Greek Man Admits Racist Murder on Facebook

Golden Dawn supporter Andreas Asimakopoulos apparently admits murdering Iraqi immigrant

As the global corporatocracy forces Greece into implementing austerity measures that are guaranteed to destroy the country’s economy, the inevitable outcome is a widespread collapse into poverty, a breakdown of society, and the rise of nationalism. Organised fascism has appeared, in the shape of Golden Dawn. Unsurprisingly, the police have been accused of turning a blind eye to anti-immigrant violence – indeed, it’s been reported that 50% of Athens police voted for Golden Dawn in recent elections.

In one of many recent attacks, an Iraqi man is reported to have been stabbed to death on Sunday morning by five individuals. A Golden Dawn supporter, Andreas Asimakopoulos, appears to have admitted involvement in the murder on Facebook – another user took a screenshot of the admission; a translated version is shown above, and the original image (in Greek) can be seen here.

Activists have informed Athens police.

In the mean time, the centre-right Greek government has chosen to launch a huge round-up of immigrants in an attempt to attract votes away from Golden Dawn: a cowardly and dangerous strategy. The original cause of Greece’s ongoing collapse – austerity designed to force the country into selling its assets to private bidders – continues unchanged.

Update: the following is a translation of a Greek newspaper article I’ve been provided: The Facebook user in question has contacted TVXS and claimed that his Facebook posts were just “jokes between him and his friends”. He has also removed all mention of Golden Dawn from his Facebook page.

Moronic Referendums

Last week, the most comprehensive (and expensive) deal so far was put together by the European Union to save Greece (not to mention the rest of us) from uncontrolled default. Billed (naturally) as the deal that would solve all of Europe’s problems, it was inevitably oversold; yet it was a serious and worthy effort to draw a line under the Greek debt crisis and prevent the spread of the Greek disease to other countries. The deal would write off a portion of Greece’s debt and underwrite banks and governments that may be thrown into difficulties as a result. Markets rallied, as they always do when a little tension is relieved, then slid downward again once the financial dealers of the world returned to work the next day, having consumed a little too much cocaine and fine wine the night before.

Then the unexpected happened: Greek Prime Minister Papandreou decided, without even first warning his cabinet or other EU leaders, to call a referendum on the deal. Europe’s leaders were mortified, as were Papandreou’s fellow cabinet ministers, and of course the markets. The decision was bizarre at many levels. Greeks have been hugely punished for the atrocious financial management of Greek governments (mostly not Papandreou’s, but the conservative administration that preceded it). Incomes have fallen by a shocking amount in a short time, and many Greeks are unable to make ends meet. But the decision was a moronic one: it was impossible to organise a referendum before Greece was owed €8bn from the EU, meaning it would have to default on some debts, and be unable to pay public workers at a time when they are already living on the bread line. It was a slap in the face for other EU countries (chiefly Germany) who were keeping Greece afloat at their own, huge, expense. And the concept of the referendum itself was simply moronic – the Greek people would effectively be asked whether to face financial hardship or the meltdown of their democracy. One can’t help but sympathise with Papandreou who is under unbelievable pressure, but the decision seemed to show he had lost the plot completely.

A rebellion in the government forced Papandreou to U-turn and the referendum was cancelled again within a few days.

I had tweeted that the referendum decision was moronic, and was met with a response from a number of tweeters, left and right, that I was “opposing democracy” or “opposing the right of the Greek people to decide”. I’m not ideologically opposed to referendums, but I can’t think of many cases where they make sense. We (in most of Europe and the US) have representative democracies rather than direct democracies for good reason: most of the population don’t have the time or the inclination to inform themselves on complex issues, nor should they have to – that’s why we have professional politicians, and provide them with the funding to employ economists, historians, political scientists, statisticians and so on.

Attempts by economists to quantify the options have put the cost of preventing a crash at €1tn to €2tn – a mind-blowing amount of cash. Attempts to quantify the alternative are difficult, as chaos is basically unpredictable: would the EU unravel? Would that lead to trade wars or actual wars? The only firm answer seems to be that the cost of not saving Greece would be many times higher than of saving it. Does it make sense to allow the people to make that decision?

The question would seem simple enough: Should Greece accept or reject the EU deal? But more honestly, it would say: Should Greece continue with this pain and try to turn the economy around, or should we face economic collapse, a likely military coup, and drag the rest of Europe down with us? Is it ethical to give Greeks a say as to whether Italy, Spain, France and eventually the rest of Europe down with it? What right do they have to decide that? In reality, Greeks had their say years ago: they elected weak or corrupt leaders who failed to tax the wealthy, and who funded improved lifestyles for the Greek people using cheap loans from European banks. It’s harsh, but it happened. Why not give the Norwegians a referendum on whether it should be sunnier in mid-winter? Surely they have the right to decide that? It would be equally nonsensical – the poor Greek people need and deserve leaders who will make tough but informed decisions on their behalf, not useless paper exercises of “choice” when there is no choice.

