Facebook Twitter Google +1     Admin

Se muestran los artículos pertenecientes al tema THIS WORLD.

Los 12 Productos más terribles de Monsanto

Los 12 Productos más terribles de Monsanto

 
   

Para muchos es “paranoico” e incluso “caricaturesco” señalar a la Corporación Monsanto de la familia Rothschild como el “Imperio del Mal”, sin embargo una breve revisión histórica expone como sembró y cosechó miseria durante el transcurso de un siglo. Aspartamo, DDT, Agente Naranja, Armas Nucleares, PCB, la hormona de Crecimiento Bovino, etc. Cuando usted reflexiona por un momento sobre los productos desarrollados por Monsanto, ¿qué encuentra? Esta es una lista certificada por organismos legales mundiales, describiendo doce creaciones que Monsanto lanzó al mercado:

1. Sacarina. John Francisco Queeny fundó “MonsantoChemical Works”, con el objetivo de producir sacarina para Coca-Cola. Estudios realizados durante la década de 1970 mostraron que este químico produce cáncer en ratas y otros mamíferos de prueba. Sin embargo, tras descubrir que causa el mismo efecto en humanos, Monsanto sobornó a médicos e instituciones para seguir comercializandola.

2. PCBs. Durante la década de 1920, Monsanto comenzó a expandir su producción química mediante bifenilos policlorados (PCB), para producir fluidos refrigerantes de transformadores eléctricos y motores. Cincuenta años después, la EPA publicó un informe citando a los PCBs como causantes de cáncer en animales, con pruebas adicionales indicando que produce cáncer en seres humanos. Casi 30 años después los PCBs fueron prohibidos en EE.UU., este químico sigue apareciendo en la sangre de las mujeres embarazadas, como se informó en un estudio de 2011. En muchas áreas de Argentina se sigue utilizando PCBs.

3. Poliestireno. En 1941, Monsanto comenzó a enfocarse en plásticos y el poliestireno sintético, que todavía es ampliamente utilizado para envasar alimentos. El poliestireno fue clasificado quinto en la lista de 1980 de la EPA, donde se enumeran productos químicos cuya producción genera los residuos más peligrosos. Al estar en los envases de comida ingerimos poliestireno (efecto de migración), que causa depresión, cáncer y daños a los nervios. Los vasos y recipientes hechos de este material sintético son difíciles de reciclar. Deben ser derretidos utilizando un equipo adecuado que la mayoría de los centros de reciclaje no poseen. Dentro de 1000 años, la bandeja de carne que usted compró en Carrefour o Wall-Mart seguirá existiendo en alguna parte del planeta. Es fatal para la vida marina: Flota en la superficie del océano, se descompone en pequeñas esferas que los animales comen. Las tortugas de mar, por ejemplo, pierden su capacidad de sumergirse y mueren de hambre.

4. Bomba Atómica y armas nucleares. Poco después de ser adquirida por Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, la corporación Monsanto se convirtió en una división de su Central Research Department. Entre 1943 y 1945, este departamento coordinó esfuerzos de producción clave con Manhattan Project. Lea sobre el mayor accidente industrial de Norteamérica.

5. DDT. En 1944, Monsanto empezó a fabricar el insecticida DDT, con la excusa de combatir a los mosquitos “transmisores de malaria”. En 1972, el DDT fue prohibido en EE.UU. – Sus efectos adversos para la salud humana incluyen infertilidad, fallos en el desarrollo, destrucción del sistema inmunológico, muerte. El DDT impide al andrógeno unirse con su receptor, bloqueando, por lo tanto, al andrógeno para conducir un normal desarrollo sexual, dando lugar a anormalidades. Durante un experimento llevado a cabo en el Mar Caspio (Mediterráneo), el DDT a una concentración de 1 ppb redujo la población de peces hasta un 50%. El transporte atmosférico de largo de esta sustancia afecta actualmente a todos los seres vivos del planeta. Fue detectado en el aire del Ártico, terreno, hielo y nieve y virtualmente en todos los niveles de la cadena alimentaria mundial. Los sedimentos del fondo en lagos y los lechos de los ríos actúan como reservas para el DDT y sus metabolitos. Todos los bebés humanos nacen con DDT en la sangre.

6. Dioxinas. En 1945, Monsanto comenzó a promover el uso de pesticidas químicos en la agricultura con la fabricación del herbicida 2,4,5-T (uno de los precursores de agente naranja), que contiene dioxina. Las dioxinas son un grupo de compuestos químicamente relacionados que se conocen como los “Doce del patíbulo” – Son contaminantes ambientales persistentes que se acumulan en la cadena alimentaria, principalmente en el tejido adiposo de los animales. Durante décadas, desde que fue desarrollado por primera vez, Monsanto fue acusada de encubrimiento o no informar sobre la contaminación por dioxinas en una amplia gama de sus productos.

7. Agent Orange. Durante la década de 1960, Monsanto fue el principal fabricante de Agente Naranja, un herbicida / defoliante utilizado como arma química en la guerra de Vietnam. La fórmula de Monsanto tenía niveles de dioxinas mucho mayores que el Agente Naranja producido por Dow Chemicals, el otro fabricante (por lo que Monsanto fue el acusado clave en la demanda presentada por veteranos de la guerra en los Estados Unidos). Como resultado del uso de Agente Naranja, Vietnam estima que más de 400.000 personas fueron asesinadas o mutiladas, 500.000 niños nacieron con defectos de nacimiento, y un máximo de 1 millón de personas quedaron discapacitadas o sufrieron problemas de salud, por no hablar de los efectos a largo plazo que lesionaron a más de 3 millones de soldados americanos y sus descendientes. Memos internos de Monsanto muestran que la corporación conocía perfectamente los problemas de contaminación por dioxinas del Agente Naranja cuando vendió el producto al gobierno de EE.UU. (para su uso en Vietnam). Sin embargo, la “Justicia” norteamericana permitió a Monsanto y Dow apelar y recibir protección financiera por parte del gobierno, ignorando a los veteranos que buscan una compensación por haber sido expuestos al Agente Naranja. Recién en el año 2012, 50 años más tarde del rociamiento con Agente Naranja, comenzaron algunos esfuerzos por limpiarlo. Mientras tanto, el legado de Monsanto para las generaciones futuras se traduce nacimientos de niños deformes, que continuarán durante las próximas décadas. ¿Piensa que no puede suceder aquí? Varios cultivos argentinos son modificados genéticamente para resistir un herbicida hecho con el principal componente del Agente Naranja (2,4-D), con el fin de luchar contra las “súper malas hierbas” desarrolladas por el RoundUp. Estos químicos persisten en los alimentos hasta llegar a las góndolas del supermercado y más tarde a su estomago.

8. Abono a base de petróleo. En 1955, Monsanto empezó con la fabricación de “fertilizantes” a base de petróleo, luego de comprar una refinería petrolera. Los “fertilizantes” a base de petróleo matan microorganismos benéficos del suelo esterilizando la tierra y creando dependencia, es como una adicción a los sustitutos artificiales. Dado el creciente precio del petroleo no parece una opción demasiado económica ni prospera…

9. RoundUp. Durante la década de 1970 Monsanto fundó su división Agricultural Chemicals, para producir herbicidas, y uno en particular: RoundUp (glifosato). La propaganda de Monsanto es que puede erradicar “las malezas” un día para el otro. Por supuesto los agricultores lo adoptaron de inmediato. La utilización de este químico aumentó cuando Monsanto introdujo las semillas “RoundUp Ready” (resistentes al glifosato), lo que permite a los agricultores a saturar el campo con herbicidas sin matar estos cultivos (transgénicos). Monsanto es una corporación muy poderosa, como lo demostró recientemente haciendo firmar a Obama un Acta de Protección para sus crímenes. Y aunque el glifosato inicialmente fue aprobado por organismos reguladores de todo el mundo, y es ampliamente utilizado en Argentina y Estados Unidos, más tarde fue prácticamente erradicado de Europa. El RoundUp fue hallado en muestras de aguas subterránea, así como en el suelo, y el mar, e incluso en las corrientes de aire y las lluvias. Pero por sobre todo en alimentos. Es el causante de la desaparición de abejas, y produce malformaciones, infertilidad, cáncer y destrucción del sistema inmunológico. Los estudios independientes demostraron efectos sobre la salud consistentemente negativos que van desde tumores y función orgánica alterada, hasta muerte por intoxicación. El RoundUp es Agente Naranja con distinto nombre. Para más información visite: Ecos De Romang, el sitio mas actualizado sobre los desastres ocasionados por Monsanto en Argentina. Lea: Histórico juicio por contaminación con herbicidas que provocó 300 muertos.

10. El aspartame (NutraSweet / Equal). Fue descubierto accidentalmente durante una investigación sobre hormonas gastrointestinales. Se trata de un producto químico dulce que en primera instancia, mató a un mono bebé y dejó a otros 5 dañados gravemente (sobre un total de 7 monos), en un ensayo clínico realizado para que la FDA apruebe el Aspartame. ¡Y la FDA lo hizo! (1974). En 1985, Monsanto adquirió la empresa que fabricaba aspartame (GD Searle) y comenzó a comercializar el producto rebautizándolo NutraSweet. Veinte años más tarde, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de los EE.UU. publicó un informe que enumera 94 problemas de salud causados ??por el aspartamo. Aspartamo o aspartame, el veneno dentro de Nutrasweet, Equal y otros edulcorantes. Searle (Monsanto). Coca Cola “Light” y otras… La verdad incomoda sobre el jugo de naranja “recién exprimido”, y otras bebidas La sucia verdad detrás de Coca Cola: Es peor que el tabaco

11. Hormona de Crecimiento Bovino (rBGH). Esta hormona modificada genéticamente fue desarrollada por Monsanto para ser inyectada en las vacas lecheras y aumentar la producción de leche cuando no hay escasez de leche. Las vacas sometidas a rBGH sufren un dolor insoportable debido a la inflamación de las ubres, y mastitis. El pus de la infección resultante entra en el suministro de leche que requiere el uso de antibióticos adicionales. La leche rBGH produce cáncer de mama, cáncer de colon, y cáncer de próstata en seres humanos. Lea: La leche argentina produce cáncer de colon, mamas y próstata.

12. Cultivos Genéticamente Modificados OGM / GMO / GM. A principios de la década de 1990, Monsanto comenzó el “empalme” de genes de maíz, algodón, soja y canola. Utilizó ADN de fuentes extrañas para lograr dos características principalmente: Un pesticida generado internamente, y resistencia al herbicida RoundUp de Monsanto. En otras palabras, las plantas envenenan y matan a los insectos y mamíferos que las devoran, y, resisten el agroquimico (pariente del Agente Naranja) RoundUp que persiste en ellas incluso tras su procesamiento hasta llegar al consumidor. Por supuesto la transgenesis se ha extendido. Papas, frutillas, manzanas, tomates, lechuga, tabaco, peras, sandías. TODO tiene su versión OGM. Pese a las décadas de propaganda diciendo que los cultivos genéticamente modificados podrían alimentar al mundo, que tendrían más nutrientes, resistencia a la sequía, o mayor rendimiento, ninguna de esas promesas se cumplió. Los cultivos GM no alimentan al mundo, causan cáncer. No tienen más nutrientes, de hecho no alcanzan ni un 10 % de los nutrientes de los cultivos orgánicos. No resisten a la sequía. No brindan mayor rendimiento sino menor rendimiento, mientras encarecen la producción. La mayoría de las ganancias de Monsanto provienen de las semillas diseñadas para tolerar el RoundUp, este diseño transforma a los “alimentos” en armas mortales para la humanidad. Los ingresos de Monsanto aumentan constantemente ya que los agricultores se ven obligados a usar más y más químicos debido a la proliferación de super malezas que evolucionan desarrollando resistencia al RoundUp. Monsanto y los medios de comunicación masivos ocultan que el Amaranto orgánico era el verdadero alimento proyectado para la humanidad del futuro. Cura el cáncer, lo previene, es el cereal más nutritivo del planeta y fue la primera planta en germinar en el espacio. Tal es así que los astronautas de la NASA utilizan amaranto para mantenerse saludables y no soja.

Al igual que durante los primeros días de los PCB, el DDT, o el Agente Naranja, Monsanto ha engañado y sobornado con éxito a los organismos públicos y reguladores generales implantando la creencia de que el RoundUp y los cultivos modificados genéticamente son beneficiosos y “seguros”.

Sin embargo Monsanto tuvo que ordenar a Obama que firmara una Ley en salvaguarda de la corporación para defenderse de las denuncias y demandas producto de 100 años de nuevos estudios que demuestran los efectos negativos e impactos ambientales de los OGM. Monsanto ataca dichos estudios científicos mediante medios de comunicación masivos controlados, denigrando e ignorando a las organizaciones independientes, y científicos honestos. Pero además, Monsanto cuenta con asociaciones industriales, blogs, científicos sobornados, “ciencia independiente” falsa y todo tipo de herramientas que a su vez, los mismos medios de comunicación corruptos patrocinan, sumado a cientos de miles de artículos de relaciones públicas “privadas” realizados por empresas que con frecuencia fueron fundadas, son financiadas y mantenidas por Monsanto.

Desafortunadamente, muy pocos de nosotros tomamos el tiempo para localizar a los miembros fundadores, y las relaciones de estas fuentes no válidas con Monsanto. (Leer más en esta página.)

La FDA respalda enfáticamente a Monsanto, ya que comparte funcionarios con Monsanto mediante el fenómeno “Puertas Giratorias”. En el siguiente gráfico elaborado por Millones contra Monsanto puede ver algunos ex vicepresidentes de Monsanto y abogados de la firma que más tarde ocuparon cargos en la FDA. Y no se olvide de Clarence Thomas, el ex abogado de Monsanto, que siendo juez de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, falló a favor de Monsanto en cada caso presentado.

El viento y las abejas transportan mutaciones genéticas de Monsanto a la naturaleza salvaje, comprometiendo el ecosistema global. Muy pronto todas las plantas serán transgénicas.

13. Un producto extra para este informe: Las semillas Terminator. A finales de 1990, Monsanto desarrolló tecnología para producir granos estériles incapaces de germinar. Estas “semillas Terminator” obligarían a los agricultores a comprar nuevas semillas de Monsanto cada año, en lugar de guardar y reutilizar las semillas de sus cosechas como lo hicieron durante siglos. Afortunadamente, esta tecnología fracasa en al mercado. Por lo cual Monsanto decidió exigir a los agricultores la firma de un contrato de acuerdo para que no re-utilicen ni vendan las semillas, lo que les obliga a comprar nuevas semillas y se antepone a la necesidad de un “gen terminator”. El fracaso parcial de las semillas terminator es una suerte para nosotros … ya que también eran susceptibles a polinización cruzada y podrían haber contaminado cultivos y bosques en todo el mundo. Lo cual no significa que este objetivo siga en los planes de Monsanto.

¿Cómo se traduce el legado de Monsanto para la humanidad?

Entre el 85% y el 90% de los alimentos ??que usted consume cada día tiene OGMs y tóxicos químicos de Monsanto, y residuos de RoundUp. (Las cifras en esa fuente están desactualizadas)

¿Cómo logra Monsanto su impunidad? Según la Asociación de Consumidores Orgánicos en un documento del año 2011, “Hay una correlación directa entre el suministro de alimentos genéticamente modificados y los $ 2,000,000,000,000 de dólares que el gobierno de EE.UU. gasta anualmente en atención médica, es decir, una epidemia de enfermedades crónicas relacionadas con la dieta y un vinculo comercial con los laboratorios de fármacos y vacunas.

En lugar de frutos sanos, verduras, granos y animales alimentados con hierba natural, las granjas industriales de Estados Unidos y Argentina producen un exceso de comida chatarra de ingeniería genética para ocasionar enfermedades cardíacas derrame cerebral, diabetes y cáncer, con el respaldo de subsidios agrícolas, mientras que los agricultores orgánicos no reciben dichas subvenciones. La historia de Monsanto refleja un cuadro persistente de sustancias químicas tóxicas, demandas, y ciencia manipulada. ¿Es este el tipo de entidad que queremos para controlar el suministro de alimentos de nuestro mundo? Monsanto no está sola. Otras empresas del “Big Six” incluyen a: Pioneer Hi-Bred International (filial de DuPont), Syngenta AG, Dow Agrosciences (filial de Dow Chemical), BASF (que es una compañía química que expande rápidamente su división de biotecnología) y Bayer CropScience (filial de Bayer). Vea una lista completa de las empresas de la ingeniería genética en este sitio web. Ecoportal.net

BWN Argentina

http://bwnargentina.blogspot.com.ar

20/05/2014 22:54. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

LA FARSA DE LA HOMOSEXUALIDAD EN LA ANTIGUA GRECIA

Está por todas partes. Se menciona por encima en tertulias televisivas, se escribe en libros de texto, está en boca de profesores de universidad, e Internet lo repite incesantemente, incluso en la Wiskypedia ―como por ejemplo en este “artículo” (por llamarlo de alguna manera) sobre la pederastia en Grecia. Todo el mundo lo parafrasea, se ha convertido en un “meme”, un eslogan que las masas repiten sin pensar, de modo similar al famoso “todos somos iguales”. Se han vertido toneladas y toneladas de basura sobre la historia griega, e innumerables autorzuelos del tres al cuarto han desarrollado páginas y páginas dando por sentado que la mentira es cierta.

¿A qué nos referimos? A que hoy todo el mundo asume que los antiguos griegos eran una panda mariconas redomadas. Sin embargo, este dogma no es más que otro gigante con pies de barro, y aquí será desmenuzado y se demostrará por qué es así.

 

En otro artículo quedó demostrada la falsedad del mito de que los griegos fuesen “mediterráneos”. En éste nos ocuparemos del mito griego más desafortunadamente conocido: el mito de que la homosexualidad formaba sistemáticamente parte de la sociedad griega y de que la pedofilia era una práctica común y socialmente aceptada. Como se verá, la tesis no es que no existiese homosexualidad entre ellos, sino que la moral tradicional tenía a los homosexuales mal vistos. También se demostrará que, en la mayor parte de los casos, existían castigos prescritos por conducta homosexual, como por ejemplo la pena de muerte, el exilio o la marginación de la vida pública.

Esto va dirigido, ante todo, a quienes algo “no les cuadra” en eso de la homosexualidad griega y a quienes quieren fundamentar tales sospechas para que sean algo más que simples sospechas. Efectivamente, hubo homosexuales en Grecia, pero como se verá, que haya habido homosexuales no significa que haya sido una “práctica habitual” ni mucho menos que la pedofilia fuese una “institución social”, como han llegado a afirmar disparatadamente algunos autores homosexuales, a quienes nadie ha arrojado a la cárcel por hacer apología de la pedofilia ―y además sin bases para ello, difamando y ensuciando gratuitamente la historia de todo un país. Y es que es detestable que se utilice la mitología de hace milenios para legitimar fenómenos decadentes de la vida moderna y sólo moderna. Desde arriba, la doctrina oficial del Sistema pretende presentar a la antigua Grecia como la tierra prometida de los gays, una suerte de paraíso homo, y eso es demasiado para un amante de Grecia como un servidor, al cual nadie le puede vender la moto porque conoce bastante bien el imaginario mitológico de la Hélade, o para muchos griegos modernos, que aborrecen que otras sociedades decadentes utilicen la historia de su país para justificar sus propias desviaciones. Como veremos después, la película “Alejandro Magno” se mostró sólo 4 días en Grecia y fue un fracaso absoluto: los griegos conocen su propia historia como la palma de su mano, se han leído bien todos los libros (en griego antiguo inclusive) y saben lo que hay, como para que ahora vengan cuatro escritores neoyorkinos psicológicamente destrozados, a explicarles cómo era su propio país.

Lo que se defenderá en este artículo es, precisamente, la posibilidad que tiene cada hombre libre de conocer la pura y simple VERDAD, sin tener que confiar en intermediarios de dudosa reputación (medios de comunicación, revistas, programas de TV, sensacionalismo, manipulación, intereses políticos, sociales e internacionales), y recurriendo a las fuentes escritas originarias, en este caso, las fuentes griegas. Por tanto recurriré en este artículo a fuentes griegas para demostrar que la homosexualidad en la Antigua Grecia no era, ni de lejos, un fenómeno social extendido y aceptado. Escaparemos, pues, a la tiranía del pensamiento único, y a los intereses políticos que, siguiendo una agenda impuesta desde arriba, intentan hacer creer a todo el planeta que Grecia, una de las civilizaciones más encomiables que haya existido jamás, estaba basada en la homosexualidad, y examinaremos la evidencia que hay para llegar a una conclusión personal despojada de cualquier influencia que no provenga de la misma Grecia antigua, desenmascarando también a quienes predican irresponsablemente la teoría de los griegos homosexuales.

EL ORIGEN DEL MITO

La primera “coincidencia” que clama al cielo y que la gente pasa por alto porque las masas son demasiado perezosas como para cuestionarse algo salido de su sacrosanta TV, sus infalibles revistas y sus libros de texto oficiales, es que casi todos los “expertos” que han reclamado una extensión endémica de la pedofilia homosexual en Grecia… son homosexuales ellos mismos. Esto no es asunto baladí, ya que implica necesariamente que las perspectivas de tales autores están inevitablemente influenciadas por sus tendencias personales y por su deseo desesperado de legitimar su opción sexual en un entorno “hostil” (se quiera o no, la mayor parte de la población es incurablemente heterosexual), cosa que les hace ver homosexualidad hasta en la reproducción de las amebas.

Hablo, por ejemplo, de “expertos” de la talla de Walter Pater, Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler, David Halperin y Kenneth James Dover, quienes, al parecer, vivieron en sus mentes una serie de fantasías sexuales a expensas de la historia griega. Quien lo empezó todo fue precisamente Walter Pater (1839-1894), profesor de Oxford. Por alguna extraña casualidad, él y todo su círculo de seguidores, eran homosexuales (por ejemplo, Pater fue profesor de Oscar Wilde, el conocido poeta homosexual), y por tanto, no sorprende que extrapolase las relaciones sodomitas que mantenía con sus alumnos, a las relaciones de entrenamiento maestro-alumno en Grecia, y más cuando había sido abandonado por su mentor veterano, Benjamin Jowett, debido a un escandaloso lío que Pater mantuvo con un tal William Money Hardinge, un estudiante de 19 años que había atraído hacia sí la atención pública de la facultad presumiendo de su homosexualidad. Probablemente el argumento más desviado y disparatado de Pater sea que el “amor platónico” no tenía nada que ver con Psiqué, sino que era algo puramente sexual.

“Casualmente”, el origen del mito de la homosexualidad griega y el “aprendizaje por pedofilia” se remonta a este hombre, Walter Pater, un profesor de Oxford conocido por su homosexualidad y por sus líos con alumnos, como por ejemplo William M. Hardinge o el famoso poeta Oscar Wilde. Esta camarilla de victorianos decadentes es la responsable de haber acomodado la historia griega a sus fantasías personales (es de esperar que, para un profesor que tenía líos con sus propios alumnos, le viniese bien justificar que en la antigua Grecia las relaciones de maestro-alumno estaban teñidas de homosexualidad), siendo su obra jaleada un siglo después con el advenimiento de otra oleada de autores ―”casualmente”, todos o casi todos, homosexuales― que retomaron su causa durante la época hippie. Desde entonces, los supersabios de las tertulias televisivas, de las revistas sensacionalistas, de las verdulerías de barrio, de los empollonarivms virtuales, de la Wiskypedia y de las saunas gays, se han dedicado a repetir esta burrada como cacatúas tropicales, sin tan siquiera molestarse en comprobar su veracidad.

En sus escritos, dichos autores son prudentes, usando siempre frase cautas y ambiguas como “parece ser”, “es posible”, “tiene aspecto de”, para crear el margen necesario en donde maniobrar con su propia visión enfermiza, tendente siempre a ver fantasmas y signos homosexuales donde no los hay. Más adelante veremos bien hasta qué punto tales escritores fuerzan y manipulan las cosas para ver homosexualidad debajo de cada piedra, pero baste decir de momento que, sin excepción, los “argumentos” que manejan sólo persuaden a quienes desean ser persuadidos de antemano.

Desde que esos autores escribieron sus teorías, principalmente a finales del Siglo XIX y luego durante la oleada hippie-izquierdista post-1968 del siglo pasado, nadie ha aportado nada nuevo, simplemente todas las revistas y todos los tentáculos de la industria de los Medios de Comunicación, muy volcada en derrocar cualquier cosa “tradicional”, repitieron como discos rayados y parafrasearon lo que dichos autores habían escrito. Toda la información que plaga Internet, y que se limita a aseverar gratuitamente que “los griegos eran homosexuales”, procede simplemente de gente de pocas luces que se limita a repetir lo que otros escribieron, y que realmente no llegan a conclusiones por su propio pie ―o bien proceden de los homosexuales mismos.

¿Dónde está, pues, el problema griego? El problema está en que:

• Los griegos, particularmente los de herencia jonia (como los atenienses), quienes estaban más influidos por las costumbres orientales, tendían a “recluir” mucho a sus mujeres y apartarlas de la vida pública, suprimiendo la imagen femenina, cosa que fue bastante bien satirizada por el historiador Indro Montanelli. Esta situación, como digo, no era panhelénica, ya que en Esparta las mujeres tenían una libertad realmente notable, pero, en todo caso, los vínculos personales más fuertes solían darse entre hombres, como veremos ahora.

• Los griegos ―y en esto coincidían todos― admiraban la belleza sin importar dónde se manifestase ésta, fuese en hombres o en mujeres, pero de ahí a que tradujesen siempre tal atracción en actos sexuales hay un buen trecho, como veremos después.

• En un pueblo que daba tanta importancia al entrenamiento deportivo, al combate y a la camaradería, era normal que, en el seno de aventuras y grandes batallas lejos del hogar, se forjasen vínculos extremadamente profundos entre hombres, vínculos raramente comprendidos por una sociedad pacifista, afeminada y sedentaria como la nuestra, pero que en todo caso no iban más allá de una sólida hermandad, la propia de toda männerbund. A pesar de la enorme importancia que tenía la relación maestro-discípulo en Grecia, y de que, a no dudarlo, con el advenimiento de la decadencia algunas de estas relaciones quizás degeneraron en homosexualidad, enseguida veremos que no pocos Estados tomaron medidas para salvaguardar la sacralidad de esta institución educativa y espiritual.

• Hoy en día el ideal de belleza del imaginario colectivo es la mujer de treinta y tantos años (lo cual no convierte en lesbianas a todas las mujeres), en Grecia el ideal de belleza era el muchacho que se hallaba entre la adolescencia y la madurez, porque se consideraba que era el único tipo humano que combinaba una vida de violento ejercicio al aire libre, con la salud de la juventud y la fuerza de la masculinidad.

• Los vocablos griegos para designar al maestro iniciador y al joven iniciado que aspiraba a convertirse en hombre, eran respectivamente erastes yeromenos, lo cual, traducido literalmente, sería algo así como “amante” y “amado”. Sin embargo, como veremos enseguida, la mentalidad de la Antigüedad distinguía claramente entre el amor carnal y el amor platónico, y estas relaciones estaban fundamentadas en el segundo, considerado más elevado, más desinteresado, disociado de lo carnal, y más capaz de inculcar virtud y sabiduría. Y es que en Grecia se pensaba que un hombre joven necesitaba la tutela y el consejo de uno mayor para llegar a ser sabio en la vida o excelso en el deporte, en la caza y en el combate.

Si existía un lugar donde la conducta disonante del sodomita estaba mal vista, era sin duda en las asociaciones de cazadores y soldados del pasado remoto (llamadas männerbunden en alemán), donde el trabajo en equipo, la hermandad, el deber y la camaradería del honor predominaban sobre los instintos individuales, los cuales se descargaban en combate o con mujeres, a menudo capturadas y tomadas por la fuerza. El mejor documento para familiarizarse con la mentalidad, la psicología y el modo de vida de una männerbund del pasado, es sin duda la “Ilíada” de Homero, gran epopeya por excelencia del mundo griego, y donde se relatan tradiciones que se remontan al mismísimo Paleolítico.

Como ya he dejado claro, este artículo no tiene por objetivo negar que existía homosexualidad en Grecia (si se promulgaron leyes en su contra, es porque se dieron casos), ni que todos los factores expuestos se prestaban a devenir con el paso de los siglos ―especialmente bajo condiciones de decadencia y olvido de la tradición ancestral―, en relaciones sodomitas entre hombres y jóvenes. Lo que sí niego en este artículo es que estas relaciones fuesen endémicas, normales y socialmente “reguladas”, o que tuviesen nada que ver con la tradición helénica originaria.

Dicho todo esto, comencemos a desmenuzar el mito.

ALGUNOS APODOS PARA LOS HOMOSEXUALES EN GRECIA ―SOBRE LA IMPORTANCIA DE AIDÓS

La mayor parte de sociedades han proscrito y estigmatizado las prácticas sexuales estériles o aquellas que conllevaban riesgo de infecciones. La homosexualidad reúne ambas condiciones, ya que por un lado es incapaz de engendrar nueva vida, y por el otro, el orificio empleado no es precisamente la parte más limpia, sana o higiénica del cuerpo humano. En la Grecia antigua, que no era una excepción a esta regla general, no existían palabros modernos como “homosexual”, “gay” o “heterosexual”. Los “heteros” eran sencillamente la gentenormal que cumplía con lo que era natural, y para los homosexuales se reservaban una serie de vocablos, generalmente de significado altamente infamante e indigno:

- Euryproktos: culo abierto.

- Lakkoproktos: culo de pozo.

- Katapygon, kataproktos: homosexual pasivo.

- Arsenokoitai: homosexual activo.

- Marikas: el que salta arriba y abajo.

- Androgynus: hombre-mujer, “travelo”, afeminado, mariquita, ambiguo.

- Kinaidos (κιναίδος): Causador de vergüenza. Deriva de kineo (mover) yAidos (vergüenza, diosa del pudor, el respeto, la modestia, la reverencia, diosa acompañante de Nemesis y castigadora de las transgresiones morales). “Aquel que acarrea la cólera de Aidos”. Como veremos, el problema de Aidós es que siempre iba acompañada del cruel Némesis (Indignación), una divinidad vengadora que encaja bien en la noción de “karma” o de castigo por los pecados, y que revela que los griegos pensaban que todo aquel que hubiese incurrido en sodomía, tenía una espada de Damocles pendiendo pacientemente sobre su cabeza, para caer tarde o temprano. Pero el dato más relevador es que en el imaginario griego, Aidós iba asociada precisamente al ano:

Cuando Zeus creó al ser humano y a sus propiedades del alma, las introdujo en cada ser humano. Sin embargo, dejó fuera a la VERGÜENZA (Aidós, reverencia, respeto, pudor, modestia). Puesto que no sabía dónde insertarla, ordenó que fuese insertada en el ano. La Vergüenza, sin embargo, se quejó de esto y se molestó, considerando que la petición de Zeus estaba por debajo de su dignidad. Puesto que se quejaba profusamente, la Vergüenza dijo: “accederé a ser insertada de este modo, sólo a condición de que, cuando entre algo después de mi, yo saldré inmediatamente”. (Esopo, “Fábulas”, 528).

De este mito se deduce que, según la mentalidad tradicional griega, el sexo anal implica, a la vez, desvergonzarse (el pudor era considerado virtud en Grecia) y esparcir la vergüenza alrededor de uno.

Otro asunto aparte es que, en una cultura europea pagana donde cada actividad, cada oficio, cada momento de la vida, tiene su propio dios “patrón” o protector, uno esperaría encontrar ―particularmente en una sociedad donde supuestamente la homosexualidad campa a sus anchas―, una divinidad, un numen o un espíritu de algún tipo, que se ocupase de la homosexualidad, y no lo hay. O mejor dicho, sí lo hay: se trata de los sátiros, daimones degenerados que llevaban al cabo todas las perversiones imaginables para la mente humana, y que en Grecia no gozaban precisamente de buena fama. Pero esto lo trataré más adelante. Por otro lado, en una civilización que concede estatus “regular” a la homosexualidad, y que la favorece por encima de la heterosexualidad, uno esperaría que el erotismo estuviese personificado en una divinidad representada por un muchacho joven, pero la realidad, de nuevo, no es tal: la diosa del amor, la traedora de Eros y de todas aquellas cosas que hacen perder la cabeza a los hombres, es Afrodita, el arquetipo de la superhembra.

Afrodita

EL MITO DE LAYO COMO EJEMPLO DE AIDÓS EN ACCIÓN

El mito de Layo es un ejemplo perfecto de lo que pasa si se insulta a Aidósatrayendo Hybris (o Hubris) y provocando la venganza de Némesis, según el concepto de la Hélade arcaica y clásica. Comenzaremos hablando sobre el primerkinaidos y pedófilo de la mitología griega, Layo, y veremos qué es lo que sucede tras su “pecado”.

Layo (del griego Λάϊος o “zurdo”), era del linaje real de la ciudad de Tebas, pero cuando le correspondió ocupar el trono, sus primos lo usurparon y tuvo que exiliarse a Pisa, donde el rey Pélope (de cuyo nombre procede “Peloponeso”) lo acogió como huésped. Pélope quiso que Layo le enseñase a su hijo Crisipo a conducir caballos, con lo cual le “asigna” al niño para formar una pareja maestro-alumno. Sin embargo, Layo profana la sacralidad y el carácter platónico de esa relación y abusa sexualmente del pobre chaval. Éste, por pura vergüenza (recordemos a Aidós) se termina suicidando. La inaudita transgresión de Layo acarrea sobre él la venganza divina y, del mismo modo que Aidós había hecho que Crisispo se suicidase, Némesis, acompañante de Aidós, se ocupará de castigar el pecado de Layo. Los dioses traman un plan para canalizar su cólera ante el crimen, a la vez que dan ejemplo para el resto de los mortales, castigando la perversión y maldiciendo a todo el linaje de Layo hasta que desaparezca en un baño de sangre.

La maldición comienza cuando los dioses mandan la Esfinge a Tebas. Este ser, con cuerpo de león, cabeza de mujer y alas de pájaro, se dedica a sembrar el terror por los campos tebanos, destruyendo las cosechas y estrangulando a todos los que son incapaces de resolver sus acertijos. Layo se termina casando con Yocasta, pero el oráculo de Delfos le advierte de que no tenga progenie, porque sería un varón, mataría a su padre y se casaría con su madre. Moira (el destino) no se puede evitar, así que la profecía se cumple: Edipo, quien había sido mandado lejos de su familia, mata a su padre sin saber quién era y, por haber salvado a Tebas de la esfinge, se casa con su madre, la reina Yocasta, haciéndose rey de Tebas hasta que, cuando finalmente se conocen los hechos, por vergüenza (Aidós y Némesis entran en acción), Yocasta se ahorca y Edipo se saca los ojos. En cuanto a los hijos que habían nacido de este casamiento incestuoso, dos de ellos, Etéocles y Polínices, se matan en combate el uno al otro, mientras que las hijas, Antígona e Ismele, son condenadas a muerte. La justicia está servida, por culpa de lo que Layo, su malvado abuelo, había hecho.

La Esfinge y Edipo. Aunque tuvo éxito acabando con ella y entronizándose como rey de Tebas, el héroe Edipo, por ser el hijo del kinaidos Layo, estaba maldecido por los dioses, y cuando supo que había matado a su padre y se había casado con su madre teniendo hijos con ella (algo así como el sacrilegio o Hubrisabsoluto), se sacó los ojos.

En lo que respecta al asunto de la homosexualidad en este mito, habría que hacerse varias preguntas.  ¿Por qué Crisipo se suicida si el sexo entre maestro y alumno era tan normal? ¿Por qué Zeus manda a la Esfinge a Tebas como castigo? ¿Por qué el linaje de Layo pasa a estar maldito? Este mito, claramente, fue ideado para prevenir contra la homosexualidad y contra quienes se alzan ingratos contra la hospitalidad de sus anfitriones, profanando suciamente la dignidad de criaturas inocentes. Y es que del mito de Layo y Edipo pueden sacarse bastantes moralejas. Por un lado, que la aberración siempre es castigada por los dioses tarde o temprano, téngase conocimiento de ella o no, y que Aidós SIEMPRE es seguida, tarde o temprano, por la venganza kármica de Némesis. Por otro lado, que los pecados de los padres se pagan, al menos, hasta la tercera generación. Y, por último, que los seres malignos y los monstruos (la Esfinge) son los hijos de la traición y de la aberración, creados por las transgresiones de los hombres.

Cuando pensamos que este mito era una tradición pasada oralmente de generación a generación, y representada teatralmente año tras año en una civilización que concedía extrema importancia al estar en paz con los dioses, resulta difícil pensar que los griegos ―particularmente los tebanos, en cuya polis había tenido lugar el mito de Layo― se hiciesen kinaidos a escala masiva así como así, que es lo que pretenden dar a entendernos los adoctrinadores oficiales del Sistema actual.

Por esa razón, deberíamos ahora dirigir nuestra atención hacia la Banda Sagrada, un cuerpo de élite del ejército tebano formado por Epaminondas o Górgidas en el 378 AEC, que acabaría derrotando y ocupando la misma Esparta, y que, según ciertos autores, estaba formada por 150 “parejas homosexuales”. Se cree que existe una alusión a la Banda Sagrada en el “Banquete” de Platón (178e), cuando se habla de la conveniencia de tener “un ejército de amantes y amados”. Si examinamos la fuente original de la frase, nos encontramos con el griego“genesthai e stratopedon eraston te kai paidikon”, en la que la palabra eromenos(muerdealmohadas según los escritores homosexuales modernos, alumno según el sentido común de cualquier persona normal que haya leído literatura griega) no aparece por ningún lado, sino que aparece paidikon, es decir, “muchacho”. Lo que los pseudoexpertos han fallado en mencionar es que la innovación de Epaminondas consistió en modificar las tácticas de combate de su ejército. Antaño, los jóvenes (alumnos, fuerza, impulso) eran la línea frontal, y los veteranos (tutores, sabiduría, experiencia) la línea trasera. Lo que hizo Epaminondas fue mezclarlos por igual en todas las líneas, combinando a partes iguales la veteranía con el arrojo. Por lo demás, como en tantos otros casos, no existe absolutamente nada, salvo la mente de cada cual, que muestre homosexualidad en estas “parejas”, que se equiparan con el binomio de combate de la Infantería Ligera de nuestros días, o con la ya mencionada institución de maestro-alumno, de carácter platónico.

Como confirmación, el año 338 AEC, tras la Batalla de Queronea, en la que aplastó la resistencia griega a su invasión, el rey Filipo de Macedonia, padre de Alejandro Magno, contemplaba sobre los campos los cuerpos sin vida de soldados tebanos que habían luchado heroicamente hasta la muerte. Tras mirarlos largo tiempo, exclamó “¡Que perezcan miserablemente quienes piensen que estos hombres hicieron o sufrieron cualquier cosa vergonzosa!”.

Otra cita referente al caso de Layo la tenemos en las “Leyes” de Platón (836c), cuando el anciano ateniense, representante de las opiniones platónicas, habla de“la costumbre que estaba vigente antes de Layo y dice que es correcto no mantener relaciones carnales con jóvenes varones como si fueran mujeres, apoyándose en el testimonio de la naturaleza de los animales y mostrando que el macho no toca al macho con este fin porque eso no se adecua a la Naturaleza”. Layo sería visto aquí, pues, como el que transtornó la ley natural contraviniendo a los dioses. El ateniense defiende la idea de que la ley no debe de ser benevolente con la homosexualidad, ya que no inculca autocontrol en el alma del “activo” (a quien se acusa de lascivia) ni valor en el alma del “pasivo” (a quien se acusa de imitar antinaturalmente el papel femenino).

HOMOFOBIA EN LAS LEYES GRIEGAS Y EN LA MORALIDAD DE GRECIA

En este apartado veremos una serie de citas que atestiguan una clara homofobia, certificando que hubo Estados griegos, y de los más importantes, que prohibieron la homosexualidad con penas durísimas, y que en tal caso, mal se puede hablar de que la homosexualidad estaba “comúnmente aceptada”, que constituía una “institución social” o que Grecia era una inmensa Chueca, que es lo que nos hacen creer hoy en día el Sistema Educativo y los Medios de Comunicación (manipulación).

En su “Contra Timarco”, el orador Esquines (389-314 AEC) nos relata las famosas Leyes de Solón, entre las cuales hay una que nos interesa por su homofobia:

Si algún ateniense tiene etairese [compañía del mismo sexo], no se le permitirá:

-convertirse en uno de los nueve arcontes

- desempeñar el trabajo de sacerdote

- actuar como magistrado del Estado

- desempeñar cargo público alguno, ni en el hogar ni en el extranjero, ya sea por elección o por sorteo

- ser mandado como heraldo

- tomar parte en debates

- estar presente en los sacrificios públicos

- entrar en los límites de un espacio que ha sido purificado para la congregación del Pueblo

- si alguien que se ha involucrado en actividades sexuales ilegales como las descritas, o ejerce una de estas actividades, será ejecutado.

El discurso de Esquines toma tintes cada vez más “ultraderechistas” cuando invita a los jueces a recordar a sus antepasados atenienses, “severos hacia toda conducta vergonzosa”, y que consideraban “preciada” la “pureza de sus hijos y sus conciudadanos”.  Asimismo, elogia las radicales medidas espartanas contra la homosexualidad, mencionando el dicho según el cual “es bueno imitar la virtud, aunque sea en un extranjero”.

Esquines, uno de los Diez Oradores Áticos

Como se ve, esta ley de la “progresista” y “avanzada” democracia ateniense, hoy en día sería calificada de homófoba y fascista, y es una de las muchas razones por las cuales deberíamos mostrarnos irónicos cuando la democracia actual intenta ver sus raíces en Grecia: incluso Atenas, acaso el Estado griego más “liberal”, sólo permitía votar exclusivamente a los ciudadanos, es decir, a varones mayores de edad descendientes de las familias autóctonas, que hubiesen superado durísimas pruebas físicas (estamos hablando de proezas deportivas que hoy no cumpliría ni el 1% de la población) y que estuviesen dispuestos a salvaguardar la integridad de la polis ateniense con sus armas y con su sangre.

Por su parte, Demóstenes (384-322 AEC), un político y orador ateniense, enumera alguna medida homófoba similar en su “Contra Androcio” (30), cuando especifica que quienes hayan tomado parte en actos de sodomía “no tendrán el derecho a hablar [en público] ni a presentar un caso ante un juzgado”.

Demóstenes

La conclusión derivada inevitablemente de estas citas es que a los homosexuales atenienses que eran reconocidos, se les privaba de asistir a eventos políticos, culturales, religiosos o populares de cualquier tipo, y se convertían en ciudadanos de segunda (metoikos).

El caso de Platón (427-347 AEC) me hace bastante gracia, por un lado porque siempre elogia las medidas espartanas (que, como veremos, eran homófobas, autoritarias y “fascistas”) y, por otro, porque está todo el tiempo hablando sobre la importancia de la “continencia”, la “abstinencia”, la “moderación”, el “autodominio” y la mesura; hasta tal punto otorga importancia al control de los instintos y del placer, que cualquiera hoy en día lo consideraría un “rancio” de la vida, y que aun se sigue considerando al “amor platónico” como un amor idílico, desprovisto de carácter sexual ―como podría serlo, por ejemplo, el expresado por el poeta renacentista Petrarca hacia una etérea “amada” que no parece de este mundo, o el que sentía Hitler hacia una joven llamada Estefanía, estando en Linz: se trataba de un amor ascético y ritual, que catalizaba la excelencia del espíritu y que no necesariamente coincidía con el amor físico.

Entrando ya en materia, abrimos las “Leyes” de Platón para encontrarnos con esto:

Cuando el varón se une con la mujer para procrear, el placer experimentado se supone debido a la Naturaleza [kata physin], pero es contrario a la Naturaleza [para physin] cuando un varón se aparea con un varón, o una mujer con una mujer, y aquellos culpables de tales enormidades están impulsados por su esclavitud al placer. Todos censuramos a los cretenses por haber inventado el mito de Ganímedes. (636c).

Más adelante, el anciano ateniense da dos posibles opciones para una legislación en sentido sexual:

Podríamos forzar una de dos en las prácticas amatorias: o que nadie ose tocar ninguna persona nacida de los nobles y libres excepto el marido a su propia esposa, ni a sembrar ninguna semilla profana o bastarda en concubinato, ni, contra la Naturaleza, semilla estéril en varones ―o deberíamos extirpar totalmente el amor por varones. (841ce).

En “Fedro”, Platón habla sobre cómo los homosexuales deben temer que se les descubra, cosa que no sería lo normal en una sociedad donde la homosexualidad es una “institución social”, como declaran los ilusos autores homosexuales que hemos visto:

Tenéis miedo de la opinión pública, y teméis que si la gente se entera [de vuestro asunto amoroso], seréis repudiados. (231e). 

Otra traducción reza: Temes a la costumbre imperante, según la cual, si la gente se entera, caería sobre ti la infamia.

Por su parte, Plutarco, un autor ya posterior (46-120 EC), contrasta en su “Erótica” la unión “natural” entre hombre y mujer con la “unión con hombres, contraria a la Naturaleza”, y unas líneas después dice de nuevo que quienes “cohabitan con hombres” lo hacen para physin, es decir, contra la Naturaleza (751ce).

Otro escritor ya de la época romana, Luciano de Samóstata (125-181 EC), en su obra “Erotes” (“Amores”), tiene numerosas perlas homófobas, entre las que se pueden destacar algunas, aunque lo recomendable es leer la obra entera, que es un debate entre el amor por varones y el amor por mujeres, en el que el autor se posiciona claramente a favor del “divino Platón” y de la opción heterosexual:

Puesto que una cosa no puede nacer de una sola fuente, a cada especie ella [la "Madre Primordial"] la ha dotado de dos géneros, el macho, a quien ha dado el principio de la semilla, y la hembra, a la que ha moldeado como recipiente para dicha semilla. Ella los junta por medio del deseo, y une a ambos de acuerdo con la saludable necesidad, para que, permaneciendo en sus límites naturales, la mujer no pretenda haberse convertido en hombre, ni el hombre devenga indecentemente afeminado. Es así como las uniones de hombres con mujeres han perpetuado la raza humana hasta el día de hoy… (19).

Gea (o Gaya) era la equivalente griega de la Terra (o Tellus) romana y la Erda germánica, y consorte de Urano, el gran progenitor celeste. Se la relacionaba con el matrimonio, los embarazos y la fertilidad de las mujeres. Seguramente Luciano de Samóstata se refiere a ella cuando habla de una “madre primordial”.

En el principio, cuando los hombres vivían imbuidos con sentimientos dignos de héroes, honraban aquella virtud que nos hace semejantes a los dioses; obedecían las leyes fijadas por la Naturaleza y, juntándose con una mujer de edad apropiada, padreaban niños virtuosos. Pero poco a poco la raza cayó desde esas alturas al abismo de la lujuria, y buscó placer por caminos nuevos y errantes. Finalmente, la concupiscencia, atravesando todas las barreras, transgredió las mismísimas leyes de la Naturaleza. Más aun, el primer hombre que miró a su semejante como si de una mujer se tratase, ¿podría haber sino recurrido a la violencia tiránica, o al engaño? Dos seres del mismo sexo se encontraron en una cama; cuando miraron el uno al otro, ninguno de los dos se sonrojó por lo que uno hizo al otro, o por lo que había sufrido que le hicieran. Sembrando su semilla (como dice el dicho) sobre rocas estériles, trocaron un ligero placer por una gran desgracia. (20).

Podríamos continuar diciendo que en no pocas comedias teatrales (como por ejemplo Aristófanes) se utiliza un lenguaje extremadamente soez para despreciar a los homosexuales, especialmente a los que toman el papel pasivo delkataproktos. Si la homosexualidad era una práctica “estándar” griega, esto implicaría que el comediante estaría burlándose de la peor manera de todo su público masculino.

Sin embargo, toda la homofobia que hemos visto en este apartado palidece ante las leyes de la que era, con diferencia, la más homófoba y religiosa de todas laspolis griegas.

ESPARTA

Las disposiciones espartanas sobre los placeres me parecen ser las más bellas existentes entre los hombres.

(Megilo, en las “Leyes” de Platón, 637a).

El caso de Esparta es particularmente sangrante, porque existiendo evidencias sólidas de homofobia, algunos autores homosexuales han pretendido obviarlas para ver si colaba y, confiando ciegamente en la incultura de sus lectores, vendernos a Esparta como otro paraíso homosexual. Vayamos al grano, y para ello, saquemos un fragmento del Capítulo 14 de mi libro Esparta y su Ley:

El ritmo de vida que llevaba el varón espartano era de una intensidad como para matar a una manada de rinocerontes, y ni siquiera las mujeres de Esparta hubiesen podido soportarlo. Así pues, el mundo de la milicia espartana era en sí mismo todo un universo —un universo de hombres. Por otro lado, la intensa relación afectiva, el culto a la virilidad y la camaradería que se daba entre los componentes del binomio, entre maestro-alumno, en la falange de combate y en toda la sociedad —y que los débiles de nuestros tiempos no entienden ni podrán entender jamás—, sirvió para alimentar en nuestros días el falso mito de la homosexualidad. Y esto a pesar de que los componentes del binomio eran considerados hermanos, pues a cada espartano le habían inculcado que cada varón de su generación era hermano suyo.

Sobre esto, escribió Jenofonte:

Si alguien, siendo un hombre honesto, admiraba el alma de un muchacho e intentaba hacer de él un amigo ideal sin reproche y asociarse con él, aprobaba, y creía en la excelencia de este tipo de entrenamiento. Pero si estaba claro que el motivo de la atracción era la belleza exterior del muchacho, prohibía la conexión como una abominación, y asíerastes y eromenos [1] se abstenían de los muchachos no menos de lo que los padres se abstienen de relaciones carnales con sus hijos, o hermanos y hermanas entre ellos. (“Constitución de los lacedemonios”, II, 13).

Aquí hemos visto que tal relación entre hombre y adolescente en Esparta era del tipo maestro-alumno, fundada en el respeto y la admiración, y constituía un entrenamiento, un modo de aprender, una instrucción a su manera. La sacralidad de la relación maestro-alumno o instructor-aspirante, ha sido impugnada por el Sistema desde hace tiempo, igual que la camaradería. Y sin embargo, ambos tipos de relaciones son el fundamento de la unidad de los ejércitos. Hoy en día, los niños crecen a la sombra de la influencia femenina de las maestras, incluso hasta la adolescencia. Es difícil saber hasta qué punto la falta de influencia masculina limita sus voluntades y sus ambiciones, convirtiéndoles en seres mansos, maleables y manipulables, que es lo que al Sistema le conviene.

Otros hablaron sobre la institución espartana del amor de maestro a discípulo, pero siempre dejaron claro que este amor era “casto”. El romano Aelio dijo que si dos hombres espartanos “sucumbían a la tentación y se permitían relaciones carnales, debían redimir la afrenta al honor de Esparta yéndose al exilio o acabando sus propias vidas”. Lo cual significaba básicamente que la pena por homosexualidad en Esparta era la muerte o el exilio (considerado en aquellos tiempos peor que la misma muerte).

Tenemos otra muestra del carácter platónico de las relaciones maestro-alumno en Esparta en las “Disertaciones” de Máximo de Tiro (en torno a 180 EC), en las que escribe que “Cualquier varón espartano que admira a un muchacho laconio, lo admira únicamente como admiraría una estatua muy hermosa. Pues placeres carnales de este tipo son acarreados sobre ellos por Hubris y están prohibidos”(20e). Hubris o Hybris se consideraba un estado del alma o un demonio que precipitaba al hombre mortal hacia la soberbia, la prepotencia y la ignorancia para con los dioses y sus leyes, incitándole a cometer actos sacrílegos que atentan contra el orden natural sagrado. El mito de Layo y Edipo que vimos más arriba es quizás el ejemplo perfecto de “Hubris absoluto” (violar al hijo de un rey anfitrión, matar al padre, tener hijos con la madre) y de la relación kármica de este concepto de “pecado” o sacrilegio con Aidós y Némesis.

