XXI century exodus: notes on why and how

In this article maybe you will find some different ideas concerning immigration. Different from the conventional ideas the establishment and the official press are used to express, as it is something unavoidable, as it was a poisoned fruit of the destiny. Things are very different.

§1. Real causes: oil exploitation

First of all, the responsibilities of the Western world are tremendous. The real nature of those responsibilities is on the kind of policies of exploitation that Western countries have been playing to extract petroleum. The attack on the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was just the first step of the kind of policy that now have been standardized over all the main petroleum producers countries: Syria and Libya are the terrible examples of this methodology. When the president of these countries tries to increase the price the extractive companies should pay, suddenly Western countries remember that president is a dictator, and immediately they feel the need to save their people exporting democracy.

§2. The trick: exporting democracy

What a pity that Western countries where totally indifferent when people really have been asking for democracy in their countries, as it happened when the Arab Spring began. Unfortunately, America and Europe remained completely dumb and blind to these request, and even the literature and music of this epochal change entered in a significant level into the Western consciousness (with exception of a few intellectual, immediately qualified as “boring” by the hegemonic press). If we remember what happened with the Saddam Hussein’s affair, we may recall that he was accused to have chemical weapons, but this was recognized (and not by opposition’s press, but by establishment magazines as TIME) that this was completely invented by Dick Cheney (George Bush’s vice-president) and Valerie Plame (a CIA’s agent). Exporting democracy is OK when it is useful to justify an imperialist attack. On the contrary, it doesn’t matter if it is to recognize more rights to people.

§3. The exodus: a way to life

How to blame people who tries to escape from death and destruction?  And how to distinguish between people who are under the effective attack of the masters of wars from people that are used to be under continuous pressure because more swift ways of violence? Are you aware or not that in the whole Africa the multinational industries are used to corrupt one or two families to get the way to extract richness (oil, diamonds, fruit and everything, including human life)? Do you know what happen if they are proud enough to rebel? It is very simple: the corrupt another rival clan, they give them weapons and money, so that starts an internal war, until the new group emerges and the cycle can restart. Exploitation over exploitation. How to blame people that tries to escape from this hell?

§4. The exodus: a new business

As a lawyer that has been a consultant for Amnesty International told in a recent public conference, “if you want to understand a criminal system, simply follow the money”. And if you try to track the money about illegal immigration, you will find that the main countries in Europe where the money comes, they are Germany and Lichtenstein. Of course – as the Frontex (the EU Agency to manage immigration, ndr) functionary answered – we have to consider that immigration exploitation starts and continues where money movement is not possible to track (for instance, a person who comes from Congo, had to move to Niger, then to Libya, and each one of these passages is beaten by a money transfer, that is not part of the movement that are related to Europe. This consideration is correct, anyway it does not impact the truth that the final movement of money arrives in the countries above indicated and, similarly to VAT, the final destination is always the place where the surplus is finally extracted. And, as some wiretaps testifies, this kind of affair is more rewarding than selling drugs.

§5. The European scarecrow and the multinational vultures

The complete dis-alignment of European Member States has heavy roots. In recent years, we move from an European Commission completely into the hand of the inter-governative dimension (the Barroso’s Commission, an un-influential presidency, similar to a scarecrow where each kind of bird perched on branch) to the new dimension of the Juncker’s Commission, pretending to be interpreted as a political one (in reason of the new Treaties’ reform, according which the president must be selected according to the majority created in the parliament election), while the effectiveness of the government is more and more in the hand of financial powers. As a demonstration of this final concept, we may easily refer to the asset of the present debate about the reform of the asylum discipline for migrants, with main EU countries that wants to hold the Dublin agreement, which allows to them to hold the problem in the arrival countries and eventually to choose a quota of selected and skilled migrants to host. This kind of situation has been defined “asylum shopping” by the main informed press (see, for instance, Irene Kostaki’s article in NEWEUROPE 10-16 April 2016, pag. 3).

