ABOMINATION
Don't burn the Devil's "book". Burn the Devils!
O inferno brasileiro – Olavo de Carvalho
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
9.11.01–9.11.10 You promised, you'd never forget. You promised.
ABOMINATION
Don't burn the Devil's "book". Burn the Devils!
O inferno brasileiro – Olavo de Carvalho
2 comments:
Labels:
11 setembro 2001,
9 11 01,
911,
al-Qaeda,
Heroes,
Mosque,
Never Forget,
New York City,
Quran,
Remember,
September 11,
Terrorism,
Tribute,
USA,
World Trade Center
Labels:
11 setembro 2001,
9 11 01,
911,
al-Qaeda,
Heroes,
Mosque,
Never Forget,
New York City,
Quran,
Remember,
September 11,
Terrorism,
Tribute,
USA,
World Trade Center
Friday, June 25, 2010
STAND FOR ISRAEL, STAND FOR THE WEST
Versão em português
Support Israel: if it goes down, we all go down
José María Aznar
Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region
For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.
In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.
In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.
Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.
Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.
Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.
For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.
The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.
The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.
Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.
To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.
The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies blinds us even when we are confronted by jihads promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.
It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.
What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.
Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.
In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.
In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.
Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.
Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.
Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.
For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.
The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.
The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.
Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.
To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.
The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies blinds us even when we are confronted by jihads promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.
It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.
What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.
Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.
José María Alfredo Aznar López, born in Madrid-Spain in February 25, 1953, Bachelor of Laws at the Complutense University of Madrid is one of the most important politicians "conservative" in Spain; he was the fourth President of Government of Spain, post-democratization, which began with the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution. Aznar served two consecutive mandates, between May 5, 1996 and April 17, 2004, by the Popular Party (PP). Currently is president of the Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES), which is known as "the ideas laboratory of the PP", which was planned to be a "think tank" of that party. Aznar, is also a member of the board of directors of News Corporation, Distinguished Scholar in the Practice of Global Leadership at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, besides promoting seminars on contemporary European politics and trans-Atlantic relationships in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. For more information about the author, visit your personal webpage: "José María Aznar". E-mail: info@jmaznar.es
Published in the newspaper "The Times" – (Columnists – Opinion).Thursday, June 17, 2010.
A dança de Lula com os déspotas – Mary O'Grady
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Para bom entendedor, meia palavra basta.
Ou seja: A ONU não tem nenhuma serventia!
GEOPOLÍTICA NO HAITI
por José Nivaldo Cordeiro
Se existe o horror na terra, algo parecido com o fim do mundo, está no Haiti. Nenhuma alma pode deixar de lamentar e prantear o que está acontecendo naquela ilha do Caribe. Em nenhum lugar a frase bíblica se aplica melhor: os vivos terão inveja dos mortos. Ao lado da pobreza crônica, histórica, tivemos agora a destruição física. A infra-estrutura desapareceu com o terremoto, a linha se suprimento foi interrompida, a fome e a sede, como raras vezes uma sociedade padeceu, ali se instalaram. O governo desapareceu. O futuro desapareceu. Só resta aos que sobreviveram contar com a caridade internacional.
Mesmo essa caridade, que chegou, não está isenta de interesses. Vários artigos, como o do Le Monde reproduzido pela Folha de S. Paulo, (v. AQUI ) mostram que a ação pronta norte-americana, necessária e humanitária e, sob todos os aspectos, digna de aplausos, precisa ser compreendida dentro do duelo em que a maior das soberanias nacionais, os EUA, está em confronto direto com aqueles que desejam implantar o projeto de governo mundial e usam a ONU como escada para alcançar esses objetivos. Até a data do terremoto o Haiti estava sob jurisdição da ONU, na qual o Brasil desempenha, a mando do Lula, o papel de administrador e de polícia. A chegada unilateral e espetacular dos EUA surpreendeu e serviu para expor a fonte do poder real. A ONU não tem músculos sequer para mandar no Haiti.
A situação daquele pequeno país não é de emergência militar, mas humanitária. O recurso militar serve apenas para garantir a ordem e exibir o poder de quem o tem. Não há inimigos a combater ali, exceto os infortúnios, agora agravados com o terremoto (ou os terremotos, vez que vários vieram na seqüência). A ação dos EUA mostrou que aquele país tem recursos, capacidade de mobilização pronta e vontade política de fazer a coisa certa no prazo exíguo, coisas que faltaram aos burocratas da ONU. Nenhum dos apoiadores da Força de Paz lá instalada tinha quaisquer desses requisitos. O Brasil, coitado, tem Forças Armadas sucateadas e jamais teria como mandar um porta-aviões carregado para servir de unidade supridora de bens ao povo vitimado. Nem tinha um gigantesco navio-hospital para, no prazo de 48 horas, zarpar pronto para entrar em ação. Nem dinheiro. E, menos ainda, vontade política para realizar empreitada de tamanha envergadura. Afinal, como diz a canção, o Haiti também é aqui e sequer temos como enfrentar as nossas próprias mazelas com os parcos recursos de que dispomos.
O fracasso da ONU é rotundo e o Brasil, por apoiar suas aventuras imperiais canhestras, acabou por se envolver com um problema maior do que poderia resolver. Vimos o comando brasileiro perder o controle, que agora está com quem de direito, com quem paga a conta e pode lá enviar quantos soldados for preciso. Não deixou de ser uma prova humilhante. A perda do aeroporto foi a mais emblemática confissão de fracasso.
Acredito que a mobilização norte-americana foi generosa e unilateral. Tudo dentro da tradição daquele povo bendito, que sempre está disposto ajudar alhures, na paz e na guerra, onde precisar. Não faltaram análises de observadores mal intencionados, dizendo que o cálculo de Barack Obama foi eleitoral, que pretende impedir o agravamento da imigração, que é a oportunidade de colocar em prática um grande exercício de enfrentamento de grandes catástrofes. Se há um elemento de realidade em cada uma dessas motivações, basta lembrar que mais importante que o Haiti é o México, o que não impediu a construção de um muro fronteiriço contra a emigração ilegal. Situações diferentes, soluções diversas. Vi a motivação humanitária sobrepor-se a todas as outras.
A brincadeira amadora da ONU acabou e os profissionais de verdade chegaram ao cenário de operações. A experiência provou que os delirantes revolucionários encastelados na ONU estão muito longe de pôr a operar a sua Cosmópolis.
Mesmo essa caridade, que chegou, não está isenta de interesses. Vários artigos, como o do Le Monde reproduzido pela Folha de S. Paulo, (v. AQUI ) mostram que a ação pronta norte-americana, necessária e humanitária e, sob todos os aspectos, digna de aplausos, precisa ser compreendida dentro do duelo em que a maior das soberanias nacionais, os EUA, está em confronto direto com aqueles que desejam implantar o projeto de governo mundial e usam a ONU como escada para alcançar esses objetivos. Até a data do terremoto o Haiti estava sob jurisdição da ONU, na qual o Brasil desempenha, a mando do Lula, o papel de administrador e de polícia. A chegada unilateral e espetacular dos EUA surpreendeu e serviu para expor a fonte do poder real. A ONU não tem músculos sequer para mandar no Haiti.
A situação daquele pequeno país não é de emergência militar, mas humanitária. O recurso militar serve apenas para garantir a ordem e exibir o poder de quem o tem. Não há inimigos a combater ali, exceto os infortúnios, agora agravados com o terremoto (ou os terremotos, vez que vários vieram na seqüência). A ação dos EUA mostrou que aquele país tem recursos, capacidade de mobilização pronta e vontade política de fazer a coisa certa no prazo exíguo, coisas que faltaram aos burocratas da ONU. Nenhum dos apoiadores da Força de Paz lá instalada tinha quaisquer desses requisitos. O Brasil, coitado, tem Forças Armadas sucateadas e jamais teria como mandar um porta-aviões carregado para servir de unidade supridora de bens ao povo vitimado. Nem tinha um gigantesco navio-hospital para, no prazo de 48 horas, zarpar pronto para entrar em ação. Nem dinheiro. E, menos ainda, vontade política para realizar empreitada de tamanha envergadura. Afinal, como diz a canção, o Haiti também é aqui e sequer temos como enfrentar as nossas próprias mazelas com os parcos recursos de que dispomos.
