The forces who have led this McCarthyite attack on China over the past years are directly tied to the deep state structures that controlled the Obama presidency.
American policy makers continue their delusional bid to control the world exhibiting a scale of denial that would make Hitler’s belief in Germany’s possible victory during his final days in the bunker appear to be totally reasonable.
The most recent foray into delusion includes the recent executive order passed by the White House putting an effective ban on Huawei’s entry into the USA and slashing of American business relations with the telecommunications giant. The executive order declares a state of emergency due to the “unacceptible risk posed to american interests” by the fact that China’s intelligence agencies apparently control Huawei and are at the heart of cyber-espionage and sabotage of America’s greatness.
The 5 Eyes/Deep State Attack on China
The forces who have led this McCarthyite attack on China over the past years are directly tied to the deep state structures that controlled the Obama presidency and began this attack on the potential cooperative platform of USA-China scientific partnership in earnest with the 2011 banning of China’s involvement with NASA. This act, which led to China’s elimination from the International Space Station (ISS) forced an incredible leap to technological self-sufficiency when China created its own space station (Heavenly Palace) and ambitious Chang-e space program that has quickly made it a world leader in space tech. By 2024, as the ageing ISS is retired, China will be the only country with a functional space station which has already caused western nations to come crawling on their knees begging to join. Not having learned their lesson, America’s deep state has continued down this path.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations (London’s Round Table Movement in America), FBI director Christopher Wray championed the ban on Huawei last month saying“no country poses a broader, more severe intelligence-collection threat than China. They’re doing it through Chinese intelligence services, through state owned enterprises, through ostensibly private companies, through graduate students and researchers, through a variety of actors all working on behalf of China.” Wray’s attack echoed those of former FBI counter-intelligence director Bill Priestap in December 2018 who said to the Congress that “China is the most sever counter-intelligence threat facing the United States today. Every rock we turn over, every time we look for it, its not only there, it’s worse than we anticipated”. Priestap has been directly tied to the anti-Trump Russia-Gate attack launched by the Five Eyes and Mueller for years.
China’s Response
Huawei responded to this self-destructive turn of events by citing the fact that one third of the company’s suppliers are American which will do grave damage to the USA itself. Their statement said“It will do significant harm to the American companies with which Huawei does business, affect tens of thousands of American jobs and disrupt the current collaboration and mutual trust that exist on the global supply chain.” The statement continued to point out that America will now force the USA to fall behind in the transition to 5G which Huawei is the undisputed world leader and will subject their population to “inferior and more expensive technology”.
Getting more to the geopolitical heart of the ban, Huawei Chairman Guo Ping speaking at a World Mobile Conference in Barcelona in February titled his speech“PRISM PRISM on the wall, who is the most trust worthy of them all? If you don’t understand that go ask Edward Snowden”.
In a recent article Guo Ping wrote “The Snowden leaks shone a light on how the NSA’s leaders were seeking to collect it all — every electronic communication sent, or phone call made, by everyone in the world, every day. Those documents also showed that the NSA maintains “corporate partnerships” with particular US technology and telecom companies that allow the agency to gain access to high-capacity international fibre-optic cables, switches, and/or routers throughout the world. Huawei operates in more than 170 countries and earns half of its revenue abroad, but its headquarters are in China. This significantly reduces the odds of a “corporate partnership… This is one reason why the NSA hacked into Huawei’s servers. Many of our targets communicate over Huawei-produced products,’ a 2010 NSA document states. `We want to make sure that we know how to exploit these products. Clearly, the more Huawei gear is installed in the world’s telecommunications networks, the harder it becomes for the NSA to collect it all. Huawei, in other words, hampers US efforts to spy on whomever it wants. This is the first reason for the campaign against us.”
True American Nationalists call for Cooperation with China
Gov. Bevin and Trump (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)PIN IT
The fact that so many of the forces promoting this anti-China campaign are tied to the same deep state network that has diligently aimed at overthrowing President Trump should cause analysts to pause before casting full judgement on the entirety of the United States at this moment in history. It is an irony that cannot be ignored that many forces representing a nationalist renewal in America, including President Trump himself, have broken from the anti-China/anti-Russia line at various moments calling for greater cooperation and mutual development. Embodying this saner America is Trump-ally Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky who just hosted the 5th annual US-China governors Collaboration Summit where he said“we are in a pivotal juncture in US China relations, and this gathering will provide a platform for progress, cultural understanding and development of mutually beneficial trade relationships.”
It is important to hold in our mind’s eye this important battle within America itself, as we navigate through chaos caused by the unipolar doctrine of “global governance” clashing with the multi-polar model of “win-win cooperation” expressed by China, Russia and a growing array of allies. The unipolar doctrine has been driven for decades by a policy of “nation-state stripping” of the once full-spectrum economies of the west under a logic of monetarism and globalisation. The destruction of bank regulation, and neo-liberal economic reforms manifested in the greatest loss of real productivity possible in a short space of 50 years. Meanwhile the consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of a trans national oligarchy was facilitated by inducing nations to fall into cages known as NAFTA, the European Union and WTO throughout the 1990s giving private corporations greater legal powers than sovereign nation states. All that has been left to the generations facing the consequence of these short-sighted policy decisions is a society dominated by drug epidemics, infrastructure deficits, joblessness and a mountain of un-payable debts sustaining a $700 trillion dollar derivatives bubble waiting to explode. The technocrats attempting to manage this mess from above are very aware of the impending meltdown of the system and China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the alternative financial system now emerging alongside it was never part of their plans.
