Skip to content

Why as European citizen who lives in Scotland Im voting No in Scottish referendum

Photo: Street in Edinburgh. I took this shot with my old Olympustrip 35 mm camera. You can see Balmoral Hotel were I  worked shortly in 2009 

I lived 6 years in Scotland, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow and I plan to build my future in this country. So while I was not born in Scotland and don’t have British citizenship I still feel that I own the right to have a say in this debate. Thankfully the referendum registration rules allowed EU citizens to register to vote too.

When it comes to discussions about independence people who supports vote YES passionately talk about poverty, unemployment, disability, food banks. I feel a misunderstanding here – people who choice to vote NO have the same compassion for disadvantages and people in poverty. It’s not one side issue. I personally faced my first unemployment and struggles with poverty, long queues in NHS, exactly here in Scotland. So I feel for the rest who struggle and I believe that majority of NO voters want to help people no less than YES supporters.

The main difference between two sides is that NO voters don’t share overoptimistic believe that independent Scotland will be Utopia with perfect trustworthy politicians and will never have to make any cuts in budget because there never will be a shortage of money. In my view, NO voters are united with more realistic views about economic risks . And when the Independent country will start to feel new economic downfall it will be those who struggle the most that will suffer the most, because the country that doesn’t have a prosper economy don’t have with what to fund welfare either.
Independence supporters like to share Joseph Stiglitz’s opinion on this matter (who by the way did not share deep analysis but just a short opinion and his opinion was based on Scotland staying inside European Union), but if we look to overall of all economists comments on this matter then it’s obvious that overwhelmingly majority of them warned about economic risks and uncertainties with independence. And you don’t need to trust experts on this, if you have simple knowledge of macroeconomics, monetary policies you can see yourself all uncertainty and risks.

But what I fail to understand is why YES campaigners don’t want to be engaged in conversation about economics and “debung” all the warnings as “scaremongering” without even discussing them. This is immature and not healthy for overall debate. If someone wants to jump off the cliff and other warns him about gravitation and how he will injure himself then it’s not a scaremongering, but a common sense. The independence is a huge decision involving many factories and a vote about it should be consider not by impulse or protest but with a cold mind, overweighting all benefits and risks.

On top of all this comes the issue that played the major role for me in choosing to vote NO – European Union. It’s astonishing and truly upsets me how European Union is almost not mention in the debate about Independence, considering how much Scotland benefits from membership and how little chances there are that application to re-join EU will be successful. When I asked one of YES voter about it he replied that he simple doesn’t care about EU. Well, I do care and as someone who has European federalist political views I’m frighten that in 2016 March for the first time I can find myself living outside of European Union while still living in Scotland.

In fact as European Federalist I don’t even understand the need to want independence when you are wishing to re-join EU. The union based on countries giving up their national sovereignty for greater good of Europe. I support only bigger integration of Europe and bigger federalisation with bigger powers to EU institutions in Brussels. And that’s what’s slowly all European Union moving towards. That can’t be denied now, after a new treaty that gave fiscal policy powers to EU institutions. So from this point of view the best thing for EU and Scotland would be that Scotland would remain part of UK and keep influencing England and whole UK to accept deeper integration into Europe.

If you don’t share such European Federalists views then at least you should still be concern about European Union case.
Facts and numbers that i considered:

Don’t take European Union for granted

Let’s start with the fact that Scotland won’t be automatically accepted into European Union. Different from the what Yes Scotland website tells EU institutions were quite clear in the letters to Scottish parliament that a new formed nation Scotland will need to reapply to EU. It’s not really debatable since treaties of European Union covers such case clearly and that in such case treaties will no longer apply to that territory that just become part of a state as an independent state. Scotland will have to rewrite many laws us their own and to write new constitution. The whole membership application process will be no different to other countries – starts with candidacy and test period to test how successfully independent Scottish economy, politics and laws works in practise. How long this test period will last and if it will succeed with an entrance to EU is still on question. Belgium and Spain most likely will veto Scotland application.

It’s not a secret that European Union establishment suffers from some countries putting their national priorities above the rest. Belgium and Spain (arguably some other EU countries too) would use veto to send signal to their own nationalists in their own regions who wishes to separate too. For anyone who follows European Union affairs closely such veto will not be a surprise. Current Spain prime minister already made his position quite clear that he won’t give special treatment to Scotland and won’t agree with automatic entrance, which speculative is indication of future veto too. To be automatically accepted in EU, Scotland would need all 28 members to agree, one veto will be enough to stop both cases – automatically joining and a new application.

European Union will also have a serious ground not to accept Scotland membership since first minister Alex Salmond’s feels ok with keeping pound even in a case of Westminster refusing to have monetary union. European Union is not just a club of politics but economic and monetary Union that requires members to have monetary authority. Worth to remember that Former European Union commissioners for monetary union Olli Rehn come up and personally warned that central bank is a criteria for membership ( ) In his letter he used Montenegro example who was asked to have monetary authority in their membership process. UK government parties already declared that they won’t join currency union with independent Scotland. Which may seem reasonable decision for them cause they would not want that their assets and taxes be the ultimate backing for a foreign country. As we all know Alex Salmon told all voters not worry about it because if Westminster refuses to make monetary union, he will refuse to pay a share of UK debt and with such blackmail a new monetary union will be formed. Very irresponsible and childish strategy, UK can backfire with guarantee veto vote for Scotland EU membership and not give up oil contracts or other even bigger tactics until Scotland will agrees to pay their share of debt. More importantly such reckless act from first minister of Scotland will show low credibility of Scotland and can damage entrance in other unions such as World trade organisation and ect. Not to mention risk of borrowing abilities with having basically worthless government bounds.

However even if monetary union somehow would be formed that still will leave us with question if such union without Scottish national bank gives enough monetary authority to qualify the requirements of EU membership. And those two option seem to be the only ones that Scotland really have, cause to create a new currency and new central bank Scotland may lack foreign exchange currency reserve. The whole process of creating new currency is long and painful, just ask Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Someone can say now, like my mentioned YES supporter before, that EU membership doesn’t matter. That would be foolish – don’t take all EU Benefits for granted. That’s grants for universities, subsidies for farmers, different funds to apply, Erasmus for students, diversity in the country, free access to live and work for any Scottish born citizen anywhere in EU and most importantly economic access to 500 million people market. The last one should be especially concerning for everyone who will vote. Today Scotland is one of the most export-oriented economies in the world, with exports over 70 per cent of gross domestic product. And big portion of those exports are within EU.

