QUIEN TIENE LA MENTE DE MARTILLO CREE QUE LOS DEMAS SON CLAVOS
Y CON LA LOGICA DEL MARTILLO MIRA TODO PROBLEMA SOCIO-POLITICO
Hugo Adan. Octubre 31, 2011
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
La verdad yo admiro mucho a Mathias Chang como economista y crítico del modelo neo-liberal pero este artículo me llamo la atención. El describe la realidad con dos paradojas neoliberales. Con el termino paradoja refiero dos conceptos o juicios contradictorios en el razonamiento sobre una misma realidad, ambos dos juicios son excluyentes pero demostrables lógicamente dependiendo del tipo de realidad (objetiva-subjetiva) y de la lógica que se use.
1.
La 1ra paradoja es que el modelo neoliberal requiere trabajadores baratos y este sistema los adquiere de China y la India cuando se necesita trabajo técnico, calificado o electrónico (outsourcing, le llaman). Lo consiguen también transfiriendo empresas contaminadoras que sobre-explotan y contaminan en masa a poblaciones del 3er mundo. Ambos dos métodos son legales pero hay otro método que más que ilegal es semi-legal, consiste en abrir la puerta a medias para que ingresen nuevos migrantes por la frontera con Mx y Canada. El propósito es abaratar el salario interno, lo que crea la “bomba de tiempo” migración y su “free-lunch: educación y salud a bajo precio”, además de los problemas de Estado super burocratico e inefectivo (inflado), lo que alimenta el tráfico de armas y de drogas.
Y como ocurre con muchas paradojas, Mathias la deja sin solución. Se limita a transcribir la cita de Maslow que en buen lenguaje significa: si te gusta el Estado que protege el outsourcing, y la sobre-explotacion dentro y fuera y si te gusta la sobre-contaminacion criminal de petroleros y sus guerras de saqueo abroad; o en palabras de Maslow, si te gusta el hammer Estado, no te quejes cuando te traten a ti como clavo o esclavo. Es una paradoja real pues es cierto que el capital para crecer requiere Estado que destruya su propia nación y muchas otras. La solución a esta paradoja?. Se diría que es el anarquismo o rechazo a todo Estado. Seria paradójico que lo desee Mathias Chang , pues creo fue Ministro o Vice de un Estado no anarquista, el de Malasia. La respuesta correcta seria nuevo Estado con nueva democracia que restablezca el Glass Steagle Act, que cree el impuesto Tobin a toda transacción financiera y más control al capital especulador.
2.
La 2da paradoja es de tipo conceptual o teórico. Se trata del incorrecto uso de las llamadas diadas (que no es lo mismo que antinomias). Un buen ejemplo es el uso del concepto "terrorismo bueno y malo". El que usan los paises aliados de Nato u OTAN es terrorismo bueno (incluido su genocidio en Faluya y Libia, y el uso de drones y misiles cargados con DU, ademas de centros de tortura y de ejecuciones extra-judiciales, lo que vulnera principios etico-occidentales de "guerra justa" (el jus ad bellum y el jus in bellu)antes y durante la guerra, sobre todo esta ultima, cuando se inicia el carpet bombing y el principio proporcionalidad y discriminacion son reemplazados por el de tierra arrasada donde la poblacion civil no cuenta. El otro, el terrorismo malo, el de quienes defienden su soberania y/o buscan el alto a los abusos de las trasnacionales. Y aquel terrorismo es bueno porque es negocio del gran capital que invierte en guerras de pillaje, que da empleo como soldado a una juventud que no la tiene en el mercado laboral de su pais y es bueno porque son esas empresas las que mas impuestos pagan en su pais de origen. Esta distorcion y deshumanizacion conceptual recurre a las diadas bueno y malo muy típica en los hombres de la prensa corporativa o los mercenarios de la pluma. Al uso de estas diadas, su distorcion y reduccionismo excluyente se le conoce como lenguaje orwelliano.
Las diadas (reduccionismo polarizante de la realidad descrita) nada tiene que ver con las antinomias o contradicciones filosofícas, ni con teoría, ciencia ni ética, menos aun con lógica. En filosofía los juicios contradictorios sobre una misma realidad son la base de la tesis, la antítesis y la síntesis, lo fue asi en Kant, Hegel y Marx. Para estos filosofos las antinomias del razonamiento puro fueron y aun siguen siendo a. mundo finito vs. el infinito; b. la libertad, vs. la subordinación a leyes; c. la existencia de causa primera, solo si esta refiere el intelecto, la razon y los avances de la ciencia; la primacía o subordinacion entre lo objetivo vs. lo subjetivo, etc. Para los cancerberos del orden colapsante, las antinomias y paradojas reducidas al nivel de diadas son juicios contradictorios y excluyentes que no admiten ningun razonamiento, son solo una forma de simplificar y describir la realidad via reduccionismo extremo, lo que nada tiene que ver con juicio verdadero o falso. Tal reduccionismo, el ver las cosas solo en blanco y negro, es muy típico en gobernantes de Estados centralistas que solo saben del oficio de Maslow, usar el hammer Estado para solucionar cualquier problema. Mi pregunta es si no les causa nausea a los usuarios de las diadas el mirar la realidad en solo blanco y negro y/o con solo dos actores: esclavistas vs. esclavos; patrones vs. sirvientes; capitalistas vs. obreros?. No les resulta odioso que se trate a otros como martillo o clavo y/o ser tratados a ese nivel?
El articulo de Mathias Chang empieza reproduciendo la cita de Abraham Maslow “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." (si el único instrumento que dispones es un martillo, miraras todo problema como un clavo). Eso invita a las reflexiones de sentido común que expongo.
3.
Lo que esta detrás de la DIADA- martillo vs. clavo es el viejo mito de dios vs. el diablo, del bueno vs. el malo, del black vs. White, .. idea que comparten los absolutistas sean religiosos o ateos. Los 1ros le agregan juicios teístas al asunto y los otros, el materialismo historico (las contradicciones son irreconciliables entre los dos lados y eso solo se resuelve mediante la catarsis revolución). Al final, se trata de las dos caras de una misma moneda. Si se la tira al aire (llamémosle elecciones, apuestas, games, ..) una de las dos opciones triunfa y el resultado “siempre” debe ser aceptado, asumiendo que existe “fair & clean flipping of the coin”, lo que, en suma, da el triunfo a la misma moneda. (Ver : Mice rebelión inside the trap of old fat cat)
Sin duda el teísmo domina en este juego llamado diadas. Es el destino o la suerte o un ser divino quien decide quien es clavo y quien martillo, quien es bueno y quien el malo. El jugador no decide nada, el destino lo decide todo. Yo tiro la moneda, Ud se limita a escoger entre cara o sello y además soy quien define al ganador, le dice el supremo a los dos jugadores. Y no hay 3ra opción, lo que hay es la tiranía del zero-sum game donde lo que uno gana es lo que pierde el otro. Si quieres ser feliz tienes que aplastar al otro, es el mensaje y mejor si lo haces a nombre de Dios. No hay mas que dos alternativas (el cara y sello de una sola moneda)ontrolada por el duenio de estas, por el gran capital. Menos aun hay la posibilidad de un arco iris donde todos los colores sean buenos y no por separado sino porque van juntos.
4.
En el game “diada” hay que aceptar lo que da la suerte o la divina providencia y lo grave es que en esto reside el fraude y desde la partida, desde que es un 3ro que no vemos pero que “sabemos” existe, quien define al ganador. Lo mismo da si uno o el otro tira la moneda o jala una carta del deck, total es la misma moneda con dos caras que se asume tienen el mismo valor. En los hechos no es asi, en la disyuntiva martillo-clavo, cara-sello, black-white, .. la carta esta marcada, “the dice is loaded” ,.. hay preferencia, sesgo intencional, por tanto el juego no es ni justo ni es transparente y este juego si debiera ser ilegalizado o éticamente condenado. Quien juega a las diadas tiene en mente la idea de que un lado es bueno y el otro malo y si “el triunfo de uno” (quiza el mas cercano a Dios) ya esta predicho, entonces todo depende de lo que se asuma por bueno o malo, y lo que es divino y no divino en cuyo caso entramos al terreno del relativismo y el absolutismo de dios y lo divino deja de tener sentido. En el juego diadas solo hay dos perdedores, dios y el que juega a su nombre, el apostador. Y hay solo un ganador, el dueño de la casa de juego o el dueño de la monedas. Llegamos asi a la idea de que el peluquero del pueblo solo existe si los del poblado no aprenden a cortarse su propio pelo. Y cuando estos piensen y actuen con autonomia y puedan hacerlo por ellos mismos, entonces el peluquero dejara de existir. Lo mismo ocurrira con los dioses, y con los duenios del capital si los del poblado se asocian para controlar su propio dinero.
En suma, hay que diferenciar las diadas de las paradojas semánticas o antinomias en términos lógico-filosófico (Mathias presentó una excelente paradoja del mundo contemporáneo, aunque no dio solución correcta a la misma) del mero uso de diadas (games). A las diadas solo recurren los de la prensa corporativa pagada para bendecir el estatus político actual.
=====================
El articulo de Mathias que viemne lo he resumido y adaptado “sin permiso” (expandir lo bueno es mi ley) a audiencias no solo nacionales pero internacionales. Si le interesa el pensar de Mathias Chang, ir al original en: http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/featurearticles/Is_Government_Intervention2.pdf
IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO ALL THE PROBLEMS WE FACE?
By Matthias Chang,
20th September 2011, Future Fastforward
http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/featurearticles/Is_Government_Intervention2.pdf
This is a short essay, deliberately so.
Reading the mainstream and the alternative media, [it seems that] the
answer to all the problems afflicting [any] country seems to be government
interventions – specifically government interventions should regulate every
aspect of our lives.
Over the last ten years, the operating budget of the government (both Federal
and State administrations) has increased substantially without a corresponding
increase in productivity. I would even go as far to say that there have been
massive misallocations and mal-investments of taxpayers’ monies.
This reminds me of Abraham Maslow’s famous maxim, “If the only tool you
have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
The government is the hammer and all else are nails!
The entire nation is devoid of initiatives, ideas and solutions. A nation of numb
skulls!
The government is perceived as having the monopoly of ideas and initiatives that
will guarantee our financial security and stability. To the government, we must
look for guidance, for comfort and our livelihood.
Is it any wonder, that every major news item is an announcement by the
government (Federal and or State) of some major policies, projects, legislations,
funding etc.?
Captains of industries never cease to plead for more government interventions,
special exemptions, incentives, bailouts etc. Problems afflicting an industry can
only be resolved by direct [Federal] government intervention.
A classic example: Corporate leaders demand that to be competitive, there
must be available cheap labour. Therefore, there is a need to import cheap
labour from neighbouring countries regardless of the social consequences from
such a policy. A time bomb was created – the inevitable influx of illegal
immigrants. This gave rise to more government interventions and regulations.
When the problem could not be resolved, legalise the illegals was the preferred
solution. No in-depth study was done to anticipate and address the inevitable social upheavals and other potential problems associated with such a huge alien
community who owes no allegiance to the country. Everyone expects a free lunch.
And why should we be surprised when the government’s attitude in solving
problems is to give “free lunches”.
This was most evident during election campaigns.
If truth be told, government interventions have resulted in huge wastage,
leakages and massive corruption.
The government has become the paymaster of the last resort.
This is the result of having a government-centric mindset.
Aren’t you fed-up of being treated like a nail?
But, if you guys out there wants to be treated as nails and continue to seek
solutions from the government, don’t complain when you get hammered.
If our leaders have no patience to learn from the Chinese epic, “The Three
Kingdoms”, at least take to heart Maslow’s famous maxim – “If the only tool
you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
martes, 1 de noviembre de 2011
JAPANESE JOURNALIST ACCUSES ISRAEL OF FUKUSHIMA SABOTAGE
JAPANESE JOURNALIST ACCUSES ISRAEL OF FUKUSHIMA SABOTAGE
Yoishi Shimatsu, Former Editor Of Japan Times Weekly ACCUSES ISRAEL OF FUKUSHIMA SABOTAGE ''In Retaliation For Japan's Support Of An IndependenT Palestinian State'' - By Richard Walker (1/11/11) In http://FutureFastForward.com
Richard Walker. October 14, 2011 in:
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=969 and:
http://potassiumiodidepills.info/nuclear-emergency-news/japanese-journalist-accuses-israel-of-fukushima-sabotage and:
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/6235-yoishi-shimatsu-former-editor-of-japan-times-weekly-accuses-israel-of-fukushima-sabotage-in-retaliation-for-japans-support-of-an-independent-palestinian-state-by-richard-walker-11111
--------------
NOTE By Hugo Adan
It seems to me that this Japanese journalist is sensacionalist (always looking for easy atention to waht he writes at the expenses of the content and logical reasoning). In short, he does not present evidences of what he states. What he said now deserves real scientific investigation. Otherwise it should not be accepted as true or false statement. I want to see more info about this topic and I will circulated here.
