Pseudo Socialism & The 'Radicalism' Scam

Tunisia / Summary from Wikipedia 1800s - Tunisian international debt grew unmanageable 1869  - Tunisia declared itself bankrupt 1869 - international financial commission took control of economy Who knew there was a world financial order in 1869? 1881 -  using pretext of a Tunisian incursion into Algeria      French invaded with an army of about 36,000      forced the Bey to agree to the terms:      1881 Treaty of Bardo (Al Qasr as Sa'id)      result:  Tunisia officially made a French protectorate      European settlements in Tunisia were actively encouraged   1956 - independence (Habib Bourguiba)      2011 - revolution:  govt & Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) one      formerly:  Neo Destour & Socialist Destourian Party      described as 'most repressive', but that's the capitalist portrayal      they're socialists, so the capitalists can't have that      Amnesty International & Freedom House 'human rights' orgs described      as 'independent' ... LMAO.  That settles it.  Capitalist propaganda.      Press Freedom propaganda group 2008 claims Tunisia ranked 143 on their propaganda scale*      One cannot maintain socialist governance without controlling the easily led rabble & 5th column agitators for capitalist exploitation*      / counterweights to capitalist oppression should be supported to govern as they wish (if they're really socialists)*     /  capitalists are pretty oppressive as well:  wear a t-shirt wankers find 'offensive'        in the UK and you can expect to be charged for it     President Beji Caid Essebsi      is descendant of Malmluk leader (Sardinian)      he'd almost pass for European *It looks like pseudo socialists are in power in Tunisia and they're very friendly with the imperialists of France and the US, who are militarising Tunisia and sinking enormous French and American taxpayer sums into military 'aid'.  So, while all those American capitalist shill NGOs that are whining about the oppression in Tunisia *are* and remain shills, maybe there's a point to their squawking?  Not sure what that's all about, but Freedom House et al are definitely not the friends of socialism. Did a quick summary on Tunisia, as the Nice-Attack (France) driver is Tunisian, and I was curious. French 1800s invasion of Tunisia sounds familiar. This banker rip-off and invasion pretexts thing keeps getting repeated. Wonder if they're really socialists? Nope.  Doesn't look like it. The reason there's Tunisians in France is probably because the French capitalists want to keep their dirty hooks in Tunisian investment (or profits) of some kind and robbery of resources of some kind. Haha, I was right.  And they're ripping off the FRENCH WORKING CLASS to fund their Tunisian exploitation project, the filthy frog capitalists: "President François Hollande’s Socialist Party government, which is imposing tens of billions of euros in social cuts against workers at home" [wsws] France gives €1 billion aid to Tunisia in bid to halt mass protests over jobs By Kumaran Ira 26 January 2016 After last week’s mass protests against unemployment and poverty throughout Tunisia, the French government has announced €1 billion aid over the next five years to its former colony. President François Hollande’s Socialist Party government, which is imposing tens of billions of euros in social cuts against workers at home, did not take this measure to address the basic social needs of Tunisian workers and unemployed. Rather, it feared that—as in 2011, when the uprising in Tunisia sparked revolution in Egypt—this was the only way to prevent an uncontrollable social explosion internationally. The Tunisian government has sent army and riot police against protesters, firing tear gas and water cannon as the unemployed gathered outside government offices to demand jobs. On Saturday, the interior ministry announced that 423 people had been arrested across the country for alleged acts of violence. The government also slandered the protests as the work of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terror group in nearby Libya. The mass protests underscored that none of the issues driving the revolutionary uprisings of 2011 have been solved. Imperialism avoided the coming to power of the working class, working with the Tunisian bourgeoisie, the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), and various pseudo-left parties, which insisted that the uprising should end so they could set up “democracy.” The ruling party, Nidaa Tounes, is a thinly disguised rebranding of Ben Ali’s old party. ... Tunisian government deployed armed forces and imposed a curfew to clamp down on protests ... [ ... ] An Elysée Presidential Palace statement declared, “Five