Economic occupation is a stealth dictatorship: When Berlin´s corruption-scandal-ridden finance minister arrives for a catwalk in Athens like an American politician in Afghanistan, usually there is little to see of the bomber jets purchased before the trade-off began. Both sides could have avoided such a transaction, just like with neighbouring Turkey, the opponent in the local arms race that brought about the Cyprus bubble. That it took place nevertheless indicates that economic occupation is a phenomenon of an economy of war, which in the case of Berlin means a military dependency of the entire economy and in that of Athens the knowing and willing collaboration of the regime in it. Would regimes adhere to their written human rights promises, they could not depend on economic militarism, and would regimes not be clinging to economic militarism there could be no economic occupation. Instead there would have to be military austerity and with it the beginning of the end of the false tolerance for any military activity.
Economic occupation is the continuation of the total dependency of (or on) a military-industrial complex into civilian fields such as in this case international relations. Once a regime purchases weapons neighbouring regimes tend to do so as well, because despite of all military alliances and political unions they do not trust each other. Therefore they make no distinction between being targeted and the mere technical possibility of it. This geopolitical condition of the regimes is not only the sum of their intentions but also the source of the speculative bubbles which are the characteristic symptom of an economy of war. To put it short: Capitalism kills. One arms purchase is cascading into others, hence the profit in it does not only amount to that of the immediate industrial output but also includes the facilitation of deals made as a result of its impact on the arms race of the regimes reached by it, and therefore eventually these profits as well. As it was displayed in gross disproportion in the superficial antagonisms of the so-called "cold war," there is an element of competition in the military market which cannot be found in non-lethal sectors. This is the invisible side of the speculative coin whose visible side is the crime of austerity.
In reference to the Berlin regime this means that the economy of war is an u-boat economy: It is a huge temptation for the fascists to give away u-boats made to carry weapons of mass destruction without payment to turn scared people into useful idiots, because the profit out of arms deals cascading from such a threat, even only the share that comes back to military corporations within its own influence, is paying off much more than only the price of the "Trojan horse". Since such dumping of u-boats economically is a gross violation of business ethics, worse than the proverbial handing out of hand grenades to a kindergarten, the resources spent in the resulting armament cascade are missing elsewhere in the budgets. This greed-inflicted misery apparently is so shameful that it is being renamed "austerity" although it is in fact the symptom of a false business model overblown to grotesque proportions.
Theoretically it could be argued that "true austerity" was equal to abstinence from military spending and speculation, but that would ignore the hierarchy in it: If the profit does not come from the arms race, then it might come from military occupation. By swallowing the bomber jet deal, the Athens regime traded such a risk for the fact of economic occupation. Whether it can survive that choice is not the matter of this analysis, but certainly this is not a situation of someone convincing themselves in order to become able to convince others. It is plausible that a rejection of the deal would have contributed to a possibility to impose military austerity on the Berlin regime, because both regimes are drastically lagging behind the will of the people and historical foundations for it have already been laid. Another effect of the Trojan horse economy is the pillaging of resources in the geographical area of the arms race. By taking the "Trojan" u-boats, the Tel Aviv regime went through the inversion of a choice made at its founding, the abstention of any direct involvement in the looting of resources in the region, which signifies the end of its politically singular role.
And in fact the problem of regime spam that killed indymedia Israel is now affecting the German language indymedia sites, which are being abused as dumping grounds for regime-made forgeries difficult to detect for operating teams since they are disguised with toxic waste from spying. E. g. after such continued harassment brought down indymedia Austria, on other sites of the same language there appeared fake Austrian dissidents in order to dump disinformation and distractions and abuse the namespaces of real ones, squandering all the credibility advance a person targeted by regime oppression could claim in this network. The basic pattern of such forgeries is an attack against the freedom of the open posting and the sovereignty of its users.
If indymedia were a structure of buildings for the purpose of political reporting and debate without nonsensical majority decisions and all the rest of the democratic muck, each and every forgery posted by a regime spy on oath of office would have to be counted as an armed assault, an invisible suicide attack against the crowd which only can be made transparent as what it is when the spying apparatus is defeated. While some might find it to be of literary nature that a regime would put so much effort into identity abuse suggesting it could be kind of mentally stuck on repeating the same calendar year again and again, from a non-fiction point of view the production and circulation of such forgeries reminds of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious 19th century forgery whose results are well known and require to be seen as equally evil - or more precisely, had the authors been identified timely and have had to bear the consequences of their identity abuse, their targets would have been relieved and an ensuing cascade of catastrophes could have been avoided.