The nationalistic British right is becoming equally agitated in their demand for a referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU. If you listen to the small minority who actually understand the implications of that choice, you’ll hear that an exit would cause huge, lasting damage to the British economy. A referendum may fairly be phrased: Do you want to see a large cut in your standard of living or not? To which the average Brit may actually make an informed decision. But masking that as “do you want to exit the European Union?” would be another question which 90% of the population is unqualified to answer. You could, of course, make voting contingent on demonstrating a good understanding of the economic and historical issues – which thankfully would exclude most of the electorate. But if you did that, why not just ask those people who are actually qualified instead?

Earlier this year, the British people heavily rejected the Alternative Vote, a minor change to our voting system that would have improved the quality of our democratic process and given us more of a say over who governs us. It was a moronic decision – but how were most voters to know that? They took their lead from the moronic tabloid newspapers. And they represented the interests of the two main political parties, which would have lost their power duopoly under the new system. So rather than spend time and money asking the electorate, why not just ask unelected newspaper owners instead? It would be fast, cheap and give exactly the same result.

Referendums allow the mob to decide, and the mob is easily swung. Two years ago in Switzerland (which runs a system of direct democracy), the people voted to ban the building of tall towers. But not all tall towers: specifically those attached to mosques, also known as minarets. The Swiss, not the most racially diverse people, basically ran an exercise in minority-lynching, in full public view. Democracy at its best? If democracy is another word for lynching, I’ll give it a miss, thanks. As a member of the Jewish minority comprising about 0.3% of the UK population, the thought of such a system of “democracy” makes me queasy.

And look at California: the state adopted a system of direct democracy, allowing measures to be added to every ballot and voted on in each election. Given that most people have little time to research every ballot proposition, the propositions that make it are usually backed by big money interests. In trying to give more power to the people, California instead gave more power to wealthy vested interests. The results? More people in prison (thus profiting prison operators and prison unions). And the biggest debt of any US state. Why? Because people, quite naturally, vote for better services but no tax rises. Who wouldn’t?

Wouldn’t I like referendums on issues of concern to me? It may have been nice to stop the Iraq war from going ahead, for example. Except, we wouldn’t have been able to stop it. If a referendum was called, we’d have been bombarded by the media with the same lies and fear that MPs were, and the majority of people, unable to separate fact from fiction, would have buckled and voted for war. Love or hate our MPs, and moronic as many of them are, they’re still far better informed on world issues than the average Brit. They took the wrong decision on Iraq. So would have most British people.

There are many ways to improve our democracies: elected employee representatives on corporate boards, the right to recall our representatives, freedom of information so journalists can tell us what our politicians are up to, and proportional forms of voting so no vote is wasted. But referendums? They don’t improve democracy, they’re just a straightforward race to the bottom.

The Reality of Right-Wing Nationalism Hits Norway

75 years ago this October, my grandfather, the son of Jewish immigrants to London’s poor East End, took to the streets with thousands of others to stop the ultra-nationalist British Union of Fascists from marching through a largely Jewish area. The event turned into a pitched battle, with Oswald Mosley’s fascists and the Metropolitan Police on one side, and locals, Jews, Irish, socialists and communists on the other. The fight (which became known as the Battle of Cable Street) ended with victory for the anti-fascist side, with the fascists and police beaten off the streets.

Following the Holocaust, Fascism became a dirty word, but Nationalists have continually tried to detoxify their brand and reinstate themselves into the mainstream. Mosley returned in the 1950s, this time labelling black immigrants, rather than Jews and Irish, as the main “threat” to the “British way of life”. In the late-60s, Conservative MP Enoch Powell became famous for predicting that mass immigration would lead to “rivers of blood“. Through the 70s, right-wing nationalism and street-thuggery rose in the form of the National Front, but the movement was resisted on the streets, and finally dissolved in the early-80s as a new, multicultural music scene brought young black and white people together socially. By the 90s, nationalism seemed to be a thing of the past, but the 9/11 attacks gave the racist right a chance to re-brand as an anti-Islam force. Nearly ten years on, and we can see that the “Islam is a threat” message has worked its way from fascist meeting rooms into the political mainstream-right in Europe and the US.