years after the revolution, Tunisia has succeeded in its democratic transition but still faces important economic, social, and security challenges.” It insisted that the regime in Tunis can count on “France’s support.” France has broad economic ties with Tunisia. In particular, French and European transnationals seek to use high unemployment to exploit workers in France’s former colonies at rock-bottom wages, effectively using the Tunisian capitalist class and union bureaucracy as cheap-labour contractors. During his visit, Essid spoke to Prime Minister Manuel Valls and French Senate President Gérard Larcher, as well as with representatives of the French employers’ organisation, the Movement of the French Enterprises (Medef), to examine how to boost French investment in Tunisia. Essid and Valls signed an agreement to convert a part of Tunisia’s debt to France in investment. Larcher announced that the Senate would also seek to boost investment in Tunisia in the coming period. He said, “Essid informed me of Tunisia’s strategy aimed to develop several economic sectors, such as auto, which will help create jobs for youths.” What is emerging is not prosperity for Tunisia, however, but a vast expansion of imperialist influence in the former French colony. While seeking to extract more profits from Tunisia, the imperialist powers are also developing their military influence there under cover of the “war on terror.” According to the Elysée statement, “Tunisia, like France, is threatened and has been grievously hit by terrorism, because it chose democracy. Our two countries confront the same threat, and it is together that we must win the struggle against this scourge, respecting the rule of law.” The Elysée’s talk of “democracy” and the respect of “rule of law” reek of hypocrisy. Indeed, the most important recent development is that the French government is moving to treat metropolitan France in ways it had previously reserved for its colonies. After the November 13 terror attack in Paris, the Hollande administration has placed France in a state of emergency—under legislation created and first used during the failed attempt to crush the Algerian independence struggle—and plans to extend it indefinitely. This amounts to a repudiation of the rule of law, scrapping basic democratic rights, banning protests, controlling the press, and giving police broad extrajudicial powers to detain people without charge. The common fear of the Tunisian proletariat and of social anger in the working class in Europe and America, particularly in French urban estates with large North African immigrant populations, is prompting a joint political response of the capitalist classes. Already, during the initial uprising in Tunisia in 2011, then-French Foreign Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie proposed to reinforce the Ben Ali dictatorship with French riot police units. Now, during a visit to Tunis in October, French Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian signalled a broad escalation of Franco-Tunisian ties. Declaring that “Tunisia’s security is also that of France,” Le Drian announced that France would provide €20 million in military aid to Tunisia in the 2016-2017 period. This is a quadrupling of French military spending in Tunisia from its current level of €2.5 million per year. Washington is also more than doubling its military aid to Tunisia, from $40 million a year to $99 million, largely spent on equipment, whereas the French concentrate on training.  [ comment:  what?  they're creating another lot of ISIS type proxy fighters that will just turn on Westerners, fully equipped and trained? ] These measures underscore growing concern among imperialist powers over the intensification of social opposition in the working class. The imperialist powers and their Tunisian bourgeois allies have proven incapable of resolving any of the basic social and democratic questions that led to the 2011 uprising. Since the 2011 uprising, unemployment has increased from 12 to 15 percent among adults, whereas among youth the figure is 32 percent, rising to 40 percent in rural areas. These problems will intensify as Tunisia’s economy is set to contract amidst the worsening global slump. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/01/26/tuni-j26.html https://www.marxists.org/subject/arab-world/lutsky/ch14.htm Modern History of the Arab Countries. Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky 1969 CHAPTER XIV THE FINANCIAL ENSLAVEMENT OF TUNISIA AND ITS CONVERSION INTO A SEMI-COLONY THE ANGLO-FRENCH STRUGGLE FOR TUNISIA. The seizure of Algeria by the French in 1830 predetermined the fate of Tunisia. Occupying a strategic position on the Mediterranean Sea and bordering Algeria on the east, it naturally attracted the attention of the French colonialists, who had set about building a colonial empire in North Africa. The short-sighted Tunisian rulers, however, were not only unaware of the threat; they even rejoiced over the adversities that befell their age-old enemy – the Algerian dey [comment:  possibly reference to Ottoman rulers of Algeria?]. Taking advantage of the enmity between the Algerian and Tunisian feudal lords, France succeeded in getting the Tunisian bey to supply bread for the French army in Algeria. To facilitate the coming seizure of Tunisia, France declared that Tunisia was a state in its own right and independent of Turkey and that she intended to defend Tunisia’s independence. Mahmud II, the Turkish Sultan, was pursuing a policy of centralising the Ottoman Empire and trying to establish effective control by the central government over the remote provinces. He had decided, in particular, to strengthen the Porte’s authority in its African domains. In 1835, the Turks occupied Tripoli [Libya], overthrew the ruling dynasty of janissary beys and turned the region into an ordinary province of the Ottoman Empire. In 1836, it was Tunisia’s turn. The Turkish fleet was despatched to Tunisia, but France objected to the Turkish plans and sent her own fleet to meet that of the Turks. Confronted with the threat of war, the Turkish fleet retreated. Thus, the status-quo in Tunisia was preserved. No sooner had the Turkish fleet left Tunisian waters than France attempted to invade the region. In 1837, French troops attacked Tunisian territory, pillaged several villages and burnt crops. Border disputes, which had arisen in the course of the Algerian-Turkish demarcation and also the question of tribute, which the Tunisian bey had formerly paid to Algeria, served as an excuse for this barbarous attack. Under pressure from England, however, the French troops were finally compelled to withdraw from Tunisian territory. England, who had rather easily reconciled herself to the French occupation of Algeria, put up serious opposition to the French plans in Tunisia. This was due chiefly to Tunisia’s strategic position. Her ports, Bizerta and Goletta, were situated on the narrow strait between the western and eastern Mediterranean. The British energetically set about fortifying their positions; they seized Malta and were reluctant to permit the establishment of French bases in that area. The conflict of 1837 exposed the tense Anglo-French rivalry over Tunisia, which continued for more than forty years. The Anglo-French struggle for domination in Tunisia acquired various forms. First of all, the British and the French were competing for the Tunisian market. Secondly, they were competing for concessions on land, mines, the construction of communication routes, the means of communication, ports and other undertakings. Thirdly, they were competing for political influence over the Tunisian bey and his administration; among the bey’s high officials were French and British agents. Finally, they were competing for financial control over Tunisia. It must be noted that this struggle for hegemony in Tunisia developed against a background of reforming activities by the Tunisian beys, which ultimately cleared the way for the European bankers, who planned the conquest and enslavement of Tunisia. THE REFORMS IN TUNISIA. The threat of a French and Turkish conquest induced the Tunisian beys to modernise their country and in the first place the army. The chief reformer was Ahmed bey (1837-55), who pursued a policy of manoeuvre between the British and the French. An admirer of Napoleon and his strategies, this “enlightened despot” founded a military school, abolished slavery, purchased ships, cannon and equipment from abroad, built barracks, fortifications and palaces. The reorganisation of the army and the building programme required huge sums of money, especially since the European military instructors and out-fitters shamelessly robbed the bey. Apart from the great sums spent on the army, a considerable amount was wasted on the upkeep of the court. Moreover, the state treasury was plundered by the bey’s courtiers and especially by Mustafa Khaznadar, who for forty years was the actual ruler of Tunisia. In order to defray expenses, the government raised taxes and was finally compelled to ask for loans. Most of the money that was borrowed was squandered. Instead of being used for the development of Tunisia’s productive forces, it was embezzled by the ruling clique, spent on extravagances and luxuries, on the construction of palaces, on the millions of presents which the beys gave to their favourites and on the grotesque Tunisian army. Mohammed All, the Egyptian