O fracasso da ONU é rotundo e o Brasil, por apoiar suas aventuras imperiais canhestras, acabou por se envolver com um problema maior do que poderia resolver. Vimos o comando brasileiro perder o controle, que agora está com quem de direito, com quem paga a conta e pode lá enviar quantos soldados for preciso. Não deixou de ser uma prova humilhante. A perda do aeroporto foi a mais emblemática confissão de fracasso.
Acredito que a mobilização norte-americana foi generosa e unilateral. Tudo dentro da tradição daquele povo bendito, que sempre está disposto ajudar alhures, na paz e na guerra, onde precisar. Não faltaram análises de observadores mal intencionados, dizendo que o cálculo de Barack Obama foi eleitoral, que pretende impedir o agravamento da imigração, que é a oportunidade de colocar em prática um grande exercício de enfrentamento de grandes catástrofes. Se há um elemento de realidade em cada uma dessas motivações, basta lembrar que mais importante que o Haiti é o México, o que não impediu a construção de um muro fronteiriço contra a emigração ilegal. Situações diferentes, soluções diversas. Vi a motivação humanitária sobrepor-se a todas as outras.
A brincadeira amadora da ONU acabou e os profissionais de verdade chegaram ao cenário de operações. A experiência provou que os delirantes revolucionários encastelados na ONU estão muito longe de pôr a operar a sua Cosmópolis.
José Nivaldo Cordeiro: "Quem sou eu? Sou cristão, liberal e democrata. Abomino todas as formas de tiranias e de coletivismos. Acredito que a Verdade veio com a Revelação e que a vida é uma totalidade, não podendo ser cindida em departamentos estanques. Abomino qualquer intervenção do Estado na vida das pessoas e na economia, além do imprescindível para manter a ordem pública. Acredito que a liberdade é um bem que se conquista cotidianamente, pelo esforço individual, e que os seus inimigos estão sempre a postos para destruí-la. Preservá-la é manter-se vigilante e sempre disposto a lutar, a combater o bom combate. Acredito que riqueza e prosperidade só podem vir mediante o esforço individual de trabalhar. Fora disso, é sair do bom caminho, é mergulhar na escuridão da mentira e das falsas promessas".
José Nivaldo Cordeiro é economista e mestre em Administração de Empresas na FGV-SP e editor do site "NIVALDO CORDEIRO: um espectador engajado". E-mail: nivaldocordeiro@yahoo.com.br
Publicado no site "NIVALDO CORDEIRO: um espectador engajado".
Quarta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2010.
Existe apenas um poder, que é o "poder militar".
Os outros poderes fazem rir e deixam rir.
Atuação dos Estados Unidos no Haiti é uma questão de liderança
por Corine Lesnes, correspondente em Washington para o "Le Monde".
Com seu presidente aparecendo com tanta frequência nas telas, os americanos poderiam acreditar que a catástrofe havia acontecido em seu solo. Nos três dias que se seguiram ao terremoto no Haiti, o presidente Barack Obama fez diversas declarações na Casa Branca, enviou 10 mil soldados, um porta-aviões munido de 19 helicópteros, e desbloqueou US$ 100 milhões. A Marinha foi convocada a fazer milagres. O navio-hospital Comfort, um mastodonte equipado com doze salas de operações, nunca havia sido preparado tão rapidamente. Em menos de 48 horas, levantou âncora para Porto Príncipe, onde deveria chegar na quarta-feira (20).
Barack Obama logo assumiu o controle de tudo – quase que instintivamente, poderiam dizer. Ainda que ele tenha designado como coordenador o novo diretor da Agência Americana para o Desenvolvimento USAID, Rajiv Shah, um jovem médico de origem indiana, foi ele que declarou a situação "prioritária", a ponto de merecer manter em Washington os secretários da Defesa e das Relações Exteriores, esperados na Austrália para uma cúpula dedicada ao Afeganistão e à luta antiterrorista.
Obama também enviou a Porto Príncipe um de seus colaboradores mais próximos, Dennis McDonough, para coordenar a comunicação. É verdade que os apresentadores dos telejornais da noite também desembarcaram no Haiti (em que avião?, perguntariam alguns).
Reação instantânea bem vista nos Estados Unidos
A administração Obama se antecipou ao chamado? Teria ela se precipitado indevidamente? Certamente essa é a opinião daqueles – franceses, italianos, brasileiros – cujos aviões de socorro se viram desviados para os outros aeroportos da região por americanos que acreditavam estar fazendo a coisa certa, mas que nenhuma autoridade superior havia ordenado.
Na edição de segunda-feira (19) do jornal "USA Today", os especialistas da Força Aérea dos EUA contaram como haviam procedido ao desembarcarem no aeroporto 24 horas após o terremoto. Foi um caos. A torre de controle estava quebrada. "Fomos falar com os pilotos e dissemos: ei, somos controladores de combate da aeronáutica. Estamos assumindo o controle do aeroporto", contou o sargento Chris Grove.
Dito e feito. Os americanos sabem que foram criticados por terem evacuado seus compatriotas como prioridade, e por terem privilegiado os voos militares em detrimento dos socorros: em outras palavras, a segurança em vez da ajuda humanitária. Mas tudo entrou nos eixos, eles afirmam. Os voos do Exército americano agora estão programados para a noite.
Quanto aos outros aviões, as prioridades são estabelecidas "pelo governo haitiano". E a secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton, durante sua visita assinou um acordo com o presidente René Préval regularizando a tomada de controle do aeroporto. A conversa aconteceu no hangar "tomado" pelo sargento Chris Grove e depois transformado em QG americano.
Para os americanos, o Haiti é tanto uma exigência humanitária quanto uma exigência de segurança nacional. Cada vez que acontece um tumulto relacionado ao Caribe, especialmente com Cuba, eles temem um êxodo que mandaria centenas de milhares de refugiados para a Flórida, situada a somente 1.200 quilômetros.
Para justificar seu comprometimento em favor do Haiti, Barack Obama também acrescentou uma exigência moral em nome da "humanidade comum" compartilhada por todos os povos da Terra. Para a imagem que os americanos fazem de si mesmos, e para aquela que seus vizinhos têm deles, é necessário ajudar o salvamento do Haiti, disse ele. É uma questão de liderança.
Mesmo que as duas situações não tenham nada a ver, o paralelo com o furacão Katrina foi abordado, em sua vantagem – e para a grande satisfação da Casa Branca. A reação instantânea do presidente – meia hora depois de saber do terremoto, ele já publicava um comunicado – foi bem vista nos Estados Unidos, com algumas exceções.
A crítica mais ácida foi a de Rush Limbaugh, apresentador ultradireitista de rádio, que o acusou de adular a comunidade afro-americana, em um momento em que ela se sente abandonada por seu presidente "pós-racial".
Longa história muitas vezes turbulenta
O Haiti mantém uma longa história – e muitas vezes turbulenta – com os Estados Unidos desde a primeira campanha de julho de 1915, decidida por Woodrow Wilson, precursor das intervenções armadas conduzidas em nome da promoção da democracia (a ocupação durou 19 anos).
Os Estados Unidos "voltaram" em 1994, quando Bill Clinton resolveu restabelecer no poder o padre Jean-Bertrand Aristide, vítima de um golpe de Estado. E depois em 2004, para expulsar o mesmo Aristide, que se tornara um ditador sanguinário. Todas as vezes o exército americano serviu de elemento avançado de uma força multinacional da ONU.
Tomada por uma ambição de fazer o "bem", a administração Obama desta vez promete um compromisso a longo prazo para acabar com um mal crônico. Em um momento em que duas guerras estão esgotando seus recursos, é difícil acusar os americanos de estarem comandando uma nova "ocupação" qualquer.
Se a ONU tivesse enviado controladores aéreos a Porto Príncipe no dia seguinte ao terremoto, o sargento Chris Grove não estaria tumultuando os céus do Haiti.
Barack Obama logo assumiu o controle de tudo – quase que instintivamente, poderiam dizer. Ainda que ele tenha designado como coordenador o novo diretor da Agência Americana para o Desenvolvimento USAID, Rajiv Shah, um jovem médico de origem indiana, foi ele que declarou a situação "prioritária", a ponto de merecer manter em Washington os secretários da Defesa e das Relações Exteriores, esperados na Austrália para uma cúpula dedicada ao Afeganistão e à luta antiterrorista.