Scotland GDP is estimated at around £148 billion in total In perspectives Total North Oil total revenue, that everyone likes to talk so much, last year was only 4 billion pounds. So obviously Scotland economical prospers depends and will depend on exports. In fact forget North oil at all – Scotland’s economy depends on staying inside European Union.

YES campaign’s leaflets tries to persuade people to vote YES if they want to stay in European Union. Based on Cameron promise to hold referendum on EU if Tories win next general election. Such yes tactic is ridiculous, firstly polls shows that Labour will win next elections and majority of seats

Let’s be clear here – vote YES will result in leaving European Union by default with a big uncertainty of ever coming back in EU.

Economic uncertainty for independence

Other economic issue does not look good in YES campaign either. People like to compare Scotland with Scandinavian countries and imagine that after independence Scotland will be the same. But they forget that Scandinavian people pay around 43% income taxes. Who with current salaries and prices will be willing to pay so much taxes in Scotland today? Without the central bank and currency union Scotland will not have monetary policies to set up their own interest rates, to control import/export and inflation. Even in currency union such instrument will be dictated by England economy who’ll have totally different inflation and economic policies than comparing quite small Scottish economy. If you thing England been so cruel and unfriendly to Scotland in the union then why you would be willing to put your monetary policies in their hands and hoping that they will before kind to you as a foreign country. But everything seems not worry people from YES campaign because their delusional believe in huge reserves of oil in north. They seem to forget that reports stated that even if there are such big reserves they are beyond deep waters with difficult geological condition and with current technologies it’s impossible to reach it. Surely if that would be possible to do then profit driven and owned by corporations Westminster (as YES campaigners portray it) would have done it long time ago. Instead of all main economic questions YES campaigners focused everything on cancelling TRIDENT

That would have little impact. Scotland share cost is 163 mln. (such amount comes from YES campaign – ) Also le’ts not forget that Scotland wants to become a member of NATO and want of membership requirement is to spend 1% of your GDP to your defence.

Benefits from UK

It surprises me that people took a lot of benefits of being in UK for granted. You not just leave Cameron, but you are leaving 60 mln people who are not that different from you. Union formed a country that had a better representation of their interest in global world and global organisations as UN, EU institution European council and G8 and ect. Many talented scots used UK strength to quickly transfer to global stage. If that’s not enough then you still have admire UK’s economic impact for Scotland. No-scottish companies currently accounts for 70 % of Scotish GDP. The whole Scotland GDP that brings Scotland among wealthy countries is a result of being part of UK. That includes also jobs in Scotland or opportunities easily to work around UK.

The same NHS that become such a big key of debate recently is nothing but a result of being inside of UK. And any privatization of Scotland’s NHS can be done only by the Scottish government. People who fears of NHS being privatized because of TTTIP should have more faith in European institutions. European parliament has a history of stopping such treaties and most likely this will happen again And no one is robbing Scotland, they receive for public spending more than they make revenue. Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 showed that spending per capital in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK

Hate, YES campaign tactics and fanaticism

I have hard times to comprehend how official Yes campaign avoided to face reality of facts with rhetoric and how they feel that their answered serious questions without actually answering them . They still say that after the vote YES Scotland will stay in EU, they take Alistair Darling ’s quote about keeping a pound of context and shares that as evidence that pound question is solved, while in reality what A. Darling meant was that we can keep pound as Morocco had Euro or Zimbabwe US dollar but the real question is monetary authority. When asked about BBC, YES campaign tells everyone not to worry because we will still be able to see Doctor Who because BBC broadcast to all world, while the real question was about national TV service. The majority of official YES campaign on social media was just sharing caricatures of current Westminster politics.

Not only official campaign is so bad, their supporters and campaigners share same attitude. Anything can be labelled as Scaremonger and you will be relief from guilt to worry about it and then anything can be taken out of context or any argument in their favor can be said with no matter how many fallacies and still go viral as long as its favor them. Pure mob mentality. For example someone posted seconds from governor of Bank of England speech, where he says that notes will still be circulated in Scotland and used it as a proof that Scotland will keep pound And 21 000 people shared this video same time making emotional statements – “don’t believe media they all lying” ect. ect.

YES statement and independence naturally have more chances to be popular with sympathies to underdog and would have more chances to make momentum and waves and people in this side will be more active rather than those who just want to keep status quo. But everything in latest days turned to much more brutal campaign with loads of hate. And as Tom Bradby wrote “And whilst I am sure both sides have been guilty, the truth – uncomfortable as it is to say it – is that most of the heckling and abuse does seem to be coming from the Nationalists.”

It turned to such ridiculous point that J.K.Rowling was receiving online abuse on twitter for her support of vote no Just read what people are saying about legend David Bowie because of his pledge for Scotland to stay in union – Meantime Rupert Murdock was able to drink freely with people in Glasgow pubs.

Every time I walked down in city center in Glasgow and saw No campaigners I would see someone from YES campaigners harassing them and shouting down. And that’s come from people who claims that they vote YES because they don’t have enough democracy now. How can they claim to be advocates for democracy when they can’t accept the main characteristic of democracy – different opinions and open debate?

I felt that hostility too, been told shut up and eat my cereals, that Im brainwashed by the media, too young to know real austerity and ect. When I mention that Im not born in Scotland and will vote NO as citizen of European Union that’s really annoys them (probably because they don’t know that as EU citizen themselves they have the would have the right to vote in council elections around EU if they are residents there) If I would have vote YES obviously they would not be annoyed that European citizens are allowed to vote too. That’s shows the true level of diversity of many left wings of YES campaigners. They want to claim that they support diversity but in reality they accept only foreigners who share the same views with them.
In terms of democracy, and voting YES because you Westminster now is govern by party that you didn’t vote for, it’s not that simple. More likely that’s a given in any democracy. To quote some internet comments:

Since borders are essentially arbitrary, anyone could claim that the people of their region can make decisions over that region better than those outside it. It shows that in any democracy, the parliament will always exist some distance away, partly disconnected from areas it governs. I’m not saying it completely debunks the independence argument – in fact there are plenty of possible arguments for why Scotland would not be such an arbitrary region for independence, but I think these points are still not well enough understood

Currently Scottish people have 8.4% say in Westminster and 100% say in Holyrood.
Currently Dumfriesshire has 0.15% say in Westminster and 1.4% of the say in Holyrood and has a SNP government it didn’t vote for. Should it be independent

Yes campaign demonized Westminster in a way that you could think there was no devolution. Devolution gave a lot powers for Scottish people to decide in: agriculture, forestry and fisheries, education and training, environment, health and social services, housing, law and order (including the licensing of air weapons), local government, sport and the arts, tourism and economic development, many aspects of transport Yes campaigners who likes to ridiculed the promise for even bigger devolution powers forget that promise come from Labour party too, who already delivered devolution, establishment of national parliament to Scotland. But it’s safe and good strategy for SNP. When people forget that devolution already exists they also don’t take SNP accounted for many problems in Scotland. If people would do that they would realise many of SNPs wrong decisions or laziness in Scottish affairs. Same party who did not even turn out to vote against bedroom taxes 12 days ago.