-----------------
JAPANESE JOURNALIST ACCUSES ISRAEL OF FUKUSHIMA SABOTAGERichard Walker
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=969
A leading Japanese journalist recently made two incredible claims about the Fukushima power plant that suffered a nuclear meltdown in March 2011, sending shockwaves around the world. First, the former editor of a national newspaper in Japan says the U.S. And Israel knew Fukushima had weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that were exposed to the atmosphere after a massive tsunami wave hit the reactor. Second, he contends that Israeli intelligence sabotaged the reactor in retaliation for Japan’s support of an independent Palestinian state.
According to Yoishi Shimatsu, a former editor of Japan Times Weekly, these nuclear materials were shipped to the plant in 2007 on the orders of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, with the connivance of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The shipment was in the form of warhead cores secretly removed from the U.S. Nuclear warheads facility BWXT Plantex near Amarillo, Texas. While acting as the middleman, Israel transported warheads from the port of Houston, and in the process kept the best ones while giving the Japanese older warhead cores that had to be further enriched at Fukushima.
Shimatsu credits retired CIA agent and mercenary Roland Vincent Carnaby with learning the warheads were being transported from Houston. In a strange twist, Carnaby was mysteriously shot dead less than a year later by Houston police at a traffic stop. He was shot once in the back and once in the chest. He did not have a weapon in his hands. Intelligence sources said he had been tracking a Mossad unit that was smuggling U.S. Plutonium out of Houston docks for an Israeli nuclear reactor.
In an even more explosive charge, the journalist says that 20 minutes before the Fukushima plant’s nuclear meltdown, Israel was so upset with Japanese support for a Palestinian declaration of statehood that it double-crossed Japan by unleashing the Stuxnet virus on the plant’s computers. The virus hampered the shutdown, leading to fallout from a section of the plant housing uranium and plutonium retrieved from the warheads supplied in 2007.
While it is impossible to verify some of Shimatsu’s claims, there was a massive cover-up at the time of the Fukushima disaster in March. Explosions at the site were immediately downplayed. While it was subsequently reported that three reactors suffered meltdowns, Japanese authorities tried to rate the disaster as a Level 4 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, although outside experts declared it a 7, which is the highest level.
Something worth noting is how in 2009, two years after Shimatsu says the warheads were secretly moved to Japan, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a veiled warning to Japan not to abandon its anti-nuclear weapons policy.
The IAEA had to know, however, that Japan has long retained the potential to build nuclear weapons. That was made clear as far back as 1996 when a leaked Ministry of Foreign Affairs document exposed how Japan had been promoting a dual strategy in respect to nuclear weapons since the mid-1960s. It would often publicly profess a non-nuclear policy while maintaining the ability to build a nuclear arsenal. The Liberal Democratic Party, which has dominated Japanese politics, has always said there is no constitutional impediment to nukes.
A factor that undoubtedly would have encouraged the Bush-Cheney White House to provide Japan with the means to secretly build nukes was the growing power of China. Cheney and Bush sought to arm Japan and India with nuclear weapons as a means of curbing China.
sábado, 29 de octubre de 2011
PREPARAN GUERRA CONTRA IRAN y VENEZUELA
PREPARAN GUERRA CONTRA IRAN y VENEZUELA
US CONGRESS ENGINEERING CONSENT FOR ATTACKS ON IRAN & VENEZUELA
"Iran is engaged in recruiting young Venezuelans of Arab origin for use in intelligence operations as militants. Some go to Iran for training. Some sources say that Hezbollah is involved in this operation," said the chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Homeland Security, Republican Michael McCaul.
ESCUCHAR LOS 4 VIDEOS DEL HEARING DEL SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUNTER TERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE del SENADO:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29545.htm
PONGA ESPECIAL ATENCION AL VIDEO LLAMADO Additional Video: IT FOCUS ON:
Subcommittee Chairman McCaul questions witnesses at hearing on Iranian terror operations in U.S
Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil
Subcommittee on Counter terrorism and Intelligence
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29545.htm
=================
AQUÍ LAS ACUSACIONES DEL GRAL JOHN KEANE CONTRA IRAN
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Keane.pdf
Congressional Testimony John M. Keane
General US Army, Retired
House Homeland Security
And House Intelligence Committee
26 October 11. 10 a.m.
Congressional Hearing Testimony
26 October, 2011
The Iranian bungled operation to use proxies to assassinate the Saudi
Arabian Ambassador to the United States and to purposefully plan the
operation inside the United States is a stunning rebuke to the Obama
administration’s policy of negotiation and isolation with the Iranians.
Indeed, Republican and Democratic administrations since 1980 have
failed to deal effectively with the harsh reality that Iran is our number
one strategic enemy in the world. Frankly, the Iranians stated as much in
1980, that the United States was the enemy of the Islamic Revolution and
their intent was to drive the United States out of the region. Therefore,
they have been systematically killing us for over 30 years.
In 1983 their proxies the Hezbollah blew up the American Embassy, the
Marine Barracks in Lebanon and the Embassy Annex the following year
with a total of almost 500 lives lost. We not only had no response to this
tragedy but we pulled our troops out of Lebanon. In 1983 the Iranian
backed Al Dawa extremist groups blew up the US Embassy in Kuwait
and attacked Raytheon’s residential area killing and wounding over 80.
In 1984, the CIA station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley, was
captured and eventually killed, which was the beginning of an Iranian
backed campaign to take high profile hostages over a 10 year period.
This led to the poorly conceived and ill fated operation by the Reagan
administration to exchange arms for hostages with the Iranians. In 1985
TWA flight 847 was seized while enroute to Rome and was forced to
land in Beirut, which led to the killing of a US Navy diver and dumping
his body on the tarmac. Eventually the airplane hostages were released
as the Israelis released hundreds of extremist terrorists from Israeli jails.
In 1996 the US Air Force Kobhar towers barracks in Saudi Arabia was
blown up by the Iranian backed Hezbollah killing 19 and wounding
almost 400. Again, although our intelligence identified the culprits
as Iranian backed Hezbollah, we had no response and eventually shut
down the US military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Since 2003 in Iraq the Iranians have provided rockets, mortars, enhanced
IED’S and money to the Shia Militia who were directly involved in
killing U.S. troops in Iraq. Moreover, the Iraq Shia Militia were trained
by the Iranian special operations force, the Qods force, at training bases
in Iran. While the Iranians were defeated politically and militarily in Iraq
in 2009, the President’s recent decision to withdraw all our troops from
Iraq puts our hard fought gains in Iraq at risk and plays into the hands of
the Iranians. Similarly, the Iranians are supporting the Taliban in
Afghanistan with money and ammunition.
The action arm for Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism outside of their
borders is led by General Qasim Soliemani, who has been in charge for
over 15 years. General Soliemani has no military or political boss, he
answers to only one person, the supreme leader in Iran, Khomeni. We
must conclude that for General Soliemani to plan an operation inside the
United States that would result in Americans being killed, surely, the
supreme leader at a minimum approved the plan and may in fact, directed
it.
Moreover we must ask ourselves has U.S. policy with respect to Iran
been working? We appear to have a policy of rhetorical condemnation
when the Iranians engage in behavior adverse to the US interests, we also
engage in negotiations, which are on again off again, while the Iranians
continue to pursue nuclear weapons. We have imposed some limited
sanctions on the Iranians and attempt to isolate them in the world which
as best as we can tell also has had no impact on their pursuit of nuclear
weapons or their sponsorship of terrorism.
We also must admit that the Iranians are not without their own
challenges. Having 2 fledgling democracies on their borders in Iraq and
Afghanistan is a huge geopolitical threat to their tyrannical control of
their own population and preservation of their regime. The Arab Spring is
a repudiation of radical Islam, indeed, the people in the streets are
seeking political reform, social justice and economic opportunities which
are the mainstream of western democracies. Certainly the Iranians are
attempting to take advantage of the opportunities the social unrest of the
Arab Spring provides but no one is demonstrating on behalf of their
flawed values. Losing a state sponsored terrorist like Ghadafi is a
setback as is the upheaval in Syria, their number one ally in the region.
All that said, it is time to review our strategy for Iran against the harsh
reality that despite our rhetoric, attempts to negotiate, isolate and
sanction, the fact is the Iranians continue to use their proxies against US
interests and continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Therefore, one must
conclude the obvious that, our policy has failed and failed, miserably.
What can we do? First and foremost begin to treat Iran as the strategic enemy they truly are. And, as such, develop a strategic competitive framework that counters every major interest the Iranian regime engages in.
For example, seize the financial assets which are outside of Iran,
much as we did with the Al Qaeda, limit their ability to trade by denying
their ships, entry to ports around the world, limit the ability of their
central bank to operate effectively, conduct an offensive cyber campaign
against military and economic interests inside of Iran, conduct covert
operations led by the CIA in cooperation with other agencies to target the
Qods force and their proxies. Provide money, information and
encouragement to the dissident leaders inside Iran to use their population
to put pressure on the regime.
In my view, these measures have a realistic chance to compel a behavior
change or possibly even the regime to fall. This much I do know, if we
continue the half measures of the past the Iranians will continue to kill us,
will continue to sponsor terrorism and use their proxies against our
interests and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons.
The next nightmare for the world is around the corner, an unchecked Iran
with nuclear weapons.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
===============
US CONGRESS ENGINEERING CONSENT FOR ATTACKS ON IRAN & VENEZUELA
"Iran is engaged in recruiting young Venezuelans of Arab origin for use in intelligence operations as militants. Some go to Iran for training. Some sources say that Hezbollah is involved in this operation," said the chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Homeland Security, Republican Michael McCaul.
ESCUCHAR LOS 4 VIDEOS DEL HEARING DEL SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUNTER TERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE del SENADO:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29545.htm
PONGA ESPECIAL ATENCION AL VIDEO LLAMADO Additional Video: IT FOCUS ON:
Subcommittee Chairman McCaul questions witnesses at hearing on Iranian terror operations in U.S
Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil
Subcommittee on Counter terrorism and Intelligence
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29545.htm
=================
AQUÍ LAS ACUSACIONES DEL GRAL JOHN KEANE CONTRA IRAN
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Keane.pdf
Congressional Testimony John M. Keane
General US Army, Retired
House Homeland Security
And House Intelligence Committee
26 October 11. 10 a.m.
Congressional Hearing Testimony
26 October, 2011
The Iranian bungled operation to use proxies to assassinate the Saudi
Arabian Ambassador to the United States and to purposefully plan the
operation inside the United States is a stunning rebuke to the Obama
administration’s policy of negotiation and isolation with the Iranians.
Indeed, Republican and Democratic administrations since 1980 have
failed to deal effectively with the harsh reality that Iran is our number
one strategic enemy in the world. Frankly, the Iranians stated as much in
1980, that the United States was the enemy of the Islamic Revolution and
their intent was to drive the United States out of the region. Therefore,
they have been systematically killing us for over 30 years.
In 1983 their proxies the Hezbollah blew up the American Embassy, the
Marine Barracks in Lebanon and the Embassy Annex the following year
with a total of almost 500 lives lost. We not only had no response to this
tragedy but we pulled our troops out of Lebanon. In 1983 the Iranian
backed Al Dawa extremist groups blew up the US Embassy in Kuwait
and attacked Raytheon’s residential area killing and wounding over 80.
In 1984, the CIA station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley, was
captured and eventually killed, which was the beginning of an Iranian
backed campaign to take high profile hostages over a 10 year period.
This led to the poorly conceived and ill fated operation by the Reagan
administration to exchange arms for hostages with the Iranians. In 1985
TWA flight 847 was seized while enroute to Rome and was forced to
land in Beirut, which led to the killing of a US Navy diver and dumping
his body on the tarmac. Eventually the airplane hostages were released
as the Israelis released hundreds of extremist terrorists from Israeli jails.