Obama também enviou a Porto Príncipe um de seus colaboradores mais próximos, Dennis McDonough, para coordenar a comunicação. É verdade que os apresentadores dos telejornais da noite também desembarcaram no Haiti (em que avião?, perguntariam alguns).
Reação instantânea bem vista nos Estados Unidos
A administração Obama se antecipou ao chamado? Teria ela se precipitado indevidamente? Certamente essa é a opinião daqueles – franceses, italianos, brasileiros – cujos aviões de socorro se viram desviados para os outros aeroportos da região por americanos que acreditavam estar fazendo a coisa certa, mas que nenhuma autoridade superior havia ordenado.
Na edição de segunda-feira (19) do jornal "USA Today", os especialistas da Força Aérea dos EUA contaram como haviam procedido ao desembarcarem no aeroporto 24 horas após o terremoto. Foi um caos. A torre de controle estava quebrada. "Fomos falar com os pilotos e dissemos: ei, somos controladores de combate da aeronáutica. Estamos assumindo o controle do aeroporto", contou o sargento Chris Grove.
Dito e feito. Os americanos sabem que foram criticados por terem evacuado seus compatriotas como prioridade, e por terem privilegiado os voos militares em detrimento dos socorros: em outras palavras, a segurança em vez da ajuda humanitária. Mas tudo entrou nos eixos, eles afirmam. Os voos do Exército americano agora estão programados para a noite.
Quanto aos outros aviões, as prioridades são estabelecidas "pelo governo haitiano". E a secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton, durante sua visita assinou um acordo com o presidente René Préval regularizando a tomada de controle do aeroporto. A conversa aconteceu no hangar "tomado" pelo sargento Chris Grove e depois transformado em QG americano.
Para os americanos, o Haiti é tanto uma exigência humanitária quanto uma exigência de segurança nacional. Cada vez que acontece um tumulto relacionado ao Caribe, especialmente com Cuba, eles temem um êxodo que mandaria centenas de milhares de refugiados para a Flórida, situada a somente 1.200 quilômetros.
Para justificar seu comprometimento em favor do Haiti, Barack Obama também acrescentou uma exigência moral em nome da "humanidade comum" compartilhada por todos os povos da Terra. Para a imagem que os americanos fazem de si mesmos, e para aquela que seus vizinhos têm deles, é necessário ajudar o salvamento do Haiti, disse ele. É uma questão de liderança.
Mesmo que as duas situações não tenham nada a ver, o paralelo com o furacão Katrina foi abordado, em sua vantagem – e para a grande satisfação da Casa Branca. A reação instantânea do presidente – meia hora depois de saber do terremoto, ele já publicava um comunicado – foi bem vista nos Estados Unidos, com algumas exceções.
A crítica mais ácida foi a de Rush Limbaugh, apresentador ultradireitista de rádio, que o acusou de adular a comunidade afro-americana, em um momento em que ela se sente abandonada por seu presidente "pós-racial".
Longa história muitas vezes turbulenta
O Haiti mantém uma longa história – e muitas vezes turbulenta – com os Estados Unidos desde a primeira campanha de julho de 1915, decidida por Woodrow Wilson, precursor das intervenções armadas conduzidas em nome da promoção da democracia (a ocupação durou 19 anos).
Os Estados Unidos "voltaram" em 1994, quando Bill Clinton resolveu restabelecer no poder o padre Jean-Bertrand Aristide, vítima de um golpe de Estado. E depois em 2004, para expulsar o mesmo Aristide, que se tornara um ditador sanguinário. Todas as vezes o exército americano serviu de elemento avançado de uma força multinacional da ONU.
Tomada por uma ambição de fazer o "bem", a administração Obama desta vez promete um compromisso a longo prazo para acabar com um mal crônico. Em um momento em que duas guerras estão esgotando seus recursos, é difícil acusar os americanos de estarem comandando uma nova "ocupação" qualquer.
Se a ONU tivesse enviado controladores aéreos a Porto Príncipe no dia seguinte ao terremoto, o sargento Chris Grove não estaria tumultuando os céus do Haiti.
Tradução: Lana Lim
Publicado no jornal "Folha de S. Paulo".
Quarta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2010.
Lula o "capoeirista" (calção branco), enfrentando o "gente branca de olhos azuis" (calção preto).
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
GEOPOLÍTICA NO HAIT – Nivaldo Cordeiro
Monday, October 19, 2009
"Soldiers" of the World: Let's unite against Communism!
Versão em português
A Soldier's Warning
by J. R. Nyquist
More than 160 years ago Søren Kierkegaard declared that "truth is a power." But it's a power that is rarely acknowledged beforehand because it entails suffering, and most people reject suffering. Eventually, however, the truth proves victorious, and the majority accepts it. "Why?" asked Kierkegaard. Not because it is truth. "They join it," he explained, "because everyone else is joining."
Twenty years ago the socialist bloc supposedly collapsed. But who is honestly celebrating this event? Some people imagined at the time, quite erroneously, that truth had proven victorious against history's most vicious lie. Russian dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Bukovsky, speaking at the Oslo Freedom Forum last May 19th, said that the socialist empire of the East continues. It has somehow survived. According to Bukovsky, "Those who perpetrated all those horrible crimes in the communist countries are safely in power again. These people have never said sorry. Those and those of their accomplices in the West who were apologists and sympathizers of the Soviet oppression throughout all these decades ... never said (they were) sorry, and never gave us a chance to forgive them."
Bukovsky also warned that totalitarian socialism is on the march. Not only has it revived in the East. It is spreading throughout Europe and Latin America. Bukovsky said that "twenty years down the road all we can do is repeat the famous phrase of Mark Twain that the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated." One only has to consider the situation in the United States, where socialists dominate the educational system and control the government. The idea that communism died in 1989 is farcical. "So far," Bukovsky explained, "no former communist country has managed to transcend its experience of the past.... Democratic institutions are systematically destroyed ... elections are turned into farce, political oppressions are everyday reality again, and even some new countries have joined that sad list of tyrannies and repressive societies such a Venezuela."
How has this happened? How could totalitarian socialism regain so much lost ground, so rapidly, without any serious resistance? How has it managed to make so much progress in the United States? "Contrary to one's expectations," Bukovsky lamented, "the collapse of communist regimes in the East did not bring any sobriety to the West, to a reassessment of its values. Just as we speak, a new version of the Soviet Union is forced on a silent majority of European nations: the European Union. Admittedly it is a very pale copy, a very mild copy of the Soviet Union; and yet, a copy nonetheless. We are already told there will be a Europe police, Europol, some kind of version of (the) KGB in the European Union, which will police us on 32 counts of crimes, two of which are particularly interesting because they do not exist as a crime in the penal code of any nation: that is the crime of racism, and the crime of xenophobia. And they already explained that those of us who object to the immigration policies of the European Union are going to be charged with the crime of racism, and those of us who object to the European Union are going to be charged with the crime of Xenophobia. Well, it always pays to know the article under which you are going to serve in jail."
Political correctness appears to be irresistible. The truth does not belong to most human beings. They are not soldiers for the truth. Instead, they are victims of the lie. Only a minority resists, by a process of suffering - as the truth itself suffers. Bukovsky told the Oslo Freedom Forum that socialism's utopian program is a criminal enterprise. It cannot be otherwise. As such, he explained, it should have been put on trial in 1992. But there was no trial.
According to Bukovsky, " (In 1992) I ... had access to archives of the Central Committee and Politburo; and what I discovered there explained to me why the West was so adamantly against a Nuremberg trial in Moscow. To begin with, so many of the prominent figures of the Western political, business and cultural world were in secret collaboration with Moscow that it would have been a huge shock in the West if that was revealed. And no one wanted that shock. But much more importantly, it would have been an ideological shock. Throughout the end of the Soviet Union, according to the documents I've seen, numerous leaders of the West, particularly of the left wing spectrum, would come to Russia, to the Soviet Union, alarmed at the prospect of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now think of that. We worked all our life to see that collapse, and in the crucial moment when it was about to collapse the entire world was trying to save it. And What was their explanation? Why were they so adamant to support this disintegrating regime? Oh, because, as they say, and I quote: 'The collapse of socialism in the East can bring the crisis to that idea in the West.' So what they were trying to save was their own illusion, their own utopia of socialism, by dooming our countries...."