It’s really healthy too look and analyse current Scottish parliament, because you would see the good example of what will happen with Scottish politics after independence. And the picture is not so glamorous – same broken promises, policies that you may not agree with and no quick solution.

Independence movement accumulated all of anger and dissatisfaction that exist now in Scotland. As Ewan Morrison wrote in his blog post “Why I joined Yes and why I changed to no”: “The answer is that the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. [..}Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there“ Look in current Scottish parliament is a look to a future after independence where many Yes campaigners groups will face disappointment.

Overall this referendum experience wasn’t so pleasant for me. I didn’t feel comfortable to see rising nationalism. And while it may be civil nationalism, it was nationalism none the less. Same nationalism, that George Orwell tried to warn us about. I formed my European Federalist views and started to understand how important is to lose national ego, exactly here In Scotland. Scotland seemed liberal and progressive country that valued progress over national ego. Maybe it’s been that way mostly because of being in union country. But everything changed so quickly. I never felt more as a foreigner and unwelcome than In the last month when I was surrounded by national flags and nationalism everywhere. Nationalism try to appeal to emotions by saying: Be Brave. Well I can make another suggestion: Be smart. If history and European Union formation taught us anything then it is that we are not so different form west to east, from north to south. And the best way to reach prosperity is not by separations but by working together.

Categories: UK.

Tags: , , ,

10 biggest Barack Obama administration violations of Human rights

Re-inauguration doesn't wash Barack Obama's sins that he did during
 his first term.


Sadly but most of his supporters won’t know or even consider Obama’s administration violations on  human rights or civil liberties.  Even today when Obama have  sworn for the second term most people  send congratulations to him and expressed some kind of victory on twitter . There is no discussion about surveillance or drones. The same as there were no such discussion during presidential campaigning.

However that doesn’t mean that we should go by the stream and focus only on economics and guns controls as mass media wants.  Therefore I wanted to summarize the biggest human rights violations that Obama’s administration did in their first term.

And there is no excuse for him. Barack Obama  extended some of the worst Bush’s policies or started new and much bigger violations on rights and liberties.  He had a choice not to do that, he was completely aware of situation, but still he did put his sign on those orders and bills.  So he’s responsible with no excuse.

And I’m talking not about supporting  Mexican war drugs and  Muslim brotherhood. I’m talking about his  direct actions:

  • Signing ACTA. The same agreement that European Union withdraw after European Court confirmed that agreement violated fundamental human rights. The same agreement that motivated thousands of people to protests across Europe on fear that agreement would violate Internet freedom. Obama administration took a lot credit for opposing SOPA. And then Barack Obama with no hesitation signs ACTA. Agreement that many internet activist called another SOPA. And  some  critics  argued that ACTA  violated  USA constitution.   more on this story press this link
  • Deportation of Immigrants. Barack Obama has deported 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in his first term, 1.5 times faster than his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Yes he helped young undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation, but one good act does not erase bad act. However democrats did a big job to advertise themselves and Barack Obama as the biggest immigrants’ friend. For obvious reason – immigrants votes.  Reality is much more contradiction with even immigrant protesters against Obama at Democratic National Convention. Yes, that really happened.   more on this story press this link and this link
  • Obama targeted assassinations can kill USA citizens. Obama in practice rewrote  war laws  about civilians fighting against American soldiers in occupied territories. They become much more strict and that leaded to first child soldier prosecuted as a war criminal in modern history. That finally leaded to a double standards when USA intelligences can kill USA citizens and not consider that as war crime. Especially outside USA where “capture is not feasible”. If some civilians is killed in a way it’s totally acceptable.   more on this story press this link
  • Jailing journalists.  Barack Obama pressured Yemen’s leader to jail the reporter who exposed U.S. drone strikes. Abdulelah Haider Shaye is one brave independent thinking Yemen journalist.  When USA announced that they drones bombed AL Qaeda base in Majala Abdulelah Haider Shaye traveled there to see it by himself. He took photos with evidence that USA lied and that they actually bombed they own bombs and killed several civilians. Later papers that Wikileaks released confirmed that.   Not so long after this bombing Abdulelah Haider Shaye was arrested and his lawyer believe that Obama administration order to do this.  more on this story press this link 
  • War on whistle-blowers. Not only Bradley Manning, but some other whistle-blowers are threatened by aggressive Obama administration attitude towards them. In President Obama’s 26 months in office, civilian and military prosecutors have charged five people in cases involving leaking information, more than all previous presidents combined,” reports the Times.  And that despite the fact that they have relieved some very  serious crimes or errors that  USA officials were doing. more on this story press this link 
  • National Defense Authorization Act. This bill that Obama signed allows
    USA military to capture USA citizens and foreigners abroad or inside USA and detain them without any trial. All in the name of war on  Terror. Experts agreed that this law gives government truly frightening powers, not to mention complete violation of civil liberties. This could allow future presidents to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or  trial. more on this story press this link
  • Patriot act. It was probably  the most contradiction bill that George Bush made. Now long time after 9/11 Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of this act.  He did that despite the big criticism of act that was raised before deadline.  Patriot act who gives government powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists for many is seen as abuse of privacy rights. Gave too much power to government without enough judicial and congressional oversight to expose law-abiding citizens to government scrutiny.  more on this story press this link
  • Warrantless Spying . Like there wouldn’t be enough of government terror on citizens privacy here comes something more. It  started before Obama and was very controversial with many different electronic surveillance spying on citizens. The problem is that Obama promised to stop it when he ran for president. But when Obama started his presidency his administration enormously  increased the number of electronic surveillance. It’s like taking a piss on voters.   more on this story press this links   and this link   and this link
  • Kill list.  So every Tuesday Obama has counterterrorism meeting with security officials who shows him a kill list. Names of people who Obama needs to order to kill. And he gives those orders. And with no trail, no court they will be killed. Obama gives those orders despite that some of them are under age, almost children. Despite that he knows that killing them will include  killing  innocent families or American citizens who just travels or lives with them, near them. As it already happened. Despite  even the  fact that process how those names appears on the list is very doubtful, without complete guarantee if they really are terrorists.  The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official.  more on this story press this link and this link
  • Drones. Probably the most arrogant, immoral, blind, heartless, cold, disgraceful violation of international relations and human rights that can be.  After Obama gives orders to kill suspects from kill list military drones airstrikes takes action. They bomb everything on location where suspects maybe live, no matter if innocent civilians might die or if local authorities oppose such actions. Obama administration count them as terrorist too, every single military age male becomes a terrorist. If  women or children dies then Obama administration count them as  danger to America too, because why else they would live in this territory ? USA Drones strikes takes places in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Independent researches counted that approximately about 3000 people were killed. Barack Obama liked it so much that he admitted plans to raise amount of drone strikes in his second term. George Bush dealt with terrorist suspects differently. He would ordered military to capture them, then take to Guantanamo bay detention camp, maybe torture them and keep with no trail. But that caused a lot criticism and controversy. So Obama chose much more practical way – kill them immediately with no hesitation and without worrying about civilians that will always die due to imperfect drone technology.  And nobody cares that even 600 suspects in Guantanamo were proven to be  innocent. When they will be dead they will stay as terrorist forever. Practical president .
    more on this story press this link and this link and this link