A pesar de cuanto hemos visto aquí, en la sacrosanta y santosacra Wiskypedia hay toda una sección dedicada a la pedofilia en Esparta, y lo cómico del asunto es que los escritores (quienes son pro-pedófilos ellos mismos y deberían ser encarcelados por promover y justificar semejante perversión) no dan jamás pruebas evidentes de homosexualidad (como acabo de dar yo pruebas evidentes de homofobia) ni mencionan fuentes originales (es más, las evitan a toda costa), sino que se dedican a deleitar su imaginación mediante la simple especulación barata, escribiendo verdaderas burradas sin parar, e “imaginándose” señales de homosexualidad donde cualquier persona sana y normal sólo ve amistad, camaradería, afecto y sí: amor, amantes y amados ―pero en ningún caso amor carnal.

SUPUESTAS PAREJAS HOMOSEXUALES Y EJEMPLOS EN LA MITOLOGÍA E HISTORIA DE GRECIA

La mitología no hay que tomarla al pie de la letra porque no es “historia” propiamente dicha, pero lo que sí hay que hacer es concederle la importancia que se merece, porque en ella vienen plasmadas las creencias, la mentalidad y el bagaje de valores de toda una civilización, y nos ofrece la clave de su psicología, de sus ideales y de sus sentimientos, es decir, de lo que realmente movía a aquellos individuos de antaño.

Si eran supuestamente homosexuales, quiero pruebas además de las paranoias de unos autores homosexuales que escribieron bajo los efectos de la marihuana en plena época hippie. Y es que el caso de los gays modernos, que abren un libro de historia y ven gays hasta en las páginas en blanco, me recuerda bastante a los afrocentristas y supremacistas negros, que ven “civilizaciones negras” hasta en el Antiguo Egipto. Tales afirmaciones sólo pueden prosperar en un entorno ignorante. Pero remontándose a las fuentes literarias originales, cualquiera puede auto-liberarse de su ignorancia e inseguridad en este tema, y de tener que creerse a pies juntillas, lo que escriba cualquier homosexual indocumentado, por no decir, agente del sistema manipulador conocido hoy en día como Nuevo Orden Mundial.

Aquiles y Patroclo

Aquiles y Patroclo acaso son la supuesta pareja homosexual más conocida del mundo griego. Según las presiones del lobby gay americano, estos dos hombres eran amantes homosexuales, y por tanto, sin ningún tipo de duda, se acostaban juntos y practicaban el noble, puro y respetable arte del “cola-cao”.

Pues bien: una vez más creo que lo mejor será, como personas letradas y preocupadas que somos, comprobarlo de primera mano, remontándonos a las siempre verídicas y siempre respetables fuentes originales, escritas no por los mencionados “escritores” homosexuales de Nueva York, sino por los griegos de la Antigüedad. ¿Y qué mejor fuente que la mismísima “Ilíada” donde se narra la cólera de Aquiles contra Agamenón, por haberle robado éste a Briseida, su esclava favorita (cólera poco propia de un homosexual, ciertamente)? Veamos pues, sin más dilación, qué tiene que decirnos la “Ilíada” acerca de la “homosexualidad” de Aquiles y Patroclo. Señores, nos vamos al Canto IX de susodicha obra.

Aquiles durmió en lo más retirado de la sólida tienda con una mujer que trajera de Lesbos: con Diomeda, hija de Forbante, la de hermosas mejillas. Y Patroclo se acostó junto a la pared opuesta, teniendo a su lado a Ifis, la de bella cintura, que le regalara Aquiles al tomar la excelsa Esciro, ciudad de Enieo. (657-668).

Después de leer “estas aladas palabras”, nosotros, “con torva faz”, les preguntamos a todos los que defienden la supuesta homosexualidad de Aquiles y Patroclo sin más prueba que sus propios delirios de locuela de carnaval: ¿dónde, oh dónde, veis homosexualidad, almas cándidas? Si Aquiles y Patroclo eran amantes, ¿por qué se acuestan cada uno en el lado opuesto de la tienda… con una mujer cada uno? ¿Es que no deberían acostarse entre ellos? ¿Dónde veis que el “amor” de Aquiles y Patroclo sea algo sexual, más allá de una intensa amistad o amor platónico entre hermanos de armas?

Eso por no mencionar que el comportamiento de Aquiles en toda la saga de Troya es, hablando en plata, de Macho Alfa al cuadrado. Se precia de haber tomado, arrasado y saqueado numerosas ciudades, de matar a infinidad de hombres y de esclavizar y poseer a sus mujeres y a sus hijas. Monta en cólera cuando Agamenón se apropia de Briseida, su esclava favorita, y cuando los aqueos quieren que Aquiles vuelva a la lucha, no le tientan con jóvenes efebos (cosa que sería lo normal para un hombre que “se casa para procrear pero se lía con hombres para divertirse”, como reclaman los homosexuales), sino con infinidad de esclavas hermosas, vírgenes y “expertas en intachables labores”, además de otra serie de presentes materiales de gran valor que no vienen al caso. Patroclo, mayor que él, y más prudente que él, es meramente su maestro y su iniciador además de su amigo, y la actitud que tiene con Aquiles es como la de un hermano mayor. La intensidad de las aventuras vividas en torno a la guerra había forjado entre ellos un vínculo de camaradería y amistad especialmente intenso, cosa que queda muy clara cuando, a la muerte de Patroclo a manos del héroe troyano Héctor, Aquiles se hunde en la más tremenda desesperación. Se alega que la reacción de Aquiles es demasiado fuerte como para que se tratase de una relación de mera hermandad, pero más adelante en la “Ilíada”, el rey Príamo coge tan tremenda aflicción cuando su hijo Héctor cae bajo la lanza de Aquiles, que se revuelca en los excrementos de los animales, cosa que demuestra cómo para los griegos el amor erótico nada tenía que ver con la desesperación por la pérdida de un ser querido.

Creo, en fin, que el ejemplo de Aquiles y Patroclo representa muy bien la imbecilidad generalizada en nuestra sociedad, y cómo los Medios de Comunicación (manipulación) y el lobby gay de Estados Unidos le toman el pelo descaradamente a la inculta y mal informada opinión pública occidental, abusando de ella mediante la sencilla, despreciable, antigua, detestable y deleznable práctica de la mentira.

Zeus y Ganímedes

Según ciertos círculos, Zeus y Ganímedes son otra de las “parejas homosexuales por excelencia” del panorama olímpico. Veamos el mito detenidamente.

Ganímedes era un príncipe troyano que, recién salido de la adolescencia, vivía una transitoria etapa de cazador-recolector en un entorno salvaje, cosa común en la Grecia tradicional (Esparta también tenía esta costumbre) como ritual de tránsito para marcar la llegada de la hombría. Impresionado por su porte, Zeus se convierte en águila y lo rapta en el monte Ida, llevándolo al Olimpo para ser elcopero de los dioses.  

 ¿Qué significa “copero”? ¿Stripper? ¿Gogó? ¿Travelo a domicilio acaso? ¿Gigoló ambulante quizás? ¿Locuela de carnaval, tal vez?

No.

“Copero”, como su propio nombre apropiadamente indica, significa el que sirve las copas. Y sólo a un iluso se le podría ocurrir que los dioses y diosas hubieran querido que un feo les repartiese el néctar. Que los dioses buscasen a un “camarero” lo más físicamente bello es bastante comprensible, ya que no eran los dueños de un tugurio barato, sino los reyes supremos del mismísimo Olimpo, y debemos recordar que, de todos los pueblos habidos, los griegos fueron con diferencia los que le concedían mayor importancia a la belleza física, relacionándola inevitablemente con la divinidad ―por lo cual el joven más bello del mundo debía, por fuerza, ascender a la patria de los dioses y ser inmortal a su lado como uno más. [2]

Lo que pretendo dejar claro con esto es que los autores que le colocan rápidamente la etiqueta de homosexual al mito de Ganímedes desde su apartamento urbano sofisticado y del Siglo XXI, están incurriendo en un error garrafal: juzgar un mito que tiene milenios de antigüedad siquiendo patrones psicológicos de la mentalidad moderna.

Veamos, por si acaso, qué dice Homero al respecto de Ganímedes:

… y éste dio el ser a tres hijos irreprensibles: Ilo, Asáraco y el deiforme Ganímedes, el más hermoso de los hombres, a quien arrebataron los dioses a causa de su belleza para que escanciara el néctar a Zeus y viviera con los inmortales. (“Ilíada”)

Así, el prudente Zeus robó al rubio Ganímedes por su belleza, para que estuviera entre los inmortales y en la morada de Zeus escanciara a los dioses, ¡cosa admirable de ver! Ahora, honrado por los inmortales, saca el dulce néctar de una cratera de oro. (“Himno a Afrodita”).

Que levante la mano el que, en vez de leer “escanciar néctar” y “sacar néctar de una crátera de oro”, haya leído “poner el culo en pompa y untarse de vaselina para dejarse porculizar por todo el Olimpo”. ¿Dónde, pues, están las señales de homosexualidad en este mito? En la mente de quienes se lo inventaron de la nada, y de quienes se han tragado la mentira a pies juntillas y sin hacer preguntas. Repito: Zeus lo hace copero, es decir, quien sirve las copas. Yo no he visto en el mito que Zeus cohabitase con él carnalmente ni una sola vez, ni que lo viole, ni que le acose, ni que se le caiga el jabón, ni que le ordene agarrarse los tobillos o subirse los calcetines, ni que lo mande rezar cara a La Meca, ni absolutamente nada por el estilo.

Los habrá que contesten, para justificarse o para darse importancia, que las señales están “ocultas” y “en clave simbólica”. Es bien sabido que a los homosexuales les encanta la ambigüedad, puesto que enciende su imaginación ―pero la realidad es que la mitología griega es bien explícita cuando habla de estos temas: suele hablarse de “poseer”, “subir al lecho”, “unirse en el amor”, etc., y cuando hay alguna duda, el hecho de que se hayan engendrado hijos la despeja de modo definitivo. En esta leyenda, como en tantos otros supuestos “mitos homosexuales” no tenemos absolutamente nada por el estilo. ¿Por qué iban los autores de tales mitos a cubrirlos de ambigüedad, y más si procedían de una sociedad en la que la homosexualidad “se aceptaba y se daba por hecho”? La respuesta es que la homosexualidad pedofílica está sólo en la imaginación de algunos de los homosexuales que han leído tales mitos, y que, subvencionados por el sistema oficial y apoyados incondicionalmente por su ejército de críticos literarios neoyorkinos, se han dedicado a difundirlo de un modo tan virulento que ahora cualquier persona sin criterio propio lo toma como una verdad.

Pues bien: debido a esto, y a pesar de la apabullante falta de evidencia de que Zeus en cualquier momento tuviera sexo anal con Ganímedes, una búsqueda rápida en el Gúguel (google) revelará docenas de páginas que hablan de “homosexualidad”, “mito pederástico”, etc. Asimismo, cualquiera que entre en la Wiskypedia verá cómo algún homosexual se ha sacado de la chistera que Ganímedes ”fue hecho amante de Zeus”, sin más evidencia para ello que sus propias suposiciones, influenciadas inevitablemente por su orientación sexual minoritaria y su deseo de dar legitimidad histórica a algo que nunca la tuvo.

Por lo demás, y como veremos enseguida, Zeus es un dios que rapta, viola, se enrolla, etc., con docenas, por no decir cientos y miles (en la “Ilíada” casi da la sensación de que hay pocos soldados, reyes y héroes que no desciendan de él) de diosas y mujeres mortales, tras convertirse en toro, cisne, lluvia, rayo de sol, etc. En cada caso, acarrea los celos y la ira de Hera, su esposa, diosa del matrimonio monogámico que parece estar en conflicto con los insaciables impulsos poligámicos del omnipotente padre celeste procreador, cuyo comportamiento puede describirse quizás como “extremadamente heterosexual” o “de Macho Alfa”.

Apolo y Jacinto

En la mitología griega, Jacinto era un bello y fuerte príncipe espartano al que el dios Apolo había tomado bajo su protección para enseñarle a convertirse en un hombre. Según Filóstrato, Apolo enseñó a Jacinto a tirar con arco, a tocar la lira, a moverse y sobrevivir en bosques y montañas, y a destacar en las diversas disciplinas deportivas y gimnásticas, con lo cual queda claro su papel de maestro e iniciador, no sólo de Jacinto, sino de toda Esparta, ya que Jacinto fue transmitiendo a su vez los conocimientos adquiridos del dios a sus compatriotas. Durante una de estas prácticas, el dios y el muchacho estaban turnándose en lanzamiento de disco. En un momento dado, Apolo lo lanzó y Jacinto, para impresionarlo, intentó atraparlo, pero al caer del cielo, el disco rebotó contra el suelo, lo alcanzó en la cabeza y lo mató. Apolo, afligido, no permitió que Hades reclamase al muchacho, y con su sangre, creó la flor del jacinto.

¿Alguien ha visto homosexualidad explícita en el mito? ¿Hay alguna intervención de Eros o de Cupido? Pregunto, ¿hay alguna cosa que sugiera que entre Jacinto y Apolo mediaba otra cosa que el amor que puedan profesarse dos buenos hermanos o compañeros de fatigas? Quien tenga alguna prueba que aportar, que hable ahora o calle para siempre. Después de leer lo que tienen que decir al respecto de Jacinto autores como Heródoto (“Historias”), Pausanias (“Descripción de Grecia”), Luciano (“Diálogos de los dioses”), Filóstrato (“Imágenes”) y algunos otros, no he encontrado absolutamente nada que dé a entender amor erótico, sino una profunda amistad de maestro-discípulo.

Pues bien, para una mente homosexual, el mito de Jacinto no sólo demuestra irrefutablemente homosexualidad pederástica y relaciones sexuales anales, sino que demuestra también que toda Esparta practicaba la pedofilia homosexual… ¡sólo porque la festividad de de Jacinto era importante en Esparta! [3] Como ya hemos visto, Esparta estaba lejos de ser un paraíso del arco iris y, además, el comportamiento de Apolo en la mitología griega es sin duda “poco gay” (entre otras cosas, es el dios que maldice al kinaidos Layo a instancias de Pélope), como veremos más adelante.

Una versión alternativa explica que Céfiro, el viento del Oeste, bajó desde el Taigeto (el monte desde el cual los espartanos practicaban su eugenesia arrojando al vacío a todos los bebés que no eran sanos y fuertes) y desvió el disco por celos hacia Jacinto. Sin embargo, una vez más, no encontramos connotaciones eróticas por ningún sitio, como sí las encontramos en las relaciones entre Céfiro y la diosa Iris, de cuya unión nació precisamente Eros (según Alceo).

“Apolo y Dafne”, de Arno Brekker. Según la mitología griega, Apolo presumió en una ocasión de ser mejor arquero que Cupido (el famoso “angelito” que hiere a los mortales con el flechazo del amor a primera vista). Como venganza, Cupido le disparó a Apolo un dardo que lo llenó de amor hacia una ninfa de los árboles llamada Dafne. Pero a ella la hirió con una flecha de punta de plomo, que le provocó desprecio y una profunda repugnancia hacia el dios. Apolo, desesperado, la persiguió (conducta acaso poco propia de un homosexual), mientras que Dafne huyó despavorida. Implorando la ayuda de un dios, Dafne se convirtió en laurel en el mismo instante en el que Apolo la alcanzaba. Aunque algunos homosexuales acorralados dirán que se trata de una parábola sobre el “desencanto para con el sexo opuesto”, la realidad es que Apolo abrazó el árbol y, llorando, dijo “Dafne, mi primer amor”, desde lo cual el laurel fue sagrado para él.

El caso de Alejandro Magno

Alejandro Magno es una figura manipulada hasta extremos inverosímiles. Los judíos metiendo las narices para reclamar que se postró en el Templo de Salomón, la ex-república yugoslava de Macedonia diciendo que era eslavo y ahora los homosexuales reclamándolo como uno de los suyos. Por ello no es de extrañar que cuando salió la película Alejandro Magno en el 2004, un grupo de 25 abogados griegos amenazaran con denunciar a la Warner Bross y a Oliver Stone (el director de la película, hijo de un agente de bolsa judío de Nueva York) por distorsionar la historia a su conveniencia. En Grecia, la película estuvo en taquilla sólo 4 días y fue un completo fracaso.

Antes que nada, es preciso recordar que los hechos sobre Alejandro Magno que han llegado hasta nuestros días, fueron escritos siglos después de muerto, y que por ello han de ser leídos con cautela. Sin embargo, como siempre, tenemos suficientes evidencias como para no tener que tragarnos lo que nos diga sobre un emperador macedonio el hijo de un capitalista judío neoyorkino. Así, todas las fuentes coinciden en describir a Alejandro Magno como un hombre muy contenido sexualmente, y en modo alguno promiscuo. De hecho, Plutarco (“Vida de Alejandro”) nos explica cómo Alejandro se ofende cuando un comerciante le ofrece dos muchachos jóvenes:

Escribióle en una ocasión Filóxeno, general de la armada naval, hallarse a sus órdenes un tarentino llamado Teodoro, que tenía de venta dos mozuelos de una belleza sobresaliente, preguntándole si los compraría. Alejandro se ofendió tanto ante la proposición, que exclamó muchas veces ante sus amigos en tono de pregunta: “¿Qué puede haber visto en mí Filóxeno de indecente y deshonesto para hacerse corredor de semejante mercadería?” E inmediatamente le respondió, con muchas injurias, que mandase al mercader tarentino al diablo, y su mercancía con él. Del mismo modo arremetió con severidad contra un joven llamado Hagnón, que le había escrito que quería comprar un muchacho llamado Cróbulo, famoso en la ciudad de Corinto por su belleza. (Plutarco, “Vida de Alejandro”, XXII).

En cuanto a su supuesto lío con su amigo Hefestión, de nuevo, absolutamente ninguna evidencia para suponer que los amigos de la infancia eran una pareja sodomita, y de hecho no existe historiador serio que afirme rotundamente que eran amantes, porque no hay dato alguno que lo sugiera y sería de lo más imprudente. Es más, de regreso en Susa, capital del Imperio persa, Alejandro dio a Hefestión por esposa a la princesa Dripetis, y él mismo desposó a Estatira, la hija mayor de Darío y hermana de Dripetis. También mantuvo relaciones con Barsine (quien le dio un hijo, Heracles) y con Roxana (“la mujer más bella de Asia”), quien le dio un hijo póstumo, Alejandro.

En cuanto al famoso beso al eunuco Bagoas, que a menudo es citado como si eso constituyese una prueba de homosexualidad, de nuevo, nos encontramos con lo que pasa cuando se juzga una costumbre antigua con una vara de medir moderna: malentendido asegurado.

Plutarco nos describe cómo Bagoas ganó un concurso de danza y baile, y cómo las tropas macedonias aclamaron pidiendo que Alejandro besase al muchacho (en la mejilla, nada que ver con el morreo hollywoodiense que nos quieren vender), a lo que el emperador accedió. Para empezar, hay que dejar claro que este incidente tuvo lugar tras cruzar el desierto de Gedrosia, y que todos los presentes en la ceremonia, Bagoas incluido, eran supervivientes de esa marcha, con lo cual resulta normal esperar que los soldados pidiesen una señal de respeto hacia el muchacho cuando éste ganó el concurso. Pero lo más importante es el significado del beso. A lo largo y ancho del mundo, y ya no digamos a lo largo de la Historia, los besos han tenido significados de diversa índole. En Japón tradicionalmente el beso sólo era cosa de madre a hijo, mientras que en Occidente, el beso ha tenido connotaciones ceremoniales y públicas como saludo o como señal de respeto, por ejemplo, en Roma (besos en manos, mejilla o labios) o en el primer cristianismo, en el que los fieles se besaban en la mejilla. En la antigua Persia, donde se encontraba Alejandro Magno, los hombres de rango similar se daban un beso en los labios, mientras que si había una diferencia de rango, el beso era en la mejilla. Sencillamente, lo que para nuestro contexto social es una mariconada, en el suyo no lo era, y una vez más, no podemos juzgar una costumbre antigua ni sacar conclusiones de ella (“eran homosexuales”) a base de razonar según los patrones psicológicos de una mentalidad moderna. Por lo demás, para sonsacar una relación sexual de un simple beso en la mejilla hay que echarle bastante fe, especialmente si es la única evidencia que se tiene.

Alejandro Magno

LA REALIDAD: MITOLOGÍA GRIEGA COMO APOLOGÍA DEL AMOR CREATIVO ENTRE HOMBRE Y MUJER ―O EL PODER DE LA PROCREACIÓN

Después de haber refutado el asunto de los “amantes masculinos”, cabría mencionar a parejas heterosexuales famosas de la mitología griega para aclarar el comportamiento de los dioses y héroes, lo cual probablemente haga replantearnos cosas como la poligamia, puesto que los dioses y los héroes, más que una simple “pareja”, solían tener todo un harén, con el objetivo de sembrar el mundo de hijos semidivinos.

• Zeus - Hera, Leto, Deméter, Dione, Eris, Maya, Metis, Mnemósine, Selene, Temis, Europa, Alcmena, Dánae, Antíope, Calisto, Carme, Egina, Elara, Electra, Eurínome, Himalia, Ío, Lamia, Laodamía, Leda, Mera, Níobe, Olimpia, Pluto, Pirra, Táigete, Talía, Yodama, muchas más anónimas.

 Ares - Afrodita (con quien significativamente engendró a Harmonía), Aérope, Agraulo (mujer a pesar de la resonancia del nombre), Altea, Astíoque, Atalanta, Cirene, Crisa, Demonice, Enio, Eos, Eritia, Estérope, Filómone, Rea Silvia (la madre de Rómulo y Remo, llamada Ilia en Grecia), Otrera, Pelopia, Protogenia, Tirine, Tritea y más anónimas.

 A diferencia del Marte romano, el Ares griego no era un dios de la virtud militar ni del frío valor del soldado, sino el dios de la carnicería, la matanza, la fuerza bruta, el saqueo, la rapiña y la violación, el dios de perder el control y buscar la confrontación ―en suma, el dios de la violencia pura, de una forma de guerra primitiva y barbárica. Sus epítetos (“estrago de mortales”, “manos ensangrentadas”, “salteador de murallas”, “homicida”, “impetuoso”, “brutal”) hablan por sí solos. Significativamente, la única pareja capaz de equilibrar su ardor es Afrodita, la otra cara de la moneda. En la imagen, el llamado Ares de Ludovisi.

 Poseidón - Agameda, Álope, Amimone, Anfítrite, Arne, Astipalea, Calírroe, Calquinia, Cánace, Celeno, Ceróesa, Ciona, Clito, Cloris, Córcira, Deméter, Etra, Euríale, Eurínome, Europa, Gea, Halia, Hipótoe, Ifimedia, Libia, Melia, Medusa, Melantea, Mitilene, Peribea, Quíone, Salamina, Satiria, Toosa, Tiro, más anónimas.

 Apolo - Acanta, Arsínoe, Casandra, Calíope, Cirene, Corinis, Dafne, Dríope, Etusa, Hécuba, Leucótoe, Manto, Psámate, Quíone, Reo, Sinope, Terpsícore, Urania.

Urania, una musa de la astrología y de las matemáticas, fue amante de Apolo, con quien engendró a Lino, un magnífico músico que le enseñó a Heracles a tocar la lira. (Desafortunadamente para él, Heracles era un alumno indisciplinado que tenía mejores cosas que hacer ―como dejar preñadas a las 50 doncellas téspides―, y mató a Lino golpeándole con una lira cuando éste lo reprendió). En el “Banquete” de Platón, algunos relacionan a “Afrodita Urania” (la que nació de la fuerza reproductiva de Urano vertida sobre el mar, diferenciada de la que nació de la unión de Zeus y Dione según otra versión) con el amor hacia lo masculino, especificando claramente que era un amor “por el alma” y que, además, era “libre de violencia”. Esto excluiría una penetración fálica lujuriosa por un orificio como el ano, diseñado por la Naturaleza para evacuar desechos tóxicos e infecciosos, y residencia, según la moral helénica, de Aidós ―la vergüenza. Afrodita Urania sería, en suma, lo que entendemos por “amor platónico”.

 Hades: Perséfone, Mente, Leuce.

 ”El rapto de Proserpina”, de Bernini.

 Heracles - Mégara, Ónfale, Deyanira, Yole, Mélite, Auge.  En un episodio, Heracles llega al palacio del rey Tespio, a quien el aspecto del héroe impresionó tanto que le ofreció a sus 50 hijas doncellas (los reyes eran polígamos y tenían todo un harén de esposas, con lo cual podían padrear decenas de hijos), llamadas las téspidas, para que les hiciera el amor y las dejase embarazadas, mientras durase la cacería del león de Citerón. En siete noches (según la versión, en una sola), las dejó embarazadas a todas (Policasta, Nike, Glicera, Graya, Lalage, Alcione, Neda, Maira, Fóloe, Clyte, Adesia, Septeria, Estéropa, Plinteria, Foronea, Dorichia, Faena, Ariona, Deidia, Brima, Cleodora, Altea, Euriganea, Agalis, Ardota, Inaca, Lica, Nausitoa, Esquimforia, Gigas, Jacinta, Leuke, Kérite, Eurifilia, Elocia, Glauca, Deidamia, Crisa, Lisa, Pirena, Oreada, Talasiana, Xuta, Trisaulea… Leda era la menor y, siendo prácticamente una niña, “temblaba y parecía que iba a desmayarse”, con lo cual Policasta, la mayor, tomó su lugar y fue poseída de nuevo por el héroe) de hijos varones, quienes serían los heráclidas. Según la tradición griega, los heráclidas se asocian con los dorios, que conquistaron amplias porciones de Grecia arrasando las ciudades aqueas, y los reyes tanto de Esparta como de Macedonia remontaban su linaje a algún heráclida.

 Teseo - Perigune (hija del bandido Sinis), Ariadna, Fedra (su hermana), Antíope (una amazona).

• Perseo - Andrómeda.

• Peleo - Tetis.

• Aquiles - Briseida, Diomeda, una serie de mujeres capturadas en poblaciones arrasadas por él.

• Ulises - Penélope, Calipso, Circe, Calídice.

• Agamenón - Clitemnestra, Criseida, Casandra. Aunque tuvo también a Briseida, cuando la devuelve a Aquiles presta solemne juramento de no haberla poseído sexualmente, según se narra en la “Ilíada”.

… y muchos, muchos más. Se me dirá que algunos de estos dioses y héroes tuvieron “amantes masculinos”. Pido evidencias. Las mujeres mencionadas fueron físicamente poseídas en acto carnal por el dios o héroe correspondiente, y muchas de ellas engendraron hijos. Quiero evidencias en la mitología griega originaria, de que los dioses o héroes mantuvieron relaciones con varones que supusieran un paso más allá de una excelente amistad, camaradería o hermandad. Quiero “pruebas” de que Zeus poseyese sexualmente a Ganímedes, o de que Aquiles mantuviese sexo anal con Patroclo. [4]

Como ya hemos visto, esas pruebas no existen. Los famosos “amantes” son simplemente buenos amigos, unidos con vínculos muy fuertes de admiración, por experiencias profundas en combate o en aventuras, o por otros asuntos que nada tienen que ver con el amor erótico ―sino, a lo sumo, con el amor platónico―, y no hay absolutamente ninguna evidencia ni tan siquiera para suponer que había algo sexual de por medio, sino de que se trataba de un amor prácticamente equiparable al que media entre buenos hermanos.

ASUNTO “IRREFUTABLE” #1: EL “BANQUETE” DE PLATÓN

El “Banquete” es un diálogo filosófico en el que diversos participantes rinden tributo a Eros, el dios del amor, en forma de discurso ensalzándolo y aportando la visión que cada cual tiene del amor, con lo cual es una fuente de primera mano para conocer la mentalidad ateniense de la época (estamos hablando, en todo caso, del Siglo IV AEC, una etapa ya decadente). Sin duda, todos los eruditos especialistas subvencionados que se dedican a dar conferencias y vivir del cuento, apoyados por un Sistema al que le interesa difundir la mentira, sacan siempre a colación el “Banquete” de Platón como ejemplo de que “la civilización griega era homosexual”, basándose en algunas líneas halladas en ese libro.

Sin embargo, y desafortunadamente para los apóstoles de la homosexualidad griega, todo el mundo debería saber que los diálogos platónicos consistían a menudo en un debate que contrapone puntos de vista opuestos, representados por los participantes. La razón es que, para Platón, todas las partes debían estar presentes en un debate y tener la oportunidad de exponer y defender su punto de vista. Hay personajes que representan ideas contrarias a Sócrates, precisamente con el objetivo de contrastar opiniones distintas, y por ello mismo no pueden ni deben citarse al tuntún como si las hubiese pronunciado el mismo Platón. Por estas razones, en cada cita, es preciso especificar quién la ha pronunciado e indagar sobre el personaje, para saber si representa un punto de vista afín al platónico (del cual Sócrates y otros son portavoces) u opuesto.

De la intervención de Pausanias se puede decir que él mismo debate diversas aproximaciones al tema, y que nunca menciona el amor carnal homosexual. Podemos destacar una cita relativamente contundente: “Sería preciso, incluso, que hubiera una ley que prohibiera enamorarse de los mancebos”(Pausanias, 181d).

En otra cita, reflexiona sobre por qué la relación de maestro y alumno es necesaria y beneficiosa y no debería abolirse, diciendo que “uno puede contribuir en cuanto a inteligencia y virtud en general y el otro necesita hacer adquisiciones en cuanto a educación y saber en general”. (Pausanias, 184d-e). En este caso, como en el espartano, se está hablando de una relación con vistas al perfeccionamiento personal y al “entrenamiento”, en la que la sabiduría de un hombre maduro ayuda a un muchacho a convertirse en hombre y en la que, de nuevo, la homosexualidad brilla por su ausencia.

Después de estas citas bastante vagas, entra en escena Aristófanes, un personaje que no debería caer bien al buen platónico, ya que en el diálogo de la “Nube”, se burla abiertamente de Sócrates, y en el “Banquete”, muestra una conducta excéntrica que acaso fue introducida por Platón como señal para dar a entender al lector que el punto de vista expresado por él no merece reverencia. Así, podemos leer:

…me dijo Aristodemo que debía hablar Aristófanes, pero que al sobrevenirle casualmente un hipo, bien por exceso de comida o por alguna otra causa, y no poder hablar, le dijo al médico Erixímaco, que estaba reclinado en el asiento de al lado:

―Erixímaco, justo es que me quites el hipo o hables por mí hasta que se me pase.

Y Erixímaco le respondió:

―Pues haré las dos cosas. Hablaré, en efecto, en tu lugar y tú, cuando se te haya pasado, en el mío. Pero mientras hablo, posiblemente reteniendo la respiración mucho tiempo se te quiera pasar el hipo; en caso contrario, haz gárgaras con agua. Pero si es realmente muy fuerte, coge algo con lo que puedas irritar la nariz y estornuda. Si haces esto una o dos veces, por muy fuerte que sea, se te pasará. (185c-d-e).

Es tal el desconcierto que este pasaje siembra, que no pocos ríos de tinta han corrido especulando sobre su significado. Y es que la presentación que se hace de Aristófanes, que no puede hablar a causa de su hipo y debe cederle el turno a Erixímaco hasta que se le pase, es dudosa y algo cómica, por no hablar de que, en un acto ritualizado como lo era un diálogo filosófico, en el que cada intervención se consideraba rodeada de signos de los dioses para bien o para mal, el hipo de Aristófanes no constituye precisamente un buen augurio.

Cuando finalmente termina su hipo y le toca hablar, Aristófanes desarrolla un extravagante discurso sobre el andrógino, un ser esférico con ocho patas y dos caras, que se desplazaba rodando por el suelo, que reunía las condiciones sexuales de tanto varón como hembra, aunque algunos eran varón por ambos lados o hembra por ambos lados. Según el disparatado razonamiento de Aristófanes, estos seres desafiaron a los dioses y Zeus los hizo partir por la mitad, de modo que, haciendo inverosímiles cabriolas argumentativas e inventándose toda una mitología para justificar que a dos hombres les guste irse a la cama y convertir un * en un O, Aristófanes ―el del hipo, el de las gárgaras y los estornudos, el que se burló de

Sócrates― nos dice que:

En consecuencia [de la partición del "andrógino" originario], cuantos hombres son sección de aquel ser de sexo común que entonces se llamaba andrógino son aficionados a las mujeres, y pertenece también a este género la mayoría de los adúlteros; y proceden también de él cuantas mujeres, a su vez, son aficionadas a los hombres y adúlteras. Pero cuantas mujeres son sección de mujer, no prestan mucha atención a los hombres, sino que están más inclinadas a las mujeres, y de este género proceden también las lesbianas.Cuantos, por el contrario, son sección de varón, persiguen a los varones y, mientras son jóvenes, al ser rodajas de varón, aman a los hombres y se alegran de acostarse y abrazarse [5]; éstos son los mejores de entre los jóvenes y adolescentes, ya que son los más viriles por naturaleza. Algunos dicen que son unos desvergonzados, pero se equivocan. Pues no hacen esto por desvergüenza, sino por audacia, hombría y masculinidad, abrazando lo que es similar a ellos. (191de-192a).

Por la excentricidad de su propio discurso, no es de extrañar que Aristófanes ande incómodo, que en un momento dado ruegue “que no me interrumpa Erixímaco para burlarse de mi discurso” (193b) y que poco después, finalice su intervención poco menos que pidiendo clemencia:

Éste, Erixímaco, es mi discurso sobre Eros, distinto, por cierto, al tuyo. No lo ridiculices, como te pedí, para que oigamos también qué va a decir cada uno de los restantes o, más bien, cada uno de los otros dos, pues quedan Agatón y Sócrates. (193de).

A pesar de que Aristófanes sólo representa un punto de vista de tantos, de que no es presentado en modo alguno como alguien fiable y de que él mismo es consciente de que se lo deja a huevo a los demás para burlarse de su discurso, los autores pro-teoría homosexual citan sus palabras sin más, como si representase el punto de vista del mismísimo Platón.

Platón

Del homenaje de Agatón a Eros podría acaso distinguirse una cita, en la que dice que “respecto a la procreación de todos los seres vivos, ¿quién negará que es por habilidad de Eros por la que nacen y crecen todos los seres?” (197a), en la que, dejando caer que Eros es responsable de la procreación, deja también claro que el dios pertenece al ámbito del sexo heterosexual, que es el único capaz de engendrar nueva vida.

Sin embargo, la joya del “Banquete” platónico es, sin lugar a dudas, y como siempre, la intervención de Sócrates, quien había sido el maestro de Platón. Sócrates cita el discurso que había escuchado años atrás de una mujer que él mismo considera como “sabia”, diciendo a sus interlocutores: “Os contaré el discurso sobre Eros que oí un día de labios de una mujer de Mantinea, Diotima, que era sabia en éstas y otras muchas cosas”. (Sócrates, 201d). Las palabras de Diotima, además de ser sumamente interesantes en cosas sobre el amor al margen del debate hetero vs. homo, contienen además una verdadera apología del amor heterosexual como acto creativo:

―¿De qué manera y en qué actividad se podría llamar amor al ardor y esfuerzo de los que lo persiguen? ¿Cuál es justamente esta acción especial? ¿Puedes decirla?

―Si pudiera ―dije yo―, no estaría admirándote, Diotima, por tu sabiduría, ni hubiera venido una y otra vez a ti para aprender precisamente estas cosas.

―Pues yo te lo diré ―dijo ella―. Esta acción especial es, efectivamente,una procreación en la belleza, tanto según el cuerpo como según el alma.

―Lo que realmente quieres decir ―dije yo― necesita adivinación, pues no lo entiendo.

―Pues te lo diré más claramente ―dijo ella―. Impulso creador, Sócrates, tienen, en efecto, todos los hombres, no sólo según el cuerpo, sino también según el alma, y cuando se encuentran en cierta edad, nuestra naturaleza desea procrear. Pero no puede procrear en lo feo, sino sólo en lo bello. La unión de hombre y mujer es, efectivamente, procreación, y es una obra divina, pues la fecundidad y la reproducción es lo que de inmortal existe en el ser vivo, que es mortal. (206bc).

De momento, Sócrates ha elogiado la sabiduría de la señora, mientras que ella ha hecho un canto al amor heterosexual como “obra divina”. Más adelante, se fija en la Naturaleza para sonsacar lecciones de conducta para los hombres civilizados:

Si bien ―dijo― podía pensarse que los hombres hacen esto [los sacrificios asociados al apareamiento y el cuidado de la prole] por reflexión, respecto a los animales, sin embargo, ¿cuál podría ser la causa de semejantes disposiciones amorosas? ¿Puedes decírmela?

Y una vez más yo le decía que no sabía.

―¿Y piensas ―dijo ella― llegar a ser experto algún día en las cosas del amor, si no entiendes esto?

―Pues por eso precisamente, querida Diotima, como te dije antes, he venido a ti, consciente de que necesito maestros. Dime, por tanto, la causa de esto y de todo lo demás relacionado con las cosas del amor.

―Pues bien ―dijo―, si crees que el amor es por naturaleza amor de lo que repetidamente hemos convenido, no te extrañes, ya que en este caso, y por la misma razón que en el anterior, la naturaleza mortal busca, en la medida de lo posible, existir siempre y ser inmortal. Pero sólo puede serlo de esta manera: por medio de la procreación, porque siempre deja otro ser nuevo en lugar del viejo. (207bcd).

Por si no ha quedado clara la actitud de Sócrates con Diotima cuando ante sus discípulos se refiere a ella como “sabia”, cuando elogia “su sabiduría” ante ella, cuando admite que ella tiene más conocimiento que él mismo o cuando dice que“ha acudido a ella consciente de que necesita maestros”, valga el cierre que hace cuando reconoce que quedó “lleno de admiración” (208b), llamándola en persona“sapientísima Diotima” (ídem) y dirigiéndose de nuevo  a sus discípulos diciéndoles “Esto, Fedro, y demás amigos, dijo Diotima, y yo quedé convencido”. (212b).

Por tanto, tenemos a un lado a Aristófanes, un personaje que no puede hablar cuando le corresponde por tener hipo (comer y/o beber demasiado rápido) que es conocido por haberse burlado de Sócrates en el pasado y que hace una enrevesada defensa de la homosexualidad… y a otro lado tenemos a Diotima, una mujer que el mismísimo Sócrates llama “sapientísima” y que hace un genial tributo a Eros ensalzando la unión de hombre y mujer como acto generador de nueva vida, y dejando claro que en el poder de procreación de tal unión radica su superioridad respecto a cualquier otra forma de amor. A estas alturas, no cabe duda de que Sócrates no está precisamente en la acera de enfrente. De hecho, el narrador nos muestra la incomodidad de Aristófanes cuando Sócrates concluyó su elogio a la heterosexualidad:

Cuando Sócrates hubo dicho esto, me contó Aristodemo que los demás le elogiaron, pero que Aristófanes [repetimos: el único que había defendido la homosexualidad] intentó decir algo, puesto que Sócrates al hablar le había mencionado a propósito de su discurso. Mas de pronto la puerta del patio fue golpeada y se produjo un gran ruido como de participantes en una fiesta, y se oyó el sonido de una flautista. (212c).

Efectivamente, “Aristófanes intentó decir algo”, pero como no podía ser de otro modo, una vez más la Providencia, asociada en los tiempos paganos con la voluntad de los dioses, interrumpe sus palabras: “No mucho después se oyó en el patio la voz de Alcibíades, fuertemente borracho” (212d). Ahora hace su aparición uno de los personajes que constituye la guinda final del pastel platónico del “Banquete”, introduciéndose del siguiente modo:

Salud, caballeros. ¿Acogéis como compañero de bebida a un hombre que está totalmente borracho? (…) ¿Os burláis de mí porque estoy borracho? Pues, aunque os riáis, yo sé bien que digo la verdad. (212e-213a).

Alcibíades relata cómo en el pasado le tiró los trastos a Sócrates, cómo en un momento dado se le declaró y cómo poco menos que se le tira al cuello al filósofo, siendo rechazado por él. Alcibíades parece estar, en efecto, “enamorado” de Sócrates, aunque, como él mismo bien dice, “comparar el discurso de un hombre bebido con los discursos de hombres serenos no sería equitativo” (214c):

Me levanté, pues, sin dejarle decir ya nada, lo envolví con mi manto ―pues era invierno―, me eché debajo del viejo capote de ese viejo hombre, aquí presente, y ciñendo con mis brazos a este ser verdaderamente divino y maravilloso estuve así tendido toda la noche. En esto tampoco, Sócrates, dirás que miento. Pero, a pesar de hacer yo todo esto, él salió completamente victorioso, me despreció, se burló de mi belleza y me afrentó; y eso que en este tema, al menos, creía yo que era algo, ¡oh jueces! ―pues jueces sois de la arrogancia de Sócrates. Así, pues, sabed bien, por los dioses y por las diosas, que me levanté después de haber dormido con Sócrates no de otra manera que si me hubiera acostado con mi padre o mi hermano mayor. (219bcd).

A Alcibíades lo han insertado en el diálogo porque es sabido que los borrachos nunca mienten [6], y así queda clara la acción de Sócrates de rechazar a un hombre aunque éste sea muy bello y muy prestigioso. Acto seguido, Alcibíades elogia la indiferencia de Sócrates, su valor en combate, su dureza, su carácter espartano, su resistencia al frío y al alcohol, y su sabiduría. Todos estos elogios (incluyéndose como elogio el que Sócrates lo rechazase, dejando claro que no es homosexual) intentan, como se ha dicho, tener el “certificado de verosimilitud” que otorga el haber sido pronunciados por un hombre que, por estar borracho, se presupone dice la verdad.

En suma, Sócrates tenía a Alcibíades en la palma de su mano y hubiera podido liarse con él (cosa que, en todo caso, excluiría, por respeto a Aidós, penetración de ningún tipo), pero desgraciadamente para los homosexuales modernos, lo rechaza desdeñosamente.

ASUNTO “IRREFUTABLE” #2: LAS VASIJAS HOMOERÓTICAS

Esta imagen es una favorita de los autores volcados en representarnos a Grecia como una “civilización homosexual”, o al menos una civilización donde las prácticas homosexuales estaban plenamente aceptadas y formaban parte del paisaje cotidiano.

Indudablemente, hay vasijas procedentes de la antigüedad griega que representan escenas claramente homosexuales. Eso no lo voy a discutir.

Lo que sí voy a hacer es puntualizar.

Se han encontrado docenas de miles de vasijas (sólo en la provincia de Ática, tenemos ¡más de 80.000!), y, de todas ellas, las vasijas con un claro contenido homoerótico son… ¡sólo 30! Y eso siendo muy generosos.Estamos hablando de en torno a un 0.03% del total de vasijas encontradas. ¿Acaso no deberían ser más, si supuestamente estamos hablando de una cultura donde la homosexualidad pedofílica era el pan nuestro de cada día?

Pues no, señores. Eran una desproporcionada minoría. De modo y manera que hablar de “el estatus dominante de la pederastia en la vida social ateniense” (!) basándose en esta evidencia fraudulenta sería bastante más atrevido que tachar a nuestra propia cultura de homosexual sólo porque el 5% de los personajes de nuestras series televisivas sean homosexuales. Si estos ínfimos signos son muestra de una “civilización homosexual” (que nunca ha habido tal cosa), entonces la nuestra, con asociaciones pro-pedofilia, pro-zoofilia, matrimonio homosexual (cosa que no existía en Grecia), desfiles del día del “orgullo gay”, etc., cualifica como civilización sodomita al 100%.

Pero hay más.

De este 0.03% de escenas homosexuales representadas, la mayor parte de tales actos son llevados al cabo por los sátiros, seres degenerados del imaginario colectivo griego, imaginados feos y con medio cuerpo de cabra, y que, por una pulsión sexual descontrolada y desmedida, llevaban al cabo las mayores abominaciones sexuales concebibles por la mente humana (en algunas estatuillas se los ve copulando con cabras, por ejemplo). Otro ligero detalle que se falla en mencionar es que, en la mayoría de escenas que sí representan relaciones sodomitas, el acto parece producir sorpresa y escándalo en quienes lo presencian.

La mala fama de los sátiros, además de venir representada en escenas de zoofilia que no añado al artículo por puro buen gusto y respeto hacia el estómago del buen lector, viene bien ilustrada en este conjunto escultórico, en el que Pan, el jefe de los sátiros, importuna a Afrodita con su lascivia, espantándolo la diosa a golpes de sandalia. El “ángel” que revolotea alrededor de Afrodita es Eros, inevitablemente asociado a ella.

El problema es que, como la gente ha perdido la costumbre de pensar por sí mismos, les ponen un par de imágenes acompañados de letra sin faltas de ortografía, y cual buen rebaño, ya están predispuestos a creerse lo que le interese al manipulador de turno. Pero pasemos a observar algunos intachables ejemplos de deducción sherlockholmesiana de homosexualidad en la antigua Grecia basándonos en vasijas, de la mano de una grandísima, respetable, trajeada y curtida en conferencias autoridad: Kenneth J. Dover. [7]

K. J. Dover presenta como pruebas supremas un total de 600 vasijas, de las cuales, siendo extremadamente (repito: extremadamente) generosos, sólo 20-25 (¡el 4%!) tienen un contenido claramente homosexual. El resto (¡575!) son vasijas completamente inofensivas, con lo cual el autor recurre a vericuetos, meandros y raíces cuadradas psicológicas para sonsacar, de manera totalmente forzada y hasta cómica, señales de homosexualidad donde simplemente no las hay. Así, en una imagen donde aparecen un bastón y un aro, el autor dice que “el bastón y el aro tienen simbolismo propio” (aunque no tiene la gentileza de explicarnos cuál es ese simbolismo a nosotros, incultos y vulgares heteros) y que el chaval se encuentra en una “pose de vergüenza”, debido seguramente a que el hombre que le gusta está conversando con una mujer (?) o porque hubiera preferido tomar la iniciativa él mismo (!). En otra representación (la E378), un pene pequeño y un escroto grande significan, según él, que hay pedofília de por medio (?), y en una imagen donde Aquiles cura a Patroclo, “el artista estaba bajo una gran presión para no pintar los genitales de Patroclo” (?). Resulta un verdadero insulto a la inteligencia que un homosexual alucinado como Dover sea considerado ni más ni menos que ¡un “experto en sexualidad de la Grecia antigua”!, y que sea citado por libros medianamente serios como una autoridad en el tema.

Toda esta jerga e imaginario de relaciones pedofílicas donde no las hay, es incomprensible y chocante para un hetero (es decir, para un normal), pero a un homosexual le parece lo más normal del mundo ver señales, guiños, ambigüedades, suposiciones y provocaciones en cada esquina. A consecuencia, no resulta extraño que tales autores, desesperados por legitimar su opción sexual, intenten adaptar el mundo a su mente. Y lo triste no es eso. Lo triste es que, por culpa de la acción de los poderosos lobbies homosexuales de Estados Unidos, y de la industria mediática, la opinión pública trague tales teorías. Yo digo: sed libres ―¡leed!

Según K. J. Dover, la imagen de este chico demuestra que hay pederastia y homosexualidad de por medio (¡!). Indudablemente, quien piensa así es porque su mente ya es portadora de tales pensamientos, pero las personas normales y bien ajustadas biológicamente, vemos un chaval con un aro y un gallo.

Deberíamos finalizar dejando claro que la inmensa mayoría (estamos hablando de más de un 99%) de esculturas, vasijas, mosaicos, figurillas, frescos, etc., de la Grecia antigua que sí representan amor erótico, lo hacen siempre representando relaciones sexuales entre hombre y mujer. Pero resulta que incluso aunque tuviésemos escenas homosexuales gratuitas, también en el Pórtico de la Gloria de la catedral de Santiago de Compostela hay escenas de hombres incurriendo en sodomía, y a nadie se le ocurriría pensar que eso convierte en homosexual a toda la civilización católica gótica o barroca, puesto que esas escenas de sodomía forman parte de representaciones de los diversos pecados, con la intención de estigmatizarlos. Así pues, deberíamos acaso preguntarnos si, por ventura, de ese 0,03% de vasijas con temática clara o vaga o subjetivamente homoerótica, no habría un porcentaje importante destinado precisamente a criticar la homosexualidad o ridiculizarla ―como queda claro en el mencionado asunto de los sátiros, quienes eran los máximos exponentes de la homosexualidad además de infinidad de depravaciones sexuales, y que no gozaban precisamente de buena reputación.

SOBRE EL “LESBIANISMO”

Probablemente, de todas las mentiras sobre homosexualidad, la de Safo de Lesbos sea la más sangrante, ya que el nombre de su isla natal ha sido utilizado para designar a las mujeres homosexuales, las lesbianas. Safo de Lesbos (siglos VII-VI AEC) es seguramente la mejor poetisa de todos los tiempos (Platón la llamó “la décima musa”). Heredera de deudas, decidió fundar una academia donde acudían muchachas jóvenes de toda Grecia a aprender poesía, música, danza, buenas maneras, ritualismo religioso y en general lo que caracterizaba a una mujer completa que aspiraba a casarse con un hombre noble y fundar su propia familia. Del mismo modo que Esparta tenía sus ageilai u hordas, donde los muchachos aprendían poco a poco a ser hombres bajo el maestrazgo de un iniciador, Lesbos tenía la academia sáfica para las señoritas de buena familia.

Las muchachas de la academia sáfica se hacían llamar “servidoras de las musas”. Las musas eran 9 deidades femeninas que acompañaban a Apolo en el monte Helicón, y que se consideraban responsables de la inspiración de los artistas. Los escultores griegos conocían bien la morfopsicología (leer el carácter de un individuo por sus rasgos físicos) y por tanto no sólo esculpían estatuas de cuerpos bellos, sino cuerpos bellos necesariamente portadores de un alma bella. Quien esculpió a la musa de esta imagen, sin duda representó de la forma más maravillosa la personificación de la bondad, la salud, la serenidad y la belleza.

La obra de Safo nos ha llegado muy fragmentada (sólo tenemos un poema completo, recogido por Dioniso de Halicarnaso, y el resto de su obra tiene demasiados huecos para hasta a menudo saber siquiera de qué se habla, ya no digamos intentar vislumbrar homosexualiad), pero consta sobre todo de himnos y elogios a las muchachas que ella ha instruido y que han completado su educación, entrando en la edad adulta y marchándose del idílico mundo de la academia para desposarse con un hombre. Este género poético recibía el nombre de epithalamia, “canciones de matrimonio”, que hablaban sobre la belleza de una doncella que estaba a punto de convertirse en esposa y madre. De ese modo, por los fuertes vínculos construidos entre ella y sus discípulas ―a las que ha enseñado todo lo que saben― Safo se llena de tristeza por la pérdida de quienes eran prácticamente sus hijas, pero no tenemos absolutamente nada que dé a entender una relación más allá de un intenso afecto, totalmente desprovisto de carga sexual. Incluso tenemos unos conocidos versos, dedicados a una de sus muchachas, que abandona la academia porque viene a buscarla su prometido para llevarla a su casa y convertirla en mujer:

Semejante a los dioses me parece
ese hombre
 que ahora se sienta frente a ti
y tu dulce voz a su lado escucha
mientras tu le hablas

Versos poco propios de una lesbiana hardcore.

Según el siempre cómico Kenneth J. Dover, Safo caracteriza al hombre como “semejante a los dioses”, no porque admire su belleza, su masculinidad, su porte o su fuerza sobrehumanas, sino porque es “imperturbable”, “inimaginablemente afortunado”, porque “ha captado el interés sexual de la joven” y “no se desmaya ante su belleza” (no es broma, Mr. Dover dice exactamente estas palabras, en“Greek homosexuality”, página 178).

Pero el hecho más incómodo en la vida de Safo es que, aparte de ser madre (tenía una hija llamada Cleis) y además de ser esposa, murió suicidada por amor… hacia un hombre, un marino de nombre Faón que, al parecer, no la correspondía con la misma intensidad. El lector ha leído bien: la “mayor lesbiana de todos los tiempos”, la “madre fundadora del lesbianismo”, se suicidó por amor… hacia un hombre.

Otro asunto bastante revelador, y que viene a heterosexualizar cada vez más la academia de Safo, es que las discípulas de Lesbos fueron las que desarrollaron el culto religioso a Adonis, un héroe mitológico que personificaba la belleza del hombre joven y que aun hoy día se emplea para designar a un hombre extremadamente bello. No deja de ser incómodo para los mitólogos homosexuales modernos que el supuesto epicentro del “lesbianismo” griego rindiese culto a una figura que representaba el máximo extremo alcanzable por la belleza masculina.