A Potential Return to Full Spectrum Economies
The current ban on China’s technology may in fact be beneficialto the necessary renewal of the world economy as nations of the west adopt a pro-industrial growth policy for the first time in half a century, bringing their economies into harmony with the multi-polar long term growth agendas of the new China-led paradigm. It is no secret that China’s 2025 plans for full technology self-sufficiency will only benefit by this ban in the same way that their leadership as space pioneers was enabled by the 2011 ban under Obama.
If President Trump is serious about rebuilding the lost agro-industrial capacities across America which have been lost to years of outsourcing, then perhaps this turbulence may turn out to be a good thing as it forces a self-sufficiency on all participants. If full spectrum economies (ie: nations that produce their own vital needs) can be created where years of WTO cash cropping have left desolation, then the trade and economic partnerships of nations under that a global multipolar system may be possible. Such a system operating under the rules of the Belt and Road Initiative would be based upon high tech finished goods, new technologies and a convergence towards parity of quality of life and labor amongst all participants. Thus the end of the long dark era of cheap slave labor which globalisation has only exasperated may come to an end.
The only question remains: Does President Trump have what it takes to navigate through that storm?
BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is an author with The Duran, Strategic Culture Foundation, Fort Russ. His works have been published in Zero Hedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Global Times, Asia Times, L.A. Review of Books, and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com
Die Europäische Union, auf kurze und auf lange Sicht
von Thierry Meyssan
Die Bürger der Europäischen Union, die ihr Parlament am 25. und 26. Mai wählen werden, bereiten sich vor, die falsche Wahl zu treffen. Mit Blick auf ihre unmittelbaren Probleme zögern sie zwischen verschiedenen Prioritäten. Wenn sie stattdessen ihre Geschichte über einen langen Zeitraum analysierten, würden sie den Ursprung ihrer sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Probleme erkennen und zweifellos anders darüber entscheiden.
Am Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges im Jahre 1947 entwarf Botschafter George Kennan die Politik der Eindämmung (Containment) [1] und Präsident Harry Truman baute die Organe der Staatssicherheit auf (die CIA, ständiger gemeinsamer Ausschusses des Stabchefs und den Nationalen Sicherheitsrat) [2].
Washington und London wandten sich dann gegen Moskau, ihren Verbündeten von gestern. Sie fassten die Schaffung einer gemeinsamen angelsächsischen Nationalität ins Auge, und beschlossen, Westeuropa auf ihre Fahne zu setzen, durch die Schaffung der "Vereinigten Staaten von Europa" unter ihrer Kontrolle.
Es handelte sich für sie darum, den Teil von Westeuropa, den sie besetzten, gegenüber dem von den Sowjets besetzten Osteuropa zu stabilisieren. Sie genossen die Unterstützung der Bourgeoisien, insbesondere jener, die mit der Nazi-Achse kollaboriert hatten, weil sie durch die neue Legitimität der kommunistischen Parteien, den hauptsächlichen siegreichen Kräften an Seiten der Sowjetunion, den Kopf verloren.
Sie stützten sich auf den Traum eines französischen Offiziers, Louis Loucheur: die Vereinigung der Verwaltung von Kohle und Stahl, die für die deutschen und französischen Waffen-Industrien nötig war, damit sie nicht mehr gegeneinander Krieg führen könnten [3]. Es war die EGKS (Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl), Vorfahre der Europäischen Union.
Im Zusammenhang mit dem Krieg zwischen den beiden koreanischen Staaten beschloss Washington, West-Deutschland gegenüber Ost-Deutschland wieder zu bewaffnen. Damit die entstehenden Vereinigten Staaten von Europa eine gemeinsame Armee verwalteten, aber nicht wagten, sie in eine unabhängige Streitkraft umzuwandeln und damit sie im angelsächsischen Griff verblieb, wurde die Westeuropäische Union (WEU) geschaffen. Sie war für die Außenpolitik und die gemeinsame Verteidigung verantwortlich.
Die Beziehungen zwischen London und Washington verschlechterten sich während der Suez-Krise 1956. Die Vereinigten Staaten, die stolz darauf waren, zu den Befreiern des nationalsozialistischen Jochs zu zählen, konnten die Art und Weise nicht akzeptieren, in der London sein ehemaliges Kolonialreich verwaltete. Sie rückten Moskau näher, um das Vereinigte Königreich zu sanktionieren.
Es war nicht mehr die Rede von der Schaffung einer gemeinsamen angelsächsischen Staatsangehörigkeit und der Einfluss von London in der Welt glitt unaufhaltsam in die Arme von Washington. Das Vereinigte Königreich entschied sich daher, den sich bildenden Vereinigten Staaten von Europa beizutreten.
Charles De Gaulle lehnte das ab. Es war ja absehbar, dass die Versöhnung zwischen London und Washington auf Kosten jeglicher politischen Macht der sich bildenden Vereinigten Staaten von Europa gehen würde und sie in eine transatlantische Freihandelszone einbeziehen würde. Westeuropa würde entmannt sein und ein Vasall von Washington gegen "die Russen" werden. [4].
Da de Gaulle nicht ewig an der Macht blieb, trat das Vereinigte Königreich schließlich diesen anti-russischen Vereinigten Staaten von Europa im Jahr 1973 bei. Es verwandelte, wie erwartet, die Europäische Gemeinschaft in eine Freihandelszone, durch die Einheitliche Europäische Akte, und ebnete den Weg für die transatlantischen Verhandlungen.