Gradually, the anti-Islam message has morphed back into a more traditional anti-immigration message, being amplified by the right-wing tabloid press here (and Fox News in the US). The nationalist, anti-immigration message isn’t easy to sell; it relies on persuading people that the past (or rather, an imaginary, idyllic past) is being replaced by a more dangerous future as immigrants join their society. Prior to 9/11 it seemed that the Western World had moved beyond irrational fear of foreigners, and that society’s liberal tendencies had prevailed; but we soon learned that race hate and xenophobia weren’t far beneath the surface; that US and European society had changed less since the 1940s than we’d convinced ourselves.

When the drum of fear and hate is being pounded consistently, the infection will naturally spread. For most fear-infected morons, the outlet of Twitter or a blog is enough. But it’s inevitable that angry or mentally-disturbed individuals like Anders Behring Breivik will become infected too, and violence will follow, as it did last Friday in Norway. Breivik’s choice of target, the mainstream, liberal Norwegian Labour Party, was a natural one for anyone understanding the history of European nationalism. He chose a multicultural youth camp, something designed to ease racial tensions in Norway, but also proof (in Breivik’s confused world view) that evil forces were trying to dilute Norway’s racial and cultural past into something new and alien.

Whether Breivik acted alone, it can be stated with certainty that he was influenced by master-manipulators of the nationalist movement. It’s already been established from his own blog (English translation provided by @Dilmunite) that he admired the far-right English Defence League; according to many EDL Facebook posts, Breivik had many EDL Facebook friends, and attended an EDL rally in the UK in 2010. I’d recommend following @BanTheEDL and @EverythingEDL on Twitter for a collection of evidence linking group members with Breivik.

Another key Breivik influencer was someone I’ve often mentioned: Pamela Geller, a self-appointed “defender” of America against “creeping Islamification”. Pamela spent the weekend tweeting new myths distancing herself from the terrorist, for her army of moron followers to disseminate.

In my Twitter feed, I’ve long watched morons large and small disseminate misinformation about Islam, Muslims and immigration. Their purpose was to spread enough hatred widely enough that sooner or later someone would take action, and set a chain of violence underway. It looks as though they found a new disciple (though not their first – right-wing terror plots have long been of concern, especially in the US), and no doubt other “white heroes” are watching and contemplating whether to follow Breivik’s example (as was clearly his intention).

Western governments now need to decide whether Islamaphobic lies and smears equate to hate speech, and whether to prosecute the most virulent of these liars. The shock following the Norway attacks will quickly pass, and lack of action against armchair-nationalist morons by governments will result in more confidence in the nationalist movements, and inevitably more violence.

Is Fascism Back in Europe? Did It Ever Leave?

Like all European Jews, I was taught about the Holocaust during childhood. The facts of the event are too staggering for even an adult to comprehend, let alone a child. But the explanation given was fairly straightforward: the German people went through some kind of temporary madness; the “good guys” (Britain, The US and the Soviet Union) went to war; we won and killed Hitler; surviving Jews were freed from the camps; it couldn’t happen again.

Some less palatable facts were left out of the account; the Holocaust was massive in scale, but was just one of countless European attacks on Jews and Gypsies throughout history; it wasn’t just the Nazis, or just the Germans, but a mass genocidal movement that rose spontaneously across large parts of Europe; the only reason it may not happen again was that this time it was a “success” – so many Jews were killed, and so many more fled to New York and Israel that Europe’s thirst for Jewish blood may have finally been sated.

What was “special” about Jews and Gypsies? Simply this: that both groups originated outside of Europe. And Europe hates outsiders.

Most people I know like the simplicity of the “one-off madness” theory. It saves thinking too much, and avoids any worry that similar could happen again. British Jews in particular like to blame Germany for everything; acknowledging you live in a continent that has taken repeated joy in slaughtering our ancestors is too much for most Jews to think about.

I believed in the simple view myself until I started travelling to Italy on a regular basis. I’d fallen in love with the style and beauty of the country, and learned to speak Italian to a good level. Visiting a friend’s family in the Alto Adige, a mixed Italian/German province in the far north-east of the country, helped open my eyes. It was casually explained to me that the city council of Bolzano (the main city of the region) regularly changes hands at elections – between the German-speaking Fascists and the Italian-speaking Fascists. I thought this must be some mistake; surely Fascism died in 1945, never to return?

While in Bolzano, I accompanied a friend to visit her father’s grave. She thought I’d be interested in the Jewish section of the cemetery so we walked around it. She said she didn’t think there were any Jews left in Bolzano – but she didn’t know where they had gone. That was my moment of revelation: by punishing the Nazis for the crimes of WW2, most of the guilty had gone free. History had been re-written. As Europe rebuilt, it had learned fewer lessons than it liked to pretend.

