Series – Gearóid Ó Colmáin Offical site of journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin. Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:20:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Zionism: Imperialism in the Age of Counter-Revolution Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:31:11 +0000 Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 11 of an 11 part series) During the 1920s General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Josef Stalin formulated what he considered to be the essential contribution of Lenin to Marxist political economy.Leninism, he wrote, is Marxism in the era of proletarian revolution. Since …

The post Zionism: Imperialism in the Age of Counter-Revolution appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


During the 1920s General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Josef Stalin formulated what he considered to be the essential contribution of Lenin to Marxist political economy.Leninism, he wrote, is Marxism in the era of proletarian revolution. Since 1989 proletarian and national liberation revolutions throughout the world have been overturned by a general, global counter-revolutionary upsurge. It is a a political phenomenon that has seen the onslaught of US colour revolutions, which seek to do away with the bourgeois nation-state itself, the last barrier to the total exploitation of the world by the global corporate and financial elite.

In this essay I have argued that the contemporary form of this counter-revolutionary ideology, of this imperial drive for global domination, is Zionism. One could therefore, echoing Stalin’s definition of Leninism, assert that Zionism is imperialism in the age of capitalist counter-revolution. In other words, Zionism is the very form of contemporary Western imperialism. However, unlike Russian and Chinese imperialism, Western imperialism or Zionism has both a religious and ethnic dimension. Zionism is a Messianic and racist ideology which is not based simply on secular, Jewish nationalism but has its roots in Talmudism.

Zionism, through its control of Western finance capitalism, is striving for global governance. Lenin, writing in 1915, described as ‘indisputable’ the fact that ‘development is proceeding towards monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards a single world trust’. But Lenin also pointed out that this drive towards unipolar global power would also intensify the contradictions in the global economy. A cogent example of this today is the low-intensity covert war currently being waged by the United States/Israel against Germany: The Western imperial alliance is turning on itself.

However, no people’s resistance to Zionism can be mounted if the empire continues to outsmart its opponents. The aforementioned General Barnett understands his enemies well. He used to teach Marxism in Harvard university and has written a book comparing the African policies of the German Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Romania. In his book Blueprint For Action, he points out that the father of Fourth Generation Warfare is Mao Zedong. Imperial grand strategy is now waging war using techniques developed during the Chinese revolution, one of the greatest anti-colonial struggles in history. The key for anti-imperialist resistance today, therefore, has to be to understand how to turn the tools of imperialism against imperialism.

Marxism is an indispensable tool for understanding capitalism, but is insufficient for a full comprehension of the complexities of imperial strategy and tactics in the information age. Barnett and many other US and Israeli military strategists are keen students of social psychology, and in particular General Boyd’s OODA Loop Theory. The OODA stands for observation, orientation, decision, action. According to Boyd, decision-making occurs in a recurring cycle of observe-orient-decide-act. An entity (whether an individual or an organisation) that can process this cycle quickly, observing and reacting to unfolding events more rapidly than an opponent, can thereby “get inside” the opponent’s decision cycle and gain the advantage.

One could see this psychology at work during the Arab Spring. The rigid ideological orientation of the average ‘leftist’ saw the uprisings in Tunisia as proof that people were rebelling against a US-backed dictator and his ‘neo-liberal’ regime. This interpretation was reinforced by strategically placed ‘critics’ of US-foreign policy in the news station of Zionism’s ancillary regime, Qatar, while the initial indifference of the Western press confirmed the interpretation of the Tunisian revolt as a genuine, grass roots uprising against US imperialism.

US and Israeli strategists were capable of doing this through their deep understanding of ‘leftist’ discourse. They also understood that the ‘anti-globalisation’ form of the protest movement would fool genuine critics of US imperialism, thereby impeding their ability to react to the US-orchestrated revolutions in a rational manner.

In the Arab Spring, inverted Marxian dialectics, Systems Theory, Psychology, Military Science and Utility Theory were waged against a feckless and discombobulated anti-war movement who would repeat the sound bites of ‘popular uprising’ and the ‘defeat of US imperialism in the Middle East’ implanted in their minds by one of the most impressive and successful US/Israeli geostrategic operations in modern history.

On the eve of NATO’s bombing of Libya, the BBC predictably called upon an old reliable ‘critic of US foreign-policy’ Noam Chomsky. The veteran American philosopher agreed that the West had a “duty” to “stop the massacres” in Libya thus ensuring there would be no moral outrage among the so-called “anti-war movement” to a NATO military intervention. The invitation of Noam Chomsky by the Zionist-controlled BBC illustrates the importance for British intelligence of ideologically disarming potential ‘leftist’ opponents in the run-up to meticulously planned wars of aggression, disguised as ‘humanitarian interventions’.

Chomsky stated that ‘there may come a time when it would make sense for the West to become involved… but the question is has that time come.’ No anti-imperialist would ever suggest that it could make sense for the West to intervene militarily in another country, under any circumstances.

Given Chomsky’s anarchist ideology — the very ideology instrumentalised by the CIA in colour revolutions — the BBC knew he would go along with their fake ‘popular uprising’ in Benghazi; thus providing justification to wage ‘humanitarian’ warfare in support of the ‘revolution’.

In 2013, a massive military destablisation of Brazil was undertaken by US NGOs, operating under the guidance of the CIA, in order to weaken the popularity of a government moving far too close to Russia and China in the eyes of Washington. Again, the CIA’s ‘Vinegar Revolution’ received full support from most ‘leftist’ quarters. Once again, military geostrategy had triumphed over anti-imperialist analysis.

The current refugee crisis proves that US/Israeli military geostrategy is running circles around its opponents who, instead of identifying the culprits who are using human beings as weapons, are unwittingly collaborating with Zionism’s plan to inundate Europe with migrants for the purposes of fomenting civil war in the European peninsula. It is a desperate effort to prevent Eurasian integration, a prospect inimical to what the Pentagon refers to as ‘full spectrum dominance’.

Those who have joined in the chorus of welcoming the refugees/migrants are unwitting participants in an extension of Zionism’s neo-colonial wars in Africa and the Middle East. They are also complicit in the endorsement and cover-up of a modern slave trade. Opposing imperialism requires study of the logic of its geostrategic operations. Imperialism’s deliberate flooding of Europe with a Wahhabised lumpen-proletariat from a war-torn Southern Hemisphere will not help the cause of labour, the cause of human freedom. Rather, it will contribute to preventing the unification of the European-peninsula with the Eurasian Heartland. It will also contribute towards the further colonisation and destruction of independent African and Middle Eastern nations such as Eritrea and Syria.

An example of Marxist Leninist parties’ inability to deal with imperialism’s weaponization of migrants comes from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist). Their argument in favour of immigration is sound under normal circumstances but they fail to address the problem of when immigration becomes a tool of imperialism, a specific geopolitical strategy aimed at destabilizing both the country of origin and the destination of the migrant.

The recent resolution of the CPGBML is worth reproducing here in full:

This party firmly believes that immigration is not the cause of the ills of the working class in Britain, which are solely the result of the failings of the capitalist system.

Immigration and asylum legislation and controls under capitalism have only one real goal: the division of the working class along racial lines, thus fatally weakening that class’s ability to organise itself and to wage a revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of imperialism.

These controls have the further effect of creating an army of ‘illegal’ immigrant workers, prey to super exploitation and living in dire conditions as an underclass, outside the system, afraid to organise and exercising a downward pull on the wages and conditions of all workers.

The scourge of racism, along with all other ills of capitalism, will only be finally abolished after the successful overthrow of imperialism. But since immigration can no more be abolished under capitalism than can wage slavery, our call should not be for the further control and scapegoating of immigrants, but the abolition of all border controls, as part of the wider fight to uproot racism from the working-class movement and build unity among workers in Britain, so strengthening the fight for communism.