The KGB and the Communist Party Soviet Union were not without allies in 1992, and they are not without allies today. Soviet socialists are part of a brotherhood that includes American and West European socialists. The crime of forcing a socialist utopia on the world is still their goal. Those who "force utopia on the people are committing a crime," Bukovsky declared. This is the legacy of socialism. If we cannot learn from this, then the gigantic tragedy of Soviet oppression "will have no meaning."
At the Oslo Freedom Forum Bukovsky demanded "unconditional surrender from our enemy...." And then, he said, we must put them on trial. "We were told (in 1992) that we were trying to mount a witch hunt," said Bukovsky. "Well, today the witches have returned and they are hunting us." The Kremlin is engaged in a massive rearmament program. At the same time, the United States is disarming. Those who would resist have been neutralized. A small minority of organizers, KGB officers, agents of influence, and fellow travelers, have effectively turned the tables on the Free World.
The final crisis awaits, and Bukovsky tells us that we have a choice: to be soldiers against socialism, or to be its victims.
Twenty years ago the socialist bloc supposedly collapsed. But who is honestly celebrating this event? Some people imagined at the time, quite erroneously, that truth had proven victorious against history's most vicious lie. Russian dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Bukovsky, speaking at the Oslo Freedom Forum last May 19th, said that the socialist empire of the East continues. It has somehow survived. According to Bukovsky, "Those who perpetrated all those horrible crimes in the communist countries are safely in power again. These people have never said sorry. Those and those of their accomplices in the West who were apologists and sympathizers of the Soviet oppression throughout all these decades ... never said (they were) sorry, and never gave us a chance to forgive them."
Bukovsky also warned that totalitarian socialism is on the march. Not only has it revived in the East. It is spreading throughout Europe and Latin America. Bukovsky said that "twenty years down the road all we can do is repeat the famous phrase of Mark Twain that the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated." One only has to consider the situation in the United States, where socialists dominate the educational system and control the government. The idea that communism died in 1989 is farcical. "So far," Bukovsky explained, "no former communist country has managed to transcend its experience of the past.... Democratic institutions are systematically destroyed ... elections are turned into farce, political oppressions are everyday reality again, and even some new countries have joined that sad list of tyrannies and repressive societies such a Venezuela."
How has this happened? How could totalitarian socialism regain so much lost ground, so rapidly, without any serious resistance? How has it managed to make so much progress in the United States? "Contrary to one's expectations," Bukovsky lamented, "the collapse of communist regimes in the East did not bring any sobriety to the West, to a reassessment of its values. Just as we speak, a new version of the Soviet Union is forced on a silent majority of European nations: the European Union. Admittedly it is a very pale copy, a very mild copy of the Soviet Union; and yet, a copy nonetheless. We are already told there will be a Europe police, Europol, some kind of version of (the) KGB in the European Union, which will police us on 32 counts of crimes, two of which are particularly interesting because they do not exist as a crime in the penal code of any nation: that is the crime of racism, and the crime of xenophobia. And they already explained that those of us who object to the immigration policies of the European Union are going to be charged with the crime of racism, and those of us who object to the European Union are going to be charged with the crime of Xenophobia. Well, it always pays to know the article under which you are going to serve in jail."
Political correctness appears to be irresistible. The truth does not belong to most human beings. They are not soldiers for the truth. Instead, they are victims of the lie. Only a minority resists, by a process of suffering - as the truth itself suffers. Bukovsky told the Oslo Freedom Forum that socialism's utopian program is a criminal enterprise. It cannot be otherwise. As such, he explained, it should have been put on trial in 1992. But there was no trial.
According to Bukovsky, " (In 1992) I ... had access to archives of the Central Committee and Politburo; and what I discovered there explained to me why the West was so adamantly against a Nuremberg trial in Moscow. To begin with, so many of the prominent figures of the Western political, business and cultural world were in secret collaboration with Moscow that it would have been a huge shock in the West if that was revealed. And no one wanted that shock. But much more importantly, it would have been an ideological shock. Throughout the end of the Soviet Union, according to the documents I've seen, numerous leaders of the West, particularly of the left wing spectrum, would come to Russia, to the Soviet Union, alarmed at the prospect of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now think of that. We worked all our life to see that collapse, and in the crucial moment when it was about to collapse the entire world was trying to save it. And What was their explanation? Why were they so adamant to support this disintegrating regime? Oh, because, as they say, and I quote: 'The collapse of socialism in the East can bring the crisis to that idea in the West.' So what they were trying to save was their own illusion, their own utopia of socialism, by dooming our countries...."
The KGB and the Communist Party Soviet Union were not without allies in 1992, and they are not without allies today. Soviet socialists are part of a brotherhood that includes American and West European socialists. The crime of forcing a socialist utopia on the world is still their goal. Those who "force utopia on the people are committing a crime," Bukovsky declared. This is the legacy of socialism. If we cannot learn from this, then the gigantic tragedy of Soviet oppression "will have no meaning."
At the Oslo Freedom Forum Bukovsky demanded "unconditional surrender from our enemy...." And then, he said, we must put them on trial. "We were told (in 1992) that we were trying to mount a witch hunt," said Bukovsky. "Well, today the witches have returned and they are hunting us." The Kremlin is engaged in a massive rearmament program. At the same time, the United States is disarming. Those who would resist have been neutralized. A small minority of organizers, KGB officers, agents of influence, and fellow travelers, have effectively turned the tables on the Free World.
The final crisis awaits, and Bukovsky tells us that we have a choice: to be soldiers against socialism, or to be its victims.
Jeffrey R. Nyquist, is a columnist, editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations. Jeffery Nyquist is trained in political sociology at the University of California, is also the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War". He has contributed articles to web sites such as sierratimes.com, worldnetdaily.com, financialsense.com, and newsmax.com. Nyquist advocates the view that the fall of the Soviet Union was a deception designed to encourage the West to disarm, and that the Communists are still in control to this day. This view was first written about in a book by the Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, in his book "New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation". J.R. Nyquist also keeps the site: "JRNyquist.com".
Weekly Column: Published in "FINANCIAL SENSE".
Friday, October 09, 2009.
Bukovsky Speech in Oslo – Videos
Video: Oslo Freedom Forum - Vladimir Bukovsky (Part 1 of 3)
Video: Oslo Freedom Forum - Vladimir Bukovsky (Part 2 of 3)
Video: Oslo Freedom Forum - Vladimir Bukovsky (Part 3 of 3)
To watch the videos in HD (High Definition), click the PLAY button 
then, will appear the button 
click to change to red 
Note: If the download is slow or intermittent, click the PAUSE button
wait for complete loading and then pulse PLAY
then, will appear the button click to change to red Note: If the download is slow or intermittent, click the PAUSE button
wait for complete loading and then pulse PLAY 
ATTENTION! Also read: "Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord", absolutely scariest.Primores de ternura (2) – Olavo de Carvalho
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
"Soldiers" of the World: Let's unite against Communism!
Monday, January 05, 2009
OS OCIDENTAIS ESTÃO RUMANDO SILENCIOSAMENTE PARA A EXTINÇÃO!
Anúncio do fim
por Olavo de Carvalho
Se fossem apenas previsões em sentido estrito, as especulações do cientista político russo Igor Panarin quanto ao futuro dos EUA não mereceriam mais atenção que um palpite de turfista. Mas, exatamente como aquelas de Arnold Toynbee que comentei em outro lugar (v. AQUI ), elas não são previsões: são o resumo de um plano já em avançada fase de execução. Nenhum estudioso em seu juízo perfeito se arriscaria a fazer prognósticos tão detalhados com base em puras tendências econômicas gerais. Se Panarin é levado a sério pelo Kremlin, é porque o Kremlin sabe do que ele está falando. Suas profecias só merecem respeito porque preparam aquilo que anunciam. Discuti-las como teoria é divertimento ocioso: ou a elite americana faz algo de prático para frustrá-las, ou trata logo de inventar algum pretexto elegante para relax and enjoy ("relacha e goza") diante da ocupação estrangeira.