Es ist die Zeit der "vier Freiheiten" (in Anlehnung an die Rede von Roosevelt von 1941): der freie Verkehr von Waren, von Dienstleistungen, Personen und dem Kapital. Die internen Zölle werden nach und nach aufgehoben. Unmerklich setzten die Angelsachsen ihr Modell der Multi-Kulti-Gesellschaft durch, die man mit der europäischen Kultur für unvereinbar hielt.
Erst als die Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 aufgelöst wurde, ging das Projekt des Jahres 1947 dann in Erfüllung. Washington beschloss, die Brüsseler Organisation in eine supranationale Struktur zu verwandeln und die Nationen des Warschauer Paktes in sie aufzunehmen. Das bedeutete, diese anti-russische „Europäische Union“ unter den Schutz der NATO zu stellen und ihr jegliche politische Rolle zu verbieten.
Es ist der US-Außenminister James Baker und nicht die Europäer, der die Öffnung zum Osten und den Vertrag von Maastricht bekannt gab. Die Struktur von Brüssel verwandelte sich: die 15 Nationen des westlichen Nachkriegs-Blocks erweiterten sich um die 13 Nationen des ehemaligen Warschauer Paktes, die WEU wurde aufgelöst und eine hohe Vertreterin für die gemeinsame Außen-und Sicherheitspolitik und die gemeinsame Verteidigung wurde ernannt - immer unter angelsächsischer Kontrolle und durch den Vertrag von Maastricht verriegelt -, und dann wurde eine europäische Staatsangehörigkeit geschaffen.
Washington plante dann, London dem NAFTA Bündnis (North American Free Trade Agreement) einzuverleiben [5] und, dass gemäß der Planung des Jahres 1947 eine angelsächsische Staatsangehörigkeit geschaffen werde. Es ist dieses Projekt, das das Vereinigte Königreich dazu gebracht hat, aus der Europäischen Union auszutreten und welches Theresa May jenseits des Atlantiks, in den verstörten Vereinigten Staaten, die gerade Donald Trump gewählt hatten, vergeblich zu verteidigen versuchte.
Der Brexit, falls er stattfinden sollte, würde nichts an der Abhängigkeit der Union ändern, die durch die Verträge in Marmor gemeißelt waren. Die Dinge würden einfach wieder so werden, wie sie in 1947 geplant waren, als Churchill Vereinigte Staaten von Europa ohne das Vereinigte Königreich befürwortete [6].
Die Bilanz
Die Geschichte der Europäischen Union zeigt, dass diese Organisation nie im Interesse der Völker Europas entwickelt wurde, sondern gegen Russland.
Das ist der Grund, warum Wladimir Putin im Jahr 2007 in die Europäische Union kam, um seine durchschlagende Rede in München zu halten [7]. Er erinnerte die Europäer daran, dass ihr wirtschaftliches und politisches Interesse sowie ihre ethischen Anforderungen mit Moskau übereinstimmten und nicht mit Washington. Alle hörten ihm zu, aber niemand nahm seine Unabhängigkeit wahr.
Es gelang der Europäischen Union während Jahrzehnten, den wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand zu sichern, aber nicht nach der Auflösung der UdSSR. Die EU ist jetzt im Rückstand: seit 2009 (d.h. nach der globalen Finanzkrise von 2008) haben die Vereinigten Staaten ein Wachstum von + 34% erzielt, Indien: + 96%, China: + 139%, während die Europäische Union um 2% gesunken ist.
Die Europäische Union hat es jedoch nie geschafft, den Armen zu helfen um sich zu befreien. Sie kann bestenfalls planen, Hilfsmittel zu geben, damit die Bedürftigen nicht an Hunger sterben.
Schließlich hat die Europäische Union vor allem nie für den Frieden gekämpft, sondern nur für ihre angelsächsische Herrschaft. Sie hat alle US-Kriege unterstützt [8], selbst den Krieg gegen den Irak, den Frankreich und Bundeskanzler Schröder ja angeprangert haben. Sie überlässt feige ihre Mitglieder ihrem Schicksal: ihr eigenes Territorium, im Nordosten von Zypern, wird durch die türkische Armee, Mitglied der NATO, besetzt, ohne je den geringsten Protest geäußert zu haben.
Die Zukunft
Am 25. und 26. Mai wird die antirussische Europäische Union ihr Parlament wählen, ohne dass man weiß, wie lange die Briten ihren Sitz dort haben werden.
Die Völker brauchen viel Zeit um zu reagieren: Wenn es während des Kalten Krieges noch legitim war, ein bestimmtes Lager einem anderen vorzuziehen, und für manche, eher den Angelsachsen zu dienen, als einem Georgier [9], ist es heute absurd, ihnen weiterhin zu gehorchen, um sich vor einer nicht vorhandenen "russischen Gefahr" zu schützen.
Nach einem Dreivierteljahrhundert des Vasallentums zögern die gegen die europäischen Verträge eingestellten politischen Parteien, ihre Prioritäten festzulegen: sollen sie zunächst ihre Unabhängigkeit von den Angelsachsen einholen, oder ihre Kultur gegen die der Araber und Türken verteidigen? Nun, das zweite Problem hat seinen Ursprung im Ersten und nicht umgekehrt.
Es ist hier nicht die Rede von einer Pseudo-Überlegenheit einer Kultur über eine andere, noch von Religion, sondern es geht darum, die Unmöglichkeit festzustellen, dass zwei verschiedene soziale Ordnungen nicht nebeneinander in der gleichen Gesellschaft koexistieren können. Einfacher ausgedrückt, man kann nicht Sonntag und Freitag zugleich feiern.