The problem here is that no distinction is made between immigration into imperialist countries and immigration into semi-colonial type countries. For example, Syria has been forced to close its borders due to the passage of terrorists in the service of imperialism. In such circumstances, it would be ludicrous to condemn the Syrian government for erecting fences to protect its borders. Similarly, Hungary, a small country which has just taken modest steps towards escaping from the clutches of US imperialism under the control of the IMF, has decided to erect fences to protect its borders from what it perceives as an attempt by US imperialism to destablize the country. Under these conditions, such a decision is entirely justified. The CPGBML argues correctly that “the scourge of racism, along with all other ills of capitalism, will only be finally abolished after the successful overthrow of imperialism.” The erection of fences in Hungary is part of that fight against imperialism, when migrants are clearly being used as weapons of imperialist strategy against recalcitrant nation-states.

The fact that Zionism is using the refugee crisis to further its imperialist agenda does not mean, however, that all refugees in the world are being used for this purpose. Rather, just as in the Arab Spring where the social inequalities of capitalism were used by imperialism to further the cause of capitalism, many refugees coming from the Middle East and Africa are being used for the same purpose.

Throughout the world Homo sapiens is being supplanted by Homo economicus: a vacuous, brain-washed, rootless cosmopolitan, a deterritorialised and acculturated nomad, hopelessly blown hither and thither by the exigencies of capital. Meanwhile, Zionism continues to stoke up the incessant and utterly fraudulent War on Terror, with omnipresent mass surveillance of the “nations” (goyim) while at the same time Jews are being encouraged by the Israeli regime to leave Europe for settlement on Arab lands, ruined and depopulated by Zionism’s wars.

The ‘refugee crisis’ is indubitably one more step towards the creation of a Greater Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu recently told the Israeli National News that Israel must become a “world power”.

To politically correct pundits, Victor Orban’s fence might appear inhumane and xenophobic, but at this moment in history the concrete choice presented to us is between temporary fences designed to protect nations from imperialism, or Zionist walls built to imprison humanity.

This series was originally published on


]]> 1
President Vladimir Putin: An Enigma Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:15:24 +0000 Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 10 of an 11 Part Series) Winston Churchill once described the Soviet Union as a ‘puzzle wrapped inside an enigma’. The same could be said for Russian President Vladimir Putin today. From the intricate and sometimes unpredictable diplomatic maneuvers of his foreign policy to his contradictory and …

The post President Vladimir Putin: An Enigma appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


Winston Churchill once described the Soviet Union as a ‘puzzle wrapped inside an enigma’. The same could be said for Russian President Vladimir Putin today. From the intricate and sometimes unpredictable diplomatic maneuvers of his foreign policy to his contradictory and sometimes ambiguous pronouncements on the legacy of the USSR, enigmatic is perhaps one of the most apposite words to describe him. This enigma is particularly evident in his approach to the politics of the Middle East and Israel in particular.

A further complication in the notion of a contemporary Russian bourgeois state representing some form of ‘anti-imperialist’ resistance is the Kremlin’s Middle East policy. In spite of Russia’s support for the Syrian Arab Republic against Zionist-led aggression, Vladimir Putin has openly and repeatedly expressed his support for Israel.

This has led to conflicts with many actors in Russia’s foreign policy elite who are said to be more pro-Palestinian. It is likely that Putin’s support for the existence of the Jewish state goes back to the USSR’s initial support for the creation of Israel in 1948, where the Soviet government believed a socially orientated, Soviet friendly, inclusive state in Palestine would be in the USSR’s best interests, also perhaps divesting the Soviet hierarchy of the problem of Jewish ‘over-representation’, the source of much suspicion and hatred among Russia’s ethnic slaves, many of whom believed communism was a ‘Jewish conspiracy’.

Putin’s pro-Israeli stance is said to have been copper fastened through his alleged close relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Before falling ill, Sharon made the following astonishing statement in front of a visibly irate Benjamin Netanyahu:

That we cannot continue holding under occupation… and it is occupation, you might not like this word, but it’s really an occupation – to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation, is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. It cannot continue for ever. Do you want to remain, for ever, in Jenin, in Nablus, in Ramallah, in Bethlehem, for ever?

While Putin’s ambiguous relationship with Israel contradicts the Kremlin’s policy of supporting the Syrian Arab Republic’s resistance to Zionist genocide, there may be deeper, more complex and hitherto undisclosed reasons for this ostensibly contradictory policy. Still, class antagonism in contemporary Russia is further aggravated among Russians by the widespread perception that an ethnic minority holds the levers of economic power in the country. A recent study by Lenta.Ru website revealed that almost a quarter of Russian oligarchs are Jewish.

While the report was criticised for ethnicising class conflict, it nevertheless attests to the deep ambiguity of Russia’s relationship to Zionism, given the fact that so many Jewish oligarchs in Russia hold Israeli passports.

The massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Jewish oligarchs in Russia contrasts markedly with the relative poverty of so many Jews in the Zionist colony in Palestine.

This shows once again that the only salvation for Jews, as Marx argued, is the abandonment of Judaism, or rather in this case Zionism, and the embrace of communism. The Zionist entity is not only an enemy of all non-Jews, it is forcing millions of its own ‘chosen people’ to live in relative poverty, proving once again, contrary to Talmudists, the Marxist thesis that the real problem in the world is not race but class struggle and exploitation of man by man..

I have already mentioned the facinorous influence of the Chabad Loubavitch sect in promoting Jewish supremacy and talmudic dictatorship. During the 1930s the Loubavitch sect was expelled from the USSR as it was considered a racist and fascist movement. However, since the rise of Gorbachev in the 1980s, the Chabad Loubavitch movement has gained considerable influence in Russia. In fact, under President Putin, Berel Lazar, the leader of the Russian Chabad Loubavitch movement, was made Chief Rabbi of Russia. Lazar has also been given many honours and decorations by the Russian state, this in spite of the fact that he belongs to a sect that openly promotes the idea among Jews that they are a master race and that all other races are sub-human. However, the Russian state has thus far managed to bring the Zionist movement under state control. This contrasts markedly with the Zionist movement in the United States and Europe, where national parliaments have become ‘Israeli occupied territories’.

Anti-communist lies about religion

Putin has done much to restore Russian pride and patriotism. But the Russian president has repeatedly perpetuated lies about Russia’s communist past that harm all Russians and dishonours the heroic achievements of the Red Army in liberating Europe and the world from fascism. For example, during his visit to Poland in 2010, the Russian president made an official apology for the so-called Katyn Massacre of Polish soldiers by the Red Army in Soviet occupied Poland during the Second World War.

This is a big lie, one which is fueling neo-Nazi gangs today in Zionist occupied Ukraine. Russian and American historians have proven that the crime was carried out by Nazis and blamed on the USSR.

The perpetuation of anti-communist lies and myths constitute the only obstacles between Russia’s emergence as the world’s leading super-power and mediocrity. It seems there is a deep tension in the attitude of Putin and his generation, misinformed for years by Soviet revisionism, regarding this issue. In spite of trading Russian pride for politically correct anti-Soviet lies with the purpose of gaining diplomatic advantages, Putin has, on the contrary, actively supported the highlighting of the achievements of the USSR in Russian school history books. This is a highly positive development.

Putin openly proclaims his Orthodox Faith. This has given him much credibility among those who value the cultural and spiritual importance of Russian Orthodox Christianity in shaping Russian identity. However, the Russian President has falsely claimed that the USSR persecuted Orthodox Christians. Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states:

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognised for all citizens.

There were many well researched books published in the 1930s debunking claims by the pro-Fascist press in the West on the persecution of religious orders in the Soviet Union.