So now an obvious question  – why is that happening? Why there is no strong opposition to all this actions? And here we need a criticism  not from Republicans or libertarians who would oppose Barack Obama anyway. If we want to stop violations on civil liberties we need that democrats and they supporters would wake up and raise they voices. So why they don’t do that or not in such big measure? The most simple answer would be that they lack information about it. That would have the most simple solutions – just spread the information.

But that isn’t the truth answer, the truth is that most of Barack Obama supporters know about his sins but choose  to close their eyes or play unbelievable ignorant blame game that everything is Bush’s and Republicans’ fault.

During last presidential election many Obama voters knew about his hard policies but still chose to vote for him, because according to them Mitt Romney would be even  worst on civil liberties. That was ridiculous  tactic, because 1) there were more than two choices in election 2) voting based on  fear is never good.

However, Barack Obama  managed to create this unique situation when he keeps his supporters and avoids criticism on  war crimes. He’s good job on public relations  during 2008 still pays dividends.  It’s enough for him to make promises on defending some civil liberties inside USA and that would keep his good guy image, and satisfied supporters will ignore all his hard lines. Nevertheless most of those violations happens overseas and people intend to care less about overseas action than about domestic issues.

Such situation gives him freedom to make much bigger violations on civil liberties and human rights than Bush’s administration could done.

And that really scares me.

Also look on –

Watch how Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama’s Policies:

Categories: Feature, International.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Racism didn’t disappear, but nations did disappear

There are no nations left and maybe nations  never truly existed.
All what we have left is just racism.

Detroit riot race
PHOTO: Detroit race riot 1967 source –

Race has never been science’s term or scientifically proven one. In fact if development in sciences  change anything is that now we only have more evidence why  “Race” original meaning can’t be true. There is no biological or social differences in people only because of their skin color.

However we, people, media and social sciences still use the term “racism”. Only to determine that there are people who believes in race or discriminates someone .  For same reason exist description  of race crime in the law even when such thing as race doesn’t exist.

Race and racism is only social constructed term and behavior.  Something that started with slavery in order to make slavery justifiable.  Authority needed to create theory about differences so that people feel alright to distinguish themselves from slaves. To believe in their nature to be ruled by someone more supreme. To believe in some kind of biological hierarchy.

Later race theory and racism continue to serve the authority in the same way. It helped to keep black people isolated in their ghettos. Because of this believe that they by the nature would be willing to do crime or be more dangerous isolation could exist.

What such racism and isolation can lead to  was the best described by Richard Wright in his novel “Native son”.

Modern racism – hate of  any different people

Because race theory and racism originally started for black people therefore ” race struggle” and “black struggle” were synonyms for long time. Black people gained more rights with development of society and can feel equal in today western societies.

However racism didn’t disappear in western societies. And I’m talking not about that we can still find discrimination of black people. Yes original meaning of racism still exist, but racism himself  evolved to a new different form that still takes in large scale all society.

Now we can  and must consider as racism  a simple hate to anyone because of their differences. No matter what those differences are.

If we look back to birth of race theory and racism – back to slavery or Luther King times- then that’s what race and racism was all about in the beginning. Not about different color of the skin but just about being different.  Color of the skin just made it easier to separate someone from majority.

When color of the skin is not enough then cultural differences can serve as the reason to separate someone. When someone can’t find cultural differences then they can form racism over social differences.

That makes a modern-day paradox – racism can exist inside  one nation and between same skin color, nationality or same ethnicity people.  You are racist every time when you are trying to construct new social class that has to be distinguished from majority.

You even are racist if you are doing such assumptions that all poor people are poor because they are lazy by nature and therefore we don’t need to care about them.

You are racist every time when you start to believe and apply some non-existent biological hierarchy in our society.

Nation and nationality – fiction that exist only in our imagination.

Not only race and racism are social constructed things. Nation is too.

The grounds on which we have built a notion of nation and sovereignty were our own imagination.  In reality we do not live in one big nation. We do not see, know or ever hear from majority of members.  Hardly any even the smallest nations can expect to have a community with face to face contacts.

Non nation could have real sovereignty and Independence.  None will be completely free state. They will always be influenced and rule by factors that were invented and developed outside of their borders. Either that is a religion or just a political/economic theories.

We do not live in one union. We have hundreds walls that separates as from each other. We have vertical comradeship that allows us to think that we are better than others. And thousands more reasons not to want to engage with fellow members.

Nationalism exist to invent nation. Like racism it tries to reverse imagination into reality. That’s the mission of patriotism – to keep this imagination of nation alive and inject it into people before they even can object it.

So why then  we humans fall for this trap  of nation and nationalism?  Simply  because we need identity. And belonging to a nation gives us identity. A simple blood heritage, achievement that doesn’t require any effort.

Modern times once again changes the game. People migrate and move more than ever before. The notion of nationality and territory relation disappears. Sometimes people are surrounded more with people from different nations than with same nations. That shows that it is possible to feel identity with cosmopolitan approach. And how all nationalism and nation idea were built on fragile foundation. Idea that fitted good in the past but not anymore.

In this perspective European Union makes bigger sense. And to call yourself European citizen. Cause borders are on paper and policies. It has no nature state inside us –  people.

Categories: Academia, Explanatory.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is there any real alternative to austerity for Greece and the rest?