Es ist ihrer Abhängigkeit geschuldet, dass die Europäer sich eine Multi-Kulti-Gesellschaft ausgedacht haben. Sie funktioniert nicht bei ihnen. Und nur unabhängig wird es ihnen gelingen, ihre europäische Kultur zu retten.
Inside the Yellow Vests: What the Western media will not report (Part 2)
by Ollie Richardson for The Saker Blog
Background
When the words “Yellow Vests”/“Yellow Jackets”/“Gilets Jaunes” are heard or read by someone who is more inclined to read sources of information that cannot be described as mainstream/corporate media, they most likely will say “Ah yes, I know who they are/what it is!” and recount what they heard or saw in the past when this topic was popular… for about a month. Or more specifically, during November-December 2018 when images such as the one below (a still from this video) were being widely disseminated.
Then the Venezuela coup attempt, or Brexit, or Assange, etc retakes centre stage and what is happening in France fades into the background. What I am describing is simply the nature of the “news” cycle, and not a pretention to its consumers.
Hence why in March 2019 I wrote an article (part 1) based on my own primary research that aimed to convey the most important events in the history of the Yellow Vests movement. Whilst the information presented in this article is far from being comprehensive, it is also unproductive to report as isolated events every single perceived drama that happens both on the ground and on social networks. For analytical purposes, it is much more efficient – in an era where Twitter dictates the speed and pattern of the flow of information – to concatenate information and to zoom out enough in order to capture enough context without entering the realm of ultra-metaphysical babble.
But of course, over 2 months has passed since this article was published, and the situation has traversed along many twists and turns since. But if the main aim of the movement is to remove the neoliberal butcher Macron and dismantle party politics in general, then the destination is still somewhere beyond the horizon. Instead of writing another chronology of events and focusing on visual cues, such as police violence and photos of large processions, in this article I will simply write ten conclusions featuring examples that can be made based on 28 (at the time of writing) straight Saturday’s of mobilisation. I should stress that they are in no particular order.
1. The Yellow Vests are a catalyst for change, but do not embody some end product.
The French political scientist Samuel Hayat stated in an interview with Mediapart – one of the few independent media resources in France that supports the Yellow Vests – the following (translation is my own):
“I do not think that this movement upsets the political field, even though the will of the Yellow Vests to get out of the partisan field is strong. Although the disrepute of politicians will only increase, the latter seems determined to continue to act as if everything could continue as before.
On the other hand, I think that this mobilisation will profoundly change the space of the social movements by allowing people, previously excluded, to enter it. Many Yellow Vests who did not participate until now have adopted the habit of demonstrating. I think they will not leave and that putting on once or putting on again a yellow vest will give them legitimacy in order to join this space of social movements.
There is no reason, in my opinion, for the movement to stop. The Yellow Vests have withstood so much slander, disrepute, repression, manoeuvres like the ‘grand debate’ that I do not see how the school holidays could stop it. One can imagine a base of mobilisations of low intensity, at the local and national level, with a regular rise in conflicts and grafts on more sectoral or partisan movements. In my opinion, not only will the Yellow Vests continue to fight, but they have created the conditions for the power of social movements of all kinds to increasingly rise in the coming years.”
In other words, the Yellow Vests movement is not the “be all and end all”, but a catalyst for other processes. Think of it like a battering ram against the fortress of pseudo-democracy – it creates breaches that in theory can be made even wider by additional forces. But the big mistake here is to think that this means that all the forces work harmoniously towards a sole objective or aim. This is not the case, and more on this topic can be read later.
2. Serious work on implementing “RIC” is ongoing in the background.
Whilst the cameras focus on the street marches and the clashes with the police, serious effort (mostly in the form of conferences – here is an example) is being made to implement a replacement for party politics – the main demand of the Yellow Vests. It is known in French as “Référendum d’initiative citoyenne”, which translates as Citizens’ Initiative Referendum.
What is it? In simple words, it is direct democracy Swiss-style. The booklet photograph below sent to me by an acquaintance aids understanding of what this means. It can either take the form of the top left example (“direct democracy”), the top right example (“representative democracy”), or the bottom example, which is a hybrid of the former two (“liquid democracy”).
An interesting democratic innovation currently in experimentation in some countries of the world such as Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and Brazil … mainly implemented within the pirate parties of these countries.
The point here is that no concrete form has been decided on, since matters are still at the experimental stage. The infographic below, created by the “Objectif RIC” organisation (which is 100% citizen activism), divides the process of implementation into 3 stages: inform, assemble, vote.
In truth, citizen work on implementing “RIC” has been taking place for over 40 years in France. No government ever adopted it, since sawing the branch on which one sits isn’t convenient, but the demand for it grows more and more with each passing year (and governmental scandal). For my intents and purposes, the infographic below can be summarised in only one phrase: grassroots activism. It cannot be sprinkled on Élysée Palace like magic power, but the seeds can be planted locally and carefully fed/watered. Will fruits grow overnight? No. Do the Yellow Vests themselves understand this? Gradually, yes.
In this article I don’t intend to develop on the topic of “RIC” and write in detail about it, but I think that the video below can give laypersons a general (digestible) idea as to why it’s in demand.
3. Concerning the Saturday marches, things have cardinally changed.
As I alluded to earlier, the yellow processions in the streets are not the alpha and omega of what is happening in France. They are an element, certainly, but nothing more (and nothing less either). Here it is possible to enter into deep analysis of the process of organising protests, focusing on individuals, and even dissect video footage of the marches. But, as I said above, this is not especially constructive and ultimately will not teach anyone living outside of France anything that they can apply in their own country – after all, neoliberalistic globalism took root in all English-speaking countries.