In 1996 the US Air Force Kobhar towers barracks in Saudi Arabia was
blown up by the Iranian backed Hezbollah killing 19 and wounding
almost 400. Again, although our intelligence identified the culprits
as Iranian backed Hezbollah, we had no response and eventually shut
down the US military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Since 2003 in Iraq the Iranians have provided rockets, mortars, enhanced
IED’S and money to the Shia Militia who were directly involved in
killing U.S. troops in Iraq. Moreover, the Iraq Shia Militia were trained
by the Iranian special operations force, the Qods force, at training bases
in Iran. While the Iranians were defeated politically and militarily in Iraq
in 2009, the President’s recent decision to withdraw all our troops from
Iraq puts our hard fought gains in Iraq at risk and plays into the hands of
the Iranians. Similarly, the Iranians are supporting the Taliban in
Afghanistan with money and ammunition.
The action arm for Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism outside of their
borders is led by General Qasim Soliemani, who has been in charge for
over 15 years. General Soliemani has no military or political boss, he
answers to only one person, the supreme leader in Iran, Khomeni. We
must conclude that for General Soliemani to plan an operation inside the
United States that would result in Americans being killed, surely, the
supreme leader at a minimum approved the plan and may in fact, directed
it.
Moreover we must ask ourselves has U.S. policy with respect to Iran
been working? We appear to have a policy of rhetorical condemnation
when the Iranians engage in behavior adverse to the US interests, we also
engage in negotiations, which are on again off again, while the Iranians
continue to pursue nuclear weapons. We have imposed some limited
sanctions on the Iranians and attempt to isolate them in the world which
as best as we can tell also has had no impact on their pursuit of nuclear
weapons or their sponsorship of terrorism.
We also must admit that the Iranians are not without their own
challenges. Having 2 fledgling democracies on their borders in Iraq and
Afghanistan is a huge geopolitical threat to their tyrannical control of
their own population and preservation of their regime. The Arab Spring is
a repudiation of radical Islam, indeed, the people in the streets are
seeking political reform, social justice and economic opportunities which
are the mainstream of western democracies. Certainly the Iranians are
attempting to take advantage of the opportunities the social unrest of the
Arab Spring provides but no one is demonstrating on behalf of their
flawed values. Losing a state sponsored terrorist like Ghadafi is a
setback as is the upheaval in Syria, their number one ally in the region.
All that said, it is time to review our strategy for Iran against the harsh
reality that despite our rhetoric, attempts to negotiate, isolate and
sanction, the fact is the Iranians continue to use their proxies against US
interests and continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Therefore, one must
conclude the obvious that, our policy has failed and failed, miserably.
What can we do? First and foremost begin to treat Iran as the strategic enemy they truly are. And, as such, develop a strategic competitive framework that counters every major interest the Iranian regime engages in.
For example, seize the financial assets which are outside of Iran,
much as we did with the Al Qaeda, limit their ability to trade by denying
their ships, entry to ports around the world, limit the ability of their
central bank to operate effectively, conduct an offensive cyber campaign
against military and economic interests inside of Iran, conduct covert
operations led by the CIA in cooperation with other agencies to target the
Qods force and their proxies. Provide money, information and
encouragement to the dissident leaders inside Iran to use their population
to put pressure on the regime.
In my view, these measures have a realistic chance to compel a behavior
change or possibly even the regime to fall. This much I do know, if we
continue the half measures of the past the Iranians will continue to kill us,
will continue to sponsor terrorism and use their proxies against our
interests and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons.
The next nightmare for the world is around the corner, an unchecked Iran
with nuclear weapons.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
===============
EL FANTÁSTICO ÉXITO DE OCUPA WALL STREET
EL FANTÁSTICO ÉXITO DE OCUPA WALL STREET
Immanuel Wallerstein
La Jornada. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/10/22/index.php?section=opinion&article=036a1pol
El movimiento Ocupa Wall Street –porque ahora es un movimiento– es el acontecimiento político más importante en Estados Unidos desde los levantamientos de 1968, de los que es descendiente, o su continuación.
Nunca sabremos con certeza por qué comenzó en Estados Unidos cuando lo hizo –y no tres días, tres meses, tres años antes o después-. Las condiciones estaban ahí: agudas penurias económicas siempre en aumento, no sólo para quienes de verdad están golpeados por la pobreza, sino también para un segmento en perpetuo crecimiento de los pobres que laboran (conocidos también como clase media); una exageración increíble (voracidad y explotación) del uno por ciento más acaudalado de la población estadunidense (Wall Street); el ejemplo de enojadas insurrecciones por todo el mundo (la primavera árabe, los indignados españoles, los estudiantes chilenos, los sindicatos de Wisconsin y una larga lista de otros). No importa en realidad qué chispa fue la que prendió el fuego. Éste comenzó.
En la Etapa Uno –los primeros días– el movimiento fue un puñado de personas audaces, casi todas jóvenes, que intentaban manifestarse. La prensa las ignoró totalmente. Algunos estúpidos capitanes de la policía pensaron que un poco de brutalidad acabaría con las manifestaciones. Fueron captados en película y la película se volvió viral en You Tube.
Eso nos trajo a la Etapa Dos –publicidad-. La prensa ya no podía ignorar por completo a los manifestantes. Así que la prensa intentó un aire de superioridad. ¿Qué sabían de la economía estos jóvenes necios e ignorantes y unas cuantas mujeres viejas? ¿Tenían algún programa positivo? ¿Estaban disciplinados? Las manifestaciones, nos dijeron, se desinflarían rápidamente. Pero con lo que no contaban la prensa ni los poderes (nunca parecen aprender) es que el tema de la protesta resonó ampliamente y muy pronto prendió. En ciudad tras ciudad, comenzaron ocupaciones semejantes. Los desempleados de 50 años comenzaron a unirse. Y también lo hicieron las celebridades. Los sindicatos también, incluido ni más ni menos que el presidente de la AFL-CIO. La prensa fuera de Estados Unidos comenzó ahora a seguir los sucesos. Cuando les preguntaron qué pedían, los manifestantes replicaron: justicia. Esta respuesta comenzó a parecer significativa a más y más gente.
Esto nos condujo a la Etapa Tres –legitimidad-. Los académicos de una cierta reputación comenzaron a sugerir que el ataque a Wall Street tenía cierta justificación. De pronto, la voz principal de la respetabilidad centrista, The New York Times, publicó un editorial el 8 de octubre en el que se afirmaba que quienes protestaban tenían de hecho un mensaje claro y prescripciones específicas de políticas públicas, y que el movimiento era algo más que un levantamiento juvenil. El periódico continuó: La inequidad extrema es el sello de una economía disfuncional, dominada por un sector financiero impulsado en gran medida por la especulación, la estafa y el respaldo gubernamental tanto como por la inversión productiva. Un lenguaje fuerte para venir de ese diario. Y luego el comité demócrata de campaña para el Congreso comenzó a circular una petición pidiendo a los militantes del partido que declararan: Estamos con las protestas de Ocupa Wall Street.
El movimiento se había hecho respetable. Y con la respetabilidad vino el peligro –la Etapa Cuatro-. Un movimiento de protesta importante que ya prendió enfrenta comúnmente dos amenazas importantes. Una es la organización de significativas contramanifestaciones en las calles, de la derecha. Eric Cantor, el líder republicano en el Congreso, de línea dura y bastante astuto, ya hizo un llamado para tal efecto. Estas contramanifestaciones pueden ser bastante feroces. El movimiento Ocupa Wall Street necesita estar preparado para esto y pensar a fondo cómo va a manejar o contener esto.
Pero una segunda y mayor amenaza viene del mismo éxito del movimiento. Conforme atrae más respaldo, aumenta la diversidad de puntos de vista entre los manifestantes activos. El problema aquí es, como siempre, cómo evitar el monstruo Escila de volverse un culto amarrado que podría deshacerse debido a lo restringido de su base, y el monstruo Caribdis de ya no tener una coherencia política por volverse muy amplio. No hay una fórmula simple de cómo manejarse para evitar irse a cualquiera de esos dos extremos. Es difícil.
Y en cuanto al futuro, podría ocurrir que el movimiento vaya en aumento de su fuerza. Podría ser capaz de hacer dos cosas: forzar a una restructuración de corto plazo de lo que el gobierno haga para minimizar las obvias penurias que agudamente siente la gente, y puede conseguir una transformación de largo plazo de cómo piensan grandes segmentos de la población estadunidense acerca de las realidades de la crisis estructural del capitalismo y sobre las transformaciones geopolíticas importantes que ocurren porque ahora vivimos en un mundo multipolar.
Aun en el caso de que el movimiento Ocupa Wall Street comenzara a extinguirse, debido al desgaste o la represión, ya triunfó y dejará un legado duradero, como lo hicieron los levantamientos de 1968. Estados Unidos habrá cambiado en una dirección positiva. Y como dice el dicho: Roma no se hizo en un día.
Un sistema-mundo nuevo y mejor, un Estados Unidos nuevo y mejor, es una tarea que requiere los repetidos esfuerzos de repetidas generaciones. Pero es cierto que otro mundo es posible (si no es que inevitable). Y podemos hacer la diferencia. Ocupa Wall Street está haciendo la diferencia, una gran diferencia.
Traducción: Ramón Vera Herrera
Fuente: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/10/22/index.php?section=opinion&article=036a1pol
Immanuel Wallerstein
La Jornada. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/10/22/index.php?section=opinion&article=036a1pol
El movimiento Ocupa Wall Street –porque ahora es un movimiento– es el acontecimiento político más importante en Estados Unidos desde los levantamientos de 1968, de los que es descendiente, o su continuación.
Nunca sabremos con certeza por qué comenzó en Estados Unidos cuando lo hizo –y no tres días, tres meses, tres años antes o después-. Las condiciones estaban ahí: agudas penurias económicas siempre en aumento, no sólo para quienes de verdad están golpeados por la pobreza, sino también para un segmento en perpetuo crecimiento de los pobres que laboran (conocidos también como clase media); una exageración increíble (voracidad y explotación) del uno por ciento más acaudalado de la población estadunidense (Wall Street); el ejemplo de enojadas insurrecciones por todo el mundo (la primavera árabe, los indignados españoles, los estudiantes chilenos, los sindicatos de Wisconsin y una larga lista de otros). No importa en realidad qué chispa fue la que prendió el fuego. Éste comenzó.
En la Etapa Uno –los primeros días– el movimiento fue un puñado de personas audaces, casi todas jóvenes, que intentaban manifestarse. La prensa las ignoró totalmente. Algunos estúpidos capitanes de la policía pensaron que un poco de brutalidad acabaría con las manifestaciones. Fueron captados en película y la película se volvió viral en You Tube.
Eso nos trajo a la Etapa Dos –publicidad-. La prensa ya no podía ignorar por completo a los manifestantes. Así que la prensa intentó un aire de superioridad. ¿Qué sabían de la economía estos jóvenes necios e ignorantes y unas cuantas mujeres viejas? ¿Tenían algún programa positivo? ¿Estaban disciplinados? Las manifestaciones, nos dijeron, se desinflarían rápidamente. Pero con lo que no contaban la prensa ni los poderes (nunca parecen aprender) es que el tema de la protesta resonó ampliamente y muy pronto prendió. En ciudad tras ciudad, comenzaron ocupaciones semejantes. Los desempleados de 50 años comenzaron a unirse. Y también lo hicieron las celebridades. Los sindicatos también, incluido ni más ni menos que el presidente de la AFL-CIO. La prensa fuera de Estados Unidos comenzó ahora a seguir los sucesos. Cuando les preguntaron qué pedían, los manifestantes replicaron: justicia. Esta respuesta comenzó a parecer significativa a más y más gente.
Esto nos condujo a la Etapa Tres –legitimidad-. Los académicos de una cierta reputación comenzaron a sugerir que el ataque a Wall Street tenía cierta justificación. De pronto, la voz principal de la respetabilidad centrista, The New York Times, publicó un editorial el 8 de octubre en el que se afirmaba que quienes protestaban tenían de hecho un mensaje claro y prescripciones específicas de políticas públicas, y que el movimiento era algo más que un levantamiento juvenil. El periódico continuó: La inequidad extrema es el sello de una economía disfuncional, dominada por un sector financiero impulsado en gran medida por la especulación, la estafa y el respaldo gubernamental tanto como por la inversión productiva. Un lenguaje fuerte para venir de ese diario. Y luego el comité demócrata de campaña para el Congreso comenzó a circular una petición pidiendo a los militantes del partido que declararan: Estamos con las protestas de Ocupa Wall Street.
El movimiento se había hecho respetable. Y con la respetabilidad vino el peligro –la Etapa Cuatro-. Un movimiento de protesta importante que ya prendió enfrenta comúnmente dos amenazas importantes. Una es la organización de significativas contramanifestaciones en las calles, de la derecha. Eric Cantor, el líder republicano en el Congreso, de línea dura y bastante astuto, ya hizo un llamado para tal efecto. Estas contramanifestaciones pueden ser bastante feroces. El movimiento Ocupa Wall Street necesita estar preparado para esto y pensar a fondo cómo va a manejar o contener esto.