Panarin prevê a decomposição dos EUA a partir de 2010, com a subseqüente divisão do território em seis regiões separadas, sob o domínio da China, da Rússia, do México, da União Européia, do Canadá e do Japão (v. AQUI em inglês). Não há espaço aqui para analisar cada um desses casos, mas, só para dar dois exemplos, a China, pretendente à posse de toda a costa oeste segundo Panarin, e o México, virtual herdeiro de nove Estados entre a Flórida e o Novo México, já desfrutam, nos EUA, de uma liberdade de ação que nenhuma potência concede usualmente a nações estrangeiras. Vinte e tantos anos de demolição sistemática da indústria americana em favor de seus concorrentes chineses – verdadeiro protecionismo às avessas –, acabaram por fazer do consumidor americano o principal sustentáculo da economia chinesa, transmutando investimentos em débitos e ajuda econômica em ritual de auto-imolação. A política de favorecimento unilateral inaugurada por Richard Nixon e levada à perfeição por Bill Clinton deu enfim o resultado previsível: mais até do que a velha URSS, que só cresceu às dimensões de potência ameaçadora graças ao auxílio recebido dos EUA, a China tornou-se, para usar a expressão clássica de Anthony Sutton, "o melhor inimigo que o dinheiro podia comprar". Somem-se a isso a tolerância suicida ante a espionagem chinesa, a superioridade da China na produção de armas nanotecnológicas capazes de paralisar a nação adversária em poucas horas
(v. AQUI ) e, last not least, a hegemonia cultural do anti-americanismo na Califórnia, e verão que Panarin não está tão maluco quanto parece. Quanto ao México, tem o privilégio de fomentar livremente movimentos de secessão em vários Estados do Sul, sob o olhar complacente do governo americano, que, com toda a certeza, se tornará ainda mais complacente na gestão Obama, de vez que o novo presidente apóia e é apoiado por "La Raza", organização militante que advoga a expulsão dos "gringos" e a ocupação da área pela autoridade mexicana.
Com cáustica ironia, Panarin lembra que em vão o povo americano espera milagres de Barack Obama: os milagres não virão.
Obama é, na verdade, o presidente menos qualificado que já houve para defender a integridade e a soberania dos EUA. Amplamente beneficiado por ajudas estrangeiras ilegais, vulnerável a toda sorte de chantagens pelo seu passado nebuloso, suas ligações comprometedoras e seus documentos falsificados, Obama foi posto no poder por quem sabe que pode destrui-lo com duas cuspidas. E foi posto lá precisamente por isso. Ele está bem protegido de seus inimigos, mas totalmente à mercê de seus protetores. Contra estes, ele não pode defender nem sequer a si próprio, quanto mais ao país inteiro.
Quanto àqueles que festejam antecipadamente o fim dos EUA, talvez não lhes ocorra, por falta de imaginação, a suspeita de que um mundo dominado pela Rússia e pela China não conhecerá outro regime político senão o russo e o chinês.
Não obstante, desejo a todos um Feliz Ano Novo, seja isto lá o que for.
Panarin prevê a decomposição dos EUA a partir de 2010, com a subseqüente divisão do território em seis regiões separadas, sob o domínio da China, da Rússia, do México, da União Européia, do Canadá e do Japão (v. AQUI em inglês). Não há espaço aqui para analisar cada um desses casos, mas, só para dar dois exemplos, a China, pretendente à posse de toda a costa oeste segundo Panarin, e o México, virtual herdeiro de nove Estados entre a Flórida e o Novo México, já desfrutam, nos EUA, de uma liberdade de ação que nenhuma potência concede usualmente a nações estrangeiras. Vinte e tantos anos de demolição sistemática da indústria americana em favor de seus concorrentes chineses – verdadeiro protecionismo às avessas –, acabaram por fazer do consumidor americano o principal sustentáculo da economia chinesa, transmutando investimentos em débitos e ajuda econômica em ritual de auto-imolação. A política de favorecimento unilateral inaugurada por Richard Nixon e levada à perfeição por Bill Clinton deu enfim o resultado previsível: mais até do que a velha URSS, que só cresceu às dimensões de potência ameaçadora graças ao auxílio recebido dos EUA, a China tornou-se, para usar a expressão clássica de Anthony Sutton, "o melhor inimigo que o dinheiro podia comprar". Somem-se a isso a tolerância suicida ante a espionagem chinesa, a superioridade da China na produção de armas nanotecnológicas capazes de paralisar a nação adversária em poucas horas
(v. AQUI ) e, last not least, a hegemonia cultural do anti-americanismo na Califórnia, e verão que Panarin não está tão maluco quanto parece. Quanto ao México, tem o privilégio de fomentar livremente movimentos de secessão em vários Estados do Sul, sob o olhar complacente do governo americano, que, com toda a certeza, se tornará ainda mais complacente na gestão Obama, de vez que o novo presidente apóia e é apoiado por "La Raza", organização militante que advoga a expulsão dos "gringos" e a ocupação da área pela autoridade mexicana.
Com cáustica ironia, Panarin lembra que em vão o povo americano espera milagres de Barack Obama: os milagres não virão.
Obama é, na verdade, o presidente menos qualificado que já houve para defender a integridade e a soberania dos EUA. Amplamente beneficiado por ajudas estrangeiras ilegais, vulnerável a toda sorte de chantagens pelo seu passado nebuloso, suas ligações comprometedoras e seus documentos falsificados, Obama foi posto no poder por quem sabe que pode destrui-lo com duas cuspidas. E foi posto lá precisamente por isso. Ele está bem protegido de seus inimigos, mas totalmente à mercê de seus protetores. Contra estes, ele não pode defender nem sequer a si próprio, quanto mais ao país inteiro.
Quanto àqueles que festejam antecipadamente o fim dos EUA, talvez não lhes ocorra, por falta de imaginação, a suspeita de que um mundo dominado pela Rússia e pela China não conhecerá outro regime político senão o russo e o chinês.
Não obstante, desejo a todos um Feliz Ano Novo, seja isto lá o que for.
Olavo Luís Pimentel de Carvalho nasceu em Campinas, SP em 29/04/1947 é escritor, jornalista, palestrante, filósofo, livre pensador e intelectual, tem sido saudado pela crítica como um dos mais originais e audaciosos pensadores brasileiros, publica regularmente seus artigos nos jornais "Diário do Comércio", "Jornal do Brasil" e no site "Mídia Sem Máscara", além de inúmeros outros veículos do Brasil e do exterior. Já escreveu vários livros e ensaios, sendo que o mais discutido é "O Imbecil Coletivo: Atualidades Inculturais Brasileiras" de 1996, que granjeou para o autor um bom número de desafetos nos meios intelectuais brasileiro, mas também uma multidão de leitores devotos, que esgotaram em três semanas a primeira edição da obra, e em quatro dias a segunda. Atualmente reside em Richmond-Virginia, EUA onde mantém o site "Olavo de Carvalho" em português e inglês, sobre sua vida, obras e idéias. E-mail: olavo@olavodecarvalho.org
Publicado no "Jornal do Brasil" (Opinião).
Quinta-feira, 01 de janeiro de 2009.
As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
by Andrew Osborn for The Wall Street Journal
In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010
MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."
Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.
But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.
A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.
"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.
Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.
In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.
Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."
Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.
Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.
The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."
In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.
"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."
At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.
He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.
Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.
Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.
For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.
The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."
Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.
But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.
A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.
"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.
Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.
In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.
Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."
Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.
Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.
The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."
In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.
"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."
At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.
He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.
Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.
Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.
For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.
The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.
Igor N. Panarin is Doctor of political sciences, professor of the Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia. Prof. Panarin is the author of nine books, "Infowar and power", "Infowar and world", "Infowar and election", and others, and of many political essays published in various journals. Prof. Panarin often take part in different political discussions on the Russian TV on the main problems of Russian policy, development of relationships between USA and Russia and many others. His main interests are history, philosophy, psychology, computer science, communication, election technology, conceptual problems of globalization, the theory and practice of infowar.
Published in "The Wall Street Journal".
Monday, December 29, 2008.
FELIZ ANO NOVO! – HAPPY NEW YEAR!
INSISTO: 1964 NUNCA TERMINOU! "CONTINUA TUDO COMO DANTES NO QUARTEL D’ABRANTES"
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
OS OCIDENTAIS ESTÃO RUMANDO SILENCIOSAMENTE PARA A EXTINÇÃO!"