In fact, some religious authorities who were critical of the Soviet System were awarded the highest honours of the state. For example, the Russian Orthodox priest and surgeon Archbishop Luka Voyno Yasnetsky was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1946 for his achievements in medicine. If religious personalities in the USSR were ‘persecuted’, it was due to their political counter-revolutionary activities in violation of Soviet law, and not their legally constituted right to worship nor their freedom of expression and assembly guaranteed by article 125 of the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

And, it must be said that Soviet Law was far more progressive than laws in capitalist countries. For example, the USSR became the first country in history to abolish the death penalty in 1946. The law was only later abrogated due to the capitalist decision to declare a ‘Cold War’ on the USSR.

Putin’s Orthodox piety was severely tarnished when the obscene wealth of Patriarch Kirill was discovered by Russian media. The Patriarch is not only wealthy. He is allegedly a billionaire who appears in photos with watches worth over 30,000 Euro, more money than most working class Russians can ever hope to earn in a year. How can someone with such a disgusting lust for money and luxury be considered a ‘spiritual’ leader?

The question of immigration

I have already shown that views on race, nationality and identity in the context of immigration differ in former popular democracies and the former USSR. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block were not subject to political correctness or ‘Cultural Marxism’ that prevailed in the bourgeois democracies of the West. This forthright, non-complex view of identity was recently expressed by Czech president Milos Zeman when he pointed out that the Czechoslovak Republic had no problem welcoming and assimilating refuges from war-torn Vietnam in accordance with the country’s anti-racist and internationalist policy.

Notwithstanding Zeman’s Islamophobia, he makes a crucial point about the importance of understanding the historical position of ‘social-democracy’ vis-a-vis immigration, a position obscured by political correctness and the racist demagoguery of the far right.

Zeman has described the current mass movement of migrants to Europe as a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood to wage war on Europe’s national cultures.

One should clarify here that national cultures in the Marxist-Leninist definition are usually composed of many races. Stalin, in his essay ‘Marxism and The National Question’ defined the nation thus:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

There are no doubt elements of this Weltanshauung in the Russian government’s approach to the question of immigration and national identity. In a recent press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Putin was asked if he shared Orban’s view of migration and national identity. The Russian president replied that their views were quite similar.

In 2012, Putin said the following about immigration:

The melting pot of assimilation is highly volatile – pushed to its limits by the ever-increasing migration flow. In politics this has found reflection in a “multiculturalism” which denies integration through assimilation. Although it makes the “minorities right to be distinct” absolute, it does little to balance this with public, behavioural or cultural commitments to the population and society as a whole. Closed ethnic-religious communities that form in many countries refuse not only to assimilate but even to adapt.

There are neighbourhoods and whole towns where generations of new arrivals live on benefits and do not speak the language of the country in which they live. The growth of xenophobia among the population and harsh attempts to protect their interests, jobs and social benefits from “immigrant rivals” is the response seen in this behavioural model. People, shocked by what they perceive as aggressive pressure on their traditions or way of life, feel a genuine fear of losing their national identity.

Here we see expression of a bourgeois, patriotic view of immigration, which prioritises social cohesion over the anarchy of the market, whose vulture capitalists promote infinite mass immigration in order to drive down the price of labour. Yet Marxists in the West tend to support the self same policies of these oligarchs when it comes to immigration, calling for ‘open borders’. This petty bourgeois Marxism tends to emphasise the merits of multiculturalism rather than what Marx and Engels described as a form of class warfare whereby the ruling class crushes national organised labour through the influx of desperately poor migrants. Engels in his book The Condition of the Working Class in England describes how the immigration of brutalised Irish paupers to England sabotaged English working class militancy and was a key component of class divide and rule. The difference between Engels’ view of this problem, however, and the racist views of Carlyle whom he quotes, is that Engels’ shows the class function of immigration and the necessity for workers to understand that the ruling class and not the migrants are to blame.

In 1870 Marx wrote:

Introducing into the local labour market foreign labour lowers wages and alonside that the material, moral and cultural position of the indigenous working class.

If one reads the minutes of the General Council of the First International 1866-1888, one of the problems discussed was the importation by the bosses of Belgian workers into England who were prepared to work for lower rates. Here we can read that the ‘General Council committed itself to use its influence to prevent the importation of any more Belgian workers at reduced prices.’ Marx repeatedly warned about, and denounced the weaponisation of, foreign workers against domestic labour. Marx also pointed out that foreign workers resident in the country would suffer most from coercive engineered migration. When tailors in Britain formed unions in 1865, the capitalists immediately attempted to crush the unions by importing cheap labour from Germany. Denouncing this policy Marx wrote:

No one would suffer more than the German workers themselves, who constitute in Great Britain a larger number than the workers of all the other Continental nations. And the newly-imported workers, being completely helpless in a strange land, would soon sink to the level of pariahs.

Marx described these migrants as ‘obedient mercenaries of capital in its struggle against labour’. It was important, he insisted, to explain this policy of weaponising migration to both domestic and migrant workers, so that either migrants would be discouraged from coming or would demand equal wages to indigenous workers upon arrival in their country of settlement.1

Liberal leftists and Trotskyite ‘Marxists’ approach the problem of migration through bourgeois categories. They, therefore, frenziedly accuse anyone who disagrees with their phony ‘internationalism’ as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’, playing into the hands of international finance capitalists and oligarchs such as George Soros and the Zionist mafia. This superficial and spurious utopianism has nothing to do with scientific socialist thought, which requires concrete, historical and dialectical analysis of all phenomena. It is therefore correct for a Marxist to concur on the question of immigration with some of the views of bourgeois, patriotic leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban. Protecting nation states from coercive engineered migration is in the interest of workers everywhere.

Putin’s position on immigration is also an example of the country’s resistance to Zionist oligarch’s such as George Soros, who are promoting ‘open borders’ for their ‘open markets’.

The problem of Nazism and historiography

Putin has repeatedly warned about the recrudescence of Nazi ideology in Eastern Europe, which is spreading with the full complicity of the European Union and the United States. The Nazis who took power in Kiev in the US backed Putsch of 2014 are a case in point. Nazi commemoration ceremonies are now commonplace in the Baltic States, while Bosniak Waffen SS Hamzar Division parades have taken place in the predominantly Muslim populated Sanzhak region of Serbia.

The rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe and the EU’s complicity in promoting and abetting anti-Russian jingoism is well documented and represents a grave threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. No country suffered more during the Second World War than the USSR. Over 27 million soviet citizens died. Many of them were Jews. However, the Russian government’s attempt to ban questioning of any aspect of the Nazi persecution of Jews during the Second World War is bad policy and will only fuel neo-Nazism rather than contain it. It is also a further indication that Russia is, to a certain extent ,under the pervasive influence of Zionism. All historical facts are open to question and revision. Historical ‘truth’ should be argued among historians,not subject to juridical decrees.

Conclusion: Aggressive and defensive empires

My criticism in this series of articles of the Russian and Chinese governments in no way implies that such countries are to be considered on the same par with NATO. While both countries are defending their imperial interests, neither Russia nor China are responsible for the current fomentation of international terrorism and war, which are products of NATO and the Western Zionist axis. It is therefore coherent to support Russia and China in their defense of world order and international law when the choice is between that and total destruction of the planet under NATO hegemony.

While a unipolar world is the worst of all scenarios, a multipolar world will not prevent war in the long term either. World War I broke out in a world divided between several empires. While the Western imperial alliance is plagued by internal dissensions such as the rivalry between the United States and Europe and inter-European rivalry between Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the oriental imperial alliance is also fraught with internal rivalries and contradictions.

But there is another, equally important difference between the oriental and occidental imperial blocks; namely, the predominance of Zionism in shaping the foreign policy of the latter.