Pero una segunda y mayor amenaza viene del mismo éxito del movimiento. Conforme atrae más respaldo, aumenta la diversidad de puntos de vista entre los manifestantes activos. El problema aquí es, como siempre, cómo evitar el monstruo Escila de volverse un culto amarrado que podría deshacerse debido a lo restringido de su base, y el monstruo Caribdis de ya no tener una coherencia política por volverse muy amplio. No hay una fórmula simple de cómo manejarse para evitar irse a cualquiera de esos dos extremos. Es difícil.
Y en cuanto al futuro, podría ocurrir que el movimiento vaya en aumento de su fuerza. Podría ser capaz de hacer dos cosas: forzar a una restructuración de corto plazo de lo que el gobierno haga para minimizar las obvias penurias que agudamente siente la gente, y puede conseguir una transformación de largo plazo de cómo piensan grandes segmentos de la población estadunidense acerca de las realidades de la crisis estructural del capitalismo y sobre las transformaciones geopolíticas importantes que ocurren porque ahora vivimos en un mundo multipolar.
Aun en el caso de que el movimiento Ocupa Wall Street comenzara a extinguirse, debido al desgaste o la represión, ya triunfó y dejará un legado duradero, como lo hicieron los levantamientos de 1968. Estados Unidos habrá cambiado en una dirección positiva. Y como dice el dicho: Roma no se hizo en un día.
Un sistema-mundo nuevo y mejor, un Estados Unidos nuevo y mejor, es una tarea que requiere los repetidos esfuerzos de repetidas generaciones. Pero es cierto que otro mundo es posible (si no es que inevitable). Y podemos hacer la diferencia. Ocupa Wall Street está haciendo la diferencia, una gran diferencia.
Traducción: Ramón Vera Herrera
Fuente: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/10/22/index.php?section=opinion&article=036a1pol
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH COVER UP NATO’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN LIBYA
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH COVER UP NATO’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN LIBYA (AND ALL OVER THE WORLD)
BRIEF INTRODUCTION by Hugo Adan (October 29, 2011)
The philanthropist George Soros is funding HRW. Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years. See NOTES below It seems to me that the old statement of Gerald Steinberg, 2005, was right "Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Oxfam and dozens of smaller allied groups have contributed to the hatred, rather than supporting peace" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Steinberg)
Here the art HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH COVER UP NATO’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN LIBYA
By MKERone | Saturday, October 29, 2011
http://en.m4.cn/2011/10/29/human-rights-watch-cover-up-natos-crimes-against-humanity-in-libya-and-all-over-the-world/
In a recent article, I explained how Human Rights Watch proceeds to mislead public opinion. Today, another proof came out in the medias. And today, they’ve reached another level. The ultimate level of deception.
Indeed, today HRW claims that rebels executed 53 Gaddafi loyalists. The corpses were found in Hotel Mahari in District 2 of Sirte. On Russia Today’s article, we can read: “the group considers the accident to be part of the murders and lootings from some opposition forces that do not want to obey any law at all. HRW calls for Libya to get these people under control.”
Well, there are several interesting things to point out about HRW and its apparently UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY of loyalists being executed.
Since day 1, reports from many independent sources that were part of fact-finding missions in Libya, confirmed that the rebels where slaughtering civilians just because they supported Muammar Gaddafi; or just for being “Black” (Lizzie Phelan, Mahdi Nazemroaya, Sukant Chandan, Franklin Lamb, …)
Where were HRW people at the time ? Oh true, at that time, they were comfortably sitting in their European offices, reporting about Gaddafi’s crimes… Gaddafi’s crimes that NEVER TOOK PLACE and that none of the Nato members succeeded to prove until date. Seems like mainstream media doesn’t care since they’re not talking about this crucial point anymore (that contributes in making this War totally unjustified and unlawful). Nor does HRW. Correction: They’ve never talked about it actually.
On top of spreading fake reports, HRW has apparently been granted with an additional mission by Nato member states: Besides misleading public opinion by demonizing Gaddafi by providing fake information, they now have to cover up Nato crimes.
When the White Empire’s most powerful army in the history started dropping thousands of bombs full of depleted uranium on the innocent civilians of Libya, HRW remained totally silent. Instead of reporting about the ongoing Crimes Against Humanity being carried out by its masters and funders, it shifted public opinion’s focus on Syria in order to demonize Bashar Al Assad’s regime by providing, once again, fake information.
Today, it has reached another level. The ultimate stage of deception. With its above mentioned report (You can click HERE) of loyalists being executed they’re misleading public opinion again. And covering up one of the worst atrocities of our decade (We don’t forget about Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan. But today we’re focusing on their role in the Libyan War)
HRW: THE ULTIMATE STAGE OF DECEPTION
1. HRW assumes that this execution was carried out by “anti Gaddafi fighters from Misrata” and calls “on Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) to conduct an immediate and transparent investigation into the apparent mass execution and to bring those responsible to justice”.
Well, this simple extract is enough for HRW to wipe away NTC’s accountability in this mass killing. But wait… I thought the Misrata fighters were controlled by the NTC… Yes, so NTC is accountable for these executions. Well, they apparently aren’t anymore… So, some random fighters from Misrata, nobody knows who they are, are to be blamed and punished for it… What a great example of JUSTICE!
2. Why didn’t HRW call on Gaddafi to conduct an immediate and transparent investigation into the apparent killing of civilians and to bring those responsible to justice? Instead of calling for a UN resolution that led to Nato intervention? Well, if today we cannot hold NTC accountable for hideous mass killings from its own “freedom fighters” especially with blatant proofs then why could we hold Gaddafi accountable ? Especially without any proof….
3. On top of that, by focusing on these 53 loyalists (Peace be upon them) HRW is covering up a much more important killing, we can even call it a Crime Against Humanity. The one carried out by Nato.. If HRW found those 53 corpses in Sirte, how couldn’t it see the civilian corpses laying all over the city ? And all over the country. Couldn’t HRW see the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, residential areas, schools, water pipes, electricity plants in the very same city? Are they blind ? No, they aren’t. And they saw the chaos that Nato brought about. And they very well know that thousands of civilians must have died since Nato’s primary targets were civilian infrastructures.
4. Why didn’t HRW expose that each Tomahawk, like the ones dropped on Libya, contains 300Kgs of depleted uranium ? Why didn’t it exposes the use of cluster bombs ? Why don’t they focus on estimating the civilian deaths brought about by NATO ? Especially when estimations from independent sources are about 60’000 innocents dead. Maybe because those sources are not reliable enough… But those claiming that Gaddafi sent his Air Force to bomb his population were apparently more reliable… (please check this link: Russia Intel satellite shows Gaddafi did not attack his people.)
5.. Why didn’t HRW exposed Nato members providing heavy weapons and artillery to the rebels in complete breach of UN resolution?
6. Why didn’t HRW expose the fact that what mainstream media and western leaders were today calling Rebels or Freedom Fighters, were once called Al Qaeda terrorists ?
So many questions… And all answers lead to the same point. That HRW is absolutely not about Human Rights.
BRIEF CONCLUSION:
HRW, NATO, UN and other international organizations no longer benefit from their beautiful image of FREEDOM and JUSTICE lovers. Everyday brings its loads of proofs that all those organizations are nothing more than smoke screens to cover up White Empire hideous crimes and world enslavement.
I call on you, people, to spread this article, and all other articles of interest that you might find on our website and on other websites. Spread the truth. Expose the traitors. Expose the liars. Expose the crimes. Don’t remain silent and idle while our leaders take us, everyday, a step closer to the Global Chaos.
Source
http://counterpsyops.com/2011/10/24/hrw-works-for-nato-and-endeavours-to-cover-up-its-crimes-against-humanity-in-libya-and-all-over-the-world/
NOTES
Added by HAZ based on previous articles like the one from Kiyul Chung (BeiJing Time and http://en.m4.cn/)& "Soros to give Human Rights Watch $100m. over 10 years" By
JORDANA HORN in http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=187450
1. From Kiyul Chung (BeiJing Time,Wednesday, November 17, 2010). He said “Notably, billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years” (Wikipedia quoted:See Fund-raising Policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch). Open also these sites:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n05/HumanRightsGroupsWorkingAgainstPeace.htm &
http://en.m4.cn/2010/11/17/un-top-leadership-position-at-stake-versus-us-pressure-on-bans-challenge-of-china/. Title of the article: “UN Top Leadership Position at Stake versus US Pressure on Ban’s Challenge of China” By Kiyul Chung.
2. See also “Who’s Who at Wikileaks? In: http://en.m4.cn/2010/12/29/whos-who-at-wikileaks-2/. By Julie Lévesque at BeiJing Time
3. Most well-known, well-funded, and globally-prestigious human rights groups whose origins are mainly from either US or one of the Western countries [are funded by those philanthropic men]. Those groups have been also mostly run by Western and American governments, their NGOs, and (white) personnel.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION by Hugo Adan (October 29, 2011)
The philanthropist George Soros is funding HRW. Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years. See NOTES below It seems to me that the old statement of Gerald Steinberg, 2005, was right "Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Oxfam and dozens of smaller allied groups have contributed to the hatred, rather than supporting peace" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Steinberg)
Here the art HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH COVER UP NATO’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN LIBYA
By MKERone | Saturday, October 29, 2011
http://en.m4.cn/2011/10/29/human-rights-watch-cover-up-natos-crimes-against-humanity-in-libya-and-all-over-the-world/
In a recent article, I explained how Human Rights Watch proceeds to mislead public opinion. Today, another proof came out in the medias. And today, they’ve reached another level. The ultimate level of deception.
Indeed, today HRW claims that rebels executed 53 Gaddafi loyalists. The corpses were found in Hotel Mahari in District 2 of Sirte. On Russia Today’s article, we can read: “the group considers the accident to be part of the murders and lootings from some opposition forces that do not want to obey any law at all. HRW calls for Libya to get these people under control.”
Well, there are several interesting things to point out about HRW and its apparently UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY of loyalists being executed.
Since day 1, reports from many independent sources that were part of fact-finding missions in Libya, confirmed that the rebels where slaughtering civilians just because they supported Muammar Gaddafi; or just for being “Black” (Lizzie Phelan, Mahdi Nazemroaya, Sukant Chandan, Franklin Lamb, …)
Where were HRW people at the time ? Oh true, at that time, they were comfortably sitting in their European offices, reporting about Gaddafi’s crimes… Gaddafi’s crimes that NEVER TOOK PLACE and that none of the Nato members succeeded to prove until date. Seems like mainstream media doesn’t care since they’re not talking about this crucial point anymore (that contributes in making this War totally unjustified and unlawful). Nor does HRW. Correction: They’ve never talked about it actually.
On top of spreading fake reports, HRW has apparently been granted with an additional mission by Nato member states: Besides misleading public opinion by demonizing Gaddafi by providing fake information, they now have to cover up Nato crimes.
When the White Empire’s most powerful army in the history started dropping thousands of bombs full of depleted uranium on the innocent civilians of Libya, HRW remained totally silent. Instead of reporting about the ongoing Crimes Against Humanity being carried out by its masters and funders, it shifted public opinion’s focus on Syria in order to demonize Bashar Al Assad’s regime by providing, once again, fake information.
Today, it has reached another level. The ultimate stage of deception. With its above mentioned report (You can click HERE) of loyalists being executed they’re misleading public opinion again. And covering up one of the worst atrocities of our decade (We don’t forget about Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan. But today we’re focusing on their role in the Libyan War)
HRW: THE ULTIMATE STAGE OF DECEPTION
1. HRW assumes that this execution was carried out by “anti Gaddafi fighters from Misrata” and calls “on Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) to conduct an immediate and transparent investigation into the apparent mass execution and to bring those responsible to justice”.
Well, this simple extract is enough for HRW to wipe away NTC’s accountability in this mass killing. But wait… I thought the Misrata fighters were controlled by the NTC… Yes, so NTC is accountable for these executions. Well, they apparently aren’t anymore… So, some random fighters from Misrata, nobody knows who they are, are to be blamed and punished for it… What a great example of JUSTICE!
2. Why didn’t HRW call on Gaddafi to conduct an immediate and transparent investigation into the apparent killing of civilians and to bring those responsible to justice? Instead of calling for a UN resolution that led to Nato intervention? Well, if today we cannot hold NTC accountable for hideous mass killings from its own “freedom fighters” especially with blatant proofs then why could we hold Gaddafi accountable ? Especially without any proof….