5 comments:
Labels:
2010,
Canadá,
China,
Disintegrates,
Divided,
EUA,
Igor Panarin,
Jornal do Brasil,
Lula,
México,
Moscow,
Olavo de Carvalho,
PT,
Rússia,
States,
The Wall Street Journal,
União Européia,
USA
Labels:
2010,
Canadá,
China,
Disintegrates,
Divided,
EUA,
Igor Panarin,
Jornal do Brasil,
Lula,
México,
Moscow,
Olavo de Carvalho,
PT,
Rússia,
States,
The Wall Street Journal,
União Européia,
USA
Friday, December 26, 2008
Definitely, you are NOT guilty of this!
Versão em português
Freedom and the Left
by Thomas Sowell
Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.
Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free.
One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."
There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."
The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.
Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.
Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?
This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.
But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.
What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."
SAY "NO" TO "POLITICALLY CORRECT"
The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service."
The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?
What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?
Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.
I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.
Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.
In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.
The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.
Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free.
One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."
There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."
The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.
Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.
Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?
This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.
But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.
What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."
SAY "NO" TO "POLITICALLY CORRECT"
The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service."
The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?
What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?
Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.
I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.
Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.
In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.
The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.
Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina still young he joined the Marine Corps (U.S. Navy), where he became photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service in the Marines, Sowell came to Harvard University, graduated in economics, he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. Thomas Sowell also taught economics at the following institutions: Cornell University, Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California, also published several books and numerous articles and essays. Sowell began his career as a columnist for newspapers in the late 70, came to win the prize "Francis Boyer" in The American Enterprise Institute in 1990. Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. and maintains a column in the prestigious site "Townhall.com".
Published in "Townhall.com".
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Viva Israel! Long Life to Israel! Next Stop: 2009 a "NUKE" on Iran.
Indians and Pakistanis are already beginning to facilitate the things for us, see from inside the "CASAMATA" (in Portuguese).
Previous post published in English: The Meaning of Mumbai – Thomas Sowell
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
Definitely, you are NOT the guilty of this!
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Islam is determined to destroy the West!
We will let this happen?
Versão em português
The Meaning of Mumbai
by Thomas Sowell
Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantanamo?
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event-- the World Series, Christmas, New Year's, the Super Bowl-- was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn't strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn't want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: "This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us."
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want-- what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways-- is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue-- and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.
Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.
Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event-- the World Series, Christmas, New Year's, the Super Bowl-- was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.
They didn't strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn't want to hit America again?
Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?
Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.
A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: "This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us."
There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.
Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.
The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.
How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?
Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.
Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.
There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want-- what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways-- is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.
Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.
This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue-- and a warning.
The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.
They want our soul – and if they are willing to die and we are not – they will get it.
Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina still young he joined the Marine Corps (U.S. Navy), where he became photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service in the Marines, Sowell came to Harvard University, graduated in economics, he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. Thomas Sowell also taught economics at the following institutions: Cornell University, Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California, also published several books and numerous articles and essays. Sowell began his career as a columnist for newspapers in the late 70, came to win the prize "Francis Boyer" in The American Enterprise Institute in 1990. Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. and maintains a column in the prestigious site "Townhall.com"
Published in "Townhall.com".
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Previous post published in English: The Monster at the Bottom of the Abyss – J. R. Nyquist
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
The Islam is determined to destroy the West. We will let this happen?
No comments:
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Brazil,
Guantanamo,
Hoover Institute,
Iran,
Islam,
Islamic,
Lula,
Mumbai,
PT,
Roman Empire,
Terrorists,
Theodore Dalrymple,
Thomas Sowell,
Townhall.com,
USA,
West,
Western
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Brazil,
Guantanamo,
Hoover Institute,
Iran,
Islam,
Islamic,
Lula,
Mumbai,
PT,
Roman Empire,
Terrorists,
Theodore Dalrymple,
Thomas Sowell,
Townhall.com,
USA,
West,
Western
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The History being repeated as farce, and certainly with the same
ruinous end for humanity.
Figure: Cartoon by David Low, published by English tabloid "Evening Standard" on 22 December 1939.
Versão em português
The Monster at the Bottom of the Abyss
by J. R. Nyquist
Published in "FINANCIAL SENSE".
Friday, October 10, 2008.
Perdão seletivo – Vannuchi e Genro acham que a anistia ampla e irrestrita não vale para inimigos – Augusto Nunes
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
The History being repeated as farce, and certainly with the same ruinous end for humanity.
Versão em português
The Monster at the Bottom of the Abyss
by J. R. Nyquist
In an October 6 article titled "The German Question", STRATFOR's George Friedman poured a pitcher of cold logic on America's plan for NATO's future. It appears that Germany is determined to block NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. The long-term implications of this decision are stunning. "Since NATO operates on the basis of consensus," wrote Friedman, "any member nation can effectively block any candidate from NATO membership." The Russian invasion of Georgia has forced Germany into this position. The conflict in Georgia has forced the Germans to clarify their geopolitical thinking. What we see now, quite clearly, is Germany turning away from NATO. They can call it whatever they like. They are thinking as Germans. Russia's thrust into Georgia was a masterstroke because it successfully redirected Germany's political sensibility from a NATO-centered view to a German-centered view. In Europe there is one question that stands above all others, and the Germans must give the answer. Either Europe will confront Russia in a new Cold War, or Europe will become Russia's partner. According to Friedman's logic, Germany has already decided on partnership with Russia.
Imagine a partnership between Russia and Germany. The Russians supply the military muscle, the natural resources, and cheap labor. The Germans supply the technology, the money, and European finesse. Friedman says that Germany's energy situation is "desperate," and that German leaders are merely looking after their country's national interest. It is important to remember, however, that Germany sees a carrot as well as a stick. The German leaders are not merely avoiding pain. They are tempted by a Russian partnership, especially as global financial structures are imploding. As Friedman points out, Germany's "political problem" is its geographical position in the center of Europe. Does Germany face east or west? Does Germany align itself with Russia or the Anglo-Americans and the French?
But surely the German's understand that their destiny lies with the West! Such a conclusion, however, may be sensible to someone viewing affairs from a distance. It is not immediately sensible to the German leadership, tempted as they are by the prospect of a vital "reforming" role in Europe. The European Union is not functioning properly and the Euro may be headed for the ashcan of history. The NATO system, dominated so long by America, is increasingly inconvenient from the German point of view. It may, in fact, be a harebrained scheme to partner with the Kremlin – which prefers Asiatic methods. But such a partnership appeals to German vanity as well as to Germany's practical sense. The Russians value the Germans. The Russians whisper sweet nothings into Germany's ear. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a fluent German speaker who even possesses German traits, sympathizes with German thinking, and thereby flatters German feeling. It is a complex case of seduction.
How do the Germans feel, deep down, about Russia's intentions toward Georgia and Ukraine? The Germans are ready to think in terms of their own national interest. They are tempted to disregard NATO. Perhaps they are sick of being NATO's prisoner. After all, Germany was defeated in World War II and became trapped in the Cold War between Russia and America. This is not a situation that bears repeating. Conflict between Russia and NATO is not in Germany's national interest. Friendship with Russia holds promise – even if the promise is a false one.
France and Britain are willing to challenge Russia's new aggressive stance. Germany doesn't want this at all. The United States seeks to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Germany doesn't want this at all. There is a serious rift in NATO. Will the Germans find a way out of NATO? Conventional wisdom supposes that this is unthinkable. Everyone knows Russia is dangerous. Partnering with Russia is like playing with fire. Sooner or later Germany is going to get burned. At the same time, however, recent events in Georgia have educated the Germans. Suddenly Germany is confronted with an unpleasant choice.
"NATO," noted Friedman, "as an institution built to resist the Russians, is in an advanced state of decay. To resurrect it, the Germans would have to pay a steep economic price." Quite clearly, the Germans have already decided to abandon NATO's mission in pursuit of their own short-term economic interest. Where this will lead in the long-run is obvious. One day Russia and Germany will come to blows, and America isn't going to be around to help Germany. Perhaps the financial crash on Wall Street has underscored the future irrelevance of America for Germany. America is collapsing, after all.