What can be said however is that ever since Macron banned protests on the Champs-Élysées in Paris after the March 16th rampage (violators will receive a €135 fine, which becomes €375 if it’s not paid within 45 days), replaced the head of the Paris prefecture, and ordered local mayors to create certain zones in town and city centres across the country in which Yellow Vests protests are banned; ever since the Constitutional Court adopted the so-called “anti-casseur” law at the order of Macron (the police can stop and search anyone without having a formal reason to do so – something I’ve experienced enough times to now be fed up of it); ever since the police started to deliberately mutilate people for the purpose of psychological warfare, the demonstrations became seriously throttled. The initial tactic that in fact launched the Yellow Vests protests on November 17th 2018 was to just turn up at the Arc de’Triomphe without a sanction from the prefecture. But this was BEFORE the aforementioned law was passed, and BEFORE the Champs-Élysées ban (the metro stations on the avenue are now closed on Saturdays).
This new gear engaged by the flywheel of Macronian repression resulted in the Yellow Vests adapting a new tactic (it’s important to note that no sole “leader” organises demonstrations, but a group of “leaders” – yes): sanctioned protests, with the route approved by the prefecture. This tactic change is a double-edged sword, since the more radical anti-Macron protestors consider that a column encircled by the police from the start to the end of the route, with a dispersal time of 5:30pm, is not exactly something that makes the government poop its pants. But on the other hand, it allows a large group of people wearing yellow vests to assemble in a single place. The subsequent 4 Saturdays followed this scheme, with those who prefer more offensive actions (and who can only travel for financial/logistical reasons) preferring to either stay at home, due to the fear of being mutilated, or to protest locally. I personally participated in these “peaceful” protests and am glad that I did so, since I learnt a lot about the nuts and bolts of the movement as a result.
On April 20th another large non-sanctioned event (called “ultimatum”) was supposed to happen in Paris, and in hindsight I can say that it was start of an experiment (I stress: this is my opinion, the Yellow Vests did not officially declare an experiment or use this word in social media chatter). As I reported at the time, some Yellow Vests planned to all gather in one place (without a sanction) and to do something – probably to storm the Champs-Élysées, but we’ll never know what would have been decided since things went pear-shaped early. At the same time, other Yellow Vests planned to take part in a sanctioned march from Bercy to Place de la Republique. The plan to assemble without permission failed miserably since the police encircled the announced meeting place (and arrested and/or fined those who they could) and metro stations (even closing some stations), so plan B was to go to Bercy instead and take part in the sanctioned protest. As a result, and this was quite predictable, the sanctioned protest soon degenerated into a wild one, with the route to PdlR being invented on the fly and Black Bloc joining the column.
The lesson learnt on this day was that non-sanctioned protests of the kind seen at the start of the movement are now simply not possible. But the experiment needed additional evidence, since errors in this tactic were noted (having many pre-assembly meeting places, thus allowing the police to nip things in the bud before they’ve even begun; insisting on wearing a yellow vest) and an improved one would later be deployed.
On May 18th the prominent Yellow Vests who generally favour sanctioned marches and are less militant than other prominent faces received a wake up call that would ultimately result in them giving their consent to try another tactic: the police treated their sanctioned rally like a non-sanctioned one (watch the video – skim through it from 38:00 onwards. One of the signatories of the march shouts through the megaphone “What are you doing?! It’s a sanctioned demo!”, since he doesn’t understand why in the past they were more forgiving and kept their distance, but on this day they are hugging the column very tightly). I suspect that this happened because a certain “leader” announced just after the May 11th demonstration that the sanctioned and themed marches were useless and won’t propel the movement anymore, and thus the police thought that maybe the Yellow Vests had “bad” intentions. They were wrong on this occasion, because it would be May 25th – “ultimatum” No. 3 – when the Yellow Vests would try to exit the framework of being “peaceful”.
On this day a new and improved tactic was deployed – all Yellow Vests had to go to the Champs-Élysées but withoutwearing a yellow vest. Since I don’t want to describe everything that happened on that day (and how I walked 15 kilometers for what some may say was nothing) in this article, I will just say that the tactic failed. The police already knew what was planned (they monitor social networks) and sent dozens upon dozens of goons to the avenue. I know that it has become almost cliché to say, but I honestly felt I was in Nazi Germany at this time. The way in which the cops combed the avenue and chased anyone who shouted anti-Macron slogans was eerie, to say the least (my discreet photos are here, although I was cautious to not give the cops an excuse to fine me). Plan B on this day was to gather at Place de la Republique at 2pm for a sanctioned assembly. A repetition of April 20th then happened – watch the video below:
Thus, the method that has proven to be the most effective given the circumstances is to organise a sanctioned protest and then start a riot. Even if the approved assembly point(s) and route are boxed in by the cops from start to finish, the protestors at least have the chance to form a large crowd. I stumbled across this balanced/grounded Facebook comment (I censored the author’s name and profile picture) on May 26th that offers a window into the thinking of the average Yellow Vest after the end of this experiment:
“I understand … we are all unique and responsible individuals … and whatever happens we will be alone with the consequences of our choices … I also am nostalgic of the first demonstrations and their spontaneity … but I know today that they are no longer possible without paying a very high price … so I made the choice not to go to Paris this Saturday … because I knew what the risks were and I was personally not ready to run them … I have already lost a large part of my entourage, I assume, I receive complaints from my children who are starting to find the time to be long and our absence too frequent, I assume the fear of finding myself unjustly gassed, encircled, and potentially hurt for my ideas … but I was not ready to explain to my children that I have no more money because we will have incurred a €270 fine by participating in an unsanctioned demonstration, or not go home due to being detained on the day before the [EU] elections on which we base a small hope to show our anger. Obviously it is not right to have to risk all that in order to be able to express our opinions … but we are no longer in France of before… so I take my responsibilities and I adapt … So I went to [the sanctioned protest in] Amiens this Saturday … because the demo of [Sophie] Tissier [a fake Yellow Vest who always registers sanctioned protests in order to split the Yellow Vests up on Saturdays. I don’t know if she is a conscious saboteur or just an idiot, but her demos are a total waste of time – O.R ] – no thank you … now I do not blame anyone and remain an admirer of the courage of some and attempts made … and yes Amiens was not Paris and Paris missed me … I will come to the next sanctioned protest in Paris … and in the same way I will take onboard the reflections of those who think that this is not the solution … but everyone has to face their personal choices …”
For those laypersons who observe this experimental process from afar it seems like the movement is running out of steam (after all, the government takes great pleasure in disseminating its fake numbers for mobilisation and instructing its pocket media to repeat such mantras as “the numbers lessen”, “the movement is coming to a standstill”, etc), because there hasn’t been any large-scale rioting since March 16th. But this, indeed, only seems to be the case. When the movement is viewed from the perspective I described above (it’s not the alpha and omega), one can see that the movement does not “essoufflé” (run out of breath), but on the contrary, in the wider context of tightening police repression and intensifying media brainwashing (the worst example so far is when the government openly accused the Yellow Vests of attacking a hospital, before facts emerged an hour later proving this to be a total lie), the fact that the movement hasn’t surrendered and “dares” to continue acts as an additional thorn in the Macron regime’s side.
4. Exportation isn’t possible
The Yellow Vests protests didn’t just happen as a reaction to something that happened in November 2018, although the planned fuel tax was certainly what provoked the worst riots since 1968. France as a country of course has a history of “revolutions” and violent changes of power – alternating between a monarchy and a republic, so in this respect what is happening today is not much of a riddle, especially for historians like Samuel Hayat. But to throw yellow vests on British Brexiteers, for example, and to forecast a similar result would be most ridiculous.
Firstly, British people do not have the same mentality as French (both native and immigrants), and as we have seen, they prefer to use the ballot box (to vote for Nigel Farage’s “Brexit Party”) and remain “civilised”. Not to mention the fact that Margaret Thatcher strangled the protest movement and her noxious neoliberal successors hammered in additional nails. Secondly, Britain is still a regionally divided country, and what concerns Londoners might not necessarily matter to Yorkshire residents, not to mention the Welsh, Irish, or Scottish, and visa-versa. But at the same time, promoting the participative democracy model of decision-making wouldn’t count as exportation, since it’s not a French invention and has been implemented in different countries around the world. At the end of the day, France has its own contradictions, and in this regard the Yellow Vests are a manifestation of decisions made by its past rulers. An example of this was given above: previous governments’ lack of interest in implementing RIC. So, until this demand (which will grow exponentially) is met, whoever is President can also expect unrest if “reforms” and “austerity” are implemented.
An additional factor that also must be taken into account is the history of the Vichy regime founded in 1940. Again, it might seem cliché to cite a country’s Nazi-collaborator past, but it’s simply impossible to just pretend that it isn’t connected to today’s events. Hence why the Yellow Vests chant “Police nationale, milice du capital”, referencing Pétain’s henchmen and the role of the police today in protecting capitalists.
5. Talking about the influence of the CRIF lobby is difficult
In order to adequately understand the Yellow Vests movement, it is advisable to think of it as a slice of a many-layered cake. In the column that marches in sanctioned protests on Saturdays there are liberals of all shades who voted against Le Pen in 2017 (note: not for Macron) and like to think that they are morally superior because they wouldn’t say boo to a goose (LGBTists, environmentalists, pro-migrantists, unionists, Trotskyists, “Trente Glorieuses”-ists, feminists, etc), “anti-fascists” (they cooperate with the Yellow Vests but at the same time keep distance; they haven’t said anything about the Banderist regime in Kiev, and most likely can’t even point to Ukraine on a map, but believe that all governments are “fascist” and will thus attack the cops) blue collar workers (they do manual labour jobs and are typically more sincere than liberals; throwing a glass bottle at the cops is not an issue for them), immigrant youth (Sykes-Picot Arabs and Africans who do not conform to the field negro/house negro paradigm that capitalism imposes on them; they don’t tend to join a Black Bloc but prefer to mingle with the Yellow Vests), angry mothers (tough as nails and would demolish an unarmed cop in a fist fight; not to be confused with liberal feminists), militant pensioners (in difference to “Trente Glorieuses”-ists, they can often be seen defying the tear gas and even confronting the cops). But when the rioting begins, the liberals disappear and denounce “violence”, even though the state rapes them every single day (and bombs foreign countries using their tax money), and Black Bloc (youth who are a mixture of the more liberal protestors I described above, with a more “anarchist” tint) takes their place.
However, a public discussion about the main warmonger (for example) in France, the anti-Gilets Jaunes and pro-Israel lobby known as “Le Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France” (CRIF), is only possible with a narrow section of this slice (non liberals). There are of course Jews who are Yellow Vests, and they do publically counter the accusations that the movement is “anti-Semitic”. It is, however, possible to publically criticise the Bernard-Henri Lévy & Co war machine, since its track record in France has dirtied itself beyond the point where it can be whitewashed. There are also Yellow Vests who wave Palestinian flags at demonstrations and spread anti-apartheid materials.