Todo esto por no hablar de que, a juzgar por los versos de Safo, su academia estaba muy lejos de ser un paraíso de las camioneras tatuadas, con piercings y con corte de pelo de marine matatalibanes que hoy decoran el panorama “lésbico”, ya que era un reducto de feminidad idílica, incorrupta y pura, en el que la llegada de un hombre viene a señalarles a las chicas que la adolescencia ha terminado y que ahora deben poner al servicio de su estirpe toda la feminidad cultivada.

¿De dónde viene, pues, lo de “lesbiana”, si no hay nada que sugiera entre estas muchachas una relación más allá de una gran hermandad? Viene, de nuevo, del círculo homosexual de Oxford liderado por Walter Pater y, más recientemente, de autoproclamados “especialistas en sexualidad griega” como el francés Yves Battistini (1922-2009). Este “especialista”, como ejemplo del colmo de la manipulación, se encontró con un verso que rezaba προς δ’αλλον τινα χασκει(“pros d’allon tina haskei”). Esto, traducido como es debido, viene a ser “hacia otra persona ríe”. Sin embargo, este falsificador premeditadamente lo tradujo como“pero el objeto de su pasión es otra cosa, una muchacha”.

Lesbia, pero no lesbiana: Safo de Lesbos se suicidó por un hombre, lo cual es acaso el acto más extremo que puede llevarse al cabo por amor heterosexual. Que descanse en paz sin que profanen su memoria.

LIMPIAR NUESTRO VOCABULARIO

El vocabulario moderno concerniente a la homosexualidad está fundamentado en dos mentiras: la mentira de la palabra gay y la mentira de la palabra lesbiana.

“Gay” significa (más bien significaba) en inglés, “alegre”.

“Lesbiana” ya hemos visto que hace referencia a la isla griega de Lesbos, donde enseñaba Safo y, como he explicado, esa mujer de “lesbiana” tenía más bien poco.

“Pederastia” procede de Paiderastia, ni siquiera significaba pedofilia, sino el maestrazgo de un muchacho. Del mismo modo, erastes y eromenos deberían traducirse como “amante” y “amado” sólo si se especifica de algún modo que estamos hablando de un amor platónico y, por tanto, casto.

Por estos motivos, las conductas sexuales entre personas del mismo sexo deberían llamarse sencillamente “homosexuales”, ya sean masculinas o femeninas, y cuando no, echar mano del rico y variado surtido de vocablos que, por nacer espontáneamente del alma popular, son auténticos, a diferencia de los siniestros y orwellianos palabros políticamente correctos, forzados por la industria de los medios de comunicación y por los grupos de presión de homosexuales americanos, con el fin de limpiar la pésima imagen pública que han tenido ―y que, por mucho que lo intenten, siguen teniendo― los homosexuales en el mundo.

ALGUNAS CLAVES DE LA MENTALIDAD HOMOSEXUAL MODERNA

Pinchar en los links para acceder a este libro por partes: IIIIIIIVVVI y VII.

Es imposible entender la distorsión de estos mitos si no indagamos un poco en las mentes que los distorsionaron. Ya dice Rafael Pi en su libro “Los gays, vistos por un hetero” que los homosexuales, ilusos al cuadrado, por el tipo de ambiente pseudo-marginal en el que se mueven, necesitan ver, y de hecho ven, “señales” de homosexualidad en todos lados, razón por la cual les encanta la ambigüedad y los segundos sentidos. En el 99% de los casos, esas señales están sólo en sus cerebros. Es normal que quienes participen en desfiles y vayan a locales gays y tengan infinidad de parejas sexuales al año, acaben viendo señales de homosexualidad hasta en los enchufes de las paredes. Que si Sherlock y Watson, que si Batman y Robin… ¿Pero dónde está la homosexualidad? La respuesta más frecuente suele ser “Jo, es que se nota”. No, no se nota. Está en su mente, y su mente está influenciada poderosamente por la variedad de experiencias sexuales que han mantenido con el mismo sexo, lo cual acaba haciéndoles creer que se trata de algo normal. Esto es lo que provoca que, cada año, un número importante de homosexuales (incluyendo “mariconazis” como un ex-delegado de CEDADE en Valencia) sea agredido, no gratuitamente, sino porque su predisposición a ver señales de homosexualidad donde no las hay los predispone también a verse envueltos en reacciones violentas.

Así, del mismo modo que necesitan creer en imaginarios “reductos gays” como según su mitología lo serían los barcos, los cuarteles, los internados, los monasterios o las cárceles, necesitan también saber que existió en algún sitio un paraíso marica, una tierra santa de la homosexualidad alocada, donde todo Cristo vivía fuera del siniestro y encajonado armario de la heterosexualidad y donde uno podía petarle el ojete al primer efebo que pasase sin que una turba espumeante lo linchase por pedófilo y por enfermo mental. ¿Y qué mejor tierra santa que Grecia, un respetado modelo de civilización y raíz de todo lo clásico en Occidente?

Otra de las claves psicológicas recurrentes en la mente del homogayer moderno es que persiste en creer que dentro de cada hombre hay una maricona redomada ansiosa por salir del armario, y es incapaz de aceptar que sencillamente la homosexualidad es algo que la gran mayoría de hombres rechaza de pleno y considera como antinatural, cuando no repugnante. Para estos individuos, Grecia sería supuestamente el ejemplo de que todo hombre debería ser homosexual y “salir del armario”.

No creo, en la mayoría de los casos que hemos visto más arriba, que los autores hayan manipulado intencionalmente los datos. Pienso que ellos creían sinceramente que estaban ante muestras de homosexualidad y que sólo ellos eran capaces de entender las “claves ocultas”; se les encendió la bombilla y se dedicaron a escribir páginas y páginas de pura especulación infundada, a partir de “indicios” que, simplemente, no eran tales. Rechazar este entramado de mentiras no es homofobia, es defender la verdad y la identidad sexual natural (a la cual debemos nuestra existencia presente y de la cual depende la supervivencia futura de la especie) que se nos adjudica biológicamente junto con nuestro sexo en el momento de ser concebidos , y negarse en rotundo a aceptar una mentira, por pequeña que sea.

¿POR QUÉ TANTA MENTIRA, TANTA ACEPTACIÓN Y TANTA HIPOCRESÍA?

“El otro día leí en la Interviú que los griegos se petaban el cacas entre ellos y se hacían colacaos en el ojai, y lo vi también por la pelelevisión en un programa de tertulias de babuinos monosabios, y desde entonces no hago más que decirlo por todas partes y difundirlo por Internet… incluso en la Wiskypedía.

Hoy en día, tenemos todo un entramado social de profesores decadentes e “intelectuales” homosexuales que, jaleados y subvencionados por un sistema volcado en promover la disgregación social y la nivelación de un “rebaño global” dócil, sin identidad y sin jerarquías, apto para ser sojuzgado fácilmente, se dedican a vivir sus enfermizas fantasías a costa de la historia de una gran y bella civilización europea, cuyo nombre he querido limpiar.

La mentira es propagada sin más, las fuentes mencionadas son deliberada y nerviosamente ignoradas por aquellos que quieren comparar una civilización antigua, luminosa, jerárquica y aristocrática con ciertos fenómenos decadentes de la vida moderna. El lobby homosexual de Estados Unidos es tan poderoso que no sólo han procurado justificar la homosexualidad y des-clandestinizarla, sino de que un tiempo a esta parte vienen predicando poco menos que todos los grandes hombres históricos eran homosexuales, hasta el punto de que resulta difícil encontrar a un personaje notable que no fuera maricón. En vez de remitirse a los hechos y a la historia, los propagadores de la mentira escriben, por poner un ejemplo, “Leonardo Da Vinci era homosexual”, cuando lo apropiado sería, en todo caso, “Mi opinión personal es que Leonardo Da Vinci era homosexual (y no tengo ninguna prueba salvo mi opinión)”.

¿Por qué ha pasado todo esto? La respuesta es que el mundo, especialmente el mundo europeo, viene sufriendo un proceso de estrogenización y afeminamiento gradual de los valores, de los cuerpos y de las mentes e ideas. Existen ciertos grupos de poder, especialmente grupos de poder económico, financiero y mediático, bien relacionados con el sionismo internacional, que consideran que las identidades (especialmente las identidades de la Civilización Occidental) y sus instituciones (especialmente la familia y las Fuerzas Armadas), se interponen en sus planes de lograr un rebaño internacional fácilmente manipulable y despojado de identidad ―en suma, la identidad, el poder del grupo, del “yo soy”, resulta ser un obstáculo en la consecución de una esclavitud mundial. Y para demoler tal obstáculo, los círculos del poder internacional conceden su apoyo a todos los círculos que tienden a desestabilizar todo lo “tradicional” y a destruir todas las identidades humanas del planeta, ya sean raciales, nacionales, religiosas, sexuales, familiares, etc. Promoviendo el mito de la homosexualidad griega, esos grupos de poder matan dos pájaros de un tiro: por un lado promueven la disgregación sexual y la inevitable disolución social que sigue a ésta tarde o temprano, y por el otro, contaminan también uno de los grandes puntos de referencia de la identidad europea y de cualquier renacimiento occidental.

Por otro lado, los grupos homosexuales, que naturalmente desean ver sus inclinaciones extendidas y reconocidas, desean que su gente no se sienta despreciada ni minusvalorada por la historia y la sociedad. Y puesto que los helenos son un modelo de civilización para muchos, ¿qué mejor modo de justificar la homosexualidad que conectándola con la grandeza y belleza de la civilización griega? ¿Qué mejor manera de proporcionar cobertura a algorepugnante para la mayor parte de la sociedad que invocando a la Hélade, admirada y respetada en todo el mundo? No pocos se basan en la supuesta homosexualidad griega para predicar la legalización y tolerancia de la homosexualidad. Estas buenas gentes deberían saber que, históricamente, la poligamia y las relaciones sexuales con chicas menores de edad, estabaninfinitamente más extendidas que la homosexualidad. ¿Significa eso que deberíamos correr a legalizarlas?

En suma, este artículo no es sino un ejemplo de que la cultura, leer las obras originales, siempre evitará que venga alguien a decirnos qué es lo que debemos pensar respecto a algo. Esto va por todos, y para cualquier caso: no aceptéis lo que os digan gratuitamente en cualquier revista o cualquier página web. Desgraciadamente, lo normal es que si uno quiere fiabilidad, debe correr a averiguarlo por su cuenta.

NOTAS

[1] Erastes y eromenos generalmente son traducidos como “amantes” y “amados”, o “pretendientes” y “pretendidos”, pero realmente se debería buscar vocablos mejores, ya que hoy en día esas palabras van asociadas a la homosexualidad, y una mínima atención prestada a los escritos griegos revela que no era así. “Maestro” y “alumno” serían equivalentes mucho más fieles al contexto moderno. Hay que replantearse la traducción por el sencillo motivo de que no sé qué clase de relación homosexual es aquella en la que están proscritas las “relaciones carnales”. El carácter de “amante” y “amado” debería quedar, pues, como de amor puramente platónico, en una relación enmarcada por la admiración, el respeto, la veneración y la hermandad, totalmente desprovista de tintes eróticos tal y como los entendemos en los tiempos modernos.

[2] Ganímedes ha pervivido hasta nuestros días en el Zodíaco, como Acuario.

[3] Al sureste del Estado espartano, en la ciudad de Amicla, había un túmulo (al estilo de las estructuras funerarias erigidas en las antiguas culturas centroeuropeas) que era la tumba de Jacinto, y donde los espartanos llevaban al cabo las Jacintas, típicas festividades de tres días de duración, en las que se celebraba la muerte y resurrección de un ídolo religioso.

[4] Esto también se aplica en el caso heterosexual: no hay prueba de que Artemisa, la diosa virgen, tuviese jamás relaciones físicas con Orión, sino de que eran buenos compañeros de caza y estaban unidos por un vínculo platónico.

[5] Obsérvese que no se habla aquí de “relaciones carnales” ni de “posesión” de ningún tipo. A pesar de que sí entraría en la categoría de sexo, el “acostarse y abrazarse” excluye la penetración por respeto a Aidós y a la revancha deNémesis, (cosa que reconocen hasta autores homosexuales tan sectarios y disparatados en sus aseveraciones como K. J. Dover o Karola Reinsberg, quienes dejan claro que la penetración anal no formaba parte de las relaciones supuestamente homosexuales de la antigua Grecia porque estaba mal vista ―con lo cual habría que preguntarse qué clase de “paraíso gay” era Grecia si no se contemplaba la penetración anal salvo como sacrilegio). Aristófanes, pues, sería, sin duda alguna, y siempre según el “Banquete”, pro-homosexual (en todo caso pro-bisexual, ya que los griegos se casaban y tenían hijos), pero ciertamente un homosexual muy light para hoy día.

[6] De hecho, se cita un proverbio griego, según el cual “vino y niños dicen siempre la verdad”, en sintonía con el refrán español “los borrachos y los niños nunca mienten”. Esta idea viene a reforzar aun más la sinceridad desmedida de Alcibíades.

[7] Acaso otra de las perlas argumentativas de Dover cuando se encuentra ante la homofobia de Platón, quien busca siempre lo natural inspirándose en la inocencia de los animales, es decir que “Platón no sabía de animales”.

20/01/2014 22:39. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

¿Y esta publicidad? Puedes eliminarla si quieres

Rothschilds Conduct "Red Symphony"

Incredible and bizarre as it sounds, humanity is indeed the victim of a diabolical conspiracy.

War, depression and genocide in the past century were not accidental or inevitable but the result of malevolent design.

Shocking evidence is a 1938 Stalinist police (NKVD) interrogation of a founder of the Communist International, Christian G. Rakovsky, 65, who was facing execution for plotting to overthrow Stalin.

The 50-page transcript of his interrogation, dubbed "The Red Symphony," was not meant to become public. It confirms that the Rothschild-Illuminati planned to use Communism to establish a world dictatorship of the super rich.

This is perhaps the most explosive political document in modern history. It reveals why the Illuminati created Hitler and then sought to destroy him, and why Stalin made a pact with Hitler in 1939.

Christian Rakovsky was a veteran Communist insider. Born Chaim Rakeover in 1873, he studied medicine in France before becoming a revolutionary. He was the leader of a terror group that attacked government officials.

In 1919, Lenin put him in charge of the Soviet Ukraine government. He successfully kept the area for the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. Stalin appointed him Russian ambassador to Paris in 1925.

Rakovsky belonged to the powerful Trotskyite faction that took their orders from the Rothschilds. Many of this group were shot in Stalin's 1937 Communist Party purge.


MIDNIGHT INTERROGATION

The circumstances of the midnight interrogation Jan. 26, 1938 were very dramatic.

What could Rakovsky possibly say to save his life?

Rakovsky appears to use the tactic of "deceiving with the truth." He wins trust by revealing the truth but leaves some of it out. He tries to impress his interrogator that he and Trotsky represent an invincible power he calls the "Capitalist-Communist Financial International."

He confirms that the "revolutionary movement" was designed to enlist support by pretending to serve mankind's moral and collective ideals. The real aim however is to give total world power to the bankers by dividing society and undermining established authority.

"Revolution" really means, "overturning" Western civilization.

"Christianity is our only real enemy since all the political and economic phenomena of the bourgeois states are only its consequences," Rakovsky, says. (Griffin, p. 264)

Peace is "counter-revolutionary" since it is war that paves the way for revolution.

Rakovsky, whose tongue was loosened by a mild inebriant in his wine, refers to the Illuminati as "they" or "them." He is a member although not part of the inner circle.

He explains that the "Illuminati" is a Masonic secret society dedicated to Communism. Significantly, its founder Adam Weishaupt took the name from "the second anti-Christian conspiracy of that era, gnosticism." (249)


HOW THIS GRIPPING ACCOUNT SURFACED


The interrogator was one of Stalin's cleverest agents, Gavriil Kus'min known as "Gabriel."

Apart from him and a hidden sound technician, a doctor Jose Landowsky was the only other person present.

Conscripted by the NKVD to help "loosen the tongues of detainees," Dr. Landowsky was sickened by the many tortures he witnessed.

The interrogation of Rakovsky, however, was cordial. Dr. Landowsky doubts if the mild euphoric he put in Rakovsky's drink had much effect.

The interrogation, conducted in French lasted from midnight until 7 a.m. After, Kus'min ordered Landowsky to translate the interview into Russian and make two copies.

The content was so mind boggling that Landowsky made an additional carbon for himself. "I am not sorry that I had the courage for this," he wrote. (279) (The Bolsheviks had shot Landowsky's father, a Tsarist colonel, during the 1917 revolution.)

A Spanish Fascist volunteer later found the manuscript on Landowsky's dead body in a hut on the Petrograd front during World War Two. He took it back to Spain where it was published as "Sinfonia en Rojo Mayo." in 1949.

The complete text of "The Red Symphony" was put online by Peter Myers.

The transcript was published in English in 1968 as "The Red Symphony: X-Ray of Revolution." You can find it in Des Griffin's "Fourth Reich of the Rich." (1988) I recommend this book and everything this fine man has written.


REVELATIONS

Rakovsky gives his interrogator an astonishing inside view of modern history in order to prove that his sponsors control the world.

"Money is the basis of power," Rakovsky says, and the Rothschilds manufacture it thanks to the banking system.

The "Revolutionary Movement" was an attempt by Meyer Rothschild and his allies to protect and extend this monopoly by establishing a totalitarian New World Order.

According to Rakovsky, "The Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that first secret Communism...Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International ... were controlled by Baron Lionel Rothschild, [1808-1878] whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli the English Premier, who was also his creature, and has been left to us [in Disraeli's novel 'Coningsby.']" (250)

Lionel's son Nathaniel (1840-1915) needed to overthrow the Christian Romanoff Dynasty. Through his agents Jacob Schiff and the Warburg brothers, he financed the Japanese side in the Russo Japanese War, and an unsuccessful insurrection in Moscow in 1905. Then he instigated the First World War (Trotsky was behind the murder of Archduke Ferdinand) ;and financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Rakovsky says he was personally involved in the transfer of funds in Stockholm. (251-252)

The Jewish labour movement or "bund" was Rothschild's instrument. The Bund's "secret faction" infiltrated all the socialist parties in Russia and provided the leadership for the Russian Revolution. Alexander Kerensky, the Menshevik Prime Minister was a secret member. (253)

Leon Trotsky was supposed to become the leader of the USSR. Trotsky, a Jew, married the daughter of one of Rothschild's closest associates, banker Abram Zhivotovsky and became part of the "clan."

Unfortunately "national" Communists like Lenin (one-quarter Jewish) got in the way. Lenin overruled Trotsky and made peace with Germany (Treaty of Brest Litovsk, 1918.) This was not the Rothschild's plan.

World War One was supposed to end the way the Second World War did. Russia was supposed to overrun Germany in 1918 and assist local "revolutionaries" in establishing a "peoples' republic."

Trotsky was responsible for an attempt to assassinate Lenin in 1918 but Lenin survived. When Lenin had a stroke in 1922, Trotsky had Levin, Lenin's Jewish doctor, finish him off.

At this critical moment, the unexpected happened. Trotsky got sick and Stalin was able to take power. At this crucial juncture, the Trotskyites pretended to support Stalin and infiltrated his regime in order to sabotage it.

Rakowsky characterizes Stalin as a "Bonapartist," a nationalist as opposed to an International Communist like Trotsky.

"He is a killer of the revolution, he does not serve it, but makes use of its service; he represents the most ancient Russian imperialism, just as Napoleon identified himself with the Gauls..." (257)


CONTAINING STALIN

In order to control Stalin, international finance was forced to build up Hitler and the Nazi party. Rakowsky confirms that Jewish financiers backed the Nazis although Hitler was not aware of this.

"The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race... he also lied regarding whose representative he was... Our aim was to provoke a war and Hitler was war...[the Nazis] received...millions of dollars sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of marks from German financiers through Schacht; [providing] the upkeep of the S.A and the S.S. and also the financing of the elections..." (259-260)

Unfortunately for the bankers, Hitler also proved intractable. He started to print his own money!

"He took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the state... Are you capable of imagining what would have come ...if it had infected a number of other states and brought about the creation of a period of autarchy [absolute rule, replacing that of the bankers]. If you can, then imagine its counterrevolutionary functions..." (263)

Hitler had become a bigger threat than Stalin, who had not meddled with money. Rakovsky's present mission was to convince Stalin to make a pact with Hitler and turn Hitler's aggression against the West. The purpose was for Germany and the Western nations to exhaust each other before another front was opened in the East.

[According to Walter Kravitsky, the head of Soviet Military Intelligence in Europe who defected to the West and was later assassinated in 1941, Stalin was determined to make a pact with Hitler as early as 1934. He had no desire to fight the Nazis. Is it possible Rakovsky and his sponsors did not know this? Kravitsky On Stalin's Secret Service (1939)]

Rakovsky urged the Russians to use the tactic of "deceiving with the truth." The Russians were to impress Hitler with their genuine desire for peace. Hitler was not to suspect that he was being set up for a war on two fronts.

Stalin was given a choice. If he agreed to divide Poland with Hitler, the West would declare war on only one aggressor, Germany. If he refused, the bankers would allow Hitler to depose him.

Kus'min demanded some high level confirmation. Rakovsky told him to see Joseph Davies, the US ambassador in Moscow, a fellow Freemason and representative of the International Communist Roosevelt administration.

Someone was sent to Davies who confirmed that "much would be gained" if Rakovsky got an amnesty. On March 2, 1938, a powerful radio message was sent to Moscow in the cipher of its London embassy.

"Amnesty or the Nazi danger will increase," it said. Davies attended Rakovsky's trial and gave him a Masonic greeting. On the same day, March 12, 1938, Hitler marched into Austria.

Rakovsky's death sentence was commuted. Some believe he lived out his years under an assumed name. Another source has him shot in 1941.

Secret negotiations were begun with Hitler. The result was the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed in August 1939 just one week before the invasion of Poland.

The interrogation seems to have created an accord between Stalin and the Illuminati.


RUSSIA STRUGGLES IN ROTHSCHILD CLUTCH


Europe and the United States long ago succumbed to Rothschild Illuminati control. In Russia, there are still some death spasms.

Recently, Vladimir Putin arrested Mikhail Khordordovsky, the head of Russia's largest oil company "Yukos" and "the richest man in Russia."

Putin announced that Russia would seize his billion 26% stake in the oil company, one of many national assets plundered in the reorganization of Communism 15 years ago.

Then we learn the shares already had passed to none other than banker Jacob Rothschild under a "previously unknown arrangement" designed for such a circumstance. The two have known each other for years "through their mutual love of the arts."

Rakovsky told Kus'min that the Illuminati never take political or financial positions. They use "intermediaries."

"Bankers and politicians are only men of straw.... even though they occupy high places and appear to be authors of the plans which are carried out..." (248-249)

Obviously Khodordovsky is an "intermediary" for Rothschild. So are Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon who each spoke out against Putin's action. Perle, the architect of the Iraq war, called for the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight. Sharon expressed concern about "persecution of Jewish businessmen." Khodordovsky is Jewish as is Simon Kukes his successor. And Perle and Kissinger.

Many Jews serve the Illuminati and that is a cause of anti-Semitism. But Tony Blair and George W. Bush serve it too and are not Jewish. The membership of the Bilderbergers and the Skull and Bones is mostly not Jewish. The Illuminati is an alliance between the Rothschilds, and the world's super rich united by Freemasonry, whose God is Lucifer.

Mankind, God's magnificent experiment, has been subverted and compromised. From the U.S. soldier in Iraq, to the taxpayer who pays the national debt, we are all "men of straw."

18/12/2013 23:02. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Communism is Talmudic Judaism

Por Henry Makow, Ph. D



La mayoría de las personas cree que el comunismo es una ideología dedicada a defender a los trabajadores y a los pobres. Esto no fue más que un ardid de gran éxito con el que se manipuló a millones de personas.

Oculto tras este artificio, el "comunismo" tiene por objetivo concentrar toda la riqueza y poder  en las manos del cártel banquero central (los Rothschild y sus aliados) disfrazándolo de poder estatal.

El cártel banquero central es el monopolio último. Tiene un monopolio casi global sobre el crédito de los gobiernos. Su objetivo es convertir esto en un monopolio sobre absolutamente todo, lo político, lo cultural, lo económico y lo espiritual. Gobierno mundial = monopolio Rothschild= comunismo.

Cualquier ideología que permita concentrar todavía más la riqueza y el poder en las manos del "estado" es comunismo con otro disfraz. Estas ideologías -socialismo, liberalismo, fascismo, neo-conservadurismo, sionismo y feminismo- son frentes del comunismo organizados y dotados con  fondos por parte del cártel banquero central. Todos los hechos actuales se hallan dirigidos por los banqueros centrales con el fin de incrementar el   poder de los gobiernos.  
  373px-Rakovsky_and_trotsky_circa_1925_trimmed.jpg   (left, Rakowski & Trotsky) 

LA SINFONÍA ROJA



Después de Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sión, La Sinfonía Roja constituye la mejor revelación  de la situación verdadera en que se encuentra nuestro mundo.

La Sinfonía Roja es un interrogatorio que le hizo a Christian Rakovsky la policía secreta estalinista (NKVD). Christian Rakovsky era una persona de información privilegiada y allegada al judío y agente de los Rothschild, Leon Trotsky. El texto se halla disponible en Internet o en Fourth Reich of the Rich, de Des Griffin.

Yo presenté a mis lectores este documento explosivo de cincuenta páginas en 2003. Este documento desvela y explica el verdadero significado de la Revolución, del comunismo, de la francmasonería y la guerra. Se tenía la intención de ocultarlo al gran público pero su traductor, el doctor J. Landowsky, hizo una copia sin consentimiento.

El experimento humano se halla amenazado por parte de los intereses particulares que han usurpado la función de la creación del dinero en todas partes.

La historia moderna refleja el proceso gradual mediante el cual se transfieren a sí mismos toda la riqueza y el poder destruyendo la civilización occidental y creando un estado policial a nivel mundial. En 1938, Rakowsky dijo que todo el mundo se halla bajo el control de los banqueros judíos sabateos (Illuminati, masones) y sus aliados.

En su autobiografía, My Life, León Trotsky escribió: "Christian G. Rakovsky...desempeñó un papel activo en los trabajos internos de cuatro partidos socialistas, el búlgaro, el ruso, el francés y el rumano, hasta llegar a ser finalmente uno de los líderes de la Federación Soviética, fundador de la Internacional Comunista, Presidente del Soviet Ucraniano de los Comisarios del Pueblo y  representante diplomático soviético en Inglaterra y Francia..."

A Rakovsky, cuyo verdadero nombre era Chaim Rakover, lo condenaron a muerte cundo tuvo lugar la purga de la facción trotskista del partido. Intentó salvarse entregándole a Stalin un mensaje de los Illuminati.

Durante el proceso, Rakovsky le contó a su interrogador que los banqueros crearon un estado comunista como  una "máquina de poder total" sin precedentes en la historia.

En el pasado, debido a muchos factores, siempre hubo espacio para la libertad individual. ¿Se da usted cuenta de que los que ya dirigen parcialmente las naciones y los gobiernos del mundo tienen la pretensión de dominarlas absolutamente? Fíjense en que esto es lo único que todavía no han alcanzado." (Énfasis del autor)

Una fuerza perniciosa paraliza nuestra vida nacional. Rakovsky la identifica: "Imagínese si puede un pequeño número de personas con un poder ilimitado basado en la posesión de la verdadera riqueza y se dará cuenta de que son los dictadores absolutos del mercado de valores y (de la economía)... Si usted tiene suficiente imaginación entonces...se dará cuenta de su influencia anárquica, moral y social, es decir, de su influencia revolucionaria... ¿Comprende?"

"...Crearon el crédito económico con la idea de hacerlo próximo a lo infinito. ...Es una abstracción, un modo de pensar, una cifra, crédito, una fe... (245-246).

Naturalmente necesitan proteger su monopolio sobre el crédito mediante la creación de un "gobierno mundial". Esto hace imposible que los países puedan emitir su propio crédito monetario o rechazar su deuda.

MARXISMO

El movimiento revolucionario, que define la historia moderna, fue un medio para institucionalizar el poder de los banqueros destruyendo el viejo orden. El marxismo, "antes que un sistema filosófico, económico y político es una conspiración para la revolución."

Rakovsky se burla del "marxismo elemental, del popular y demagógico" que se usa para para engatusar a los intelectuales y a las masas. (238) A Marx lo contrataron los Rothschild para que engañase a las masas. Rakovsky dice que Marx "se ríe en la cara de toda la humanidad." (Griffin, 240). Por supuesto, Marx no mencionó jamás a los Rothschild. (243)

En cuanto a la francmasonería: "Todas las organizaciones masonas intentan crear todos los prerrequisitos necesarios para el triujnfo de la revolución comunista; este el fin obvio de la francmasonería," dice Rakovsky, masón él mismo de grado alto.

El fin de la revoluciónes no es ni más ni menos que el de redefinir la realidad en términos de los intereses de los banqueros. Esto implica la promoción de la verdad subjetiva frente a la verdad objetiva. Si Lenin "siente que algo es real" entonces es real. "Para él toda realidad, toda verdad era relativa a la luz de la única y absoluta realidad: la revolución."

Esto es cabalismo. Los judíos cabalistas crean la realidad porque creen que son los vehículos de la voluntad de Dios. (En otras palabras, la humanidad ha sucumbido a un fraude inmenso).

Dicho de otro modo, lo blanco es negro y arriba es abajo. Así es como funcionaban las cosas en la Unión Soviética; y ahora, en Occidente, la verdad y la justicia están siendo sustituídas por el dictado político. "La corrección política", término bolchevique, es ahora de uso común.

Así, por ejemplo, la homosexualidad que los psiquiatras siempre trataron como un desorden del desarrollo, se convirtió en una "elección de modo de vida" en 1973 por dictado político. Ahora las escuelas públicas incitan a los niños heterosexuales a que "experimenten con su sexualidad". Esto es insano y antinatural, pero de eso es de lo que verdaderamente tratan el "satanismo" y la revolución, de invertir el orden inherente saludable.

Rakovsky se maravilla de que los "bancos sobre los que se sentaban los usureros grasientos para comerciar con su dinero se hayan convertido ahora en templos, que se mantienen magníficamente en cada esquina de las grandes ciudades contemporáneas con sus arcadas paganas, a los que las masas acuden ...para depositar sistemáticamente todas sus posesiones ante el dios del dinero..."

Él dice que la estrella de cinco puntas soviética representa a los cinco hermanos Rothschild con sus bancos, que poseen acumulaciones colosales de riquezas, las más grandes y jamás imaginadas."

¿No es raro que Marx no mencione nunca este hecho?, pregunta Rakovsky. ¿No es extraño que durante las revoluciones, las masas no ataquen jamás a los banqueros, ni sus mansiones ni sus bancos?

La guerra es el medio por el cual los banqueros centrales siguen adelante con su plan. Rakovsky dice que Trotsky estaba detrás del asesinato del archiduque Fernando (lo que desencadenó la IGM). Nos recuerda la frase que la madre de los cinco hermanos Rothschild usó: "Si mis hijos lo quieren, entonces no habrá guerra." Esto significa que ellos eran los árbitros, los amos de la paz y la guerra, pero no los emperadores. ¿Es usted capaz de visualizar este hecho de tal importancia cósmica? ¿No tiene ya la guerra una función revolucionaria? ¿La Guerra? La Comuna. Desde entonces todas las guerras han sido un paso gigantesco hacia el Comunismo.

Después del asesinato de Walter Rathenau (miembro Illuminati y Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Weimar), los Illuminati sólo otorgan posiciones políticas o financieras a intermediarios, dice Rakovsky. "Obviamente a personas que son de confianza y leales, lo que pueden garantizarse de mil maneras: por consiguiente, puede aseverarse que esos banqueros y políticos son sólo hombres de paja...incluso aunque ocupen puestos muy elevados y se les haga aparecer como los autores de los planes que se llevan adelante." Véase a Barack Obama.

En 1938 Rakovsky destacó tres razones para la aparición de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. La primera es que Hitler empezó a imprimir su propio dinero. "Esto es muy serio. Mucho más que todos los factores externos y crueles del nacional-socialismo."

En segundo lugar, "el nacionalismo plenamente desarrollado de Europa Occidental es un obstáculo para el marxismo...la necesidad de la destrucción del nacionalismo es en sí misma merecedora de una guerra en Europa".

Finalmente, el comunismo no puede triunfar si no se suprime "el cristianismo todavía viviente". Él hace referencia a la "revolución permanente" que nace con la llegada de Cristo y a la Reforma como "su primera victoria parcial" porque separó a la cristiandad. Esto sugiere que la "conspiración" también contiene un factor racial o religioso.

En realidad el cristianismo es nuestro único enemigo auténtico, más que todos los fenómenos políticos y económicos de los estados burgueses. El cristianismo que controla al individuo es capaz de anular la proyección revolucionaria del estado neutral soviético o ateo.

Actualmente los banqueros centrales están promocionando la Tercera Guerra Mundial como en  el libro "Choque de las Civilizaciones". Sustituya islam por cristianismo, y enfrente a los cristianos contra ellos.

CONCLUSIÓN

El Nuevo Orden Mundial crea una falsa realidad que representa nuestra esclavitud mental. Legiones de comentaristas, profesores y políticos se encargan de hacer cumplir sus preceptos. Éstos son los argentur (agentes) a los que se hace referencia con gran engreimiento en Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sión.

La sociedad está totalmente subvertida. El gobierno, la educación, el entretenimiento y los noticiarios están en manos del cártel banquero central. El sector privado canta a partir del mismo libro de partituras en materias como la "diversidad". Lo mismo resulta de aplicación a los think tanks, fundaciones, ONGs, asociaciones profesionales y organismos de caridad. Las agencias de inteligencia están al servicio de los banqueros centrales. (Este artículo How the Fed Bought the Economics Profession es la plantilla de todas las profesiones).

Como resultado, la sociedad se encuentra indefensa para manejar su verdadero problema: la concentración del poder en las manos de los banqueros creyentes en la Cabala. Nos lo impiden con la espuria acusación de "antisemitismo" cuando la mayoría de los judíos son ajenos al entramado. No faltan los lacayos, frecuentemente francmasones y judíos masones, ansiosos por compartir los despojos del fraude de los banqueros. Esto es lo que define hoy el "éxito".

La humanidad se halla condenada mientras estos banqueros controlen la sociedad. ¿Cuál es el remmdio? Nacionalizar los bancos centrales, repudiar las deudas creadas de la nada, deshacerse de los cárteles, especialmente de Hollywood y de los media e instituir una campaña financiera estrictamente pública. Además necesitamos un resurgimiento espiritual, un regreso a la religión verdadera o por lo menos a una afirmación de Dios y de un orden moral.


Pero mientras la gente perciba sus intereses en términos del status quo nuestros problemas seguirán siendo sistémicos y no desaparecerán.

 

18/12/2013 22:45. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Keiser sostiene que el dinero al 0% oculta el coste del barril de petróleo, que debería ser el doble del actual

Transcribo lo que dicen Keiser y Herbert

La oferta de petróleo en 2012 fue de 87,9 millones de barriles diarios, casi doce millones más que en el año 2000. Pero solo un tercio de esos 88 millones proceden del petróleo convencional, los dos tercios restantes provienen de esquistos, arenas bituminosas y yacimientos en aguas profundas, y todos ellos provocan un coste mucho mayor. Por su parte el gas licuado cada vez tiene menos densidad energética, con lo cual hay que extraer más cantidad y por tanto el coste de la unidad energética también es más alto.

El cénit en la extracción se alcanzó en 2005, a partir de entonces los beneficios comenzaron a descender, pues los gastos de capital crecieron de forma exponencial. Durante los últimos doce años estos gastos se han triplicado en términos reales, hasta alcanzar en 2012 los 700.000 millones de dólares frente a los 250.000 millones del año 2000; datos calculados en valor constante, el del dólar de 2012. La mayor parte de ese incremento se ha producido desde 2005, lo cual deja bien claro que ese fue el año en el que se alcanzó el cénit (oye, justo cuando empezaron a comernos el coco con el calentamiento del planeta, lo cual demuestra que ese calentamiento no es otra cosa que el ir acomodándonos a que hagamos de la necesidad virtud, o lo que es lo mismo: si dejamos de quemar combustibles fósiles no es porque la Pachamama y los ‘azuletes de Avatar’ nos lo agradecerán, sino porque cada vez hay menos combustible. Y eso, más lo que sigue, concuerda con lo que yo venía diciendo):

Lo que ha detrás del camelo del 'cambio climático'

Esa es una de las razones por las que los intereses del dinero estén casi al 0%, puesto que la extracción de petróleo necesita de un incesante aumento de capital en la inversión, y si como dice Keiser “los bonos de deuda estuviesen a un interés del 5%, que sería lo lógico, no se habría podido invertir en extracción de petróleo y el cénit habría quedado patente, sería inocultable, con lo cual la crisis social y la alarma todavía serían mayores. De no ser por esto el precio del barril estaría en más de 200 dólares”. [Total, que acerté con la razón oculta que hay tras el camelo del cambio climático. Y también cuando decía que Keiser no nos contaba toda la verdad sobre la crisis, ya que la financiariación de la economía de Occidente era inevitable, debido también a la caída de la tasa de ganancia. Por tanto, si no se hubiese financiarizado la economía, habríamos quebrado –sobre todo EEUU—en los 80, antes que la URSS (el dólar quebró en el 71, por eso lo sacaron del patrón oro; luego se entró en una espiral inflacionista que hubo que atajar en los 80). Por tanto de haber quebrado antes que la URSS el mundo actual sería otro muy diferente. En definitiva: ni libre mercado ni liberalismo ni seguridad jurídica ni democracia ni leches; han montado una ficción y en ella seguimos. Alguien dirá que es por nuestro bien. Ja. A río revuelto ganancia de pescadores. Quienes sabían de todo esto se han estado inflando a ganar dinero, y ahora la volatilidad del dinero hay que compensarla extrayendo la riqueza real de algún sitio. ¿Quién paga el pato? Las clases medias sobre todo, y también las clases populares, que entran cada día más rápidamente en el lumpen; no en la proletarización que dicen, pues los proletarios tenían trabajo y salario].

“Por eso –dice Keiser—es imposible aflojar la flexibilización cuantitativa, pues se derrumbaría el sistema ponzi en el que estamos”

Más datos. Stacy Herbert:

“Actualmente el coste de producción de un barril de petróleo convencional se sitúa entre 10 y 70 dólares, dependiendo del país. Seguramente que costará 10 dólares allí donde EEUU tenga una red de bases alrededor. Puede que también Rusia. Ahora centrémonos en los costes de producción de petróleo no convencional. Las arenas bituminosas cuestan entre 50 y 90 dólares. El de esquistos entre 50 y 100. El de aguas profundas entre 70 y 90”

Keiser:

“Es decir, que desde 2010 el petróleo no convencinal viene costando entre 90 y 100 dólares, y eso con unos intereses del 0%. Así que cuando los intereses vuelvan a su nivel normal, del 5 ó 6%, el coste de producción ascenderá como mínimo hasta los 200 dólares el barril, con lo cual nadie podrá pagarlo”

Herbert:

“Desde el año 2000 la oferta de petróleo ha subido un 14%, mientras que los gastos han aumentado un 180%. O lo que es lo mismo, el aumento del coste de la energía es brutal”

Y como tarde o temprano el precio real se acabará imponiendo, Keiser remata: “Así es. El segundo crash del petróleo está al caer” Y, podemos añadir, esta vez no habrá manera de ocultarlo. Por algo a la policía de los EEUU la están armando como si fueran marines y en España ya están legislando contra los desórdenes públicos, y ningún partido se opondrá. Órdenes del Imperio, y como Llamazares insista, o cualquier otro, se le pone de diana con la cara de Ben Laden, o quien sea.

Policías con rifles: el uso de 'agentes soldado' en EE.UU. levanta la polémica

Antes de esto del petróleo hablan de que a partir del año que viene ya solo la FED comprará deuda pública en EEUU, o lo que es lo mismo: que habrá una monetización de deuda del 100%. Keiser defiende el bitcóin (un forero me ha dicho que Max Keiser tiene mucho dinero invertido en bitcóins). Os lo pongo a partir del minuto 7:40

Keiser Report en español. La dieta respiracionista (E530) - YouTube

03/12/2013 17:49. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Mystery of God and the Brain

The Mystery of God and the Brain
By Deepak Chopra, M.D., FACP and Jordan Flesher, BA Psychology

 

As science has steadily undermined the long-held beliefs of religion, almost all that remains for people of faith is to say that God is and will forever be a mystery. Insofar as Einstein was religious, he possessed a feeling of awe and wonder at the mystery of the universe. But science hasn't stopped chipping away at mystery, promising to reduce spiritual experience to measurable brain activity. It’s doubtful that belief in God, the soul, heaven and hell, and other tenets of faith will be drastically affected - polls continue to show that these things remain articles of belief for around 80-90% of responders.

Will neuroscience eventually be able to locate God in our neurons, and if so, should that tiny area of the brain be excised or boosted? No doubt there are arguments on both sides, depending on whether you hold that God has been good for the human race in the long run or bad. Setting aside such judgments, it turns out that the possibility of finding God in the brain creates a baffling mystery that neither religion nor science can tackle alone.
Now that advanced brain scanning can map the way our brains light up with each thought, word, or action, it's clear that no experience escapes the brain. For a mystic to see God or feel his presence, for St. Paul to be suddenly converted on the road to Damascus, or for St. Teresa of Avila to have her heart pierced by an angelic arrow, such experiences would have to register in their brains. However, this indisputable fact (so far as present knowledge extends) doesn't give science the advantage over religion. For it turns out that the brain has definite limitations on what it can experience.

The work of the late Polish-American mathematician Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) is relevant here, because Korzybski worked out the layered processing that goes into the way we perceive everyday reality. Billions of bits of data bombard our sense organs, of which only a fraction enter the nervous system. Of that fraction, more of the raw input is filtered out by the brain, which uses built-in models of reality to discard what doesn't fit. When people say "You're not hearing me" or "You only see what you want to see," they are expressing a truth that Korzybski tried to quantify mathematically.

Sometimes the things a person doesn’t see are simply outside the range of human experience, like our inability to see ultraviolet light. But a great deal more depends on expectations, memories, biases, fears, and simple close-mindedness. If you go to a party, and someone tells you that you are about to meet a Nobel Prize winner, you will see a different person than if you are told he is a reformed Mafia hit man. When all the filtering and processing is complete, there is no doubt that the brain doesn't actually experience reality but only a confirmation of its model of reality.

Two interesting points follow:

1. All models are equal as viewed from the level of the brain.
2. Reality transcends any model we can possibly make of it.

These two points allow God, the soul, and all other spiritual experiences back into the picture. The first point demolishes the notion that science is superior to religion because it gathers facts while religion deals in beliefs. In truth, science filters out and discards a huge portion of human experience - almost everything one would classify as subjective - so its model is just as selective, if not more so, than religion's. As far as the brain is concerned, neural filtering is taking place in all models, whether they are scientific, spiritual, artistic, or psychotic. The brain is a processor of inputs, not a mirror to realty.

The second point is even more telling. If our brains are constantly filtering every experience, there is no way anyone can claim to know what is "really" real. You can't step outside your brain to fathom what lies beyond it. Just as there is a horizon for the farthest objects that emit light in the cosmos, and a farthest horizon for how far back in time astronomy can probe, there is a farthest horizon for thinking. The brain operates in time and space, having linear thoughts that are the end point of a selective filtering process. So whatever is outside time and space is inconceivable, and unfiltered reality would probably blow the brain's circuits, or simply be blanked out. Unfiltered reality would be like listening to every channel on the radio simultaneously, an impossibility.

Korzybski held that even mathematics was a model, subject to the limitations of all models that the brain constructs. Not everyone would agree - holding on to mathematics as a universal truth gives advanced physics its toehold on the quantum world. But in this post we are not using any of these ideas as bludgeons to bash science. All agendas aside, Korzybski simply pointed out, using the language of mathematics, that whatever reality is, it transcends the brain.

In a single word - transcendence - there's a level playing field between science and religion. Reality transcends, or goes beyond, what the brain discerns. If something supernatural springs from the transcendent, such as a holy vision, materialists and skeptics may argue that it can't be real. Actually, there's no way to prove that even a natural experience is real. Seeing angels and seeing a tree, mountain, or cloud are equally inexplicable. As the noted physicist Freeman Dyson has asserted,
"To summarize the situation, we have three mysteries that we do not understand: the unpredictable movements of atoms, the existence of our own consciousness, and the friendliness of the universe to life and mind. I am only saying that the three mysteries are probably connected. I do not claim to understand any of them."

Since the three mysteries are woven into the very basis of our existence, the wisest course is to bring the scientific and spiritual models together in order to see if they can fill in the blanks that come with each model. Models are right about what they include and wrong about what they exclude. Conceding this fact would do a great deal to put spirituality on a plane where it can be taken seriously as an exploration that’s as serious and truthful as advanced science.



03/12/2013 17:43. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

¿ Una nueva Judea en Patagonia?

Como ya comentamos en RT Español, hay indicios alarmantes de que los Dueños del Poder Mundial, en general, y el sionismo internacional, en particular, están urdiendo una compleja maniobra tendente a erigir un segundo estado judío en la Patagonia argentino-chilena.


Esta estrategia de larga data hoy se ve potenciada y acelerada debido a la situación insostenible del primer Estado Judío en la Palestina Ocupada. En verdad, Israel es un ente geopolítico artificial que sólo puede sostenerse por la violencia y gracias al apoyo incondicional que le brinda Estados Unidos: nación crecientemente idiotizada, desculturizada e, incluso, narcotizada.
 

Primero, vinieron por la Argentina… 


Los Dueños del Poder Mundial han logrado un control virtualmente total sobre la Patagonia Argentina, no a través de la violencia como en Palestina, sino a través de la imposición de gobiernos decadentes y traidores en la actual Argentina 'de la democracia'.
 
A lo largo de más de treinta años, éstos han desarticulado todo vestigio de defensa territorial. Peor aún, han destruido la educación y la conciencia nacional reemplazando el sano nacionalismo heredado de los Padres de la Patria y de la doctrina de Juan Perón por una subcultura perversa, antinatural, antiestética y mentirosa. En este sentido, podemos decir que la Argentina es una nación derrotada. Y por partida doble. 
 
Su primera derrota fue militar: en la guerra internacional por las Islas Malvinas disparada en 1982 por una generación de militares y civiles miopes y sin grandeza que cayeron estúpidamente en la trampa urdida por el Reino Unido, Estados Unidos y la OTAN. Resultado: esas potencias hoy mantienen una poderosa base militar nuclear frente a las costas patagónicas, potenciada en 2008 con la reactivación de la Cuarta Flota del Atlántico Sur ordenada por el gobierno de George W Bush. 
 
Su segunda derrota fue en el plano político y cultural: ante el terrorismo marxista que desató una guerra social y civil en la Argentina durante los años 70 y 80, cuyas dolorosas consecuencias la sociedad argentina sigue sufriendo. Resultado: los guerrilleros y terroristas derrotados en el plano operativo ayer, triunfaron en lo cultural y político y hoy ocupan la Casa Rosada, el Congreso y muchos multimedios en la Argentina. Ejemplos paradigmáticos: Nilda Garré de Abal Medina, alias Comandante Teresa cuando integraba la guerrilla, ocupa el ministerio de defensa y hoy el de seguridad interior bajo los Kirchner; Horacio Verbitzky, ex jefe de inteligencia del grupo terrorista Montoneros hoy dirige el periódico fundamentalista pro-Kirchner 'Pagina12'.  
 
Un triste barómetro de la decadencia intelectual y moral que infecta a las otrora poderosas fuerzas armadas argentinas lo comprobamos en la manera en que desde hace treinta años sus jefes militares toleran sumisamente todo tipo de insultos, humillaciones y vejaciones, incluso, el ser 'mandados' por una 'comandanta' en jefe bipolar. Sucesivas cúpulas militares han devenido en una corporación floja y amorfa que parece haber olvidado su juramento de defender el territorio nacional ante graves peligros externos e internos que acechan. 
   
En el caso de la Patagonia Argentina, seguramente veremos a estos 'jefes' militares de juguete llorar mañana como mujeres lo que hoy no se atreven a defender como hombres. 
   

¡Ahora, Chile!


Pero los poderes mundialistas y sionistas no operan solamente de un lado de Los Andes en su vocación disociadora e infiltradora. El avance del sionismo internacional que desea ver un segundo estado judío en la Patagonia también lo verificamos en la República de Chile, cuyo presidente Sebastián Piñera nombró en noviembre 2012 a Rodrigo Hinzpeter como ministro de defensa, un hombre íntimamente vinculado al Estado de Israel y participante regular del Comité Judío-Americano. Antes de hacerse cargo de esta importantísima cartera, Hinzpeter se desempeñaba varios años como ministro del interior.
 
En un amplio informe del periódico chileno 'El Ciudadano' la dupla Piñera-Hinzpeter pretende redimensionar la defensa chilena para que "se cuadre con la tríada Estados Unidos-Colombia-Israel", agregando que "todo apunta a que Hintzpeter mantendrá una doctrina de defensa y política militar semejantes a la de Colombia, y alineará a Chile con los objetivos del Comando Sur de los Estados Unidos establecidos para la base que construyeron en Concón".  A pesar de estar formalmente asignada a "tareas de Fuerzas de Paz de Naciones Unidas", la dependencia de mando y operación responde al Comando Sur del Ejército de Estados Unidos.
 
Hinzpeter y Piñera parecen coincidir en apoyar la política de 'defensa' que desean imponer los Dueños del Poder Mundial, por cuanto en la base militar de Concón ya existe un comando de Operaciones Militares en Territorios Urbanos.
 
Seguramente, se avanzará en el plan de reorientar a las fuerzas armadas chilenas a "combatir la insurgencia, la delincuencia y el narcotráfico", igual que en México y Colombia. O sea, unas fuerzas armadas con funciones ya no de defensa territorial ante amenazas extra-continentales, sino de seguridad y control policial interno. Así, a futuro podrán operar como controladores de la población local, alineadas a los objetivos e intereses financieros, económicos, políticos y sociales del venidero Gobierno Mundial. 
 
Agrega este informe que "todo indicaría que de la mano del presidente Piñera, Hinzpeter hará todo lo posible por impulsar la denominada 'Primera Estrategia Nacional de Seguridad y Defensa'" que, en concreto, abre la puerta a que las fuerzas armadas chilenas participen en operaciones de represión de sus ciudadanos dentro del territorio nacional, con la excusa de "combatir a la delincuencia en sus distintas expresiones". 
 
Cuando Sebastian Piñera asumió como presidente de Chile en 2011, la Agencia Judía de Noticias tituló esta noticia señalando que "un judío será el próximo ministro del interior y jefe de gabinete del presidente electo Piñera". Claramente, en la Embajada de Israel en Santiago, en Tel Aviv y entre las poderosas organizaciones sionistas y judías el encumbramiento de Hinzpeter en el gobierno de Chile no pasó desapercibido.
 
Continúa este informe señalando que “diversos medios destacaron que el hoy titular de la cartera de defensa es muy cercano al American Jewish Committee (Comité Judío Americano), poderoso grupo de presión sionista en Estados Unidos y América Latina, que opera mancomunadamente dentro de una nutrida red de grupos de presión y poder sionistas pro-Israel en la región y en el mundo entero. 
 
Se señala también que en marzo de 2011, mientras el presidente Piñera se encontraba de gira por Medio Oriente, una delegación del Comité Judío-Americano conformada por 18 miembros fue recibida silenciosamente en el Palacio de la Moneda en Santiago por el ministro Hinzpeter y los embajadores de Estados Unidos, Inglaterra e Israel. Dicha visita se extendió por tres días, pero la prensa nacional mantuvo 'discreto silencio' sobre la misma, sobre qué se discutió, quiénes asistieron y a qué acuerdos llegaron.  
 