As a result of these attacks which alone amount to a considerable squandering of both material resources and human rights, the value of indymedia as an instrument for healing the wounds inflicted by the false "austerity" has been reduced to that of a mere rumour mill. Even the anarchist-labelled reporting on events in Greece, among political focuses ranging from antifascism to animal rights, is of no use to build and connect political opinions and movements, due to systematic disinformation attacks by the spying regime polluting the debate. Of course it should be no surprise that the national constitution and everything derived from it are fascist lies that must be abandoned to develop any real political sovereignty. But it is remarkable that the scope of regime attacks against indymedia has coincided with the escalation of the u-boat economy and its purchase of the Athens regime, so that a motive of deliberate disruption of communications must be assumed.
It is also interesting to note that the attacking regime appears to be spending a multitude of the money for forgeries than it would cost to achieve the same purpose with public court orders against the sites. This again is an expression of the madness of the u-boat economy and its speculation on cascading effects such false flag attacks might have. On the other hand, given that it cannot even stand the sandpaper effect of an unpolluted open posting capability, the political axis between the two regimes appears to be quite a fragile handicraft construct entirely depending on the micromanagement of a big lie that cannot withstand the sunlight.
Nevertheless current developments in Greece have recently reached an intensity which is getting through the narrative fog of economic occupation. That Berlin´s secret state police is sacrificing its Greek mercenaries earlier propped up to exert pressure on the Athens regime indicates that something has happened in the bilateral relationship which has the potential to unbalance the entire axis. For the murder of Pavlos Fyssas alone to trigger such crackdown is very unlikely, given the fact that the Berlin regime has been running an openly fascist political party through its spies for over a dozen years. Since that campaign is not yet cancelled, even though the whistle on immigrant killings resulting out of it has long been blown, why is Berlin´s Greek legion being sacrificed but not its local one - why only the "C. A." but not the "NPD"?
If a sincere intention for the Athens crackdown would have come from Berlin, then the same thing would have happened there first, starting with the parties that fit the definition of fascism much closer than the Greek nationalist entity. And of course it is demanding explanation why the fascist regime sacrifices some of its own assets, when this does not make political sense for it other than in a scheme where such rearrangement allows for speculations on cascading effects for other assets. Maybe it is bordering absurdity to assume that the Berlin regime might have sacrificed its Greek mercenaries to prevent a complete breakdown of its forgery swindle it perceived as possible at this point, but certainly it is common sense to state that absurd entities in absurd situations might do absurd things.
Closer to the truth could be the theory that already the manhunt was a gesture seconding a client state mutiny. When the Athens regime chose to cease its loyalty to the economic superior, its nationalists got so excited that they could not hide it any more, and as the course of events suggested the time span between the decision to hunt the protester and the killing was very short. After the openly fascist party spoiled Athens´ silent mutiny against Berlin, it is being done with by both because it has fulfilled its purpose of harassing the client regime by terrorising the population according to patterns determined by its external superiors. The fissures in the Athens regime and those between structural militarism and neoliberalism dominating the Berlin regime, as well as the "cold war in a waffle" between the two, are mirroring the decay of the Washington regime which only recently experienced mutiny in the so-called "Marine Ward", the refuge of its extreme soldiers constituting its traditionally most loyal pillar.
The day after this had happened, the Athens regime attempted a clean break from Berlin and the other night the dogs of fascism smelled their unique opportunity to bite whom they could get at. The attempt was interrupted by the resulting attention, the axis would not break, but it became visible that it is just as shaken as the one between Washington and Berlin and resonating the imbalances of the latter. 20th century fascism has experienced several such instances of momentary consolidation after mutiny, and usually they meant that the regime excluded one of its economic pillar groups because its decline led to it being no longer useful for it. E. g. Adolf Hitler was attacked by and fought back the large ranch owners when the advancing frontline took their ranches. The "Golden Dawn" ran amok and was sacrificed when it became undeniable that by no plagiarism of mystery or production of strength this axis would ever be able to entangle its opponents on both sides. With peak gold obviously crossed, it is beginning to dawn upon small gold owners scared of losing their spending power that they are no longer useful to the economy of war.
And yet the key to the analysis of the political situation which produced the fascist manhunt in Thessaloniki is not the economic occupation as such but "the occupation in the occupation" - for the present insurrection in Greece to succeed after all, it must become its goal, by whatever means suitable, to end the American occupation of Europe. Once that security farce is politically overrun, the unconcentric demands of diplomats and economic superiors will just have been the meaningless numbers they are.