NATO is therefore in trouble. It may not exist much longer. The Russian's are shrewd in playing their diplomatic, economic and military cards. Luring the German's into partnership opens the way to NATO's destruction by diplomatic means. "NATO has no real military power to project to the east," wrote Friedman, "and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming." The logic of Friedman's analysis cannot be disputed. The Kremlin looks at the collapse on Wall Street and sees an opportunity. During an October 2 joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said, "One of the complicated issues we discussed was the financial crisis. We have realized once again that the current global financial security system, like the international security system, doesn't satisfy present needs. The flaws in the economic … model pursued by the United States of America … are serious, and we are paying for this today." In a speech before the Russian-German Public Forum, the Russian president translated today's financial crisis into geopolitical language. "What have recent events shown?" he asked. "They have demonstrated that the time in which one economy and one currency dominated the globe is irretrievably gone. And we need collective solutions to resolve the financial crisis brought on by financial selfishness…." In other words, let the Americans suffer their fate. Europe is face-to-face with Russia now. Does Europe want to oppose Russia on its own? The Russians are forcing Germany to make a decision. "It is possible that today some people would like to go back to the primitive division of the world into ours and theirs, right and wrong, but in Russia we are convinced that this time is irretrievably gone. It is impossible to revive the Berlin Wall, just as it is impossible to return to the Cold War – there is no reason to do so."
President Medvedev is winking at the Germans. You know what to do, he says to them. You don't want to fight us. You need us. The wickedness of the KGB cabal in Moscow is not the issue. One must look "beyond good and evil," to the hard realities of the situation. Does Germany want to feel the chill of winter, without the benefits of Russian oil or Russian natural gas? This is not a sensible position, and Germany knows which way to turn. NATO is finished and America is going to collapse. Therefore Europe needs a new "security architecture." In other words, Europe now belongs to Russia and the Germans should cut a deal while the Russians are in a generous mood. If the French Prime Minister says that the world stands on the "edge of the abyss," the monster at the bottom of the abyss is Russia.
Imagine a partnership between Russia and Germany. The Russians supply the military muscle, the natural resources, and cheap labor. The Germans supply the technology, the money, and European finesse. Friedman says that Germany's energy situation is "desperate," and that German leaders are merely looking after their country's national interest. It is important to remember, however, that Germany sees a carrot as well as a stick. The German leaders are not merely avoiding pain. They are tempted by a Russian partnership, especially as global financial structures are imploding. As Friedman points out, Germany's "political problem" is its geographical position in the center of Europe. Does Germany face east or west? Does Germany align itself with Russia or the Anglo-Americans and the French?
But surely the German's understand that their destiny lies with the West! Such a conclusion, however, may be sensible to someone viewing affairs from a distance. It is not immediately sensible to the German leadership, tempted as they are by the prospect of a vital "reforming" role in Europe. The European Union is not functioning properly and the Euro may be headed for the ashcan of history. The NATO system, dominated so long by America, is increasingly inconvenient from the German point of view. It may, in fact, be a harebrained scheme to partner with the Kremlin – which prefers Asiatic methods. But such a partnership appeals to German vanity as well as to Germany's practical sense. The Russians value the Germans. The Russians whisper sweet nothings into Germany's ear. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a fluent German speaker who even possesses German traits, sympathizes with German thinking, and thereby flatters German feeling. It is a complex case of seduction.
How do the Germans feel, deep down, about Russia's intentions toward Georgia and Ukraine? The Germans are ready to think in terms of their own national interest. They are tempted to disregard NATO. Perhaps they are sick of being NATO's prisoner. After all, Germany was defeated in World War II and became trapped in the Cold War between Russia and America. This is not a situation that bears repeating. Conflict between Russia and NATO is not in Germany's national interest. Friendship with Russia holds promise – even if the promise is a false one.
France and Britain are willing to challenge Russia's new aggressive stance. Germany doesn't want this at all. The United States seeks to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Germany doesn't want this at all. There is a serious rift in NATO. Will the Germans find a way out of NATO? Conventional wisdom supposes that this is unthinkable. Everyone knows Russia is dangerous. Partnering with Russia is like playing with fire. Sooner or later Germany is going to get burned. At the same time, however, recent events in Georgia have educated the Germans. Suddenly Germany is confronted with an unpleasant choice.
"NATO," noted Friedman, "as an institution built to resist the Russians, is in an advanced state of decay. To resurrect it, the Germans would have to pay a steep economic price." Quite clearly, the Germans have already decided to abandon NATO's mission in pursuit of their own short-term economic interest. Where this will lead in the long-run is obvious. One day Russia and Germany will come to blows, and America isn't going to be around to help Germany. Perhaps the financial crash on Wall Street has underscored the future irrelevance of America for Germany. America is collapsing, after all.
NATO is therefore in trouble. It may not exist much longer. The Russian's are shrewd in playing their diplomatic, economic and military cards. Luring the German's into partnership opens the way to NATO's destruction by diplomatic means. "NATO has no real military power to project to the east," wrote Friedman, "and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming." The logic of Friedman's analysis cannot be disputed. The Kremlin looks at the collapse on Wall Street and sees an opportunity. During an October 2 joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said, "One of the complicated issues we discussed was the financial crisis. We have realized once again that the current global financial security system, like the international security system, doesn't satisfy present needs. The flaws in the economic … model pursued by the United States of America … are serious, and we are paying for this today." In a speech before the Russian-German Public Forum, the Russian president translated today's financial crisis into geopolitical language. "What have recent events shown?" he asked. "They have demonstrated that the time in which one economy and one currency dominated the globe is irretrievably gone. And we need collective solutions to resolve the financial crisis brought on by financial selfishness…." In other words, let the Americans suffer their fate. Europe is face-to-face with Russia now. Does Europe want to oppose Russia on its own? The Russians are forcing Germany to make a decision. "It is possible that today some people would like to go back to the primitive division of the world into ours and theirs, right and wrong, but in Russia we are convinced that this time is irretrievably gone. It is impossible to revive the Berlin Wall, just as it is impossible to return to the Cold War – there is no reason to do so."
President Medvedev is winking at the Germans. You know what to do, he says to them. You don't want to fight us. You need us. The wickedness of the KGB cabal in Moscow is not the issue. One must look "beyond good and evil," to the hard realities of the situation. Does Germany want to feel the chill of winter, without the benefits of Russian oil or Russian natural gas? This is not a sensible position, and Germany knows which way to turn. NATO is finished and America is going to collapse. Therefore Europe needs a new "security architecture." In other words, Europe now belongs to Russia and the Germans should cut a deal while the Russians are in a generous mood. If the French Prime Minister says that the world stands on the "edge of the abyss," the monster at the bottom of the abyss is Russia.
Jeffrey R. Nyquist, is a columnist, editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations. Jeffery Nyquist is trained in political sociology at the University of California, is also the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War". He has contributed articles to web sites such as sierratimes.com, worldnetdaily.com, financialsense.com, and newsmax.com. Nyquist advocates the view that the fall of the Soviet Union was a deception designed to encourage the West to disarm, and that the Communists are still in control to this day. This view was first written about in a book by the Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, in his book "New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation". J.R. Nyquist also keeps the site: "JRNyquist.com".
Published in "FINANCIAL SENSE".
Friday, October 10, 2008.
Perdão seletivo – Vannuchi e Genro acham que a anistia ampla e irrestrita não vale para inimigos – Augusto Nunes
http://bootlead.blogspot.com
The History being repeated as farce, and certainly with the same ruinous end for humanity.
No comments:
Labels:
Angela Merkel,
Crisis,
Dmitri Medvedev,
Europe,
European Union,
Financialsense,
George Friedman,
Germany,
J. R. Nyquist,
KGB,
MSM,
Nato,
Russia,
USA,
Vladimir Putin,
West
Labels:
Angela Merkel,
Crisis,
Dmitri Medvedev,
Europe,
European Union,
Financialsense,
George Friedman,
Germany,
J. R. Nyquist,
KGB,
MSM,
Nato,
Russia,
USA,
Vladimir Putin,
West
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Deus ex machina
Nota: "N W O" (New World Order ou The Illuminati)
O império do segredo
por Olavo de Carvalho
Desde que os eleitores americanos aceitaram confiar num candidato presidencial do qual não sabiam praticamente nada e que escondia deles sua certidão de nascimento, seu histórico escolar, sua lista de contribuintes e qualquer outro documento que comprovasse sua biografia oficial de campanha, ficou claro que a noção tradicional de "transparência" em política tinha sofrido um golpe mortal, do qual talvez não se recuperaria nunca mais.