Marxists would therefore be wrong to put Russia and China on an equal footing with NATO. In all of the wars we have seen since the dissolution of the USSR, NATO and not Russia or China has been the aggressor. An instructive historical example of how Russian imperialism could be conceptualised today is provided by an article written by Josef Stalin in 1934. In the article Stalin criticises Frederich Engels exaggerated condemnation of Tzarist Russian imperialism thus:

Characterising the predatory policy of Russian Tsarism and correctly showing the abominable nature of this policy, Engels explained it not so much by the “need” of the military-feudal-mercantile upper circles of Russia for outlets to the sea, sea-ports, for extending foreign trade and dominating strategic points, as by the circumstance that there stood at the head of Russia’s foreign policy, an all-powerful and very talented band of foreign adventurers, who succeeded everywhere and in everything, who, in wonderful fashion managed to overcome each and every obstacle in the way of their adventurist purpose, who deceived with astonishing cleverness, all the Governments of Europe, and finally brought it about that Russia became a most powerful state, from the point of military strength.

Against Engels, Stalin correctly pointed out that the struggle for colonies by Britain, France and European powers, coupled with capitalism’s drive for new markets, were the principal causes of the First World War. The Soviet leader showed that Engels’ exaggeration of Russian imperialism was used as the justification by Social Democrats in Germany for their chauvinist pro-war policy. Such an analysis is relevant to our attitude to the imperialist wars of today.

While one must not ignore the fact that Russia is an imperial power with ambiguous links to the Zionist entity, we must never overlook the fact that it is the foreign policy establishment of the NATO countries who are, to paraphrase Engels, operating like a ‘secret Jesuit order’ against the security of mankind. In this sense, we must fully support Russia’s intervention in Syria as a legitimate act of self-defense perfectly in accordance with international law and the maintenance of stability, as stability, rule of law and peace are in the best interests of Russian, Syrian and all the world’s workers.


]]> 1
Barnett’s Five Flows of Globalisation Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:14:09 +0000 Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 3 of an 11 part series) As German independent TV station, K-TV has revealed, the current refugee crisis is most likely the brainchild of the aforementioned US military grand strategist General Thomas PM Barnett. Barnett was a strategic advisor to former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld …

The post Barnett’s Five Flows of Globalisation appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


As German independent TV station, K-TV has revealed, the current refugee crisis is most likely the brainchild of the aforementioned US military grand strategist General Thomas PM Barnett. Barnett was a strategic advisor to former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and currently works with the Israeli military consultancy firm Wikistrat. Wikistrat are close collaborators with US Africa Command (Africom). Barnett’s books The Pentagon’s New Map and Blueprint for Action have had a major influence on US/Israeli global military geostrategies.

A former student of Vice-Admiral Andrew K. Cebrowski, former director of the Office of Transformations in the US Department of Defense, Barnett’s work focuses on integrating Cebrowski’s concepts of Network Centred Warfare, Colonel Boyd’s OODA loop theory, and Lind’s Fourth Generation Warfare, by ‘simultaneously seeking to relate their yin-and-yang interplay to the larger economic reality of globalisation’s emergence as the dominant characteristic of today’s strategic environment’.1

Barnett divides the world into ‘functioning core’, ‘non-integrating gap’ countries and ‘seam states’. The first category of ‘functioning core’ countries includes Europe and North America, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. These are economies which are actively integrating into the global economy. This category is subdivided into ‘old core’ Europe, the USA and Japan and ‘new core’, Brazil, Russia, China and India.

The second major category is the ‘non-integrated gap’. This is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, Africa, parts of the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The third category contains some members of the first two. This category is referred to as the ‘Seam States’, countries which surround the Gap — such as Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Algeria, Morocco, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil.

The former Pentagon general has developed the theory of the ‘Five Flows of Globalisation’ — five flows which must come about if US-Zionist imperialism is to dominate the world. These involve the free flow of money, security, food, energy and people. The ‘free flows’ theory means breaking down nation-state structures, thus freeing up resources for pillage by US multinational corporations. The inundation of Europe with immigrants from the Southern Hemisphere is a key feature of Barnett’s geostrategic thinking. That is why it would be wrong to see the immigrant crisis from Libya and Syria as an unintended consequence of NATO policy as some form of unforeseen blowback.

Europe’s top demographers have known for some time that the Southern Hemisphere countries are experiencing a population boom and what that means for Europe’s relative population decline. German sociologist and demographer Gunnar Heinsohn published a major book on this topic, Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen (Sons and World Power: The Rise of Terror and the Fall of Nations). In his book, Heinsohn argues that population youth bulges were the driving factor behind European colonialism and world conquest. From 1900 to 2000 the population of the Muslim World has grown from 150 million to 1,200 million, an increase of 800 percent. He argues that large families tend to produce ‘superfluous’ sons, who, unable to find work at home, emigrate.

Heinsohn contends that these youth bulges can lead to extreme violence as the young men, needing to carve out a place for themselves in the world, often tend to resort to violence in order to survive. This is one of the many factors driving the Islamic State. The youth bulge means boom time for imperialism’s merchants of death, who are harnessing youthful anger and hatred for the fomentation of proxy wars against geopolitical enemies. Heinsohn predicted that Europe would be overwhelmed with Southern Hemisphere youths by 2015.

The German sociologist notes that Islamism is more a tool which enables disaffected ‘superfluous’ sons to justify genocide, rather than an ideology which they necessarily believe in. In other words, once demographic balances have been restored, the Korans will be for sale in second-hand book shops. He gives the example of Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores in the 15th and 16th century who, needing to kill in order to carve out colonies in the New World, made convenient use of the Bible in order to absolve themselves from feelings of guilt.

Heinsohn notes that Europe’s immigration policy contrasts markedly with that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe, there are no requirements that immigrants possess the qualifications needed by European economies, whereas in Canada and Australia those with the highest skills are given preference. The result of these policies is that 98 percent of immigrants in Canada have higher qualifications than the native population, whereas in Europe only 10 percent have higher qualifications. At the same time, the percentage of highly qualified Europeans leaving the continent for the Anglophone world is rising steadily every year. In this sense one can understand the logic behind Anglo-Saxon imperialism of flooding Europe with uneducated immigrants, while simultaneously syphoning off the continent’s brains and skills, thus ensuring Anglo-American/Zionist global hegemony. It is the ability to take into account these complex demographic realities which constitutes the importance of Thomas P.M. Barnett’s grand strategy of US globalisation.

In her book Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy Kelly M. Greenhill argues that one of the reasons for Europe’s rapprochement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was the latter’s offer to stem the tide of African emigration to Europe. It would be erroneous, therefore, to suggest that the chaos wrought by the Arab Spring was unintentional. While many European politicians may have wanted to prevent a chaotic overflow of immigration into Europe, the imperial agencies behind the Arab Spring wanted just that.

The mass exodus of migrants/refugees is a central part of the globalisation of class war in accordance with the Pentagon’s long-term objectives of global hegemony or “Full Spectrum Dominance”. What we are dealing with here is a well-planned strategy of chaos. To paraphrase Shakespeare, it is madness but there is method in it.

General Barnett’s Wikistrat are heavily involved in the development of ‘crowd-sourcing’ and ‘crowd leveraging’ technologies. Investigative journalist Andrey Fomine, using the analyses of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has convincingly shown that most of the twitter entries encouraging refugees/migrants in Turkey to travel to Germany come from the UK, USA and Australia.

What we are witnessing here is a covert war being waged by the Anglo-Saxon Zionist elite against the German Federal Republic. The low-intensity war is using people as weapons to create conditions of social chaos in order to prevent Berlin’s inevitable rapprochement with Moscow. The migrants cannot possibly integrate into German society if the German economy does not integrate with Eurasia, as Germany will have no viable market for its exports.