3. On top of that, by focusing on these 53 loyalists (Peace be upon them) HRW is covering up a much more important killing, we can even call it a Crime Against Humanity. The one carried out by Nato.. If HRW found those 53 corpses in Sirte, how couldn’t it see the civilian corpses laying all over the city ? And all over the country. Couldn’t HRW see the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, residential areas, schools, water pipes, electricity plants in the very same city? Are they blind ? No, they aren’t. And they saw the chaos that Nato brought about. And they very well know that thousands of civilians must have died since Nato’s primary targets were civilian infrastructures.
4. Why didn’t HRW expose that each Tomahawk, like the ones dropped on Libya, contains 300Kgs of depleted uranium ? Why didn’t it exposes the use of cluster bombs ? Why don’t they focus on estimating the civilian deaths brought about by NATO ? Especially when estimations from independent sources are about 60’000 innocents dead. Maybe because those sources are not reliable enough… But those claiming that Gaddafi sent his Air Force to bomb his population were apparently more reliable… (please check this link: Russia Intel satellite shows Gaddafi did not attack his people.)
5.. Why didn’t HRW exposed Nato members providing heavy weapons and artillery to the rebels in complete breach of UN resolution?
6. Why didn’t HRW expose the fact that what mainstream media and western leaders were today calling Rebels or Freedom Fighters, were once called Al Qaeda terrorists ?
So many questions… And all answers lead to the same point. That HRW is absolutely not about Human Rights.
BRIEF CONCLUSION:
HRW, NATO, UN and other international organizations no longer benefit from their beautiful image of FREEDOM and JUSTICE lovers. Everyday brings its loads of proofs that all those organizations are nothing more than smoke screens to cover up White Empire hideous crimes and world enslavement.
I call on you, people, to spread this article, and all other articles of interest that you might find on our website and on other websites. Spread the truth. Expose the traitors. Expose the liars. Expose the crimes. Don’t remain silent and idle while our leaders take us, everyday, a step closer to the Global Chaos.
Source
http://counterpsyops.com/2011/10/24/hrw-works-for-nato-and-endeavours-to-cover-up-its-crimes-against-humanity-in-libya-and-all-over-the-world/
NOTES
Added by HAZ based on previous articles like the one from Kiyul Chung (BeiJing Time and http://en.m4.cn/)& "Soros to give Human Rights Watch $100m. over 10 years" By
JORDANA HORN in http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=187450
1. From Kiyul Chung (BeiJing Time,Wednesday, November 17, 2010). He said “Notably, billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years” (Wikipedia quoted:See Fund-raising Policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch). Open also these sites:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n05/HumanRightsGroupsWorkingAgainstPeace.htm &
http://en.m4.cn/2010/11/17/un-top-leadership-position-at-stake-versus-us-pressure-on-bans-challenge-of-china/. Title of the article: “UN Top Leadership Position at Stake versus US Pressure on Ban’s Challenge of China” By Kiyul Chung.
2. See also “Who’s Who at Wikileaks? In: http://en.m4.cn/2010/12/29/whos-who-at-wikileaks-2/. By Julie Lévesque at BeiJing Time
3. Most well-known, well-funded, and globally-prestigious human rights groups whose origins are mainly from either US or one of the Western countries [are funded by those philanthropic men]. Those groups have been also mostly run by Western and American governments, their NGOs, and (white) personnel.
viernes, 28 de octubre de 2011
THE US MESS: THIS IS THE END. NO MORE TOOLS IN THE TOLLS KIT
THE US MESS: THIS IS THE END. NO MORE TOOLS IN THE TOLLS KIT
Se agotaron los instrumentos Economicos para la recuperación y nos vamos al abismo. Lo dice Ray Dalio, un especulador financiero que considera que la única salida es transferir el problema a los socios clientes del imperio, entre ellos los países del sur. Tampoco tiene vergüenza en decir que se apropió de los fondos de los pensionistas, entre ellos los maestros, de quienes dice solo logra el 20% de ganancias por especulación.
-----------------
This is RAY DALIO the other economic hit-man who talks about the us mess we have.
Thursday October 27, 2011
----------------
CHARLIE ROSE INTERVIEW WITH THE HEAD OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST HEDGE FUND:
RAY DALIO: "THERE ARE NO MORE TOOLS IN THE TOOL KIT"
http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/CharlieRoseInterviewWithTheHeadOfTheWorld.pdf
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/149104/charlie-rose-transcript-with-ray-dalio-ceo-of-worlds-biggest-hedge-fund
-----------------
THIS IS A VERY REVEALING STORY, HERE SOME EXTRACTS. To get the full transcript open: http://nuevademocracia.xanga.com
In my opinion Charlie Rose miss the point: how financial opportunist or speculators used hedge funds, rating agencies and credit derivatives (debt & credit swaps: DDS & CDS) to create the big mess we are in. Michael Hudson (How a gang of predatory lenders and Wall Street bankers fleeced America & Spawned a Global Crisis) and Mathias Chang (The Mechanics of Derivatives Scam) worked deep on such topics. In order to understand such missed points we need to deal with key concepts. I lay it out here some of them for future debate; those related to the concept that is been used in this interview (de-leverage) as the opposite of leverage. I considered appropriate to copy them from the Barrons Dictionary of Accounting terms.
Hugo Adan, October 28, 2011.
Leverage. Term used in finance and accounting to describe the ability of fixed costs to magnify returns to a firm’s owners.
Operating leverage. A measure of operating risks, refers to the fixed operating costs found in the firm’s income statement.
Financial leverage. A measure of financial risks, refers to financing a portion od the firm’s assets, bearing fixed finances charges in hopes of increasing the return to its owners.
Total leverage. It is a measure of total risks. The way to measure total leverage is to determine how earning per share (EPS) is affected by a change in sales.
Leveraged buyout. I refers the acquisition of one company by another, typically by borrowed funds. Usually, the acquired company’s assets are used as collateral for the loans of the acquiring company. The loans are paid back from the acquired company’s cash flow. Another possible form of leverage occurs when investors borrow from banks, using their own assets as collateral to acquire the other company. Typically, public stakeholders receive an amount in excess of the current market value of their shares.
Hedge transaction. Process of protecting oneself against unfavorable changes in prices. Thus one may enter into an offsetting purchase or sale agreement for the express purpose of balancing out any unfavorable changes in an already consummated agreement due to price fluctuations. Hedge transactions are commonly used to protect positions in: 1. Foreign currency. 2. Commodities; and, 3. Securities.
Other concept of hedge transaction: financing an asset with a liability of similar maturity.
Enjoy this interview. You will know how a multimillionaire person think about the mess they help top create in the US. Hugo Adan, October 28, 2011.
----------------
CHARLIE ROSE: Ray Dalio is here. He is the founder of Bridgewater Associates. He created the investment firm in 1975 out of a two-bedroom apartment in New York City. Today the company managed roughly $125 billion in global investments. Its clients include foreign governments, sovereign banks, central banks and institutional pension funds.
Over the last two years, Bridgewater ranked as the largest and best- performing hedge fund in the world. In 2010, his returns were greater than the profits of Google, Amazon and eBay combined.
I`m very pleased to have Ray Dalio at this table for the first time to talk about a perspective on the global economic scene and a whole range of issues having to do with where we see ourselves and also a look at his own philosophy and what has informed his own opinions and the way he looks at the world. Having said that -- welcome.
CHARLIE ROSE: What is Bridgewater Associates?
RAY DALIO: Its a global macro firm. We assess what the world economy is like and what -- how asset classes will change and we are managing money for pension funds and endowments like you described; the Pennsylvania teachers, those types of pension funds. We`re trying to keep them safe.
CHARLIE ROSE: When you look at the world today, the global economic picture, I read today Goldman Sachs had a disappointing performance. JP Morgan did not do as well as some had hoped it might be. What`s happening with financial firms?
RAY DALIO: I think it’s important to understand that we`re going through a de-leveraging. So we have to understand the big picture is -- there`s a deleveraging. Three big themes: first there`s a deleveraging; secondly we have a problem with monetary and fiscal policies are running out of ammunition; and thirdly we have an issue in terms of people most importantly who are at each other`s throats politically and globally in terms of having a problem resolving those.
Imagine you earned $100,000 a year and you didn`t have any debt. You can go to a bank and borrow $10,000 a year. You can spend, therefore, $110 a year. When you spend $110,000 a year, somebody else earns $110,000 and they can go to a bank and there`s a self-reinforcing process in which your debt rises in relationship to your income.
And that goes on for a long time and that goes on for 50 or 75 years through history. We`ve had 50, 75-year cycles and then you reach a point where you can`t anymore get more debt and the process starts to change. And you can`t leverage up. Traditionally the private sector leverages up, we leveraged up then we got to a point in 2007 where we had a bubble and that same sort of bubble that happened in Japan, same sort of bubble that happened in the Great Depression, meaning we reached our debt limits. Europe`s reached its debt limits.
So then we begin the process in reverse as you can`t spend as much you -- somebody else`s income falls. And that process works in reverse. So we`re in a deleveraging. So I think that this is important globally. That`s what Europe`s in.
So when we deal with Goldman Sachs or when we deal with banks and when we deal with Europe I think you can break the world into two parts, there`s the debtor-developed world which has reached its debt limits and is going through a deleveraging. Then there`s the creditor-emerging world, the countries like China which are competitive and are beginning to have those big surpluses and they`re lending us money. So we have this big imbalance in the world.
You can break the world into two parts. Debtor-developed countries and emerging-creditor countries and they have a big imbalance which is a debt problem. That`s the nature of the beast of what`s going on.
CHARLIE ROSE: And how long would the de-leveraging take place? Ten years?
RAY DALIO: These take place over ten years. The key is to spread it out as much as you can. Make sure that it`s not disorderly.
CHARLIE ROSE: We are doing as they say, kicking the can down the road and not dealing with it. Suppose the super committee does not reach an agreement in terms of its requirement and therefore the mechanism -- the trigger mechanism kicks in? What does your team think about that and what impact will that be?
RAY DALIO: Charlie, I`m meant to be a realistic person and sometimes when there`s concerns it`s difficult to talk about difficult situation. So I want to try and answer your question as honestly as I possibly can but I want to say that I`m very concerned not just of that. I do not believe that we will find a political solution. I think that that would not be -- I`m pessimistic about that.
CHARLIE ROSE: So you have the same opinion that Standard & Poor`s had when they reduced –
RAY DALIO: Essentially.
CHARLIE ROSE: -- America`s credit rating.
RAY DALIO: Essentially. So I think -- and by the way I think it`s very important to understand that the government debt is the terrible challenging issue that we should talk about maybe but also more important is the private sector debt. So, that resolving the public sector debt does not resolve the problem.
That individuals face the same problem meaning that they`re overly indebted and because they`re overly indebted and spend a lot of their consumption through borrowing and they had a -- it was like if you borrow you have a party and everything`s good and you have a prosperity and you -- you have your party, you hire the caterers, they`re employed and everybody`s happy.
We can`t solve the problem easily because we still have too much debt. But we can move forward in being able to make the best of it. We can spread it out, we can keep orderly we have a situation now in which we have a very severe situation, not only because we have a deleveraging going on, but we have a situation in which monetary policy cannot work the way it worked in the past, that fiscal policy will not be stimulative.
CHARLIE ROSE: Some people say that they describe that as there are no more tools in the tool kit.
RAY DALIO: There are no more tools in the tool kit.
CHARLIE ROSE: In terms of fiscal and monitory policy.
RAY DALIO: Yes, so number one is we have a deleveraging. Now that deleveraging means we`re going to have more debt problems. You`re going to see -- no matter what is solved in Europe you will have a deleveraging. Banks will lend less and lending less will mean a contraction. That`s -- that is what I believe is the case, we should talk about whether or not that is the case. Thoughtful people should discuss that.
RAY DALIO: we have this overriding factor that is depressing jobs. So it created jobs in an environment -- and let`s -- so let`s turn to what is depressing jobs.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right. What is?
RAY DALIO: Ok. What`s depressing -- what`s depressing jobs is that the world supply and demand for labor has changed. In other words, there`s a lot more people working as China came on and India came on and they are competitive. There`s a world supply of labor has change -- has increased and technology has had an effect.
So we`re in an interesting era because I think almost in a machine, an economic machine as being tool, a part of that economic machine the demand for labor has changed in a very profound way. We might enter into a period in which we don`t need people as tools. So what does that mean?