O ritual funerário veio bem depressa: o Federal Reserve, que no início da crise financeira prometera tratar do assunto do modo mais "transparente" possível, agora recusa-se a divulgar os nomes dos recebedores de mais de US$ 2 trilhões em "empréstimos de emergência". O motivo não é difícil de imaginar: causas diretas da encrenca, esses empréstimos foram arrancados dos bancos à força, pela pressão das ONGs esquerdistas, como por exemplo a Acorn, que deu emprego a Obama, financiou sua candidatura e ainda distribuiu alguns milhões de títulos de eleitor falsos para garantir o investimento. É impossível remexer essa sujeira sem fazê-la respingar na imagem do presidente eleito. Bondosamente, o Federal Reserve poupa dessa cruel decepção os fãs de Obama, e o faz mediante o expediente obâmico usual: sumir com as informações. O pressuposto mais básico da democracia americana – o acesso público aos dados relevantes – está morto e sepultado.
Para todos os bocós que votam às tontas, guiados tão somente pelo show business, isso não fará a menor diferença. Nem perceberão a mudança. Cada vez que puderem dissolver-se de novo na massa, gritando "Obama! Obama", acreditarão estar exercendo a democracia. Para os eleitores conscientes, é a extinção de tudo o que entendem como "cidadania", "direitos civis", "império da lei", etc. Doravante o povo está separado do seu governante por um abismo de silêncio, preenchido tão-somente pela obrigação de acreditar sem questionar. Ao transformar Obama num deus, a propaganda conferiu o privilégio da invisibilidade ao personagem real oculto sob a máscara. Eleita a criatura, o privilégio foi estendido a toda a administração federal, deixando à mostra apenas os símbolos convencionais da democracia, para consumo da massa crédula.
No mesmo dia – parece brincadeira – a lista de promessas de campanha do presidente eleito desapareceu do site de transição, www.change.gov. Logo desaparecerá também da memória popular, e Obama estará apto a "distribuir riqueza" (sic) com a mesma generosidade com que, uma vez milionário, abandonou seus parentes em favelas – inclusive aquela tia que, segundo ele se gaba nas suas memórias, o ensinou a ser o provedor responsável da família – e com o mesmo senso de dever com que deixou milhares de funcionários de campanha, perplexos, esperando até agora o salário prometido.
Tenham paciência, irmãos. Com a experiência, pouco a pouco vocês irão conhecendo o verdadeiro Obama. Mas, por enquanto, não perguntem nada. O presidente eleito já tem livre acesso a todos os mais altos segredos de Estado da nação americana, mas a realidade da sua vida permanece um segredo inviolável. Pretender investigá-la é crime de racismo. Aguardem para breve a Fairness Doctrine, velho sonho democrata já em avançado estado de implementação, que acabará com as perguntas incômodas nas estações de rádio, e o advento da "Força Civil de Segurança Nacional", militância armada, do tamanho do Exército, a qual, nada tendo de sério a fazer na esfera policial, só servirá para perseguir "fundamentalistas" (não islâmicos, é claro), "homofóbicos", "extremistas de direita" e outros tipos abomináveis.
Se essa elitização sem precedentes vem em nome da igualdade, é algo que pode parecer uma ironia cruel, mas nada tem de inusitado. Ao longo da História, cada vez que um governante quis elevar seu coeficiente de poder, fez isso estrangulando, com a ajuda da massa idiotizada, as hierarquias intermediárias. Ivan o Terrível e Luís XIV deram a fórmula, que ainda funciona.
O ritual funerário veio bem depressa: o Federal Reserve, que no início da crise financeira prometera tratar do assunto do modo mais "transparente" possível, agora recusa-se a divulgar os nomes dos recebedores de mais de US$ 2 trilhões em "empréstimos de emergência". O motivo não é difícil de imaginar: causas diretas da encrenca, esses empréstimos foram arrancados dos bancos à força, pela pressão das ONGs esquerdistas, como por exemplo a Acorn, que deu emprego a Obama, financiou sua candidatura e ainda distribuiu alguns milhões de títulos de eleitor falsos para garantir o investimento. É impossível remexer essa sujeira sem fazê-la respingar na imagem do presidente eleito. Bondosamente, o Federal Reserve poupa dessa cruel decepção os fãs de Obama, e o faz mediante o expediente obâmico usual: sumir com as informações. O pressuposto mais básico da democracia americana – o acesso público aos dados relevantes – está morto e sepultado.
Para todos os bocós que votam às tontas, guiados tão somente pelo show business, isso não fará a menor diferença. Nem perceberão a mudança. Cada vez que puderem dissolver-se de novo na massa, gritando "Obama! Obama", acreditarão estar exercendo a democracia. Para os eleitores conscientes, é a extinção de tudo o que entendem como "cidadania", "direitos civis", "império da lei", etc. Doravante o povo está separado do seu governante por um abismo de silêncio, preenchido tão-somente pela obrigação de acreditar sem questionar. Ao transformar Obama num deus, a propaganda conferiu o privilégio da invisibilidade ao personagem real oculto sob a máscara. Eleita a criatura, o privilégio foi estendido a toda a administração federal, deixando à mostra apenas os símbolos convencionais da democracia, para consumo da massa crédula.
No mesmo dia – parece brincadeira – a lista de promessas de campanha do presidente eleito desapareceu do site de transição, www.change.gov. Logo desaparecerá também da memória popular, e Obama estará apto a "distribuir riqueza" (sic) com a mesma generosidade com que, uma vez milionário, abandonou seus parentes em favelas – inclusive aquela tia que, segundo ele se gaba nas suas memórias, o ensinou a ser o provedor responsável da família – e com o mesmo senso de dever com que deixou milhares de funcionários de campanha, perplexos, esperando até agora o salário prometido.
Tenham paciência, irmãos. Com a experiência, pouco a pouco vocês irão conhecendo o verdadeiro Obama. Mas, por enquanto, não perguntem nada. O presidente eleito já tem livre acesso a todos os mais altos segredos de Estado da nação americana, mas a realidade da sua vida permanece um segredo inviolável. Pretender investigá-la é crime de racismo. Aguardem para breve a Fairness Doctrine, velho sonho democrata já em avançado estado de implementação, que acabará com as perguntas incômodas nas estações de rádio, e o advento da "Força Civil de Segurança Nacional", militância armada, do tamanho do Exército, a qual, nada tendo de sério a fazer na esfera policial, só servirá para perseguir "fundamentalistas" (não islâmicos, é claro), "homofóbicos", "extremistas de direita" e outros tipos abomináveis.
Se essa elitização sem precedentes vem em nome da igualdade, é algo que pode parecer uma ironia cruel, mas nada tem de inusitado. Ao longo da História, cada vez que um governante quis elevar seu coeficiente de poder, fez isso estrangulando, com a ajuda da massa idiotizada, as hierarquias intermediárias. Ivan o Terrível e Luís XIV deram a fórmula, que ainda funciona.
Olavo Luís Pimentel de Carvalho nasceu em Campinas, SP em 29/04/1947 é escritor, jornalista, palestrante, filósofo, livre pensador e intelectual, tem sido saudado pela crítica como um dos mais originais e audaciosos pensadores brasileiros, publica regularmente seus artigos no jornal "Diário do Comércio" e no site "Mídia Sem Máscara", além de inúmeros outros veículos do Brasil e do exterior. Já escreveu vários livros e ensaios, sendo que o mais discutido é "O Imbecil Coletivo: Atualidades Inculturais Brasileiras" de 1996, que granjeou para o autor um bom número de desafetos nos meios intelectuais brasileiro, mas também uma multidão de leitores devotos, que esgotaram em três semanas a primeira edição da obra, e em quatro dias a segunda. Atualmente reside em Richmond-Virginia, EUA onde mantém um site em português e inglês, sobre sua vida, obras e idéias.
E-mail: olavo@olavodecarvalho.org
E-mail: olavo@olavodecarvalho.org
Publicado no "Jornal do Brasil" (Opinião).
Quinta-feira, 13 de novembro de 2008, 02h00.
Eles só queriam trocar de ditadura – Augusto Nuneshttp://bootlead.blogspot.com
Deus ex machina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