Barnett has predicted that Muslim immigrants in Europe will form their own Islamist political parties.  In his book Blueprint for Action he quotes approvingly from Oliver Roy’s Globalized Islam, who claims that while in the past working class Muslims would have joined Marxist political movements: “There are now in the West only two movements of radical protest that claim to be ‘internationalist’: the antiglobalization movement and radical Islam. For a rebel, to convert is to find a cause”

Both of these movements, that of ‘human rights’ and ‘jihad’, represent petty bourgeois objections to the global order, but as they do not have a scientific analysis of the capitalist mode of production, they cannot possibly change that order. That is why they are both backed by the forces they supposedly oppose. Hence Barnett welcomes this development:

By channeling their sense of economic and social disconnecteness into political action, Muslims in Europe achieve connectivitiy with governments there that allow for their integration into political life on a peaceful basis while preserving a sense of cultural identity. (p. 292)

In other words, these movements will help increase and further entrench globalisation, imperialism and class warfare.

In Europe’s case, this isn’t just the political release valve for both sides but an economic one as well: Europe needs workers to balance its rapidly aging population, while the Middle East needs to be able to siphon off a portion of its huge youth bulge for emigration. (p. 292)

Barnett predicts that the mass migration of people from the Middle East into Europe will lead to a ‘revival of ethnicity’. He argues that their immigration into Europe will generate a paradoxical attitude that will marry Muslim identity politics at home with European human rights evangelism in their countries of origin. He writes:

So when Muslims emigrate from the Middle East and immigrate into Europe, both regions respond to this transaction by becoming, respectively, more Islamic and more European in the near term, until such time passes that new rule sets emerge to define these profound forms of social(family ties), economic( remittances), and ultimately political connectivity. While the movement of Core citizens into the Gap occasionally force Core powers to defend them through military means…. a far more potent form of political connectivity comes in expatriate populations living inside the Core and agitating for their adopted nations to intervene militarily or diplomatically in their countries of origin in response to instability or political repression there. A good example of this, of course, is the role of Iraqi expatriates in the US decision to lead a multinational coalition into that country in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. (p. 294)

This is imperialist grand strategy accounting for demographics, economics, religion and ethnicity. But its core function is similar to the imperialist ideologies of the past: divide and conquer the workers of the world on the basis of religious and ethnic sectarianism, as well as bourgeois values such as human rights, thereby making the world “safe for capitalism” and global imperialist domination.

A recent example of expats mobilising for imperialist intervention in their own country was provided by demonstrations by Eritreans in Germany against President Issias Afwerki in 2012, with the predictable US NGO inspired slogan  “Down, down dictator”.

Barnett predicts that Europe and Russia will disintegrate in the 21st Century, leaving only India and China to rival the United States. The US strategist clearly believes that coercive engineered mass migration into Europe, coupled with the American occupation of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, will prevent Eurasian integration, whilst securing the US/Israeli control of Europe and the conquest of Africa, thereby establishing US/Israeli global supremacy in the 21st century.

The choreography and mediatisation of the ‘Refugees Welcome’ campaign bears a striking resemblance to ‘Je Suis Charlie’ campaign launched less than 30 minutes after the first reports of the Paris terrorist attack on the 7th of January were broadcast. Many of the migrants are receiving welcome booklets packed with maps and information distributed by an NGO called w2eu, which stands for ‘welcome to the EU’. One is reminded of the nonviolent revolution rulebook by Zionist ideologue Gene Sharp which was used to train activists in the US/Israeli fomented counter-revolutions in North Africa in 2011.

No reproductions or reprints without express permission.
Cover image “The Pentagon” by David B. Gleason is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0


]]> 0
The Weaponisation of the Refugee Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:19:51 +0000 Coercive Engineered Migration: The Weaponisation of the Refugee (Part 2 of an 11 part series) Artificial mass migration as imperial policy has a long history. To illustrate this, we will cite a few historical examples. According to Bulgarian historian A, Eminov, civil wars in the Balkans in the 13th and 14th centuries led to significant …

The post The Weaponisation of the Refugee appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


Artificial mass migration as imperial policy has a long history. To illustrate this, we will cite a few historical examples. According to Bulgarian historian A, Eminov, civil wars in the Balkans in the 13th and 14th centuries led to significant population decline, which greatly facilitated colonisation of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire. The deportation of nomads and organised transportation of Muslim refugees by the Ottoman Empire played a significant role in the colonisation of this region.

Though Turks comprise over 8 percent of the Bulgarian population today, Turkey’s neo-Ottomanism has sparked accusations from Bulgaria’s nationalist party Attack that Turkey has plans to re-colonise the country. Bulgaria has the highest number of mosques in Europe per capita.

Given the fact that Turkey is supporting the Islamic State in Syria, while harbouring neo-colonial plans for the Balkans, the decision by the Bulgarian government to erect a fence along the border with Turkey is the right one. Opposition politicians in Bulgaria have described the subservience of their government to the EU and NATO as treachery and tantamount to genocide against ethnic Bulgarians, whose population has been declining drastically since the fall of communism.

In the 19th century, the British Empire organised the mass migration of Bengali Muslims to Burma to work plantations in the predominantly Buddhist Rakhine State. The purpose of the migration was to create an artificial ruling class that would depend on the protection of the British Empire. The result was more than a century of tension with the indigenous Buddhist inhabitants and the Muslim settlers, a tension that has led to the ethnic cleansing of today, whereby Takfiri fanatics, financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are committing genocide against local Buddhist peasants with the full complicity of ‘human rights’ organizations and the mass media as part of a US/Israeli geostrategic initiative to Kossovise the Rakhine State by separating it from Myanmar, thereby securing a foothold for Western neo-colonial interests in the highly strategic Bay of Bengal. The so-called ‘Rohingya crisis’ attests to a new phase in imperialist policy; namely, the ruthless weaponization of the refugee.

In the nineteenth century, Imperial Belgium imported hundreds of thousands of Rwandan Tutsi workers to the Congo to staff their work colonies. This artificial migration policy of Belgian imperialism has played a major role in the context fueling the current ethnic cleansing and ongoing neo-colonial proxy wars being carried out by the US/Israeli and European powers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the US/Israeli Tutsi puppet regime of Paul Kagame is murdering and pillaging on behalf of Western corporations. The Wall Street Journal has ironically described Kagame’s Zionist puppet regime ‘The Israel of Africa’.

Here Hutu refugees fleeing Kagame’s genocidal regime have been systematically bombed and slaughtered by the Zionist-backed Rwandan military. Refugees fleeing war have been used by the aggressors as a pretext to wage further war and conquest. The US and EU have been destabilising Burundi since April 2015. Now, terrorists are attacking the country from refugee camps in Rwanda, with full backing by Western powers.

A population explosion in London in the 16th and 17th centuries provided much of the impetus behind the colonisation of America. Over two-thirds of the first settlers in North America were indentured servants, 75 percent of whom were young men under the age of 25. The youth were needed to expand the labour capacity of the Empire’s colonies. The settler culture, imbued with religious fanaticism and a complex of superiority, did not take long to decimate the native American population. One of the reasons for the population decline of the Powhatan native peoples was their tolerance and kindness towards the settler culture.

Comparing the mass migration of people from the Global South to Europe today to the European colonisation of the United States might appear strained and inappropriate but there are important similarities, nonetheless. Like the 16th and 17th centuries, the world is experiencing a recrudescence of religious war, while population explosions and war in the developing world are driving mass migration. This time, however, as the world has already been divided through centuries of European colonisation, people of the Global South are now moving North. The potential for conflict between a declining native population and an assertive, Muslim-dominated settler culture is great, particularly when this serves the interests of Europe’s ruling elite who are in cahoots with the Wahhabi sheikhs of the Middle East. Whilst the people of the Global South are fleeing the consequences of European imperialism, the indoctrination of Wahhabi Islam among Muslim immigrants constitutes a serious impediment to an awakening of class consciousness necessary for the unification with non-Muslim natives against their internationalist bourgeois oppressors.