It's maybe everlasting debate between stimulation and cutting, but what
possibilities Greece or European Union missed or even made impossible
to make?

Photo from flickr user Bob baron

It’s hard to speak only about Greece when we talk about European  austerity measures. Spain is a new Greece these days  in terms of big anti austerity protests, suffer from cuts and chaos in society. That does not mean that  Greece got on their  foot and we have a new troubled country.  More likely  that sovereign debt crises is spreading.

That this will happen to Spain too was predicted  years ago. So now we just need to wait for prediction of bigger problems in Portugal and Italy to happen. Not only – Belgium and Ireland  are projected by the European Commission to run debt beyond the 95 percent level this year. Level of debt  that starts costing economic meltdown.

So while austerity measures does not stop fire to spread it’s the best time to ask for any alternatives to austerity.  And I’m not talking about the radical one – default. All Europe can’t and won’t go default, neither that would prevent struggle for Greece.  Neither I think that we need to limit ourselves to traditional alternatives such as Keynesian economics, what now offers Paul Krugman. Also if they are  wrong, that does not prove that Austerity is right. We might need to try harder and find the working alternative then.

What’s interesting that global debates about fiscal policy and austerity alternatives are not very relevant to what’s happening now in Europe, because non of them included European Union  effect. And EU changes the rules of the game, for example Greece had limited options to solve their crises on their own.

European Union as handcuffs

Greece couldn’t start printing more money or have other games with currency, because of not totally controlling the Euro. That’s one option of plugin deficit holes out of the table. Actually this was a problem in the first place, because it made possible to run out of the money, therefore Greece government were trapped to ask for bailout.

That puts a question about European central bank role and administration of monetary policy for all Euro zone. It would be wrong to accuse ECB of not caring about  Greece, they simple can’t take some action without consideration of the rest eurozones members. For example – issuing more money would jeopardize inflation rates to other countries.

As long as the question if administration of ECB executive board is equally shared is reasonable, it must acknowledge that ECB will never be able to use full powers of monetary policies, because of the complexity  of large currency. Euro seems to be more political project to strength the feeling of unity in Europe, that was started without a real central administration nor synchronizing countries fiscal policies.

However ECB played it’s rolle with buying banks debts and buying weak Government’s bonds and finally of course bailing out. It also helped to maintain low inflation, but all benefits of membership of large currency and EU will always come with an obligation to make common decisions with the rest of Europe. Greece even couldn’t get a loan from IMF on their own like Iceland did. IMF insisted to loan only together with  agreement on European bailout pack. So in this scenario if Europe wants austerity measures then there isn’t a lot that Greece can do.

Unused options

Without IFM and EU bailout there would be the only one option that is left for Greece  – to fund their government budget from inside. But it was barely an option since no matter how hard they would try they never find hundred billions to cover their debt.

First option that always comes first, in recession times, is taxation and bigger taxes for the richest. In terms of social justice this is an necessary option, but economically speaking it is a tricky one. From one point it should bring more funds to a budget, but bigger taxation can slow economic grow – creation of jobs and GDB growth. With global economic there are always a risk that business can ship to other countries with cheaper labors and bigger revenue after taxation. The best option in my opinion would be a balance – to tax big companies and make a special tax – free arrangements for small business, who will be  near bankruptcy anyway.

With radical situation it seems that Greece took the first option. That was also required by bailout packs from EU. They have  a progressive taxation system, raised luxury taxes, taxed heavily middle class and small business. So no wonder that more than 100 thousands companies went bankrupt:

  Overall the Greek GDP had its worst decline in 2011 with -6.9% a year where the seasonal adjusted industrial output ended 28.4% lower than in 2005,and with 111,000 Greek companies going bankrupt (27% higher than in 2010) As a result, the seasonal adjusted unemployment rate also grew from 7.5% in September 2008 to a record high of 19.9% in November 2011, while the Youth unemployment rate during the same time rose from 22.0% to as high as 48.1%

Meanwhile about 20 billions euros per year were unpaid in taxes because of offshore companies and according to OECD the size of the Greek to be around €65bn (equal to 25% of GDP).

Hardly to understand why Greece didn’t stimulate small business, but a big part off blame for such  strategy goes to EU institutions that orchestrated Greece fiscal policy with bailout packages.

Another option that countries use to fund budget in recession is government bonds. Unfortunately it wasn’t Credit rating agencies immediately downgraded Greek governmental bonds to an even lower than  junk status. But Europe comes in help at this case. At first European central bank bought bonds from Greece and now with a creation of Europe bonds it will be possible to avoid bad ratings and high interest rates in government bonds.

Most important option in finding funds in recession time is obviously cutting government spending. We all know how EU and IFM bailout required Greece to make cuts in their welfare, but it’s hard to understand why there was no big cuts in other section. And there were many more options, for start – military.  It was reported that Greece spend about €2 bn. to buy submarines from Germany that they won’t use.  Considering German’s big role in bailout process it is an interesting fact with uncut military spending.

In my view another good option that was completely unused were stimulation of biggest incomes – tourism, agriculture and shipping industries. Growth always are mention as alternative to an austerity. Greece could try to lower prices of tourism, subside it. Unfortunately in reality some airlines are cancelling their flights to Greece islands because of council’s  refuse to pay for advertisements. Investment in tourism would always pay off because of tourists contribution to GDB and would help small business and employment. Needless to say all chaos and strikes made a negative impact towards tourism. With Euro rates going down it was very welcome situation to stimulate the  export, but many shipping companies got bankrupt. It seems that effort were made only to save  German banks in Greece.

Besides all recession problems Greece were pushed in crisis because of their own local problems such as corruption and bad tax collections.  And till now it is not fixed yet, wasn’t spotlight with EU bailout packs either. So is it worth to through the money to a sock with a hole?


Baltic’s example – not for everyone

Probably everybody heard about Estonian president cyber conflict with Paul Krugman. Paul Krugman was wrong to use a silly Estonian GDB chart to depreciate Estonian achievement. This is true that for Estonia and other Baltic states – Latvia and Lithuania austerity worked and helped to slow down crises. But Paul Krugman can take his steam off because Baltic states in my opinion cannot  be used as an example for global debate about austerity anyway. Those countries are small and still developing with a lot unique factors.