CRIF’s campaign against the Yellow Vests led to Macron “adopting an international definition of anti-Semitism” that equates it to anti-Zionism. I.e., criticising Israel’s extermination of Palestinians suddenly became a criminal offence. The cherry on the cake: watch how the Alain Finkielkraut debacle led to this nauseating Macron-CRIF performance:
6. The police severely intimidated the “leaders” and impudently abuse their powers
Even if the Yellow Vests movement takes pride in “not having leaders” and having a “horizontal” structure, someone who for the first time observes the movement for a week will affirm the opposite – that it has leaders, and thus it is has vertical structure. They will see that in terms of the number of social media followers there are 4 main Yellow Vests who stand out but affirm that they are not leaders, and a group of 20 or so figures who play a supporting role. Some rarely take part in demonstrations but instead organise the RIC conferences and do all of the corresponding donkeywork – a kind of intelligentsia. One of the “leaders” in particular was summoned for questioning by the police after May 16th’s demo and was forced to moderate their rhetoric (warned not to call for non-sanctioned protests) or face prison. The same applies to another “leader”, who is still involved in a legal process concerning the “organisation of a non-sanctioned protest”. This has resulted in communication on social networks becoming encrypted – “I heard there was a protest on Saturday, I didn’t organise it, I’m just passing on the information”, like a game of cat and mouse.
Concerning the abuse of powers, no employee of “Compagnies républicaines de sécurité”, nor “Brigade anti-criminalité”, nor “mobile gendarmes” has been punished since the Yellow Vests movement began in November 2018. The
“Inspection générale de la Police nationale” (IGPN) has opened 240 (at the time of writing) cases, but there haven’t been any prosecutions. Not to mention the fact that Alexandre Benalla is still a free man. Below we see what the police think about any attempts to raise awareness about their crimes.
In fact, it was only on May 21st that one CRS officer was fired for an “unjustified grenade launch” in 2016 (pre-Macron era) that blinded a union protestor.
It is for this reason that the police don’t wear any identification numbers or markings and cover their faces with balaclavas. If the IGPN calls a Yellow Vest complainant and asks for information about an incident, what will they say? No ID markings, face was covered, no “police” armband, etc. I.e., any case is doomed before it’s even opened. Here is an interesting post from May 27th concerning the Champs-Élysées circus two days prior:
“Good evening everyone,
A friend street medic in Paris is in contact with the LDH to have framework and legal support during demonstrations.
She has to remain anonymous because of her profession, so I post this for her:
‘On Saturday, May 25th for ultimatum No. 3, we tried to reach Avenue Grande Armée. We were warned about the strategy of the police, namely to let the demonstrators pass through 1 or 2 checks before encircling and detaining them, confiscating their materials, and handing out fines for gathering at a forbidden place (or some other formulation that I do not exactly have in mind anymore).
Before going to the avenue, I contacted the legal representative of LDH to have legal advice on fines. Here is what I was told, so share to the greatest number of Yellow Vests or medics that are in this case:
– The fact of allowing access to the place of demonstration, even if it is prohibited, and to then stop everyone present and give them fines is called a misuse of procedure, the fines are questionable and do not hold water.
Be careful, you must have passed through a first barrage for this principle to hold true. Being allowed past means that you have been tacitly allowed to gather on the spot, and tacit consent has legal value.
The LDH is ready to help you to cancel the fines.
You can send your requests for help to the following email: juridique@ldh.france.org
Or to the hotline (note it is open only at certain times): 01 56 55 51 00 which will retransfer you to the hotline for legal assistance.
Courage to all’.”
7. Most of the Yellow Vests’ activist work takes place outside of demonstrations
As I mentioned in point No. 1, the Saturday processions are not the only thing that the Yellow Vests are doing in order to spread the word of the movement. One example: during the rest of the week (normally after work in the evenings) they occupy roundabouts and spaced next to main roads. Below is a photo of a small roundabout at Île d’Oléron:
And here is what the Yellow Vests did at a bigger roundabout at Phalsbourg:
And here is a makeshift village created at Vienne:
And the government’s response? Either demolish installations on the roundabout (photo from April 2nd at Mercurol)…
Set fire to the huts created by the Yellow Vests….
A second example of the Yellow Vests activism work is the fight against speed cameras:
A third example is the “péage” actions, where they promote the idea of free highways:
A fourth example is the occupation of premises belonging to multinational companies (in the video below the target is Starbucks) that avoid to pay tax in France:
And a fifth example is the creation of the debate platform “Le Vrai Debate” to counter Macron’s electoral campaign re-run known as the “grand debate”, which he launched after the May 16th Yellow Vests offensive on Paris as a damage control PR campaign. The work that has gone into this website, for example, is massive and attacks the problem from another angle.
8. The Yellow Vests are apolitical… or not?
Along with the mantra of “we have no leaders”, the Yellow Vests affirm that they are not interested in party politics. But just how realistic is this pledge? For example, although some Yellow Vests abstained from voting in the EU election (which is the equivalent of a vote for Macron) in order to remain apolitical, other did not abstain, and some even voted for Le Pen. Immediately after the news broke that Le Pen was leading the exit polls, cyber quarrels began between the Yellow Vests, with an example being the Facebook post below from the morning after the EU election:
“Big rant this morning!
I’m tired of seeing this big war on social networks.
At the foundations we fought for better living conditions, lower fuel price, lower taxes … the list is long …
All we get is DIVISION !!!!
Where are our true values!
We are all in the same shit.
So why the f*ck do we care about race, religion, apolitical or not, unionized or not!