Pasha, had always regarded a modern army as a serious weapon of political struggle, but his contemporary, Ahmed Bey, regarded it merely as a form of amusement. True, the army served as a means to suppress the popular uprisings, but in its former state it had also successfully coped with this task. In other words, the military reform was useless. The modernised army was incapable of doing anything apart from fighting against the unarmed people. Huge sums of money were squandered aimlessly. From the French and British the Bey purchased guns that did not shoot, ammunition that did not explode and ships that sunk even before they got out to sea. In other words, he spent huge sums on spoiled goods that the British and French factory-owners could not dispose of elsewhere, on trash, discarded by the British and French armies. The burden of these expenses weighed heavily on the people, and this in turn aroused serious discontent in Tunisia. In 1840, a popular uprising took place in Tunis, in 1842, there was one in Goletta, followed by an uprising in Béja in 1843. The French and British instructors and military advisers invited by the Bey to serve in his toy-like army and fleet spent much of their time spying and interfered in Tunisia’s internal affairs. The representatives of France and England extolled the military reforms of the Bey, encouraged his reformatory itch to place Tunisia in the clutches of the European banks. In 1856, at the end of the Eastern war, the Turkish Sultan, Abdul Mejid, issued a hatti-humayun, which granted a number of rights and privileges to foreign capital. England and France demanded the same rights and guarantees from the Tunisian Bey. In 1857, Mohammed Bey (1855-59) issued the Ahd El-Aman (the Security Pact), which repeated the main stipulations of the hatti-sherif Gulhane of 1839 and the hatti-humayun of 1856. The pact proclaimed the equality of all subjects before the law irrespective of their religion, and also personal immunity and inviolability of property. In 1858, a municipal council was founded in Tunis and in 1861, during the reign of Mohammed es-Sadik Bey (1859-82), the Tunisian Constitution was promulgated, which proclaimed, in particular, the establishment of a consultative organ – the Supreme Council. Moreover, it envisaged the construction of railways, ports, telegraphs, and a reorganisation of the tax system and the army. Foreign businessmen were quick to take advantage of these reforms. The British received concessions for the construction of the first Tunisian railway between Tunis and Goletta; the French received concessions for the construction of a telegraph and for the restoration of the Zaghwan aqueduct. This meant that foreigners were granted the right to own land in Tunisia. On October 10, 1863, England imposed an agreement on Tunisia, the first clause of which pointed out that henceforward British subjects would be permitted to acquire immovable property of any kind in the Tunisian regency and to own it. The same rights applied to the French subjects on the strength of the Franco-Tunisian Treaty concluded as far back as 1824 and ensuring France the most favoured nation treatment. Later France secured more substantial legal guarantees and in 1871, achieved the publication of the Bey’s decree, which granted French citizens the right to acquire land in Tunisia. The same rights were granted to Italian, Austrian and Prussian subjects. THE FINANCIAL ENSLAVEMENT OF TUNISIA. The penetration of foreign capital into Tunisia brought financial enslavement just as it was doing in Turkey and Egypt. Immediately after the Eastern war, the European banks began to impose unfair loans on Tunisia, which quickly entangled her in the net of financial dependence. By 1862, the promissory debt of the Tunisian Bey had reached 28,000,000 francs. This was a considerable sum for Tunisia and brought her to the verge of bankruptcy. Taking advantage of this, a consortium of French banks offered the Bey a loan of 35,000,000 francs. The Bey accepted the proposal and the agreement was signed on May 6, 1863. It turned out that out of the 35,000,000 francs about 10,000,000 (9,772,000 francs, to be exact) were deducted by the bankers and out of the remaining 25,000,000 about 20,000,000 francs were paid in the deliveries of old stocks. All that the Bey received was a mere 5,640,000 francs, which were immediately handed over to discharge the floating debt. For all this Tunisia undertook to repay within fifteen years 63,000,000 francs (i.e., the original sum of 35,000,000 and 28,000,000 in interest) plus an additional 13,000,000 for commission payments. Far from curing her bankruptcy, Tunisia had merely fallen out of the frying pan into the fire. The French