In the seventeenth century Ireland the British government settled lands in the northern province of Ulster with Protestant and Presbyterian settlers who lived in fear of the Catholic neighbours they had displaced. It was an imperial policy of divide and rule which lasted for centuries. In the nineteenth century, famine and mass emigration from Ireland to America were caused by the British state’s refusal to allow Irish peasants the right to eat the fruit of their labour. The mass migrations benefited the emerging ruling class of the United States who required cheap labour as well as the British government who wanted to reduce the population of Ireland. In other words, mass migration enabled the trans-Atlantic Anglo-Saxon financial elite to turn the very social and economic problems they had created to their own advantage. The loss for Ireland was irreparable. Western Europe’s oldest literary vernacular language was reduced to minority status, while the loss in youthful resourcefulness worked in favour of the status quo, ensuring Ireland’s subjugation to the British imperial elite, both before and after formal independence.

A more recent example of migration used as a tool of imperialism is Eritrea. Since the country’s independence from Ethiopia in 1993, Eritrea has chartered a unique independent path to national liberation and socio-economic development. The results have been astounding, with economic growth rates surpassing most other developing countries. However, the socially-oriented policies of the Eritrean government have brought it into conflict with neo-colonial interests. As a consequence, sanctions were imposed by the United States in 2009 on the only country in the Horn of Africa that has never failed to feed, clothe and educate its children.

Meanwhile, millions flee hunger and poverty in the US client state of Ethiopia, which is currently occupying part of Eritrea since the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of that country in 1998. US geostrategy against Eritrea involves smuggling Eritreans into Europe in a vast, logistical operation involving officials in the United Nations and ‘human rights’ NGOs such as Watch the Met. This neo-colonial outfit is heavily involved in the smuggling of Middle Eastern and Central Asian refugees from Turkey.

Watch the Med is a cogent example of how petty bourgeois European prejudice against developing nations is harnessed by elites to further their globalisation agenda. The NGO, which claims to oppose the EU ‘militarization’ of the Mediterranean and fortress Europe’ slammed Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya for its alleged ‘abuse of migrants’ rights’, in spite of the fact that Gaddafi’s Libya was praised by the UN for its respect for human rights and was integrating thousands of sub-Saharan migrants in the Libyan Jamahiriya, where they were able to work and benefit from free health care, education and accommodation.

A key figure in this criminal operation is a Nobel Prize candidate who goes by the name of “Father” Mussie Zerai, a phoney Catholic priest who has been coordinating the smuggling of East Africans to Europe from war-torn Libya, earning him lots of cash, kudos and the epithet ‘Archangel of Refugees’.  Zerai collaborates closely with Watch the Med. It is impossible to tell if Watch the Med is receiving funding from captains of globalisation such as George Soros, but these European do-gooders would certainly deserve decent salaries from the Jewish oligarch.

As part of the destabilisation of Eritrea, the EU is giving preferential treatment to refugees if they register as Eritreans. Eritrean researchers have shown that most of the migrants from East Africa are from Ethiopia and Somalia. Yet, they register upon arrival in the EU as Eritreans. The migrants are often lost at sea. Al Jazeera recently did an interview with a trafficker from Ethiopia who confirmed that thousands of citizens from that country are being smuggled into Europe. Yet Eurostat figures for 2013-14 show no Ethiopian citizens whatsoever while Eritreans are astonishingly high.

In a Market Watch article entitled “Here’s my plan to solve the asylum chaos”, George Soros slams Victor Orban’s’ policies stating that they threaten to ‘divide and destroy the EU’. Soros strongly advocates the creation of ‘NGOs’ to facilitate the mass migration into Europe. Orban has pointed out that those welcoming the refugees/migrants into Europe are playing into the hands of Soros and global financial oligarchs.

The Eritrean government has proof of the CIA’s role in smuggling desperate people from the Horn of Africa. They also have proof of Amnesty International’s attempt to foment political unrest and violence in the country. The phoney ‘Eritrean’ refugee crisis is being cynically used by the corporate media to slander Africa’s only free and truly democratic, post-colonial nation, hampering its development while filling the coffers of the heinous ‘human rights’ murder machine, all in the service of empire. This again attests to the weaponization of the refugee.  The current escalation of the refugee crisis in Europe should be analysed in this context.

So what is the purpose of weaponising refugees?

In the book Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy, Kelly M. Greenhill, US foreign policy consultant, argues that coercive engineered migration is a strategy which has been used by governments to gain concessions from other governments. In other words, governments often use refugees as weapons in order to exert pressure on other governments for political ends. Greenhill documents over 59 examples of refugees being used as weapons since the Second World War.

While there are undoubtedly many women and children and innocent victims of NATO/Zionist fomented war among the flux of people migrating to Europe who deserve all the help they can get, it is deeply reactionary and dishonest to ignore the obvious instrumentalisation of migration by imperialism. Rational and honest analysis of this complex phenomenon tends to prevail in developing countries such as Russia and Iran, whose press agencies have provided extensive evidence of this problem. However, spurious political correctness often stifles constructive debate in Western countries with some analysts such as this author being slandered on social media as ‘fascists’ and ‘racists’ by soi-disant ‘leftists’ for discussing these facts. George Soros and company would certainly agree with them.

No reprints or reproductions without express permission.
Cover image thanks to Rysande Tyskar. Used under Creative Commons. No modifications have been made.


]]> 6
Is Victor Orban the ‘Chavez’ of Europe? Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:06:23 +0000 Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 1 of an 11 part series) If aggression against another foreign country means that it strains its social structure, that it ruins its finances, that is has to give up its territory for sheltering refugees, what is the difference between that kind of aggression and the other …

The post Is Victor Orban the ‘Chavez’ of Europe? appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


— Sawer Sen, India’s Ambassador to the UN


While most of the European media have portrayed Orban as a xenophobic, far-right dictator, the decision to erect a fence was carried out in compliance with EU regulations, which require that all immigrants entering the Schengen zone be registered by the police at the border. Yet, paradoxically, Brussels is criticising the Hungarian Prime Minister for attempting to comply with EU laws!

France’s daily Le Monde refers to the Hungarian Prime Minister as the man who is attempting to ‘criminalise‘ illegal immigrants. It is indeed a strange country that would criminalise those who break its laws!



Hungary has also come under criticism for media laws which ban foreign interference from US propaganda outlets such as Voice of America, which the Hungarian government deems to be contrary to the public interest. Consequently, the European Union, which is perfectly happy to ban Iranian television stations, has criticised Hungary for violations of ‘freedom of speech’.


Orban’s ‘nationalism’ is not an imperial project. It is, rather, a national philosophy which goes against, and weakens imperialism. It is nationalism in the sense of national liberation from neo-colonial oppression in the form of international financial institutions and the EU.







Hungary’s multi-vectored foreign policy has had benefits for the country and especially for other Southern Hemisphere partner countries such as Venezuela. For example, a photovoltaic energy technology product developed in Hungary and financed by China was exported to Venezuela in 2013. It is believed that the new Hungarian technology could not only enable Venezuela to become self-sufficient in electricity, it could turn the country into a major exporter of electricity. Venezuela’s cooperation with Hungary is vital to the country’s industrialisation.



Hungary’s ideological crisis culminated in the attempted coup of 1956, when the CIA, operating out of Vienna, attempted to overthrow the embattled regime with the help of former Nazi collaborators. The 1956 ‘Hungarian Revolution’ was, in many respects, an intelligence prototype for many US-orchestrated regime change operations to follow decades later.











The debate about what should be done to manage the refugee/migrant crisis turns on whether or not they should be welcomed into European countries. However, this pro or anti-migrant debate masks a new and highly destructive phase in US/NATO geopolitical strategy. Many of the migrants at the Hungarian border are coming from refugee camps in Turkey. Austrian intelligence has reportedly revealed that US government agencies are funding the transfer of these refugees to Europe in an attempt to destabilise the continent. This new geostrategic initiative involves using desperate refugees as weapons for the purposes of US/Zionist divide and rule of the European continent.