Ya en 2006 Hinzpeter había participado en un congreso de comunidades judías latinoamericanas organizado por el Comité Judío-Americano en Miami. La declaración final indicada en el sitio del Comité afirma que los representantes de las diversas comunidades involucradas "ratifican su solidaridad con el Estado de Israel en su legitimidad histórica". Escribiendo en el boletín 'Palabra Israelita', el dirigente derechista de la comunidad judía chilena, Gabriel Zaliasnik, aseveró que el ministro de defensa es de "las personas con inclinaciones políticas y con interés de que la causa de Israel" sea apoyada. El parlamentario chileno Eugenio Tuma, en cambio, manifestó que Hinzpeter "es un militante de la causa israelí".
 
El 5 de noviembre de 2012, 'El Ciudadano' publicó un cartel que afirmaba que Rodrigo Hinzpeter había hecho el servicio militar en Israel, señalando lo inconveniente de que alguien con esos supuestos antecedentes asumiera la jefatura del ministerio de defensa chileno, lo que disparó la ira de la comunidad judía de Chile. Pareciera que Hintzpeter "fue a Israel a hacer su servicio militar al terminar su enseñanza media, el que normalmente dura dos años, y tres para los que siguen su formación en el aparato de Inteligencia del Mossad". Sea como sea, Hinzpeter jamás aclaró a qué fue a Israel, si en efecto hizo el servicio militar o si recibió algún tipo de instrucción armada en ese país, y tampoco ha negado que mantenga vínculos con el Mossad, el servicio de inteligencia israelí.
 
Como señala el analista geopolítico argentino Leopoldo Markus, "los peligros actuales de las fuerzas armadas y el Estado chileno, tanto de la designación de Hinzpeter como de la doctrina oficial de aquellas, es que resulta funcional a los intereses del Comando Sur de los EE.UU. y de Israel. Más allá de los argumentos justificatorios de la intervención interna de las fuerzas armadas chilenas en la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, ello encubre el objetivo de que se hallen preparadas para reprimir posibles futuros alzamientos de la población chilena".  
 
Markus agrega que, incluso unas bien entrenadas, equipadas y "reorientadas" fuerzas militares chilenas estarían siempre listas para cumplir el rol de fuerza de intervención rápida contra Argentina, Bolivia o Perú en caso de producirse revoluciones nacionales o populares que enfrenten al imperialismo y a sus agentes nativos. 
 

Apuntando a la Patagonia 


En lo atinente a la Patagonia argentina, esta hipótesis no es para nada descabellada, considerando la vil política 'desmalvinizadora' y de desarme unilateral que, bajo presión angloestadounidense, vienen impulsando sistemáticamente sucesivos gobiernos de la Argentina 'de la democracia': desde Alfonsín y Menem, hasta el Matrimonio Kirchner.  
 
La Armada Argentina es hoy obsolescente por falta de renovación de material, mantenimiento, combustible y repuestos, facilitando así la depredación pesquera ilegal y el robo descarado del petróleo argentino en el Mar Argentino desde la base inglesa 'Fortaleza Falklands'. Similarmente, la Fuerza Aérea Argentina apenas puede volar con sus unidades vetustas carentes de mantenimiento y combustible. Ni siquiera se repusieron las aeronaves de combate perdidas en la heroica gesta librada contra Inglaterra durante la Guerra de Malvinas de 1982. 
 
Peor aún es la situación del Ejército Argentino, desarmado casi totalmente y sobre cuyos oficiales pesa la mayor carga revanchista de los guerrilleros de ayer que hoy usurpan el poder en ese país.  
 
Dentro de esta amplia estrategia de indefensión nacional, al abandono unilateral de los programas argentinos nuclear, misilístico y aeronáutico -entregados cobarde y traidoramente al enemigo angloestadounidense por Alfonsín y durante la Década Infame del gobierno de Carlos Menem- se suma la retirada argentina de la Antártida, la destrucción del rompehielos Almirante Irizar, y la deshonra cobarde de la fragata-escuela Libertad de la Armada a manos del fondo buitre del sionista pro-gay Paul Singer, gracias a la impericia e irresponsabilidad del gobierno Kirchner en el manejo la deuda externa.   
 
En síntesis, la incursión de Rodrigo Hinzpeter en el ministerio de defensa chileno indica que EE.UU. e Israel potencian su intervención decisiva en la formulación de políticas tendientes a 'asegurar el orden' del pueblo chileno ante la creciente consolidación de la presencia sionista en toda la Patagonia. A la Argentina ya la tienen íntegramente bajo su control; ahora llegó el momento de 'apretarle las tuercas' a Chile.  

Adrian Salbuchi para RT

Adrian Salbuchi es analista político, autor, conferencista y comentador de radio y televisión en Argentina

19/11/2013 12:14. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The President Who Told The TRUTH

This vid contains one of the most awesome, inspiring and truthful speeches ever given by a president. This very speech must have caused a lot of panic among the higher echelons of the elite. Kennedy had been in office for only 3 months and he was already taking unprecedented steps to empower ordinary people. Kennedy did more for civil rights than any other president since Abraham Lincoln. Kennedy was a big supporter of the constitution, he was against the tyranny of big government. He wanted to withdraw US troops from Vietnam. He wanted to abolish the CIA and Federal Reserve, and he warned us of criminal elements within the establishment who wanted to seize an opportunity to restrict people's freedoms. He urged the press to be more open and to fulfill its obligation to inform the American people about pertinent facts. And on top of that he spoke openly and candidly about the dangers of secret societies and their influence over the way government works. So is it any wonder that he was dramatically silenced only two years after making this epic speech?

It seems that Kennedy wanted to blow the whistle when he found out about the true scale of corruption within the establishment and how freemasonry and other secret societies play an integral part in this corrupt agenda. It also seems that Kennedy wanted to speak out about the closed and secretive nature of organizations like the freemasons, especially at the higher levels. And it is only when a freemason reaches the higher levels that he can gain a fuller understanding of the kind of organization he is part of. Freemasonry also has its own set of rules, oaths, allegiances and rituals that are considered higher in importance than the ordinary code of conduct that we ordinary people live by. And the higher up you go in freemasonry, the more strange and daring the initiation rituals become; this is a hallmark of the way criminal gangs operate. Remember, just because someone wears a suit and a tie, that doesn't necessarily make them a better person than the mugger in the alley with the baseball bat.

I find it very curious that some people compare Obama with Kennedy, as if they are both one and the same. But you only have to look at the people that Obama has recruited to work alongside him to realize where he's coming from. Employing Zbigniew Brzezinski as his Chief Foreign Policy adviser is just one example. Then on top of that, Obama admits to being a globalist and he has publicly admitted to attending a CFR meeting where he gave a speech. But what makes me feel most uncomfortable is the way that Obama stuttered and lied about the significance of his speech at the CFR. When question about his CFR involvement, Obama said: "I don't know if I'm an official member." - He wants us to believe that the CFR would allow someone to attend their meeting and give a speech, and yet not even discuss the issue of membership. You're either a member of something or you're not, so the word "official" is an irrelevant filler word. If he doesn't know that he's a member then that could only mean that he is not a member - in which case, why didn't he just say: "I am not a member, although I did speak there once?" Why not just be open and honest about it instead of stuttering and lying in an attempt to downplay the significance of it?

JFK's assassination was probably executed by CIA resources developed in the anti-Castro campaign that Kennedy was canceling, and redirected against the internal threat, Kennedy. The investigation which followed the assassination was overseen and directed by Freemasons, who could influence the selection of the rest of the investigative team and effectively control the results.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boOAfFOK7Ns

12/11/2013 11:14. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The American Academy of Arts and Letters

Recording History Uptown
By Corinne Ramey

On Wednesday, the American Academy of Arts and Letters will induct three new members into its 250-member society of architects, composers, artists and writers, hosting the annual ceremony in its partially underground auditorium on West 156th Street in Washington Heights.

New Yorkers familiar with the Academy—whose members include Mark Twain, William S. Burroughs, Duke Ellington and, as of this week, artists Richard Tuttle and Terry Winters and writer Ward Just—may agree that election to the academy is "considered the highest formal recognition of artistic merit in the United States," as the society states. But in the classical-music industry, the auditorium is almost universally recognized as a hidden gem, the best place in the city—some say the East Coast, others say the entire world—to record solo and chamber music. With its warm, velvety sound and near-perfect acoustics, the auditorium has been the site of nearly 1,000 recordings, according to the academy’s auditorium manager, Ardith Holmgrain, and has become firmly entrenched in classical-music history.

"It is one of the truly great concert halls in the world," said violist Larry Dutton, who has frequently recorded at the Academy with the Emerson Quartet. "Take that hall down 90 blocks and it’d be like Carnegie Hall."

Producer Max Wilcox, who first recorded at the Academy in 1959 with pianist Arthur Rubinstein, called it "a dream hall." "It’s just perfect," he said.

Elite players who have recorded there over the past 80 years include violinists Itzhak Perlman and Midori Goto, cellists Yo-Yo Ma and János Starker, singers Renée Fleming and Plácido Domingo, trumpeter Wynton Marsalis and pianists Emanuel Ax, Claudio Arrau and Simone Dinnerstein.

Adam Abeshouse was the producer when Ms. Dinnerstein recorded her 2007 album of Bach’s Goldberg Variations there. "The sound has a lustrous glow," he said. "Every musician I’ve had there has loved playing in that room."

Ms. Dinnerstein was no exception. "That was a complete turning point for not just my career, but my playing," she said. "In that particular hall I can hear myself really well, and I can hear the sound returning. Because I can hear it, it allows me to push myself further in terms of creating a wide variety of sounds."

The American Academy of Arts and Letters has made its home in three beaux arts granite and limestone buildings, part of the Audubon Terrace Historic District, since 1923. Its second building there, designed by architect Cass Gilbert, was completed in 1930 and includes the 730-seat auditorium. Designed for concerts and ceremonies, the hall wasn’t used for music recordings until a change of staff in 1989. "I walked on the stage and said, ’Why is this just sitting here?’" Ms. Holmgrain recalled. "So I bought music stands and chairs and got on the phone and talked to producers."

The room gradually became a favorite spot for musicians and producers alike. "The hall winds up being a significant partner in music," said Arnold Steinhardt, who recorded many albums at the Academy with the Guarneri Quartet. "When you have a hall where everything works, you think, ’Gee, I didn’t realize I could play this well!’"

What exactly makes the acoustics so good is a matter of debate. Pianist Christopher O’Riley, who recorded his album of Radiohead transcriptions in the hall in 2003, cited the ceiling. "You have a sense of the beginning and end of the sound, that it is being couched and suffused by the room itself," he said.

The hall is bell-shaped, rather than rectangular, and the plaster filigree on the ceiling absorbs just the right amount of sound, said producer Judith Sherman. Ms. Holmgrain added that sound also resonates especially well in the hollow spaces above the hall and under the stage.

Moreover, unlike at some Midtown and Downtown venues, there are no subways rumbling underneath, and the auditorium is tucked cozily between the tree-lined entrance to Riverside Drive to the west and Trinity Cemetery to the south.

Asked if the hall’s ideal acoustics were by design or merely a happy accident, Ms. Holmgrain replied, "I truly have no idea."

The 83-year old auditorium, of course, is not perfect. The curtains are frayed, some velvet seats torn. Ms. Holmgrain said the glass chandeliers have been cleaned only once in the past two decades, though she stressed that the space is safe and that the Academy flame-proofs the curtains every year.

"The air in there is probably filled with the molecules of composers and authors long dead," said Ms. Sherman.

Mr. O’Riley was more direct: "It’s haunted."

There are no pianos or recording devices on site, so musicians must make it a bring-your-own experience. Orchestras and large ensembles are generally too much for the room to accommodate (although Meredith Monk did record a 70-person choir there in 2009). In the winter, the heaters are noisy and must be turned off. The staff generally doesn’t rent out the room during July and August because there’s no air conditioning. (One well-known pianist, whom Ms. Holmgrain declined to identify, decided he didn’t mind and recorded in a Speedo, dripping with sweat.) Mr. Abeshouse said the control room often smells like a postgame locker room.

But the artists keep coming back. At 0 an hour, recordings are exactly not a money-making venture for the Academy, and the hall already has a six-month waiting list. For some producers and musicians, the fewer fans the auditorium has, the better. "I have to tell you," said Mr. Abeshouse, "the only problem with me telling you about this is that more people will want to book it."

06/11/2013 19:34. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Constitution

The Constitution

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

-Thomas Jefferson

21/10/2013 22:05. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

I really don't give two craps

"I really don't give two craps what the libs and the left think or how they may label me. They have never been given the power to label anyone. Their existence is not to seek the truth, but to disrupt it."

20/09/2013 00:10. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government

“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.”

- Lord Thomas MacCauley, May 23, 1857

19/09/2013 15:00. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Runaway General

The Runaway General

The Rolling Stone profile of Stanley McChrystal that changed history

JUNE 22, 2010

'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him. 

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn. 

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

Hastings on McChrystal: To Fire, or Not to Fire?

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

 "What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

Revolt of the Troops: Hastings Reports In From Afghanistan

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice. 

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides. 

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

The Kill Team: How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: an exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile.

The Taibblog: Your Dose of Political Muckraking from Matt Taibbi

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner. 

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

Rolling Stone's Politics Hub: In-Depth Features and More

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

The Spill, the Scandal and the President: How Obama Let BP Get Away with Murder

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.

BP's Next Disaster: The Obama Administration Isn't Stopping the Oil Giant's Plans to Drill in the Arctic This Fall

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

Looting Main Street: Matt Taibbi on How the Nation's Biggest Banks are Ripping Off American Cities

In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On December 1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the reasons why fighting the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a decade-long commitment would sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win," Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown his weight, however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.

Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a "bleeding ulcer." In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn't want.

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

The night after his speech in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an Irish pub catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie, has joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she has seen her husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and Annie's 33rd wedding anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner circle along for dinner and drinks at the "least Gucci" place his staff could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a Jack in the Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul last summer, Team America set about changing the culture of the International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO-led mission is known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as short for "I Suck at Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned alcohol on base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess, expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and refashioned the command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a free-flowing information hub modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's offices in New York. He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war. 

By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely shitfaced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds 0 billion a year, while the State Department receives only billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations. 

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president on more than 10 trips around the country, standing beside him at political meetings, or shuras, in Kandahar. In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap.

This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

Growing up as a military brat, McChrystal exhibited the mixture of brilliance and cockiness that would follow him throughout his career. His father fought in Korea and Vietnam, retiring as a two-star general, and his four brothers all joined the armed services. Moving around to different bases, McChrystal took solace in baseball, a sport in which he made no pretense of hiding his superiority: In Little League, he would call out strikes to the crowd before whipping a fastball down the middle.

McChrystal entered West Point in 1972, when the U.S. military was close to its all-time low in popularity. His class was the last to graduate before the academy started to admit women. The "Prison on the Hudson," as it was known then, was a potent mix of testosterone, hooliganism and reactionary patriotism. Cadets repeatedly trashed the mess hall in food fights, and birthdays were celebrated with a tradition called "rat fucking," which often left the birthday boy outside in the snow or mud, covered in shaving cream. "It was pretty out of control," says Lt. Gen. David Barno, a classmate who went on to serve as the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. The class, filled with what Barno calls "huge talent" and "wild-eyed teenagers with a strong sense of idealism," also produced Gen. Ray Odierno, the current commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination – a record that his classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked out, and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved courtyard where unruly cadets were disciplined. "I'd come visit, and I'd end up spending most of my time in the library, while Stan was in the Area," recalls Annie, who began dating McChrystal in 1973.

McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 855, a serious underachievement for a man widely regarded as brilliant. His most compelling work was extracurricular: As managing editor of The Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal wrote seven short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would confront in his career. In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another, a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded."

After graduation, 2nd Lt. Stanley McChrystal entered an Army that was all but broken in the wake of Vietnam. "We really felt we were a peacetime generation," he recalls. "There was the Gulf War, but even that didn't feel like that big of a deal." So McChrystal spent his career where the action was: He enrolled in Special Forces school and became a regimental commander of the 3rd Ranger Battalion in 1986. It was a dangerous position, even in peacetime – nearly two dozen Rangers were killed in training accidents during the Eighties. It was also an unorthodox career path: Most soldiers who want to climb the ranks to general don't go into the Rangers. Displaying a penchant for transforming systems he considers outdated, McChrystal set out to revolutionize the training regime for the Rangers. He introduced mixed martial arts, required every soldier to qualify with night-vision goggles on the rifle range and forced troops to build up their endurance with weekly marches involving heavy backpacks.

In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game, spending a year at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the merits and drawbacks of humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far – especially in the political chaos that followed September 11th. "He was very focused," says Annie. "Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted to do. I don't think his personality has changed in all these years."

By some accounts, McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by now. As Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a reputation for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous "stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint – overseeing the military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta Force – that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have destroyed the career of a lesser man. 

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

 "The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.

Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal involving detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a now-familiar litany of abuse: stress positions, being dragged naked through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal, even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to McChrystal that he tried to prevent detainee operations from being placed under his command in Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan. 

The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on both controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's pet with a Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."

It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some fucking brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you fucking muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these guys.' "

Even in his new role as America's leading evangelist for counterinsurgency, McChrystal retains the deep-seated instincts of a terrorist hunter. To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19. "You better be out there hitting four or five targets tonight," McChrystal will tell a Navy Seal he sees in the hallway at headquarters. Then he'll add, "I'm going to have to scold you in the morning for it, though." In fact, the general frequently finds himself apologizing for the disastrous consequences of counterinsurgency. In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 – a record that has created tremendous resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and in April, protests erupted in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've shot an amazing number of people," McChrystal recently conceded.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote. 

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone. 

Six weeks later, just before McChrystal returned from Paris, the general received another e-mail from Arroyo. A 23-year-old corporal named Michael Ingram – one of the soldiers McChrystal had gone on patrol with – had been killed by an IED a day earlier. It was the third man the 25-member platoon had lost in a year, and Arroyo was writing to see if the general would attend Ingram's memorial service. "He started to look up to you," Arroyo wrote. McChrystal said he would try to make it down to pay his respects as soon as possible.

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo's platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram's death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal's new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. "These were abandoned houses," fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming back to live in them."

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing."

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says.

"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks.

McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies." 

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.

"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work."

"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."

"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?"

A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."

As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it.

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there." 

In mid-May, two weeks after visiting the troops in Kandahar, McChrystal travels to the White House for a high-level visit by Hamid Karzai. It is a triumphant moment for the general, one that demonstrates he is very much in command – both in Kabul and in Washington. In the East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries, President Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian casualties. They mention the word "progress" 16 times in under an hour. But there is no mention of victory. Still, the session represents the most forceful commitment that Obama has made to McChrystal's strategy in months. "There is no denying the progress that the Afghan people have made in recent years – in education, in health care and economic development," the president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul when I landed – lights that would not have been visible just a few years earlier."

It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst years in Iraq, when the Bush administration had no real progress to point to, officials used to offer up the exact same evidence of success. "It was one of our first impressions," one GOP official said in 2006, after landing in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian violence. "So many lights shining brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War that the Obama administration has turned – talk of progress, of city lights, of metrics like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a few years ago they would have mocked. "They are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting with Karzai and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the biggest blow to his vision of counterinsurgency. Since last year, the Pentagon had been planning to launch a major military operation this summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point in the war – the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested from Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the military still needs to lay more groundwork, the general announced that he is postponing the offensive until the fall. Rather than one big battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will implement what McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and army will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while the U.S. pours  million of aid into the city to win over the civilian population.

Even proponents of counterinsurgency are hard-pressed to explain the new plan. "This isn't a classic operation," says a U.S. military official. "It's not going to be Black Hawk Down. There aren't going to be doors kicked in." Other U.S. officials insist that doors are going to be kicked in, but that it's going to be a kinder, gentler offensive than the disaster in Marja. "The Taliban have a jackboot on the city," says a military official. "We have to remove them, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the population." When Vice President Biden was briefed on the new plan in the Oval Office, insiders say he was shocked to see how much it mirrored the more gradual plan of counterterrorism that he advocated last fall. "This looks like CT-plus!" he said, according to U.S. officials familiar with the meeting.

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge. 

This article is from the July 8th, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-runaway-general-20100622
09/08/2013 20:54. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

NWO FOURTH REICH

Did you know that back in WW2 the Muslim Brotherhood were hired by Adolf Hitler to kill Israelis, British and Americans, after WW2 the cia sent them all to live in Saudi Arabia, the cia then hired them to fight the first war in Afghanistan against the Communist Russians

This is the Fourth Reich doing its "Magik" behing the scenes

The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda by John Loftus and ex US Justice Department Investigator who has seen all the US held Nazi files from WW2...BEFORE they were recently declassified.

Quote
"What I'm doing today is doing what I'm doing now: I'm educating a new generation in the CIA that the Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist organization that was hired by Western intelligence that evolved over time into what we today know as al-Qaeda.

Here's how the story began. In the 1920s there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s, al-Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.

The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.

When war broke out, the Muslim Brotherhood promised in writing that they would rise up and help General Rommell and make sure that no English or American soldier was left alive in Cairo or Alexandria.

The Muslim Brotherhood began to expand in scope and influence during World War II. They even had a Palestinian section headed by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the great bigots of all time. Here, too, was a man -- The grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the Muslim Brotherhood representative for Palestine. These were undoubtedly Arab Nazis. The Grand Mufti, for example, went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the "Handjar" Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler's new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arab peninsula from then on to Africa -- grand dreams."

...

"For the Saudis, there was a ruler in charge of Saudi Arabia, and theywere the new home of the Muslim Brotherhood, and fascism and extremism were mingled in these schools. And there was a young student who paid attention - - and Azzam's student was named Osama Bin Ladin. Osama Bin Ladin was taught by the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood who had emigrated to Saudi Arabia.

In 1979 the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage.
The Russians had invaded Afghanistan, so we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. We had to rename them. We couldn't call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi cast was too known. So we called them the Maktab al Khidimat il Mujahideen, the MAK.

And the CIA lied to Congress and said they didn't know who was on the payroll in Afghanistan, except the Saudis. But it was not true. A small section CIA knew perfectly well that we had once again hired the Arab Nazis and that we were using them to fight our secret wars."

...full article below

http://www.canadafreepress.com...

09/08/2013 20:40. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today , my thoughts about the EU

A paradise for bureaucrats of any kind living on our money, a false free circulation of people,try  going to work to any country member of the union, you will find more barriers now than 50 years ago. All in all, a monstrous creation. And a stupid one, for, who wants to have a Guinness in Madrid and a San Miguel in Dublin? The union already existed, and it was our common christian heritage, look at your country flag and tell me what is in it. Someone with a built in hatred towards all that Christianity represents is surely behind all this euro thing,and we all know who this is. No need to even mention it.
 

14/06/2013 21:21. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Keith Richards: A Pirate Looks at 70

20130613234345-298-298-a-pirate-looks-at-70.jpg

Just before Christmas this year, Keith Richards will turn 70. Swirl that around in your snifter for a moment. The world's most famous rhythm guitarist set the standard for powders injected and ingested, but he is still going to make it to the big 7-0. That's 30 more than Lennon, 43 more than Hendrix and Cobain. It seems impossible.

And now, somehow, Richards has found another gear. In 2010, he published his memoir, 'Life,' and the only thing pretentious and rock-starish about it was the title. He wrote sweetly about being bullied as a kid, the size of Mick's member, days on the run with Anita Pallenberg, and enough escapes from the lawman to fund another decade of Law & Order: Special Guitarist Unit. The book will be read by Stones fans and alchemists until the end of time.

Just as remarkable, when you read this, the Rolling Stones will probably be playing not too far from your town. Even more remarkable, according to reviews of the Stones' 2012 dates, they'll be damn good. Richards has emerged as the band's greatest defender, carping about the defections of Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor but also recruiting them to play with the band once again. (Taylor will join the band on selected numbers this summer.)

Over the years, Richards has segued from dissolute dad to dedicated family man, patriarch of a sprawling clan. He had three children with Italian-born actress Anita Pallenberg, whom he swiped from fellow Stones guitarist Brian Jones. In the Seventies, Richards was notorious for taking his boy, Marlon, on the road with him while he was still in grade school. But those were different times. Richards has two more girls with his wife of 30 years, Patti Hansen. Let us say Theodora and Alexandra were raised under slightly different circumstances, with Richards claiming he was the breakfast cook if not the homework helper. He talks with affection and some melancholy about being an empty nester and missing a house full of noise.

I caught up with Richards at Electric Lady Studios in New York and then again while he was at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles for rehearsals before the tour. He wore the omnipresent bandanna, chain-smoked Marlboros, and drank a mysterious potion from a large plastic cup. He dodged nothing, and I only wish I'd had the courage to ask him who came up with the drum-machine bits on Undercover (Of the Night). The other weird thing? Keith Richards looked freakin' healthy. That bastard is going to outlive us all.

Your whole pirate-junkie image has become part of pop culture, even homogenized for kids. How do you feel about that?
They think I'm a cartoon! I mean "Keith Richards" – everybody knows what it means. It comes with longevity. I'm glad it strikes people's imaginations! I'd like to be old Keith and play him to the hilt. I'm probably something different to millions of different people.

Is the Keith onstage different from the Keith at home?
No, I'm the same bloke – I know who I am, but I'm also aware of the kaleidoscope of different visions being taken in by different people.

John Updike said, "Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face." You don't feel like a trained monkey sometimes?
I know my master, and I know when to jump and hop. I feel totally comfortable with it. The whole "Keef" thing, I consider it basically an honor. You've got to be around for a while to become this sort of icon thing.

Speaking of that, you're going to be 70 this year. How the hell did that happen? Does that freak you out at all?
No, man, everybody should try it if they can get there. If I had a secret, I'd bottle it maybe. I just happen to be here. Just string it, and play it low.

But with the drugs and all, people will wonder how the hell you made it.
With the smack, I knew: "I've got to stop now, or I'm going to go in for hard time." The cocaine I quit because I fell on my head! Due to that – no more coke. Actually, my body tells me when to stop . . . the hard way. It's a knock on the head – OK. It's no big deal to me, to give things up.

Your book suggests you did heroin because it allowed you to work. I find it hard to believe heroin was part of your Protestant work ethic.
It was – either stay up or crash out or wake up. It was always to do something. Also, I've got to confess, I was very interested in what I could take and what I could do. I looked upon the body as a laboratory – I used to throw in this chemical and then that one to see what would happen; I was intrigued by that. What one would work against another; I've got a bit of alchemist in me that way. But all experiments must come to an end.

Has there been damage done?
I've never felt that it affected the way I played one way or another; if I stayed up I got a few more songs out of it. It's like Churchill said about alcohol, "Believe me – I've taken a lot more out of alcohol than it's ever taken out of me!" And I kind of feel the same way about the dope and stuff. I got something out of it. Might've pissed off a lot of people!

Now it's just a little weed, a little wine?
Yeah, exactly. I hate all this idea of rehab and giving stuff up because it just means you're hung up on it. It just means, "OK, I'm drinking too much – I'll cut down."

Ronnie Wood's been to a lot of rehabs.
Ronnie loves drama. He loves to talk to people he doesn't know. "I can't wait to hear your story!" That's not my idea of an audience.

So what's the current state of you and Mick?
Smooth.

You're in a détente period?
Smooth. Even. Definitely workable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be doing it. A lot of these things are blown way out of whack. What is the closest I can get to . . . it's like two very volatile brothers – when they clash, they really clash, but when it's over, it's over because we both know we need each other; we both enjoy working with each other. Ninety percent of the time it's as cool as can be, then, of course, the people only get to hear about the 10. And the 10 are pretty fierce.

Was the book part of that 10 percent?
That was my gentle letdown. I'd tell Mick, "You should've read the rest, pal! You should've read the blue pencil." But I didn't want to get into it.

Did he call you? Did he express his displeasure?
He was intentionally annoyed. But at the same time, I had sent him the proofs. There's nothing in there that ain't true. There might have been a few things in there that he didn't know about. . . . But I said, "Mick – you got the book, went straight to the index, and shot to M. . . . You went straight there, and you read that chapter, and you formed your whole opinion, and that was that. You didn't read the rest of the other great stuff in there. Because I know you, Mick, and you're a 'me-me-me.' '' And he is! There's no getting away from it. It took him a while to come around, you know – demanding apologies and all of this crap. I'd say, "Ehhhh, I'm sorry I upset you," you know?

That's a distinction. You didn't apologize for writing the book.
No, no way! If I withdrew one sentence, I would withdraw the whole book. At the same time, it didn't surprise me it upset him – but you know, who else is going to say it?

So are you and Mick in a place where you can play together, but not write together?
We could do that, too. It's not that we would seek each other out for fun or company – it's a different social thing going on, but we could absolutely get together and sit down and go, "Let's go in the back room," and then, "I've got this song, you've got this song . . . ," and I've always found working with Mick is like a joy, it's a real pleasure. It's outside of the realm of work is where we tend to disagree.

When you guys are thinking about gearing up the machine, who's the one who has to be convinced?
That's a hard one to call. Mick will want to be convinced, but at the same time, he's the one that really wants to do it, so then he's like, OK, convince me. Charlie's a little hesitant about things until it starts. Charlie likes to check out the rest of the band to see if we can cut it. Then once he's happy with that, then we'll know. So it sort of starts in weird little ways like that, and the only way to find out is like, "Why don't we all get together?" And then we'll know, which is what we did in April of last year, in New Jersey – everybody got together, and I don't know what other people's expectations were, but they were incredible rehearsals. I mean, the band just exploded. And from that moment, I knew that we had a thing going.

You played some dates in London with ex-bassist Bill Wyman, and ex-­guitarist Mick Taylor will make a few appearances on the North American tour. Is that tough? You were bitter when they left.
Yeah, I guess I mellowed! Until maybe 20-odd years ago it was, "Nobody left this band except in a coffin!" I'd just say, after 50 years in a band, anybody that is still alive, you're welcome to come back in and do your bit.

In your book you seem a bit vexed by Wyman – he was always a quiet guy but also an ­incorrigible ladies man.
They'll both hate me for saying this, but Bill Wyman is very much like Mick Jagger – especially in that respect. But with Bill, if my attitude seemed off to Bill, it's because he left! I was pissed off! I was like, "Where's the coffin?"

You weren't moving around the stage as much as you have in the past at last year's New York–area shows, but your playing has never been better. Is that accurate?
I wanted to concentrate on the playing. We obviously hadn't played onstage for a long time, and I did want to stay close to Charlie Watts, keep the band in tight. It wasn't from a physical point of view. I wanted to stay centered, I wanted to play well – with me, I never know! As long as I've got the band centered then I can play well.

After you fell out of the tree and had to have brain surgery, was there some ­apprehension that first time you picked the guitar back up?
I'm sure there was for millions of other people. I've fallen out of trees and worse before. It didn't really occur to me. The main thing of that was "Oh, yes, I have to give up some drinks." That's the only thing I remember about falling. You can't do that anymore because it will thin your blood. Anyway, I was looking to kick it.

Do you do anything to get in shape? Maybe a little yoga?
[Laughs] The answer is no. My workout is when I work with the guys. If I have a massage, it's from the old lady. I've never been the person to be like, "I need a ­massage," somebody who's like, "Oh, that's nice." I mean, I'm pretty limber! Mick is in fantastic shape; Charlie Watts is ­endlessly relentless. So from the physical point of view – it doesn't come into it. We're actually doing a longer show than we've ever done! I've felt no particular strain.

So you haven't gone vegan or ­macrobiotic?
No, we haven't gone that far. I eat basically bangers and mash in the morning, and a small tipple in the evening. I've given up all the hard stuff.

I've got to imagine your approach to child rearing was much different with your younger kids.
Well, yes, of course – a different wife, for starters!

Patti seems to be more of a rock than Anita was.
Marlon and Angela, you know, the kids from Anita – we were basically on the run. They had to grow up on the lam. Luckily, though . . . at the same time, you've got to say, "Hey, you've got your mom and your dad around" – all kinds of shit can happen, but as long as you know they're there, there's been no damage. Marlon's a great lad, he's given me three grandkids, and Angela's given me one. My present brood – thank God for Mrs. Patti Hansen, who has finally got her way and put me on the straight and narrow. I mean the proof is in the pudding: great kids.

What were you able to give Marlon? You were basically taking a 10-year-old on the road.
I gave him excitement! Knowledge of geography, a kind of street-wiseness that nobody else could get. He's basically on the road with me and a bunch of musicians, I mean Stevie Wonder – he used to hang with Stevie. So he grew up in a very unique way.

Even at the height of that kind of craziness, would you try to carve out 15 or 20 minutes of father-son time a day?
Oh, man, every day! I used to do that by giving him a task that involved us both: "Today, you're my roadie, grab my guitar" – make it a "we" thing; we've got to do this together. I did it that way. Like I said, a very unique upbringing, but at the same time, I don't know a straighter guy than Marlon!

So he's never come back at you: "Why did you make me? I could've been playing cricket, and you had me at the Riot House trying to shake you awake."
It was a unique upbringing, unique circumstances. There's no guidebook on how to bring up a kid when you're a junkie rock & roll star. You have to rely, as they say, on eventually saying, "You're my son, you know, we're family."

Were you ever worried about him?
I would've been if he'd given me cause to be, but he didn't. He was going to prep school on Long Island, and he turned around to me and said, "This is no good, Dad. I want to go to England and get some education." He made his own decision and off he went with his mom, and got himself an education. And I'm glad he made that decision, and I think he is, too, because, you know, he was hanging out with a lot of bums.

With your kids growing up with Patti in Connecticut, it's hard to imagine you at soccer games.
Oh, I've been to a few end-of-year concerts and school plays. I've done my daddy bit, big time. It's kind of new for me – ­graduations and stuff.

Do you enjoy it?
Yes, of course I enjoyed it. It was important to me because it was important to them.

You don't feel shackled by the chains of domesticity?
No! I'm the one that cooks breakfast. When I'm at home, I'm Daddy to the max.

When you're not working, what's your life like in Connecticut?
Depending on the weather, sit down and read a bit. There's always lots of incoming information to deal with. Patti and I without the kids – we're sort of still learning. The kids have gone from the nest, but they're only around the corner; most of the time they're all up at the house anyway. We have a lot of family, especially Patti, an enormous family. Ours is a tribe, not a family!

Do you play every day? I've talked to some musicians, and some of them are like, if I don't play for a day I feel a little withdrawal. Others are like, when I'm done with a tour I don't want to ever see the guitar again.
I'm somewhere in between. I don't feel that I have to do it. Mostly, I'm very selfish; I do it when I want to. If an idea for a song comes up, or if the guitar is just staring me in the face, and there's nothing else to do particularly, then we get together. But it has to want me, and I have to want it at the same time.

Do you sometimes wonder why you're still here?
I do. Sometimes it makes you wonder, "What they got in store for me?" Ha, ha! Have they got the really big drop?

If you had 90 days . . .
In jail?

No, if you had 90 days left, where would you go? Where is the place?
I'd go down to the tropics, to the Caribbean, either Jamaica or Parrot Cay. That's where I can loosen up and hang out, and I know people who don't give a shit who I am. Parrot Cay is a more controlled environment, and I basically go there because I've got grandkids, and I've got this little beach that's so shallow only an idiot could drown there. That's the reason I've been hanging there. But for me, Jamaica has been, and probably always will be my favorite hang.

I know you love dogs. Do you take your dogs on vacation?
Yeah, right now we've got two French bulldogs. My man Rasputin died just about a month ago – I picked him up in Russia and brought him back to become the czar of Connecticut – he went his natural way.

Did you grow up with a dog?
My mother hated animals. I always wanted one. We had a cat once that my mom put to sleep, so I pinned a note on her door: "Murderer." I had a pet mouse once. I've always wanted animals; there's something of a connection with them. I've always felt that it's very innocent and beautiful – there's a beautiful trust exhibited, with no other side to it.

Do you have a man cave at home?
Well, I have, but I keep shifting from room to room depending on where the action is! And I've got a library, and I go in. But I found the trouble with that is I was shutting myself up in there and not communicating. I would just get so into books and writing. Right now, I'm reading this terrible book, but I love it because it's 19th-century prose. It's called Great British Battles – ha, ha! It's boring as shit, but just the way it's written and their choice of words is fascinating, so I'm basically studying literature I suppose; I'm just finding a new way to see it, or an old way.

Do you see the band now as something kind of like Count Basie or Duke ­Ellington, where you'll just keep playing because this is what you do?
We love it, and even more important than that: They love it. You don't sell out Hyde Park in four minutes – that just happened – without knowing you have an audience. In a way, you feel an obligation. I don't get nervous. I don't feel like it's all on me, you know? I'm just there to sling some hash and everybody have a good time.

The Collected Keith

The riffs, vocals, and collaborations that make Keith Richards a legend.

The Rolling Stones: "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" 1965
The riff that tore a hole in the Sixties. "Satisfaction" gave the Stones their first number one in America and remains rock's greatest statement of horndog alienation. Keith woke up in the middle of the night, recorded the bare bones of the song, and went back to sleep, later waking to find it on the tape. Amazingly, he didn't like it much when the Stones recorded it. "I think Keith thought it was a bit basic," Mick Jagger later recalled.

The Rolling Stones: "Salt of the Earth" 1968
Keith's first recorded lead vocal can be heard on "Something Happened to Me Yesterday," from 1967's Between the Buttons. But the heartrending final track from Beggars Banquet is where he first showed how powerful his ragged singing could be. He also played its searing slide-guitar part because doomed, drug-addicted lead guitarist Brian Jones didn't make the session.

The Rolling Stones: "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" 1971
This seven-minute ­monster from Sticky ­Fingers may be the band's greatest guitar extravaganza. The boot-in-the-gut riff is one of Keith's fiercest. But "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" also shows how gracious he was about ceding the spotlight – the Latin-tinged jam that comes in at the 4:40 mark is a showcase for Jones' replacement, Mick Taylor, whose fluid lines coil around Keith's staccato snarls.

The Rolling Stones: "Happy" 1972
The third side of the Stones' 1972 double album Exile on Main St. kicks off with Keith's first hit as a singer. His guitar part is as bright as it is bruising, the lyrics are pure street-fighting bravado, and the vocals sound like he's shouting up the stairs from the devil's wine cellar.

The Rolling Stones: "Beast of Burden" 1978
One of his finest songwriting moments and an example of his ability to play slow and subtle while still serving up a classic riff. The elegant guitar work on the Stones' signature ballad is the perfect complement to the worn tenderness in Keith's lyrics, which intimately address the state he was in during the drug-wracked mid-Seventies.

The Rolling Stones: "Start Me Up" 1981
In the 1960s and early '70s, Keith was turning out historic riffs with unmatched regularity. But by 1980, he hadn't unleashed a stadium-rattler on par with "Jumpin' Jack Flash" in a while. "Start Me Up" almost didn't make it onto 1981's Tattoo You because Keith thought it was derivative. But thanks to the clarion smuttiness of his guitar intro, it became the band's biggest hit of the 1980s.

The Rolling Stones: "Too Rude" 1986
Keith's always been the Stones' R&B conscience, with a wide-ranging notion of the genre. This loose cover of a tune by reggae singer Half Pint from 1986's lackluster Dirty Work might not have made the cut on a top-shelf Stones record. But that's better for us: Keith and Ron Wood, assisted by Jimmy Cliff, sing this ode to a skeezing island girl like they just woke up on the beach after a long, spliffed-out night.

Tom Waits: "Big Black Mariah" 1985
A tireless collaborator, Keith has worked with everyone from George Jones to B.B. King. He clearly has a special affinity for Tom Waits' rattletrap eclecticism and lowbrow poetry (he's appeared on three of his albums). On this rumbling track from Rain Dogs, Keith lends shadowy blues accompaniment that's perfect for a noir moaner.

Keith Richards: "Take It So Hard" 1988
The Stones hit a low in the late-Eighties as Mick and Keith battled like angry spouses over the band's direction. But there was no lack of focus on Keith's 1988 solo debut, Talk Is Cheap, recorded with ace musicians such as drummer Steve Jordan and guitarist Waddy Wachtel (a.k.a. the X-Pensive Winos). With its Exile on Main St. swagger and happy-hour backing vocals, "Take It So Hard" nailed a bromantic drive he just wasn't getting from his regular gig.


 
13/06/2013 23:43. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Logia sionista B'naï B'rith

Detallada descripción de la mal conocida logia B'nai B'rith, que ocupa una de las posiciones más altas dentro del rastrero mundo de la masonería y es exclusiva para judíos. Esta logia es en realidad la cabeza de toda una red de organizaciones satélites que este completo artículo también trata.

Logia sionista B'naï B'rith

15 ago 10. La logia B'naï B'rith es una organización paralela a la masonería regular cuya afiliación está exclusivamente reservada a los ciudadanos de origen judío. Esta entidad, fundada en 1843, tiene su sede central en Washington (1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW), justo al lado de la Casa Blanca, proximidad que no es solamente física. Actualmente cuenta con algo más de 600.000 afiliados distribuídos por 47 países del globo, y en su cúspide se aglutina lo más selecto de la oligarquía judía mundial.

Al igual que la masonería regular, la B'naï B'rith se presenta como una organización filosófica y filantrópica dedicada a la consecución de los consabidos enunciados humanistas, y también al igual que la primera su labor fundamental se desarrolla en el campo de la influencia política y social. El hecho de que esta logia haya sido desde su creación el más eficiente puntal del movimiento sionista constituye una buena muestra de esa actividad.

La B'naï B'rith International cuenta con varias sociedades filiales, así como con una pléyade de organizaciones afines que se mueven en su órbita. Entre las primeras figuran las sociedades The Career and Counseling Services, The Klutznick Museum, responsable del mantenimiento de los archivos de la logia, The Hillels Foundations, dirigida a los medios estudiantiles, The B'naï B'rith Youth Organization, enfocada al campo cultural, The B'naï B'rith Women, que agrupa a las mujeres afiliadas a la Orden, y The Anti-Defamation League Jewish o Liga Antidifamatoria Judía, cuyo cometido oficial es la lucha contra el antisemitismo, aunque el real sea la lucha contra el antisionismo, lo que es algo muy distinto, como no pocos sionistas antisemitas deben saber muy bien. Y esto último no ha sido escrito a la ligera, sino con pleno conocimiento de una realidad sobradamente avalada por los hechos.

Aparte de la marginación social y de la discriminación racial que padecen los judíos sefarditas de Israel, existen multitud de manifestaciones realizadas por diversas figuras de la oligarquía ashkenazi que avalan con creces lo dicho con anterioridad. Actitudes y posturas especialmente deleznables si se tiene en cuenta que los judíos sefarditas son precisamente los genuinos hebreos semitas, en tanto que los judíos ashkenazim de origen europeo, que constituyen la casta dominante en aquel país, no pertenecen a ese tronco racial.

Por otro lado, han sido precisamente estos últimos los fundadores y principales promotores del sionismo moderno, cuyo carácter ultrarracista no puede sorprender viniendo de individuos que aplican a los sefarditas, esto es, a sus propios correligionarios, el calificativo despectivo de "negros". Entre tales manifestaciones,sin duda más elocuentes que cualquier otra explicación, figuran algunas especialmente significativas. Golda Meir, por ejemplo, no tuvo pudor en afirmar que "todo judío leal debe aprender el yiddish (lengua de los ashkenazim europeos), porque sin yiddish no hay judío".

Ben Gurion fue más explícito aún: "No queremos que los israelíes se levantinicen. Debemos luchar contra el espíritu levantino (esto es, semita) que corrompe a los hombres y a las sociedades" (Le Monde, 9-3-66; en parecidos términos se manifestó también M.Dayan en Le Monde de 30-4-66). Otro hebreo ilustre, Haïm Cohen, se refirió a la inspiración racial del Estado judío con estas palabras:"La amarga ironía de la suerte ha querido que las mismas tesis biológicas y racistas propagadas por los nazis sirvan de base para la definición oficial de la judaicidad en el seno del Estado de Israel".

La pertenecia a la logia B'naï B'rith no excluye el que sus miembros militen simultáneamente en otra logias masónicas, cosa frecuente por lo demás. De hecho, son numerosos los casos de miembros de dicha logia que han ostentado el grado de Gran Maestre en otras logias americanas o europeas adscritas al rito escocés. Sin embargo, la doble militancia en sentido contrario no es posible. Bien puede decirse por tanto que la logia B'naï B'rith constituye una Orden específica dentro de la masonería regular.

Algo parecido podría afirmarse en lo concerniente a los diversos organismos plutocrático-oligárquicos descritos a lo largo de estas páginas, y en el seno de los cuales los jerarcas de la B'naï B'rith forman un grupo particular. De tal modo que la influencia de la oligarquía judía en la vida pública no se articula exclusivamente a través de las estructuras específicas de dicha logia, sino también por medio de otros organismos que, como el CFR, cuentan entre sus filas con numerosos miembros adscritos a la misma. Son las pequeñas ventajas que proporciona el hecho de estar en varios sitios a la vez.

La logia B'naï B'rith constituye el núcleo central de una vasta red de sociedades afines que se mueven en su órbita y que confluyen en ella. Entre las más relevantes figuran el American Jewish Committee, el American Jewish Congress y la Conference of Presidents of Mayor American Jewish, que agrupa, a su vez, a unas cuarenta asociaciones judío- americanas. Mención aparte merecen el World Jewish Congress y el American Israel Public Affairs Committee, sin duda las más poderosos e influyentes sociedades de toda esa red.

El World Jewish Congress, o Congreso Judío Mundial, tiene su sede central en Nueva York, y cuenta con delegaciones en setenta países del mundo. Solamente en Estados Unidos su red organizativa aglutina a treinta y dos organizaciones anexas y publica siete diarios. Esta poderosa entidad está presidida en el presente por Edgar Bronfman, magnate del sector vitivinícola y de la industria cinematográfica. El trust Bronfman posee el 15% de la Time Warner y es accionista mayoritario de la MCA-Universal, la más importante productora cinematográfica y televisiva estadounidense del momento. Por otro lado, el consejero especial de Edgar Bronfman en la MCA es Michel Ovitz, miembro también del Congreso Judío Mundial y director de la Creative Artist Agency, primera agencia de contratación artística de Hollywood.

En cuanto al American Israel Public Affairs Committee, se trata de uno de los grupos de presión más poderosos y discretos de los Estados Unidos. Así lo reflejaba sin ambages en su número 407 (junio 1991) la revista L'Arche, órgano oficial del Frente Nacional Judío Unificado: "El American Israel Public Affairs Committee es un lobby extraordinariamente potente, literalmente capaz de destruir la carrera pública de cualquier político anti-israelí".

Conviene decir que este tipo de lenguaje directo y explícito sobre el tema tabú que ahora nos ocupa es prácticamente privativo de las publicaciones judías.

Estos son, a grandes rasgos, los más descollantes engranajes de una poderosa maquinaria cuya presencia en las altas esferas políticas estadounidenses veremos a continuación. Y una vez más, ante la imposibilidad material de efectuar un recorrido exhaustivo en el tiempo, lo más apropiado será ceñirse al momento presente. Centrándonos, pues, en la actual Admistración Clinton, he aquí un breve resumen de dicha presencia.

De los doce integrantes del Consejo Nacional de Seguridad, organismo sobre cuya importancia no será preciso extenderse, seis proceden de la oligarquía judía estadounidense:

Samuel Berger, vicepresidente del Consejo, Martin Indik, responsable del área de Oriente Medio, Don Steinberg, director del área africana, Richard Feinbert, al frente del departamento de Hispanoamérica, Stanley Ross, jefe del departamento de Asia, y Dan Schifte, director del departamento de Europa Occidental.

En los servicios de asistencia y asesoramiento a la Presidencia del gobierno figuran Abner Mikve, en calidad de Attorney (Fiscal) General, Ricky Seidman, como responsable de la agenda presidencial, Phil Leida, jefe adjunto del Estado Mayor, Robert Rubin, consejero de Economía, y David Heiser, director del servicio de Prensa.

En el Departamento de Estado la lista es numerosísima, pudiendo subrayarse los nombres de Peter Tarnoff, subsecretario de Estado, Lawrence Summers, Mans Kurtzer, Dennis Ross, Jehuda Mirski y Tom Miller.

Otros altos cargos dignos de mención son Rehm Emmanuel, consejero personal y eminencia gris de Clinton, Miky Kantor, ministro de Comercio, Robert Reich, ministro de Trabajo, Cotie Stuart Eizenstat, embajador ante la CEE, Louis French, director del FBI, Madeleine Albright, embajadora en la ONU, y Laura Tyson, al frente del Consejo Económico.

A la vista de esta realidad, y en su calidad de buen conocedor de los entresijos de la política estadounidense, éstos eran los comentarios vertidos sobre el particular por un destacado analista político en cierto medio informativo:

"Hace algunas semanas, el rabino de la sinagoga Adath Yisraël, de Washington, pronunciaba un sermón en el Centro Cultural y Político judío en el curso del cual celebró el hecho de que los judíos norteamericanos tomen parte en las decisiones políticas a todos los niveles de la Administración Clinton, señalando textualmente que los Estados Unidos no son un Gobierno de goim (no-judíos), sino una Administración donde los judíos participan enteramente en las decisiones políticas a todos los niveles".

Tras pasar revista al panorama político estadounidense y subrayar explícitamente la influencia en el mismo del lobby judío, el citado analista añadía: "La influencia sionista no sólo se manifiesta en el ámbito político.

También es considerable en los medios de comunicación, donde un gran número de responsables de programas televisivos, así como la mayor parte de los redactores jefes, corresponsales y comentaristas son judíos....La misma preeminencia se encuentra en las instituciones universitarias, en los centros de investigación, en los servicios de seguridad, en la industria cinematográfica y en los medios artísticos y literarios".

Naturalmente, todos estos comentarios no pueden ser más que infundios malintencionados de algún elemento fascistoide y antijudaico, como diría cualquier "bien-pensante" de pesebre al uso. En efecto, el autor de los mismos fue el analista hebreo Bar Yosef, colaborador del rotativo israelí Maariv, en cuyo número del 2-9-1994 apareció su artículo.

FUENTE: EL NUEVO ORDEN MUNDIAL GENESIS Y DESARROLLO DEL CAPITALISMO MODERNO (Martín Lozano)

26/04/2013 17:37. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Astrology....

Every year or so, another astronomer erupts into the mainstream media with a portentous announcement about how, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the astrological signs are no longer aligned with the actual constellations. Often the supposed 13th constellation, Ophiuchus, is also invoked as a further proof of how delusional astrologers are.

What it means, according to these experts, is that astrology is invalid. Most of the people who think they're Tauruses are actually Aries. Most Scorpios are really Libras. And so on.

That latest offering is from Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society. "When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces," he speculated, "it's really not in Pisces." His supposition hit the Internet recently, on Gawker (http://bit.ly/i1VxqE) and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://bit.ly/f7hWwW), among other places.

I understand that scientists like him would prefer not to lower themselves to the task of actually doing research about how astrology works. But if they're going to question its foundations, they should at least learn it well enough to know what they're talking about.

Here, briefly, is the lowdown on what certain astronomers are too lazy to find out for themselves.

The astrological signs are not defined by the constellations you see in the sky. In antiquity, when both astrological and astronomical thinking were based on insufficient data, the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then, due to the precession of the equinoxes.

Modern Western astrologers understand this perfectly. It 's irrelevant to their work because the information upon which they base their hypotheses does not involve a study of distant stars or constellations. Rather, their data have to do with the movements of the planets in our own solar system within a zone of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun.

The key demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes and solstices. At the Northern Hemisphere's vernal equinox, which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries. At the Northern Hemisphere's summer solstice, the sun enters into the sign of Cancer. The locations of the constellations are irrelevant; the "influence of the stars" isn't considered.

To reiterate: Western astrologers don't work with stars or constellations. Their focus is our solar system. They study the patterns of the planets and the moon as they pass through 12 zones defined by the relationship between the Earth and sun. Those zones have the same names as constellations because of a historical quirk, but they are unrelated to the constellations.

When Parke Kunkle triumphantly says, "There is no physical connection between constellations and personality traits," as if he has finally stamped out the delusions of us astrologers, he doesn't realize that we agree with him completely. We don't deal with constellations.

This is interesting to read, the history of astrology...a little bit long ... if you got time.
http://www.astrotheme.com/ files/history_of_astrology.php


14/01/2011 22:50. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Islam

I am a supporter of the EDL here in England. I have been to four demos. You can see my various accounts of the EDL in my website below.