One of them are immigration, when 1/3 percentage of all population leave the welfare state it’s a bit of a relief for government budget and unemployment rates. And yes there were such huge number of immigration, especially in Lithuania (no1 @EU). Secondly those countries despite their economic boom still had developing economics and were quite poor in big picture. Even after all that Greece went through their economic  is still 15th in EU.  Lithuanian government managed to balance their budget by publishing 2bn
euros worth government bonds. This would be a joke amount for Greece. Not to say that small countries economy always works different from big countries and requires different measures. So this applies for Iceland too and people can’t so easily through arguments like – look how it worked for Iceland we should do the same everywhere.

Finally Baltic states managed to apply hard austerity measures without big public fight back. Not because they agree with that, people  were already used to live in lower living standards . More important they are new democracies without a culture of protests and democratic values. So even when unemployment hit records and food and petrol price were 40 % up, education and health care become not free anymore, there were no  strikes or protests like in Spain or Greece. People here are simple not mature enough for democracy.

What Paul Krugman and other  stimulation  supporters don’t tell

Mainly their idea is to get more money that will stimulate growth and that will pay back the gab in deficit. Simple. But stimulation pack goes mostly through public sector and there is a big debate if public sector  makes productivity or not. Most public sector activities wont even go to real GDB and economic growth rise  obviously from private sector and their activities that are not limited like on public sector.

Also more borrowing makes bigger debt and that only slows progress. That of course are relevant to austerity measures too, but with stimulation pushes debt quicker and bigger. Another important problem with stimulation is long time that it takes for changes. Strange that with knowing that stimulation supporters still back up politicians unrealistic promises.

But what annoys me the most is how Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz feels comfortable to speak about Europe with such ignorance of what is European union’s policies and  European culture.  If they knew more about  EU political reasons, then maybe they would understand why there is no such option as withdraw from Euro, how Euro important for all EU integration. And most what all those USA economist lack is spotlight of diversity of European sovereign debt crises. Every single country different factors – Spain regions, Greece local system, Ireland real estate problem. EU are doing now what were doing all the time – bringing balance and union in diversity.

What austerity measures supporters don’t tell

There a lots of holes in austerity system too. First  austerity measures do not entire  stimulates spending and therefore GDB growth.
People either will have less money to spend, buys the same amount with more money or puts into savings. Austerity can in fact make everything worst – bigger unemployment  will lead to bigger welfare therefore bigger deficit.  Greek has subsequent recession that were happen part of austerity measures too. Actually there are a good question if there really are subsequent recession or is this a failure of austerity and Greek government to fix their system.

But of courses the biggest reasons  urgently to find an alternative is the public reaction. You cant’ argue about austerity being acceptable way to control macroeconomics with such disagreement of society and punch to a living standards. Of course  that doessn’t mean that famous Keynesian stimulation wouldn’t cost strikes or protest. The long time that it takes with stimulation to lower unemployment rates can make society angry. Occupy movement in USA are example of that.

European fiscal treaty – the end of discussion?

Macroeconomics are quite new subject and we need discussions about alternatives and different discussions in Europe because of unique system and different use of monetary and fiscal policies, large currency that never been discuss in economics textbook before and not from EU politics prism.

But it seems that with signing European fiscal treaty  all those discussions ends without a real start. Europe choose austerity monopoly in a fight with a recession.

In other hand when situation is critical and requires quick actions there is no time for experiments and you need to choose the best option that economists have.  Not to forget that one of the biggest task of European fiscal pack  is to discipline governments to balance their budgets and not to run in big debt.

If wee look back the biggest impact to Greek and the rest problems were uncontrolled government borrowing and too big debt.

So maybe this is the best alternative to austerity – balance your budget so you never run in such problems that you would need to take austerity measures.

Categories: Explanatory, Feature, International.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is Julian Assange trapped in his own delusions

Facts actually show that majority of his problems were created by him
and not by evil government.

Julian Assange Wikileaks

I’m all in support for justice and standing against wrong cases or extraditions. But what we are having with Julian Assange’s extradition case is not so outrageous  like J. Assange and his supporters are trying to picture. And I’m prepared to backup this statement with pure facts. Facts, something that his supporters claimed to have and something that tradition media according to them are missing. I would argue that it’s the opposite.

Recent days I was reading almost all that I could found in social and tradition media about Assange and I read all the  articles about the case that wikileaks account on twitter have linked. I was following  what his supporters were  saying on twitter and read they articles on tumblr or on other media. After that I  come up with the only one conclusion- Assange and his supporters are living in they own  delusions, they created this delusion by basing everything on rumors and  uncontrolled fears.

Not much needs to say in trying to prove previous statement. Assange’s move to come to Ecuadorian embassy and ask for Asylum is an evidence of delusion itself.  If he gets  asylum then all what Julian Assange will achieve will be that he jeopardize his chance to defend himself in Sweden or EU court by trapping himself inside the embassy for the rest of his life. Because there is no way for him to leave it and fly to Ecuador. This move is nothing more than a voluntarily life sentence.  And it raised the important question – how more wrong were Wikilleaks and Assange?

Mythbuster about the case in Sweden

1) Extradition to USA is not possible. According to European arrest warranty he should not be extradited to a third state:

a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.

Read more:

That’s not all. The EU laws guarantee that even in the worst case he can be extradited only if the third state guarantees that a person won’t receive a dead penalty. So I don’t understand why Wikileaks and they supporters are spreading fears that Julian Assange will face a dead penalty if he will be extradited to Sweden.

2) Charges  were  made.  Assange quite often defends himself   by saying that there were no charges made, but I believe he is quite aware that in sweden charges can be made only after questioning.He is extradited exactly  for that. So de fact charges exist. Most likely that Assange and his supporters are using misleading procedures description in populist way to gain bigger public support for non-extradition. The same with statement that sex was consensual.  Nobody denies that, but accusation are made about what happened after that. “Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual (BBC)”. Or with wikileaks repeatedly claiming through they media tools that there is a description of “rape”  because of too liberal Sweden laws. While in reality if you read a whole accusation that was made in Sweden court and written on Sidney Herald you’ll see that it’s more serious and sounds like a rape:

In court, the nature of those allegations was finally made clear. The Crown Prosecution Service presented the four Swedish Prosecution Service accusations: two were of a specific Swedish crime called ”ofredande”, or misconduct (misleadingly translated as molestation), one being that the defendant ”pushed his erect penis against the complainant’s back, thus violating her sexual integrity”, the other for unsafe sex ”against the complainant’s explicitly stated wish”. There is one charge of sexual assault, which alleges that Assange had sex with Wilen while she was asleep, and the most serious charge is that he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her