CHARLIE ROSE: You have mentioned a couple times the economic machine. Give us a sense of what that means to you. Because my understanding is that`s central to a philosophy you have about the way the economy works.
RAY DALIO: There is a certain machine. It is operated this -- you can raise your debt relative to your income to so far but you can`t raise it more than that. And then when you reach that, that changes.
So the private sector cannot -- We have a debt problem in Europe. You can either transfer the money from one rich country to a poor country --
CHARLIE ROSE: Right, Germany to Greece.
RAY DALIO: You can print the money.
CHARLIE ROSE: You can`t do it.
RAY DALIO: Or ECB could say I`ll find a way to do it, whatever.
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me take this downtown to where there`s an economic protest on Wall Street.
RAY DALIO: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: In your sense -- you clearly have read about that and looked at it -- what do you think is at stake there and what do you think they`re saying to us?
RAY DALIO: I think the number one problem is that we`re not having a quality dialogue. So I wish that I could sit down -- (CROSSTALK)
CHARLIE ROSE: -- they had power to influence Washington and they didn`t.
RAY DALIO: Ok, so I think that not only do we have to work ourselves through that, I would say like the question really is also a question that should be dealt -- designated for our legislators, our government. Because if the government makes the rules, people will behind either -- did they break laws or did they not break laws?
This is a -- this is a question of how should behavior be managed?
Like I think I -- I think I did everything right, you know I -- I did well for my customers. My customers are pension funds, teachers. I did well when others didn`t and I`m going to say that they are very grateful.
We have a wonderful relationship, 15-year wonderful relationship. That -- what happens is I happen to earn one-fifth of the profits.
CHARLIE ROSE: You make 20 percent.
RAY DALIO: Ok, I earn 20 percent of the profits. (CROSSTALK)
I pay about one-third in taxes. I pay about one -- I give away about one-third. And I`m -- and that`s what I do and I follow the law. And if I`m doing something that is incorrect, that they think is incorrect I`d like to know that and I would also like to say should those laws -- is that right or wrong.
CHARLIE ROSE: You want the people who work for you to tell you exactly what they believe and to be able to document the fact that it`s not just what they believe but it`s what they have discovered.
And you have to test those ideas in the marketplace of your own firm before you go off and act on those assumptions, correct?
RAY DALIO: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: So what is it telling you now if Greece defaults? And that has a contagion ability to leap across the Atlantic and have some influence on the U.S. economy. What is it telling you, you know, about whether China, for example can maintain the level of economic growth it`s had and avoid the kind of social conflicts that might exist in that society.
What does it tell you about emerging nations and what it is that -- what impact they will have on commodity prices and what does it tell you about the future of the dollar as a currency? All of those kinds of issues?
RAY DALIO: You`ve got a bunch of questions.
Ok, I would want to say that there is -- there are two worlds. There`s debtor-developed countries and there`s emerging creditor countries, classically the United States and China.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: One is a creditor, one a debtor. They are getting we`re still borrowing, we`re still in debt, we`re still -- they`re still earning. Then those two worlds can be broken into two -- those that can print money and those that can`t print money.
So now when I`m giving you the total answer in my remaining minutes, Europe can`t, a lot of it, can`t print money. Therefore it will have to deal with whether there`s a transfer of wealth, there`s a limit to that transfer of wealth.
And so we are going to deal with the question of whether they would print money or get the haircuts. I think they`ll do both.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: When looking at China, China because they can`t raise interest rates because of their existing monetary policy, is that they can`t control credit growth in the normal ways that we control credit growth. So there`s a credit bubble emerging there and as -- in other words there`s a quality of lending and it`s bypassing the credit system.
And that`s something that the Chinese will need to get a control of because it`s a dangerous thing. And so that creates their risk. If I take then the United States we`re in a position in which there is this deleveraging. Deleveraging is risky so for example banks are leveraged about 12 to 15, 17 times.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: 15 times is a round number it depends on the bank. They`re leveraged 15-1 and if they go down by one-fifteenth, we have a capital problem and we`re in a deleveraging. Those problems -- bank crisis that have existed every ten years normally we are -- we can have a problem.
We don`t have the ability to have the same effect of monetary policy as we did before because a central bank -- it can buy a bond. It can -- therefore buy the bond. It gives that money to somebody who sold the bond and they were going to buy something like a bond. They`re -- the -- the getting it in the hands of somebody who spends it on cars and houses who really owes probably too much in debt is not an easy thing to do for monetary policy. So monetary policy is not as effective and then we have this social tension.
So we should be able to -- there`s this downward pressure of the deleveraging. We should be able to grow at a rate that`s comparable to our income growth if we are -- if we keep orderly and we -- and we work this through and everything is orderly. That means something between like 1.5 percent or 2 percent we should be growing at maybe about the 2 percent vicinity.
The problem with the 2 percent vicinity is that the employment rate remains the same or can trend higher. That produces social pressures, that produces tension which itself means that you can have a situation analogous to that which is existing in Greece and more social pressure you create the more tension that is existing and emerging in various ways, not just a Wall Street piece. But it`s existing in Spain.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: So if we can keep orderly and not argue with each other and not do disruptive things and we don`t go down ok and grow at that two percent you know maybe then it will be ok.
If we have disruption and we are not able to have a monetary policy and we can`t have fiscal stimulation and you have a problem of what do you do -- you can`t recapitalize the banks. I mean if you should happen to need to recapitalize the banks you can`t have a TARP program again.
CHARLIE ROSE: Politically not feasible.
RAY DALIO: Politically not feasible.
So you have to have a plan. You need to be thoughtful, I think, how do you create that plan and not only it`s a theoretical thing when I say how do you make a plan because you have to be able to have agreement to implement the plan. You can`t have people at odds.
As I say sometimes to policymakers my job is very -- is much easier than their job. My job is that I just have to pretty much anticipate what`s going to happen and be one step ahead. That`s not an easy job but it`s an easier job than policymakers who have to do that. They have to then find a solution for the bad stuff not happening. That`s not easy to find solutions and then even if they had solutions they have to get that solution through the political system. In which there`s -- there`s -- everybody`s saying that you can`t do that, whatever that is and everybody blaming each other.
CHARLIE ROSE: Are you optimistic or pessimistic?
RAY DALIO: I suppose I`m -- if I was -- I`m concerned. I think it`s a test of us. It`s a test of us in our society. It`s a test of us.
CHARLIE ROSE: On that note thank you for coming.
RAY DALIO: My pleasure, thank you for having me
SOURCE: http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/CharlieRoseInterviewWithTheHeadOfTheWorld.pdf
Se agotaron los instrumentos Economicos para la recuperación y nos vamos al abismo. Lo dice Ray Dalio, un especulador financiero que considera que la única salida es transferir el problema a los socios clientes del imperio, entre ellos los países del sur. Tampoco tiene vergüenza en decir que se apropió de los fondos de los pensionistas, entre ellos los maestros, de quienes dice solo logra el 20% de ganancias por especulación.
-----------------
This is RAY DALIO the other economic hit-man who talks about the us mess we have.
Thursday October 27, 2011
----------------
CHARLIE ROSE INTERVIEW WITH THE HEAD OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST HEDGE FUND:
RAY DALIO: "THERE ARE NO MORE TOOLS IN THE TOOL KIT"
http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/CharlieRoseInterviewWithTheHeadOfTheWorld.pdf
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/149104/charlie-rose-transcript-with-ray-dalio-ceo-of-worlds-biggest-hedge-fund
-----------------
THIS IS A VERY REVEALING STORY, HERE SOME EXTRACTS. To get the full transcript open: http://nuevademocracia.xanga.com
In my opinion Charlie Rose miss the point: how financial opportunist or speculators used hedge funds, rating agencies and credit derivatives (debt & credit swaps: DDS & CDS) to create the big mess we are in. Michael Hudson (How a gang of predatory lenders and Wall Street bankers fleeced America & Spawned a Global Crisis) and Mathias Chang (The Mechanics of Derivatives Scam) worked deep on such topics. In order to understand such missed points we need to deal with key concepts. I lay it out here some of them for future debate; those related to the concept that is been used in this interview (de-leverage) as the opposite of leverage. I considered appropriate to copy them from the Barrons Dictionary of Accounting terms.
Hugo Adan, October 28, 2011.
Leverage. Term used in finance and accounting to describe the ability of fixed costs to magnify returns to a firm’s owners.
Operating leverage. A measure of operating risks, refers to the fixed operating costs found in the firm’s income statement.
Financial leverage. A measure of financial risks, refers to financing a portion od the firm’s assets, bearing fixed finances charges in hopes of increasing the return to its owners.
Total leverage. It is a measure of total risks. The way to measure total leverage is to determine how earning per share (EPS) is affected by a change in sales.
Leveraged buyout. I refers the acquisition of one company by another, typically by borrowed funds. Usually, the acquired company’s assets are used as collateral for the loans of the acquiring company. The loans are paid back from the acquired company’s cash flow. Another possible form of leverage occurs when investors borrow from banks, using their own assets as collateral to acquire the other company. Typically, public stakeholders receive an amount in excess of the current market value of their shares.
Hedge transaction. Process of protecting oneself against unfavorable changes in prices. Thus one may enter into an offsetting purchase or sale agreement for the express purpose of balancing out any unfavorable changes in an already consummated agreement due to price fluctuations. Hedge transactions are commonly used to protect positions in: 1. Foreign currency. 2. Commodities; and, 3. Securities.
Other concept of hedge transaction: financing an asset with a liability of similar maturity.
Enjoy this interview. You will know how a multimillionaire person think about the mess they help top create in the US. Hugo Adan, October 28, 2011.
----------------
CHARLIE ROSE: Ray Dalio is here. He is the founder of Bridgewater Associates. He created the investment firm in 1975 out of a two-bedroom apartment in New York City. Today the company managed roughly $125 billion in global investments. Its clients include foreign governments, sovereign banks, central banks and institutional pension funds.
Over the last two years, Bridgewater ranked as the largest and best- performing hedge fund in the world. In 2010, his returns were greater than the profits of Google, Amazon and eBay combined.
I`m very pleased to have Ray Dalio at this table for the first time to talk about a perspective on the global economic scene and a whole range of issues having to do with where we see ourselves and also a look at his own philosophy and what has informed his own opinions and the way he looks at the world. Having said that -- welcome.
CHARLIE ROSE: What is Bridgewater Associates?
RAY DALIO: Its a global macro firm. We assess what the world economy is like and what -- how asset classes will change and we are managing money for pension funds and endowments like you described; the Pennsylvania teachers, those types of pension funds. We`re trying to keep them safe.
CHARLIE ROSE: When you look at the world today, the global economic picture, I read today Goldman Sachs had a disappointing performance. JP Morgan did not do as well as some had hoped it might be. What`s happening with financial firms?
RAY DALIO: I think it’s important to understand that we`re going through a de-leveraging. So we have to understand the big picture is -- there`s a deleveraging. Three big themes: first there`s a deleveraging; secondly we have a problem with monetary and fiscal policies are running out of ammunition; and thirdly we have an issue in terms of people most importantly who are at each other`s throats politically and globally in terms of having a problem resolving those.
Imagine you earned $100,000 a year and you didn`t have any debt. You can go to a bank and borrow $10,000 a year. You can spend, therefore, $110 a year. When you spend $110,000 a year, somebody else earns $110,000 and they can go to a bank and there`s a self-reinforcing process in which your debt rises in relationship to your income.
And that goes on for a long time and that goes on for 50 or 75 years through history. We`ve had 50, 75-year cycles and then you reach a point where you can`t anymore get more debt and the process starts to change. And you can`t leverage up. Traditionally the private sector leverages up, we leveraged up then we got to a point in 2007 where we had a bubble and that same sort of bubble that happened in Japan, same sort of bubble that happened in the Great Depression, meaning we reached our debt limits. Europe`s reached its debt limits.
So then we begin the process in reverse as you can`t spend as much you -- somebody else`s income falls. And that process works in reverse. So we`re in a deleveraging. So I think that this is important globally. That`s what Europe`s in.
So when we deal with Goldman Sachs or when we deal with banks and when we deal with Europe I think you can break the world into two parts, there`s the debtor-developed world which has reached its debt limits and is going through a deleveraging. Then there`s the creditor-emerging world, the countries like China which are competitive and are beginning to have those big surpluses and they`re lending us money. So we have this big imbalance in the world.
You can break the world into two parts. Debtor-developed countries and emerging-creditor countries and they have a big imbalance which is a debt problem. That`s the nature of the beast of what`s going on.