This is a response to an article by Martin Smith of Unite Against Fascism, who violently oppose the EDL. Martin Smith is the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party.

http://islamthefarleftandmisc.blogspot.com/

Martin Smith, ‘The BNP and the EDL’, Socialist Review, March 2010,
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11183

Contents:
i) What’s wrong with football fans, Mr Smith?
ii) Martin Smith’s Account of the Stoke Demo
iii) The Far Left Loves the Far Right Really
iv) Racism?
v) Martin ‘Runs With Muslims’ Smith the Street Fighter
vi) Gramsci and Mr Smith
vii) Revolution?

What’s wrong with football fans, Mr Smith?

Citizen Smith doesn’t seem to like football supporters. They are too British for him. Too patriotic. Worst of all, they haven’t read Trotsky or even Lenin. Bastards! Martin Smith seems to find it hard to make a distinction between ‘football hooligans’ and ‘football fans’. Does Citizen Smith know that one out of every two British males is a football fan? Fancy being against so many people. Then again, this is Citizen Smith and the UAF/SWP we are talking about. If you’re not brown, or a student, or a Muslim, then they don’t have much time for you. The vast majority of British people just aren’t Marxist or Islamist enough for Citizen Smith. All we can do is laugh when Smith says, conspiratorially, that so-and-so ‘had already begun to build alliances with football supporters’. Shock horror! What next, alliances with, uh, working class white people? Never!

I love Smith’s little excursion into Marxist ‘class analysis’. Smith thinks that the media portrays EDL as ‘working class yobs’. He thinks that the media is wrong. Apparently, ‘many [EDL] come from “petty bourgeois” professions – the classic base of fascism’. Well, I never! I didn’t know that I was ‘petty bourgeois’ and the EDL members I have talked to are petty bourgeois. Doesn’t it show what a sad little train spotter Smith really is when he resurrects terms like ‘petty bourgeois’ from the dustbin of Communist and Trotskyist history. Anyone who uses these quaint little pseudo-technical terms must be a complete arse. These words are dead today. In any case, the SWP/UAF Alliance is full of middle class people. Alex Callinicos, of the Central Committee (yes, Central Committee) and a few others, are upper middle class. Actually, Callinicos is from an aristocratic background. But they are not ‘bourgeois’! Why is that? Because they are Marxists. A Marxist may be middle class, but he can’t be bourgeois. In fact no Marxist can be bourgeois, no matter how rich he is. How neat. And how tidy.

Yes, I too talk about class. Specifically the middle class and professional/student basis of the UAF/SWP Alliance. That is not because I’m against the middle class. I’m not. What I am against is middle class people who pretend they are not middle class. Or middle class people who speak out against what they call ‘the middle class’. As well as those Marxists middle-class SWP-ers who class right-wing middle class people as ‘bourgeois’ or ‘petty bourgeois’. It’s not the middle class I’m against. It’s middle class far-leftist hypocrites.

You see the EDL can’t win. If it were full of working class members it would be accused of being full of ‘yobs’. Now Smith is saying it is full of, or run by, the ‘petty bourgeois’. In any case, this petty-bourgeois fixation is simply a result of Smith and co. reading too many books about the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany and Italy in the 1920s and 30s. He is trying very hard indeed to fit the EDL and its actions into his own potted history of fascism – the things he has read about again and again in the vast and boring corpus of Marxist history and theory. But the cap doesn’t fit, Smith. This is Britain in the year 2010. It’s not Germany or Italy in the 1920s or 30s. The situations are completely different. The British have always despised Nazis and Trots equally. Extremism doesn’t sit that well in England, unlike in Europe. That’s why far right and Trot groups still do better on the Continent. That’s why the British hate the SWP and the far right.

In any case, what point is Smith actually making by stressing the ‘petty bourgeois’ fan base of the EDL? Is it really the simple point that historically the petty bourgeois were the backbone of the Nazi Party? Is that what he is getting at? Eddie Hitler was also an artist and a vegetarian. Perhaps some sociologist should do a study of the EDL and see how many artists or vegetarians there are.

Martin Smith become even more pathetic than, well, Martin Smith when, in hushed tones, he tells us that the ‘leading figures behind the Luton protest [were] a self-employed carpenter and another runs his own internet company’. Really! Now I’m definitely not going to vote for the EDL. I mean, carpenters – they’re all Nazis, especially Jesus! What the EDL should be full of, instead, are lecturers from the London School of Economics or from the Embrace Diversity Department at Staines University. Oh, and one STIOE member is an ’American student’! Which bit of that description don’t you like, Citizen Smith? It can’t be the ‘student’ part (the SWP is entirely made up of students, except for its ex-student leaders). So it must be the ‘American’ part.

Smith’s Account of the Stoke Demo

Citizen Smith is not very keen on either facts or the truth. Not if the facts and the truth get in the way of a good story or, more importantly, in the way of the Revolution or the leftist radicalisation of young British Muslims. He claims that the EDL, after the Stoke demo of 23rd January, ‘directed their anger on the Asian community, smashing up shops and attacking Asian people’. Everything is right about that account except for the facts. Firstly, within half an hour of the demo ending the city centre streets were more or less clear of EDL demonstrators. Secondly, which ‘Asian community’ is he talking about? There is no Asian community near the city centre of Stoke so how could EDL members ‘smash’ their shops? Finally, not a single riot van was overturned, unless it was overturned only in Smith’s head. I also doubt that a single Asian was ‘attacked’. I saw very few Asians in the city centre that day. I saw lots of black people. Some of them joined the EDL demo, I’m sorry to say, Mr Smith. And why not? The EDL has more in common with the average black person that the middle-class Trots who run the SWP/UAF Alliance.

What exactly does Smith mean by ‘anti-Muslim riot’ when there were no Muslims there to riot against? Or does this just sound good on paper? Perhaps it will give a few middle-class Trot/SWP students a sense of excitement and their first taste of a scrap.

The Far Left Loves the Far Right Really

If Smith uses the words ‘racist’, ‘thugs’, ‘Nazis’ enough times, he thinks he will be able to persuade all and sundry that the EDL really is full of racists, thugs and Nazis. Repeat a lie enough times and many people will believe it. I think some Nazi once said that. And Smith is himself a red fascist; so he should know… Oh, I forget. Socialist Worker recently argued that it was a big mistake to conflate the far right with the far left. Well, the SWP would say that, wouldn’t it? After all, it is far left. Not only that, but it justifies and defines itself almost exclusively by its opposition to the far right. What a nice little club the far right and far left belong to. They love each other really. They certainly need each other.

Racism?

Smith mentions the ‘terrifying rise in anti-Muslim racism since 9/11’. Apart from the fact that there has been no ‘terrifying’ rise in anti-Muslim attacks, what about the real rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain and Europe? You won’t hear much about that from Smith and his friends because many of them are anti-Semites. Oh, no, they are ‘anti-Zionists’. Their monomania and neurotic obsession with Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with the one thousand five hundred years of European anti-Semitism. It is a complete coincidence that Trots go to bed at night thinking about Israeli ‘crimes’ and the sad, sad Palestinians. They don’t worry that much about the plight of the southern Sudanese black Christians or animists, or the Kurds. No. It the behaviour of the Jews in Israel that really gets to them. After all, Israel is the ‘front line of America’.

Anyway. ‘Anti-Muslim racism’? What does that mean? That’s like, ‘anti-Tory homophobia’. It doesn’t even make sense. After all, people like Smith himself keep on telling us that Muslims don’t constitute a single race. That doesn’t matter to a Trot. As long as the phrase ‘ant-Muslim racism’ helps him recruit a few young naïve Muslims and a few naïve middle class students. He doesn’t really care how he recruits them. If lies, distortions, alliances with reactionaries (Muslims), etc. work, they he’ll do it. He will do anything to further the Revolution and increase militancy amongst young Muslims and non-Muslim students. Anything.

Martin ‘Runs With Muslims’ Smith the Street Fighter

Smith cleverly tells us about the ‘electoral and a street fighting wing’ of fascist organisations. Does that include red fascist organisations like the SWP and UAF? They certainly have a ‘street fighting wing’ and a nice wing (the good cops) which dupes members of the leading parties into joining the UAF.

The SWP can’t be electoral because it is against parliamentary democracy. However, that didn’t stop Smith from accusing the BNP of not believing in democracy and the vote. But that’s for far- right reasons, which are bad, not far-left reasons, which are good. Indeed Martin Smith himself is a street fighter. He is called ‘Martin “runs with Muslims” Smith’. There are photos of him running with Muslims, attacking two Birmingham shoppers, teasing a police dog, and haranguing a Birmingham shop keeper. He was also arrested for street fighting outside the BBC. In addition, he was reported to West Midland Police for attacking shoppers in Birmingham. So Smith is in favour of far-left street fighting, but against far-right street fighting. This is something everyone knows already.

Gramsci and Mr Smith

Smith mentions his hero, the ‘socialist’ Antonia Gramsci. Gramsci’s main thesis was simple. He knew that the revolution would not happen, at least not in the immediate future. So what to do? Gramsci suggested taking over, infiltrating and being entryists in important institutions, from the universities and colleges, to the media and even the church and police. The tactic was, basically, to take over these institutions and groups and make them ideologically communist or Trotskyist in nature. It has worked in the UK. The far left has ‘won the culture war, but lost the economic war’. But instead of out-and-out Trotskyism, which the British would never swallow, what we have instead is the Politically Correct Cultural Revolution. This is a nicer form of far leftism.

Martin Smith is the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party. He has heeded Gramsci’s words and he and the SWP have formed UAF. Smith also runs the Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) show. He is certainly doing his bit for Gramsci and the Revolution. Martin ‘runs with Muslims’ Smith has even created his own version of Mussolini’s squadre d’azione. You can see him in action in a few photos and videos. I think his boot boys are called ‘Red and Green Action’. The ‘red’ stands for ‘red fascism’ (Trotskyism) and the ‘green’ stand for ‘Islamofascism’. I bet Smith’s red ‘sword’ is nine inches long when folded in half!

Revolution?

Smith indulges in some classic Trotskyite scare-mongering. In one breath he tells us that ‘the BNP gained 17 percent’ of the vote in Barking in 2005. That’s only 17% in one constituency. From this meagre evidence he then tells us in the next breath that ‘the Nazis are making serious breakthroughs at the ballot box’. Apart from 17% not really being a ‘breakthrough’, this vote involved a lot of protest votes from the electorate. And why is that? Because people like Smith and the middle class professionals who run the UAF/SWP Alliance, and the universities and much of the media, gave up on the white working class years ago. Smith and his mates now ‘run with Muslims’. They embrace other kinds of diversity – any kind of diversity, as long as it is not the white working class. For example, Martin writes that EDL members ‘talked about the fear of losing their jobs or businesses’. He doesn’t show any compassion for their plight or even an analysis of why things are the way they are. The only thing that he concludes from this is that such people become attracted to ‘typical… fascist/ultra right wing nationalist movements’. This just shows us why some people are doing precisely that, Mr Smith. Because you don’t give a shit about anyone except middle class students and Muslims. That is, anyone who will be fodder for the Trot Revolution, which the working class refuse to be. And that’s why the SWP gave up on the working class. It just wasn’t into the Revolution. Never mind. Let’s try the Muslims and Islamists instead.

07/03/2010 17:36. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Oriana Fallaci on Moslem women

The Useless Sex
by Oriana Fallaci

Horizon Press 1964 pp. 26-32

Moslem women rarely walk alone along the street. Generally they walk in groups, with their children, and with the husband who keeps three paces ahead to make it clear that he is the master and she must follow him. There are times when even girls who are students, the most progressive girls, do not evade this ruling. You can see them coming out of high school, muffled up like nuns, and they are girls who know all about Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci, but if you come too close or try to photograph them, they'll suddenly huddle together in a group, lowering their heads as sheep do when they're afraid.

In a land which is struggling to convince women to take off their veils, explaining that they prevent the skin from breathing, carry infection, and enfeeble the sight, such anachronism is cruel. In the streets you might still happen to see cars with closed curtains: these are the cars of the richest Moslem women, for whom it is not enough to hide their head in purdah. Inside the houses, into which incidentally it is extremely difficult to gain admittance, you will very rarely set eyes on any women. At home they do not wear the veil, and if accidentally or on purpose you mistake the door and enter their quarters, you are met by a concert of shrillest screams. A friend of mine in Karachi who has employed a certain gardener for the last three years, tells me that she has never once seen his wife without her veil. 'I really think,' she says, 'that that woman has never been touched by a ray of sunshine.'

There's plenty of sun in the lands of Islam: a sun that is white, violent, blinding. But Moslem women never see it - their eyes are conditioned to gloom like the eyes of moles. From the darkness of the mother's womb they pass into the darkness of the father's house and from this to the darkness of the tomb. And in all this darkness nobody takes any notice of them. Asking a Moslem about his women is like asking him about a secret vice, and when one fine day I said to the editor of a Pakistani newspaper: 'I have come to ask you about the problem of Moslem women,' he became quite angry and answered: 'What problem? There isn't any problem of Moslem women.' Then. he handed me a sheaf of typescripts which were all about the dress of Moslem women, the jewels of Moslem women, the make-up of Moslem women, and about how they use coconut oil to give lustre to their hair, and how they use henna to stain the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet red, and how they use antimony mixed with rose water to colour their eyelashes. 'Here,' he said, 'you'll find everything about Moslem women.' Then I asked him what the percentage of illiteracy among Moslem women might be, and he replied angrily: 'Why should a woman have to learn reading and writing? And to whom would she need to write? The only person she could write to is her husband. If the husband is living with her, what would be the point of sending him a letter?'

A thousand and three hundred years have passed since Mohammed raised his voice in the scorching desert of Arabia, and although something new is now taking place among the women of Islam, the vast majority of his faithful followers continue to observe his laws as if time has stood still. It is true that in Tunisia President Bourguiba condemns to imprisonment any man who takes more than one wife and exhorts the young women to cast off their veils, but, as the weekly paper L'Action reports, 'the parents are ashamed of this'. It is quite true that at the American University in Beirut and at the Beirut College for Women the girls wear blue jeans, go water skiing and dance rock and roll, but, as Time Magazine reports, you are still likely to overhear a couple of male students make such remarks as: 'Would you ever marry a girl who had been to the cinema with another boy?' 'No, no I really don't think 1 would.' It is quite true that in Nigeria an eccentric woman called Zeinab Wali gives a weekly broadcast in the course of which she urges women to come out of their houses and get to know the trees, the mountains and the butterflies. But when the wife of a minister of Kaduna asked her husband's permission to go out and get to know, the trees, the mountains and the butterflies, the husband held a family council during which it was decided that she should be allowed out only after five in the evening - when there is still sufficient light to be able to see but when the sinful brilliance of the sun is turning to twilight. It is quite true that in Egypt there is an auxiliary force of women in the army, but Nasser still hasn't had the courage to abolish polygamy because, he well knows, the men would revolt against such a measure. If polygamy ceases it certainly won't be his doing; it will simply be because maintaining two wives is expensive.

Not even women of such authority as Princess Aisha in Morocco succeed in breaking down these laws that have been unchanged for, centuries. On one occasion in Tangiers I saw Aisha. She was defiantly attired in skirt and blouse, driving an open car, and the Moroccan women were wild with admiration. Some were hurling away their mantles, others were pressing round her at the risk of getting themselves run over, and a French journalist told me that this was nothing compared with what had happened a few years previously when, in a square in the Tangiers casbah, Aisha had climbed up on a platform and, dressed in a blue Lanvin outfit, had made, the following speech: 'I know well enough the wicked customs and prejudices that weigh down upon us; we must slough them off. Modern culture is calling us, and it is vital for the life of our nation that we should imitate 'our sisters in the West who are making a contribution to the progress of their countries.' However, the French journalist told me, next day Sidi Mohammed Tazi, mandate of Tangiers, had given orders that any Moroccan woman dressed in European clothes should be put under arrest: 'What is all right for a princess is not all right for other women. If our women start wearing Western clothes, before long they'll be drinking, then dancing, and then they'll be going down at night to sleep with men on the sea-shore:' When photographs appeared of Aisha in a swimsuit on the beach at Rabat, EI Glaoui of Marrakesh judged them outrageous and Aisha, with her jodhpurs, her brief tennis skirts and her Benny Goodman records, contributed not a little to the sultan's exile in Corsica and subsequently in Madagascar. When Aisha returned, acclaimed by thousands of women, the strongest among whom had refused for two 'years to surrender themselves to their husbands 'so that they should not give birth to children conceived in humiliation', she had to keep her speeches considerably more prudent. 'The emancipation of women,' she said, wearing a heavy mantle, 'should not be sudden like a surgical operation. The veil of itself has little importance. The important thing is that a woman should be free to choose whether to wear it or not.'

They are, therefore, the most unlucky women in the world, these women with the veil, and the paradox is that they often don't realise it because they don't know what goes on outside the sheet that imprisons them. They suffer and that's an end of the matter, like the Mother of the Departed I met one morning in Karachi. And they dare not even rebel.

I had gone, that morning, to speak with the Begum Tazeen Faridi who is head of the All Pakistan Women's Association in Karachi. Tazeen Faridi is a vivacious woman, with skin gold as honey, who likes to describe herself as 'a Moslem woman who doesn't wear the veil and possesses a surname'. She belongs to the limited number of women who count as somebody in this land, such as the Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, Ambassadress in Holland, and the Princess Abida Sultan, Ambassadress in Brazil. She has a husband who respects and admires her, an office prudently devoid of placards and posters, in front of which informed Moslems pass with the same grimace of disgust that teetotallers would reserve for a glass of whisky. The chief, aim of her life is the advancement of Moslem women: book of law and Koran in her hand, she fights like a wild cat against poly¬gamy, and is so modern-minded that some time ago she even tried to send a Miss Pakistan to the Miss Universe contest which is held in Long Beach. The story of this election is worth the telling: the daring maidens who agreed to take part in the con¬test paraded in swimsuits before twelve Moslem ladies and then in purdah before twelve Moslem gentlemen. What the Moslem gentlemen are supposed to have seen remains a mystery: purdah makes it impossible even to tell whether the wearer is fat or thin. However they placed their trust in Tazeen Faridi, who assured them that the favoured candidate hidden beneath the sheet was most beautiful and worthy to go to Long Beach. She never actually went, let us be clear about that. The Karachi Times revealed that the Begum had suppressed an important detail, namely that Miss Pakistan would not be parading in purdah at Long Beach but, on the contrary, in a swimsuit: the Begum barely escaped a lynching.

So there I was, talking with Tazeen Faridi in this little office full of useless manifestos, when this Mother of the Departed arrived. She came in looking suspiciously over her shoulder, as if she were afraid she was followed by a horde of religious fanatics intent on shaving her head, and her black burka didn't even have the little holes at eye level- how she managed to walk without tripping I do not know.

'Down with that rag,' said Tazeen Faridi. And because the woman drew back, hesitating, she snatched it off. I caught my breath at the dreadful stench that was released and stared. Be¬neath there was a woman of about forty, black and sweating, covered with jewels and bruises. The worst bruise was over her left eye, and one lip was swollen. She dabbed at her lip with a handkerchief and didn't dare to speak. Then, somehow, she managed to find her voice. And here, word for word, is what she said. I haven't altered so much as a comma in what Tazeen ,Faridi slowly told me, in English. And Tazeen is too honest to have invented anything.

'I was fourteen years old and he was thirty-two. My aunts and cousins told me that his nose had been eaten away by smallpox, but he was taking me for three thousand rupees and, ugly as I was, I couldn't expect anything better. They exchanged sweets and gifts, they signed the agreement and he took me to his house. He assigned a boy of thirteen to keep watch on me, but he always shut himself in the room with the boy and paid no attention to me. In the end he took me, but when the time came for me to give birth I was taken ill. My aunts and cousins looked for a lady doctor, but the lady doctor wasn't to be found. There was only a man doctor, but he didn't want me to take off my clothes in front of the doctor and my baby son died: I became the Mother of the Departed and he was kind because he didn't cast me out. However he took another wife, younger than me, and when her time came it was I who had to help her. He continued to keep me in the same manner as her and he used to give me the same jewels, exactly the same, but he used to beat me. The lady doctor came and she said I ought to have asked for a divorce. I said, "All right, but I haven't got any money for a lawsuit and anyway, what can a divorced woman do?" Then he saw another girl. She cost thirty thousand rupees because she's a beautiful girl so he wants to get back my three thousand rupees, but my aunts and cousins haven't got them any more. He also says he hasn't got enough money to keep three wives and then I'm old. So he said, "Talak, Talak, Talak", and repudiated me. The lady doctor told me to come here. I have come. But now where shal! I go, what shall I do?'
In the same way that doctors don't get upset about their patients' stomach aches, Tazeen Faridi showed no emotion at this tale and promised the woman that she would try to find a place for her in some institution or with some family that needed servants. Naturally the best thing would have been a widows' home, but then she wasn't a widow so there was no good hoping for that. Then she told her to leave, to come back if she was in need, and to me she explained that she had sent the woman away because in the Moslem world a woman cannot live alone, not even if she is working. If she does live alone it means she is a lost woman. 'This is the reason why there are no spinsters and why repudiation is the equivalent of civil death. According to the new law a woman can ask for a divorce, But, this means facing a lawsuit and along with the lawsuit the scandal. A man, on the other hand, can say 'Talak, Talak, Talak', without any lawsuit, and he becomes free as a chaffinch again. It isn't even necessary to give alimony. You understand?'

'No. I don't understand,' I answered. 'Is it really possible that these people never get fond of each other?'

'Sometimes,' said Tazeen Faridi, 'but they're ashamed to admit it,' rather as if it was a fault.

14/02/2010 21:37. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Iran's Nuclear Project

Fitzgerald: If Iran's Nuclear Project is to be attacked, who should do the attacking?

It seems likely that, in the next week, the Islamic Republic of Iran will meet whatever challenge is posed to it by those who wish to march and express their dissent and discontent. The Revolutionary Guards seem ready to repress the dissenters, whatever it takes, no matter how peaceful and justified those dissenters may be.

They will no doubt be suppressed with a cruelty and violence that the most sinister members of Savak, under the late Shah, could only envy but not dare to emulate. It is likely that all these hopes and dreams for the fall of the regime are seen to be merely projections of those used to the idea that Hollywood Endings are real, that not only does Good Always Triumph, but does so in time for you to leave the theatre and beat the implacable meter maid before she tickets you, or to be safely at home at a reasonable hour, or after the movie go out to dinner, or something else (it's your night out, you decide). That's not the way it happens. The Bolsheviks held a large part of the earth's land mass in thrall for more than seventy years, and that was without many True Believers left after the first few decades. But for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the True Believers are those who believe truly in Islam, and Iran has tens of millions of such people; the hold of Islam is far stronger, reinforced by practically everything in societies suffused with Islam, than Communism ever could have been.

And meanwhile, inexorably, implacably, as fast as it can, the same monstrous regime somehow manages to keep the loyalty of a sufficient number of its scientists to keep the nuclear project full steam ahead. The estimates range from a few months to a year, but no longer....any longer. It may be - who knows? - that the surprise planned for this Thursday might even be the testing of a nuclear weapon somewhere in the Iranian desert. In any case, no sanctions seem likely, no matter how draconian, to be sufficiently damaging. All it takes is for one spoiler, if that spoiler is named China, crossing the international picket line, to undo whatever sanctions the confused, pusillanimous, procrastinating, irresponsible Western world finally, at long last, places -- sanctions that, had they been in place two years ago, might have done the job in time. But now that seems so very unlikely.

But what if these are not merely ordinary sanctions but very special sanctions, the kind the newspapers and political figures like to describe as "crippling" sanctions? Doesn't that epithet give you a good feeling, a feeling that at long last something significant is being done? And you get that good feeling from mere invocation of a word, all because you want so much to believe deeply in the efficacy of those "crippling" sanctions. But when? When? Iran can keep receiving tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues, and furthermore, can smuggle in goods from all over the place, including the former Soviet republics, through Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan, and Iraq. Iran can also have goods flown in by the unstoppable Chinese, who don't care at all about "sanctions" as long as they can have access to oil, and who, furthermore, believe - rightly, I'm afraid - that the West is unwilling to do anything to punish China. (The best way to punish China is for everyone in the West to start boycotting Chinese goods, which deserve boycotting for all kinds of reasons anyway.)

This leaves two possibilities. One is that the West will simply accept the attainment and possession of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran. When one looks at the worry over Pakistan's nuclear armory (and the Pakistani generals are far less chiliastic, less crazily willing to sacrifice themselves and their country than the Twelver-Shi'as who run the Islamic Republic of Iran), and how that worry has forced the Americans to keep involved, and to keep plowing men and money, into Pakistan and Afghanistan, because of fears of what might happen "if those weapons fall into the wrong hands," one wonders how - having presumably learned the lesson of its own negligence in the case of A. Q. Khan and Pakistan - the American government would be moving heaven and earth, and earth-moving through bombs away if necessary, if nothing else works, to prevent another Muslim state from acquiring nuclear weapons. For we know that Iran is even more dangerous than Pakistan, and has sponsored terrorist acts as far away as Buenos Aires, and is closely allied with the most dangerous of current terrorist groups - not the Sunni Al Qaeda but the Shi'a Hizballah.

Perhaps, in the end, the Americans hope that Israel will attack, thus sparing the Administration the need to assume its responsibilities as a great power. When Israel attacked Saddam Hussein's Osiraq reactor, it set back by twenty years his nuclear plans, a service to the whole West. When Israel attacked a Syrian nuclear installation - an installation in which both North Korea and Iran were likely involved - this was also a service to the Lebanese, who are opposed to the power of Syria and its Hizballah ally, and Iran, and to the countries of NATO that surely would have been alarmed by Iran and North Korea establishing a nuclear-tipped succursale in Syria.

But circumstances now are different. Iran's nuclear project does not consist of one reactor or one plant. The many different plants that constitute that project are spread out, widely. And some of them have been built underground, protected by very thick walls themselves deep-delved. While Israel has asked for, it has apparently not received, those bombs called bunker busters that are in the American, but not the Israeli, armory.

There can be little doubt that pound for pound, the Israeli military may be the best in the world. But it is a military that is fielded by a country that is so tiny it is scarcely discernible on a world map. It has only a very few airfields. It has a handful of submarines. It has nothing like the long-range missiles or the thousands of aircraft, dispersed all over the world, that can come from every direction - and can certainly fly over Iraqi air space without asking for a by-your-leave. The Americans have airbases everywhere, and aircraft on ships right in the Gulf. They have bases too far away for the Iranians to retaliate against. In fact, whether Israel or the United States bombed the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear plants, retaliation would be directed almost certainly at Israel. And therefore the Israelis have to worry, and have to hold back, cannot attack as they might otherwise, because they do not know what Hizballah, with its tens of thousands of rockets now hidden all over Lebanon, even far from the border with Israel, will do. And the Israelis cannot know exactly what Hamas or for that matter Fatah will do, in case of Israeli preoccupation with Iran. Israel will be attacking Iran under worrisome conditions that surely must affect the thinking of the Israeli military.

Furthermore, while Israel is rightly alarmed, it is also clear that the Iranian nuclear project threatens the Arab states of the Gulf or, more exactly, threatens their ability to pump oil. That is why, right now, the Americans are sending missile batteries and other defensive equipment to those sheiklets, as well as to Saudi Arabia - not because these are our "allies" but because right now, for the moment, we do not wish to see the oil wells of the Gulf damaged. No doubt these oil states would love to have Iran and Israel damage each other. But the Western world has a stake, the American government has a stake, in there not being permanent damage done to how Iranians -- not those who support the Islamic Republic of Iran, but those who are Iranian nationalists, those who have always hated, or who have come to hate, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and furthermore, are more and more receptive to the idea that Islam itself - the "gift of the Arabs" - explains the political despotism, and the moral and intellectual collapse, that Iranians have had to endure. This doesn't mean that Iran will cease to be Muslim, but the more Iranians can come to view Islam - and many things in Iranian cultural history will support this idea - as a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and lose their taste for Islam, the better for Iranians, and for the entire non-Muslim world.

Under the Shah, there was some cooperation with Israel. Attention has been given to military cooperation, because they shared the same enemies. But there is another sort of cooperation, a civilisational cooperation. The most advanced Iranians, even those of Muslim background, often demonstrate their independence from Islam through their stance toward Israel, or rather, toward the Jews. They are keenly aware that in the pre-Islamic past of Iran, Jews were part of the national narrative, and the memories of certain connections between Persian kings and "the Jews" are not irrelevant today, in a part of the world that is history-haunted and where national narratives are important.

I don't think it accidental that Aziz Nafisi, when she was in Iran, chose to write her thesis on a topic that most Americans would find unusual: the American Michael Gold, who in the 1930s wrote "Without Money." Nor does it any longer surprise me to find Iranians abroad, who left when the Shah fell, or who have managed to get out subsequently, who seem interested in Israel, even exhibit a sympathetic understanding of it, in a way that no Arab Muslims - I'm not including apostates such as Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan or undeclared apostates such as Fouad Ajami - have. In a way, Israel is a token, a token of their break with the mind-forged manacles of Islam. Israel, then, is not only itself, but also a symbol - a symbol, among other things, that the Middle East does not belong to Islam, that there are peoples other than Muslims who were, and are, still here. I have sometimes wondered aloud at this site that, since the peoples of the Middle East appear to need, more than we in the West do, some identity, some name, to affix to themselves, then if they wish in Iran to jettison Islam, they are likely to do so not for the unclassifiable non-belief that is the choice of many of those who leave whatever religion they were born into in the non-Muslim West, but for another identity. And the obvious choice, in Iran, is Zoroastrianism. This doesn't mean people really have to believe it, but only that they have to decide to call themselves, out of an impulse not to be distinguished from Iranian nationalism, "Zoroastrians." Whenever I allude to this, I get emails of two distinctly different kinds from Iranians in Europe and America. Some say that I am off, that this could never happen, though they indicate that they wish it could. And others say that I am, in fact, on to something, and that they have heard of a renewed interest in Iran, among those disaffected, and unlikely to re-embrace Islam, with Zoroastrianism.

Where does Israel, or "the Jews" (seen as a Middle Eastern people, who once lived, in great numbers, in Persia, before those interlopers the Arabs arrived, and are part of the Persian pre-Islamic national narrative) fit in? Israel could be, for a resurrected Iran, an ally, not only in military matters, but more importantly, in cultural matters, in the matter of re-defining the Iranian national identity so that it no longer is overwhelmed by, or at least made coterminous with, Islam, as Khomeini and his epigones desired when they re-fashioned the country to their own dismal and soul-killing commandments. Just as in Egypt where Taha Hussein (Husain) in the 1920s envisioned what he called "Pharaonism" - that is, an emphasis on Egypt's pre-Islamic past and on Egypt as a country apart, one that did not consider Egyptians to be Arabs or part of the Arab world, but should emphasize its separate, Egyptian, and by implication not completely Islamic, identity. Whether Taha Hussein, the most impressive Egyptian thinker of the last century, will ultimately prevail, is unclear, though he deserves to be republished and his line of thought revived and made fashionable. But in Iran, the elements are there, and Israel is part of that pre-Islamic narrative.

It would be a pity if the Americans, by signaling that they will not themselves act against the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic, force Israel to conclude, reluctantly, that it must do so. Great powers should assume their responsibilities. The United States, for all of its follies and the incompetence of so many in public life, remains the leader of what, in the Cold War days, used to be called the Free World. In the age of permanent Jihad, the Free World should be called merely the Non-Muslim world, the world of all polities and peoples threatened by Islam and its adherents, conducting Jihad in many different ways. And as that leader, it should think about the future of Iran. That future, possibly involving a move away from Islam among at least its elite (and it is the elite who have to move first, and then to enact measures that will bring more of the primitive masses along with them), should usefully include a sympathetic understanding of Israel (and even nurture the belief in pre-Islamic Iran's help to ancient Israel).

There is a chance, in puncturing the nuclear balloon of the Islamic Republic of Iran, of so weakening it that it will fall -- to be replaced, one hopes, by those immunized against the siren-song of Islam. And there is a further chance (much greater if Israel is not the one who will have to do the imperfect puncturing) that, after all the dust settles and the Islamic Republic is gone for good, that the most farseeing Iranians (in exile and in Iran) can encourage friendship with Israel, as part of a long-term effort to move Iran away from the Camp of Islam and back to something like what those Iranians who composed the 1906 Constitution had in mind.

In deciding whether or not to act itself, the American government should think carefully about where, ideally, it would like Iran to be -- not next year, but ten years or twenty years from now (as we work furiously to diminish the value of Middle Eastern oil, and thus to deprive the worldwide Jihad of the Money Weapon. The American government should consider how, ideally, it wishes to pursue what it now must pursue: the weakening, everywhere, of the Camp of Islam. Israel could perform the immediate service to the entire West of attacking the Iranian nuclear project. But if it does so, it may not be as effective as an American effort would certainly be. And what is still more important, Israel might lose the chance, and the most advanced Iranians too might lose the chance, to re-establish some sort of connection between Israel and Iran that, in the end, would be of enormous benefit not only to both countries immediately involved, but also to the United States and to the entire non-Islamic world.

Something to think about.

11/02/2010 09:11. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

To all Muslims

To all Muslims who have even an ounce of sense left in you, will you just give up the ghost? Islam is awful. Its founder was a brutal, psychopathic and sexually disturbed individual. He has fraud written all over him. No gettin' around this. Islam's conception of the afterlife is so primitive and childlike that it invites contempt whenever it is revealed. It has no Golden Rule for all for which eternal shame should be leveled upon it. It's the ultimate in fostering Us v. Them discord. It has stupidities all through it, like the requirement in Sharia that at least four male witnesses must substantiate a woman's charge of rape or in the Koran that Alexander the Great lived to an old age (he died at 33). Muslims of the world, I say to you that you've been had. Big time. Still time to realize this. So, realize this.

01/02/2010 13:51. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Why Islam must be criticized

Why Islam must be criticized

What the West Needs to Understand About Islam
by Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with an axe and knife, entered Westergaard's house and tried to kill him.

This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here.

m6.jpeg

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It's interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it's not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and 'inflammatory actions' when it's already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such 'transgressions,' i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

1. Firstly: Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It's a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly: A great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad's life, are very disturbing and worrying. It's not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

a. Al-Quran:

This supposedly 'holy' book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

- O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

- Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

b. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

- He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So it's nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

WHY CRITICIZE ISLAM WHEN ISLAMISTS WILL REACT VIOLENTLY:

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn't it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just 'respect' everything than?

Secondly: It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly: One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma. The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

WHAT GOOD WILL COME OUT OF CRITICIZING ISLAM?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a minor yet subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these 'westernized and liberal' Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, formerly the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to "propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law."

Islam4UK; the caption in itself explains the agenda. The UK government recently banned the organization for its vitriolic rhetoric. This is indeed a 'great set back' for Anjem (pun intended). All he has to do is change the name of Islam 4 UK and come back to the forefront of Islamist propaganda machine to forward its message.

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain)." In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population; that will amount to ~ 20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So how can we meet this challenge?

Well, one strategy to confront such people and fanatics is the strategy of Political correctness (PC) , 'opening a constructive dialogue', 'better understanding of their problems', 'addressing underlying socio-economic issues' that fuel such feelings.
But such a strategy of PC and appeasement is utterly flawed, short sighted and doomed to fail. I will say a few things as to why it is so:

WHY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK:

This is perhaps the most important point of this whole article:

1. What the West must realize is that Islamists and Muslim fanatics are actually practicing and pious Muslims who follow the Quran and Sunnah and Muhammad. They have not hijacked Islam. They are simply following it to the letter. The above mentioned Quranic Surahs and a few tidbits of Muhammadan life is just a glimpse as to what Islam actually says about infidels and war. Thus, the strategy of PC, a 'constructive dialogue' etc; which assumes that there is something wrong with such people and their interpretation of Islam; in itself is illogical and fallacious.

The problem is Islam, Quran and Muhammad. People like Anjem Chaudary are but good Muslims. Tackle Islam and through that, tackle such Islamists.

2. These Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam and Quran. Nothing the west may do to appease these Islamists will work. Absolutely and literally nothing.

3. Dialogue is possible only where there is something to discuss. The West doesn't realize that there is absolutely nothing to discuss with Islamists and those who indulge in religious rhetoric. Such people follow Quran and Sunnah and according to those sources it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim to forward the message the Islam in what ever way and manner.

4. Also, what the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Although people like Anjem Chaudary are a fringe minority, to underestimate them will be disastrous. Even one good Islamic preacher and Islamist can sway, arguably, hundreds of moderate and westernized Muslims towards his/her Islamic ideology. It is an ideological war that such people are waging and they need to be taken very very seriously. The concept of tableegh or preaching Islam is central to Islamic dogma and such people have historically been very successful in swaying large number of westernized Muslims.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos. There is no other alternative. Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analyzed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

Ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system and in true democracy; criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

2. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

3. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

4. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done. Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

Comments and feedback is welcome at: arslanshaukat706@yahoo.com

Arslan Shaukat is an ex-Muslim residing in Britain.

30/01/2010 17:06. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The media

One needs to view the media like one views things in a mirror. Everything is in reverse. Over time one gets used to it. Like many, one learns early on how to function in front of it. you accept it as a reality and go about your business. It’s like shaving. You learn. and continue to do it in front of it. Tomorrow. get rid of the Mirror and experience the disconnect. It is a small example where the reality of what one is doing matches the reality of what is being done. the physical act of shaving doesn’t change but the way your mind views it does.

hopefully you won’t cut yourself learning the lesson

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/why-the-mainstream-media-never-tells-the-truth-about-jihad.html#comments

 

20/01/2010 14:11. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Muslims and Muhammad: The Impossible Task

Saturday, December 5, 2009
Muslims and Muhammad: The Impossible Task

I've reached the conclusion that Muslims face an impossible task. Simply put, their entire faith rests upon defending a man - Muhammad - who is indefensible.

Wafa Sultan expressed it best when she said, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."

It is impossible that a man in his mid-50's could engage in sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old child, possibly damaging her physically so that she never became pregnant, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could finance his religious and political community by robbing the trade caravans that passed through his area on their annual trips between Arabia and Syria, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could encourage his own son to divorce his wife so that he, the father, could marry her, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could lie to his wife to get her out of the house so that he could sleep with the slave girl he had given her as a gift, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could call other men to follow him, and then watch them die one after the other in the battles he instigated to build his empire while giving them promises of the sensual Paradise that awaited them, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could behead 800 Jewish men who had lived in his city for centuries for the simple reason they refused to accept him as their leader, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could trade the Jewish wives and daughters of the men he had just beheaded for weapons and horses, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could be so fearful of criticism that he would send a man at night to kill the mother of a nursing child because of the poems she had written against him, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could sentence a woman to death by having her limbs attached to camels that moved in opposite direction pulling her apart, then behead her and parade her severed head throuth Medina, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could torture a young Jewish tribal leader to death to obtain his money, and then "marry" his 17-year old widow the same night, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could allow his followers to have sex with their female slaves as well as their prisoners of war, whether or not they were married, and be a prophet of God.

For the past several months on Al-Hayat TV, Father Zakariya Boutros has been discussing the dozens of stories Muhammad "stole" from the Old and New Testaments, as well as from the Midrash and other ancient Jewish documents, and inserted into the Qur'an as revelations from Allah. Zakariya makes a clear distinction between "plagarism", which is the Arabic word "iqtibas", and "theft". He points out that Muhammad did not merely copy and paste stories from these documents into the Qur'an, but essentially changed their meanings in the Qur'an to indicate that he, Muhammad, was not merely similar to but essentially superior than the individuals such as Adam, Moses, and Abraham whose stories he stole.

For the first part of his 90-minute program Zakariya presents his evidence, and then opens the lines for people to call in. His live programs do not contain the 10-second delay to block out explicit language found in American programs such as the Larry King Show, which means the listener gets to hear exactly what the caller says. More than one call has a sequence similar to this:

Moderator: Our next caller is Abdul Rahman from Bahrain. Hello, Abdul Rahman.

Caller: You bastard, you son-of-a-bitch, you son of a whore, you MF'ing infidel...

Zakariya Boutros: Thank you, may God bless you and forgive you...

Very rarely do the callers actually challenge the information presented by Zakariya, because they cannot. No-one can.

16/12/2009 07:24. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

a comment

I have heard all these arguments before and while they are realistic given the nature of the U.S. government at this time, they are not valid.

Viet Nam was lost solely to two things, first, a terrible strategy on war prosecution that cost 50,000 U.S. lives. Secondly, the left ran an all out propaganda war.

At the end, the U.S. had won the fight, and won the war but failed to solidify the victory.

wars are ultimately won by making the enemy despair. That's it, (or wiping out every man, woman and child of the opposition, which is total despair) Hanoi didn't despair, they just waited for Cronkite to kill the will.

Viet Nam could have been far lest costly if the U.S. wasn't so squeamish about leveling N. Vietnam. You can't care about borders, you can't care about niceties and politics, you have to care about making the enemy despair. When all their hope is gone, you win.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are classic cases in point.

Afghanistan is no different, if you catch bad guys being aided by a village, you wipe out the village. You don't worry about borders and you certainly don't worry about waterboarding KSM.

War is evil, cruel, impersonal, and final. If you play it like a game you are going to lose. Nobody, but countries that have "progressives" worry about beating the crap out of the enemy to help your side. Treating people that want to kill you like
bad children is the definition of stupidity. It has nothing to do with "American values". "We are better than that" You are stupider than that. Niceties are for your guys, not the others. Ten minutes before you just shot 15 of his buddies in the back without blinking an eye and now you want to had him a Koran.

Had he had the honor of being in a Uniform, and fighting by rules, then by all means treat them with in the bounds. (Which still may include leaving him in a very cold room for a few hours while listening to a loud Springsteen. (Now that's torture)

This doesn't mean you don't make friends, you just can't be squeamish about your enemies. Germans who had been bombed into submission did not give the invading WWII troops much trouble even though those armies just killed their sons, fathers and families. In fact, many Germans had already despaired and wanted an end.

We cannot win in Afghanistan with wimpy, half-baked, half-assed policies. We need to go in there like we mean it.
So, the Mr. Miller's thoughts are realistic, just not valid.

 

Posted by: Redhawk  
Dec 14, 12:16 AM

Sadly, the author is correct – there is no way to win this war short of a total war that would inflict massive casualties on the civilian population in Taliban-controlled areas that could carry over into the tribal areas in Pakistan where the Taliban find refuge. But the stakes, such as our national survival, have never been at the level where this would ever be considered. As far as our national interest, maintaining a presence in that backward country does not seem like it should be high on our list of priorities. The non-Taliban Afghans do not have much will to fight their brethren; far less than did the south Vietnamese population against the north, so there is little hope that the non-Taliban Afghans could ever be an effective deterrent. One thing Vietnam taught us is that in a long, drawn-out war of attrition which this war will become, fought with PC-rules of engagement and with an administration whose heart is not really in it and only stays engaged for political reasons, we cannot win.

Posted by: Respublica  
Dec 14, 12:44 AM

I agree with Mr. Millers assessment on most points. However I must point out that Osama had been given official aid and coverage by the Taliban in charge of the Afghan government (the half baked theocratic mess that it was). That is enough to justify a Just War to smash the government to pieces and send the Taliban scurrying like the rats they are. However when we undertake the Utopian idea of Nation building it is pure folly. America is great and good because our Nation is great and good. Montesquieu said it best when he stated that a people get the government they deserve (not exact quote). The Afghani people at large do not understand concepts of Liberalism (using the classical sense of the word) and Freedom. Sure there are outstanding examples of individuals, but the average Afghani doesn't prize individualism and justice, it is still a very much tribal society. Nations shape their governments, not the other way around. The Germans and Japanese took to Liberal Democracy easily because they had known it for a whole century. It was ingrained, but at the time stifled, in their culture.

The most effective way to keep Afghanistan safe is to buck the constantly rumblings of the UN and pledge to knock down any government the Afghanis are forced to put up with if it threatens the safety and liberty of the people of these United States. Let the Taliban know that anytime they try and erect a state in Afghanistan, they will get have themselves get obliterated. The sheer effect of a siege every time will give Afghani's a reason to resist any encroachments upon them by Theocratic fundamentalists, if not for the sake of their survival. However, the willingness to do this rests in good minds prompted by good hearts, and sadly both are lacking in our congressmen and President. Our Republic will only survive with Statesmen, not the political, bureaucratic faceless mess we have now.

Posted by: azcIII  
Dec 14, 01:59 AM

bmatkin,
You certainly have valid points, but the whole point of Mr. Miller's article is that we aren't fighting the war like "we mean it". We haven't been for some time (due to internal politics, etc) and we won't in the future. So why sacrifice the lives of our finest and money we don't have to fight a war our "leaders" have no will to win?

I supported going into Afghanistan, and Iraq at the time, to neutralize any threat from the radical regimes. I don't support this notion of nation building we've taken up since WWII. As Mr. Miller points out, we bombed Germany and Japan into oblivion, then rebuilt on our terms. But in neither nation were we faced with a fanatical ideology like islam. Islam is a whole other ball-game and one we cannot reform. Only muslims can and they don't want to. Even reforming Afghanistan won't do much to solve the problem of islam. But destroying our already-fragile economy will certainly go a long way towards aiding their cause. In fact, several muslim leaders have talked about destroying America by dragging us into endless wars. I don't remember where I read it...maybe Robert Spencer's site?

Occupying Afghanistan for 20 years is a large part of the reason the USSR collapsed, and our finances are in worse shape right now than theirs were. We are in very serious danger of an economic collapse, and must immediately stop spending money we don't have and wasting scarce resources. I, for one, am not willing to see our economy collapse, citizens starving en masse, children/grandchildren consigned to de facto debtor's prison for life, possible civil war and possibly even worse to continue occupying a medieval country that cannot be reformed into a viable, stable modernized nation.

Posted by: Ron44  
Dec 14, 01:59 AM

I am not a military expert, but I would prefer to win this conflict and then get the heck out of there. However, this article by Mr. Miller makes a lot of sense.

I would be real curious to find out Mr. Miller's sentiments on the result of the Korean War. It seems to me that the people of South Korea have taken hold of many of the freedoms and benefits that a free Republic can offer. Is it at all possible that the people of Afghanistan can do the same... if opposing forces are dealt a mortal blow... acknowledging that the collateral damage will be horrific? Like all wars?

Posted by: epaminondas  
Dec 14, 02:43 AM

It was the Taliban which made the force projection of Al Qaeda POSSIBLE via the shield they afforded them. It was the Taliban who working with the ISI created the wahhabi lunatic asylum. And it is the Taliban and the Pushtun on both sides of the border who have a religious mission not with the american govt but with those who make that govt what it is. We make up our own laws, and therefore usurp god's rightful authority.

Like it or not the reality is that we do not have the 'luxury' of a Viet Cong and NVA which had no interest outside it's nation state's borders. Withdrawal CANNOT increase the security of our interests or the safety of our people.

We either KILL the Taliban, and create a situation in which the populace abandons them, or we lose THE GREATER WAR until the moment we grow tired of it all, and we employ the 20 minute solution. Or we fail to do even that and go the way of all other civilizations. I see no sign, certainly in the present govt of ANY ability to be FDR in that vein.

It's that simple. Mr. Miller while making some obvious points fails at the end to comprehend what has been percolating for 1500 years to one degree or another, and was made obvious to me when Barbara Walters interviewed Zia ul Haq and she questioned him about what he was going to do about democracy and human rights in Pakistan...and he asked her what in the world made her imagine that democracy was either the best or final form of govt the world would see.

Posted by: otisg1  
Dec 14, 03:17 AM

It is the real estate! ……….
The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda unfettered access for their training bases.
Sadam gave them the carcass of a Boeing jetliner to practice their moves on for 9/11 and subsequent operations.
Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, the Palestinians and A.Q. were allied enough in their wish to destroy America and Israel. I doubt that even they thought that they would have so much help from the inside.
The genius of the Rumsfeld/Bush Iraq strategy was to force Al-Qaeda into fighting a war on a battlefield of OUR choosing.
Flat, open and where we could use our considerable technological advantages (night vision etc) to kill off the A.Q. leadership. Isn’t it obvious the mountainous regions simply bring armies back to the Stone Age?
This also created the advantage of being geographically positioned to create a double envelopment for dealing with Iran. Look at a map. The strategy was simple and working: Drive A.Q. out of the mountains and the KILL them. The message to Iran was also simple: We can hammer you from two directions……..
The real tragedy is that the Democrats through their politicalization of our post 9/11 actions have destroyed most of the hard work our military accomplished.
The DNC’s creation of faux scandals (“torture” etc.) have simply advertised our weaknesses.
We will pay an enormous price for this in the very near future.
I can find nowhere in Sun Tzu or Clausewitz any mention of advertizing your plans to your opponents as being a wining strategy.
But, Of course Sun Tzu and Clausewitz never faced the military genius of a Messiah!

Posted by: cg  
Dec 14, 04:55 AM

Sad but true. However I would say that even if Congress stopped the war tomorrow and took the money to apply to the economy, it would be squandered. Instead of actually solving the economic crisis, which Congress has yet to do with the billions already spent, the money would go to some pet project like monitoring a duck pond out in the middle of nowhere. Also, when did Biden become a military expert? Did I miss his time as a General? Why do "politicians" feel the need to dictate how a war should be fought? Do they not pay military leaders for this? As Comander in Chief, Obama should rely on the expertise of the military leaders HE appointed to do their job without interference from novice Congressmen. Yet again our government is putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

Another sad fact is that Afghanistan is severely backwards. While many Afghanis would love the notion of real democracy, not the corrupt type practiced by Karzai, they are ruled by the whims of the Taliban and/or the tribal leaders. Leaders who still practice the arrangement of child brides. You can tell a lot about a society when young women would rather set themselves on fire than to be in an arranged marriage to their uncle who is 40 years older than them. Rampant inbreeding aside, there is no infrastructure to speak of. How do you enforce democracy in such a place? There is no industry besides the drug trade. The past attempts to introduce other crops into the economy has failed miserably. Of course Karzai's government refuses to crack down on drug trafficking especially since his brother has been running his own cartel.

These are just a few of the problems in Afghanistan that our Comander in Chief has to consider. While the military cannot combat all of these problems, it makes their job that much harder. Maybe it would be better to withdraw a large part of the military and let special operations do their thing. Then they could decimate the Taliban and al-Qa'ida enough that the remaining fighters would run away, like in Iraq. The American public would forget about the war in two seconds without a major force stationed there. If it weren't for Congress or the media bashing the military, the objection to the war would be relegated to San Francisco.

Maybe the American public should practice the land for time doctrine so commonly used by insurgents, wait until the next election in hope of electing a real Comander in Chief.

Posted by: cedarhill  
Dec 14, 05:21 AM

War is war. You either go for a win or you lose or you draw. The best with this Administration is a draw. What we're getting is just a long drawn out draw with a high likelihood of lose. That would be OK except for the lives lost. How does one morally justify the killing of our soldiers in this manner?

14/12/2009 14:39. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Afghanistan: The Senseless War

Afghanistan: The Senseless War
By Abraham H. Miller

With the impending escalation in Afghanistan, we have finally arrived, after decades, at a bipartisan foreign policy. Regrettably, it is the wrong consensus for the wrong policy.

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. There is no way to win in Afghanistan without a massive commitment of troops, a willingness to stay there nearly indefinitely, and the ability to pursue insurgents across Afghanistan's porous borders.

We have neither the military capacity nor the political will to do any of that. Indeed, we probably do not have the financial capability to do it.

What we can do is prolong the war and increase the misery of the Afghan people. As in Vietnam, this is now a war where domestic politics strongly influence military decisions. The president waits for months to make a decision on troop reinforcements. He sends fewer troops than the number requested. The escalation offends his base, so the president attempts to placate them with an arbitrary withdrawal date.

Caught in the escalating crossfire, Afghan civilians are going to have one motivation: survival. In Vietnam, villages often divided in two, one side going to the Viet Cong, one to the government, both sides looking out for the interests of the village and each other.