Of course there was some fuss about this woman, who made charges, being very biased towards men, you can read about that more on the same link. But nevertheless she still have a human right to defend herself and her right not to be sexually assaulted.
Other huge misleading thing, that wikileaks and they supporters keeps telling in social media, is that the case against Assange was dropped and reopend only after Diplomatic cables release. That’s not true. Only arrest warranty was dropped but the investigation continued and just one week later arrest warranty was issued again. That happened on August, while diplomatic cables were released three months later (source).
It sounds more than legal procedure rather than USA interaction to bring Julian Assange back to Sweden.  The worst thing is that all those wikileaks and they supporters theories about what happened or will happen whit this case in Sweden requires us to not believe that Sweden has independent court system and respect for human rights. That comes in contrast with Julian Assange’s statements that Sweden is liberal country that respects human rights, which he made at time when he first arrived to Sweden.
However what’s more surprising or ridiculous is that all the time wikileaks gang keeps shouting about how all accusations are not serious and there was no crime ect. But then isn’t that good thing for Assange? If there was no crime and he is really innocent wouldn’t that be easier  finally to go to Sweden and finish everything? Unless he’s really guilty… Oh that’s rigth I almost forgot he won’t go to Sweden because as wikileaks people and Assange believes that after he will be proven being not guilty (of course) and becomes free, Sweden will immediately extradited  to USA. But that makes only another question, very uncomfortable question for Assange and his supporters.

3) Why USA didn’t ask an extradition from UK? Some people seriously wants me to the believe conspiracy that USA decided to catch Assange with creating this rape case in Sweden and then bringing him back to Sweden so they could extradited him from Sweden after he defends himself. But why not ask extradition from UK? Time was going and we could faced the moment when he defends himself in UK supreme court and extradition to Sweden are dropped and Assange becomes free person who can move out of UK and nobody will know where he stays now. So if USA really wished to extradited him they needed to act but they didn’t show any interest.  So perhaps they don’t really want him.
4) USA didn’t  show interest in extradition so far. There isn’t a single serious and legitimate evidence that USA are working on asking Assange’s extradition.  And that’s exactly what is necessary for such radical move as asking asylum in Ecuadorian embassy. All what we have is just rumors about grand jury talks, secret investigations and unnamed diplomats rumors that USA is planning something plus Sarah Palin’s statement that Assange must be haunted like Osama bin laden. Overall – nothing real. Wikileaks was so desperate to prove this conspiracy that they started to tweet pictures of Hillary Clinton and Australia prime minister meeting in Rio.


Seriously?  How this is bad or anything related to wikileaks? H.Clinton met with everyone in that meeting.
And let’s not forget that if USA asks extradition then Assange still has a chance to defend himself against this on court.  If we don’t forget that there is not a single law in USA that Assange broke then it is very likely that in this scenario he would win. Needless to say that he would have much bigger public support than now when he seats in Ecuadorian embassy. And once again there was no serious evidence why would Sweden be so kind to work with USA. there were some talks about making up for but nothing serious and not from imagination world.

EDIT: reddit people linked me to this article –  But i have to point out that it is two years old news, no charges were made in that time.

What we have here looks more like Julian Assange is trying to avoid being punished as a rapist or for sexual assault or that he is really living in his delusion world and makes troubles for himself. Second version is more possible if we look on other  Assange’s actions which are minimum controversial.

Which Julian Assange’s actions make us to doubt him?

First I need to make clear that I really appreciate what wikileaks done, especially about covering crimes in Afganistan war.  But I feel that it is important to distinguish wikileaks work from they editor in chief Julian Assange. For example – I like many articles on Nytimes but if I will hear that executive editor of Nytimes Jill Abramson  is accused with a crime (for example bank fraud)  I certainty will want her to answer in court, right??. To mix her work with crime accusation would be called conspiracy and delusions, rigth? So why to have double standards with wikileaks?

Of course then again we should distinguish the Swedish case from our personal views towards Assange. Even if I don’t like his political statements he still deserved justice. That is 100 percent correct and I stand for this. But still I feel that it is important to look to his personality and bigger picture. Simple because all those theories about that USA is haunting him is based only on one real evidence – Julian Assange and wikileaks media is telling us so.  So if we can look to some other doubtful actions that they or he did we can come up with a conclusion that Assange isn’t so trustful source. And that he maybe really is trapped in his own delusions. There are 4 main issues that i wanted to talk more –  1) Egocentric attitude.  2)Manipualtion with donation. 3)Friendship with Russia today 4) Manipulation with playing the victim of media.

1) Egocentric attitude. Assange is not equal wikileaks. So not only it is wrong to assume that because of wikileaks actions USA should haunt Assangem but it would be wrong to associate wikileaks defend with only one chief-editor Assange. If Wikileaks wants a justice for all then they should show that activism. But unfortunately wikileaks’ media choice to  to talk almost only about Assange and leaving all the rest in the shadow. Comparing with Assange they spend 50 times less to talk about someone who is facing  the real death threat –  Bradley Manning. He is on his own and his supporters needed to set up different defense fund from wikileaks:

It’s  simple outrageous considering how much they benefit from Manning and I’m speaking not only about leaks but literary about money. Would be hard to argue that many people donated huge amounts to wikileaks especially after diplomatic cables. And now they don’t bother so much but rather call dangerous alarm about they chief-editor who’s not even facing extradition to USA.
Are they trying to make a cult of justice or a cult of one leader/hero – Assange ?

2) Manipulation with donation.  I’m all ok with donations and that they are asking them. I won’t even question why would they need 500 000 $ for salaries or more than one million $ to run a website.  If they price themselves so much it’s they right.  But what bothers me is the lies that they are telling about donation situation. Most likely to picture themselves in more dramatic way and receive more money, cause people would be more likely to donate after they’re affected with emotions. front page claims that they are still fighting financial blockade and in the same time asking to donate with pay pal and credit cards. Well if you are financial blockade how can you ask for donation then?

They were blockade only for 3 days, that’s how long it took till Paypal restored they account.And it is very unlikely that they really lost  500 000 pounds  as Assange claims. I mean what did stop all those people from trying to donate again after 3 days? What, is it just one day thought to make a donation and then no thank you i don’t want anymore? Really?
Another thing that I don’t understand is why wikileaks at the same day when Assange enter Ecuadorian embassy to ask for asylum  still posted request to donate to his defense fund. And they are still asking this.  But let me ask – WHY? The same second when Assange steped inside embassy he refused to go legal way to defend himself so he refused to use his lawyers service anymore. So he wont need money to pay lawyers either. Maybe after his asylum bid are refused he will need again help from lawyers but not now. So don’t push everyone to make money when you refuese lawyers help by yourself. I just don’t get how people are ok with such wikileaks attitude.