CHARLIE ROSE: And how long would the de-leveraging take place? Ten years?
RAY DALIO: These take place over ten years. The key is to spread it out as much as you can. Make sure that it`s not disorderly.
CHARLIE ROSE: We are doing as they say, kicking the can down the road and not dealing with it. Suppose the super committee does not reach an agreement in terms of its requirement and therefore the mechanism -- the trigger mechanism kicks in? What does your team think about that and what impact will that be?
RAY DALIO: Charlie, I`m meant to be a realistic person and sometimes when there`s concerns it`s difficult to talk about difficult situation. So I want to try and answer your question as honestly as I possibly can but I want to say that I`m very concerned not just of that. I do not believe that we will find a political solution. I think that that would not be -- I`m pessimistic about that.
CHARLIE ROSE: So you have the same opinion that Standard & Poor`s had when they reduced –
RAY DALIO: Essentially.
CHARLIE ROSE: -- America`s credit rating.
RAY DALIO: Essentially. So I think -- and by the way I think it`s very important to understand that the government debt is the terrible challenging issue that we should talk about maybe but also more important is the private sector debt. So, that resolving the public sector debt does not resolve the problem.
That individuals face the same problem meaning that they`re overly indebted and because they`re overly indebted and spend a lot of their consumption through borrowing and they had a -- it was like if you borrow you have a party and everything`s good and you have a prosperity and you -- you have your party, you hire the caterers, they`re employed and everybody`s happy.
We can`t solve the problem easily because we still have too much debt. But we can move forward in being able to make the best of it. We can spread it out, we can keep orderly we have a situation now in which we have a very severe situation, not only because we have a deleveraging going on, but we have a situation in which monetary policy cannot work the way it worked in the past, that fiscal policy will not be stimulative.
CHARLIE ROSE: Some people say that they describe that as there are no more tools in the tool kit.
RAY DALIO: There are no more tools in the tool kit.
CHARLIE ROSE: In terms of fiscal and monitory policy.
RAY DALIO: Yes, so number one is we have a deleveraging. Now that deleveraging means we`re going to have more debt problems. You`re going to see -- no matter what is solved in Europe you will have a deleveraging. Banks will lend less and lending less will mean a contraction. That`s -- that is what I believe is the case, we should talk about whether or not that is the case. Thoughtful people should discuss that.
RAY DALIO: we have this overriding factor that is depressing jobs. So it created jobs in an environment -- and let`s -- so let`s turn to what is depressing jobs.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right. What is?
RAY DALIO: Ok. What`s depressing -- what`s depressing jobs is that the world supply and demand for labor has changed. In other words, there`s a lot more people working as China came on and India came on and they are competitive. There`s a world supply of labor has change -- has increased and technology has had an effect.
So we`re in an interesting era because I think almost in a machine, an economic machine as being tool, a part of that economic machine the demand for labor has changed in a very profound way. We might enter into a period in which we don`t need people as tools. So what does that mean?
CHARLIE ROSE: You have mentioned a couple times the economic machine. Give us a sense of what that means to you. Because my understanding is that`s central to a philosophy you have about the way the economy works.
RAY DALIO: There is a certain machine. It is operated this -- you can raise your debt relative to your income to so far but you can`t raise it more than that. And then when you reach that, that changes.
So the private sector cannot -- We have a debt problem in Europe. You can either transfer the money from one rich country to a poor country --
CHARLIE ROSE: Right, Germany to Greece.
RAY DALIO: You can print the money.
CHARLIE ROSE: You can`t do it.
RAY DALIO: Or ECB could say I`ll find a way to do it, whatever.
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me take this downtown to where there`s an economic protest on Wall Street.
RAY DALIO: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: In your sense -- you clearly have read about that and looked at it -- what do you think is at stake there and what do you think they`re saying to us?
RAY DALIO: I think the number one problem is that we`re not having a quality dialogue. So I wish that I could sit down -- (CROSSTALK)
CHARLIE ROSE: -- they had power to influence Washington and they didn`t.
RAY DALIO: Ok, so I think that not only do we have to work ourselves through that, I would say like the question really is also a question that should be dealt -- designated for our legislators, our government. Because if the government makes the rules, people will behind either -- did they break laws or did they not break laws?
This is a -- this is a question of how should behavior be managed?
Like I think I -- I think I did everything right, you know I -- I did well for my customers. My customers are pension funds, teachers. I did well when others didn`t and I`m going to say that they are very grateful.
We have a wonderful relationship, 15-year wonderful relationship. That -- what happens is I happen to earn one-fifth of the profits.
CHARLIE ROSE: You make 20 percent.
RAY DALIO: Ok, I earn 20 percent of the profits. (CROSSTALK)
I pay about one-third in taxes. I pay about one -- I give away about one-third. And I`m -- and that`s what I do and I follow the law. And if I`m doing something that is incorrect, that they think is incorrect I`d like to know that and I would also like to say should those laws -- is that right or wrong.
CHARLIE ROSE: You want the people who work for you to tell you exactly what they believe and to be able to document the fact that it`s not just what they believe but it`s what they have discovered.
And you have to test those ideas in the marketplace of your own firm before you go off and act on those assumptions, correct?
RAY DALIO: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: So what is it telling you now if Greece defaults? And that has a contagion ability to leap across the Atlantic and have some influence on the U.S. economy. What is it telling you, you know, about whether China, for example can maintain the level of economic growth it`s had and avoid the kind of social conflicts that might exist in that society.
What does it tell you about emerging nations and what it is that -- what impact they will have on commodity prices and what does it tell you about the future of the dollar as a currency? All of those kinds of issues?
RAY DALIO: You`ve got a bunch of questions.
Ok, I would want to say that there is -- there are two worlds. There`s debtor-developed countries and there`s emerging creditor countries, classically the United States and China.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: One is a creditor, one a debtor. They are getting we`re still borrowing, we`re still in debt, we`re still -- they`re still earning. Then those two worlds can be broken into two -- those that can print money and those that can`t print money.
So now when I`m giving you the total answer in my remaining minutes, Europe can`t, a lot of it, can`t print money. Therefore it will have to deal with whether there`s a transfer of wealth, there`s a limit to that transfer of wealth.
And so we are going to deal with the question of whether they would print money or get the haircuts. I think they`ll do both.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: When looking at China, China because they can`t raise interest rates because of their existing monetary policy, is that they can`t control credit growth in the normal ways that we control credit growth. So there`s a credit bubble emerging there and as -- in other words there`s a quality of lending and it`s bypassing the credit system.
And that`s something that the Chinese will need to get a control of because it`s a dangerous thing. And so that creates their risk. If I take then the United States we`re in a position in which there is this deleveraging. Deleveraging is risky so for example banks are leveraged about 12 to 15, 17 times.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: 15 times is a round number it depends on the bank. They`re leveraged 15-1 and if they go down by one-fifteenth, we have a capital problem and we`re in a deleveraging. Those problems -- bank crisis that have existed every ten years normally we are -- we can have a problem.
We don`t have the ability to have the same effect of monetary policy as we did before because a central bank -- it can buy a bond. It can -- therefore buy the bond. It gives that money to somebody who sold the bond and they were going to buy something like a bond. They`re -- the -- the getting it in the hands of somebody who spends it on cars and houses who really owes probably too much in debt is not an easy thing to do for monetary policy. So monetary policy is not as effective and then we have this social tension.
So we should be able to -- there`s this downward pressure of the deleveraging. We should be able to grow at a rate that`s comparable to our income growth if we are -- if we keep orderly and we -- and we work this through and everything is orderly. That means something between like 1.5 percent or 2 percent we should be growing at maybe about the 2 percent vicinity.
The problem with the 2 percent vicinity is that the employment rate remains the same or can trend higher. That produces social pressures, that produces tension which itself means that you can have a situation analogous to that which is existing in Greece and more social pressure you create the more tension that is existing and emerging in various ways, not just a Wall Street piece. But it`s existing in Spain.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
RAY DALIO: So if we can keep orderly and not argue with each other and not do disruptive things and we don`t go down ok and grow at that two percent you know maybe then it will be ok.
If we have disruption and we are not able to have a monetary policy and we can`t have fiscal stimulation and you have a problem of what do you do -- you can`t recapitalize the banks. I mean if you should happen to need to recapitalize the banks you can`t have a TARP program again.
CHARLIE ROSE: Politically not feasible.
RAY DALIO: Politically not feasible.
So you have to have a plan. You need to be thoughtful, I think, how do you create that plan and not only it`s a theoretical thing when I say how do you make a plan because you have to be able to have agreement to implement the plan. You can`t have people at odds.
As I say sometimes to policymakers my job is very -- is much easier than their job. My job is that I just have to pretty much anticipate what`s going to happen and be one step ahead. That`s not an easy job but it`s an easier job than policymakers who have to do that. They have to then find a solution for the bad stuff not happening. That`s not easy to find solutions and then even if they had solutions they have to get that solution through the political system. In which there`s -- there`s -- everybody`s saying that you can`t do that, whatever that is and everybody blaming each other.
CHARLIE ROSE: Are you optimistic or pessimistic?
RAY DALIO: I suppose I`m -- if I was -- I`m concerned. I think it`s a test of us. It`s a test of us in our society. It`s a test of us.
CHARLIE ROSE: On that note thank you for coming.
RAY DALIO: My pleasure, thank you for having me
SOURCE: http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/CharlieRoseInterviewWithTheHeadOfTheWorld.pdf
BRIAN WILSON and the TRAINS OF HISTORY in Democracy Now
BRIAN WILSON and the TRAINS OF HISTORY.
Brian y los TRENES DE LA HISTORIA
Hugo adan. October 28, 2011
[This is my reaction to the last show of Democracy Now]
The train that Brian Wilson tried to stop in 1987 is now being de-railed by American people and people in the south and all over the world who is joining the current radical movement against crook bankers and war-mongers. There is a huge train of solidarity loaded with nice dreams of post-neoliberal democracy. Americans that are protesting against Wall Street in the US “tiene amores, muchos amores” –many people loves them all over the world, as said by Paloma San Basilio in her song. This is the new train of history, the train that is destined to succeed. Brian Wilson, Scott Olsen and all anti-war veteran soldiers who are now against war and crook bankers belong to this train.
At that time (1987) the train was driven by Reagan, now is being driven by Obama. That train was full excrement, as it is now the train of Drones driven by Obama. Reagan was the one who accused Brian of being a terrorist for trying to stop the sending of arms & ammunition to terrorist mercenaries paid to crush the theology of liberation revolution in Nicaragua and the uprising of similar movement in El Salvador. No either Brian nor Theology of Liberation are terrorists. Reagan and Obama are the terrorists.
Today the movement Theology of liberation (a radical Catholic organization) has triumphed not only in Nicaragua (the country of Hnos. Cardenal and father D’Escoto), but also in El Salvador, and it is of course behind the success of Lula, the 1st proletarian President in Brazil (the country of Fray Betto and Leonardo Boff), in Paraguay, and in Peru (the place where Gustavo Gutierrez, the 1st inspiration of this Theology, was born)
Brian is part of this train now, he is recognized so by the Nicaraguan people, as a real hero. The same will happen to Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured by a projectile fired by the new administration in power. He will be also considered a hero. They are all in the same huge train that is going faster and faster and the day that both trains collide each other, perhaps starting the day that the by-partisan system financed by crook corporation is debunked by people –it will happens soon here in America- that day, the old train will be totally de-railed and out of history.
===================
"BLOOD ON THE TRACKS": BRIAN WILLSON’S MEMOIR
Transformation from Vietnam Vet to Radical Pacifist
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/28/blood_on_the_tracks_brian_willsons
Extracts. Go to the website above to read the complete article. Haz
Today we spend the hour with a man who put his life on the line twice: once when he served in the Vietnam War and again when he came back. On September 1, 1987, Brian Willson took part in a nonviolent political action outside the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California. He sat down on the train tracks along with two other veterans to try to stop a U.S. government munitions train sending weapons to Central America during the time of the Contra wars. The train didn’t stop. Willson suffered 19 broken bones, a fractured skull and lost both of his legs. "Before, I had spent many months in Nicaragua in the war zones, and I had been to El Salvador talking to guerrillas and talking to human rights workers, understanding the incredible extent of murders that were going on and maimings and displacements, because of fear of being murdered," Willson said. He decided, "I have to at least escalate my own nonviolent occupation, if you will, of the tracks." In retrospect, Willson added, "I regret that I lost my legs, but I don’t regret that I was there. I did what I said I was going to do... Following orders, I discovered, is not what I’m about."