§6. Terrorism is inhuman just like this immigration policy

In front of these situation, we should agree with Tariq Ramadan (see the article on POLITICO, March 31, 2016), when he says that “to continue to deny that there is a connection between our politics (or our absence of clear politics) in Syria, Libya, Iraq and even in Palestine, and terrorist attacks in Europe proves our alarming ignorance. We cannot support dictatorship, be political and economic partners with states who export literalist Salafi doctrine, remain silent when civilians are massacred south of our borders and hope that we will not receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked”.

§7: Education and instruction to open the spiritual life

There is not a signal of a different a positive attitude into the political framework of Europe in present days. This means that Europe is going to abdicate to its historical role and spiritual mission. Europe is no more a space of freedom and emancipation, as the noble fathers told us. Now Europe is nothing but a place of privilege, and this privilege is going to become something reserved to a smaller and smaller number that is going to exclude the one-time emerging middle-class, rejecting it into a proletarian dimension, mixed with the desperate poverty of immigrants.

Instead to generate a new understanding of the many against the few of the privilege-class, the separation into a variegate level of semi-poverties and poverties is going to generate the anger of the final ring that cannot resist to the interpretation that “you have caused war and death in our countries, now you will suffer the consequences”.

There’s no way to avoid this destiny, unless to restore the noble idea of Europe as space of freedom and emancipation for all: and this means to talk and to act concretely, effectively, actually about social justice, education, housing. employment.

The only thing that is clear is that there’s no room for this into the political life of Europe. Therefore, we need for a radical change driven by brave people.

Do you dare to join?



Olympe de Gouges-Déclaration

(7 May 1748 – 3 November 1793), born Marie Gouze, was a French playwright and political activist whose feminist and abolitionist writings reached a large audience.  [sources: wikipedia, biobble]  In 1773, according to her biographer Olivier Blanc, she met a wealthy man, Jacques Biétrix de Rozières, with whom she had a long relationship that ended during the revolution. She was received in the artistic and philosophical salons, where she met many writers, including La Harpe, Mercier, and Chamfort as well as future politicians such as Brissot and Condorcet. She usually was invited to the salons of Madame de Montesson and the Comtesse de Beauharnais, who also were playwrights. She also was associated with Masonic Lodges among them, the Loge des Neuf Sœurs that was created by her friend Michel de Cubières.

A passionate advocate of human rights, Olympe de Gouges greeted the outbreak of the Revolution with hope and joy, but soon became disenchanted when égalité (equal rights) was not extended to women.

In 1791, she became part of the Society of the Friends of Truth, an association with the goal of equal political and legal rights for women. Also called the “Social Club”, members sometimes gathered at the home of the well-known women’s rights advocate, Sophie de Condorcet. Here, De Gouges expressed, for the first time, her famous statement, “A woman has the right to mount the scaffold. She must possess equally the right to mount the speaker’s platform.”

That same year, in response to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, she wrote the Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne (“Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen“). This was followed by her Contrat Social (“Social Contract“, named after a famous work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau), proposing marriage based upon gender equality.

She became involved in almost any matter she believed to involve injustice. She opposed the execution of Louis XVI of France, partly out of opposition to capital punishment and partly because she preferred a relatively tame and living king to the possibility of a rebel regency in exile. This earned her the ire of many hard-line republicans, even into the next generation—such as the comment by the 19th-century historian Jules Michelet, a fierce apologist for the Revolution, who wrote, “She allowed herself to act and write about more than one affair that her weak head did not understand.” Michelet opposed any political participation by women and thus disliked de Gouges.

As the Revolution progressed, she became more and more vehement in her writings. On 2 June 1793, theJacobins arrested her allies, the Girondins, imprisoned them, and sent them to the guillotine in October. Finally, her poster Les trois urnes, ou le salut de la Patrie, par un voyageur aérien (“The Three Urns, or the Salvation of the Fatherland, By An Aerial Traveller“) of 1793, led to her arrest.

She spent three months in jail without an attorney, trying to defend herself. The presiding judge denied De Gouges her legal right to a lawyer, on the grounds that she was more than capable of representing herself. It seems as though the judge based this argument on De Gouges’s tendency to represent herself in her writings.