The European far-right struggled to re-establish itself for decades, but bit by bit it has returned to strength. The movements are deeply adaptable – unlike its cousin in America that finds it hard to hate anyone except black people, the European far-right is pragmatic in its choice of scapegoats. It’s no longer considered acceptable to blame Jews for everything? Then parade your “love” for Israel and blame Muslims instead. Homosexuality has become acceptable in Europe? Then gays will no longer be lynched – in fact the new fascists positively embrace homosexuality, brandishing their “tolerance” to show how “intolerant” Muslims are (cleverly ignoring the fact that European gays used to travel to Morocco on vacation when they were not acceptable to the average European).

Suddenly, apparently within a few months, far-right nationalism is confident and resurgent. The seed of this growth was in large part sown on 9/11, but it’s taken a decade for the anti-Muslim narrative to evolve. Mostly, the new nationalism is finding strength in the same places that embraced fascism in the 1930s: France and Italy, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, across much of Europe. Nationalism is presented in fresh, acceptable forms. While we were on the lookout for jackboots and racist mobs, it instead presents itself in the form of Geert Wilders, who has gained popularity in The Netherlands, Marine Le Pen in France, and the boringly-British duo of Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage in the UK. It cloaks itself as “concern” over “excessive” immigration or as “defending our sovereignty” from the European Union. We forget so fast that Europe, by nature, is the world’s most warlike continent, and that the EU has created the longest period of peace in European history.

So here we are again – it’s not so much that far-right nationalism is back, it’s just that we forgot it never went away.

(Update: a Dutch translation of this article is available. Thanks to krapuul.nl)

France’s Racist Burqa Ban

So France, flying the flag for secularism, equality and modernity, has bravely banned an item of clothing worn by an estimated 2,000 women – the veil properly known as the niqab, though often referred to as the burqa. Before we congratulate the French for this bold move, let’s explore some background.

Anecdote: A Mauritian friend, a light-skinned, mixed-race guy, was in Paris recently visiting family. Walking down the road with his blonde wife and their toddler, they passed a respectable-looking guy… who racially abused them and spat on their child.

Anecdote: A French friend of mine, “N”, grew up in the notorious estates (projects) in the Paris banlieues (suburbs). His mother was French, father was an Indian Muslim immigrant, and so in French terms, he’s foreign. He grew up along with other excluded sections of French society: Arabs, North Africans, Jews, Sub-Saharan Africans. Racial harassment from police was a daily part of life. He became a gifted graphic designer, but no company in Paris would hire him. He moved to London and quickly found a well-paid job. He still sees France as home, but without employment, couldn’t live there.

Anecdote: A French friend of mine lives in London. She’s white, “native” French. She visits family regularly. She tells me that racist talk is now openly accepted among white French people, with no shame or stigma attached.

Anecdote: The black British journalist Gary Younge studied for some time in Paris. He’s written of his experiences during that time, when he faced regular racial abuse and police harassment, to the point where he began to feel hatred for white people.

Anecdotes are interesting but don’t prove anything: But what about the UN report that advised on a “significant resurgence of racism” in France? The 1998 poll showing France to be the most racist country in Europe, where 38% of French people described themselves as racist? The 2005 uprisings by poor North Africans who had finally had enough? My friend N’s experience wasn’t unusual: in 2005, 5% of white graduates were unemployed, compared to 26.5% of graduates of North African origin.

Outside of football, non-white faces are barely seen in public French life. France applauded itself when its first black newsreader appeared on TV. In the 70s? 80s? 90s? Actually, it happened in 2006.

The picture at the top of this article is of a yellow Star Of David with Juif written on it (“Jew” in French). In Nazi Germany and occupied Poland, Jews were forced to wear stars saying Jude – “Jew” in German. But in Vichy France, the French carried out the persecution of Jews, and they did it the French way. While some European countries resisted German demands to hand over their Jewish citizens, France sent over 75,000 French Jews, Jewish refugees and other French citizens to the death camps. After World War 2, Germany was forced to live up to the horror of what it had perpetrated; but France was not. The willingness with which the French turned on their own Jewish population was buried, and the myth of the French Resistance was amplified instead, to present France as a heroic nation under occupation.

This is the France that banned niqabsyesterday. Europe’s most racist country, a segregated state that has never allowed equality or integration for its minorities, a country where people of Muslim origin have trouble finding employment or good housing, and face routine harassment and brutality from the police. Those who believed that this is about women’s rights or promoting secularism have been fooled – this is simply France doing what it does so well: bullying powerless minority groups that can’t hit back.