A withdrawal date tells the civilian population that the Taliban will be there long after we are gone. All the Taliban has to do is to follow the grand strategy of all insurgencies, buy time. The Taliban disappears into the sea of the civilian population. The Taliban hides and waits. It yields land for time. It fights selectively. It evaporates when outnumbered. It reduces its operations. It lingers to fight another day, when the Americans will be gone, when the poorly trained, corrupt, and easily infiltrated Afghan army will be the primary enemy.

Afghanistan's army needs nearly a quarter of a million troops to fight the insurgency, and by most estimates, it will be lucky to produce 140,000. The fighting age population in third world countries is not sufficiently healthy to produce as high a proportion of troops as first world countries take for granted. And because insurgents generally choose the time and place of engagements, they need fewer troops and require a lower support to combat ratio. By traditional gauges, a traditional army must outnumber an insurgency by twelve to fifteen to one.

Certainly, we will have military victories. In Vietnam, we never lost a major military engagement. During the Tet Offensive, we wiped out the fighting capacity of the Viet Cong, inflicting one of the worst military defeats on an enemy in the history of combat. The Viet Cong was replaced by the regular army of North Vietnam, and the war shifted to a conventional war. But we were incapable of creating a legitimate, widely- supported government. So, even Tet was a pyrrhic victory, and then, of course, our media turned it into a defeat, a turning point in the war created by definition.

Our very presence as foreigners, in Vietnam, propping up a regime, raised questions of the regime's legitimacy, as it now does in Afghanistan. We make much of elections in Afghanistan, but the proportion voting in many provinces was negligible, as was the integrity of the election process itself.

The reality of Afghanistan is that it is not a necessary war. The Taliban did not orchestrate the events of 09/11. Osama bin Laden did, and he is most likely in Pakistan, moving back and forth across the border, safely hidden in the tribal areas. If we seriously want to defeat the Taliban, we must escalate the war, commit to staying there, and change the rules of engagement regarding civilian casualties. And then what? We will have so alienated the population that they will produce another insurgency, one sustained by Islamists across the world who cannot countenance the presence of infidels on Muslim soil.

If we are concerned about our own security, then we might want to look at the Islamist training bases on American soil, the probes by terrorists of our air safety, and the vulnerabilities this administration has created by redefining terrorism as a criminal justice issue.

American security doctrine has always used World War II as the paradigm to justify the projection of power. What we have forgotten is that in World War II we bombed our enemies into oblivion and then rebuilt their societies on our terms. We do not have the legitimacy or the moral justification to follow that model in Afghanistan. We certainly do not have the political will.

There is nothing patriotic about sending our young men and women to die in a war that will be fought in the absence of compelling military considerations, a war without resolution, a war where success eludes definition, and a war where the enemy and civilian population already know when we will be gone.

Bring the troops home. There is much to do here to promote our own security, beginning with not further debasing our economic strength by spending money on needless wars.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.

14/12/2009 14:22. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part III

We are all waiting for someone, a sensible Republican or a sensible Democrat, who recognizes that the best argument for staunching the flow in Afghanistan depends on recognizing the threat of Islam. Obama put himself into a box of his own making. When he gave his Cairo speech, he uttered such untruths about Islam that he could not get out. He saw Bush, and raised him. Raised him, in fact, that the argument that might have been available to Obama, who is clearly so terrified of appearing to be weak in the "war on terror" that he is wiling to go along, despite his long-standing but confused reservations, with those who want to send more troops.

He is willing, that is, to sacrifice another few thousand lives, and another one or two hundred billion dollars, because he cannot go back on what he has said. He cannot begin to recognize that throughout the American government, and among those whom those in the government claim to protect and instruct, there has been an effort to obscure the truth about Islam and the history of Islamic conquests over the past 1350 years. What, after all, could one learn from John Esposito or his "Al-Waleed Center"? What, for that matter, could one learn at Columbia, from Joseph Massad or Rashid Khalidi or Hamid Dabashi? What could one learn from a few dozen other major universities, where the teaching of Islam is firmly in the hands of Muslims or of non-Muslims who have shown themselves eager to act not as scholars and teachers, but as apologists of Islam? (For a little more, google "MESA Nostra").

By being easy on Islam, Obama now must be extra "tough" in the misleadingly-named " war on terror." And the so-called "conservatives," who back in 2003 locked themselves into a policy of unthinking loyalty to the Bush Administration's naïve campaign to "bring freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, and then to do something of the sort in Afghanistan as well, are also in a box of their own making. And the only people who are not in some kind of box are those of us - you, dear reader, and I - who began by ignoring the repetition of pieties about Islam and instead chose to find out something about the ideology of Islam and the history of Islamic conquest, and to see if the observable behavior of Muslims around the world today appeared to reflect that ideology of Islam, and that history, or if it did not.

And tiens, it turned out that a knowledge of the texts, tenets, history of Islam gave one the ability to make sense of events around the world, and not merely to make sense of what had occurred, but to accurately predict what would happen. As we have, here, with Iraq, ever since calling for a withdrawal from that country at the end of February 2004, and with Afghanistan - where it seems we are to go in deeper because Obama doesn't want to reconsider what he said at Cairo, doesn't want to think too clearly, or to prepare himself too well, on the subject of Islam. And his opponents on the other side think Iraq is a "success" and that somehow our goals improve our position, when our position could only be improved, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, if the end result is a dividing and demoralizing of the Camp of Islam, by ceasing to prevent those countries from going to their natural hell.

What could be done with 1% of what is going to be wasted in Afghanistan? I don't mean what could be done for medical care, road repairs, teacher training, and so on. No, I mean what could be done to more cleverly defend the interests of the imperiled West, and of all Infidels, everywhere?

Well, here's just one thing. We could recognize the need for propaganda. Not the Bush Administration "propaganda" where Karen Hughes was talking non-stop about how wonderful it was for Muslims in America, what success stories they were, and how we had no problems with Islam at all. No, we get quite enough of that, and we certainly don't need more. It does nothing to protect our interests, and instead of weakening the hold of Islam on Muslims, makes them think that they are on the side that will inevitably grow stronger, and win.

11/12/2009 23:27. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part II

People of sense are dismayed. It is one thing to have someone in public life, anyone at all, at least present, sensibly and soberly, the facts about the ideology of Islam, and about the major theatre of the Jihad, which is not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, but in the countries of Western Europe. We’ve all been so busy creating a new America. That new America is now run by people who did not, as did an older political elite, travel to Europe and learn - really learn, not merely take a few courses in - the languages of Europe. They were at home with, if not everyone in Europe, at least with some in England or in France, who might have made a kind of grand tour of the Italian museums, who might be aware that whatever happened, America remained -- in its language, its literature, its art, its science, its political theory -- a child of Europe. And that did not change, could not change, no matter what changes in demography occurred because, say, of the changes in immigration laws passed too unthinkingly back in 1965.

The war in Afghanistan is based on a notion that because Al Qaeda was located there when the attacks of 9/11/2001 took place, that somehow Afghanistan retains pride of place, that without it Al Qaeda cannot exist, that it is the main refuge of "violent extremists" who apparently "just happen" to be Muslim.

The other day I heard Andrew Bacevich make a telling remark. He noted that this fixation on Afghanistan was akin to Americans thinking that in order to prevent assassination attempts on American presidents, that the School Book Depository in Dallas would till the end of time have to be massively guarded. It makes no sense. Where, after all, have the terrorists been who attacked the London Underground and busses, or the metro station at Atocha in Madrid, or who have been responsible for thousands of terrorist attacks (see Fort Hood, just a few weeks ago) all over the Western world? It’s absurd that Afghanistan should be made so much of. Let it slip back into the tribal society it was, where people enjoy making war on one another. If the Three-Cups-of-Tea Mortensen, if Sarah Chayes and her projects for women, can somehow continue, let them, but don’t make the mistake of holding onto Afghanistan at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, to make sure that Mortensen and Chayes and others feel good about "giving hope" to the people of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan are held back by Islam. If one were sincerely interested in their welfare, one would be cruel only to be kind, and realize that the best way to decrease the fatal hold of Islam on the minds of men is to allow things to degenerate, to longer try to improve things, no longer to try to prevent internecine warfare, no longer to try to rescue this or that Muslim society from the violence and aggression that are natural to peoples raised on the texts and tenets of Islam (some more so, and some less).

Afghanistan had a kind of brief period, under the Afghan King in the 1930s who so admired Ataturk, and as long as everyone stayed away, and Afghanistan remained a state in name only, with the writ of the King hardly extending beyond a few cities, things were semi-okay. The disruptions brought about by the Soviets, and by the Arabs who came in to fight the Soviets, have unsettled Afghanistan. We can’t and shouldn’t try to settle it. We are Infidels, and are incapable of doing so.

Those who now will tell us "but the surge worked in Iraq" don’t realize that it did not work, or rather, it worked only in the sense that Sunni Arab tribesmen in Anbar Province, who for good reasons of their own wanted to settle scores first (before moving on to the Shi’a in Bahgdad and the south) with members of Al-Qaeda, were happy to receive American money and American weapons, and to fight Al Qaeda. But that had nothing to do with being willing to accept the new dispensation in Iraq, nothing to do with accepting rule by the Shi’a Arabs, or domination, in northern Iraq, by the non-Arab Kurds (even if most of them are Sunni).

The constant repetition of this phrase "the surge worked" misreads that situation. Iraq will inevitably relapse into some kind of hostilities, based on ethnic and sectarian tensions that will not go away, that were not created by the Americans but have a long history. It is not the Americans who made the Sunnis despise the Shi’a, and also now to fear them, as possibly being successful in efforts to convert Sunnis (this at least is a fear expressed by Sunni political and media figures in Egypt and Jordan). It is not the Americans who caused Arab Muslims to treat with contumely the non-Arab Kurds, and to acquiesce or even support the mass-murdering of Kurds by Saddam Hussein - and the Kurds are not going to give up the autonomy, in the north, that they have enjoyed for almost twenty years, ever since 1991, when the Americans kept the skies over Kurdistan free from Saddam’s Arab air force.

11/12/2009 23:21. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part I

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part I

I’ve been listening to various discussions, on the radio, or rather not discussions but exchanges of firmly held non-negotiable views, about Obama and his speech on Afghanistan. No one seems fully satisfied. Those who support Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops mostly dislike the announced pull-out of all American troops from Afghanistan after eighteen months, though since the speech was delivered, that promise has been glossed by Secretary Gates and others. Admiral Mullen, for example, on CBS News, said this: "It’s very clear that the president has given us guidance that in July of 2011, we’ll start to transition security responsibility to the Afghan national security forces," Mullen told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith. "There’s no determination of how long that will take... There’s no specific guidance with respect to how many. It could be very few, it could be a large number."

So all those worries about a definite date when the American troops absolutely, positively have to be out, that "date certain" (lots of people love saying that phrase - to them it sounds so Covington-and-Burlingish), are perhaps not necessary. For those who think the Afghan game worth the American candle, and judging by Mullen, Gates and others, the gloss to be put on Obama’s phrases admits of such flexibility about the phrase that not even W. C. Fields should bother his pretty little head and spend time "looking for loopholes." The "loopholes," Gates and Mullen assure us, are already there.

And then there are those who have had the opposite reaction, who are made furious by Obama’s decision. Many of these are his original, true-blue supporters. What do they talk about? They talk mainly about money. They are horrified - rightly - that another one or two hundred billion dollars is going to be spent in Afghanistan. They are well aware of what that money could do. Why, just 0 million of it would restore the cuts in Medicare that the Senate approved the other day. There would be no debate, there would not have to be any debate, about health care if the sums squandered in Afghanistan and Iraq had been kept at home. Nor would there be a problem with paying for road and bridge repairs all over the country, for tuition assistance for practically everyone, for energy projects. Oh, they have a point all right, those who talk about the money.

But they would be in a stronger position if one did not suspect that many of them also, at the same time, have no great interest in resisting, or even in recognizing, the Jihad. No one I have listened to who is against continuing the effort in Afghanistan has suggested all the other, much less expensive, more effective ways, to divide and demoralize the enemy, and to weaken the hold that the ideology of Islam has on its adherents. No one, in fact, mentions Islam at all, mentions the ways in which both the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to the instruments of Jihad that really count, above all in the historic heart of the West, Europe. No one mentions the Money Weapon, and how it makes no sense to keep spending money - any money at all -- on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. No one mentions the need, if indeed one were to believe (no one should) that "jobs" would lessen the recruitment rate for the Taliban - for Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., and other fabulously rich Arab sheikdoms to be contributing billions and tens of billions to those states. For it was they who funded, they who diplomatically recognized, they who gave every assistance, through institutions and individuals, to the Taliban, and then the Taliban gave succor and refuge and aid to Al Qaeda.

So on the one hand, there are the Republican loyalists, the people who still implicitly must think (do they think?) that Muslims are essentially swell, that Islam itself is not a problem, that only some "violent extremists" are the problem -- though no one, ever, has come up with a single text, a single passage, that those "violent extremists" rely on that is not from the Qur’an, Hadith, or from the example furnished by Muhammad in the Sira. No one has dared to define the ideology of "violent extremists" that somehow is supposed to set them apart from the ideology of Islam itself. And of course they can’t. What they could do is instead ask themselves another question: in what ways do those who are not "violent extremists" manage to pursue the same goal, using slyer methods, especially in the Western world? And what are those instruments of Jihad - the very same Jihad, with the very same goals, but pursued through qitaal, or combat, and terrorism, by those "violent extremists" whom we all agree are very bad? If the ultimate goals are the same, shouldn’t we look to see not only how to diminish terrorism, but to deal with all the other weapons of Jihad - the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa, demographic conquest? This is something about which the Republican Senators and Congressmen are silent. They think they can continue to claim to be "tough-minded" by supporting troops, and more troops - that is, by supporting the squandering of men, money, materiel, and morale, both civilian and political. And they are opposed by people who won’t discuss Islam, as an ideology, at all, but will only talk about all the money that could be spent on other things.

11/12/2009 23:17. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Regarding the subject of moderate Muslims

Regarding the subject of moderate Muslims:

We have some mistaken ideas about these terms 'moderate' and 'extremist'. I think that most of the J.W readership know by now that it is entirely inaccurate to think of the extremists as being extremist or radical. They are not extreme, they are following the pure core teachings of islam and its commandment to jihad. So-called 'radical' or 'extremist' Islam is more correctly nothing more than traditional Islam, a return to the doctrine of jihad documented in Islamic scripture and history.

The jihadis claim to be more devout in their faith than the so-called moderates and, indeed, regard the moderates as non-practising Muslims. Anjem Chaudry, our vey own Islamic supremacist par excellence, tells us there are three types of Muslim - those in jail, those on their way to jail and those who are not practising. So to the jihadis, the great mass of peaceful muslims are relevant only as a source of recruits for warfare. From this large population, all of whom have received their basic Islamic indoctrination in the mosques and madrassas, the jihadis can identify those men and women who are more religiously minded. All it takes is for them to feed an extra dose of Islamic doctrine to these individuals in order to create more jihadis. In other words, it doesn't matter that the large Muslim communities in our countries are peaceful, it is the very presence of these docile masses that threatens our lives and our way of life, because it is from this pool of humanity that the jihadis draw their soldiers.

I have no doubt that most Muslims are indeed peaceful, but I wouldn't be the first to point out that the populations of communist Russia and China also lived perfectly peacefully, yet these states were responsible for the deaths of many millions. The peaceful majority were irrelevant and in no way deflected or restrained the evils carried out in their name. In the same way, the Muslim so-called moderates also render themselves irrelevant because of their silence.

We must not make the mistake of taking the so-called moderates as being politically moderate, as we would understand that to mean, in terms of holding politically moderate views. In Muslim terms these moderates are merely quiescent, passive followers of the same hostile political/religious doctrine which drives their more militant co-religionists. Surveys show that the vast majority of these moderates would still like to convert our countries to Islam and enact Sharia law.

Things are actually much simpler than they may seem, if we just sharpen up our way of thinking. It is more accurate to think of 'extremists' as 'active' and 'moderates' as merely 'inactive' but we must be mindful that we have no way of knowing, or reliably predicting when an inactive may choose to become active. Because of this dynamic, we have no choice but to view all Muslims as potentially dangerous. Indeed, not to do so would be irresponsible and dangerous. This is not our choice, it is not our doing, the responsibility lies with them. We are merely looking at the problem objectively and defending ourselves appropriately.

Rather than regard Islam as a religion, we should see it for what it really is, a hostile political movement dedicated to the overthrow of our society and Muslims are either active or inactive within that political movement. If they are active, they must be neutralised and destroyed. If they are inactive, they are simply irrelevant. But the assertion that most muslims are peaceful does nothing to safeguard our security and is certainly no reassurance that we are in any way safe.

In support of your argument it should be noted that the Muslim female who proclaimed herself so insulted and offended by hearing a few home truths rationally stated by those Christian hotel-keepers in the UK, was not a born-and-bred-in-the-sandbox Muslim of Arab or Indian or Persian or north/ northeast African or Malay ethnicity, not a Fatima or an Aisha, but...*Ericka* Tazi, an ethnically-European, formerly-Catholic recent *convert* to Islam.

She is referred to in the article Mrs J linked, as "Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim 18 months ago".

More details about Mrs Tazi's conversion/ cult initiation:

"The former Roman Catholic from Warrington, who converted to Islam last year, gave evidence after swearing an oath to Allah and kissing the Koran.
She wore a hijab and ankle-length gown in court similar to the outfit she was wearing on the day of the alleged confrontation.
She told the court she had worn Western clothes until the final day of her course {presumably, 'course' = 'indoctrination into Islam' - dda}."

So: what does this newly-minted Muslimah do? Goes right off and starts picking quarrels, playing the victim, acting offended and waging lawfare; in other words, behaving like...a pious Muslim. Her Mohammedan programming is installed and operating.

(We had a similar case in Australia: a woman of Maltese Catholic birth and upbringing, having converted to Islam, produced a quintessentially Muslim howl of discrimination and spew of exaggerated accusations - including the hysterical claim that she felt 'raped' - when a bus driver very properly, as a matter of public security policy, asked her to remove her yashmak before getting on board his bus). And for others, google 'Jihad Sheilas'.

Since new converts to any ideology are often its most enthusiastic exponents - and have often taken more trouble to find out about its basic tenets than those merely born into it - then the antisocial behaviour of so many new converts to Islam, whether it involves plotting jihad or engaging in false/ exaggerated claims of victimhood for purposes of lawfare, is very, very telling.

New converts to Judaism, Buddhism or Christianity don't normally become violent.

New converts to Islam, on the other hand...

 

Thanks for the reply. Your points regarding new converts are well taken.

As Jihad warfare proceeds against us at all levels within society, including lawfare (Ha! A lovely term) in the case of Mrs Tazi, and press propaganda in the case of your Australian yashmak-martyr, the poor dear, then by my own categorisation both these ladies have gone straight onto the active list.

I have no doubt the ideologists of the jihad would heartily approve of their actions too, because as we know, even if Mrs Tazi's case is laughed out of court and even if all rational Aussies view the de-yashmaked bus passenger's behaviour as hypersensitive borderline nutjob, the real agenda is to foster a fear of, and therefore unwillingness to challenge Muslim behaviours. It's a mind game, but it's by these tiny increments that the jihad against us is advanced.

I feel there's an important lesson for us here. Warfare being waged against us on a cultural level, such as through images and words or through the courts or by demands for preferential treatment is a war of nerves, but being aware of the various different tactics being used against us can only strengthen us. They may mount their attacks at every level of our society, but if we are aware of their true goals, and the methods they employ to achieve them, then the task of opposing them becomes far, far easier.

10/12/2009 12:07. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

"Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff,"

Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff," by S.M. Steinitz for profil (Austria's equivalent to "Time" magazine and "Der Spiegel"):

"I Am Against Dialogue"

A criminal complaint is being filed against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for "hate speech" under Austrian law, essentially the same thing that Susanne Winter was convicted of early this year.

Elisabeth gave a presentation about Islam at an FPÖ-organized seminar, and said some of the usual things that anti-jihad advocates say when they talk about Islam. A left-wing magazine, which had planted someone in the audience, caused charges to be brought against her at the same time as they publicized it in their magazine.

Elisabeth held the controversial Islam Seminar at the FPÖ-political academy. Charges of defamation of a religious group have been filed against the daughter of a diplomat. This is her only interview in which she explains her views.

Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, are you afraid of Muslims?

No, I am afraid of political Islam, which is massively gaining influence in Europe. That is what I am against.

What is your goal?

I want to preserve Europe and its democratic and secular values.

What bothers you about the Islamic way of life?

Islamic doctrine discriminates against women and non-Muslims. Islamic law, or shariah, cannot be reconciled with democratic principles and universal human rights.

Do you see the need for that?

There are powerful groups who are working towards the Islamization of Europe. That is a fact. What can we gain from closing our eyes and ignoring this? Even Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." A head of state confirms what our politicians deny. What else has to happen until we finally get it?

There are people who see the growth of Islam in Europe as an opportunity for a completely re-engineered pluralistic society.

The vision of a pluralistic society does not withstand a reality check. Show me one example where this has been a success. Wherever Muslims have been given the opportunity for self-organization they have established parallel societies. See Berlin-Kreuzberg, see Lyon. See also Great Britain, where parts of shariah have been implemented.

Do you really think that Austrian culture is endangered?

I see signs of an erosion of our way of life. In large cities massive changes are evident in the streets. There are discussions about a ban on teaching the Turkish sieges of Vienna; St. Nicholas is banned from visiting children in [public] kindergartens.

And you want to change that.

Yes, very much. But why is that so bad? In Bhutan, the king is applauded because he allows only a certain number of foreigners into the country. He prescribes a certain dress code and mandatory cultural events. Bhutan is a small country that wants to retain its cultural identity in a globalized world. Austria is also a small country with similar challenges. Why is the one country commended and the other berated?

According to NEWS, you defamed Islam. That is why NEWS has filed charges citing defamation of religion. Your reply?

One can report anyone to the authorities. I am not guilty of defamation. And even if some consider my words harsh, I definitely did not make them in a public forum since the seminars were held before a group of people who registered beforehand.

You are accused of making the following statements, among others: "Muslims rape children because of their religion", or "Mohammed enjoyed contact with children." Why the polemics?

This is a clever strategy. You and all the others who are now crying wolf are locked in a choice of words. As a result you are able to maneuver yourselves away from the main point. It is a fact that Mohammed married a six-year-old at the age of 56. To this day men in Islamic countries view this as legitimizing marriage to a minor, thereby causing rape and life-long trauma. This is the problem we need to address, and not how circumscribe this bitter reality.

Are you afraid that these customs will become part of Europe?

There are groups who have this goal. In every Islamic system you find that human rights of young girls are in grave danger. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at the former socialist South Yemen. When Khomeini came to power he lowered the minimum age for girls to get married to nine years.

You are being accused of Islamophobia. Does this bother you?

A phobia is an irrational fear. My worries are not irrational, but justified. One of these days our politicians will have to recognize this fact. People like me are not right-wing xenophobes.

But what are you?

We are people defending the principles of freedom and equality in a secular society. I criticize political Islam and its political manifestations. No democratic country can take this right away from anyone.

Why do critics of Islam nearly always use polemics?

And what [if not polemics] did the article in NEWS use? There are comments about my body, there is ridicule about how I eat. Sexist attacks below the belt against women making unpopular statements are a manifestation of a male-dominated system. There are many critics of Islam. However, it's always women like Brigitte Bardot or Oriana Fallaci who are attacked below the belt.

Leading politicians have sharply criticized your seminars. Are they all members of a male-dominated system?

These politicians do not know the contents of my seminars. All they know are out-of-context quotes from an article in a glossy magazine. I also find the reaction of these politicians strange. They get away with much worse.

For instance?

SPÖ secretary general Laura Rudas, who calls for a public ban of the headscarf. I would not do something like that.

On the other hand, you are being compared to Susanne Winter (FPÖ). She was convicted of defamation because she accused the prophet Mohammed of pedophilia.

I do not want to be compared to Susanne Winter. There are no similarities between us. She is an active politician, she acts in a public forum. I do not.

You hold your seminars for the FPÖ-Political Academy.

But I am not politically active. I am also not a member of FPÖ. What I do is offer seminars on the topic of Islam and I can be booked. The FPÖ academy did just that. I do not want to comment on Susanne Winter's statements. But in my opinion she does not know much about Islam.

In what way are you qualified to hold these seminars?

I have an M.A. in Diplomatic and Strategic Studies. I spent part of my childhood in Islamic countries, worked and lived there. I have personally experienced life in Islamic societies and I see evidence of a trend towards the Islamization of Europe.

How do you view yourself?

I am a mother and a feminist. I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.

In your seminar you do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists.

Oh yes, I do. I do that because I know how much Muslims worldwide are suffering under the Islamic yoke. I say that in all my seminars, only NEWS did not bother to quote that. Why do think so many Muslims try to escape from Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan? Because life there is unbearable.

So you want to liberate Muslims from Islam?

Muslims have to liberate themselves; from this static and tenacious Islam that is hellbent on following norms from the seventh century. The result is that wherever there are Islamic societies there is no progress, but steps backwards, especially in the realm of human rights and democracy.

But isn't the referendum on the minaret ban in Switzerland also a step backwards?

The result of the referendum is the best proof that politicians should finally take the Islamization of Europe seriously.

What do you think about the reaction from the Islamic world regarding the referendum?

The Islamic world leads in discrimination against religious minorities. Christians are persecuted and discriminated against in all Islamic countries. You have to remember that the Christian culture is not one that immigrated or is foreign; it is indigenous. There is a complete ban on building churches in Turkey. And now Erdogan speaks of discrimination against Muslims in Switzerland? Where are Muslims being discriminated against in Switzerland? The European elite allows the Islamic countries to walk all over themselves while bowing down to them.

Are you in favor of a ban on minarets in Austria?

I will not answer that. Instead, I will quote the now so agitated Turkish prime minister who once said, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

Do you feel misunderstood?

Above all, I believe that my rights are being curtailed. Currently I do not notice that I have freedom of speech or opinion.

Haven't you yourself strained this right?

No, I don't believe I did. Above all, I did not speak publicly. What is all the commotion about?

But now it has become public.

I only say out loud what others are thinking. But these concerns are not taken seriously.

Are you against a dialogue with the Islamic world?

I am against a dialogue with political Islam. I am, however, in favor of a broad discussion about human rights and personal freedoms.

You criticize Islam as discriminating. What do mean by that?

Just one example: In Islam non-Muslims are called kuffar, non-believers. These infidels are all defamed and not considered equal. This is offensive. Where are the protests?

What are your negative experiences in Islamic countries?

People in these countries are continuously restricted. This leads to aggressions and reporting people to the authorities and other absurd situations. For example, a (Coptic) member of the Austrian embassy in Kuwait was verbally abused at the post office because he was mailing Christmas letters. It was Ramadan and he must not eat or drink publicly. He said, surprised, "But I am not eating!" "Oh yes, you are. You are licking off the adhesive part of the stamp." This is daily routine in an Islamic society.

Can you really use a single occurrence as an example?

I can tell you hundreds of similar single occurrences. This story is not a single case, but a social program.

Will you continue with your seminars?

Yes. There are requests coming in from all over Austria. I will continue to defend my right to freedom of speech. I will not be gagged.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, 38, is the daughter of a retired diplomat. She spent parts of her childhood during the Khomeini Revolution in Iran. She later spent time in Iraq and Kuwait. In 1990, she and other Austrians were held hostage during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. She was employed at the Austrian embassies in Kuwait and Libya. From 1995-7 she was a member of the then-vice-chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel. Sabaditsch-Wolff represents the Citizens' Movement Pax Europa on an international level.

05/12/2009 22:23. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Left's love affair with Islam

I was at High school when the Iranian revolution happened.
I do remember the look on the faces of the leftists as they were led away to their deaths, the look of shock & surprise.
Once the ayotollahs had power the left was finished, they had served their purpose.

What was it that Stalin was reported to have said " I love to look at the faces of people who thought they could trust me, when they were led away to their execution, the look of surprise" or something like that.

All the lefties I have known are also anti American/British & western in general. Some of them regard islam as an ally against capitalism, they think that once the west is defeated it will usher in some kind of utopia.
Alot of them are genuinly in thrall to islam, they may even take the view that its victory is inevitable so maybe they should side with it now.

Either way they have a very unpleasant surprise coming to them.
As cruel as it may seem, we need in the west, acid thrown in the faces of women, stoning to death, crucifiction,more honour killings, gays being killed, we need sharia for moslems only. Then when the left see's the horror that will come in the event of a full islamist takeover, they may change their views.

The worst has to come before the tide will turn. islam is it's own worst enemy.

02/12/2009 12:51. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Left's love affair with Islam

The Left’s love affair with Islam
By Chuck Hustmyre

The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell.

The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life. Through the legal machinations of its lapdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Left has banned Christmas from public schools, nativity scenes from City Hall, and the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

In liberal newspeak, "Happy holidays" has replaced "Merry Christmas." Holiday trees have replaced Christmas trees, and Christmas break has become "fall break."

Yet a few years ago, seventh-grade students in California were required to participate in a religious studies program during which they were told to wear Muslim clothing, memorize passages from the Quran, and choose an Islamic name for themselves.

Interestingly enough, the ACLU did not file a lawsuit.

The American Left champions causes such as gay rights (including gay marriage), equality for women (suffrage, the right to work, etc.), and religious freedom (usually in the form of freedom from religion). Yet, fundamentalist Islam opposes nearly everything the American Left stands for.

In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Iran, a top government official recently said that torture followed by death is the appropriate punishment for being gay.

In Saudi Arabia, women can’t vote, run for public office, or drive cars. Women are routinely jailed and beaten for merely being in the presence of a man not related to them. The Saudi version of Dr. Phil provides televised lessons to men on how to properly beat their wives.

In many Islamic countries, women are forced into arranged marriages and held as property by their husbands, something not exactly in line with progressive Western thinking. In some Muslim countries, women aren’t even allowed to decide what clothes to wear. To reveal even the smallest patch of skin is a crime.

Religious freedom is often nonexistent under Islamic rule. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, people who convert from Islam to another religion face public execution.

So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?

In this country, a shadow army of apologists works tirelessly to provide alternative explanations for faith-based Islamic violence--shootings, bombings, stabbings, and beheadings. These shadow soldiers work in government, media, and on college campuses. Most are members of the American Left. The rest are bureaucrats who have been cowed by the omnipresent specter of political correctness. You hear these apologists every time a Muslim goes berserk and murders people in the name of Islam.

That’s an important distinction I’d like to be clear about. Every week someone goes nuts in this country and commits a sensational crime that captures the attention of the media for a few days. Last weekend, a convicted felon from Arkansas murdered four Seattle-area cops at a coffee shop. Before that, some nut shot up an Orlando office building.

Truly impulsive and insane acts of violence are unpredictable. But when horrific violence is based on a theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and global conquest, there are usually plenty of warning signs. According to the FBI, imams preach jihad in at least 10 percent of the United States’ 2,000 mosques.

Certainly Army Major Nidal Hasan signaled his intent when he told fellow Army doctors that infidels (those who don’t accept Allah as the one true God) should have their heads cut off and have burning oil poured down their throats. After telling everyone around him that non-Muslims should be killed and that the U.S. Army was engaged in a war against Islam, Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Practically before the sounds of the last gunshots had faded, professional apologists in government and the media were saying Hasan was not a terrorist and that the shootings had nothing to do with his belief in Islam. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nidal Hasan is a jihadist and he committed mass murder because of his belief in Islam.

Nearly a month after the shootings, the American Left is blaming the Ft. Hood murders on everything but Islam. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley took the opportunity of announcing the expansion of the city’s Arabic language program in public schools to blame the killings on America’s love affair with guns.

Other apologists blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming Hasan, a psychiatrist, suffered from "secondary trauma" after hearing of the horrors of war from the soldiers he was counseling. Still others invented a new psychological malady, pre-traumatic stress disorder, meaning the mere thought of going into a combat zone so traumatized Hasan that he snapped.

The proof that all of these excuses are just so much hot air is that Hasan himself told us why he shot more than 40 people before he did it.

Major Hasan’s business card identified him as a "Soldier of Allah." He was in email contact with a militant Muslim imam who fled the United States and now operates in Yemen. He tried several times to contact al Qaeda.

To anyone but an American Left apologist, Hasan’s motive for murdering 13 fellow soldiers and wounding another 30 is quite clear: He did it because he was fighting for Islam. As Hasan repeatedly told fellow Army doctors, he is a Muslim first, an American second.

In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too.

Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals.

The mistake the Left is making is that its so-called progressive goals have nothing in common with the medieval tenants of fundamentalist Islam. Militant Muslims have no respect for American progressives, any more than they respect the very existence of Israel.

Fundamentalist Islam is using the American Left to advance its own agenda. Militant Muslims want Islam and sharia law to dominate the West. Their goal is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and our way of life to the will of Allah. The word Islam means submission.

What members of the American Left seem blind to is the fact that in countries where Islam dominates, their progressive ideas would be crushed and many of them would be thrown in jail simply because of their lifestyle choices.

Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam.

Why?

Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists.

Last year, publishing giant Random House canceled the publication of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina because it might be offensive to some Muslims. According to its own press release, the publisher feared Muslim violence against its offices and employees. Apparently, Random House’s fears were well founded.

In September 2008, three Muslim terrorists firebombed the home and office of the British publisher who bought the rights to the novel.

In 2006, the Apple computer company drew howls of rage from Muslims who claimed the glass cube the company built outside its midtown Manhattan store was modeled on the Kaaba, the Muslim shrine in the Saudi city of Mecca, and was meant as an insult to Islam.

The American Left’s affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam’s hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends.

So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won’t bite the hand that feeds them their excuses.

***

Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. For more information visit www.chuckhustmyre.com.

01/12/2009 20:49. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The war, the world-wide war

The war, the world-wide war, is primarily one of ideologies. The hold of Islam on the minds of its adherents is extaordinary. Usually that hold is obvious, is visible. But Islam also teaches, and Muslims are well-versed in, the craft and art of deception. "War is deception" Muhammad famouslly said. They can smile, and indeed the Qur'an and Hadith teach them to smile, when necessary, even when there is murder in their hearts. And the hold of Islam, at times intermittently seemingly relaxed, can suddenly or gradually take hold again of the minds of those who might, temporarily, appear to have become relaxed or unobservant or lapsed Muslims. It has happened so many times, to so many people mentioned at JihadWatch, that one wonders how any non-Muslim security services, or armies, or police forces, dare any longer to believe that they can trust, in any real sense, any of those who are Muslims. From the imam who supposedly was a useful police informant, but who tipped off Najibullah Zazi, to the many Muslims who took part in rally-round-the-American-flag or Interfaith-Healing rallies after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and then were discovered to have said before, and also after, bloodcurdling things about America and about non-Muslims, leading not a few to suddenly flee abroad (for example, one of the prime movers of the Boston Mosque), all of this should be carefully written up, with example after example, and distributed to the military, to the police, to the security services. A good knowledge not only of the texts and tenets of Islam, but perhaps even more importantly, of the attitudes, and the atmospherics, of Islam -- that affect even the most worldlly, even those who seem so much, outwardly, like us -- see Ambassador haqqani, for example, now attacked by others in Pakistan for being too "pro-American" by cleverly having extracted another 7.5 billion in American aid, will now be thought by some in Washington (perhaps by Senator Kerry, who no doubt has entertained, or been entertained, by Husain Haqqani and his winsome Ispahani wife, such a useful helpmeet in times like this). Haqqani is a deep defender of Islam, and a clever mis-representer, in his own charming and smooth self, of Islam to the naive. Being naive is one thing. Being naive because one is almost wilfully ignorant of Islam, and the varieties of deception that Muslims are capable of, and even the varieties of self-deceptiion (how many of those "liberals" -- from Ayman Nour in Egypt, to Pinky Bhutto in Pakistan -- exhibit surprising attitudes explicable only by reference to the deep unshakeable effect of Islam?) that Muslims practice. When even a self-declared non-believer as Kanan Makiya bristles when the matter of Islam is raised, or writes about the Arab massacre of Kurds and puzzles over the silence of Arab "intellectuals" on these massacres, failing to recognize the nature of Islam, and the Arab supremacism of which Islam has always been, and always will be the vehicle, one realizes just how remarkable is the hold of Islam, the residual hold, even on many of those who, outwardly, now seem to be our sort, people wh think and act like Westerners. Don't be fooled, even when they fool themselves.

The Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim may still relapse, or may still, in choosing to call himself a Muslim, be open to such relapse. And in any case, the existence of such people, especially the practiced cheats and charmers among them, such as Husain Haqqani, helps to deceive unwary Infidels about the nature of Islam. Why, attacks on such people, by other Muslims still more extreme, sets up the mental equivalent of those optical illusions, where a box that is smaller than another can actually appear to be larger, depending on the surrounding visual context.

The unwillingness of a Muslim to declare himself, even to himself, an apostate, one who comes to recognize that "reform" is not possible (as the truth-telling Magdi Allam finally realized) in Islam, and to recognize its effects on minds (taught not to question, but to acquire the habit of mental submission), and hearts (taught to hate all non-Muslims, and to see the world as divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, and a state of permanent war -- though not necessarily of open warfare -- to exist between the two camps)means that he must always be considered as, potentially, someone who will turn. Given the fashion, in policy-making circles, to have at least one Muslim on the staff to advise -- Vali Nasr for Holbrooke, Daria Mogahed for Obama, and who knows who is on staff for Hillary Clinton -- or the dangerous reliance on venal and sinister apologists for Islam. Think of John Esposito, think of Raymond Close, think of Eugene Bird and Mrs. Bird, think of James Akins, think of all those outwardly-respectable former diplomats to Arab countries, who now, well-ensconced in sinecures at those foreign policy groups that ostentatiously wrap themselves in the mantle of "American national interest" (as opposed, you see, to those "pro-Israel groups" that cannot possibly be promoting the "American national interest") and who are supported, directly or indirectly, by Arab money who for years have misrepresented Arab and Muslim attitudes and intentions, and have essentially been, and remain, shills for the Arabs not only in the obvious case, that of sweetly promoting the "Palestinians" -- that is, the shock troops of the still-unreocgnized Jihad against Israel, but also in such matters as energy policy, where without a recognition of the use, by the Saudis and others, of the Money Weapon, in funding the world-wide Jihad, there is unlikely to be the kind of support for taxes on oil and gasoline that, for other reasons, are needed).

Deception may be obvious in the case of this policeman in Afghanistan, or in the many other such examples of Afghan or Iraqi police and army who turned on their Infidel trainers and supposed comrades-in-arms, or for that matter, the examples of Muslims in the American military who killed fellow, but non-Muslim, soldiers, or deserted to the other side, or offered to provide intelligence so that attacks could be made on their units or their ships.

But Deception, Muslim deception, about the nature of Islam, and therefore about the permanent and immutable threat of Muslim populations to the non-Muslims among whom they have been allowed, so naively and so dangerously, to settle -- that is not yet recognized, that is not yet obvious to more than a few. But it will be.

04/11/2009 19:04. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

"Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."

The chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, provoked ridicule when he said last week that "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."

 

 

 

Give Obama his due. He wrote two books, about himself. They show someone fascinating by his own "improbable" history. They do not show someone whose mind is a well-stocked library, who is deeply familiar with history, that is with men and events in the past, a familiarity that was the hallmark of the memoirs of political figures who wrote in the past. When Clemenceau, or Lord Grey of Falloden, or Viscount Morley, wrote about their lives and times, they also showed a keen awareness of, a knowledge of, other places, other times, and those who particpated in the events of the past, and those who wrote about them.

In Obama's works, we see -- Barack Obama. He is the hero, at times winningly self-deprecating, but still the hero, of his tale. I doubt if he mentions Herodotus or Thucydides, or Pericles or Plato, or Aristotle or Aristophanes, or Cicero or Livy, or Caesar or Caesar Augustus. That's okay. But he also fails to mention all those who, beyond classical antiquity, have been read and understood by, Lord Grey,,and Viscount Morley, and other writers of celebrated memorials. Not Hobbes or Locke or Hume, not Montesquieu, not Bentham or Mill, not Bagehot or Oakeshott, nothing to indicate that he is more than an ordinarly-educated American kid who came out of the colleges and law schools of the last two to three decades, after the collapse, that is, in so many places, of the teaching of both history and literature. He's just a little too self-made for my taste. Would that he had studied history, would that his two memoirs, so lacking in depth, gave some sense that he was not born yesterday, did not believe that his three years as a kid in a most unrepresentive (Muslim) school in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) city at a most unrepresentative (Muslim) time in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) country made him knowledgeable about Islam, would that his acceptance of the Idols of the Age (his books reek with rhetorical incense to those Idols) were not subject, at this point, to deep re-examination, so that they might no longer be objects of accepted worship or burnt offerings or genuflection but, rather, determinedly overturned.

03/11/2009 00:01. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

British immigration policies an attempt "to make the UK truly multicultural'"

The man suffering from Adult-Onset Islam above missed my point, missed all kinds of points, in his animated reply. He speaks of "colonialism" and "imperialism," those old standbys, but in doing so, he fails to recognize that Islam itself, or rather the Arab supremacism of which Islam is a vehicle, has been the most successful imperialism, for the Arabs, in history, above all, and most damaging for those who were first islamized and then arabized (some peoples managed to resist the second -- see Iran, for example), led to a forgetting, by the conquered countries, of their own pre-Islamic past. Christian missionaries translated the Bible into many local languages, and in many cases, that preserved those languages for they had never been written down before. But the Arabs were different. They had no interest in the preservation of local languages; indeed, as recently as a few years ago the Arabs in Algeria were still attempting to stamp out, by forbidding the use outside the home of, Tamazight, the Berber language. Christianity has a universal message, but it is not one that turns everyone into a little Englishman or Frenchman or Italian. But with Islam it is different. Ideally one should take an Arab name, read the Qur'an only in Arabic, turn Meccawards five times a day, and sedulously ape the morals and manners of seventh-century Arabs living in the Hijaz. The late Anwar Sheik, who left Islam, wrote a number of piercing studies, and one was entitled "Islam: The Arab National Religion." 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arabs. They do not possess the easy oil wealth of the rich Arabs of the Gulf. They may, as they learn more about Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism (and why has the C.I.A. not had Anwar Sheikh's book translated into three dozen languages, and subsidized its publication and distribution in those languages, the way it once did for certain books in Russian, and so successfully?). Imperialism? Colonialism? The most successful of all imperialisms, of all colonialisms, is that of the Arabs, and it is going strong.

As for the "violent confrontational paths" -- my point was that the less we have to do with Muslim peoples, the less troops we send to them, in the vain hope of changing their ways without somehow changing their belief in Islam (which we pretend is just fine, means nothing, when it is the very thing that looms largest in the lives, and explains the behavior and attitudes, of Muslims), is nonsense. The less aid they send them -- none should be sent, for it makes no sense to support those who are not only your mortal civilisational enemmies, but who should be forced to confront, by enduring, the consequences of Islam that result in economic backwardness that is only temporarily hidden by the vast unmerited oil (and natural gas) wealth, a wealth that through taxation by the oil-consuming countries, and great, necessary, changes in energy policy, can and will be diminished.

My entire strategy, the one I have harped on for the last five years, is to do everything not to increase but to limit contacts with Muslims. Do not give them access to Western education and Western technology, with which to hasrm us. Do not allow them into our countries. Do not make our countries Islam-friendly but, either through private initiative, or through government action, make sure that no comprommises are made, no yieldings, no surrenders, to Muslim demands for changes in anything. Do not allow Muslims to dictate, and even to rewrite, our textbooks and our history. Do not allow Muslims to silence discussion of Islam, especially by apostates from Islam, such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam. Do not allow, at any level, silencing of intelligent discussion of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Do not allow foreign governments and individuals to transfer vast sums to support such groups as CAIR, to buy up influence at colleges and universities, to pay for a small army of Western hirelings -- academics, journalists, businessmen, former diplomats and intelligence agents -- as has been allowed, in the capitals of the West, for too long.

There is much more. But Islam, the threat of Islam, the instruements of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest -- can be recognized, anlayzed, and checked or checkmated. This does not require what the Adult-Onset Muslim poster calls "violent confrontation." Remove troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and more importantly, end all aid. Then watch the spectacle in those countries, and in Somalia, and in Yemen, and everywhere -- and as the Arabs begin to realize, with a panic, that they will no longer be bailed out, in a thousand ways, by the West, that panic will lead to still more divisions, ethnic and sectarian and economic, and more demoralization, and more strife.

And we can watch, and so can the world's Muslims, as we show them not only that we now, in sufficient numbers, grasp the nature of Islam and its effects on the minds of men, but that we understand, and what's more can explain, just how the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states, societies, even families or individuals, suffused with Islam, are explained by Islam itself, its teachings, and the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally arise from those teachings. It will be fun. It will be bracing. And it will minimize the need for military or "violent" confrontation.

I am amazed at how long it has taken, by dint of constant repetition, to win over readers to this site. And I am amazed at how long it will take, apparently, to convince those who are slip-sliding on banana peels still along the corridors of power where, for example, all the wrong reasons, or vague reasons, or no coherent reasons at all, were given for the folly in Iraq, and are now being given for the Af-Pak folly, when there are much cheaper, easier, and not at all less ruthless ways, of dealing with the world-wide threat that the adherents of the ideology of Islam pose to the well-being of the West, and indeed to the well-being of All the Rest.

28/10/2009 14:33. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Hugh Fitzgerald's classic essay Douce France,

Imagine that you are a cosseted member of the French elite. One child is doing the khâgne, aiming for rue d'Ulm. Another is now a politechnicien. You are very comfortable, working for the state. You and your spouse are journalists, or writers, or one of that vast tribe of people conducting "recherches" and life is comfortable, good, the way it should be. Yes, you do notice more and more Muslims about you as you walk, no longer in the banlieues, but in the center of Paris, or Toulouse, or Lyon. And you remember how uneasy you felt, four years ago, when you happened to be walking on the Cannebière in Marseille. You decided, then and there, that you would not return.

And you have friends who live in the south. And they tell you that the beurs - some call them maghrébins -- make life hell for everyone. They attack French children on the way to school. They vandalize cars. They threaten, and do more than threaten, anyone who is still foolish enough to walk out wearing a kippah or a cross. Whole areas of cities in the south, as in the north, and east, and west, have become off-limits to non-Muslims. In the schools, the teachers have lost authority. They cannot even cover the subjects of World War II, the Resistance, and the murders of the Jews as the state prescribes; they fear, with reason, the violent reaction of the Muslim students.

And as the schools become more and more dangerous for non-Muslim students and teachers, with more time and resources devoted to discipline rather than to learning, French parents and would-be parents are now silently factoring into their childbearing plans the present value of the future cost of what, they see, will now have to be added: private school tuition. And that means, of course, that those French people will plan on smaller families. And they will also be factoring in the growing cost, paid by them, those French taxpayers, for the whole expanding edifice of security, the guards in the schools, the guards at the train stations and métro stations and airports and at government buildings everywhere, the costs of keeping the gravestones from being vandalized, the costs of protecting the synagogues and the churches, the costs for all those tapped phones and agents in mosques, and subsidies to lawyers and judges to hear charges and try cases against Muslims, and the costs of monitoring da'wa in the prisons (more than 50% Muslim).

But the Muslims are indifferent to expenses incurred by the French state. France is part of the world; the world belongs to Allah, and to his Believers. That doctrine has remained immutable for 1400 years. Imam Bouziane, the one they keep trying to deport, had 16 children by two wives, all living on the French state: a representative Muslim man. Over time, the difference between average family size of Muslims and non-Muslims steadily increases. And, over time, the education system continues to disintegrate. Right now, perhaps, you cannot see it. Your children go to the best schools, followed by the best lycées. You vacation in Normandy, or Brittany, or the Ile de Ré. And you do not take the metro often enough, or walk in the right districts, or work in the right factories or offices, to understand what tens of millions of your fellow Frenchmen now have to endure. You, for the moment, are still immune, still willfully unaware. You have spent the last few decades learning about the Muslim world from Eric Rouleau, and his epigones (after they silenced Peroncel-Hugoz, the one journalist who reported the truth) in Le Monde. You are deeply-versed in the constantly reported-upon, endlessly dilated-upon, perfidy of the mighty empire of Israel. You know what we have all had dinned into us: that the Arab Muslims are reasonable people, with clearly-justified grievances, grievances so reasonable and so limited in scope, that justice demands they be satisfied. Everyone agrees on the "solution." It is called a "two-state solution" and of course it is a "solution" for otherwise, of course, it would not have been called a "solution."

And everything looks the way it always has looked: the linden trees, the river, the bridges, the réverbères, the étalage in the neighborhood boulangerie. Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance. At the end of the school day, chic mothers still congregate in little towns, or small cities, outside the school - this or that Ecole Jules Ferry -- waiting to pick up their children. Here come the littlest ones, from Maternelle, running up now -- just look at how small they are. And here are the CE1 group, with those huge cartables on their tiny backs. Run, run, run, to Mommy. Oop-la. And then the years of study, study, study marked by ever-larger cahiers -- "cahier" and "cartable" are the words that identify French DNA better than Piaf or gauloises, isn't that true? And now we will read the books, and study the subjects, set down so completely and precisely by the Ministry of Education. And now we are up to the final year, preparing for the Bac, with copies of blue-backed BALISES, guides to Les Châtiments and La Peau de Chagrin. And just look at the results listed in the newspaper: Claire-Alix has a mention très bien. Fantastic. Everything is fine, everything will always stay the same, whole countries cannot change. It's not possible.

But it is changing, coming apart, quietly, slowly -- let's not look too closely, we mustn't pay too much attention -- the streets, the schools, the hospitals, the ability to speak the truth about things, about life as it is lived, la vita vissuta as they like to say in a neighboring country. Dominique de Villepin always knew there was nothing to worry about; he was born, after all, in Salé, next to Rabat, even spent a few years of his infancy there; of course he knows his Arabs, his Muslims. And surely Eric Rouleau, who for decades in Le Monde was the resident expert on the Middle East (he was so knowledgeable that he never had to so much as mention the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunna), surely he knew everything, didn't he? And those French translations of Edward Said that denounced with such passion the Islamophobia, and those vicious cliches with which the blind and rotting West has always caricatured the Arab Muslim world. Oh, we have been so terrible to the Arabs, we colonialists, we French, we Westerners. And then there is the never-ending outrage of Israel, that running colonial sore. Of course, they have every right, those Muslims, to come here to France. We went to their countries once, now they come to ours. And they have every right to hate us, don't they?

So now we have decided not to understand, and to cut all ties of sympathy to, Israel -- and how did we ever have any sympathy for it in the first place, the way some of our parents did back in 1948 or 1956 or 1967? How could they not have seen what the "Palestinian people" had to endure? Hanan, Yasser, Said, Saeb, Aziz, Walid, Rashid, Mohammed -- you have won our hearts and minds. Take us, do with us what you will.

No one will mention what is happening or what kinds of things we must begin to think about doing to save ourselves. No one of any decency. And whatever Le Pen and Megret say, we must say the opposite (except, of course, when they show their hostility to "the Jews"). Do not say those things, do not think them. Free thought is all very well in theory, but really -- consider the consequences. Don't dare to think outside that box brimming with idées reçues. Défense de penser au dehors du box.

No, everything will be all right as you stroll down the Avenue Paule-Anne. Those Muslims will never be a match for us. Why, just look at those legionnaires marching à pas lent down the Champs-Elysées, think of that string of desert victories. Inside our heads, it is 1930 and over here is the Exposition coloniale. You remember, tu t'en souviens, that painting by le Douanier Rousseau, don't you, with the burnoosed Arab standing next to the black Senegalese? I have it right, don't I? France will always be France. Nothing will ever change.

At a certain point, and despite everything that causes you not to see what is staring you in the face, you realize that something has gone irreparably wrong with your country, and you, and your children, are in danger of losing that country, down to every village and house, qui m'est une province et beaucoup davantage. And you do not know what to do, or how to explain this feeling to others, or in whom to confide your secret fears, or what can be done. It is so confusing, and so upsetting. You cannot vote for Le Pen. You cannot endorse "cowboy" Bush or those ridiculous Americans. You have no place to go.