And how much money do Assange needs to pay all his defense bills? After he sign contract for his autobiography for 1.7 million $ and claimed that he’ll use all his money to defend himself it seemed like he has enough money. Did he really pay 2 milions $ for his lawyers? I don’t have a problem that he would use his money for himself as he want. I’d have problem only if he lies and manipulates public in order to raise more from donation.

After looking to wikileaks promotions and video adverts it is clear that they are making a very simplified message with clear black and white sides. Black – the evil government, runned by fascist police and white side – a hero Julian Assange who figths against the system and that’s why hr become a victim of injustice. Very simple and dramatically message that can buss big amount of donation. The only problems is that it looks like Julian Assange believed too much of this message.

3) Friendship with Russia today. It’s complicated with his show. In one hand I really like it – he choice topics that goes with my interest and he manage to look into them with calm and objective way. He even did asked thought questions to  occupy movement instead of just sympathizing with them. Even if this show has  more than obvious pro left wing views, but still who did say that they can’t have they own show to promote their ideas? Especially if it’s done in intellectual way.
But Julian Assange’s friendship with Russia today ruined all show and his own reputation. Yes I know that show officially is produced by Assange’s own company Quick Roll Productions, but Russia has not just have broadcast license they have exclusive rights to broadcast this show. And you can’t argue that Assange has obvious good relationship with them. He already gave a lot interviews exclusively to them where he was very delusion about west ,like the one where he talked that Facebook is CIA project, and when many journalist were waiting for him outside Ecuador embassy he decided to let only RT journalist inside the embassy.  Somebody may say that I’m just repeating what media is telling about Assange’s show. Because you see that’ s what all Assange’s critiques are doing – just repeating what they heard on media and can’t think for themselves HA HA not like wikileaks supporters who knows the real true – everything what wikileaks are telling them.
But if you are interesting I have a problem with RT for personal reasons as Eastern European. I know how Russia are using gas price as political tool to pressure my country and how RT are being biased in picturing events in my country. I grow up with watching national Russian channels and know very well how they news are biased and used as political weapon to praise the Kremlin. Since i understand Russian i can watch what RT makes for national channel and see they local biased news. If you want a glimpse on  how biased and propagandist they are then just watch the video below where their covers  protests in Moscow after President election:

I simple can’t think of more biased and propagandist way of telling the news. They didn’t mention even once the fabricate presidential elections – the main reasons of protests. They labeled protesters as small minority communist and nationalists, some reference to them as connected to Chechnya terrorist. In one moment they even directly are laughing from protesters. Protesters in their view simple don’t know what they want, fighting whit each other,  while Putin is praised as God who vanished the starvation and represents a huge majority (140% probably) . At one moment they twisted everything so much that they are claiming protesters being a result of good Putin ruling cause he developed the country  and created those bourgeois, middle class people who are protesting because don’t want Putin to create wealfare state for poorest. HOW SICK IS THAT ??!!!!?? And then they mentioned Europe and this is good example why RT are so interest in western protests and problems and how they manipulate those news in benefit of Putin. Program host said that this is what Putin are trying to do – to help Russia not to collapse like West countries are collapsing. Oh yeah save us Putin form horrible western Democracy. If you still  don’t get my opinion and rage about RT let me summarize that to one simple sentence –  FUCK YOU “RUSSIA TODAY” !!!

I’m not a fan of western governments either, I do believe we need to change a lot. But nobody   can say that  Russia is the same as countries with democracy and that Russia today is the same as BBC or other tax payed national TV.
Do I really need to remind that we are talking about AUTHORITARIAN Russia where Putin regime nationalize all TV stations and jeopardize freedom speech, directly interferes and sets an agenda to national TV including Russia Today, fabricates elections, sells guns to Syria regime and defends them despite massacres, trials for opposition members and supporter ?  And you don’t need any wikileaks to know that.

Do I need to remind about 165 dead journalists (1993-2009 source ) Or do I need to remind about Russian security Service officer Alexander Litvinenko who excaped from prosecution in Russia and was poisoned in London.
If Julian Assange would be dealing with Russia instead of USA he would be killed like Alexander Litvinenko by now.  But instead of standing and showing solidarity for those who fights for democracy and human rights in Russia Julian Assange become a partner with TV channel that creates propoganda in order to keep the regime who oppose democracy and human rights. Julian Assange’s become RT  promotion face to make stronger their propoganda about collapsing west world (that only Putin can save from same collapse in Russia) and to raise channel’s popularity across western society.  It really works, I see plenty comments across internet from Assange’s supporters about how RT is actually good media and something fresh. What next we  will call president Vladimir Putin a fresh politician comparing with western politicians? I just want to know how far we will go. I already know that corrupted Ecuadorian president who tried to imprisoned free opposition press in Ecuador became a global democracy symbol. What’s next? North Korea broadcast Assange’s show and all his supporters praise that regime as a role model for democracy?

A real democracy and human rights activist must figth and support a fight for those values around the world, without any exception. Its something that I as activist would stand for – global justice. And real activist could never work together with someone that opposes democracy and human rights just because it shortly benefits him.  At the same time when Julian Assange and his supporters started to treat RT as a normal media they lost the right to call themselves activist of democracy and human rights. Period.

There are more negative sides that I can say about wikileaks publicity and what they are writing on twitter.It seems like they are treating they followers like sheep who automatically believes conspiracy that all world media are lying, cause they are in hands of government friends.  They – wikileaks supporters, are the ones who suppose to know very well how mass media can manipulate people with a fear and make them a useless sheep that follows direction without asking.  Then why are they letting to be so easily manipulate by fear that wikileaks are spreading about government conspiracies against them.


There’s no room for questioning or analyses, questions, you only accept what one side says and dismiss what critics says, because they are liars/ in goverment/ corporation pockets. That makes a perfect way to have plenty of sheep who follows you and not so hard to transform someone from sexual assault offender to a hero.

But I don’t want to be a sheep. Since Julian Assange already proved to be a doubtful person that I can not blindly trust when he says that USA are haunting him, therefore I need more prove that Sweden will really extradited him to USA that I could support his refusal to go there. And since i tried but didn’t find any real prove on wikileaks twitter account or websites/ ect. and as long as there won’t be prove, Julian Assange will be nothing else than just a sexual offender who escaped from justice.

Look also to

Categories: Explanatory, Feature, International.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Creative Commons License Why as European citizen who lives in Scotland Im voting No in Scottish referendum is licensed by churchill under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.