banks reaped the profits without a thought for the fate of the Tunisian people. How could Tunisia accept such harsh terms? Unfortunately, the Tunisian people did not ask that question. Everything was decided by the Bey and his ministers headed by Mustafa Khaznadar, who had been bribed by the French banks and on their behalf ruined his own country. The situation in Tunisia grew worse day by day. The feudal yoke was supplemented by foreign enslavement. The reforms had not touched the core of Tunisian feudalism, which was fully preserved. The payment of foreign debts called for ever greater sums of money. In search of funds, the state doubled, and in some regions trebled, the poll-tax – mejba. In reply to this, in 1863, a popular uprising under the leadership of Ali ben Gadakhum broke out. All Tunisia rose in rebellion against the feudal clique, which had ruined the country in the interests of foreign capital. The uprising of 1863-64 was put down and the conditions of the people remained just as unbearable as they had been before. Up to nine-tenths of the Tunisian budget went on the payment of debts. In search of a way out, the Bey once more turned to the foreign banks, from which he received a new loan of 25,000,000 francs in 1865. As security for the loan, the foreign usurers received access to the revenue of the state customs. This loan, like the previous one, turned out to be a swindle. Tunisia received hardly anything out of the 25,000,000 francs. The banks retained a considerable sum for commission, emission, and so on; the rest was used to pay the interest on the previous debt. Only 3,500,000 francs were left for the Tunisian Government, but even this was not paid in cash but in “kind” - for 2,500,000 francs Tunisia received one frigate and for 1,000,000 francs the promise of cannons. After the new loan, the situation became catastrophic. Plundering exceeded all bounds. To pay the foreign debt, the Tunisian treasury wrung everything it could out of the peasants and the handicraftsmen. The people were beaten, tortured and executed. To add to all this a terrible famine swept the region. People ate grass, roots and human flesh, an epidemic of cholera broke out and the people began fleeing by the thousands to neighbouring Tripolitania. Uprisings flared up in a number of localities. In such circumstances the Tunisian Government was compelled to stop the payment of foreign loans. The Bey government went bankrupt in 1867, eight years before the same fate overcame Turkey and Egypt. Taking advantage of this, the European Powers established financial control over Tunisia. In 1869, an International Financial Commission was formed to control the income and expenditure of the Tunisian Government. Representatives of the French, Anglo-Maltese and Italian usurers participated in the work of the commission. France played the leading role. The overall sum of the Tunisian debt was determined at 125,000,000 francs. Tunisia undertook to pay five per cent, or 6,250,000 francs per year, which was half of all state expenditure. The International Financial Commission took over control of all Tunisia’s customs revenue. Should this turn out to be insufficient, the government was obliged to pay the deficit. Tunisia had become a patrimony of the foreign banks, their semi-colony. But which group of capitalists would gain supremacy and turn it into its colony was not clear. Fierce rivalry developed between England and France, a struggle in which Italy was soon to take an active part. https://www.marxists.org/subject/arab-world/lutsky/ch14.htm Think maybe the Tunisian government ought to have a look at this history before they accept any French and American military 'aid'.  What's the bet that history is repeating itself?  Bankers are greedy pigs. Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky (1906-1962) lecturer Moscow’s Institute of Oriental Studies Moscow University other high learning institutions Soviet Union leading specialists in modern Arab history his book: first attempt in Russian or Soviet literature to write a systematic history of Arabs in modern times Classical Orientalists:  no major interest in modern Arab history / journalists, diplomats & military only referred to Arab history re: 1.  Eastern Question 2.  European Powers’ colonial policy Soviet era, many interesting history works published re Arab countries esp. Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Arabia *lack of body of literature on subject and absence of historical traditions limits some of Lutsky's book eg. no social & economic history of Morocco (described as blank in world history 'to this day', presumably 1969) Lutsky: 1.  writes from Marxist-Leninist point of view. 2   sharply criticises the European Powers’ colonial policy. 