And then you learn what Jacques Chirac -- who now has a Muslim grandchild himself -- and Dominique de Villepin, do not wish you to learn. For if you did, you might be very angry. You discover that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France today is a Muslim baby. And that means, in 20 years, one of every three 20-year-olds in France will be a Muslim twenty-year-old. And that means, twenty years after that, at present rates of reproduction, France will have a majority Muslim population. Where shall we hide the statues from Marly-le-roi? And the Venus de Milo? And what about all those paintings of animated life -- all those portraits in the Louvre, and the Grand Palais, and the Musée Guimet down there in linden-lined Aix, and everywhere else in art-filled artful France, mère des arts, des armes, et des loix -- that are absolutely forbidden according to the immutable strictures of the Qur'an. Should they be sent for safekeeping to those Americans across the seas? By then most of the Jews in France will have left, gone across the oceans for their own safekeeping, to Israel or to English-speaking Canada (they were worried about the Muslim population of Quebec, you see, which had been allowed to grow under the Province of Quebec's policy of encouraging francophone immigrants, preferring North Africans to potential immigrants from Italy, Greece, Spain), and above all, to America. What luck those Americans have had. No more bequests to France by the likes of the Rothschilds, or Nissim Camondo. No more Donations from another Pierre Lévy. Enjoy the Kufic calligraphy; some find it endlessly fascinating.

For the moment, you allow yourself to believe that something will come up. Most likely, all those Muslims will simply convert. I mean, they do that, don't they, quite easily I'm told. Of course, why didn't I think of it, that is exactly what will happen. The situation is always saved in time. Just like during the war. Nothing to worry about. Nothing.

25/10/2009 23:34. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Obama Nobel Peace Prize winner?

The formidable Paris-based writer Nidra Poller explains why the President is a perfect recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize -- notably for his betrayal of Israel and aid to the global jihad:

Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? Not me. I'm delighted to see that the Nobel-Peace-Prize has been awarded to the person who most richly deserves it. Not only has he made gigantic efforts to promote Nobel-Peace in his nine short months in office but as president of the residually powerful United States of America he has the superforce to impose Nobel-style peace.

President and Nobel Prince of Peace Obama is not naïve, inept, inexperienced, or wet behind the ears. He is practicing what he preached. He has already fulfilled more promises than most voters ever suspected were being made. And the way things are going, only a miracle will keep him from delivering on the rest.

Bat Ye'or teaches us the meaning of peace in our times, the peace of dhimmitude, the peace that Nobel Norwegians have dutifully honored. It is the peace of convert or die...or hang in by the skin of your teeth. When the heads have been severed from the stiff necks that refuse Islam, when the converted have been folded into the prostrate masses of the ummah, the dhimmis hand over the keys to their granges, their wives and children, their hearts and minds, their lands and dwellings in exchange for a fragile peace requiring endless sacrifice and constant restraint.

This is the peace of dhimmitude, this is the peace Nobelly rewarded in...uhhh...Oslo, right? And B Hussein O is the most deserving laureate. On the very day the prize was announced, forty people were killed in a jihad attack in Peshawar Pakistan. Do you remember, way back when, during the campaign, he narrowed his eyes and said Iraq's a distraction, let me get my hands on the trigger and I'll take care of Pakistan. There you have it. A promise keeper of the first order. Iraq was also a distraction from Afghanistan. So mister Taliban tally your bananas, we've got other fish to fry, do your jihad thing and we'll lower our eyes, peace be upon you.

President Obama's Cairo speech alone earned him enough points to get this prize hands down. His bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. His consistent snubbing of European leaders. His betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic. His outstretched hand that reaches all the way to Iran's nuclear sites and protects them from rain, hail, and Israel. His betrayal of Persians yearning for democracy. His reluctance to look into McChrystal's ball and find some kind of half way plausible strategy for the overseas contingency whatchamegig in Afghanistan.

Am I being coy? Why haven't I mentioned his master plan for the nuclear disarmament of...

Israel!

Leaving the best for last. Even if he had not done all of the above, dayenu, he would be worthy of being hoisted on high in the Nobel firmament because he has declared war on Jewish construction in choice neighborhoods of al Quds and wannabe Palestine. Donche know, if you want peace be prepared to make war. And if you want the peace of jihad, make war on the Jews. Point your finger at them like a smoking gun. Sock it to 'em like a latter day koranic saint. Grab them by the scruff of the neck and scold them for all the world to see. Sic 'em with Goldstone, saddle them with Abbas, and send them to bed without dinner and ammunition. They wanted planes to fight to win? Stop the program, cancel the contracts, and if they holler strangle them with peace. Play footsy with Hamas, set up a mahjong date with Ahmadinejad, make cuddly eyes at Assad, and secretly decorate the private quarters of the White House with shahid posters, who would dare to protest?

Did you hear the latest? Anonymous sources have leaked to the press a flood of indignation from the peaceful Obama to you know who in the holy land. Aha! You thought he was fed up because his moderate ally Abu Mazen has reverted to PLO same o same o? Stirring up trouble on the Temple Mount because a bunch of French tourists got in the way of some irate Palestinian rocks? Which naturally led the Palestinians to go on a rampage in the narrow lanes of the Old City. How can President Obama call for the creation of a Palestinian state the day after tomorrow when his protégés are rousing a billion and a half Muslims to protect al Aqsa...from French tourists?

No. That's not why the Nobelly anointed young man is indignant. He is pissed off because Israelis are badmouthing him. Big shots and little guys in the street and on the beach, officials and cab drivers and housewives and left wing columnists are criticizing him.

Watch out. Even a Nobel-Peace-Prizer can lose his temper and explode. But then, who would blame him? What's more dangerous for world peace, a flock of Taliban or a gaggle of chuzpadike Israelis?

Hail to the Chief for reaching out to the Taliban and forgiving them for he knows not what they do, reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms and machinations, reaching out to the democratically elected Ahmadinejad and drawing a veil over the rape of the innocents, reaching out to Putin over the half dead body of Georgia...and trying to close Gitmo if only the jack-in-the-box would sit down and shut up.

And if he manages to push his health care revolution bill down US throats, they'll give him the Nobel Prize for Medicine next year. On the other hand, if he can maintain double digit unemployment and bring the dollar down to parity with the yuan he could outdistance Mugabe for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

A Nobel Prize to the wise is sufficient: when you hear the word "peace" praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

10/10/2009 10:39. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Al-Arabiya network hopes Israel will fall within five years

now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S."

The "costs in blood and treasure" of paying directly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , in order to "win [unwinnable Muslim] hearts and minds," by all sorts of reconstruction, and to keep these countries together despite their ever-present internecine hostilities, and to pay for all sorts of Muslim regimes in order that their populations might be protected from the Lords of Misrule, and the economic and political and social failures of their societies [directly attributable to Islam itself], to such countries as Egypt and Jordan and even to the "Palestinian" "Authority" that would not exist for one minute without foreign, Infidel aid that keeps pouring in, and if on top of that one adds the twelve trillion dollars that has gone to the Muslim members of OPEC (11 of the 12 members, if one counts Muslim-dominated Nigeria, where the oil revenues never reaches the Christian south), amounts that had the Saudi lobby not throttled all attempts at taxes on oil and gasoline and other measures that could long ago have diminished OPEC oil revenues, had we in our calculations noted the tens of billions of dollars we now spend (and our allies in NATO hundreds of billions) to monitor, for obvious security reasons, the Muslims in our midst, and had we compared all that cost of dealing with, most ineffectively, the Jihad (the struggle by Muslims to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam)? Now compare those trillions spent, in the case of the aid and the military interventions quite unnecessarily, and ineffectively, because we are no better off with those expenditures, have won no hearts and no minds (and never could), and now compare what we get for giving Israel a few pitiful billion a year, and what we receive for that.

Israel is, with or without aid, a firm ally of the West, because it is part of the West, and will always be on the side of the West, will always work to fight the Jihad because Israel itself is the victim of a permanent Jihad. Stop for one minute American aid to the Sunnis of Anbar, or to Iraq itself, or to Pakistan, and see how the former recipients of such aid, who always whined for more, turn on us. See how even with the receipt of such aid, the recipients of it in Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestinian" "Authority" are full of anti-American venom and ingratitude -- for the aid is to them merely Jizyah. It is their right, it is their due. See how that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia, has worked to use its wealth to undercut the Infidels everywhere, in West Africa and East Africa (where the money goes farthest, and apparently unknown to the State Department but not to the terrified black African Christians, Islam is on the march -- see Togo, see Nigeria, see Niger), in Asia and Europe and North America, paying for mosques and madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and Islamic propaganda, some of it aided by Western hirelings in universities, the press, business, and of course the centers of political power.

Think of what Israel has done for the military security of the Western world, merely by working for its own security. What country destroyed the ambitions of that wretched Soviet ally Nasser, and upended him forever, caused his disappearance and with him, Nasserism? What country -- despite the predictable and predicted condemnation (not least from the administration of George Bush and James Baker) destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, and in so doing, derailed for 21 years his nuclear ambitions, which is to say until he himself was removed, so that those ambitions were never realized? What country recently destroyed the nuclear installation in Syria that Iran and the North Koreans had built? whose pressure now is really the cause of whatever measures at this point the so-far dilatory and delaying Americans and others may take against Iran? And what country, do you suppose will in the end deal most effectively with the chiliastic madmen of the Islamic Republic of Iran? What country today supplies all kinds of technological advances that are then taken advantage of by the United States? [See drones] What country is best able to penetrate, and to make sense of, intelligence derived from the Muslim Arab states and from Iran?

And there is one more thing. Given all that has happened, the Western world could not survive, or rather Western morale -- among all those who think and feel -- could not survive a second destruction of Israel. Israel represents the Jews and the Jewish contribution to Western civilisation. Its survival is part of what makes the West able to survive, and its disappearanc, or its pitiful existence as a rump state dependent on the Muslim Arabs being willing not to come in to deliver a final death blow, would otself deal a blow to the West, to the idea of the West, from which that West would not recover. And the demoralization of the West from such a dimidiated Israel, unable to fend for itself, constantly under threat of easy annihilation, or in fact so annihilated, would at the same time feed Muslim triumphalism and lead to more and more Muslim demands, and aggression, all over the Western -- all over the entire -- world. That few, as yet, understand this, because most, as yet, remain so remarkably ignorant, does not mean that what has been written here is not completely, perfectly, terribly true.

07/10/2009 00:10. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

Things to Do.
1. Establish an operational base in IRAQ. This will leverage Iran. Why strategically we would undertake a war at great cost and then throw away the chance to set up a base at the door of our sworn enemies, Iran, was stupidity at its height. There is all the leverage we would need to stop the Mullahs and their thug. Start building up men and material on the Iran border and see the Mullahs change their tune. If we only have a year to do this, now is the time.
2. Quit the medical isotope dance with Russia. Like Clinton said (it is the economy stupid) It was Russia, N Korea, and Germany that got the world in this hole. Make our so called allies, that have been benefiting for decades, by not having to spend on defense.. step up to the plate and put it on the line. Sarkozy and the French talk tough, but that is all it is,, is a bunch of blabber. The Germans should be made accountable for their sales of restricted products like the centrifuges to Iran. They and the Russians have put the world in this situation for the pursuit of a Mark (Germany) and an attempt to turn back the clock (Russia). When and if the time comes to invade, put their troops in the first wave. They are the ones that deserve that honor.
3. Like they said in Pulp Fiction, "Go Medieval on their Ass". Think Siege, put real sanctions in place and execute a naval and air blockade of all trade. No weak kneed humane exceptions. If you are getting the bomb, you will starve. Make your choice. That is, "Remember the Maine" big stick foreign policy. This is where slapping around a bunch of our so called allies will help also.

05/10/2009 13:09. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

The world's oil supply is globally endangered, thanks to Iran's brinkmanship and the West's craven, feckless so-called leaders who have failed to act meaningfully in the wake of Iran's going nuclear. The following must, somehow, be engineered, and very soon, for the Doomsday clock is ticking:
1. Military strikes must be used to cripple the network of Iranian nuclear facilities. If this occurs, then it should be expected that Iran will retaliate by attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz to oil trafficking, and by bombing oilfields in the Persian Gulf. Therefore,
2. A strategy must be formulated to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to allow the uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf states.
3. In conjunction with #2, oilfields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region must be protected somehow against Iranian attacks, perhaps with antiaircraft and antimissile technology.
4. Using satellite surveillance or other means to tell us when the Iranian parliament is in full session, it should then be bombed, killing all the mullahs, including Supreme Ayatollah Khameini, as well as Ahmadinijad. Their personal residences should also be obliterated.
5. An Iranian government-in-exile should, in advance of all of this, be put together and be prepared to take immediate control of that country once its millenialist, fanatical government has been destroyed, or at least seriously weakened.

Can this be done? I don't know. Will it be? Doubtful. Who, ultimately, is to blame for all of this? Firstly, Jimmy Carter, who welcomed Khomeini's ascendancy to power. Secondly, France, who gave this monster safe haven for years. And let us not forget to thank the uncounted millions of primitive True Believers, slaves of Allah all, who regarded the Shah as an abomination in view of his attempts to restrict the toxic, retrograde influence of Islam and bring Iran, kicking and screaming, into modernity.
In a just world, however, it would be clear that the nightmare we face now redounds directly back to Carter. May history judge him accordingly.

27/09/2009 21:45. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

La creciente bomba de la deuda

Richard Rahn: La creciente bomba de la deuda.
Una cuenta atrás de entre uno y tres años
Martes, 22 de septiembre 2009 9:24 AM

Suponga que usted había puesto gran parte de sus ahorros en bonos del gobierno de los EE.UU. y que ha sabido lo siguiente. Sólo en los últimos ocho meses, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso hace una estimación de que el monto de la deuda federal adicional en manos del público creció en unos asombrosos 4 billones (millones de millones) de dólares para el periodo 2010-19, y que el importe de la deuda federal en manos del público creció de 5.9 billones de dólares a 7.5 billones de dólares sólo en los últimos 12 meses.

Además, se ha sabido que el gobierno federal (es decir, los contribuyentes) posee en la actualidad (principalmente a través de Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac) o asegura (a través de la Administración Federal de la Vivienda y otros programas gubernamentales) el 80 por ciento de los 14.6 billones de dólares de hipotecas pendientes de pago en los Estados Unidos. La semana pasada, el Congreso aprobó una ley que exige que todos los préstamos a los estudiantes sean hechos por el gobierno federal en lugar de los bancos, lo que significa que los contribuyentes serán 100% responsables de los impagos de préstamos estudiantiles.

También hemos sabido que la Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. está considerando aprovechar su línea de crédito del Tesoro por hasta 500.000 millones de dólares. Es necesario hacer esto por el elevado número de quiebras bancarias y porque cada cuenta bancaria está asegurada por el gobierno (es decir, los contribuyentes) hasta por 250.000 dólares. El presidente y muchos en el Congreso están pidiendo un proyecto de ley de atención de a la salud por aproximadamente 1 billón de dólares  - pagados por la deuda adicional y / o más impuestos, lo que desacelerará el crecimiento económico, conduciendo eventualmente a una deuda aún mayor.

Por último, también hemos sabido los hechos siguientes: los gastos del gobierno federal están creciendo mucho más rápido que la economía, y por lo tanto el gobierno se está convirtiendo en una parte cada vez mayor del producto interno bruto. Obviamente, esto no puede continuar para siempre, porque finalmente el gobierno expulsaría totalmente al sector privado.

Los programas de asistencia social (es decir, el Seguro Social, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) siguen creciendo más rápido que la economía, y sumarán más de un 100% de todos los ingresos por impuestos federales de este año, lo que requiere que casi todos los otros programas de gasto público, incluyendo la defensa y los pagos de intereses sobre la deuda, sean financiados con más endeudamiento.

Usted también es consciente de que el gobierno no puede salir de la situación de déficit a base de impuestos, porque si aumentan los impuestos a la población con ingresos más altos, desacelerará la economía a la vez que esos contribuyentes encuentran la manera legal o ilegal de evitar el aumento de impuestos, y los políticos se han comprometido a no aumentar los impuestos a los que ganan menos de 250.000 dólares, que incluye a la inmensa mayoría de norteamericanos.

Incluso si los políticos rompen sus promesas de no aumentar los impuestos, todavía no se puede resolver el problema del déficit, mientras se nieguen a recortar el crecimiento de la Seguridad Social, Medicare y Medicaid porque los ingresos de impuestos serán rápidamente absorbidos por el el crecimiento en el gasto. Lo mejor que cualquier aumento de impuestos podría hacer es retrasar la explosión de la bomba de la deuda durante, quizás, un par de años, mientras que debilita aún más la economía y el crecimiento del empleo.

Ahora supongamos que usted no es un tenedor de bonos individuales, sino el funcionario del gobierno chino responsable de la economía china, y usted sabe que su gobierno mantiene cerca de 1 billón (millón de millones) de dólares en títulos del gobierno de los EE.UU. Usted ha visto al Congreso y la administración ser cada vez menos responsables fiscalmente - más gasto, más impuestos y más deuda.

De repente, la administración pone aranceles punitivos a sus fabricantes de neumáticos, mientras que al mismo tiempo se niega a aprobar los tratados de libre comercio con Colombia, Panamá y Corea del Sur que han sido negociados.

Usted entiende que estas acciones absurdas y destructivas de los funcionarios del gobierno de EE.UU. indican que no entienden la importancia del libre comercio en el crecimiento económico, y parecen tener la
intención de repetir los errores de la década de 1930.

Los chinos no son estúpidos, y han sido claros al decir que les preocupa que las políticas de EE.UU. darán lugar a una nueva caída del dólar y mayores tasas de inflación, las cuales socavan el valor de su inversión en valores de gobierno de los EE.UU..

Los chinos están tratando de diversificar sus carteras - y su reciente actividad en la compra de grandes cantidades de materias primas comerciables es, probablemente, en parte, una protección contra un dólar de EE.UU. que cae. Así, al mismo tiempo, el gobierno de EE.UU. tiene que vender billones de dólares en nuevos bonos. Está ahuyentando con sus propias acciones

a los compradores extranjeros de bonos, lo que sólo puede resultar en mayores tasas de interés en los Estados Unidos, que  desacelerarán aún más el crecimiento económico.

Lo que es particularmente terrorífico es que ningún partido político ha ofrecido un plan serio para desactivar
la bomba de la deuda. Los demócratas sólo han acumulando más deuda como si no hubiera ningún límite, y los republicanos, hasta la fecha, sólo  proponen medidas para reducir el aumento, en lugar de revertirlo. Cuando la bomba de la deuda explote - en los próximos uno a tres años - espere ver récords de tasas de interés reales y/o inflación, junto con el colapso de muchos "derechos". Será como la bomba de neutrones, los edificios quedarán en pie, pero la gente no.

Richard W. Rahn es un alto miembro del Cato Institute y presidente del Institute for Global Economic Growth.

23/09/2009 12:27. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

ATENCION AL ISLAM

 
  ATENCIÓN AL ISLAM

 


        El Islam no es una religión, ni un culto. En su forma más amplia, es una forma de vida 100% completa, total.

        El Islam tiene componentes religiosos, legales, políticos, económicos, sociales y militares. El componente religioso es una tapadera de todos los demás componentes.

        La islamización comienza cuando se alcanza en un país un número suficiente de musulmanes como para poder comenzar campañas en favor de privilegios religiosos.

        Cuando en las sociedades políticamente correctas, tolerantes y culturalmente diversas, se aceptan las demandas de los musulmanes en favor de sus privilegios religiosos, algunos de los restantes componentes tienden también a infiltrarse en el resto de los aspectos de la vida ciudadana.



He aquí cómo funciona todo esto


        En tanto la población musulmana permanezca alrededor, o por debajo del 2% de la de cualquier país, ésta será vista, por la población local, como una minoría amante de la paz, y no como una amenaza hacia los demás ciudadanos. Éste es el caso de lo que ocurre en:

Estados Unidos:                                0,6% de musulmanes
Australia:                                1,5% de musulmanes
Canadá:                                1,9% de musulmanes
China:                                        1,8% de musulmanes
Italia:                                        1,5% de musulmanes
Noruega:                                1,8% de musulmanes

        Con una población que alcance entre el 2% y el 5%, los musulmanes comienzan con el proselitismo entre otras minorías étnicas y grupos descontentos del lugar, a menudo con reclutamientos considerables en cárceles y entre las bandas callejeras. Esto está ocurriendo en:

Dinamarca:                                2,0% de musulmanes
Alemania:                                3,7% de musulmanes
Reino Unido:                                2,7% de musulmanes
España:                                        4,0% de musulmanes
Tailandia:                                4,6% de musulmanes

        A partir del 5% de población musulmana, estos ejercen una influencia desorbitada con respecto al porcentaje de población que representan. Por ejemplo, insistirán en la introducción de los alimentos halal (limpios de acuerdo a los preceptos islámicos), asegurándose, de esta manera, empleos de manipuladores de alimentos reservados a los musulmanes. Empezarán las presiones sobre las cadenas de supermercados para que muestren alimentos halal en sus estanterías - junto con las correspondientes amenazas si no se cumplen estos requisitos. Esto está ocurriendo en:

Francia:                                        8,0% de musulmanes
Filipinas:                                        5,0% de musulmanes
Suecia:                                                5,0% de musulmanes
Suiza:                                        4,3% de musulmanes
Holanda:                                5,5% de musulmanes
Trinidad y Tobago:                        5,8% de musulmanes

        Llegados a este punto, trabajarán para que, la autoridad gubernamental, les permita que ellos mismos se regulen bajo la Sharia, la Ley Islámica (dentro de sus ghettos). El objetivo último de los islamistas es establecer la Sharia en todo el mundo.

        Cuando los musulmanes se aproximan al 10% de la población, tienden a aumentar la anarquía como un medio de quejarse sobre sus condiciones de vida en el país. En París ya hemos visto –hace algún tiempo-, las revueltas imparables con quema de coches y de mobiliario urbano. En esta situación, cualquier acción no musulmana ofende al Islam, y resulta en insurrecciones y amenazas, como las de Amsterdam tras la oposición a las viñetas de Mahoma y películas sobre el Islam. Estas tensiones se ven a diario, particularmente en los sectores musulmanes de:

Guyana:                                10,0% de musulmanes
India:                                        13,4% de musulmanes
Israel:                                        16,0% de musulmanes
Kenia:                                        10,0% de musulmanes
Rusia:                                        15,0% de musulmanes

        Tras alcanzar el 20%, las naciones pueden esperar disturbios espeluznantes, formación de milicias jihadistas, asesinatos esporádicos, y la quema de iglesias    

Etiopía:                                        32,8% de musulmanes

        Con un 40% de musulmanes, las naciones experimentan masacres generalizadas, ataques terroristas crónicos, y guerra ininterrumpida de milicias, como las de:

Bosnia:                                        40,0% de musulmanes
Chad:                                        53,1% de musulmanes
Líbano:                                        59,7%                                                    de                                                      musulmanes


        Los países que alcanzan un 60% de población musulmana, experimentan persecuciones sin límite de los no-creyentes de todas las demás religiones (incluyendo a los musulmanes no ortodoxos), limpiezas étnicas esporádicas (genocidios), el uso de la Ley de la Sharia como arma, y el establecimiento de la Jizya, el impuesto sobre todos los infieles, como está ocurriendo en:

Albania:                                            70,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Malasia:                                            60,4%                 de                  musulmanes
Qatar:                                        77,5% de musulmanes
Sudan:                                        70,0% de musulmanes

        A partir del 80% deben esperarse intimidaciones y jihad violenta sobre la población no islámica, algún tipo de limpieza étnica dirigida por el Estado, e incluso algún genocidio, a medida que estas naciones expulsan a los pocos infieles que van quedando, y se dirigen hacia el objetivo de un Estado 100% musulmán, tal y como se ha experimentado ya, o está en vías de consecución en:

Bangla Desh:                                83,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Egipto:                                        90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Gaza:                                        98,7%                 de                  musulmanes
Indonesia:                                86,1%                 de                  musulmanes
Irán:                                        98,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Irak:                                        97,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Jordania:                                92,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Marruecos:                                98,7%                 de                  musulmanes
Pakistán:                                97,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Palestina                                99,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Siria:                                        90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Tajikistan:                                90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Turquía:                                99,8%                 de                  musulmanes
Emiratos Árabes:                        96,0%                 de                  musulmanes

        Alcanzar el 100% marcará el comienzo de la Paz de "Dar-es-Salaam" (el Paraíso de la Paz Islámico). Aquí, se da por supuesta la existencia de la paz, porque todo el mundo es islámico, las Madrás son las únicas escuelas, y el Corán la única palabra, como ocurre en:

Afganistán:                                100%            de          musulmanes
Arabia Saudita                                100%            de          musulmanes
Somalia                                            100%                  de         musulmanes
Yemen:                                        100%             de         musulmanes

        Desgraciadamente, la paz nunca se alcanza, puesto que en estos estados con el 100% de musulmanes, aquellos más radicales intimidan y vomitan odio, y satisfacen sus ansias asesinando a los musulmanes menos radicales, por una variedad de razones.

        "Antes de cumplir los nueve años, ya había aprendido la doctrina básica de la vida árabe: Era yo contra mi hermano; yo y mi hermano contra nuestro padre; mi familia contra mis primos y el clan; el clan contra la tribu; la tribu contra el mundo, y todos juntos contra los infieles" ( Leon Uris "El Peregrinaje / The Haj" )

        Es importante entender que en algunos países, con bastante menos que el 100% de población musulmana, como en Francia, la minoría musulmana vive en ghettos, dentro de los cuales constituyen el 100%, y en los que viven bajo la Ley de la Sharia. La Policía Nacional no osa entrar en esos ghettos. No hay Tribunales, ni escuelas nacionales, ni establecimientos religiosos no musulmanes. En estas situaciones, los musulmanes no se integran en la comunidad en general. Los niños asisten a las Madrás (escuelas musulmanas), y sólo estudian el Corán. Incluso relacionarse con un infiel es un crimen punible con la muerte. Por lo tanto, en algunas áreas de ciertas naciones, los imanes y los extremistas musulmanes ejercen más poder que el que la media nacional de penetración de la población podría indicar.

        Mil quinientos millones de musulmanes representan hoy el 22% de la población mundial. Pero su tasa de nacimientos eclipsa a la de los cristianos, hinduistas, budistas, judíos y todos los demás creyentes. Los musulmanes superarán el 50% de la población del mundo al final de este siglo.

______________________

Adaptado y extraído del libro del Dr. Meter Hammond: "Esclavitud, Terrorismo e Islam: Raíces históricas y Amenaza Contemporánea" Christian Liberty Books (April 2005)

22/09/2009 22:59. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Ground Zero: A Journal Sep 11, 2009

Ground Zero: A Journal

September 11 was to be my first day of work at a new job in downtown Manhattan. Though New York was still very new to me, it was immediately obvious that something was terribly wrong. As I climbed the stairs of the subway just a few blocks from the World Trade Center, there was a palpable feeling of panic in the air as people stared, horrified, into the sky. I followed their gaze upward and I instantly understood. Smoke and fire were gushing from a gaping hole in the smooth, silvery surface of the right-hand tower.

I asked someone nearby if he knew what had happened, and he said it was a bomb. Another man walked over and declared, “No, it was a plane, a plane flew right into building. . . .” Then an enormous explosion drowned out his words. Above our heads, an orange fireball swallowed the top of the second tower, as clouds of paper filled the sky above us. Hundreds of people began scattering. I ran across the street to the Municipal Building and up to a shrieking woman who stammered through her sobs that she had seen a large blue and white plane slam into the building. We stared slack-jawed as sections of the building’s metallic facade fell in chunks to the ground. It took a few moments until we realized that some of those falling pieces were not metal at all, but rather human beings leaping eighty or more stories to their deaths-right before our eyes. All I could think to do was make the sign of the cross.

As I stood there in disbelief, a man next to me with a messaging pager said that the Pentagon had just been hit. I grabbed at his pager to read it for myself. Then came the confusion and rumors on the street: “The Capitol’s been attacked!” “The State Department has been bombed!” “The Supreme Court is in flames!” “Camp David is burning!” “A plane is on its way to the White House!”

During all this, the fire trucks had been racing past on their way to the Towers. I must have seen twelve of them rush past our corner. In the coming hours and days, I often wondered how many of the men on those trucks died just minutes later.

Soon the NYPD asked us to evacuate the area. It was only a minute after we began to walk uptown and away from the Towers that the sound of several claps of thunder began to rip through the air just over my shoulder. I turned around and saw with my own eyes a sight of pure horror, as the left-hand tower began to collapse into a massive white cloud. Our walk quickly became a run, and then a stampede.

Eventually, as we got farther away from the cataclysm, our pace slowed back down. I caught my breath, trying to absorb what I had just witnessed, when an olive-skinned man with a mustache and briefcase walking to my right began to intone: “You see what happens! All the Palestinians want is a place to call home, a small piece of land. We continue to fund the Israelis, we supply them with money and weapons, we support the persecution of a people for decades, and you see what happens! It should not have come to this. It didn’t have to come to this! They have had enough, and you see how they respond—they’ve got our attention now.”

Letting him push on without me, I paused with several hundred others at the Manhattan Bridge to watch the lone burning tower. We had outrun the smoke and dust unscathed, but now thousands of others followed behind us. They were in groups of three or four, marching toward midtown, some sprinkled with ash, many others caked with a dust that had hardened on their skin as it mixed with sweat and traces of blood. They passed by like ghosts—grayish-white figures carrying bags, suitcases, and purses. Extras from the set of a horror film, quietly walking home.

As I followed them uptown, a businessman from Atlanta who was in New York on business told me that he couldn’t get through to his wife on his cell phone; he knew she’d be scared as hell. “I was on the eighty-first floor, and we were probably the last to get out, but the firefighters kept coming in, heading up as we headed down. They just kept filing up the stairs.”

Then, a sudden gasp from a group of Chinese men and women on the corner, and we turned to watch the second tower follow the fate of the first. After a few seconds, I continued my dazed trek to my apartment on Nineteenth Street.

I’m not sure why I went back. The morning of the twelfth I heard a homily at Mass imploring Christians not to yield to the pain and evil but to overcome adversity with faith. That message stuck with me.

The van of volunteers drove us through the smoking and dusty streets of lower Manhattan, cluttered with countless thousands of sheets of paper; all around us, cars and emergency vehicles looked like they were made of papier-mâché. Fruit and bagel stands stood abandoned on empty sidewalks, the apples and bananas sitting in undisturbed rows, coated with a layer of pulverized concrete half an inch thick.

For someone raised in peaceful and prosperous America, Ground Zero itself was simply astonishing to behold. In the center, a crater 60 feet deep and 120 feet across. On each side, the mangled remains of the towers themselves. They say that each floor of each massive 110-story building was an acre in size. Spread before me was 220 acres of pure destruction crammed into a 16-acre plaza.

Stringy steel rods cut like irregular staircase steps—the skeleton of the building facade—surrounded two six-story piles of debris. Twisted red steel. Windows. Carpets. Toilets. Bits of copy machines, computers, file cabinets, desks. And of course, hidden somewhere within the mountainous piles, the mutilated remains of over five thousand human beings. And then there was the noxious smoke, streaming from a thousand cracks and fissures in the piles from hundreds of hidden fires beneath them. It was a smoldering mound of hell on earth.

No one seemed to be in charge. Hundreds of firefighters crawled around on the piles in small groups. Several pockets of twenty or thirty of them labored with torches, shovels, wire cutters, jackhammers, electric saws, oxygen canisters, hoses, dogs, and their bare hands. At the fringe of the pile—near the Brooks Brothers store that had been transformed into a makeshift morgue—stood several long lines of emergency workers who handed off buckets of debris, one by one. Spontaneous order emerged from the chaos.

So, for example, a New York City fire captain in the pit who needed forty welding tips phoned a friend in New Jersey who has a boat. His friend calls the local union, and in an hour a couple boxes of welding tips are loaded onto a ship, along with several boxes of food, clothes, medical supplies, and fifteen guys looking to lend a hand. An hour later the captain docks the boat at the Cove, east of the American Express building directly adjacent to the site. Ten minutes later, a motley group of construction workers, police officers, volunteers, FBI agents, and National Guardsmen arrive to unload the boxes and pass them down a 150-man work line. Linda and Jackie, two nurses, organize the unloading at the end of the supply line: “Medical supplies, here! Clothes, there! Construction supplies, here!” The captain radios that the welding tips are off the boat. Twenty minutes later, a retired veteran named Rich makes his way into the makeshift supply store on the second floor of the AMEX building, finds the welding tips, and hauls them in a golf cart across the plaza to an equally makeshift transfer station. Half an hour later, the captain who “ordered” the welding tips from his friend in New Jersey not more than two hours ago walks over to pick up his supplies.

Much of my time was spent directing materials around the site. The supply triangle between the dock, the AMEX building, and the piles ran nonstop for several days and nights. In the days following September 11, similar operations were repeated throughout lower Manhattan, as thousands of people spontaneously found and contributed to the supply chain.

There was much goodness and bravery at the site, but there was also fear, as frayed nerves frequently conspired to induce instantaneous panic. When something shifted unexpectedly on one of the piles, for instance, a firefighter would run, sending the team around him leaping from the huge mound, thereby inspiring hundreds of workers in that quadrant of Ground Zero to scatter. Within seconds several hundred workers would be “running for their lives” down the nearest street, tossing their tools, kicking up dust behind them, tripping over live fire hoses.

Then, as people began to realize that it had been a false alarm, the explanations would begin. “The Millennium Building was gonna come down.” “I smelled natural gas.” “There was a fire on the pile.” After twenty minutes or so, people would slowly creep back toward the site. This cycle repeated itself several times in the first few days, until a system of bells and bullhorns replaced leaping bodies as the official evacuation call.

I would never have predicted it beforehand, but one of the most helpful and generous groups on site were the Scientologists, who, as I learned, take great pride in being the first to respond to the scene of disasters and crises. When you state your need to a member of the Church of Scientology, the entire group enters what they call the “cycle of action.” Anyone who answers a request must do everything in his power to satisfy it and return directly to the person who issued the request to report the results. Ask a Scientologist for a respirator, for example, and your request immediately echoes out from your location in concentric circles. “You need a respirator?” “Respirator!” “We need a respirator up here!” “OK, who’s got the respirators?” “Bring out the respirators!” It was extremely efficient, if also slightly comic.

The Scientologists were not always so helpful, however. They also provided what they called an “assist”—an odd procedure during which a worker runs his hands over your arms and legs in order to “center your energy.” It didn’t so much resemble a massage as a child petting a small dog before he has acquired complete motor coordination.

At a time when so many people seemed to be at their best, it was sad, although hardly surprising, to learn that a few took advantage of the breakdown of law and order in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Some of the looters did their damage in the shadows, late at night, while others were bolder, dressing up as construction or utility workers. They pilfered through the AMEX supply area, filling up bags and buckets with donated jeans, shoes, sweatshirts, socks, and underwear. They made their way into people’s homes and businesses, taking advantage of the mass evacuations in lower Manhattan to take what they wished.

One day an off-duty officer from the Department of Justice took me on a golf cart tour of the businesses that had been looted shortly after being boarded up by the authorities. He was particularly incensed that a nearby National Guardsman had been so ineffective in preventing the damage. Moreover, a number of apartments in Battery Park City—the high-rise residential buildings that abut the Trade Center—had been broken into, and a number of supplies down at the dock had been stolen, both while supposedly under watch by the National Guard officers. A few days later, the military police and the NYPD stepped in to clamp down on the crime.

President Bush arrived at Ground Zero on Friday, September 14—the first day in my twenty-four years of living that I experienced genuine patriotism. When word got out that the president might pay us a visit, eyebrows lifted and smiles cracked on faces. Twenty minutes before he arrived, the NYPD cleared the area at the northern edge of the site, and several work crews that had been on their way to work began to congregate around the area where Bush would arrive. As soon as he stepped out of his black Suburban, the workers dropped their shovels and scurried around to welcome him. Many of us stood on overturned buckets behind a few rows of people to catch a glimpse, and those behind us stood on two or three buckets. Scores of guys climbed on top of the trucks, cranes, and emergency vehicles in the area to watch and listen. Some just climbed higher on the rubble, or stood on an overturned I-beam to catch a glimpse.

I thought to myself that this scene must be reminiscent of some bygone time in America’s political history when a White House staff did not plan every presidential visit weeks in advance. I thought of Lincoln at Gettysburg, stepping out of a train to make a speech, and spontaneous crowds of people, some climbing into trees or on walls, gathering around to watch and listen. Here was our commander-in-chief, faced with unprecedented destruction on American soil, to rally men in hard hats at the center of a wounded city, at the center of a stunned nation.

As he passed in front of our section, his hand met mine, and he looked me in the eye for more than a moment to hear me stammer what I believe was something like, “God bless, Mr. President, we’re behind you.” He was in no hurry to speak to us as a group, but rather took his time meeting us individually. The crowd around the rubble was growing fast, reaching at least 1000. There was clearly an enthusiasm in the air for the first time since September 11.

When the President finally grabbed a bullhorn and began to speak, it was hard to hear him at first. When someone in the crowd shouted, “We can’t hear you!” the president proclaimed loudly, “But I can hear you! And the rest of the country hears you! And soon, the people who did this . . . are going to hear from all of us!” At that moment, a shot of electricity surged through the crowd. Cheers erupted and echoed off the surrounding buildings, each draped with a tattered American flag. “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” It went on and on.

Then—at the corner of West and Vesey streets in New York City, on the edge of a mass grave, at the feet of the commander-in-chief of the world’s mightiest nation—I was overwhelmed with an unexpected sense of fraternity and love of country. Not fifty feet away lay the remains of five thousand innocent people, and here, at their side, a band of their brothers stood before their leader, united in an unconditional love of justice. I really do think that is what it was.

One night at 2 a.m. I was on my way through the rain to pick up supplies in the AMEX building, which, among other things, was being used as a transfer station for the bodies and parts of bodies we had recovered from the site. From there, they were packed onto trucks to be taken to the morgue at Bellevue Hospital. As I entered the atrium of the building I saw scores of workers holding their hard hats over their chests. Fifty yards away a dozen firefighters proceeded slowly in my direction carrying a body bag. I removed my hard hat and stepped to the side. As they approached, I could read their red, swollen eyes. Their uniforms were dark with mud and soot. Raindrops dripped from everyone’s gear. A priest wearing a raincoat, a hard hat, goggles, a respirator, and a headlamp came forward with a book and oils. The men carrying their fallen friend cried quietly as the priest rolled back the bag and anointed the body, administering Last Rites. In the atrium, heads bowed and no one moved. I don’t remember how long we stood there, but time seemed to stop as profane space became as sacred as a shrine. Eventually, the priest stepped away, and the firemen walked slowly forward, out the doors and into the truck waiting outside. Without a word, we went back out into the dark rain to work.

Before the rainstorm, nearly everything at Ground Zero was covered with a layer of dust, which became the parchment for the messages of rescue workers. On windows or walls, you could find short compositions: “God Bless America,” “Engine company 6,” “Give us Justice,” “Revenge is a bitch,” “We miss you Johnny,” and the like. But one message stood out. Written with a black marker on a flier posted on a pillar of the AMEX building, “RIP Fr. Mike.” Father Mike Judge, a Franciscan priest and chaplain of the FDNY, died when he was struck by a falling body on September 11 as he administered Last Rites to a deceased firefighter. In the days since September 11, working around the clock with little-to-no rest, I lost track of time. But this message reminded me that it was Sunday.

Sunday was my fifth day working at Ground Zero. I was exhausted. After making my rounds at the supply area, I walked up North End Avenue to the support center at Stuyvesant High School. I had heard earlier in the day that St. Patrick’s Cathedral was going to hold a 5:30 Mass, and I felt the need to attend it. As I entered the building, I saw a man dressed in a white habit walking slowly but deliberately down the hall. The tip of his Roman collar peaked out of the robe. He looked and spoke like James Earl Jones and his face was very serious. It occurred to me later that he was probably a Franciscan and had likely just come from attending to the dead at Ground Zero.

All around us, the Scientologists and volunteers buzzed back and forth, and police officers and workers passed by. I asked the priest whether there would be an evening Mass around the site, and he told me that the only one had been held at 9:00 that morning. I told him that I was hoping to attend the memorial Mass at St. Patrick’s, which I instantly realized had started six minutes earlier. He then said very deliberately, “I can offer you the Holy Eucharist. Would you like that?” And then, with five days of chaos in my head and fatigue consuming my body, a nameless priest in a white robe, almost invisible in the white hallway were it not for his dark complexion, put his hand on my head, said a blessing, and placed the Body of Christ in my mouth. My eyes remained closed for a long time.

Here, amid the nonstop movement and clutter of bodies and buildings, amid the constant acrid smell of smoke and smog, amid the signs reading “Warning, high levels of asbestos here!”, amid the dozens of workers who seemed always on the verge of breaking down in tears, amid the steady flow of sobbing civilians who toured the place where their loved one lay entombed, amid the constant sounds of machines, crashing metal, and sirens, amid all of the destruction and death—here was a pocket of peace. Here, Christ was present, not only among us, but now, again, inside me. And then this angel in the whirlwind sent me on my way and resumed his slow but deliberate walk through the horror, looking to dispense solace to any and all who would accept it, passing through the tumult, almost as though he were from another world.

Vincent Druding, a former editorial assistant for First Things, was recently ordained into the priesthood for the diocese of New York. This essay was originally published in the December 2001 issue of First Things.

21/09/2009 21:18. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Dominick Dunne on death, love, revenge and sexuality

 

27/08/2009 19:54. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

creo que este año hemos tenido bastantes noticias desmontando eso de calentamiento global. Una de ellas informaba de unas pruebas técnicas que demostraban que había aumentado la masa de hielo de uno de los polos.
Respecto a que la Humanidad se está cargando la capa de ozono, los animales rumiantes producen mayor cantidad de gas con efecto invernadero -en este caso metano- que todos nosotros. ¿Vais a exterminar el problema de búfalos, ciervos, caballos, vacas, ñus, etc.?

Cambiando al tema del petróleo, ¿Quienes saben los datos?. Las empresas extractoras y explotadoras, junto con sus ingenieros y responsables políticos. ¿Nos lo van a decir?. Claro que no. Siempre dicen que se van a acabar pronto, aunque nosotros no lo veremos.
¡Claro, para subir los precios!.
Estamos hablando de una materia prima que no se ve, como la madera, alimentos o agua. Está oculta, bajo tierra. Ellos pueden decir misa.
¿Quienes poseen el mayor número de patentes -algunas conseguidas a base de talonario- en energía y maquinaria (motores)?. Las mismas empresas explotadoras.

Cuando sube el petroleo suben los combustibles, y por arte de magia en verano y Navidad, al día siguiente.
En cambio, cuando ha bajado de más de 100 dólares a 60 dólares, nunca bajan el precio y menos un 40 por ciento, ya que la gran mayoría del pago que hacemos al llenar el depósito son impuestos, como en el tabaco y alcohol.

04/08/2009 14:10. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central America

UNA CANALLADA HISTÓRICA SE COMETE CONTRA HONDURAS




Los valientes hondureños que tuvieron el coraje de hacer fracasar el plan de la izquierda contra su patria están siendo victimas de una indecente y descarada presión internacional para que se sometan al estafador pro-marxista que abusó del poder presidencial para empezar a cometer un golpe de Estado.

En nombre de la democracia la OEA, con Chavez, los Kirchner y Lula a la cabeza y la desfachatada actuación del Secretario de la OEA Insulza (un chileno marxista que no tiene ningún empacho en actuar contra todas las leyes de Honduras y contra la propia razón de ser de esa Institución), ha resuelto casi por unanimidad, con los EEUU de Obama y de Clinton incluidos, exigir el retorno de Zelaya al poder sin condiciones y no deja de tratar al actual gobierno de Honduras como si fueran unos forajidos, cuando es evidente que no han hecho otra cosa que cumplir con la Constitución de ese país.

Esto es tan evidente que ni intentan discutirlo. El Cardenal Primado de Honduras, Mons. Rodriguez Maradiaga hizo importantes declaraciones hace pocos días reiterando lo que ya había dicho la Conferencia Episcopal en pleno tres días después del desalojo del usurpador Zelaya y en ellas explica con lujo de detalle la inconstitucionalidad manifiesta de las maniobras de Zelaya. Puede leerlas en la Sección "Correo del Lecor" de este periódico,  nro. 2678 del 16 de Julio ppdo.

A eso cabe agregar la muy fundada resolución de la Corte Suprema y lo decidido por el Congreso de Honduras. Todos coinciden en denunciar el intento de golpe de Estado de Zelaya y la traición a la patria cometida por él al ponerse a las órdenes de Chavez, el tirano de Venezuela, con cuya intervención militar, dinero y otros auxilios contaba para someter a los hondureños a un régimen despótico de inspiración marxista.

Ninguno de los gobiernos de América se ha molestado en refutar las razones de los hondureños para desalojar al usurpador Zelaya. Saben perfectamente que no tienen ningún argumento. Entonces recurren a la fuerza y a las presiones económicas. ¿Por qué se atreven a tanto? Porque Honduras es un país pequeño, sin gobiernos aliados en el mundo y que no podría resistir mucho tiempo a una invasión militar ni tampoco a un bloqueo económico prolongado.

La "mediación" del Presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, impuesta por los EEUU y la OEA al gobierno legítimo de Honduras presidido por el Sr. Micheletti, ha tomado un cariz absurdo. El Presidente Arias, en vez de "mediar" se ha convertido en vocero de las amenazas de Zelaya y exige su reposición en la presidencia de Honduras como condición indispensable de cualquier negociación. O sea, toma partido totalmente por la posición del usurpador y exige que Honduras continúe sometida al proceso de sumisión al marxismo. Y para presionar a los valientes hondureños agrega: "la alternativa es que se va a derramar sangre en Honduras" ("La Nación", 20/7/2009, pag.1).

¿Eso es un "mediador"? ¿Es ese un "premio Nobel de la paz? En las más modesta de las hipótesis es un "idiota útil" del marxismo colaborando con éste para que un país más se agregue a la lista de los que tiene sometidos en América. ¿Por qué se presta Arias a semejante brutalidad?  Es difícil saber pero sí se puede colegir: porque el liberalismo no es realmente enemigo de la izquierda sino su antesala y su secreto admirador.  Además, sospecho vehementemente que Arias está juramentado para obedecer la decisión tomada en el antro en que deliberan y resuelven los enemigos de la civilización cristiana su completa destrucción.

Lo mismo dígase de la repugnante posición adoptada por la Unión Europea. Además de que los países de la Unión han retirado sus Embajadores ahora han resuelto suspender -hasta el retorno de Zelaya- la ayuda económica ya acordada a Honduras y dejarán de mandar lo u$s70.000.000 que debían girar este año ("La Nación", 21/7/2009, pag. 2). O sea, es mentira que quieren el bien del pueblo hondureño. Esa ayuda es al pueblo que se le quita.

Felizmente parecería que en el Congreso de los EEUU hay varios legisladores que no estár de acuerdo con que se use la potencia de ese país para extorsionar a una pequeña nación que se defiende legítimamente contra los intentos del marxismo internacional.  Pido a Dios que ilumine a esas personas para que sepan cómo oponerse con éxito y lo hagan sin cejar.

Lo grave del caso es que también temo que lo que ocurre en y con Honduras sea parte de un plan para escarmentar a cualquier nación que pretenda escapar a la triste suerte en que ya se encuentran Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua y la Argentina. Creo que hay que rezar para pedir un milagro, para que Dios envíe al Arcángel San Miguel Príncipe de las milicias celestiales a defender Honduras y hacer fracasar el siniestro plan de sus poderosos enemigos.

Si Honduras es vencida, las esperanzas de América y del mundo en detener la nueva ola marxista se verán notablemente disminuidas.

Los argentinos deberíamos avergonzarnos de que nuestro país parezca representado por la usurpadora Cristina Kirchner.  Deberíamos protestar enérgicamente y demostrar que ese mujer no nos representa, que asumió el poder en forma ilegal, que sus ideas no son las de la mayoría de los argentinos y que todos quienes nos preocupamos por la situación de Honduras estamos totalmente del lado del actual gobierno en la medida en que mantenga su posición basada en la Justicia y en el amor a la Patria.

Espero que este artículo llegue a conocimiento del Sr. Micheletti, de los diputados, de los Jueces y de los militares de Honduras. Para eso lo enviaré a todas las direcciones de ese país que tengo para que se sientanr econfortados, en alguna medida, aunque sea pequeña,  al saber que desde el lejano Sur los admiramos y apoyamos.

Lamentablemente nosotros ya estamos insertos en el proceso de sometimiento al marxismo y no tenemos medios materiales para ayudarlos. Pero si los tuviéramos, no les quepa la menor duda, hermanos hondureños, que los usaríamos. Si tuviéramos el gobierno de la Argentina hubiéramos votado contra las canallescas sanciones que la OEA les impone y hubiéramos mandado una advertencia a todos los países que los oprimen para que se abstengan de intervenir en vuestra heroica defensa de la Justicia. No valdría mucho esa ayuda argentina, pero les sería más difícil aplastar a Honduras y a la Argentina.  

Todo está en manos de Dios y de la clarividencia y el coraje de vuestros gobernantes y soldados.

Cosme Beccar Varela

 

26/07/2009 23:16. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central and South America

también es el momento de que la OEA revise:

1.- Chávez: Ha pisoteado la carta democrática más que un bailaor zapateando. Ha despojado a sus opositores de sus competencias, ha perseguido y persigue a los líderes estudiantiles, políticos y comunicadores sociales. Ha financiado la injerencia cubana en media américa y ha instaurado un regimen de miedo. Fomenta revoluciones armadas en todos los paises que pisa y las financia. Ha violado la soberanía de países americanos de norte a Sur. Ha destruido el poder electoral, ha prohibido medios de comunicación y amenaza a diario con guerra o muerte a quien se oponga a su voluntad.

2.- Evo Morales: Ha destituido por decreto a un gobernador de región electo. En su lugar ha puesto a un militar sin elección y sin apego a otra ley que su voluntad. Eso si, después de eliminar convenientemente a unos cuantos opositores.

3.- Correa: El ecuatoriano se ha encargado de proteger a las FARC, grupo terrorista reconocido por la UE y la OEA. Les da cobijo, ayuda, logistica y demás facilidades para permitirles atentar en colombia y después refugiarse en su lado de la frontera.

4.- Uribe: Está coqueteando con la reelección indefinida, algo que su constitución prohibe. No obstante, ha sido bastante hábil para apaciguar a su vecino y ha reducido a los terroristas de las FARC a escombros. A pesar de la pinza Chavez-Correa.

5.- Lula: Reventó la huelga general de venezuela contra el déspota Hugo Chávez e intervino de manera ilegal en la soberanía de Venezuela para apuntalar el poder de Chávez. Es cuando menos sospechoso de intervenir políticamente en un país vecino y violando su soberanía para favorecer una parcialidad política que en aquél momento estaba causando muertes y violaciones de DDHH.

6.- Kirchner: La sucesión dinástica más oscura de América después de la de los Castro. Corrupción al mejor estilo sureño.

7.- Ortega: Acusado de violador de menores, exguerrillero, terrorista y sandinista no convertido. Ha reducido la oposición de su país a una caricatura.

8.- Alan García: reprimió a los indigenas,pagados por Hugo Chávez, para darle un golpe de Estado con excesiva fuerza, algo poco aceptable en democracia. En vez de balas, valdrían pelotas de goma.

9.- Honduras: Ultimo capítulo de la injerencia Chavista. Zelaya, pisotea la constitución y prepara un golpe de Estado reformando la constitución a su antojo siguiendo el modelo de Chávez. Los tribunales le niegan la oportunidad. Chávez le prepara la logística militar y electoral violando la soberanía hondureña. Los militares deponen al esbirro de Chávez antes de que perpetre su trampa.

El resto lleva demasiado poco tiempo para saber de ellos, pero pronto tendrémos noticias de Lugo y demás presidentes satélites de Chávez.

El escenario es sencillo. Chávez está en todos lados y es el epicentro de todas las distorsiones que ocurren en américa. La OEA, EEUU y demás países han hecho la vista gorda con Chávez y eso ha causado que se desprestigien tanto esas instituciones que muchos se han lanzado en una carrera megalómana en sus respectivos paises. América se ha convertido en un polvorín y Chávez no solo es el culpable sino que además se ha armado hasta los dientes con armamento rusol, el cual PIENSA USAR algún día. Muy probablemente sea contra Colombia, o contra cualquier otro que se ponga a tiro.