The goal was to unite, not to suffer the moods of each other.
When will a true gathering and union come true?
Everyone has their own opinion.
I have the impression that everyone has forgotten why so many people were on the street on November 17th and that now it’s for personal reasons.
When will you put your anger aside and when will there be true fraternity ??????”
Here we can again refer to the quote of Samuel Hayat that was mentioned above:
“I do not think that this movement upsets the political field, even though the will of the Yellow Vests to get out of the partisan field is strong. Although the disrepute of politicians will only increase, the latter seems determined to continue to act as if everything could continue as before.”
Indeed, the fact that the Yellow Vests are a minority of French people (even if the polls say that the majority of the country supports them, these armchair supporters do not physically do anything to assist the cause) automatically rules out any ideas of removing Macron via the ballot box. Hence why changing the system via grassroots work with RIC is more preferable and realistic. In response to the question “Can this ‘citizenism’ (rejection of left/right politics) really organise politics?”, Samuel Hayat says the following:
“This ‘citizenism’ is the object of constant construction and reconstruction within the movement itself, through a series of devices that build unity. This is not only about unified claims, but also about local and national leaders who constantly offer reminders about the norm of unity. It is this constant work that gives the movement its unprecedented longevity and makes it particularly resilient and inclusive. Refusing any demand that is not unanimous imposes to not talk about immigration, unemployment, wages, and the public service, which are divisive topics.
This is also why the movement prevents itself from asking the question of domination, because domination would reveal the existence of crystallised and partly invisible powers that go through the movement itself, be it between small bosses and the precarious, between private employees and public employees, between unemployed people and people who work, between men and women, between whites and non-whites … The survival of the movement is thus conditioned by the fact that all of this remains hushed up.
This is not an aporia of the movement, since this does not prevent it from continuing and taking an increasingly important place in the space of social movements. But if one places oneself in the tradition of the left, which gives a central place to the questioning of dominations, it is a movement that can not completely belong to it.”
I.e., it’s not that the movement is “apolitical”, but more that an assembly of thousands of people in an atomised society can only be possible through a temporary consensus based on a primitive instincts. The danger is, of course, that if the aim is achieved and the party politics system is removed along with their multi-national company sponsors, there could be a “Lord of the Flies” scenario, since deep societal contradictions were never collectively identified and resolved.
9. The coup in Ukraine paradoxically serves as an example
Unfortunately, the propaganda broadcasted by the US neocons and their EU lapdogs concerning their coup d’etat in Kiev in 2014 serves as an example of a “revolution” for many Yellow Vests. They see footage on YouTube or Netflix (the propaganda movie “Winter on Fire” is the main culprit) of molotov cocktails being launched at “Berkut” or of brainwashed Ukrainians putting pots on their heads, or of politicians being thrown into bins, and they think that it actually led to a revolution. They think that clashes with the police will automatically lead to the government being overthrown and that a paradise will thus arrive. In fact, one of the “leaders” even changed their Twitter profile banner to reflect this “fact”. Well, clashes with the police haven’t led to anything of that nature, which is proof in itself that the Yellow Vests movement is not externally financed like Maidan was ($6 billion from the State Department + some cookies and snipers). But most Yellow Vests do not understand either this or the concept of a “colour revolution”. This is simply down to ignorance and is a consequence of years of brainwashing. Now they don’t trust the mainstream media – the same agencies that sold “Maidan” as a “revolution” – and prefer RT and Sputnik. A painful paradox, indeed.
A vivid example: on March 30th I witnessed (at the 2:20 mark in this video) someone literally replicating a Nuland NGO media trick – holding a mirror in front of the police. How so?
I know for a fact that he saw a Facebook post in a Yellow Vests group published just a few days prior showing the original stunt in Ukraine and recommending to copy it.
Even though there was only one idiot who decided to follow the advice, it is still one too many. What’s most tragic here is that what’s happening now in France is the boomerang effect of the government’s foreign meddling, and so evidently the French people have to experience the consequences on their own skin in order to learn from it. Does this entail civil war? This is a topic for another day. But educational work needs to be done anyway. Hence why Sputnik France recently put Donbass in the spotlight and published a kind of “dummies guide” to non-existent “Russian aggression” in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Of course, this work has to be gradual and systematic, since Russian media must first gain the trust of the French people before it can put pressure on sensitive points.
10. The most shocking contrast
Whilst the scenes of protesters clashing with the police are shocking, the most striking “clash”, or at least to my eyes, is between the Yellow Vests and the bourgeoisie stumbling down the streets like consumerist zombies, plugged into a rose-tinted matrix where Stockholm syndrome enforces this field negro/house negro paradigm I mentioned earlier (see the photo below, I don’t know who took it but it’s case in point)
On April 20th, whilst I was traveling to the other side of Paris, I saw and photographed a scene that epitomizes the problem. I have nothing more to add.
I will reiterate – the 10 conclusions I have written above are not the only 10 conclusions that should be drawn from nearly 7 months of Yellow Vests protests. They are just important observations. A definitive list of conclusions can easily fill the pages of a book, but as I mentioned earlier – referring to history and concatenating events that follow a certain pattern saves a lot of time and is simply more efficient, taking into account the speed of information consumption today. And it goes without saying that my conclusions may not correspond to other people’s, although I’d like to think that such wealth disparity and social stratification aren’t as “non-existent” as the presstitute media likes to pretend they are.
If anyone has any questions about anything written in this article or about the Yellow Vests movement in general, please ask them in the comments below and I will answer them to the best of my ability in a future article.