3.  regards presence of European colonial powers in East as an evil. Those described as 'Arab peoples' struggled to free themselves of: 1. Turkish pashas 2.  European colonialists *I'm not sure how 'Arab' everyone that's described as 'Arab' actually is, because some people that are culturally Arab, following the Muslim conquests, may not be biologically Arab (I think). Tried to find a photo of Vladimir Lutsky, but I don't think there is one ... unless he was in the military in 1944 and hung out with a Vasily Stalin (which I doubt, as he's an academic). BIOGRAPHY Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky (1906-1962) - Jewish b. Berdyansk 1930, graduate of Arabic Dept of Moscow Oriental Institute (MIV) 1931 to death, lecturer & research worker various institutions in Moscow & Leningrad principle field:  modern history of Middle East published 200 works main work:  'The National Liberation War in Syria' (1925-1927) published posthumously by pupils 1964* source | online preview Jews in Soviet Culture edited by Jack Miller *sounds like he might have been respected by his students Berdyansk port city Zaporizhia Oblast south-east Ukraine located in a steppe zone on the Berdyansk Gulf of the Sea of Azov founded in 1827 1939 to 1958:  called Osipenko Berdyansk founded as a village by order of the governor-general of Novorossiya* Count M.S. Vorontsov attitude to Jews liberal Jews formed part of population from foundation eg tailors, merchants 1860, Talmud Torah school founded 1881, assassination of Alexander II          - Jews request troop protection dispatch (fear riots / pogroms) 1890, x3 Jewish schools & other WWI - new schools opened for children of Jewish refugees from frontline Civil War period:  Berdyansk changed hands number of times Jewish population, subject to violence & pillage 1920, Po'alei Zion (Jewish Communist Party)          - x7 members volunteer for Red Army 1941, Oct. - Berdyansk occupied by German troops     abt.  1,000 Jews shot in gorge near town 1942, says 'rest annihilated' 1990s, Jewish cultural society founded, synagogue active Jewish Virtual Library *shitty American propaganda site, Wikipedia has not mentioned that Novorssiya in its entry re Berdyansk NOVOROSSIYA RULES ... lol   BOOK - FREE ONLINE Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky Modern History of the Arab Countries (1969) 27 Chapters & Glossary LINK | here OMG ... this book is gold.   It's the truth we would never otherwise know, written from a point of view that is seldom taken in the capitalist West. Even though I don't like the left in the West, I think I like the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint of Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky quite a lot, from what I've read of Tunisia. Mustapha Khaznadar Prime Minister, Beylik of Tunis 1837-1873 b. Georgios Kalkias Stravelakis on Island of Chios 1817 1822 Greeks of Chios declare independence from Ottoman Empire 20,000 Greeks massacred by Ottoman army of 10,000 women & children put into slavery father of Stravelakis killed brother of Stravelakis sold into slavery by Ottomans Stravelakis taken to Smyrna, then Constantinople sold as slave to envoy of Husainid Dynasty (Beys of Tunis & of Greek origin) on conversion to Islam, slave Stravelakis given name 'Mustafa' raised in family by Mustapha Bey then by his son, Ahmad I Bey 'khaznadar' means treasurer Stravelakis worked as Ahad I Bey's treasurer (khaznadar) reached high office, married princess 1840 made bey & various other 1864 - attempt to extract more peasant taxes = rebellion almost overthrowing the rulers government suppression was swift & brutal Khaznadar/Stravelakis retained connection to Greek family d. in and buried in Tunisia 1878, age 60 *shitty American propaganda site, Wikipedia has not mentioned the bribery of Mustafa Khaznadar by French banks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustapha_Khaznadar Found this quite amusing: Australia's Mustapha Khaznadar, bikie gang member done for pulling a sawn off shottie 2010 ... making sissy restaurant patrons crap their pants Kenneth Roth is such a wanker:        Kenneth Roth Verified account ‏@KenRoth 8h8 hours ago         France's population is 7-8% Muslim.         It's prisons (incubators of radicalism): 60-70%. *That figure's bullshit, especially in 'PC' Europe, where the filthy capitalists have taken to not even keeping accurate records, hiding the facts from the plebs, in the name of 'non-discrimination' or some such illegitimate universalist philosophy, that actually discriminates against the vital interest of Europeans.  