Today, he is traveling the country visiting solidarity protests with Occupy Wall Street, where some of his fellow protesters are also veterans. He’s also been talking about his new memoir, "Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson." On the West Coast, he completed much of the tour on his handcycle. Now he’s on the East Coast.
I started by asking him exactly what happened on that day in September 1987, when he carrying out this act of peaceful resistance on the train tracks outside Concord Naval Weapons Station in California.
S. BRIAN WILLSON: It was a Tuesday, September 1st, 1987. And, of course, it was planned by me in advance after spending much time in Nicaragua and El Salvador witnessing the carnage of U.S. policy.
AMY GOODMAN: What was happening then there?
S. BRIAN WILLSON: In?
AMY GOODMAN: Nicaragua and El Salvador?
S. BRIAN WILLSON: Well, of course, President Reagan was—had his war on—war of terror and what he called the terrorists in revolutionary Nicaragua, that was—had overthrown Somoza, and the revolutionary process in El Salvador, trying to oust a very repressive, feudalistic government. And so, he was—Reagan declared there was a Soviet beachhead being formed in Latin America, which of course we all know is absurd, just another excuse for putting down self-determination processes in other countries.
So we knew the weapons were coming from the Concord, California, Naval Weapons Station, 25 miles east of San Francisco, and we decided to go there, after many efforts of trying to get Congress to stop the funding—this whole process of petitioning Congress, which is now pretty much an oligarchic institution representing corporations. We decided we would directly try to obstruct the flow of munitions that move on trucks and trains at Concord to the ships in Sacramento River. And so, it’s a three-mile track from the bunkers to the ship. It crosses a public right-of-way, highway. This is where we were vigiling. We had been vigiling for three months. Many arrests had taken place. I had only been a jail support person. And I decided on September 1st, 1987, which was an anniversary of the Veterans Fast for Life the year before on the steps of the Capitol, that two vets and I would do a 40-day water-only fast between the rails to obstruct, at least temporarily, the movement of the train.
So, I had watched these trains move all summer, with flatbed cars full of crates of white phosphorus rockets, 500-pound bombs, mortars, millions of rounds of ammunition. And it was just getting to the point where I said, I have to at least escalate my own nonviolent occupation, if you will, of the tracks. And we told the base what we were doing, why we were doing it, when we were going to do it, and asked for a meeting with the commander, and he refused.
So, at 10 of 12:00 on September 1st, we, the two other veterans and I, took our position on the rails, starting our 40-day water-only fast, knowing we would probably spend much of that in jail. There was a big sign next to our vigil that said, "Penalty for blocking federal munitions trains is a year in prison and a $5,000 fine." So we knew what the consequences were. I actually—and the first train was coming just before noon, first train that day. And the next thing I know, I woke up in a hospital, four days later.
I have no memory of what happened. Of course, I had 40 friends there who were witnessing it. The other two veterans just barely got out of the way. The train was speeding. The FBI, in looking at the one video, said the train was accelerating to more than three times its five-mile-an-hour speed limit at the point of impact. We found out later that the train crew that day had been ordered not to stop the train, which was an unprecedented—basically an illegal order. Why? Because they said I was going to hijack the train, which of course—there were 350 armed Marines to protect the base. There was usually local police present when we were present on the tracks. I had never envisioned it being a dangerous action.
And then, while I was in the hospital, an FBI agent was fired. And after almost 22 years, he was fired for refusing to investigate me and three other veterans as domestic terrorist suspects. So this was all shocking to me, just shocking that I, this all-American kid that grew up in upstate New York, even though I kind of shifted after Vietnam to being a dissenter, or my father would just say a marginal person—I just never imagined this happening. Of course, this government will do anything. We know that. But I would imagine it doing it to people in other countries, but not to me in this country. So it was a very interesting experience.
==================
MORE NEWS:
Mr.DRONE-OBAMA KILLS 44 PEOPLE ABROAD IN ONE SINGLE DAY
US KILLS 44 PEOPLE IN 3 COUNTRIES
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29532.htm
44 people have been killed in separate US assassination drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan's northwestern tribal region bordering Afghanistan and Yemen in a single day.
By MP/JR
October 27, 2011 "Press TV" -- On Thursday, 13 people were killed and several others were injured when the US military launched an attack using a remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle on the outskirts of Bilis Qooqaani town, which is located 448 kilometers (278 miles) southwest of the Somali capital Mogadishu.
The US also launched drone strikes on the outskirts of Afmadow city, situated in the middle of the Juba region and 620 kilometers (385 miles) south of Mogadishu, on Thursday. At least 25 people were killed in the aerial attack.
In addition, six people were killed in a non-UN-sanctioned US drone attack on Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.
SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29532.htm
===================
CHECK ALSO THE VIDEO "THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE"
You Have No Choice
Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation - GIABO
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29533.htm
Video
Posted October 27, 2011
================
Brian y los TRENES DE LA HISTORIA
Hugo adan. October 28, 2011
[This is my reaction to the last show of Democracy Now]
The train that Brian Wilson tried to stop in 1987 is now being de-railed by American people and people in the south and all over the world who is joining the current radical movement against crook bankers and war-mongers. There is a huge train of solidarity loaded with nice dreams of post-neoliberal democracy. Americans that are protesting against Wall Street in the US “tiene amores, muchos amores” –many people loves them all over the world, as said by Paloma San Basilio in her song. This is the new train of history, the train that is destined to succeed. Brian Wilson, Scott Olsen and all anti-war veteran soldiers who are now against war and crook bankers belong to this train.
At that time (1987) the train was driven by Reagan, now is being driven by Obama. That train was full excrement, as it is now the train of Drones driven by Obama. Reagan was the one who accused Brian of being a terrorist for trying to stop the sending of arms & ammunition to terrorist mercenaries paid to crush the theology of liberation revolution in Nicaragua and the uprising of similar movement in El Salvador. No either Brian nor Theology of Liberation are terrorists. Reagan and Obama are the terrorists.
Today the movement Theology of liberation (a radical Catholic organization) has triumphed not only in Nicaragua (the country of Hnos. Cardenal and father D’Escoto), but also in El Salvador, and it is of course behind the success of Lula, the 1st proletarian President in Brazil (the country of Fray Betto and Leonardo Boff), in Paraguay, and in Peru (the place where Gustavo Gutierrez, the 1st inspiration of this Theology, was born)
Brian is part of this train now, he is recognized so by the Nicaraguan people, as a real hero. The same will happen to Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured by a projectile fired by the new administration in power. He will be also considered a hero. They are all in the same huge train that is going faster and faster and the day that both trains collide each other, perhaps starting the day that the by-partisan system financed by crook corporation is debunked by people –it will happens soon here in America- that day, the old train will be totally de-railed and out of history.
===================
"BLOOD ON THE TRACKS": BRIAN WILLSON’S MEMOIR
Transformation from Vietnam Vet to Radical Pacifist
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/28/blood_on_the_tracks_brian_willsons
Extracts. Go to the website above to read the complete article. Haz
Today we spend the hour with a man who put his life on the line twice: once when he served in the Vietnam War and again when he came back. On September 1, 1987, Brian Willson took part in a nonviolent political action outside the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California. He sat down on the train tracks along with two other veterans to try to stop a U.S. government munitions train sending weapons to Central America during the time of the Contra wars. The train didn’t stop. Willson suffered 19 broken bones, a fractured skull and lost both of his legs. "Before, I had spent many months in Nicaragua in the war zones, and I had been to El Salvador talking to guerrillas and talking to human rights workers, understanding the incredible extent of murders that were going on and maimings and displacements, because of fear of being murdered," Willson said. He decided, "I have to at least escalate my own nonviolent occupation, if you will, of the tracks." In retrospect, Willson added, "I regret that I lost my legs, but I don’t regret that I was there. I did what I said I was going to do... Following orders, I discovered, is not what I’m about."
Today, he is traveling the country visiting solidarity protests with Occupy Wall Street, where some of his fellow protesters are also veterans. He’s also been talking about his new memoir, "Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson." On the West Coast, he completed much of the tour on his handcycle. Now he’s on the East Coast.
I started by asking him exactly what happened on that day in September 1987, when he carrying out this act of peaceful resistance on the train tracks outside Concord Naval Weapons Station in California.
S. BRIAN WILLSON: It was a Tuesday, September 1st, 1987. And, of course, it was planned by me in advance after spending much time in Nicaragua and El Salvador witnessing the carnage of U.S. policy.
AMY GOODMAN: What was happening then there?
S. BRIAN WILLSON: In?
AMY GOODMAN: Nicaragua and El Salvador?
S. BRIAN WILLSON: Well, of course, President Reagan was—had his war on—war of terror and what he called the terrorists in revolutionary Nicaragua, that was—had overthrown Somoza, and the revolutionary process in El Salvador, trying to oust a very repressive, feudalistic government. And so, he was—Reagan declared there was a Soviet beachhead being formed in Latin America, which of course we all know is absurd, just another excuse for putting down self-determination processes in other countries.
So we knew the weapons were coming from the Concord, California, Naval Weapons Station, 25 miles east of San Francisco, and we decided to go there, after many efforts of trying to get Congress to stop the funding—this whole process of petitioning Congress, which is now pretty much an oligarchic institution representing corporations. We decided we would directly try to obstruct the flow of munitions that move on trucks and trains at Concord to the ships in Sacramento River. And so, it’s a three-mile track from the bunkers to the ship. It crosses a public right-of-way, highway. This is where we were vigiling. We had been vigiling for three months. Many arrests had taken place. I had only been a jail support person. And I decided on September 1st, 1987, which was an anniversary of the Veterans Fast for Life the year before on the steps of the Capitol, that two vets and I would do a 40-day water-only fast between the rails to obstruct, at least temporarily, the movement of the train.
So, I had watched these trains move all summer, with flatbed cars full of crates of white phosphorus rockets, 500-pound bombs, mortars, millions of rounds of ammunition. And it was just getting to the point where I said, I have to at least escalate my own nonviolent occupation, if you will, of the tracks. And we told the base what we were doing, why we were doing it, when we were going to do it, and asked for a meeting with the commander, and he refused.
So, at 10 of 12:00 on September 1st, we, the two other veterans and I, took our position on the rails, starting our 40-day water-only fast, knowing we would probably spend much of that in jail. There was a big sign next to our vigil that said, "Penalty for blocking federal munitions trains is a year in prison and a $5,000 fine." So we knew what the consequences were. I actually—and the first train was coming just before noon, first train that day. And the next thing I know, I woke up in a hospital, four days later.
I have no memory of what happened. Of course, I had 40 friends there who were witnessing it. The other two veterans just barely got out of the way. The train was speeding. The FBI, in looking at the one video, said the train was accelerating to more than three times its five-mile-an-hour speed limit at the point of impact. We found out later that the train crew that day had been ordered not to stop the train, which was an unprecedented—basically an illegal order. Why? Because they said I was going to hijack the train, which of course—there were 350 armed Marines to protect the base. There was usually local police present when we were present on the tracks. I had never envisioned it being a dangerous action.
And then, while I was in the hospital, an FBI agent was fired. And after almost 22 years, he was fired for refusing to investigate me and three other veterans as domestic terrorist suspects. So this was all shocking to me, just shocking that I, this all-American kid that grew up in upstate New York, even though I kind of shifted after Vietnam to being a dissenter, or my father would just say a marginal person—I just never imagined this happening. Of course, this government will do anything. We know that. But I would imagine it doing it to people in other countries, but not to me in this country. So it was a very interesting experience.
==================
MORE NEWS:
Mr.DRONE-OBAMA KILLS 44 PEOPLE ABROAD IN ONE SINGLE DAY
US KILLS 44 PEOPLE IN 3 COUNTRIES
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29532.htm
44 people have been killed in separate US assassination drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan's northwestern tribal region bordering Afghanistan and Yemen in a single day.
By MP/JR
October 27, 2011 "Press TV" -- On Thursday, 13 people were killed and several others were injured when the US military launched an attack using a remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle on the outskirts of Bilis Qooqaani town, which is located 448 kilometers (278 miles) southwest of the Somali capital Mogadishu.
The US also launched drone strikes on the outskirts of Afmadow city, situated in the middle of the Juba region and 620 kilometers (385 miles) south of Mogadishu, on Thursday. At least 25 people were killed in the aerial attack.
In addition, six people were killed in a non-UN-sanctioned US drone attack on Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.
SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29532.htm
===================
CHECK ALSO THE VIDEO "THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE"
You Have No Choice
Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation - GIABO
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29533.htm
Video
Posted October 27, 2011
================
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)