No reproductions or reprints without express permission.


]]> 0
Brazil’s Vinegar Revolution: Left in Form, Right in Content Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:00:29 +0000 (Brazil’s Vinegar Revolution – Part 1 of a 6 part series) Fascism has presented itself as the anti-party; has opened its gates to all applicants; has with its promise of impunity enabled a formless multitude to cover over the savage outpouring of passions, hatreds and desires with a varnish of vague and nebulous political ideals. …

The post Brazil’s Vinegar Revolution: Left in Form, Right in Content appeared first on Gearóid Ó Colmáin.


— Gramsci

The Working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; nevertheless most widespread (and continuously and diversely revived) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree.
— Lenin

“It’s not just about 20 cents”. This was the status message of Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, last week, a message that was relayed through several of Brazil’s major cities. The message became one of the initial slogans of what many are now calling the “Vinegar Revolution” which was reportedly triggered by a 20 cent hike in bus fares in the city of Sao Paulo June 20th.

The very mention of Zuckerberg in connection with mass protests should immediately sound alarm bells among those who have been following closely the Facebook, Twitter fomented ‘colour revolutions’ that have rocked several states targeted for covert regime change by US imperialism over the last decade. Colour revolutions are essentially fake revolutions orchestrated by NGOS funded by the US government which are organised in countries ruled by governments that threaten or present an obstacle to the furtherance of US interests.

Zuckerberg is a close associate of US president Barack Obama and it is open knowledge since the recent NSA scandals that Facebook is a key part of the US intelligence community. His endorsement of the protests should therefore lead one to question the real origins and motives behind some of the largest demonstrations Brazil has seen in over 20 years.

Former Governor of California Arnold Schwarznegger, pop stars Beyonce, Lady Gaga and Britney Spears and the crème de la crème of Brazil’s soap opera stars, were all photographed displaying slogans supporting the Brazilian protests.

“It’s not just about 20 cents. It’s about much more”, say the protestors; corruption, rising cost of living, bad public infrastructure, health care and education. These are left wing causes, and are the issues driving discontent in Brazil’s populous cities teeming with poverty and inequality. No one can deny the genuine character of such complaints. After all, Brazil is a capitalist society in the ‘developing’ world.

Since the rise to power of President Lula de Silva and the Partido Travhalleros (Workers Party) in 2002 Brazil’s economy has experienced a rapid period of growth. It is now set to overtake France and Germany making it the fifth biggest economy in the world. But Lula’s left-wing political orientation was matched to a very large extent by economic policies which opened up the country to further levels of exploitation by foreign multi-nationals. In fact, Lula was so nice to foreign multinationals that he managed to avoid demonisation by the Western power elite and was promoted as a suitable alternative to the more radically left-wing policies of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

However, in spite of Lula’s cooperation with the IMF, the Brazilian economy remained under national control to a significant extent but the process of destabilisation currently underway is part of Wall Street’s final push for hegemony in a country that has moved closer to Russia and China and whose fiscal policies have pulled it away from Wall Street and its ‘free trade’ agenda.

It should not come as a surprise that hundreds of thousands of citizens would protest the obscene inequalities in a country that is investing millions constructing lavish sports complexes for the World Cup and the Olympic Games while millions continue to live in Favelas. Yet the uprising, in spite of its demands for public services, was anything but left-wing in orientation. In fact, many of those leading the protests attacked communists and socialists, chanting slogans against Cuba and Venezuela. Brazil’s right wing opposition parties and media came out in support of the protests.

Globo Rede, the right wing media group that dominates Brazil’s media, initially believed the protests were left wing and denounced them as terrorism. Then it seemed to realise that the protests were of an entirely different orientation, that they were an attack on the PT government and on left-wing ideology in particular, and proceeded to back and encourage them.

So, the question we are posing here is this: are the protests against neo-liberal capitalism or are the obvious evils of capitalism being covertly harnessed by outside forces to shift the geopolitics of a country moving closer to an alliance with Russia, China and left-leaning Latin American governments, thereby contributing to the possible formation of a new anti-imperialist block of emerging economies?

The struggle between the national and the comprador bourgeoisie.

Lenin, in his book Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, quotes from a German author who observes that South America “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be as almost a British commercial colony”.

Anglo-American financial interests dominated Brazil until the 1930 revolution brought Getullio Vargas to power. Vargas, a controversial character, who went from liberal left to far right and back again, is generally credited with having nationalised key sectors of the economy in order to industrialise and modernise Brazil. Vargas drew extensive support from the petite-bourgeoisie but was opposed by the conservative landowning class centred in Sao Paulo, who rose up in rebellion against him in 1932.

Since the 1930s politics in Brazil has been characterised by a struggle between the comprador bourgeoisie, who favour free trade and financial speculation, a class whose interests coincide with foreign companies and centres of financial power such as Wall Street and the City of London, and the rising national bourgeoisie, whose interests require protective tariffs on imports, investment in infrastructure, and a strong interventionist state to regulate and promote domestic industry.

This conflict has often been played out within successive Brazilian governments between the Bank of Brazil linked to the former and the Ministry of Finance linked to the latter. The comprador bourgeoisie in Brazil have always implemented domestic polices in accordance with US interests while the national bourgeoisie have tended to favour a more independent domestic and foreign policy.

Getullio Vargas was ousted in a coup in 1954 by elements of the comprador bourgeoisie backed by Washington. The same year he wrote a letter to the Brazilian people in which he denounced the “international financial groups” who were joining forces with “national groups” to overthrow him.1

Similarly, the recent events in Brazil should be seen as an attempt by the comprador bourgeoisie comprised of speculators and vulture capitalists working for Wall Street interests, who, through NGOS financed by the latter, have mobilised the lower-middle class or petite-bourgeoisie against the institutions that constitute the power base of the national bourgeoisie, that is to say the legislative and the executive organs of the nation-state.

They are doing this on the one hand through manipulation of the judiciary and on the other, through manipulation of the desires and egos of the new, lower middle class or petite bourgeoisie, who have been brought up on a diet of consumerism, video games and pop culture. The point of all this is to use the lower middle class protestors as a battering ram to destroy the state institutions thereby bringing the country fully under the control of  Washington.

There is also another pole of destablisation at work in Brazil; this involves manipulation of the indigenous communities and environmentalism by corporate-financier interests. The purpose of this manipulation is to wrest control of natural resources from the Brazilian Federal state and bring them under the control of international corporate entities such as the World Wildlife Fund.

When President Rousseff suggested calling a plebiscite to find out what the protestors wanted changed, the proposal was highly criticised by opposition members who support the protests. She has proposed reforms which would greatly improve the democratic process in Brazil, yet most of the street oppositionists have rejected them because they “see politicians as being part of the problem, not the solution, and have been critical of both the president’s and Congress’ efforts”.

This is because the protestors do not have a conscious, coherent, political programme. The purpose of this imperialist destabilisation is  to break the ‘patrimonialismo estatale’; that is to say, Brazil’s traditional dirigiste governmental structures that hamper unbridled  penetration by foreign investors, thereby weakening the sovereignty of the Brazilian federal state. This would then prepare the terrain for a right wing seizure of power by the military that would re-orient Brazil’s domestic and foreign policy toward that of the United States, thereby putting an end to the BRICS multi-polar axis in favour of the unipolar, Anglo-American dominated New World Order.

In order to understand the mechanism’s of US power currently at work in Brazil, we need to revisit the 1964 military coup.

Organising the 1964 ‘Revolution’

The Central Intelligence Agency organised a military coup against the government of former President Vargas’ protégé, Joao Goulart, in 1964. Like Lula and the Workers Party, Goulart was an anti-communist liberal who sought to implement modest social and labour reforms, the ‘reformas de base’ were intended to modernise the country.  Goulart’s reforms had support among the working class and the national bourgeoisie and included a mass literacy campaign, land reform enabling the government to take over estates of over 600 hectares deemed unproductive, and electoral reform extending the voting rights to illiterates.