In the case of France, I would double that at the very least. There is a reason France's prisons are 60-70% of that demographic, and it's not because the French are just assh*les intent on locking up innocents. I've not read the article, and I'm not interested.  It's bound to be the same old apologist if-only-we-held-their-hands-more narrative that exploits the feelings of the sentimental (in other words, it's manipulative), AND whichever troublesome demographic is being referred to, wherever it may be around the world, it's always someone else's fault. The incubator of 'radicalism' is multi-faceted and the fact that jihad (and martyrdom) is a key tenet of the beliefs of these non-European members of the 'warrior religion' that commands domination over, or death to, non-believers (who are considered ritually unclean) plays an enormous role in what the Western shills refer to as 'radicalism'.  There are also very real differences in historic and cultural progression, and therefore significant cultural and psychological differences, based on significant differences in perceptions and value systems (in one constant and interconnected loop, that is a different loop --  due to different heritage --  and that difference spans many thousands of years of evolution, in all its facets). In addition to historic, cultural and psychological factors, there are many political motivators that may drive attacks on members of host nations:  such as the historic and current injustices perpetrated by capitalists, capitalist exploitation, a host of capitalist / imperialist provocations and interferences in the Middle East, the Western capitalists supporting oppressive regimes in the Middle East, the Western capitalists stirring up sectarian conflicts in the Middle East,  and Western capitalists attacking the countries of co-religionists. On top of that, there is no 'assimilation' or 'integration' that is possible:  a Celt is a Celt.  In what the shills are trying to pass off as a 'globalist' world, there is simply the displaced in a capitalist-made wasteland, that look ridiculous in other peoples' national costumes, playing other peoples' national instruments. Even after many hundreds of years, some peoples keep their separate identities.  Those that do not, cease to exist as a people; and it's well worth remembering that. Europe is for Europeans, so why are these people even in Europe?  That is what's at issue.  What is ultimately at issue is not the demographic statistics, not the incarceration statistics, not the rape statistics, not the unemployment statistics, not the violent crime statistics, not the street riots and so forth, punctuated by terrorist attack statistics.  The fact is, if the French government wasn't implementing a decades long program displacing the native French on behalf of the ruling capitalist class, with those from the colonies who detest them, or from third world countries the French capitalists wish to rob of resources, there would be very minimal risk to the French when French capitalists and their partners exploit and damage countries abroad, and certainly no risk to the continued existence of the French people as an indigenous European people. We are witnessing the destruction of Celtic and Germanic peoples of Europe (and the destruction of European societies around the world), thanks to the long-standing policies of corrupt and spineless politician puppets owned by greedy capitalists -- and those that support the exploitation that is the 'universalist' baseless lie and illegitimate ideology, responsible for the divestment of Europeans, the oppression of Europeans, and the capitalist police-state political suppression of Europeans, that manifests in profound damage to vital interests of European people:  on what is a path to destruction of indigenous European people, in the name of capitalist greed and exploitation masked as 'goodwill'. Evropa    If You Can't Give Me Love (1978) Suzi Quatro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakBcX08hfU Celtic France 4th Century BC Disc brooch, France, 4th century BC RIGHT-CLICK:  OPEN LINK IN 'NEW TAB' Anglo Saxon Sutton Hoo, East Anglia Ship Burial replica Sutton Hoo helmet Celtic Arveni Tribe  70 BC - 20 BC 'Ghost Cavalry' of Gondole Auvergne region, France Celtic Burial Arveni tribe Auvergne region, France Evropa four by four, two rows men & their horses perhaps sacrificed to accompany a Celtic leader to the afterlife four by four, two rows NOTE - This post is all over the place, because I began with an off the cuff comment re the Kenneth Roth tweet, and the post then evolved into a series of look-ups in respect of Tunisia and summaries of interest (to me), before finishing up in Novorossiya and the Soviet Union ... and going back to and expanding the remark on Roth's shilling about the woes of French incarceration.