Mientras tanto un inoperante EEUU, dependiente del crudo bolivariano y una OEA cuyo presidente está en nómina bolivariana está convirtiendo al continente del futuro en el mismo continente sin futuro de siempre, pero con violencia.

07/07/2009 10:26. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central and South America

Invito a los lectores a leer el Comunicado Especial de la Corte Suprema de Justica de Honduras, dirigido a la Comunidad Nacional e Internacional en donde se fundamenta (por unanimidad) la acusación contra Zelaya, como autor, de delitos de Contra la Forma de Gobierno, Traición a la Patria, Abuso de Autoridad y Usurpación de Funciones en perjuicio de la Administración Pública y el Estado de Honduras. Le pueden condenar hasta a 20 años. Pueden encontrarlo en internet.
Las Fuerzas Armadas hondureñas han cumplido con su deber en defensa de la Patria, algo que es impensable en España ya que nuestros Altos Mandos son unos dóciles, sumisos y estómagos agradecidos.
Pregunta: ¿Sería posible esto en España? Respuesta: No. El Poder Judicial está politizado y vendido al Poder Político. Corolario: Honduras dispone de un sistema democrático superior en garantías al español.
¿De qué presumes ZetaP? ¿A quién quieres dar lecciones?
¡¡¡Viva Honduras y su democracia!!!
06/07/2009 00:25. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Obama

Barack Hussein Obama, se ha leído la enciclopedia: Historia de España, de la editorial Prisoe. Donde colaboran, entre otros, Leire Pajín (antropóloga especializada en simios parlamentarios), Manuel Cháves (experto en árboles genealógicos andaluces de Andasulía), Viviana Aído (miembra de los seres vivos, pero no humanos), Pepiño Blanco (corrector de concetos a alta velocidad); ilustrado con viñetas canarionas de López Aguilar y traducido al Lingala por Moratinos y al inglés americano por Rodríguez Zapatero. Se incluye un Dvd de La Guerra de las Galaxias, episodio La Alianza de Al-Andalus, el retorno de Torquemada y un libro de bolsillo Cómo ser del Ku Kus Klan con kufiyya en la iglesia de San Carlos Borromeo. Se envía gratuitamente a través de un avión Azor, sin virus A H1N1, de las fuerzas aéreas españolas, pilotado por Carma Chacón. Su precio es de menos 0,01 euros y un canon digital de tropecientos millones de euros por la Sgae, aunque González Sinde lo ampliará a terabytes millones de euros para subvencionar la película hispanoamericana La rosa tatuada, en el culo de Obama con el símbolo Zp.
Pero ¿Se sorprenden?
¿Quien es este mulato? Un tio de extrema izquierda, sectario que, eso si, sabe mentir y sabe manejar la propaganda, que son los elementos diferenciales, siempre, de los de la extrema izquierda.

Este tio es como zETAp, sectario y vacio. No ha hecho nada en su vida, y no tiene ni zorra de historia ni de nada salvo de montarse en el carro de la pasta.

Porque este va a dejar crudos a los yankis. Pero ellos lo han votado, asi que a san xoderse.

Como nosotros con el tio este del 11M
04/06/2009 23:24. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Swine Influenza

Agent

Swine influenza (illness in pigs) is caused by influenza A viruses. Influenza A viruses of swine origin can cause influenza in humans. General information about influenza A viruses is presented in the bullet points below.

  • Descriptive information
    • Influenza A viruses are negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses and belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae and the genus Influenzavirus A. 
    • Enveloped virions are 80 to 120 nm in diameter, are 200 to 300 nm long, and may be filamentous. They consist of spike-shaped surface proteins, a partially host-derived lipid-rich envelope, and matrix (M) proteins surrounding a helical segmented nucleocapsid (6 to 8 segments).
    • The virus envelope glycoproteins (hemagglutinin [HA] and neuraminidase [NA]) are distributed evenly over the virion surface, forming characteristic spike-shaped structures; antigenic variations in these proteins form the basis of the classification system for influenza A virus subtypes.
  • Influenza A virus subtypes
    • There are 16 different HA antigens (H1 to H16) and nine different NA antigens (N1 to N9) for influenza A.
    • Human disease historically has been caused by three subtypes of HA (H1, H2, and H3) and two subtypes of NA (N1 and N2). More recently, human disease has been recognized to be caused by additional HA subtypes, including H5, H7, and H9 (all from avian origin).
    • All of these subtypes have been found in birds, and birds are the primordial reservoir for influenza A viruses.
    • Several subtypes have been found in pigs
13/05/2009 08:29. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

EEUU se enfrenta a la "hiperdeflación" y al "colapso económico

¿Por qué el Plan de Estímulo de Obama está Condenado al Fracaso?. La fábrica de papel del Potomac está generando nuevo dinero frenéticamente. Esto debería evitar que los precios bajaran y que la economía se contrajera, según la Teoría Cuantitativa del Dinero. En este artículo presento un argumento que explica por qué esta conclusión no es válida. Por el contrario, expondré que el nuevo dinero creado sobre la base de una inundación de deuda es equivalente a echar gasolina a un fuego, haciendo que los precios caigan y la economía se contraiga todavía más.

La administración Obama ha perdido su oportunidad histórica de evitar la deflación y depresión que ha heredado de la administración Bush, porque ha encomendado la tarea de rescatar a la economía a la misma gente que ha causado este desastre: los doctores monetarios, tanto Keynesianos como Friedmanitas, de la Fed y el Tesoro.

Mirando al ratio erróneo

La clave para entender el problema es la productividad marginal de deuda, un concepto curiosamente desaparecido de la jerga de la economía convencional. Los Keynesianos se consuelan con el hecho de que la deuda total como porcentaje del PIB está bien por debajo del 100% en los Estados Unidos, mientras que en otros países se supera esta cifra.

Sin embargo, el ratio significativo y que hay que observar es la relación entre deuda adicional y PIB adicional, o la cantidad del PIB que se ha generado con la creación de 1 dólar de nueva deuda. Es este ratio el que determina la calidad de la deuda. Cuanto mayor sea este ratio (PIB adicional / Deuda adicional) más éxito están cosechando los empresarios en aumentar la productividad, que realmente es la única justificación válida para el endeudamiento.

En cambio, una caída importante en ese ratio es una señal peligrosa de que la calidad de la deuda se está deteriorando, y de que incurrir en deuda adicional no tiene ninguna justificación económica. El volumen de deuda está creciendo más rápido que la renta nacional, y el capital que apoya la producción se está erosionando rápidamente. Si, como en el escenario más pesimista, el ratio cae en zona negativa, el mensaje es que la economía está en curso de colisionar y que un crash es inminente.

Es decir, no sólo es que la deuda no aporte nada al PIB sino que, de hecho, genera una mayor contracción económica, incluyendo un mayor desempleo. El país se está comiendo las semillas de maíz, y el resultado es que el capital acumulado puede esfumarse antes de que te des cuenta. La acción inmediata es absolutamente necesaria para parar la hemorragia, o el paciente se desangrará hasta morir.

Los Keynesianos están atentos del ratio incorrecto, el de la deuda sobre el PIB. No es extraño, pues, que constantemente se extravíen, de ahí que no se percaten de las señales de peligro, una detrás de otra. Están navegando en la oscuridad con la ayuda del equipamiento náutico equivocado. Están administrando la medicina equivocada. Su ambulancia es incapaz de diagnosticar la hemorragia interna que debe pararse para evitar que el paciente llegue muerto.

La temprana advertencia de Melchior Palyi

En la década de 1950, cuando el dólar todavía era convertible -los gobiernos extranjeros y bancos centrales podían convertir sus saldos de corto plazo en dólares por oro a la tasa establecida por la ley de 35 dólares por onza- la productividad marginal de la deuda era 3 ó superior. Esto es, que 1 dólar adicional de nueva deuda causaba un aumento del PIB de al menos 3 dólares. En agosto de 1971, cuando Nixon impagó las obligaciones internacionales de oro de los Estados Unidos (siguiendo los pasos de Franklin Delano Roosevelt que había impagado las obligaciones domésticas de oro 35 años antes), la productividad marginal de la deuda cayó por debajo del nivel crucial de 1.

Cuando la productividad marginal cayó por debajo de 1 dólar, pero todavía se mantenía positiva, implicaba que la deuda total (siempre en términos netos) estaba aumentando más rápido que el PIB. Por ejemplo, si la productividad marginal de la deuda se sitúa en 0,5, ello significa que para incrementar la producción nacional de bienes y servicios en 1 dólar, habría que incurrir en 2 dólares de deuda. Un incremento de la deuda total en 1 dólar ya no podría generar siquiera un aumento equivalente del PIB. La deuda perdería así entonces cualquier justificación económica.

La caída de la productividad marginal de la deuda ha continuado sin interrupción desde entonces. Nadie tomó medidas. De hecho, los administradores Keynesianos del sistema monetario y de la economía pusieron trabas a esta información, manteniendo al público en la oscuridad. Ni tampoco los economistas Keynesianos y Friedmanitas en las universidades prestaron atención a la señal de peligro. Los agitadores siguieron gritando: “¡Dame más crédito!”

Yo me percaté de la importancia de la productividad marginal de la deuda a través del Boletín del economista húngaro de Chicago Melchior Palyi en 1969 –hay un total de 640 números de ese Boletín, disponibles en la Biblioteca de la Universidad de Chicago-. Palyi advirtió de que la tendencia de este crucial indicador era a la baja y que había que hacer algo al respecto antes de que el monstruo de la deuda devorara la economía. Palyi murió unos pocos años más tarde y no vivió para ver la devastación que tan astutamente predijo.

Otros también han llegado a la misma conclusión de diferentes formas. Peter Warburton, en su libro Debt and Delusion: Central Bank Follies That Threaten Economic Disaster -Deuda y Engaño: Las locuras del Banco Central que amenazan con el desastre económico-, también prevé el mismo resultado, aunque no utiliza el concepto de la productividad marginal de la deuda.

2006, el año de la inflexión

Mientras la deuda estuvo contenida por la presencia del oro en el sistema, por débil que fuera esta restricción, el deterioro de la calidad de la deuda era relativamente lento. La calidad se derrumbó, y la cantidad se disparó hasta la estratosfera cuando la presencia del oro, el único que puede extinguir la deuda en última instancia, desapareció del sistema monetario. Aún así, pasaron 35 años antes de que el capital de la sociedad fuera erosionado y consumido a través del deterioro ininterrumpido de la productividad marginal de la deuda.

El año 2006 fue el punto de inflexión. A finales de ese año la productividad marginal de la deuda cayó hasta cero y pasó a ser negativa por primera vez en la historia, encendiendo la alarma roja que advertía de una catástrofe económica inminente. Efectivamente, en febrero de 2007, el riesgo de impago de la deuda, medido por el coste desorbitado de los CDS (Credit Default Swaps), se disparó. Y como dice el dicho, el resto ya es historia.

Productividad marginal negativa

¿Por qué una productividad marginal de la deuda negativa es señal de un desastre económico inminente? Porque indica que cualquier posterior incremento en el endeudamiento necesariamente causará una contracción económica. El capital se ha esfumado; una mayor producción ya no se sostiene por la necesaria cantidad y calidad de las herramientas y el equipamiento. La economía está literalmente devorándose a sí misma a través de la deuda.

La creación desenfrenada de deuda a través de la reducción de los tipos de interés hasta el 0% está destruyendo el capital de la sociedad, pero este mensaje es ignorado. La crisis financiera actual ha sido explicada a través de un razonamiento ad hoc, culpando a los laxos estándares crediticios, las hipotecas subprime, y argumentos similares. Sin embargo, no se hizo nada para parar la causa real del desastre: la rápida generación de deuda. Por el contrario, la generación de la deuda fue acelerada mediante rescates públicos y planes de estímulo económico.

En vista del hecho de que la productividad marginal de la deuda es ahora negativa, podemos ver que las medidas de rescate de la administración Obama, que están financiadas mediante la creación de niveles de nueva deuda sin precedentes, son contraproducentes. Éstas son la causa directa de la creciente contracción económica, incluyendo el aumento del desempleo.

"Camino al infierno"

El presidente de la Unión Europea, y Primer Ministro Checo, Mirek Topolanek, calificó públicamente el plan de Obama, consistente en gastar casi 2 billones de dólares para sacar a la economía de la recesión, como el “camino al infierno”. No hay ninguna razón para castigar al Sr. Topolanek por tal calificativo. Cierto es que hubiera sido más educado y diplomático haber suavizado sus comentarios empleando términos del estilo de: “el plan de Obama ha sido aprobado ignorando que la productividad marginal de la deuda era negativa y sigue a la baja. En consecuencia, el aumento del gasto público mediante planes de estímulo sólo causará una mayor deflación y contracción económica”.

¿Hiperinflación o hiperdeflación?

La mayoría de críticos del plan de Obama sugieren que las consecuencias de los rescates y planes de estímulo provocarán una grave pérdida del poder adquisitivo del dólar y, en última instancia, una hiperinflación, tal y como evidenci la Teoría Cuantitativa del Dinero. Sin embargo, la teoría cuantitativa es un modelo lineal que puede ser válido como una primera aproximación, pero falla en la mayoría de casos, debido a que el mundo real es sobre todo no-lineal. Mi propia teoría, basada en el concepto de la productividad marginal de la deuda, predice que lo que se viene encima no es una hiperinflación sino un círculo vicioso de deflación. Éste es el argumento.

Mientras que los precios de los productos primarios, tales como el petróleo y los alimentos, pueden subir inicialmente, los consumidores apenas tienen poder adquisitivo, y tampoco pueden pedir prestado como solían para pagar esta subida de precios. El nuevo dinero creado ha ido a parar al rescate de bancos, y una parte importante se ha desviado para continuar pagando los inflados bonus de los banqueros. Muy poco de este dinero ha fluido hacia los consumidores ordinarios, que se ven con el agua al cuello debido a las deudas contraídas en el pasado.

De ahí que dichas subidas de precios sean insostenibles, ya que el consumidor es incapaz de afrontarlas. Como resultado, los comerciantes minoristas y mayoristas también están con el agua al cuello. Tienen que reducir precios. La presión de la caída de la demanda no se queda en los comerciantes, sino que también se transmite hacia los productores, que también tienen que reducir precios. Todos ellos están experimentando un descenso en sus flujos de caja derivados de las operaciones económicas ordinarias. Despiden a más gente, agravando la crisis aun más, dado que se reduce el efectivo en manos de los consumidores debido al mayor desempleo. La espiral viciosa está en marcha.

Pero, ¿qué está pasando con la ingente cantidad de nuevo dinero que está inundando la economía? Este dinero se está empleando para pagar la deuda de personas que están luchando desesperadamente por salirse de ella. Los hombres de negocios en general están aletargados; cada recorte en el tipo de interés les golpea, erosionando el valor de sus inversiones anteriores.

En mis trabajos he explicado cómo unos tipos de interés en continua caída hacen que el valor liquidativo de la deuda aumente. Es decir, se traduce en una partida contable negativa en la cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias, comiéndose al capital que, como consecuencia, tiene que ser repuesto. Aún peor. No hay manera de que los empresarios sean inducidos a llevar a cabo nuevas inversiones mientras haya expectativas de nuevas reducciones en el tipo de interés. Son conscientes de que sus inversiones se esfumarían a medida que el tipo de interés siguiera cayendo en pos de políticas monetarias agresivas como el quantitative easing -creación de dinero de forma discrecional-.

El círculo vicioso de la especulación en tipos de interés decrecientes

La única actividad que está prosperando en este ambiente deflacionario es la especulación en bonos. Los especuladores usan nuevo dinero, disponible a través de la Reserva Federal (Fed), para expandir sus actividades y empujar al alza el precio de los bonos. Dichos inversores se adelantan a la Fed: compran primero los bonos y luego los revenden por un precio inflado antes de que los recompre la Fed.

Tal actividad está libre de riesgos. Los especuladores se enteran por adelantado de las operaciones de la Fed a lo largo de la curva de rendimientos. La Fed comprará 300.000 millones de dólares de letras del Tesoro durante los próximos seis meses, y probablemente mucho más después de esa fecha. La especulación sobre unos tipos de interés decrecientes se convierte en autorrealizable, gracias a la demente idea de las operaciones de mercado abierto de la Fed, que hace que la especulación en bonos esté exenta de riesgo. Este proceso hace que la deflación sea auto-sostenible (para otra visión de la especulación en bonos libre de riesgos, ver el artículo de Carl Gutiérrez en Forbes, mencionado en las referencias).

Nótese también que el progresivo hundimiento del precio de las acciones, y el intento desesperado por parte de grupos privados de rescatar activos tóxicos, también ha disparado la demanda de dinero en efectivo. El dólar, al menos en la variedad del billete de la Reserva Federal, será cada vez más escaso. Antes de hundirse, tal y como sucedería en un escenario hiperinflacionario, el poder adquisitivo del dólar se va a incrementar notablemente.

¿Piensan que Ben Bernanke y sus máquinas de fabricar billetes se ocuparán de eso? Simplemente consideren lo siguiente. El mercado separará los billetes de la Fed antiguos de los nuevos, que tendrán impresa la firma de Bernanke. En una clásica aplicación de la Ley de Gresham, la gente atesorará el primero (los antiguos), otorgando una prima sobre él en relación con la segunda variedad (dólares de nueva creación), que se quedará por el camino.

Bernanke puede crear dinero, pero no puede hacerlo fluir

Ya hay algunas publicaciones que abiertamente aconsejan a la gente que atesore billetes de la Reserva Federal en cantidades importantes que lleguen a cubrir hasta 24 meses de gastos corrientes estimados, mientras cancela todas sus cuentas de depósito. Se advierte a los depositantes que se olviden del límite de 250.000 dólares del seguro de depósitos, que se ha convertido en algo prácticamente despreciable en la medida en que los recursos de la FDIC (Agencia Federal de Garantía de Depósitos) han sido secuestrados por Geithner (secretario del Tesoro de EUU) y desviados a garantizar las inversiones de grupos privados que fueron tan estúpidos como para comprar deuda tóxica a instancias de la administración Obama. Karl Denninger prevé una tasa de desempleo superior al 20%, con ciudades en una situación mucho peor que, por ejemplo, el centro de Detroit (ver referencias abajo).

¿Qué tiene todo esto que ver con la productividad marginal de la deuda? Una vez que se hace negativa, cualquier incremento adicional de nueva deuda hará que la economía se contraiga más, incrementando el desempleo y reduciendo los precios. Bernanke puede crear todo el dinero que quiera y más, pero no puede hacerlo fluir por toda la economía.

Bernanke se arriesga a algo peor que una depresión

El nuevo dinero creado seguirá las leyes de la gravedad y fluirá hacia el mercado de bonos, que es donde está la fiesta. La especulación libre de riesgos en bonos reforzará la espiral deflacionista hasta que llegue el agotamiento final: la economía colapsará como un globo al ser pinchado. En vez de hiperinflación y de la destrucción del dólar, lo que tenemos es deflación y la destrucción de la economía.

Denninger advierte de que la ‘espiral mortal’ llevará a que se disparen las ventas de activos en una loca carrera de liquidación de éstos, y en última instancia, al colapso del sistema monetario y político de EEUU a medida que se evaporan los ingresos impositivos. Señala que, probablemente, ni uno solo de los miembros del Congreso entiende la gravedad de la situación. Bernanke se está arriesgando a algo mucho peor que una depresión. Se está jugando literalmente el final de América como una potencia política, económica y militar.

Efectivamente, el colapso financiero y económico de los dos últimos años debe verse como parte de la progresiva desintegración de la civilización occidental, que empezó con el sabotaje gubernamental del patrón oro en la primera parte del siglo XX. Ben Bernanke, que debería haber sido despedido por el nuevo presidente el día después de su inauguración por haber causado un daño irreparable a la república norteamericana, puede, al final, tener el honor de administrar el golpe de gracia a nuestra civilización.

Artículo elaborado por Antal E. Fekete, professor  Money and Banking, en San Francisco School of Economics, publicado originalmente en Goldseek.


Referencias

No Time for T-Bonds by Carl Gutierrez, March 28, 2009, www.forbes.com

Bernanke Inserts Gun in Mouth, by Carl Denninger, March 20, 2009, http://market-ticker.denninger.net

Debt and Delusion: Central Bank Follies That Threaten Economic Disaster, by Peter Warburton, first published in 1999; WorldMetaView Press (2005).

06/04/2009 11:03. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Muere la familia de un abortista

       (Según narración de Gingi Edmonds).

 

 

        Algunos habréis oído en las noticias la historia del jet privado que se estrelló en un cementerio en Montana, matando a todos los pasajeros (7 niños y 7 adultos). Pero lo que no han mencionado las agencias de información es que el Cementerio Católico de la Santa Cruz, propiedad de la Asociación de Cementerios “La Resurrección”, en Butte, Montana, contiene un pequeño monumento conmemorativo en torno al cual gente del lugar suele congregarse para rezar el rosario: “La Tumba del No-Nacido”, se llama. Esta lápida conmemorativa, situada cerca de la iglesia en cuyo jardín está el cementerio, fue erigida en memoria de todos los niños que han muerto a causa de un aborto provocado.

 

       (Nota del Traductor: Desde la legalización del aborto en los EEUU en 1973, los niños asesinados por un aborto provocado suman ya más de 55 millones).

 

       ¿Y qué más no nos están contando las agencias de noticias? Pues que la familia que murió en el accidente de aviación era la de Irving Feldkamp, dueño de la cadena de abortorios más grande de los Estados Unidos.

 

        La cadena “Planificación Familiar S.L.” fue adquirida hace cuatro años por Irving Feldkamp,  dueño, además, de la cadena de clínicas dentales “Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates” y Consejero delegado, también, del circuito de carreras “Glen Helen”, en San Bernardino, California. Las 17 “clínicas” de Planificación Familiar S.L. (Family Planning Associates) perpetran más abortos provocados que ningún otro “proveedor” (incluida Planned Parenthood) y realizan abortos en los primeros cinco meses de embarazo.

 

        Aunque Feldkamp no es uno de los abortistas que trabajan en sus clínicas, ha hecho fortuna con el dinero conseguido con las decenas de miles de niños asesinados en los abortos realizados en las “clínicas” de las que es dueño. Fueron los beneficios económicos (Nota del Traductor: “La economía lo es todo” ¿Recuerdan?) conseguidos con su negocio abortista los que le permitieron adquirir el jet privado que llevaba a su familia a pasar una semana de vacaciones en el exclusivo “Yellowtone Club”, una lujosa estación de esquí para millonarios.

 

        El avión se estrelló el domingo 22 de Marzo, matando a dos hijas de Feldkamp, a sus dos yernos, y a sus cinco nietos. El avión se estrelló en el cementerio contiguo a la pista de aterrizaje. No hubo supervivientes.

 

        La causa del accidente continúa siendo un misterio. El piloto, que había tripulado cazas militares anteriormente, no dio en ningún momento indicación alguna a la torre de control de tener problema o dificultad alguna cuando se le comenzaron a indicar las instrucciones para el aterrizaje en Butte, Montana. Los testigos afirman que el avión, ya cerca del suelo, cayó de pronto en picado sin que hubiera señales previas que indicasen problema alguno. No había, en el avión, aparato alguno de grabación delas conversaciones del piloto, ni tampoco caja negra. Tampoco hay grabación alguna del radar del aeropuerto, ya que el pequeño aeropuerto local de Butte carece de radar. Aunque se especula que quizás el avión pudo precipitarse debido al un hipotético exceso de hielo en las alas, este modelo de avión en concreto ha sido probado en circunstancias extremas de acumulación de hielo en el fuselaje, por lo que los expertos han descartado ya esta posibilidad.

 

         Durante el tiempo en que he sido voluntaria de la asociación “Supervivientes del Holocausto del Aborto”, ayudé a coordinar y organizar actos semanales en los que los activistas próvida nos congregábamos en las afueras de la mansión de Feldkamp, con signos mostrando imágenes del desarrollo fetal, e intentando que el vecindario conociese qué tipo de “actividades” le proporcionaban tales beneficios económicos. Todos los jueves por la tarde le pedíamos a Feldkamp y a su mujer que se arrepintieran, que buscasen a Dios y que se apartaran de la práctica del asesinato de niños.

 

        Incluso le avisábamos, por el bien de sus hijos, que se lavase las manos de la sangre de los niños inocentes de cuyo derramamiento se beneficiaba económicamente, porque, como dicen las Escrituras, “...y como no aborreciste el derramamiento de sangre, la sangre te perseguirá” (Ezequiel 35:6), y “Porque hoy he puesto ante ti la vida y la muerte....Escoge la vida, para que VIVÁIS TÚ Y TU DESCENDENCIA”. (Deuteronomio 30:19).

 

        Una agencia de noticias informó de que Feldkamp, acompañado por su mujer y sus otros dos hijos, se desplazó hasta el lugar del accidente el lunes. Las imágenes le mostraban de pie, hablando con los investigadores entre los restos del avión, mientras una suave nevada caía sobre las cubiertas que tapaban los cadáveres de sus hijas y de sus nietos.

 

        Mi intención no es convertir esta tragedia en una especie de macabra moraleja espiritual en plan “Ya-te-lo-advertí”. Pero ahora me acuerdo de todas las horas que pasamos ante la mansión de Feldkamp. De cómo Pam Feldkamp (su mujer) se reía de los carteles con imágenes del desarrollo fetal que llevábamos, y de cómo Irving Feldkamp apartaba la vista para meterse en su coche, llevando casi siempre un niño pequeño en brazos o de la mano. Y recuerdo especialmente las palabras que le decíamos para intentar ablandar su corazón: “Piensa en tus nietos”. Me pregunto si Feldkamp estará recordando ahora estas palabras mientras permanecía de pie entre los restos de sus hijos y de sus nietos, justo al lado de la “Tumba del No-nacido”.

 

        Sólo espero y rezo para que, a la luz de esta tragedia, Feldkamp se dé cuenta de su necesidad de arrepentimiento y que cambie su vida. Rezo para que Dios pueda usar esta trágica catástrofe para ablandar los corazones de Irving y Pam Feldkamp, para que busquen al Señor y laven sus manos de la sangre de los miles de niños inocentes asesinados en sus “clínicas”, cada uno de ellos tan valioso e irreemplazable como sus nietos.

 

     

 

         

 

         

 

       

29/03/2009 18:39. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Venezuela

Venezuela va rumbo a la PUTA MIERDA...no les va a quedar ni las pieles de mos Macacos para comer.
Pero no cabe duda que la mayoría se lo merece,porque Chávez no está en el poder por un golpe militar,sino porque alguien lo ha votado,y ésos "alguien" no deben ser objeto de pena ni lástima alguna.
Espero que no huyan como ratas,llevándose sus miserias "socialistas del s.XXI"., a otros paises.
16/03/2009 15:59. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

THE MISSION WHICH DROPPED THE ATOMIC BOMB ON NAGASAKI

REFLECTIONS FROM ABOVE:

On August 9, 1995 -- at precisely 11:02 a.m. -- wailing sirens will resonate throughout the Urakami Valley until their cries break up in the distance and precipitate a moment of silence on the part of the people of Nagasaki. Those old enough to remember the death and destruction visited on the city fifty years ago by a single atomic bomb, will once again relate their tales of survival and mourn the loss of their friends and loved ones who perished that sultry August morning. Those too young to have witnessed the horror of the occasion will pause from their busy schedules and offer a collective silent prayer that the tragedy never be repeated.

For the residents of Nagasaki the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the city is a simple, solemn occasion marked by testimony, mourning and prayer. For much of the rest of the world, however, the commemoration evokes a complicated series of memories. While August 6th and Hiroshima are associated with the beginning of the atomic age, and August 15th and VJ Day with the war’s end, August 9th and Nagasaki fall schizophrenically in between. It is difficult for most people outside of Japan to conceptualize the atomic bombing of Nagasaki without envisioning overlapping images of the war’s conclusion and the beginning of the nuclear age. For many, the term "Nagasaki" elicits the kind of mixed reaction that World War II commemorations are presently evoking around the world.

This is not an article that attempts to examine the larger political and moral issues surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, but rather one that explores the personal story of a young American who helped pilot the B-29 that delivered the bomb which killed tens of thousands in the city fifty years ago. Fred Olivi hopes that mankind will never again use atomic weapons, but he has also long ago come to terms with his role in the dropping of the atomic bomb. He has lived his life in relative anonymity, retiring nine years ago as Manager of Bridge Operations and Maintenance with the City of Chicago. While finally getting around to putting his thoughts down in a self-published book, Olivi has somehow managed to avoid the media -- both American and Japanese. His thoughts on various aspects related to the bombing thus prove to be honest and unrehearsed.

On August 9, 1945 Lt. Fred Olivi, the 23-year-old Chicago-born son of Italian immigrants, flew over Nagasaki as third pilot in the aircraft Bockscar. At 11:02 local time, the plane dropped a 10,000 pound plutonium bomb known as the "Fat Man" over the city, killing more than 70,000 people in what, at this point in time, is the last instance of man using atomic weapons against his fellow human beings. This was the only time that Olivi has ever been to Nagasaki, and even then he saw almost nothing of the bustling seaport town below because of cloud cover -- both natural and bomb-induced. While his view may have been obscured, his memory and subsequent perspective of the day’s events remain quite clear.

Frederick J. Olivi was born January 16, 1922 in the Pullman section of Chicago. When war with Japan broke out, he did not immediately join the service, because he was the sole male provider of his mother and sister. But ten months later in October 1942, the 19-year-old enlisted in the Air Corps against his mother’s wishes; four months later he was called to duty. Olivi then underwent officer’s training, in hopes of becoming a pilot. In August 1944 he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant.

By the fall of 1944, over 1500 military specialists from bases around the world had been brought together at Wendover Field in the Utah desert and divided into squadrons to prepare in secret for what would eventually become the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "On December 17, the five squadrons at Wendover became formally unified under [Colonel Paul] Tibbets as the 509th Composite Group...." Within the 509th, the 393rd Bomb Squadron was entrusted with delivering the bombs.

One of the first people brought in by Tibbets to train crews for the 393rd was Major Charles Sweeney, who at the time was training B-29 pilots at Grand Island, Nebraska. Sweeney was assigned to train Crew C15, piloted by Captain Don Albury. Crew C15 eventually consisted of four officers (Albury, Kermit Beahan, James Van Pelt and Olivi) and five enlisted men (Ed Buckley, John Kuharek, Ray Gallagher, Albert "Pappy" Dehart and Abe Spitzer). It trained at Wendover until January 1945, when it was sent on a two-month training mission to Batista Field outside of Havana to practice long-range flying over water. Co-pilot Olivi, who was the final member added to the crew by Tibbets, arrived at Wendover in January after the others had already left for Cuba. He joined them upon their return to the Utah base.

Once back at Wendover, Crew C15 continued its training and came to be acknowledged by most as the best crew in the 509th. In May some personnel of the 509th began to depart the Utah base for their new home -- North Field on Tinian Island within the Marianas. The members of Crew C15 remained at Wendover until June 20, however, when Sweeney (now commander of the 393rd) flew them to Hamilton Field in Marin County, California in a new B-29 Superfortress with fuel injection and reverse propellers. This would be the first stage of their three-day flight to the South Pacific. In California the plane was blessed by a Catholic priest (Sweeney being an Irish Catholic), before proceeding to Rogers field at Honolulu. Another brief stop was made at Kwajelein before reaching Tinian on June 23.

While on Tinian, Crew C15 had little to do as it awaited orders for its highly secretive mission. What the crew did not understand was that it was waiting for the successful explosion of an experimental plutonium bomb (which occurred July 16 in the New Mexico desert) and delivery of plutonium to its island base. Olivi, a young Catholic lad who neither smoked nor drank when he arrived at Tinian, was talked into drinking one night by his companions and, as a result, experienced his one and only hangover.

The members of Crew C15 decided to christen their B-29 the Great Artiste, after the nickname of their highly skilled bombardier, Kermit Beahan. The plane participated in a few short-range runs and a successful long-range practice exercise over Kobe in late July to prepare for its upcoming mission. Both the plane and the crew appeared ready to perform the task at hand.

On August 6, 1945, in what was described in military terms as a perfect mission, Col. Paul Tibbets and the crew of the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, destroying most of the city and killing approximately 90,000 people. Accompanying the Enola Gay as the instrument carrying aircraft was the Great Artiste piloted by Major Sweeney. In addition to the crew, three scientists were on board. To make room for the scientists, one member of the crew was asked to remain behind on Tinian; the person selected was co-pilot Fred Olivi. Olivi had become expendable when Sweeney took over as pilot of the aircraft. This bumped the Great Artiste’s regular pilot, Captain Don Albury, down to second pilot and eliminated the necessity of Olivi, normally the plane’s co-pilot.

Three days later, Crew C15 prepared to drop a second, much larger, plutonium bomb on Japan. This mission (known as Special Mission No. 16) had difficulties from the start, leading Olivi to entitle his recent account Decision at Nagasaki: The Mission that Almost Failed. The Great Artiste had originally been scheduled for the mission, but since it had been fitted as an instrument plane for the Hiroshima run there was not time to reconfigure the bomb bay for the "Fat Man."< Instead, Fred Bock’s airplane, Bockscar, was substituted, with Sweeney as pilot, Albury as co-pilot, and Olivi as third pilot.

On the morning of August 9, it was discovered that there was a fuel transfer problem from the auxiliary tank to the main tank, thus limiting the amount of fuel available for the flight. The decision was made to go ahead immediately, however, since it was important to convince the Japanese that the United States had multiple atomic bombs and because bad weather was moving in over Japan. The plane would simply refuel at Okinawa before returning to Tinian.

At a little before 2:00 a.m. Japan time (4:00 Tinian time) Sweeney managed to lift the heavy bomb-laden Bockscar off the end of the runway at North Field. He was followed soon after by Capt. Fred Bock piloting the Great Artiste as the instrument plane and Major James Hopkins who flew the Victor 90, which carried movie cameras and scientific observers from England. Victor 90 left minus one of the observers when Hopkins forced Dr. Robert Serber to get out of the aircraft after it had already taxied on to the runway, because the scientist had forgotten his parachute. This presented a problem, since Serber was the only one who knew how to operate the high-speed camera. Officials on the ground were forced to break radio silence in order to instruct Hopkins on its use.

In addition to the regular members of Crew C15 aboard Bockscar, the flight included three outside personnel: Naval officers Commander Fred Ashworth and Lt. Philip Barnes, as well as the electronics specialist Lt. Jacob Beser. Ashworth was a weapons specialist who had helped to field test the bomb at Wendover and Barnes was his assistant. Beser’s job was to ensure that the Japanese "did not jam the bomb’s fuse frequencies and prematurely detonate the Fat Man."

Once in the air, Sweeney, Albury and Olivi took turns flying while rotating brief rest periods. Lt. Barnes was put to work alarmingly early when a red warning light on the black box monitoring the armed bomb began to flicker. For ten minutes an incredible tension gripped the two weapons specialists until Barnes corrected two switches which had been reversed. Ashworth informed Sweeney of the incident, and all three men breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Olivi’s thoughts concerning the impending bombing mission, as summarized almost twenty-five years after the fact by Frank Chinnock, were similar to the views expressed by the other crew members:

"[The members of Crew C15] had been chosen for this vital mission and it was up to them to carry it off to the best of their ability. [Olivi] was convinced that if the enemy had the bomb, they would not hesitate to use it. All he and the others could do was to accomplish their mission and hope it would finish things quickly."

The primary target for the mission was to be Kokura, an industrial city in northern Kyushu, with Nagasaki as the secondary site. The three planes were to rendezvous above the island of Yakushima off the southern coast of Kyushu. Sweeney arrived first a little before 8:00 a.m., and while waiting for the others monitored a message from the weather plane of Charles McKnight at Nagasaki which reported: "Hazy, clearing rapidly, two-tenths cloud coverage, wind 250 degrees at 50 knots. "An earlier weather report from Kokura had also noted good weather there.

Around 8:10 Bock and the Great Artiste joined Sweeney at the rendezvous site, but Hopkins did not show. They waited forty minutes, but finally decided to leave for Kokura since they were running low on fuel.

Based on earlier weather reports, the crew of Bockscar flew to Kokura fully expecting to drop its bomb on the city and return quickly to Okinawa. Upon arrival, however, the military arsenal at Kokura was obscured by industrial haze and smoke from a nearby fire. The bombardier had specific orders not to drop the bomb unless he could see the target. Three times Sweeney passed overhead, but without success. With the fuel supply now an even greater concern and enemy flak becoming a problem, Sweeney took Bockscar on the most direct route to Nagasaki.

Conditions at Nagasaki were even worse than they had been at Kokura, with cloud cover now as great as nine-tenths. With no possibility of reaching Okinawa with its heavy bomb aboard, a decision had to be made. Ashworth decided that rather than "waste" the multi-million dollar bomb by dumping it into the ocean, the "Fat Man" should be dropped by radar over the Nagasaki target. Less than thirty seconds before the bomb was due to be dropped by radar, an opening appeared in the clouds and Beahan shouted that he could make a visual drop. He spotted the Mitsubishi Sports Stadium below and used it as his reference point. This was a couple miles north of the original target near Mitsubishi Shipyards and the center of the city, but still not too far from the Mitsubishi ordinance and steel factories along the Urakami River. The bomb detonated about 1500 feet above ground, killing (by the end of 1945) approximately 74,000 people and injuring a similar number. In addition, 1,650 acres were leveled and 120,000 residents left homeless.

The explosion occurred over Urakami Valley, the heart of Catholicism in Japan, and the home of Christian believers who had kept their faith alive in spite of hundreds of years of government persecution. Urakami Cathedral was less than 2500 feet away from Ground Zero, and everyone praying there that morning died instantly. Also in the area and hard hit were Nagasaki University Medical Hospital, a prison, and various elementary schools.

Because of the local topography, much of the center of the historical city was spared the ravages of the atomic bomb. Fires did cause considerable damage to some parts of the downtown area, but a protective ring of low mountains helped to contain the destruction. Certainly, if there had not been cloud cover and the plane had not been low on fuel, the city of Nagasaki would have suffered significantly more damage and thousands more would have perished.

Olivi’s recollection of the bombing from high above was that a very bright light with a bluish cast, cloud cover, and debris from the explosion made it almost impossible to see any of the city below. In spite of the fact that Bockscar was low on fuel, Sweeney decided to take a second pass over Nagasaki, hoping for better visibility; the results of the second fly over were as disappointing as the first. Olivi remembers three shock waves -- the first being the worst --, a hard right banking of the plane, and a barely successful effort to outrun the radioactive cloud headed toward the plane.

Soon after leaving Nagasaki, Ashworth ordered Spitzer to transmit the following message to Tinian:

"Bombed Nagasaki 090158Z visually with no fighter opposition and no flak. Results ’technically successful’ but other factors involved make conference necessary before taking further steps. Visible effects about equal to Hiroshima. Trouble in airplane following delivery requires us to proceed to Okinawa. Fuel only to get to Okinawa."

This brief statement would be the only official transmission to Tinian until Bockscar touched down safely on Okinawa.

Practically flying on fumes, Sweeney did not have time to wait for traffic to clear at Yontan Field as he approached the runway. When planes refused to move to allow him to land, he ordered Olivi to fire the flares on board to get everyone’s attention. This finally achieved the desired results, and with the assistance of the plane’s new reverse propellers acting as an extra set of brakes, Sweeney was able to land the Bockscar safely, in what one crew member referred to as a "controlled crash." Reflecting back upon the landing years later, Beser commented that "You can’t come any closer to disaster than we had, and live to tell about it."

Once safely on the ground, Sweeney and Ashworth reported the results of their mission to General Jimmy Doolittle, the commander of the Eighth Air Force. Crew C15 stayed only about two hours on Okinawa, before it headed back up in the Bockscar for the return flight to Tinian, joined by the Great Artiste and the tardy Victor 90.

About five hours later all three planes landed safely at North Field, ending the harrowing mission of almost twenty hours in length. It was almost 10:30 at night Tinian time when they arrived, and as Beser notes,, "There were no crowds to greet these crews, no medal pinning ceremony, only those who would be concerned with our interrogation were there." After having their picture taken in front of the Bockscar, the crew members were debriefed, ate a late dinner, and shared a few drinks. They had completed their mission, glitches and all, and now waited to see the response of the Japanese government.

The answer was not long in coming, as on August 15 the Emperor made a radio address to the nation announcing the unconditional surrender of Japan and acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. For Crew C15 this meant that its mission had been a success and that no more American lives would have to be sacrificed in the name of bringing World War II to a close. For the residents of Nagasaki, on the other hand, the pain and suffering was just beginning.

The end of the war meant that there was no longer a need for Crew C15, or the 509th Composite for that matter, to remain on Tinian. Most were flown or shipped back to the United States soon thereafter to avoid security leaks concerning their up-to-then highly secretive work. The members of Crew C15 were flown to Roswell, New Mexico in November. The vast majority chose immediate discharge from the service, but Olivi decided to sign on as a reservist at Roswell for another two years.

When Olivi finally left the service in 1947, he tried to find employment as a civilian airline pilot, but discovered that those who had gotten out earlier had taken these jobs. The 23-year-old was even low on the waiting list, since he had logged considerably fewer flying hours than most of the returning veterans.

In 1950 Olivi landed work as an engineering draftsman with the City of Chicago in its Bridge Division. Over the years, he worked his way up the ladder, and from 1973 until his retirement in 1986 he was in charge of supervising bridges in Chicago.

Fred Olivi remained in the Air Force Reserves until his retirement at age fifty in 1972; by then he had achieved the rank of Lt. Colonel. During his last fourteen years in the Reserves, he served as a Liaison Officer for the Air Force Academy in the Chicago area, describing the Academy and its various programs to local high school students.

In October 1965, Olivi married Carole McVey, a woman he had known since high school. According to the Olivis, when one was ready for marriage, the other was not, and they wound up postponing the inevitable nuptials until they were both in their early forties. Today, they live happily together in south Chicago.

Although it has been twenty-three years since Olivi retired from the Reserves and nine since he left the City of Chicago, he remains an active individual. He has been especially busy over the course of the past year participating in events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. His activities include traveling to schools, colleges, air shows and civic groups to make presentations on the Nagasaki bombing mission.

Olivi and the surviving members of Crew C15 still meet on a regular basis for reunions. The gatherings began in Chicago in 1962; initially at five year intervals and later two. They met last year, but with 1995 marking the fiftieth anniversary, they have decided to gather once again at Albuquerque, New Mexico, near the Los Alamos Testing Center, between August 5th and 10th.

Six members of the Bockscar mission to Nagasaki have since passed away: Abe Spitzer, the radio operator from New York City, died more than a decade ago in a traffic accident near his home; Sgt. Ed Buckley, the radar operator, died of throat cancer in 1981; Sgt. Albert "Pappy" Dehart, the tailgunner (who did not talk of his role in the mission or attend reunions), died in Texas; Kermit Beahan died in 1990 of a heart attack; two years ago Lt. Jacob Beser, an outside electronics specialist who was the only member to fly on both the Enola Gay and the Bockscar missions, died of cancer; and in December 1994 Dr. James Van Pelt, the navigator and radar operator originally from West Virginia, died of a heart attack while recovering from an automobile accident near his home in Corona, California where he was a physician.

Of the seven surviving members of the Nagasaki mission, two -- Vice-Admiral (at the time Navy Commander) Fred Ashworth and Lt. Philip Barnes -- were outside Navy weapons specialists and not ordinarily part of Crew C15. Neither Ashworth nor Barnes have stayed in touch with the Nagasaki crew or attended the reunions. Besides Olivi, those who still gather for the reunions include: General (then Major) Charles Sweeney, the feisty Irish-American from Boston who piloted the plane; Captain Don Albury, the regular pilot and mission co-pilot from Miami who for thirty-five years flew for Eastern Airlines; Master Sgt. John Kuharek, an engineer with the regular Army who now resides in Florida; and Sgt. Raymond Gallagher, the gunner and assistant engineer from Chicago. Also joining them at times for the reunions are Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, and Frederick Bock, the original pilot of Bockscar.

While Olivi has chosen not to return to Nagasaki for fear of harassment by the Japanese media, others have not been as reluctant. As a matter of fact, Sweeney, Albury and Beahan went back to Nagasaki within weeks of the bombing, joining the first American medical team to the city in September 1945. Albury returned in 1977 incognito with his wife and brother-in-law, managing to slip in and out of town without media attention. In 1990 Albury also went with Sweeney and Bock on a BBC-sponsored trip to Hiroshima. Sweeney and Bock continued on to Nagasaki without him. Jacob Beser made a much-celebrated return visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1985, in conjunction with the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on the two cities. The PBS-supported journey drew heavy media attention and also produced a book by Beser.

In an interview with Fred Olivi in November 1994, the author was accompanied by his wife, Fumiko, a native of Nagasaki. While Olivi made it known that he had only been carrying out orders and that he was glad that the bomb had helped shorten the war, he was clearly uncomfortable when discussing the fact that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed in the bombing. Meeting someone born in post-war Nagasaki for the first time on a face-to-face basis was visibly difficult for him. By the end of the conversation a great weight seemed to have been lifted from his shoulders. It was as if he had undergone a catharsis with the realization that not everyone in Nagasaki held him personally accountable for the bombing. He offered a genuinely warm invitation to join him and his wife for dinner whenever we came to Chicago again. Like Beser on his return trip to Japan, Olivi discovered that most Japanese today are not looking to affix personal blame for actions performed by young men within the context of a war fought fifty years ago.

Unlike others of his generation in the United States, Fred Olivi does not still view the Japanese as his enemy, and he does not want to be perceived as such by them. When I first met Olivi, it was at a presentation he was giving on the Bockscar mission at the Experimental Aircraft Association in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. During the course of conversation after his talk, a local veteran proclaimed that he still did not consider the Japanese to be human beings; they were in his mind just insects. Upon hearing of the comment, Olivi showed clear disgust that people on either side should still feel that way about one another a half century after the cessation of hostilities.

In a later conversation, Olivi related another xenophobic example of misguided American patriotism. A few years ago, he read in a Chicago newspaper that local families had dropped out of a program to host visiting French school children, because the French government had not allowed American war planes to use its airfields in attacks on Libya. The Olivis immediately volunteered to host one of the students, and to this day they look back on it as one of their fondest memories.

On August 9, 1945 a young Italian-American co-pilot named Fred Olivi participated in a military action in which more than 70,000 (mostly civilian) residents of Nagasaki were killed. To this day, he feels that the bombing was necessary and that it helped shorten the war. Reinforcing this view have been the actions of literally thousands of American veterans who over the years have thanked him for saving their lives. Joining in the chorus of appreciation are the wives, children and grandchildren of these veterans.

This does not, however, mean that Fred Olivi is pleased that fifty years ago he helped kill and injure so many citizens of Nagasaki. He wishes that it had never had to happen in the first place. To him, it was not an act of racism or an act of revenge, but simply the last act of a long and brutal war. At this point in his life, the 73-year-old retiree asks only that the record of the mission be set straight, and that nuclear weapons never again be used. He is proud of the fifty-year friendship of Japan and America, and prays for continued good relations between the countries.

 

AN AMERICAN PILOT’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE MISSION WHICH DROPPED THE ATOMIC BOMB ON NAGASAKI

 

Lane R. Earns

06/03/2009 23:20. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Obama y los musulmanes

Cada nuevo presidente se cuelga sus propias medallas señalando que él es más bondadoso y pacífico que todos sus antecesores. Pero cuando Barack Obama se dirigía a los musulmanes en su discurso de investidura diciendo "con el mundo musulmán, buscamos construir una relación nueva basada en los intereses y el respeto mutuo", su formulación fue demasiado apologética.

¿Resulta "novedoso" reconocer los intereses de los musulmanes y manifestar el respeto que merecen? Obama no sólo lo piensa, sino que lo volvía a decir a millones de personas en su entrevista con al-Arabiya, insistiendo en la necesidad de "restaurar" el "mismo respeto que tenía América con el mundo musulmán hace tan sólo 20 ó 30 años".

Asombroso. Resulta que en estos últimos 20 años, el presunto invierno en nuestras relaciones con el mundo islámico, América no sólo no respetó a los musulmanes, sino que incluso derramó su sangre por ellos. Tomó parte en cinco campañas militares, cada una de las cuales supuso la liberación de un pueblo musulmán: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afganistán e Irak.

Las dos intervenciones en los Balcanes –así como la fallida intervención somalí de 1992-1993 encaminada a alimentar a los musulmanes africanos que morían de hambre– fueron ejercicios humanitarios de alto nivel en el que no había ningún interés estratégico norteamericano en juego. En estos 20 años, nuestra nación ha hecho más por los musulmanes que sufren y son oprimidos que ninguna otra nación del mundo, sea musulmana o no. ¿De qué nos estamos disculpando?

¿Y qué hay de la feliz relación norteamericano-musulmana que Obama imagina que existía "hace tan sólo 20 ó 30 años" y que ahora él va a restaurar? Hace 30 años, en 1979, se produjo la mayor ruptura de relaciones entre Estados Unidos y el mundo musulmán en nuestros 233 años de historia: la revolución islámica radical de Irán y el secuestro de la embajada de los Estados Unidos.

Lo que vino después fue el embargo árabe del petróleo, que sumió a Estados Unidos en una larga y profunda recesión. Lo cual, a su vez, fue precedido del secuestro y ejecución a sangre fría a menos de terroristas árabes del embajador estadounidense y de su agregado comercial en Sudán.

Esto por no hablar de la masacre del cuartel de marines de 1983 y de los innumerables atentados contra instalaciones y embajadas norteamericanas por todo el mundo durante lo que Obama define como los días felices de las relaciones islámico-estadounidenses.

Está muy bien que Barack Obama diga, como lo hizo en al-Arabiya, que tiene raíces y familiares musulmanes y que ha vivido en un país musulmán (insinuando una afinidad especial que le sitúa en una posición única para alcanzar unas buenas relaciones). Pero es falso e injurioso que la era Obama represente una línea que ponga fin a un pasado trasnochado en el que el islam había sido supuestamente satanizado.

Como ya advirtiera Obama: "No podemos meter en el mismo saco a toda una fe como consecuencia de la violencia que se practica en nombre de esa fe". ¿Acaso "hemos" hecho eso, esto es, difamar al Islam por culpa de una pequeña minoría? George Bush acudió al Centro Islámico de Washington seis días después del 11-S, cuando las llamas de la Zona Cero aún no se habían apagado, para anunciar que "Islam es paz", tratando de ampliar los lazos de amistad con los musulmanes y comunicándoles que los estadounidenses les tratarán con respeto y generosidad.

Y América escuchó. Durante los siete años que siguieron al 11-S –siete años en los que miles de musulmanes provocaron altercados en todo el mundo como venganza por unas viñetas– no hubo un solo ataque anti-musulmán en Estados Unidos para vengar la mayor masacre de su historia. Todo lo contrario. Poco después elegimos a nuestro primer miembro musulmán en el Congreso y a nuestro primer presidente con familia musulmana.

Según Obama: "Mi trabajo consiste en comunicar al pueblo estadounidense que el mundo musulmán está lleno de personas extraordinarias que simplemente quieren vivir sus vidas y ver prosperar a sus hijos". ¿Ése es su trabajo? ¿Piensa el pueblo estadounidense lo contrario? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice e incontables líderes más ofrecieron numerosas muestras de ese mismo sentimiento.

Cada presidente tiene derecho a retratarse como heraldo de una nueva era de este o aquel ideal. Obama quiere fomentar nuevos vínculos con las naciones musulmanas, utilizando como base su propia identidad y sus relaciones. Está bien, aceptémoslo. Pero si al echarse flores como redentor de las relaciones norteamericano-musulmanas afirma que la América pre-Obama era indiferente o insensible o poco caritativa con los musulmanes, no sólo está construyendo una ficción, sino que además está menospreciando de manera gratuita al país que ahora tiene el privilegio de liderar.
© The Washington Post Writers Group
01/03/2009 22:17. plotino #. THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Blog creado con Blogia. Esta web utiliza cookies para adaptarse a tus preferencias y analítica web.
Blogia apoya a la Fundación Josep Carreras.

Contrato Coloriuris