Like the current Brazilian administration, Goulart had also pursued a more independent foreign policy from Washington. He relaxed persecution of communists. This upset Washington. Goulart favoured nationalist military officers over those trained by the United States and began purchasing military hardware from Eastern Block countries such as Poland. Laws limiting the amount of profits multinationals could take out of the country were also enacted by the Goulart administration. This state intervention in the ‘free market’ upset the directors of multinational corporations, who immediately began dreaming of a ‘transition government’.

Goulart had been the vice president of Janio de Silva Quadros, who was overthrown in 1961, by a US-backed coup after he refused to support President Kennedy’s plans for the invasion of Cuba. However, the US-backed coup against Quadros failed to prevent the election of Goulart in 1964. Goulart was no friend of left-wing causes. He supported Washington during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He simply pursued normal diplomatic politics with countries the US wanted to destroy and implemented reforms needed to industrialise the country. This was anathema to Washington who considered Brazil to be a colony of the United States and therefore subject to direct orders from above in matters of foreign and domestic policy.

The Central Intelligence Agency went to work. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organisations and the Agency for International Development were used as front organisations for the CIA.

Mass demonstrations were organised by CIA agents throughout the country. Over a million people took to the streets calling for a national revolution. Anti-communist hysteria was whipped up by the Catholic Church in conjunction with the CIA. Irish Catholic priest Fr. Patrick Peyton, a CIA asset, helped organise the famous Marcha de Familia Com Deus Pela Liberdade – The Family March with God for Liberty. Funding for the covert ‘people power’ coup came from over three hundred multinational corporations.

In order to create the impression that the ‘revolution’ was ‘popular’ and had support among diverse sectors of the population, the CIA helped set up numerous ‘civil society’ organisations. The feminists were represented by the Campanha de Mulher Pela Democracia, the Women’s Campaign for Democracy, which branched out into myriad groupings throughout the country such as the League of Women for Democracy in Belo Horizonte, the Gaucha Democratic Action in Rio Grande do Sul,  the Ceará Civic Movement in Ceara; the Civic Union of Women in São Paulo  and the  Women’s Crusade in Pernambuco. These organisations worked in the favelas in order to manipulate working class communities into joining the protests on behalf of the ruling class.

As part of its ‘revolutionary’ strategy of regime change, in 1961 US government helped set up the Instituto Pesquisas e Estudos Sociais, The Institute for Research and Social Studies, in Rio De Janeiro. The institute worked to collect data on social trends and behaviour among the Brazilian population, in order to create effective anti-communist and anti-populist propaganda through advertising campaigns, cinema and the mass media. Many lectures by the institute were aimed at housewives who were warned of the dangers that communism posed to family values. The institute also targeted students with influential documentaries such as “Deixem o estudante estudar” – Let the students study.

There is an important book in Portuguese by journalist Denisse Assis entitled Propaganda e Cinema A Serviço do Golpe which studies the use of predictive programming by the Brazilian Cinema and mass media in the run-up to the 1964 coup.

The mass uprisings of 1964 brought more than a million people onto the streets, the slogans used tended to be ‘apolitical’ simply calling for more ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. This was in order to disguise their ultra-right wing agenda. Mercopress writes:

An indication of the importance that the US ascribed to its operation was that the Air Force officer tasked with arranging some of the logistics was Paul Tibbits, who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

After the coup a CIA official cabled the following message to Washington:

The change in government will create a greatly improved climate for foreign investments.

Operation Brother Sam was marketed as a “revolution” by the mainstream press and it resulted in what William Blum has described as one the worst fascist dictatorships of the twentieth century.

Blum describes American ‘democratisation’ in Brazil as follows:

Within days General Castello Branco assumed the presidency and over the next few years his regime instituted all features the military dictatorship which Latin America has come to know and love: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for ‘political crimes’ was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government intervenors, mounting protests were met by police firing into crowds, the use of systematic ‘disappearance’ as a form of repression came upon the stage of Latin America, peasants’ homes were burned down, priests were brutalised … the government had a name for its program: the ‘moral rehabilitation’ of Brazil.. then there was the torture and the death squads, both largely undertakings of the police and the military, both underwritten by the United States. 2

The emphasis on lack of “morality” in a left wing government is, as we shall see, precisely the character of the recent protests throughout Brazil.

The military regime was staffed by puppets of multinational corporations who ran the country on their behalf, smashing unions and collective bargaining rights and maintaining conditions of slavery in many parts of the country. An advisor to the Workers Party, Maria Helena Moreia Alves, told Multinational Monitor in 1982:

The whole Brazilian system, the whole Brazilian government is for the benefit of multinational corporations. It’s a heaven for multinationals: the government has created a system of tax incentives which is phenomenal.

Corporations also do not have the same kinds of safety requirements in Brazil as at home. A study was conducted on Ford and Volkswagen and it was found that they had turned off the safety equipment on the assembly lines, particularly on the lathe operations, which has had the result that Brazil has one of the highest industrial accident rates in the world. Fingers get chopped off. Lula (Brazil’s most prominent labor leader) doesn’t have one of his fingers; that’s typical of lathe operators.

Workers have gone on strikes just to get protective masks and gloves, just for safety – it’s absolutely essential safety equipment which people have to strike for, and since strikes are illegal, they face imprisonment and trial, just to be able to have safety equipment.

Fiat motor corporation owes its success in Brazil to the criminal financial policies of the military dictatorship. According to Alves:

Fiat came into Brazil around 1975 or thereabouts, and located in two areas, Rio and Minas Gerais. In Rio, Fiat purchased an existing Brazilian-owned factory, Fabrica Nacional de Motores, which employed 6,000 workers and has always done very well.

Fiat had a subsidised loan from the Brazilian government for purchasing the plant. The loan was money obtained by the Brazilian government outside of Brazil – thus increasing the foreign debt – and lent to Fiat at a subsidised interest rate, and all to purchase a Brazilian company that already existed in Brazil. It was a ridiculous deal. The first thing, Fiat did was fire 3,000 workers and auto-, mate the plant.

Then Fiat also opened a new plant in Minas Gerais. The deal there was that they would get 10 years of no taxes whatsoever, plus subsidised loans for a number of years. After all that, they have recently closed the plant; they decided that they weren’t getting enough loans and enough benefits from the Minas Gerais government.

The role of Fiat, General Motors and other giant manufacturing corporations in the current events will be investigated anon.

During the fascist dictatorship, progressive labour laws initiated in 1943 under Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho (CLT), the Consolidated Labour Code were abolished. The CLT had made it difficult for employers to fire workers. During the dictatorship new laws were passed making it much easier for employers to dismiss workers without just cause.  Under the Wage Adjustment Law of 1965, the military regime determined the minimum wage of workers.

The 1988 Brazilian Constitution greatly improved collective bargaining rights of workers; the maximum working hours of workers was reduced from 48 to 44; minimum payment for extra time increased from 20% to 50% of the workers’ wages, working shifts were reduced from 8 to 6 hours per day, a holiday bonus consisting of one third of the workers wages was introduced and firing costs for employers were raised by 30%.

A report written in conjunction with the World Bank in 2000 entitled “Brazil:  The Pressure Points in Labour Legislation”, advocates a return to the labour laws of the fascist regime, citing the ‘pro-Labour bias’ in Brazil’s constitution and labour laws as a serious cause of the ‘Custo Brazil’, the ‘abnormally high costs of doing business in Brazil’.

  1. Gerassi, John, The Great Fear in Latin America, p. 81. []
  2. Blum, William, Killing Hope, US Military and CIA interventions since World War II, p. 171 []


]]> 0