movement of the Left or Right has challenged the total historical amnesia of the MSM. That is because, viewed from a historical perspective, it is ironic to say the least, that the on-going squabbles between Britain and France on the Calais and Dunkirk refugee problem forget that the roots of this problem go back, not a few years or even a few decades - but right back to 1916. For it was then that it was precisely the British and French who - even prior to the disastrous Balfour Declaration - created a secret agreement (the Sykes-Picot plan) to carve up the Ottoman empire at the end of the war into puppet kingdoms and ‘nations’ - whose borders were drawn up by pencil without any knowledge of the language, religion, history and demography of the people in them. This was the start of the entire tragic history of the Middle East - a story for which millions have paid for with their homes, lives and those of their families, and in a way that makes English fears of illegal immigration - however valid - pale by comparison.
“Ottoman provinces became Arab kingdoms, while Christian and Jewish enclaves were carved out in Lebanon and Palestine. Syria, Libya, and Palestine were given names resurrected from Roman antiquity. Libya re-appeared in 1934, when the Italians combined Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. The French mandate marked the first time “Syria” had been used as the name of a state, whereas “Palestine” was merely a Syrian appendage. Iraq had been a medieval province of the caliphate, whereas “Lebanon” referred to a mountain and “Jordan” to a river. The new Arabic-speaking states adopted derivations of the flag of the Arab Revolt, which had been wholly designed by British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes. The four colors of the Arab flag—black, white, green, and red—represented the standards of different Arab dynasties: Abbasid, Umayyad, Fatimid, and Hashemite. They remain the colors of half of today’s Arab flags. Neither the names nor the symbols of the new states had any connection to their inhabitants.The early post-World War I settlement was extremely unstable. Coups were common, kingdoms were overthrown, and the French and British exercised a strong influence over local affairs. By the 1960s, Arab republics outnumbered Arab monarchies. Arab attempts to undo the partition of the region culminated in the merger of several states, such as Syria with Egypt and Iraq with Jordan, which itself annexed those parts of mandatory Palestine that were not ruled by Israel. The effort was short-lived. Repeated failures to excise the Zionist state from the Middle East marked the end of the endeavour.” from http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-middle-east/
And as we know, all this occurred even before the mercilessly planned and executed destruction of independent Arab Republics that followed 9/11.
Summary:
Respected comrades: is it not the task of socialists to educate people in the contradictions of capitalism and how these find expression globally and historically - rather than focussing on the present-day local symptoms of these contradiction?
For example in considering the present-day refugee situation in France (including Paris and Dunkirk as well as Calais) and the problems it now presents for England, should socialists not also point out that it was the 1916 Anglo-French Sykes-Picot accord that marked the very beginning of the whole tragic story of the Middle East - one which has now ended up posing a problem also for the very countries that started it - France and England in particular?
Admitting thieves, rapists, drug dealers, sexists, racial supremacists, religious bigots, terrorists, carriers of disease etc into our land is NOT beneficial to the people.
Who can disagree? But whose responsibility is it that they want to get into our land? Are you implying that the miscreants you wish to keep out of England are worse than the WW1 Anglo-French colonialists - and the later US-Zionist warmongers in the Middle East, i.e. those that drove them so close to our shores in the first place and the name of a so-called ‘War on Terror’ - in actuality, and to repeat, a REAL but unreported ‘Holocaust’ resulting in at least 4 MILLION unreported Muslim deaths (for whom of course there are no PC memorials in Western cities)? This all goes to show also is nothing in the least bit ‘liberal’ about the real face of global capitalism!
“Ottoman provinces became Arab kingdoms, while Christian and Jewish enclaves were carved out in Lebanon and Palestine. Syria, Libya, and Palestine were given names resurrected from Roman antiquity. Libya re-appeared in 1934, when the Italians combined Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. The French mandate marked the first time “Syria” had been used as the name of a state, whereas “Palestine” was merely a Syrian appendage. Iraq had been a medieval province of the caliphate, whereas “Lebanon” referred to a mountain and “Jordan” to a river. The new Arabic-speaking states adopted derivations of the flag of the Arab Revolt, which had been wholly designed by British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes. The four colors of the Arab flag—black, white, green, and red—represented the standards of different Arab dynasties: Abbasid, Umayyad, Fatimid, and Hashemite. They remain the colors of half of today’s Arab flags. Neither the names nor the symbols of the new states had any connection to their inhabitants.The early post-World War I settlement was extremely unstable. Coups were common, kingdoms were overthrown, and the French and British exercised a strong influence over local affairs. By the 1960s, Arab republics outnumbered Arab monarchies. Arab attempts to undo the partition of the region culminated in the merger of several states, such as Syria with Egypt and Iraq with Jordan, which itself annexed those parts of mandatory Palestine that were not ruled by Israel. The effort was short-lived. Repeated failures to excise the Zionist state from the Middle East marked the end of the endeavour.” from http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-middle-east/
And as we know, all this occurred even before the mercilessly planned and executed destruction of independent Arab Republics that followed 9/11.
Summary:
Respected comrades: is it not the task of socialists to educate people in the contradictions of capitalism and how these find expression globally and historically - rather than focussing on the present-day local symptoms of these contradiction?
For example in considering the present-day refugee situation in France (including Paris and Dunkirk as well as Calais) and the problems it now presents for England, should socialists not also point out that it was the 1916 Anglo-French Sykes-Picot accord that marked the very beginning of the whole tragic story of the Middle East - one which has now ended up posing a problem also for the very countries that started it - France and England in particular?
Admitting thieves, rapists, drug dealers, sexists, racial supremacists, religious bigots, terrorists, carriers of disease etc into our land is NOT beneficial to the people.
Who can disagree? But whose responsibility is it that they want to get into our land? Are you implying that the miscreants you wish to keep out of England are worse than the WW1 Anglo-French colonialists - and the later US-Zionist warmongers in the Middle East, i.e. those that drove them so close to our shores in the first place and the name of a so-called ‘War on Terror’ - in actuality, and to repeat, a REAL but unreported ‘Holocaust’ resulting in at least 4 MILLION unreported Muslim deaths (for whom of course there are no PC memorials in Western cities)? This all goes to show also is nothing in the least bit ‘liberal’ about the real face of global capitalism!
No comments:
Post a Comment